Originally Posted by
KRviator
I'm saying that the priority of the CHO is to control the spread, and so long as they think they have the authority to shut out well over 60% of the Australian population as a means to an end then they will do that.
As for the Constitution, you can try by looking at s.117 "A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State." Now, the "standard test" as proposed by Justice Stephen in Henry v Boehm (slightly paraphrased)is to take two citizens, identical in every way, bar their state of residence, and ask the question "Can they do the same thing, and are they subject to the same penalties?".
You tell me that a citizen in Logan, Qld, where AIUI there has been confirmed transmission can travel to the Brisbane CBD, yet a citizen of Lismore, NSW cannot even enter Queensland, and the sole basis on which she has been rejected entry is she is from New South Wales, does not violate s.117. As was found in the Palmer v WA (No 4) trial, there are "reasonable alternative measures" that would not increase the risk to the WA population, yet they have not been introduced. Residents of NSW & Vic are still locked out of WA based on nothing more than their state of residence, no matter the amount - or lack thereof - of COVID cases in their locality.
And when you consider how many international arrivals Qld is taking per capita, they are managing less than 1/3rd of that entering NSW (91/Million, vs NSW at 301/Million) yet Anna-Stayaway has the gall to list their entire state as a 'hotspot' because her state isn't pulling its' weight? Puh-lease.
Ah, now I see the problem, you're a pilot, infectious diseases expert, virologist, Dr and now a constitutional lawyer! Prof Anne Twomey a well known constitutional lawyer said (as did others) at the start of the border closures that McGowan was well within the constitutional limits in closing the borders, as time went on she said that control of cv would weaken his position, then the Vic issues changed that again. The general consensus of Palmer's case over here was that is was in general to McGowan's advantage. I think you're making the mistake of taking a Judges ruling, without any contextual knowledge of it and applying in a broad brush fashion, most likely inappropriately.
You again make the mistake of thinking you're more than just a pilot. Btw, what is your response in relation to your "knowledge" of Av life expectancy?