Australian state border restrictions

[Jacques Vert]

Flight Centre CEO Graham Turner says they believe they have a “good chance of success” when the company goes to the High Court

Doesn't everyone who goes to court think they have a good chance of success? If not, they wouldn't go to court; and yet, 50% are disappointed by the outcome....

 

[Must...Fly!]

Talk is cheap, until they pull the trigger then I am not reading too much in to it.

On a tangent, I wonder if any challenge could be mounted to ongoing testing in order to be permitted to cross state lines. The fact almost every state is saying on-arrival testing will be "temporary" suggests there is probably a flimsy legal basis for this. Indeed there are plenty of diseases you wouldn't want to import which we never have and still do not test for prior to crossing state lines.

There is actually a tangible financial cost implemented by each state/territory government demanding COVID-19 testing associated with conducting trade, commerce or intercourse between the states. Reminder of the wording of S92;

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.

 

[DC3]

… There is actually a tangible financial cost implemented by each state/territory government demanding COVID-19 testing associated with conducting trade, commerce or intercourse between the states. Reminder of the wording of S92;

Clive may be happy to speak with you.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Clive may be happy to speak with you.

It's relatively easily solved in that the state pays the bill.

What are the chances of that do you reckon.

All it would take is for the federal government to tighten up the criteria for medicare funded COVID-19 tests.

 

[Flashback]

@Flashback and @jakeseven7: name a date and put a bottle red on it!

Are you supplying:

1. The bottle of red
2. Flights to WA
3. Hotel Quarantine bill

?

If so, I'm in!

 

[Doctore1003]

Flight Centre and Sky/News Corp are just stirring the pot. Doubt the High Court would even hear the case.

Post automatically merged: Nov 6, 2021

Talk is cheap, until they pull the trigger then I am not reading too much in to it.

On a tangent, I wonder if any challenge could be mounted to ongoing testing in order to be permitted to cross state lines. The fact almost every state is saying on-arrival testing will be "temporary" suggests there is probably a flimsy legal basis for this. Indeed there are plenty of diseases you wouldn't want to import which we never have and still do not test for prior to crossing state lines.

There is actually a tangible financial cost implemented by each state/territory government demanding COVID-19 testing associated with conducting trade, commerce or intercourse between the states. Reminder of the wording of S92;

There are plenty of customs / quarantine requirements with tangible costs implemented by all jurisdictions. There is no question the states can do this, so long as reasonable / proportionate.

 

[antycbr]

Flight Centre and Sky/News Corp are just stirring the pot. Doubt the High Court would even hear the case.

Post automatically merged: Nov 6, 2021

There are plenty of customs / quarantine requirements with tangible costs implemented by all jurisdictions. There is no question the states can do this, so long as reasonable / proportionate.

So on one hand you say the high court won’t hear the case. Then on the other you say that the controls must be reasonable or proportionate.

If you don’t think they are reasonable or proportionate you are entitled to go to court.

 

[Doctore1003]

So on one hand you say the high court won’t hear the case. Then on the other you say that the controls must be reasonable or proportionate.

If you don’t think they are reasonable or proportionate you are entitled to go to court.

Yes, Flight Centre is entitled to waste money filing the paperwork and watching the court quickly decline to hear the case . Perhaps the publicity will be worth it.

 

[RooFlyer]

Damn. So much for the Tas requirement for interstate vistors to have a negative Covid test in 72 hrs before arriving (amended to apply to Vic, NSW & ACT only), predicted to be a deterrant:

Note: Saffire comes in at about $2,000/night:


Visitors fly south for the summer as Tasmania’s borders reopen to mainland states

CASHED-up travellers have stepped in to snap up bookings at Tasmania’s most famous luxury accommodation throughout summer and into early autumn.

The five-star Saffire Freycinet on the state’s East Coast is already approaching capacity, with more than 95 per cent occupancy from mid-December until the end of March.

Tasmania’s borders are set to fully reopen on December 15 to vaccinated travellers, including from the key domestic tourist markets of Victoria and NSW.

Saffire Freycinet general manager Ross coughyer said the destination had been well supported by Tasmanians, with an occupancy rate between 55 and 60 per cent throughout winter.

“From the 15th December until the end of March, we’re at 96 per cent occupancy, so we are basically full,” Mr coughyer said.

[continued]

 

[Must...Fly!]

There are plenty of customs / quarantine requirements with tangible costs implemented by all jurisdictions. There is no question the states can do this, so long as reasonable / proportionate.

Why not demand all arrivals in to WA present with test results less than 72hrs old that indicate no evidence of any respiratory virus at all?

At 90% double vaccinated of all 12+ the number of COVID related hospitalisations are at best trivial and the "threat" to public health then falls to barely worth discussing.

This isn't true for the various food or agriculture related protections that WA has for example. Which are largely self-regulated by the way as there are no wide ranging, significant or compulsory border checks despite the threat presented to various primary industries from various types of insects of bacteria not present in WA

 

[antycbr]

Why not demand all arrivals in to WA present with test results less than 72hrs old that indicate no evidence of any respiratory virus at all?

At 90% double vaccinated of all 12+ the number of COVID related hospitalisations are at best trivial and the "threat" to public health then falls to barely worth discussing.

This isn't true for the various food or agriculture related protections that WA has for example. Which are largely self-regulated by the way as there are no wide ranging, significant or compulsory border checks despite the threat presented to various primary industries from various types of insects of bacteria not present in WA

Next thing we will also need to have a HIV test.

That’s a very slippery slope.

Post automatically merged: Nov 6, 2021

Yes, Flight Centre is entitled to waste money filing the paperwork and watching the court quickly decline to hear the case . Perhaps the publicity will be worth it.

So in your view they don’t have standing?

 

[Doctore1003]

At 90% double vaccinated of all 12+ the number of COVID related hospitalisations are at best trivial and the "threat" to public health then falls to barely worth discussing.

I would love to live in this alternate reality you seem to inhabit.

Post automatically merged: Nov 7, 2021

Next thing we will also need to have a HIV test.

That’s a very slippery slope.

Post automatically merged: Nov 6, 2021

So in your view they don’t have standing?

That HIV comment is just bizarre.
As for standing, of course they have it. It’s merit they lack.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I would love to live in this alternate reality you seem to inhabit.

So the vaccines don't work then........?

That HIV comment is just bizarre.

How so? I though about making it myself. It is a communicable disease and a threat to the public and public health systems.

 

[N860CR]

I would love to live in this alternate reality you seem to inhabit.

Post automatically merged: Nov 7, 2021

That HIV comment is just bizarre.
As for standing, of course they have it. It’s merit they lack.

So what’s your suggestion?

 

[drron]

I would love to live in this alternate reality you seem to inhabit.

Post automatically merged: Nov 7, 2021

That HIV comment is just bizarre.
As for standing, of course they have it. It’s merit they lack.

As of 2019 48 countries still had restrictions on HIV travel.Search UN Aid.
And if the High Court heard Clive's case then Sroo's case would have no problems being heard. And now there are vaccines plus a Commonwealth government decision on opening borders. I think the odds would be with Sroo.

 

[love_the_life]

Damn. So much for the Tas requirement for interstate vistors to have a negative Covid test in 72 hrs before arriving (amended to apply to Vic, NSW & ACT only), predicted to be a deterrant:

Note: Saffire comes in at about $2,000/night:


Visitors fly south for the summer as Tasmania’s borders reopen to mainland states

CASHED-up travellers have stepped in to snap up bookings at Tasmania’s most famous luxury accommodation throughout summer and into early autumn.

The five-star Saffire Freycinet on the state’s East Coast is already approaching capacity, with more than 95 per cent occupancy from mid-December until the end of March.

Tasmania’s borders are set to fully reopen on December 15 to vaccinated travellers, including from the key domestic tourist markets of Victoria and NSW.

Saffire Freycinet general manager Ross coughyer said the destination had been well supported by Tasmanians, with an occupancy rate between 55 and 60 per cent throughout winter.

“From the 15th December until the end of March, we’re at 96 per cent occupancy, so we are basically full,” Mr coughyer said.

[continued]

I just cancelled a late January booking there as it is still too unpredictable with ACT being classed as high risk so will wait (again).

 

[Doctore1003]

So the vaccines don't work then........?



How so? I though about making it myself. It is a communicable disease and a threat to the public and public health systems.

I can't believe I have to explain this but HIV isn't airborne and doesn't spread like wildfire, leading to almost immediate hospitalisations and a possible hospital system overload.

It's the impact on the health system that justifies border restrictions regarding Covid.

Vaccines are effective but as we've seen in other jurisdictions their effectiveness wanes and a lot of people still end up in hospital. We need more time to see what boosters do, how herd immunity evolves etc. Until then, requiring people entering a state to prove they are vaccinated and return a negative test doesn't seem like an unreasonable burden to me. This may change later.

 

[Must...Fly!]

The requirement for a negative test is different to the requirement of the citizen to pay for the negative test though.

I'm sure it wouldn't go unnoticed in any potential case that several jurisdictions do not require a negative test for internal movement and yet some will.

It's a sad reflection on the strength of our constitution if the WA requirements are allowed to continue past a jab rate of 90%+ for 12+. Look to the EU which clearly values the concept of free movement and citizens right to it far more than we. If you are double vaxxed that is all you need.

 

[exceladdict]

The requirement for a negative test is different to the requirement of the citizen to pay for the negative test though.

Had an interesting discussion with Mrs Excel about this yesterday. If the measure is ultimately for protection of the citizenry (by preserving pressure on the health system) there's probably a reasonable argument that the citizenry should pay for it.

To me this feels like a reasonable argument to support taxpayer-funded on arrival testing - but I think the question of isolation until results come needs to be resolved. This is where the new, faster (albeit less accurate) tests come into play.

In the case of a positive result, it would be up to the traveller to fund their quarantine until negative (and to remove inconvenience, would encourage the traveller to fund their own pre-departure test). This is no different to testing positive in your hometown though? I imagine known positives are still expected to isolate until they become negative.

 

[drron]

I can't believe I have to explain this but HIV isn't airborne and doesn't spread like wildfire, leading to almost immediate hospitalisations and a possible hospital system overload.

It's the impact on the health system that justifies border restrictions regarding Covid.

Vaccines are effective but as we've seen in other jurisdictions their effectiveness wanes and a lot of people still end up in hospital. We need more time to see what boosters do, how herd immunity evolves etc. Until then, requiring people entering a state to prove they are vaccinated and return a negative test doesn't seem like an unreasonable burden to me. This may change later.

A disease doesn't have to be airborne to be communicable.I attended the annual; conference of the American college of physicians in March 1981 in San Francisco.believe me most thought it was spreading like wildfire.