Cupie wrote:

---

Tony Bev wrote:

---

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

Easier to interpret when one has a hard copy!

---

Hi Whenarewethere

I think that I read a while ago, that some lawyer had said, that the words (in section 92)
and intercourse among the States,
Was referring to people crossing the border

Unfortunately I do not have a link

---

 

Was this what you were looking for .....  (Looks like some legal minds think that Sect 92 goes to more than just trade) :-

 

Movement of people and goods across state borders in Australia is guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 92 of the Constitution says

trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

Intercourse among the States in this context, means the movement of people, goods and communications across state boundaries.

If movement of people across state borders must be absolutely free, can the states hinder or even prevent such movement during the coronavirus pandemic? The short answer is yes.

Absolutely free does not mean what it says. The High Court has accepted that there can be limits if they are reasonable and imposed for a legitimate end, such as protecting the public from a dangerous disease.

 

https://theconversation.com/states-are-shutting-their-borders-to-stop-coronavirus-is-that-actually-allowed-134354

 

 

 

---

 Cupie thank you for digging that out for me

I had read this, (or something similar), before Mr Palmer started his jumping up and down to open the borders

 

One could argue that we should not have GST on communications across State borders. GST is a tax collected by the Federal Government on behalf of the States, so at the end of the day it is a State tax.

So GST on communications, goods & trade across borders needs to go as it is a State tax!

Tony Bev wrote:

---

If the constitution had really meant, that the State borders must stay open for everything, then some states have been breaking the law, (for many years), by having quarantine on their borders, to stop the flow of certain goods

---

 Excellent point your honour!

Grey Nomads will come up with more considered argument than a conga line of QCs.

It looks like Mr Palmer, is using some dubious (not to be relied upon; suspect) tactics

He is claiming that because the WA borders were not closed due to "Hepatitis B"
Which Mr Palmer claims kill thousands each year, then as Covid-19 has only killed a few in WA, the borders should be opened

The truth of the matter is (from a fact check article)

1. Between 1997 and 2016 there were 279 deaths of Hepatitis B, in Australia
2. In 2018 there were 435 deaths of Hepatitis B, in Australia
3. Hepatitis B is transmitted through blood and other bodily fluids
   It appears that it is safe to hug, kiss, share food etc with a HBV-infected person
   
   
4. My own interpretation, of what we know about Covid-19 so far, is that it is both airborne, and can last a while on surfaces, therefore very easily caught

My point is, that if Mr Palmer is lying about comparing Hepatitis B, with Covid-19, then what else is he lying about

Link to the story below

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-31/coronacheck-clive-palmer-covid-19-comparison-hepatitis-b/12506842

 

iana wrote:

---

Tony, don't spook the government, we are on our way back, around the top.

---

Hi Ian

I assume that you kept your WA rego/licence etc, and have a G2G pass approved, to come home from NT to WA

Not sure if you will have to isolate, but if you have never been there, then Kununurra (40 odd Ks from the border), is quite a nice town

I am led to believe that if you wish to go home to Perth to isolate, then it has to be more or less straight through, without any sightseeing

If I can help at all, then let me know

Have a safe and happy road trip

It appears that there have been some people in quarantine in WA hotels, making a nuisance of themselves, kicking doors etc

Here is what the WA Premier has just said

And for those people coming back from overseas, who don't want to go into quarantine and don't want to have to pay for it, well there's a choice, they don't have to come back.

Link to story in a live news article

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-31/coronavirus-australia-live-news-covid-19-victoria-queensland-nsw/12510468

bentaxlebabe wrote:

---

Tony Bev wrote:

---

It appears that there have been some people in quarantine in WA hotels, making a nuisance of themselves, kicking doors etc

Here is what the WA Premier has just said

And for those people coming back from overseas, who don't want to go into quarantine and don't want to have to pay for it, well there's a choice, they don't have to come back.

Link to story in a live news article

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-31/coronavirus-australia-live-news-covid-19-victoria-queensland-nsw/12510468

---

 And that is the difference between a state that has the virus contained compared to the wishy washy actions of the Premier of Victoria.

The genuine people in Vic have been sadly let down with lack of control.

Regards

Angie

---

 The ADF door knocked on people who have tested positive to covid in the Melbourne area and found that more than 300 were not at home when they were supposed to be in isolation.

That brings the true meaning of the word COVID,   "Citizens of Victoria ignoring Directions"

It looks like the Commonwealth (Prime Minister Morrison), has decided to let Mr Palmer go it alone, and had pulled out, of giving him further assistance

The WA Premier, has said that it may be too late.

Link to story below
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-02/government-removes-support-for-clive-palmers-push-to-open-border/12515948

Usual disclaimer, that at over 70 years of age, I would like to see the WA border stay closed, to fully eradicate Coronavirus in WA

I have been doing some research, (err surfing the net)

My interpretation of the following story is:-

During the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1919, the Federal Government, said that they were the only ones who were allowed to close a border

The States did not think that the Federal Government, were acting quick enough

They defied the Federal Government, and closed the borders on their own accord

The Federal Government said, OK you lot squabble among yourself
We'll maintain maritime quarantine in our ports, but you'll have to manage your own health arrangements within each state

Link to story below
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-24/coronavirus-border-closures-reminiscent-of-spanish-flu-shutdown/12085478

Therefore in my opinion, custom and practice has already been set, and the States are allowed to Close their own borders

Copy and paste

Mark McGowan urges Scott Morrison to back fresh trial in WA's coronavirus border fight with Clive Palmer
If I have understood the article correctly

The West Australian Premier, has asked the Prime Minister, to back him in asking for a new trial

He is also asking for a new judge, and the Commonwealth evidence to be removed

Copy and paste
Currently all of the Federal Government's evidence presented to the Federal Court last week has not been struck out.
This means the Prime Minister's public statement to 'withdraw' from supporting Clive Palmer's action against WA is meaningless

I am not going to go on a paper chase, but if my memory serves me correctly

1. The West Australian Premier, asked the Prime Minister, not to back Mr Palmer, long before the Federal court case/trial started
2. After the Federal Court decision was delivered, a full bench of the High Court will now consider the validity of the WA border closure
3. The Prime Minister/Commonwealth (for this scenario I bunch them one and the same), did withdraw from the court case/trial, but long after it had ended

Up to the time of posting this, I have read some political speak from The Prime Minister

Copy and paste

I'll be writing back to him in a way that I believe will assist the WA Government with what they're seeking to achieve

The Prime Minister has not (up to date), actually said that he would back a new trial

Link to story below
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-06/wa-premier-urges-pm-to-back-new-trial-in-clive-palmer-border-row/12529014

For those who do not like to click on links, below are three pictures from the same article
It looks to me as though one person is working to achieve something, one person looks as though he has just done the dirty, and one person looks like he has a big mouth

Apologies to anyone, if I have interpreted the pictures, different than them

 

 

 

 

 

There was another similar thread, about the closing of the Queensland border, which (the thread) has now been closed

I respectively ask, that no wheelbarrows of political ideology, be pushed into this thread

I respectively ask, if anyone wishes the West Australian border to be opened, please start another thread

I thank the Webmaster (Cindy), for not closing this thread, (up to date), it may look like political speak, as the three main people in this scenario, are members of three different parties

I had started this thread to inform others, that a business man from Queensland, is going to court, to entice the legal profession, to force the Western Australian borders to open

Since the opening of the thread, there has been a twist to the story

The case was heard in the Federal Court, with the backing of the (Commonwealth/Prime Minister, one and the same in this story), assisting the business man

The case has passed through the Federal Court, and will soon be heard in the High Court

The Commonwealth/Prime Minister, assisted the business man, through the Federal Court, and has now withdrawn that assistance

The withdrawal of the Commonwealth/Prime Minister, now means nothing, as the evidence given by the Commonwealth/Prime Minister, still stands, and the High Court case will go ahead

The West Australia Premier, (the man who authorised the closing of the WA border)
Has asked the Commonwealth/Prime Minister, for a new trial, with a new Judge, without Commonwealth/Prime Minister assistance to the business man

Up to date, the Commonwealth/Prime Minister has (in my opinion) refused, this request

I can visualise, (and I hope to God, that I am wrong), if a business man can force open the West Australian border, then he can use the same tool, to force open, all the Australian internal borders

I have no idea, if he can then force open the external Australian border

My opinion is that I would like to see the West Australian border stay closed, for health reasons
I will point out, that while the main industries are still working in West Australia (Iron Ore/Gold etc), it is contributing to both the State and Commonwealth economy

Due to the pandemic, the price of gold has gone up, which means more profits to the companies, more employment, and more taxes to both State and Commonwealth

In Brazil the main Iron Ore producer, operations have been disrupted because of Covid-19, which, combined with heavy rains in the southeastern region, caused iron-ore producer Vales output to decline by 23.9%
I read in the not so distant past, that Australia will be taking up some of that shortfall. Once again, more profits to the companies, more employment, and more taxes to both State and Commonwealth

If we open the West Australian border, and Covid-19 gets a hold, where we will be forced try and live with it, by going stop/start, stop/start, stop/start etc, we may lose a lot of the Iron Ore/Gold income

Many on this forum love to stand on their high horse on a number of issues and pontificate about how doing a particular thing is "illegal" and such is presented as the sole reason one should not do it.

Fair enough but... you cannot have it both ways.

If the law is that borders may not be closed then governments must *always* follow the law - if they don't need to then neither do I.

The court will decide - end of story.

A snip from a story, deep within a live news article

I now hope that someone alerts the Judge, to this new twist

If the Judge says that while there is a world wide pandemic, the States will keep the power to open/close their own borders, then I will be very happy

After the pandemic is over, they can all do what they want, with the borders

Link below to the live news article
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-09/coronavirus-australia-live-blog-bunnings-hospital-worker-covid19/12538264

Edit to say

With a very sad heart, I put up another story from the same newspaper article, this is just one more reason, I think that the borders should stay closed, to help stop this Coronavirus

I will point out in case anyone did not know, that nurses, especially those trained to up to ICU standards, do not grow on trees

Hoping for a very speedy health recovery for all Covid-10 patients, especially the nurses

-- Edited by Tony Bev on Sunday 9th of August 2020 07:00:34 PM

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Hello Tony

So you only want governments to ignore the law when they think there is a good reason to do so.

I think history teaches where that paths leads....

---

 Hi Mike to answer your questions

So you only want governments to ignore the law when they think there is a good reason to do so.

Short Answer is:- "No"

Long answer is:-
I do not believe that the closure/quarantine of any Australian State/Territory border, by those State/Territory elected leaders, is against the law

My opinion is that if it was against the law, then they have had since 1919, when the same thing happened, in the Spanish Flu epidemic, for the Federal Government to say that closing of borders is illegal, and amend the law

If this present border closure is illegal, then the Federal Government, would have sent the Army to open the borders, on the very first day of border closure  

From what I can interpret of this scenario, no law has been broken by State/Territory leaders closing their borders

I believe that we have a fiasco, were a business man, accompanied on his journey by a Prime Minister, have cooked up a story that the border closures, is unconstitutional
They just happen to be using the legal department, to allow the closed borders to be forced open, via some skulduggery
If the closing of the border was unconstitutional, it has been like that since, 1901 (119 years), if they were half decent people, they would leave it as it is, until the pandemic has ended

I actually do not want any democratic Government to ignore the laws. They should be able to change laws, by acts of parliament, if they thought that a law was unjust.

The problem of course, is that if I thought, that my parliament member had done the wrong thing, then that person would not get my vote, at the next election
Perhaps the politicians as a whole, may be a bit worried about the other 16,635,280 registered voters, not voting for them

I think history teaches where that paths leads....

I agree with you, we do not need the night of the long knives in Australia, that was a European problem, and should stay there

I would not read anything in to it Gundog. When matters are referred to the High Court they go through a process and given the number of cases backed up, usually take some time.

There is the process of obtaining leave and then the listing process. Every case takes it turn and it is not a matter of fast tracking one over the other because it seems more important.

As the High Court also has original jurisdiction, this matter could have been commenced there initially and then referred back to the Federal Court if they so desired. There are people who have remained in custody for months, if not years, waiting the outcome of their appeal.

As for the comment made by another poster about bringing something to the attention of the judge, this would result in a mistrial. The only thing judges can consider is what is brought before the court by way of admissible evidence, not someone whispering and nudging from the sidelines.