TOPIC:

jackspratt wrote: While not expecting any early challenge, BC - the bush lawyer in me wonders how this latest shut down fits within S92 of the Oz Constitution.

Good question jack although I think the current crisis meets the test as set out by Brennan J.

In Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills, the following test was given by Brennan J. (as he then was) to determine whether a law infringes the s. 92 guarantee to free intercourse:[36]

- whether the law is enacted for the purpose of burdening interstate intercourse.
- if the law is enacted for some other purpose, whether it is appropriate and adapted to the fulfilment of that other purpose, but a law may be found to be enacted for the prohibited purpose by reference to its meaning or effect.
- where a law imposes a burden by reason of the crossing of the border, or it has the effect of preventing or impeding the crossing of the border, it will be held invalid if that is its only or chief purpose.
- the above are subject to permissible regulation which might take the form "of excluding from passage across the frontier of a State creatures or things calculated to injure its citizens", but the severity and need for such measures must still be assessed.

BC wrote:

jackspratt wrote: While not expecting any early challenge, BC - the bush lawyer in me wonders how this latest shut down fits within S92 of the Oz Constitution.

Good question jack although I think the current crisis meets the test as set out by Brennan J.

In Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills, the following test was given by Brennan J. (as he then was) to determine whether a law infringes the s. 92 guarantee to free intercourse:[36]

- whether the law is enacted for the purpose of burdening interstate intercourse.
- if the law is enacted for some other purpose, whether it is appropriate and adapted to the fulfilment of that other purpose, but a law may be found to be enacted for the prohibited purpose by reference to its meaning or effect.
- where a law imposes a burden by reason of the crossing of the border, or it has the effect of preventing or impeding the crossing of the border, it will be held invalid if that is its only or chief purpose.
- the above are subject to permissible regulation which might take the form "of excluding from passage across the frontier of a State creatures or things calculated to injure its citizens", but the severity and need for such measures must still be assessed.

Probably means it would get the green light.

But a mischievous litigant may wish to try their luck at Eucla, with their lawyer siting in the office with an already prepared writ of habeas corpus at hand, and ready to wander down to Stirling Gardens.

Think you will find there are powers under the health acts that override these provisions.

Devonleigh wrote: Think you will find there are powers under the health acts that override these provisions.

I doubt that any Act can override (ie conflict with) the Constitution.

A state order can be applied and in this case for health reasons, any person could then take the state to the high court if they think it’s unjust.
Nothing to see move on

BC wrote: Sneakers is getting serious now by completely closing down WA's borders from Sunday night at midnight. Not even West Aussies returning home will be allowed through. Only essential services, freight, coppers and emergency services can pass through. Good on ya Sneakers...you're doing a bloody good job as shown by only 8 new cases overnight.

I’m very sceptical about those figures BC because they’ve only been testing up until today those who are health care workers, those who have returned from overseas and those who have been in contact with a known covid-19 postitive person.

From today they have widened the criteria for those who present with a fever AND respiratory symptoms. That’s still not enough, we know you might not show symptoms up to 14 days after contracting the virus and case in point, Richard Wilkins was shocked to learn he had the virus because he didn’t have any symptoms.

Looking forward to Twiggys home testing kits getting out there then we will get a reality check I reckon.

jackspratt wrote:

Devonleigh wrote: Think you will find there are powers under the health acts that override these provisions.

I doubt that any Act can override (ie conflict with) the Constitution.

Agreed Jack but it's the interpretation of the Constitution by the courts that count.

DD wrote:

BC wrote: Sneakers is getting serious now by completely closing down WA's borders from Sunday night at midnight. Not even West Aussies returning home will be allowed through. Only essential services, freight, coppers and emergency services can pass through. Good on ya Sneakers...you're doing a bloody good job as shown by only 8 new cases overnight.

I’m very sceptical about those figures BC because they’ve only been testing up until today those who are health care workers, those who have returned from overseas and those who have been in contact with a known covid-19 postitive person.

From today they have widened the criteria for those who present with a fever AND respiratory symptoms. That’s still not enough, we know you might not show symptoms up to 14 days after contracting the virus and case in point, Richard Wilkins was shocked to learn he had the virus because he didn’t have any symptoms.

Looking forward to Twiggys home testing kits getting out there then we will get a reality check I reckon.

Agreed DD...the more testing the better...but if there were large numbers who are asymptomatic then that would start to show in communal infections not linked to travel or cruise ships and we're just not seeing that at the moment.

Stand the Test wrote:

DD wrote:

BC wrote: Sneakers is getting serious now by completely closing down WA's borders from Sunday night at midnight. Not even West Aussies returning home will be allowed through. Only essential services, freight, coppers and emergency services can pass through. Good on ya Sneakers...you're doing a bloody good job as shown by only 8 new cases overnight.

I’m very sceptical about those figures BC because they’ve only been testing up until today those who are health care workers, those who have returned from overseas and those who have been in contact with a known covid-19 postitive person.

From today they have widened the criteria for those who present with a fever AND respiratory symptoms. That’s still not enough, we know you might not show symptoms up to 14 days after contracting the virus and case in point, Richard Wilkins was shocked to learn he had the virus because he didn’t have any symptoms.

Looking forward to Twiggys home testing kits getting out there then we will get a reality check I reckon.

Are these the ones twiggy got by hitting up his contacts in China DD?

Yep I’d say so STD. Our mates he calls them. Lol, mates who stripped Australia’s PPE supplies bare to send to China. Cos that’s what mates do?

Dont give a shit what you call them, Twiggy has managed to get a shedload of much needed medical supplies so more strength to him and his contacts in China.