Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

BlueE said:
Latest published evidence retesting people that had the Rona is that their antibodies against CoVid 19 they had after recovering only remain at the same strength in 17% after 3 months. Many have no antibodies left. That suggests no immunity and no protection if they were reinfected.

It's worse in human vaccine trials where there aren't high levels of antibodies or in the recently published Oxford human trials only around 45% of subjects developed immunity, although this increased to around 57% if they were given two doses of the vaccine. There were also many reported side effects htat another medication have to be given for.

This is the vaccine trial that progressed to human subjects after 100% failure in the rhesus monkey trials where they all got the virus.

The other human trial recently reported was the US Moderna backed trials that Trump has poured 100s of millions into, recently published initial results showing that the vaccine worked to trigger an immune response with mild side effects -- fatigue, chills, headache, muscle pain, pain at the injection site. The Phase 1 study included 45 healthy adults, ages 18 to 55, who received two vaccinations of the mRNA-1237 vaccine candidate 28 days apart.

There is no information about how many subjects produced antibodies to the virus. "We thought the immune responses look promising, but we don't know whether the levels we're seeing would actually protect against infection. It's really hard to know that until you do the actual efficacy trial," said Dr Lisa Jackson.

They are looking to enrol 30,000 adults for Phase 3 studies.

However with the published results that immunity doesn't last in subjects who developed antibodies naturally, which in every other disease case is longer lasting than a vaccine, is changing human RNA an acceptable risk?.
Click to expand...

Russia is claiming a successful vaccine & plans producing asap vaccination front line health workers first. What could go wrong 😵🤮
 
A bit of Tassie perspective here. We're opening borders on August 7th to WA, SA and NT. Not sure if it's reciprocal?
Everyone here besides the tourism operators are very happy with how things are with closed borders. Vic, NSW and Qld will have no chance of getting here for the foreseeable future.
 
wayToGo_ said:
Think 'relatively' that problem is actually pretty good. Would you prefer to be in McGowan's shoes or Andrews' (Vic) shoes atm? I know which 'problem' I'd rather have to deal with.

A hard border is just one of many measures as well - and borders have varying degrees of restrictions which is something we've always had to control anyway (eg stopping fruit coming across borders etc). "Fruitarians to challenge WA in the High Court". What we are doing now (hard border) wasn't what we were doing a few weeks back - the govt will ratchet it up or down based on their assessment of risk at a point in time. That's smart government imo - I've still yet to hear any actual tangible reasons why they are being unreasonable other than "but it's against the Constitution" - a document certainly not created with a pandemic in mind.

That's what I find so ridiculous about this debate and the legal challenge. It's not like the WA govt hasn't continually reassessed and been willing to ease or increase restrictions throughout this pandemic as new information comes to hand. They are just being very conservative (just like we are being nationally in a global setting) and unlike other States we haven't had to say one moment we are opening borders and then racing to shut them when they realise they haven't read the tea leaves well.

The Libs should have realised pandemics are a good time not to play partisan politics - be part of the solution, not the problem.
Click to expand...
Of course, McGowan’s. That’s not the point: as a _political_ issue McGowan needs to be thinking about what arguments he can use in, say, a year’s time, assuming that COVID still exists in some communities elsewhere in Australia. A universal hard border is fine in the short term, but within the context of us being a state in the Commonwealth it will be unsustainable.

So for me, that is the interesting question for the WA Government. How long is the hard border possible and how (politically) do you dismantle it when you can’t control when COVID community transmission ends? And you are so insistent on a _universal_ hard border today.

But onto the Constitution. I disagree with you that it isn’t important in our current context. If you believe in the Commonwealth of Australia, it is surely is one of the most important reasons for opening the borders. To suggest we can just ignore the Constitution because we find it convenient to do so during a crisis is an incredibly dangerous precedent to make.

Think of the next crisis. Would you be happy for the Constitution to be ignored because it wasn’t written with that crisis in kind?

- let’s allow a government to restrict voting based on ethnicity during a period of widespread BLM protests because, after all, the Constitution wasn’t written with BLM in mind
- or, the next time there is a bad recession, let’s allow a state government to remove minimum IR conditions imposed by federal law because there local economy “requires” it and, after all, the Constitution wasn’t written with a post-industrial 21st C. economy in mind.

For me personally? I love the hard border and I hope it stays permanently. But I’m a successionist and believe in an independent Westralia. If I was a federalist, I would be very concerned with the argument that the current circumstances are soo extraordinary it was safe to ignore the Constitution.

The sounds like Trump talk to me.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Johnny Dalmas said:
So for me, that is the interesting question for the WA Government. How long is the hard border possible and how (politically) do you dismantle it when you can’t control when COVID community transmission ends? And you are so insistent on a _universal_ hard border today.

2. But onto the Constitution. I disagree with you that it isn’t important in our current context. If you believe in the Commonwealth of Australia, it is surely is one of the most important reasons for opening the borders. To suggest we can just ignore the Constitution because we find it convenient to do so during a crisis is an incredibly dangerous precedent to make.

3. Think of the next crisis. Would you be happy for the Constitution to be ignored because it wasn’t written with that crisis in kind?
- let’s allow a government to restrict voting based on ethnicity during a period of widespread BLM protests because, after all, the Constitution wasn’t written with BLM in mind

1. The sounds like Trump talk to me.
Click to expand...

1. The differences are vast between the W.A. border closure and putting up a fence at Mexico. The one is temporary and due to an overwhelming health crisis and has the blessing of the local opposition party (W.A. Liberal party), the other is supposed to be permanent and is political point scoring .

2. Borders have been shut before, during the Spanish flu. There was a maritime closure at first that prohibited free movement between states, later on there were hard border closures. This was a mere 19 years after the constitution came into effect, with most of those that wrote it still alive and active and it was allowed. The border has been shut for decades with the big fruit issue, you don't have to destroy it but are prohibited from crossing with it (freedom of movement). Even as a partial shutdown - it is still a shutdown of the border and restriction of freedom of movement.

3. States are allowed to make exceptions as there is no absolute freedoms of movement in the constitution according to the high court, even though it literally says absolutely free "trade, commerce, and intercourse among the states, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free." in section 92. So, merging these concepts of free trade/commerce/intercourse and your BLM point, states discriminate against non-residents as you have to be a resident to vote for a state election, they discriminate by age, used to discriminate by ethnicity and gender after the constitution was written. More specifically to the BLM example you use - the indigenous weren't allowed to vote in Federal elections until 1962 (62 years after the constitution was written).
 
FreoMonocle said:
1. The differences are vast between the W.A. border closure and putting up a fence at Mexico. The one is temporary and due to an overwhelming health crisis and has the blessing of the local opposition party (W.A. Liberal party), the other is supposed to be permanent and is political point scoring .

2. Borders have been shut before, during the Spanish flu. There was a maritime closure at first that prohibited free movement between states, later on there were hard border closures. This was a mere 19 years after the constitution came into effect, with most of those that wrote it still alive and active and it was allowed. The border has been shut for decades with the big fruit issue, you don't have to destroy it but are prohibited from crossing with it (freedom of movement). Even as a partial shutdown - it is still a shutdown of the border and restriction of freedom of movement.

3. States are allowed to make exceptions as there is no absolute freedoms of movement in the constitution according to the high court, even though it literally says absolutely free "trade, commerce, and intercourse among the states, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free." in section 92. So, merging these concepts of free trade/commerce/intercourse and your BLM point, states discriminate against non-residents as you have to be a resident to vote for a state election, they discriminate by age, used to discriminate by ethnicity and gender after the constitution was written. More specifically to the BLM example you use - the indigenous weren't allowed to vote in Federal elections until 1962 (62 years after the constitution was written).
Click to expand...
#1. I wasn’t talking about the Mexican wall. I was referring to Trump’s recent tweet suggesting that the upcoming Presidential election by delayed because of COVID-19. The rules regarding the scheduling of the presidential election are explicitly written into the US Constitution. It seems to me that there is a reasonable parallel between suggesting that a clause of the US Constitution be ignored because of the pandemic and suggesting that a clause about freedom of movement in the Australian Constitution be ignored because of the pandemic.

#2 & #3. Of course state borders have been temporarily shut before and are temporarily being shut now. And of course I know about the amendments to the Constitution to recognise indigenous people (the referendum was in 1967 by the way).
But that isn’t the point.
The post I was responding to said: “I've still yet to hear any actual tangible reasons why they are being unreasonable other than "but it's against the Constitution" - a document certainly not created with a pandemic in mind.”
And my point is that _if_ you believe in the Commonwealth, then something being against the Constitution is surely a good enough reason by itself. If you are a federalist then surely something being “against the Constitution” is unreasonable. No special case should too special to ignore the Constitution because the next special case could well result in a poor public policy outcome (restricting voters rights, ignoring IR law, etc).
After all, if it is OK to ignore s92 perhaps some state will decide to ignore another section in the Constitution. Why not?

To re-emphasise, my point isn’t about what is possible under s92, but that s92 shouldn’t simply be dismissed because the Constitution wasn’t created “with a pandemic in mind”.

But if you care what I think is possible under s92, then personally it seems pretty obvious that both convention and case law regarding s92 allow the current restrictions - to the extent that a state can justify them in some kind of public interest test, such as public health during a pandemic.

What is less clear is:
- whether these public interest tests can be applied to all other states universally (ie, is it reasonable to say “border closed to everyone” or should a State Government have to say: “here is justification for the NSW restriction, and here is another for the Vic restriction, but the lack of community transmission in Tas means we can’t make a similar restriction for that state, etc”)
- what is the mechanism for determining that the exemptions have gone on for too long and are starting to looking less like exemptions in the public interest during a temporary emergency (ie, now during a COVID-19 pandemic) and more like permanent public policy (fruit at the borders).
 
Johnny Dalmas said:
Of course, McGowan’s. That’s not the point: as a _political_ issue McGowan needs to be thinking about what arguments he can use in, say, a year’s time, assuming that COVID still exists in some communities elsewhere in Australia. A universal hard border is fine in the short term, but within the context of us being a state in the Commonwealth it will be unsustainable.

So for me, that is the interesting question for the WA Government. How long is the hard border possible and how (politically) do you dismantle it when you can’t control when COVID community transmission ends? And you are so insistent on a _universal_ hard border today.

But onto the Constitution. I disagree with you that it isn’t important in our current context. If you believe in the Commonwealth of Australia, it is surely is one of the most important reasons for opening the borders. To suggest we can just ignore the Constitution because we find it convenient to do so during a crisis is an incredibly dangerous precedent to make.

Think of the next crisis. Would you be happy for the Constitution to be ignored because it wasn’t written with that crisis in kind?

- let’s allow a government to restrict voting based on ethnicity during a period of widespread BLM protests because, after all, the Constitution wasn’t written with BLM in mind
- or, the next time there is a bad recession, let’s allow a state government to remove minimum IR conditions imposed by federal law because there local economy “requires” it and, after all, the Constitution wasn’t written with a post-industrial 21st C. economy in mind.

For me personally? I love the hard border and I hope it stays permanently. But I’m a successionist and believe in an independent Westralia. If I was a federalist, I would be very concerned with the argument that the current circumstances are soo extraordinary it was safe to ignore the Constitution.

The sounds like Trump talk to me.
Click to expand...
Your argument is resting on two fairly unlikely assumptions. You seem to have assumed that McGowan wants to keep the borders closed indefinitely. It appears to me that he will act on the health advice and bring them down when it is safe to do so.

You also seem to believe the border closure is unconstitutional, you said he was 'ignoring the constitution'. I remind you this matter is still being argued before the courts and no determination has been made as the constitutionality of the border closure.
 
Johnny Dalmas said:
#2 & #3. Of course state borders have been temporarily shut before and are temporarily being shut now. And of course I know about the amendments to the Constitution to recognise indigenous people (the referendum was in 1967 by the way).
But that isn’t the point.
The post I was responding to said: “I've still yet to hear any actual tangible reasons why they are being unreasonable other than "but it's against the Constitution" - a document certainly not created with a pandemic in mind.”
And my point is that _if_ you believe in the Commonwealth, then something being against the Constitution is surely a good enough reason by itself. If you are a federalist then surely something being “against the Constitution” is unreasonable. No special case should too special to ignore the Constitution because the next special case could well result in a poor public policy outcome (restricting voters rights, ignoring IR law, etc).
After all, if it is OK to ignore s92 perhaps some state will decide to ignore another section in the Constitution. Why not?
Click to expand...
When you take that one sentence out of my post in isolation and make the issue a black or white one then yes completely agree. But things are never black and white. We have bucket loads of different laws in our society and every day they are subject to different interpretation through not just the courts but in everyday life. There is a bible that for some unknown reason we've based many things on. People still use it to judge others whilst picking, choosing and ignoring bits to suit whatever narrative they want. Documents are always subject to interpretation and all rules have flaws.

My point was that the argument against shouldn't be simplified to "it's against the Constitution" or taking it a step further, "it breaches Freedom of Movement". A Constitution is bigger than the document itself. There are several precedents of stopping the movement of freedom, including relevantly, a former pandemic. Therefore I would like to hear a tangible argument more detailed than the "It's against the Constitution" so I can have an alternate perspective to this just being some rich moron being a selfish git and using technicalities relating to law rather than what is in the best interests of the Country (and therefore the Constitution).
 
wahooo said:
Your argument is resting on two fairly unlikely assumptions. You seem to have assumed that McGowan wants to keep the borders closed indefinitely. It appears to me that he will act on the health advice and bring them down when it is safe to do so.

You also seem to believe the border closure is unconstitutional, you said he was 'ignoring the constitution'. I remind you this matter is still being argued before the courts and no determination has been made as the constitutionality of the border closure.
Click to expand...
I think you have mis-read my post.

1. I don't think the WA Govt will want to keep the borders closed indefinitey. In fact, talking about the "end game" only makes sense if you assume the opposite: that there will come a time when border closures will be relaxed. So how does the WA Govt , pivot from a _universal_ border closure to a border closure for only some states/localities or to no border closure at all.
If the rationale is, say, levels of community transmission then that makes for an interesting argument because there are _already_ other parts of Australia with no community transmission that we currently close our borders to. So how will the Govt rationalise this change over time? If it is OK at some later point in time to open the borders to a locality with no community transmission, why isn't it OK to do so now?
That is the interesting political question for the McGowan Government. Although I fear that the answer will be that too few people care enough about public policy to be bothered by the inconsistency and it will just play out on typical party partisan lines. Score one more point to the continued Americanisation of out political culture.

2. I don't think that a temporary restriction of a state border in the public interest is against the Constitution. There is enough convention and case law around s92 to suggest that state border closures during a COVID pandemic will be considered constitutional by the High Court.
(Although it will, once again, be interesting to see if the High Court develop any criteria for determining what the "public interest", "restriction", and "temporary" means in such a case. Will the High Court give any consideration to the Commonwealth's 5 principles that it is trying to use with states right now to manage border restrictions?
However my actual point was that if you believe in the Commonwealth then you can't simply dismiss the argument that s92 should be ignored because well "pandemic!" You could argue that the Constitution should be changed but to argue that a section should be ignored is a very slippery slope because there are always plenty of other circumstances where it might be convenient for a State Govt to argue the it needs to ignore a section of the Constitution.

However, I do now think that wayToGo_ 's original post wasn't actually making this point. He/she was actually arguing for a more substantual argument than simply s92 of the Constitution exists.
 
wayToGo_ said:
When you take that one sentence out of my post in isolation and make the issue a black or white one then yes completely agree. But things are never black and white. We have bucket loads of different laws in our society and every day they are subject to different interpretation through not just the courts but in everyday life. There is a bible that for some unknown reason we've based many things on. People still use it to judge others whilst picking, choosing and ignoring bits to suit whatever narrative they want. Documents are always subject to interpretation and all rules have flaws.

My point was that the argument against shouldn't be simplified to "it's against the Constitution" or taking it a step further, "it breaches Freedom of Movement". A Constitution is bigger than the document itself. There are several precedents of stopping the movement of freedom, including relevantly, a former pandemic. Therefore I would like to hear a tangible argument more detailed than the "It's against the Constitution" so I can have an alternate perspective to this just being some rich moron being a selfish git and using technicalities relating to law rather than what is in the best interests of the Country (and therefore the Constitution).
Click to expand...
Fair enough. That statement wasn't about ignoring the Constitution, it was the lack of substance in the argument.

I reckon about the only arguments that can be reasonably made against the McGowan Govt border closure are:
1. That it is universally applied to all other states and territories. To be in the public interest it needs to be more nuanced and only applied to those areas where there is community transmission. So, if there is no community transmission in a state, then the border with that state should be opened.
2. There is a lack of transparency in the decision-making process. The Govt needs to publicly justify its decisions on a state by state basis
 
Johnny Dalmas said:
I think you have mis-read my post.

1. I don't think the WA Govt will want to keep the borders closed indefinitey. In fact, talking about the "end game" only makes sense if you assume the opposite: that there will come a time when border closures will be relaxed. So how does the WA Govt , pivot from a _universal_ border closure to a border closure for only some states/localities or to no border closure at all.
If the rationale is, say, levels of community transmission then that makes for an interesting argument because there are _already_ other parts of Australia with no community transmission that we currently close our borders to. So how will the Govt rationalise this change over time? If it is OK at some later point in time to open the borders to a locality with no community transmission, why isn't it OK to do so now?
That is the interesting political question for the McGowan Government. Although I fear that the answer will be that too few people care enough about public policy to be bothered by the inconsistency and it will just play out on typical party partisan lines. Score one more point to the continued Americanisation of out political culture.

2. I don't think that a temporary restriction of a state border in the public interest is against the Constitution. There is enough convention and case law around s92 to suggest that state border closures during a COVID pandemic will be considered constitutional by the High Court.
(Although it will, once again, be interesting to see if the High Court develop any criteria for determining what the "public interest", "restriction", and "temporary" means in such a case. Will the High Court give any consideration to the Commonwealth's 5 principles that it is trying to use with states right now to manage border restrictions?
However my actual point was that if you believe in the Commonwealth then you can't simply dismiss the argument that s92 should be ignored because well "pandemic!" You could argue that the Constitution should be changed but to argue that a section should be ignored is a very slippery slope because there are always plenty of other circumstances where it might be convenient for a State Govt to argue the it needs to ignore a section of the Constitution.

However, I do now think that wayToGo_ 's original post wasn't actually making this point. He/she was actually arguing for a more substantual argument than simply s92 of the Constitution exists.
Click to expand...
Yeah I definitely did mis read it slightly, hadn't had a coffee by that time, apologies.

1. I think you're over thinking the border closures here, thinking of it in a way that is far too political dare I say. The reason (imo at least) for McGowan's popularity is that he's been extremely apolitical throughout this crisis and acted solely on the best health advice available. He's picked some political fights, sure. He's been pushed into some political fights too. But, I've felt he's been largely apolitical and has acted on health advice.

It's a simple rationalisation which has already been shown to work within the electorate. Currently the border is closed to all states because that is what 'the best available health advice' mandates. If at some point we are in a position where we only close the border to certain states he merely needs to make reference to 'best available health advice'. It's gone down exceptionally well with a massive majority of the WA electorate and I see no reason why that would change in the future.

No one cares to hear the details of the 'best available health advice' most voters are just happy to accept its mandates.

The only risk I see is the wheeling out of 'but the border closure hurts small businesses and the tourism industry', an argument which will no doubt gain traction but likely fail to convince the voters. The majority of small business owners I've spoken to are just happy to be able to open their doors and they understand that the biggest threat to their business is not a border closure but the spread of the virus and subsequent lockdowns.

2. This argument is still flawed (this argument being the point onwards from 'my actual point was'). You've assumed those 'who believe in the Commonwealth' have this extremely rigid, monolithic thought that borders between states should be open and under no condition should they be closed.

It is quite possible that even the strictest supporters of our Commonwealth are happy with border closures to contain the virus. Pragmatism is what will get our Commonwealth through this pandemic and I think all people recognise the importance of pragmatism in such times.

Your argument is again resting on the fact that the High Court will interpret s 92 as prohibiting the closure of states borders. This is an assumption that you simply cannot make, leave it to the High Court. They may well decide, given the circumstances, that border closures are permissible under s 92 of the Constitution.

You're right s 92 of the Constitution 'exists' but the Constitution does not always mean what it says and it does not always say what it means. I'll let the justices of the High Court interpret s 92, rather than subscribing to your interpretation that s 92 prohibits the closure of state borders.

No one is ignoring s 92 and WA's lawyers will most certainly not be arguing that it should be ignored (that'd go down like a tonne of bricks in the HC). The argument is about the interpretation (not the existence) of s 92 and it remains highly possible that the High Court will interpret s 92 to permit the closure of state borders.

Also important to note that WA's lawyers won't be arguing to change the Constitution, that's not an argument the High Court will hear. That requires a referendum.
 
Last edited:
Johnny Dalmas said:
And of course I know about the amendments to the Constitution to recognise indigenous people (the referendum was in 1967 by the way).
Click to expand...

Not to tit for tat, but, as discussion if your cool with it... I find some of it quite interesting.

I was referencing the Commonwealth Electoral act in 1962, which allowed the federal vote to Aboriginal peoples which ipso facto extended the vote to the territories, the state vote was also given that year in WA and in 65 in QLD. The referendum in 67 allowed aboriginal people to be included in the census (instead of listed amongst flora and fauna) and ceded some powers for lawkmaking about aboriginal rights and affairs from the states to the commonwealth. Given what most people thought of aboriginal peoples at the time, I'm still gobsmacked that they did the right thing and passed the referendum given the extremely high bar required - a majority of states plus a majority of voters (91% voted yes).

People in Oz are increasingly trying to claim rights that are in the American constitution and not ours (freedom of speech etc). The Americans had the rights of the citizens in mind when they made theirs, they had just overthrown a colonial oppressor through might of arms.

The Australian federal constitutions purpose is to split off an amount of powers that individual states had, when they chose to federate, to transfer to the Commonwelth government that they were creating, it's about who is responsible for what and not about citizens rights. Internal movement across state borders wasn't ceded as a power/area of control to the federal government, it's still a state issue, the freedom of travel and trade across the borders part that Clive Palmer is contesting wasn't given as a right to citizens, it was a pointer for how states are to work together within the commonwealth of Australia. The High Court interprets the constitution rather than it being obeyed to the letter of it, in doing so it grants exceptions (in this instance border control, carrying fruit over the border and not letting people residents of other states vote locally, being obvious things that blatantly disregard the wording of the constitution).
 
Last edited:
wahooo said:
Yeah I definitely did mis read it slightly, hadn't had a coffee by that time, apologies.

1. I think you're over thinking the border closures here, thinking of it in a way that is far too political dare I say. The reason (imo at least) for McGowan's popularity is that he's been extremely apolitical throughout this crisis and acted solely on the best health advice available. He's picked some political fights, sure. He's been pushed into some political fights too. But, I've felt he's been largely apolitical and has acted on health advice.

It's a simple rationalisation which has already been shown to work within the electorate. Currently the border is closed to all states because that is what 'the best available health advice' mandates. If at some point we are in a position where we only close the border to certain states he merely needs to make reference to 'best available health advice'. It's gone down exceptionally well with a massive majority of the WA electorate and I see no reason why that would change in the future.

No one cares to hear the details of the 'best available health advice' most voters are just happy to accept its mandates.

The only risk I see is the wheeling out of 'but the border closure hurts small businesses and the tourism industry', an argument which will no doubt gain traction but likely fail to convince the voters. The majority of small business owners I've spoken to are just happy to be able to open their doors and they understand that the biggest threat to their business is not a border closure but the spread of the virus and subsequent lockdowns.

2. This argument is still flawed (this argument being the point onwards from 'my actual point was'). You've assumed those 'who believe in the Commonwealth' have this extremely rigid, monolithic thought that borders between states should be open and under no condition should they be closed.

It is quite possible that even the strictest supporters of our Commonwealth are happy with border closures to contain the virus. Pragmatism is what will get our Commonwealth through this pandemic and I think all people recognise the importance of pragmatism in such times.

Your argument is again resting on the fact that the High Court will interpret s 92 as prohibiting the closure of states borders. This is an assumption that you simply cannot make, leave it to the High Court. They may well decide, given the circumstances, that border closures are permissible under s 92 of the Constitution.

You're right s 92 of the Constitution 'exists' but the Constitution does not always mean what it says and it does not always say what it means. I'll let the justices of the High Court interpret s 92, rather than subscribing to your interpretation that s 92 prohibits the closure of state borders.

No one is ignoring s 92 and WA's lawyers will most certainly not be arguing that it should be ignored (that'd go down like a tonne of bricks in the HC). The argument is about the interpretation (not the existence) of s 92 and it remains highly possible that the High Court will interpret s 92 to permit the closure of state borders.

Also important to note that WA's lawyers won't be arguing to change the Constitution, that's not an argument the High Court will hear. That requires a referendum.
Click to expand...
Can the High Court rule on how the constitution is interpreted? For example we (Australia) don't have a Bill of rights
FreoMonocle said:
Not to tit for tat, but, as discussion if your cool with it... I find some of it quite interesting.

I was referencing the Commonwealth Electoral act in 1962, which allowed the federal vote to Aboriginal peoples which ipso facto extended the vote to the territories, the state vote was also given that year in WA and in 65 in QLD. The referendum in 67 allowed aboriginal people to be included in the census (instead of listed amongst flora and fauna) and ceded some powers for lawkmaking about aboriginal rights and affairs from the states to the commonwealth. Given what most people thought of aboriginal peoples at the time, I'm still gobsmacked that they did the right thing and passed the referendum given the extremely high bar required - a majority of states plus a majority of voters (91% voted yes).

People in Oz are increasingly trying to claim rights that are in the American constitution and not ours (freedom of speech etc). The Americans had the rights of the citizens in mind when they made theirs, they had just overthrown a colonial oppressor through might of arms.

The Australian federal constitutions purpose is to split off an amount of powers that individual states had, when they chose to federate, to transfer to the Commonwelth government that they were creating, it's about who is responsible for what and not about citizens rights. Internal movement across state borders wasn't ceded as a power/area of control to the federal government, it's still a state issue, the freedom of travel and trade across the borders part that Clive Palmer is contesting wasn't given as a right to citizens, it was a pointer for how states are to work together within the commonwealth of Australia. The High Court interprets the constitution rather than it being obeyed to the letter of it, in doing so it grants exceptions (in this instance border control, carrying fruit over the border and not letting people residents of other states vote locally, being obvious things that blatantly disregard the wording of the constitution).
Click to expand...
I was going to type a long winded question about what can the High court do in relation to amending/interpreting the constitution but your last paragraph answered it for me. So thankyou.
Your 2nd last paragraph about US rights being claimed in Australia is one of had many discussions with people about. We simply do not have a Bill of Rights that underpins all laws, and personally I'm glad we don't. With rights comes responsibility, and it is clear that there are many people in modern society (not just Aust. and US) that aren't responsible enough to act in a way that the 'rights' were written for. They can be misinterpreted to be very damaging to society as a whole. The right to free speech and the right to bear arms were written for just and sensible reasons at the time of writing, but they are increasingly being used to push divisive and discriminatory agendas which is not the reason they were written. Laws need to have an element of 'malleability' about them with the correct and rigorous checks and balances in place to make sure they're not exploited. Clive v WA is a case in point.
We don't have the right to get smashed drunk and drive around as fast as we want, and yet no one seems to have a problem with that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bicco said:
Can the High Court rule on how the constitution is interpreted? For example we (Australia) don't have a Bill of rights
Click to expand...
The High Court absolutely can interpret provisions within the Constitution. How on earth would they apply a provision of the Constitution to a certain set of facts if they were not first to interpret the provision to ascertain it's meaning, scope and purpose?

Your example is a little odd seeing as I never suggested we have a bill of rights but I'm assuming it's not related to my post.

A lot of odd discussions taking place here, if anyone wants some clarity on the whole Palmer dispute I'd recommend reading this article:

Border Closures and s 92: Clive Palmer’s Quest to Enter WA — Australian Public Law

BY HENRY COONEY AND HARRY SANDERSON
auspublaw.org auspublaw.org

It's short, easy to read and has cleared up a fair few of my own queries. Interesting to note that Kiefel CJ has already made note of the 'digital age' in which we live and that the court will need to take that into consideration during their reasoning.
 
FreoMonocle said:
I was referencing the Commonwealth Electoral act in 1962, which allowed the federal vote to Aboriginal peoples which ipso facto extended the vote to the territories, the state vote was also given that year in WA and in 65 in QLD. The referendum in 67 allowed aboriginal people to be included in the census (instead of listed amongst flora and fauna) and ceded some powers for lawkmaking about aboriginal rights and affairs from the states to the commonwealth. Given what most people thought of aboriginal peoples at the time, I'm still gobsmacked that they did the right thing and passed the referendum given the extremely high bar required - a majority of states plus a majority of voters (91% voted yes).
Click to expand...

Fact check:
www.abc.net.au

Fact check: Were Indigenous Australians once classified under a flora and fauna act?

A regularly repeated claim is that Indigenous Australians were covered by a flora and fauna act, until the 1967 referendum. It's not true. RMIT ABC Fact Check explains.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
Spitty_the_alpaca said:
Fact check:
www.abc.net.au

Fact check: Were Indigenous Australians once classified under a flora and fauna act?

A regularly repeated claim is that Indigenous Australians were covered by a flora and fauna act, until the 1967 referendum. It's not true. RMIT ABC Fact Check explains.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Cheers thanks for dispelling that one 👍

Not that it makes the previous situation any more flattering, in a count of people (census), they don't get counted and therefore don't exist.
 
Johnny Dalmas said:
2. I don't think that a temporary restriction of a state border in the public interest is against the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Before you can call it that, you would first have to prove that the border closure is actually in the public interest. Because many people would say otherwise.
 
bushchook said:
Before you can call it that, you would first have to prove that the border closure is actually in the public interest. Because many people would say otherwise.
Click to expand...
So why hasn't Clive proven it isn't in the public interest then? If so many people say it isn't surely he's got some tangible evidence to prove it?

Who are these people bushchook? Any names so I can look up their credentials and see the other side of the argument with something real rather than just the fluff we've heard so far?
 
wayToGo_ said:
So why hasn't Clive proven it isn't in the public interest then? If so many people say it isn't surely he's got some tangible evidence to prove it?
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to. It's up to the government to prove that, since they are the ones in violation of the constitution.
 
wayToGo_ said:
Wtf? There hasn't been a ruling yet, so no they aren't. Lol.
Click to expand...

Just because there has not yet been a ruling doesn't mean they have not been violating the constitution.

The key point here is that WA could very easily argue that it's in the public interest to close the border to Victorians for obvious reasons. It's a much more difficult case to argue that the WA/SA border should be closed. There's no community transmission in SA either, so how is keeping that border closed in "the public interest"?
 
Last edited:
Is it time to start letting in professionals that want to come home, providing they quarantine of course & overseas uni students with extended visas into our covid free utopia?? Kick start the economy or do we play the boring card & play it extra extra safe like wa always dose. If we did it properly & migrants were prepared to pay for their quarantine we could make it happen in a safe way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top