State border closures illegal under the highest law in the country?

[bigbadbyrnes]

Everything is arguable in law, doubly so in constitutional law. This is a matter for the high court.

But here's my opening argument;

Section 92 of the highest law in the country sets out "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free. "

Per Cole vs Whitfield 1988 "The notions of absolutely free trade and commerce and absolutely free intercourse are quite distinct". Sec92 clearly sets out the law for interstate trade, but also 'intercourse'.

And on the matter of what intercourse means, per Gratwick v Johnson 1945 it's the ability "to pass to and fro among the States without burden, hindrance or restriction".

Border closures, (and arguably although less certainly isolation requirements), are therefore inconsistent with the highest law in the country and should be set aside.

No one is talking about it, any legal eagles here explain? There's no room on the news for this at the moment, but if people start to fed up with the restrictions, it's worth getting them tested in the high court.

edit:

I think this analysis will answer all your questions: States are shutting their borders to stop coronavirus. Is that actually allowed?

Short version: if there are good public health grounds (for example states of emergency), those laws are likely to be held valid.

Could be worth testing if an individual could be proven to be not a thread to public health, but that would be the exception. Thanks MEL_Traveller for sharing the article.

/thread

 

[antycbr]

Doesn't letting Tom Hanks return to Queensland allow the production of his film to continue, providing employment to the local production crew?

Dr Young is not an economist. The issue is that she is supposed to be making decisions purely on HEALTH grounds regardless of the economic impact. That has been the mantra to date. She should not have a view on whether it will be good for the state or not economically -Letting domestic tourists from other states would also be good for the economy.

The role of balancing Health and Economic outcomes is that of the democratically accountable government.

Perhaps she should run in one of the seats that has been vacated by recent labor ministerial resignations if she wants to make political decisions.

 

[drron]

Doesn't letting residents of NSW into QLD mean extra tourist dollars into QLD meaning a far greater number of jobs saved than there are in the film industry?

 

[Pushka]

Dr Young is not an economist. The issue is that she is supposed to be making decisions purely on HEALTH grounds regardless of the economic impact. That has been the mantra to date. She should not have a view on whether it will be good for the state or not economically -Letting domestic tourists from other states would also be good for the economy.

The role of balancing Health and Economic outcomes is that of the democratically accountable government.

Perhaps she should run in one of the seats that has been vacated by recent labor ministerial resignations if she wants to make political decisions.

Spot on. And it is the Premiers job to take into account Health Decisions from the CMO, Policing decisions from the Police Commissioner, and Economic ones from Cabinet. As soon as the CMO uttered those words she threw herself under the bus.

Post automatically merged: Sep 12, 2020

Doesn't letting residents of NSW into QLD mean extra tourist dollars into QLD meaning a far greater number of jobs saved than there are in the film industry?

And likely Australian jobs because many film production people may well be imported from overseas.

 

[Pushka]

Possible for SA to open up NSW and ACT by next Friday assuming all goes well. If that happens then we only have a closure with Victoria. But of course WA shuts us out.

Interesting dialogue right now on radio from SA Premier. In a clear move to distance himself from Dan Andrews and AP, he is all about saving our economy first, preventing isolation of people, but taking into account health issues. The order of importance and battle between health and economy has been switched.

 

[Pete98765432]

Possible for SA to open up NSW and ACT by next Friday assuming all goes well. If that happens then we only have a closure with Victoria. But of course WA shuts us out.

Great news!

Interesting dialogue right now on radio from SA Premier. In a clear move to distance himself from Dan Andrews and AP, he is all about saving our economy first, preventing isolation of people, but taking into account health issues. The order of importance and battle between health and economy has been switched.

Seems sensible given the case numbers in SA. I imagine that will switch back if case numbers surge.

 

[antycbr]

Great news!

Seems sensible given the case numbers in SA. I imagine that will switch back if case numbers surge.

SA will also get first mover advantage compared to Queensland - SA has always been more reasonable about this issue.

I know where I will be booking next and it’s not Queensland, the lack of compassion and trying to claim that you’re being bullied was the end for me.

 

[jakeseven7]

SA will also get first mover advantage compared to Queensland - SA has always been more reasonable about this issue.

I know where I will be booking next and it’s not Queensland, the lack of compassion and trying to claim that you’re being bullied was the end for me.

If it wasn’t for family I would feel the same way about Tasmania’s ludicrous position on borders and wouldn’t visit them first either.

The fact the TAS premier has stopped taking medical advice on borders even though his CHO gave him the advice that there is a 0.00001% chance of covid coming across from SA,NT,ACT and WA is madness.

For relativity based on that advice on risk - you are more likely for your plane to CRASH and kill you on your way to Tassie, than you are letting in a covid infected person from those places....

 

[jakeseven7]

Dr Young is not an economist. The issue is that she is supposed to be making decisions purely on HEALTH grounds regardless of the economic impact. That has been the mantra to date. She should not have a view on whether it will be good for the state or not economically -Letting domestic tourists from other states would also be good for the economy.

The role of balancing Health and Economic outcomes is that of the democratically accountable government.

Perhaps she should run in one of the seats that has been vacated by recent labor ministerial resignations if she wants to make political decisions.

Yes Dr Young and her role in the state border political wars.... something really seems to be going on with the caliber of her advice and her relationship with our Premier.... something reeks...

And now it’s playing out she doesn’t seem to be highly regarded from her peers (is now getting help from the Fed team), practices completely impractical conservatism with no compassion and refuses to delegate decisions with frameworks - making herself the only end point for signing off any exemptions etc.

Clearly she isn’t a politician because her behaviour has set herself up very easily to be chucked under the bus, and that is exactly what the QLD premier has started doing.

I wonder if she is considering standing down with this last minute ‘on leave’ announcement...?

 

[Pete98765432]

If it wasn’t for family I would feel the same way about Tasmania’s ludicrous position on borders and wouldn’t visit them first either.

The fact the TAS premier has stopped taking medical advice on borders even though his CHO gave him the advice that there is a 0.00001% chance of covid coming across from SA,NT,ACT and WA is madness.

For relativity based on that advice on risk - you are more likely for your plane to CRASH and kill you on your way to Tassie, than you are letting in a covid infected person from those places....

The thing that irritates me is that Morrison only chooses to go after Queensland. I’d have more respect for him if I heard him criticise BOTH states. I’m not defending Queensland, just hate the increasing potiticisation of the issues.

 

[Pushka]

The thing that irritates me is that Morrison only chooses to go after Queensland. I’d have more respect for him if I heard him criticise BOTH states. I’m not defending Queensland, just hate the increasing potiticisation of the issues.

I've heard him criticise many closed border states but think about why the focus is on Qld and NSW and take the politics out of that thinking. Because of the peculiarities of the NSW and Qld border areas and high population numbers, then key issues such as separation of family, shared public health and education respurces etc etc are much higher and more likely to occur and so are highlighted. And the media is very eastern states centric and dont care about anything south or west of the the big 3 states so thats all you hear from them. Snippets of a conversation that they want the most readers/listeners to hear about. Could likely have blasted TAS and SA but you easterners wouldnt really give much of a toss unless personally impacted so it doesnt get air time.

SA is barely a blip on the scale compared with these two states. But I did hear him ciriticise our border areas for family and work issues. WA is so far away that even less people have been impacted. Tasmania, well, Tasmania. .

The only reason WA has been blasted is because of Clive Palmer. He is his own media show and WA is important to Australia's economy.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The thing that irritates me is that Morrison only chooses to go after Queensland. I’d have more respect for him if I heard him criticise BOTH states. I’m not defending Queensland, just hate the increasing potiticisation of the issues.

I think that's right This thread of late seems to be: QLD, VIC, WA = Labor = persecuted for every decision. SA, TAS, NSW = Liberal/Conservative = praised, and any wrongdoing glossed over or 'not that important'.

Going back to the topic of this thread... assuming border closures are legal under the Constitution when done for health reasons, how can there be so many exemptions? The issue really isn't whether a family is separated, it's how footballers are allowed in, or the Lady Pamela.

If the border closures are no longer medically based, they should be ruled unconstitutional, and all the other problems, like family separation, automatically go away.

 

[Pete98765432]

I've heard him criticise many closed border states but think about why the focus is on Qld and NSW and take the politics out of that thinking. Because of the peculiarities of the NSW and Qld border areas and high population numbers, then key issues such as separation of family, shared public health and education respurces etc etc are much higher and more likely to occur and so are highlighted. And the media is very eastern states centric and dont care about anything south or west of the the big 3 states so thats all you hear from them. Snippets of a conversation that they want the most readers/listeners to hear about. Could likely have blasted TAS and SA but you easterners wouldnt really give much of a toss unless personally impacted so it doesnt get air time.

SA is barely a blip on the scale compared with these two states. But I did hear him ciriticise our border areas for family and work issues. WA is so far away that even less people have been impacted. Tasmania, well, Tasmania. .

The only reason WA has been blasted is because of Clive Palmer. He is his own media show and WA is important to Australia's economy.

I don't disagree with you and to be fair, he has criticised all state border closures (but not his own international border closure and the hardship it causes). I even accept that the impact of the Qld closure is greater than the other states. Nevertheless, I can't conclude anything other than the volume of the criticism is related to the upcoming election.

 

[Pushka]

I think that's right This thread of late seems to be: QLD, VIC, WA = Labor = persecuted for every decision. SA, TAS, NSW = Liberal/Conservative = praised, and any wrongdoing glossed over or 'not that important'.

Going back to the topic of this thread... assuming border closures are legal under the Constitution when done for health reasons, how can there be so many exemptions? The issue really isn't whether a family is separated, it's how footballers are allowed in, or the Lady Pamela.

If the border closures are no longer medically based, they should be ruled unconstitutional, and all the other problems, like family separation, automatically go away.

Like I said, most people dont really care about SA and completely dismiss it as irrelevant. The media knows that, maybe even Morrison knows that so it doesnt even get discussed much and the media dont report it.

 

[Pete98765432]

I think that's right This thread of late seems to be: QLD, VIC, WA = Labor = persecuted for every decision. SA, TAS, NSW = Liberal/Conservative = praised, and any wrongdoing glossed over or 'not that important'.

As was noted in The Guardian yesterday:

It is worth noting that Victoria is being criticised for not having its CHO set up its health response, while Queensland is being criticised for having its CHO set up its health response.

 

[jakeseven7]

I've heard him criticise many closed border states but think about why the focus is on Qld and NSW and take the politics out of that thinking. Because of the peculiarities of the NSW and Qld border areas and high population numbers, then key issues such as separation of family, shared public health and education respurces etc etc are much higher and more likely to occur and so are highlighted. And the media is very eastern states centric and dont care about anything south or west of the the big 3 states so thats all you hear from them. Snippets of a conversation that they want the most readers/listeners to hear about. Could likely have blasted TAS and SA but you easterners wouldnt really give much of a toss unless personally impacted so it doesnt get air time.

SA is barely a blip on the scale compared with these two states. But I did hear him ciriticise our border areas for family and work issues. WA is so far away that even less people have been impacted. Tasmania, well, Tasmania. .

The only reason WA has been blasted is because of Clive Palmer. He is his own media show and WA is important to Australia's economy.

If the SA wine industry was incinerated by an asteroid I’m sure it would make page 5 of the Australian

But you are broadly right about the priority of the political state border closures and the priorities in alleviating them.

We are talking here about the 3 big states that are so intrinsically linked from a social and commercial point of view they may as well be one because they operate as one.

Actually from a commercial point of view, ACT is meshed in with NSW and TAS is basically operated as a subsidiary of VIC. Indeed, VIC over the years has increasingly become the main ‘distributor’ to SA as well as a lot of manufacturing shifted east.

Anyway the big 3 states - that’s where the population is, the people and the money. Any everyone else knows once the big 3 open up, the little ones will quickly follow as well.

PS I love SA

 

[Pete98765432]

Prof. Peter Doherty
@ProfPCDoherty

The problem with our 'main stream media' is that much of it it is not 'main stream' but a propaganda machine designed to serve a particular sectional interest. And a number of the so-called 'journalists' seem to both innumerate and thick as planks.

Sums up my thoughts exactly.

 

[antycbr]

I think that's right This thread of late seems to be: QLD, VIC, WA = Labor = persecuted for every decision. SA, TAS, NSW = Liberal/Conservative = praised, and any wrongdoing glossed over or 'not that important'.

Going back to the topic of this thread... assuming border closures are legal under the Constitution when done for health reasons, how can there be so many exemptions? The issue really isn't whether a family is separated, it's how footballers are allowed in, or the Lady Pamela.

If the border closures are no longer medically based, they should be ruled unconstitutional, and all the other problems, like family separation, automatically go away.

No other state has said that their hospitals are not for other people.

There are reasons why Queensland in particular is being singled out which stem from double standards and hypocrisy.

 

[Pushka]

No other state has said that their hospitals are not for other people.

There are reasons why Queensland in particular is being singled out which stem from double standards and hypocrisy.

Good point. Even here in SA they do talk about the Health of SA people but dont then go on to say our facilities here are only for us. I never thought I would hear any Australian politician say something like that to other Australians given the Federal Funding and Medicare payments.

 

[DC3]

No other state has said that their hospitals are not for other people.

There are reasons why Queensland in particular is being singled out which stem from double standards and hypocrisy.

Yes, but most hospitals are for those in their own state, the way that things are. Unless you want to spend 14 days in iso on the way there.

 

[antycbr]

Yes, but most hospitals are for those in their own state, the way that things are. Unless you want to spend 14 days in iso on the way there.

Rubbish. Hospitals are for people. Not for politicians to play political games. Try it if we said hospitals are for white people, black people have their own hospitals.

Many people have long standing specialist requirements and established relationships. Unless you know someone with a complex condition you don’t understand.