PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   All borders to reopen. (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/632861-all-borders-reopen.html)

Green.Dot 16th Jul 2021 20:16


Originally Posted by Turnleft080 (Post 11079665)
Weather we are 50/60/70/80% vaccinated it's still going to go ballistic and it must in order for it to go.

A bit like a PROB40 on a TAF yeah?
:}

aviation_enthus 16th Jul 2021 20:36


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079494)

If a nationally consistent and effective response to a pandemic is not squarely within the Commonwealth’s executive power, I’ll cartwheel nude down Northbourne Avenue.

Some elements can be nationally consistent and within the Commonwealth’s executive power…
- quarantine arrangements
​​​​​​- border restrictions
​​​​​​- funding allocations for various extra health measures (Eg purchase of vaccines)

Actually paying medical staff to run health departments is NOT, hence its subject to the whims of various Premiers.

The Commonwealth has already differed and f****d around with their responsibilities, why do you think a “national approach” would make us better off?!

Plus I think some of the response to a pandemic SHOULD be more local. Australia is a massive country, restrictions in Perth wouldn’t even be relevant to Broome, let alone the East Coast. Within QLD is hard enough with 2000 km between Brisbane and Cairns.

To be honest, why can’t we have some states trying things slightly differently? I think it’s actually a strength having this flexibility within our system of government. How else would we find out if different measures are better or worse in the Australian context?

For all the drama in the USA, they had 50 states doing their own thing with regards to local lockdowns, masks, restrictions, etc. The information that comes out of various reviews over the next 6-12 months will be fascinating.



Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079494)
It’s just that Scotty wants to be able to spread the blame.

Yes!
But…
It also requires the Premiers to do their jobs, in the areas allocated to them (like the health response!) arguably most have been struggling with that too…

Lead Balloon 16th Jul 2021 22:18


Originally Posted by MickG0105 (Post 11079537)
The top search response is for the Australian Parliament House's Parliamentary Paper No 63 - Commonwealth Executive Power and Accountability Following Williams (No 2) (where Williams (No 2) is Williams v Commonwealth (No. 2) (2014) 252 CLR 416, as opposed to Williams v Commonwealth (2012) 248 CLR 156 (Williams (No. 1)).

Apart from the problem that "nationhood power" is essentially a legal construct that sits outside of the Constitution, there's prior High Court precedent, specifically Williams (Nos 1 and 2), that has found that the concept of a "nationhood power" does not trump the the division of legislative responsibilities spelled out in S.51. In the cases where the High Court has found that the "nationhood power" provides a legitimate basis for the Commonwealth exercising a power not otherwise articulated it has been largely related to S.61 - for example, Davis v Commonwealth (1988) 166 CLR 97 regards the Commonwealth's power to establish the Australian Bicentennial Authority.

Then there's the matter of what exactly is "nationhood power"? The High Court has found that it is an implied executive power derived, in part, from Australia’s national status. And the only reason that the concept of "nationhood power" gets a run is that when the Constitution Act was passed in 1901, there were certain external national powers that Australia could not at that time exercise. For example, at the time Australia could not declare war or enter treaties. It was only after the retreat of the Crown through things like the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930, the passage of the Statute of Westminster and the corresponding Australian legislation, the Statute of Westminster (Adoption) Act, and finally the Australia Acts, that Australia had the opportunity to fully exercise external powers.

With regards to what exactly falls under "nationhood power", the High Court routinely relies on a definition provided by Justice Mason in Victoria v Commonwealth and Hayden (the AAP Case) (1975) 134 CLR 338; specifically he describd it as ‘a capacity to engage in enterprises and activities peculiarly adapted to the government of a nation and which cannot otherwise be carried on for the benefit of the nation'. It's often referred to as 'peculiarly adapted' test although the 'which cannot otherwise be carried on' element is also important.

On the basis that a determination on how best to manage health matters had been made at the outset of federation, there's an argument that the 'peculiarly adapted' test was done and dusted 120 years ago - the determination was that the Commonwealth was not 'peculiarly adapted' to manage the nation's health, that would be an activity that would be 'otherwise be carried on for the benefit of the nation' by the states. The fact that that arrangement was tested by a pandemic less than two decades later could be seen as an argument in its favour.

Further, without having to invoke "nationhood power" to support a Federal power grab, there are a range of mechanisms to provide for a nationally coordinated and effective response to national health emergencies, things like the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, the Advisory Committee on Vaccines and the like.


That'd be a matter for the High Court - just in case, you would probably want a summer hearing on the matter.

The High Court ultimately decides these things? Who knew?

It’s as nearly as startling a revelation as viruses being virulent.

I’m not sure how a Schools Chaplaincy Programme has quite the national significance as an existential threat like a pandemic. But I suppose it depends on one’s religious views. Perhaps Chaplains can pray our way out of the pandemic.

Any second year law student analysis of the vertical fiscal imbalance and section 96 of the Constitution, and the implications for the Commonwealth’s powers?

Aviation enthus: 18 months in, and we don’t have a nationally-consistent definition and understanding of what an essential worker is. Brilliant. And it’s not a ‘one or the other’ (Federal or State) doing ‘everything’ argument. It’s about who should be in charge and why.

mattyj 16th Jul 2021 22:23


Please do yourself a favour and read the Australian Constitution.
..don’t do that! If you ever wanted to stand for public office that would make you ineligible

Turnleft080 16th Jul 2021 22:32


Originally Posted by Green.Dot (Post 11079861)
A bit like a PROB40 on a TAF yeah?
:}

I will wether that.
Thanks Mr Dot.

PROB40 TEMPO 1623/1703 SEV TURB NSW/VIC REGION FROM ASSOCIATED POLITICAL TROUGH

Green.Dot 16th Jul 2021 22:48


Originally Posted by Turnleft080 (Post 11079911)
I will wether that.
Thanks Mr Dot.

PROB40 TEMPO 1623/1703 SEV TURB NSW/VIC REGION FROM ASSOCIATED POLITICAL TROUGH

Ha ha, good one. If only COVID was a TEMPO

SHVC 17th Jul 2021 00:02

Ouch, 19 new cases for Vic seems to be running away already. NSW predicted to have 111 today. Liberal Vs Labor battle techniques, who will win.

Foxxster 17th Jul 2021 00:13


Originally Posted by SHVC (Post 11079942)
Ouch, 19 new cases for Vic seems to be running away already. NSW predicted to have 111 today. Liberal Vs Labor battle techniques, who will win.

well given that number for NSW , expected as it is, we will definitely see harsher measures announced this morning. Which I suspect will look VERY much like the current Victorian ones….

SHVC 17th Jul 2021 00:20

Fox, I bloody hope so. I’m a Glady fan but SY ppl are not doing the right thing and she is worried about upsetting them. Time to close everything down tonight, if she does we could come out of this by early September if she doesn’t well this will dribble on well into 2022 and NSW being locked out of rest of the country.

Liklik balus 17th Jul 2021 00:21

Buckle up people!!
The Victorian lockdown will be extended AT LEAST until next weekend, maybe longer......and so I do advise. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!

Foxxster 17th Jul 2021 00:24


Originally Posted by SHVC (Post 11079945)
Fox, I bloody hope so. I’m a Glady fan but SY ppl are not doing the right thing and she is worried about upsetting them. Time to close everything down tonight, if she does we could come out of this by early September if she doesn’t well this will dribble on well into 2022 and NSW being locked out of rest of the country.

you can put your house on it, assuming you still have it… we will be in FULL, proper lockdown this time tomorrow. Will be announced this morning… major embarrassment to Gladys. And the nsw health experts. Again. Remember why we are in this cluster …. in the first place.

MickG0105 17th Jul 2021 00:30


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079904)
The High Court ultimately decides these things? Who knew?

It’s as nearly as startling a revelation as viruses being virulent.

Yes, I know. I have this propensity to state facts, even going so far as stating what might be self-evident to some ... as terrible as it is I've got to say that I still find it preferable to the alternatives.


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079904)
Any second year law student analysis of the vertical fiscal imbalance and section 96 of the Constitution, and the implications for the Commonwealth’s powers?

Apologies but I don't know any second year law students.


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079904)
I’m not sure how a Schools Chaplaincy Programme has quite the national significance as an existential threat like a pandemic. But I suppose it depends on one’s religious views. Perhaps Chaplains can pray our way out of the pandemic.

If you do manage to find a second year law student get them to explain the doctrine of precedent and legal principles. You might also consider what former Chief Justice Spigelman noted on the topic of trying to do end runs on the Constitution:

It is not permissible to approach the Constitution on the basis that whatever is in the institutional interests of the Commonwealth must be the law.

SOPS 17th Jul 2021 00:40


Originally Posted by Foxxster (Post 11079948)
you can put your house on it, assuming you still have it… we will be in FULL, proper lockdown this time tomorrow. Will be announced this morning… major embarrassment to Gladys. And the nsw health experts. Again. Remember why we are in this cluster …. in the first place.


I really hope Gladys wakes up today.

PoppaJo 17th Jul 2021 00:59

Victoria will have problems with leakage for as long as this is alive in Sydney. It will be a question of how many days post this short lockdown, they go before the next leak arrives. Sydney are stuck with this active in the community for at least August and into September. How do we protect Victoria for those two months?.

Would be great if we could invest in rapid testing. If the FedEx crew had been, the chances of all this going on would have been greatly reduced. All foreign based aircrew should be at a minimum on arrival and exit. They are only here for 24/48 hrs.

Brisbane to Cairns set to be the number one route again

ScepticalOptomist 17th Jul 2021 01:25

Or we could actually stop panicking about “cases” and accept that the horse has bolted.

The elderly are mostly protected now, and out of all the “young” infected, none have died. A zero CFR.

Time to get a grip and stop being so scared by the scary media reporting.

-41 17th Jul 2021 01:40


Originally Posted by PoppaJo (Post 11079952)
Victoria will have problems with leakage for as long as this is alive in Sydney. It will be a question of how many days post this short lockdown, they go before the next leak arrives. Sydney are stuck with this active in the community for at least August and into September. How do we protect Victoria for those two months?.

Would be great if we could invest in rapid testing. If the FedEx crew had been, the chances of all this going on would have been greatly reduced. All foreign based aircrew should be at a minimum on arrival and exit. They are only here for 24/48 hrs.

Brisbane to Cairns set to be the number one route again

I stopped following the NSW debacle, is there any credible evidence detailing the FedEx crew tested positive in AUSTRALIA other than what been implied by the political press release. I did read a article where an Independent journalist was unable to attain any proof from the NSW government Or FedEx to back up this claim.

The horse has bolted through the gate, however the timeline is interesting as I would have expected international crew to be CV tested on arrival. My personal experience has been they take less than 12 hours for a text message response from the lab following the test at the domestic terminal. Surely a international crew would have then been advised via public health officials to isolate or been quarantined to prevent transmission by the crew.

How long would a freight crew layover be ? Why did the test results take longer than the layover in this case, I get mine prior to sign on for the next day.

.

Green.Dot 17th Jul 2021 02:04


Originally Posted by SHVC (Post 11079942)
NSW predicted to have 111 today.

you have a reliable insider! Rarely seen on this site!

Foxxster 17th Jul 2021 02:10

NSW ..111 new cases, 29 in community. Premiers press conference..

further actions from today..

until July 30, people in western Sydney 3 local govt areas have to stay …cannot leave for work or any other reason unless health or emergency workers. Liverpool, Bankstown and one other..

from midnight, only CRITICAL retail to remain open… they have a list of what is critical on website.

no car pooling allowed

until July 30, NO CONSTRUCTION WORK, at all across Sydney. Including large construction ie commercial sites. Plus residential. Except emergency repairs.

of course July 30 will be a moveable date…

Torukmacto 17th Jul 2021 02:14

At some stage ( hopefully soon ) numbers won’t be released . It’s here to stay . Get on with it should be the line from Goverment.

Foxxster 17th Jul 2021 02:18


Originally Posted by Torukmacto (Post 11079969)
At some stage ( hopefully soon ) numbers won’t be released . It’s here to stay . Get on with it should be the line from Goverment.


won’t be until December at the earliest. We need to get vaccinated rate right up to at least around 60%+ probably more like 70%. I would think around feb or March next year..

gladys has mentioned 80% which is ridiculous. That would take us until this time next year as I suspect rates will start to flatten right off once we get around the 65% to 70% mark.


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:56.


Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.