If this is true, then Australia is no longer a democracy and we are ruled by a bunch of thugs. The spirit of the Chinese Communist Party is already with us.

Part of the problem is a "I want to be liked" prime minister" who disappears ever time there is a problem. If it was John Howard, a pandemic would have been declared a national emergency with a national response. Instead we now have a fragmented community with 'border wars'. The author is right. The states need to either succeed or not close their borders.

Excellent article, thank you.

The high court case was appalling, How did we get here that even the people support the balkanization of the nation and ignoring its returning citizens. What value is there in a nation when this stupidity is not only allowed but encouraged ? It's particularity egregious to see citizens supporting the destruction of the nation and then reinforcing those terrible decisions with extra votes for the politicians that do it. Voters, like scared little children huddling in the dark wanting mummy or daddy premier to scare the boogie man away.

The federal Government shoudl withhold all GST payments to any state that closed its borders . It shoudl also instruct the Central Bank to cease purchasing any debt from the states that believe they are not part of the nation (currently being done as part of the QE program).

This was the most appalling display I have ever seen by people of the disparate states of Australia, the QLD Govt was elected with an increased majority because of this. I don't blame the premiers, I blame the voters who supported these terrible actions, shame on you. Just reinforces why I am so ashamed of being Australian.

ummm, Australia is a federation.

State governments have rights and powers, as does the Federal govt.

When there are disputes, a govt can take the issue to the High Court.

Section 109 will be utilised to decide whether Commonwealth law will prevail.

But don't expect a High Court to over rule state rights on an important health issue where borders may count.

So, now Viruses are to be expected to conform to bureaucratic nonsense & the whims of the indisciplined ?

I'm not at all sure that the high court would agree with the author's questionable interpretation of the constitution? And to call a difference of opinion, a border war, demonstrates how much he/she overplays, his/her hand!

I'd call it C.R.A.P. but that would be much too much generous praise and then some! Da?
Alan B.

Time for a root and branch review of our foreign-imposed constitution. To enable, we the people, to have our rights enshrined in irrevocable law! True equality before the law! One vote one value democracy and a citizen's initiated referendum! One tier tax laws that include all profit takers and income earners! And that's just the start of the reforms we need!

Another must be the end of the obscene salaries some take from the "Animal Farm" we call government by the people and the multinationals and their highly dubious business models!

Our quagmire of a science-free, energy policy and some of the highest energy prices in the world and the most unaffordable housing anywhere? All made possible by a congo line of cosy cronyism and corruption in high office?

There's lots of stuff that need fixing, of a huge order of magnitude, above the very temporary closure of our borders!
Alan B.

My goodness really?

This is all pretty straightforward.

"The Australian Constitution does not provide the Commonwealth Government with a core or general 'emergency power' with which to respond to exceptional threats and crises. Rather, special powers are provided for in ordinary and typically state-level legislation that defines the conditions under which specific kinds of emergencies might be declared. In the absence of fixed definitions, legal scholars tend to classify three kinds of emergency that might necessitate the use of such powers: 'wartime' emergencies; emergencies pertaining to 'serious civil disturbances', including treason, sabotage or terrorism; and 'civil emergencies', including from natural, medical and industrial disasters, strikes in essential services, and economic emergencies."
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/publications/research-papers/download/36-research-papers/13962-emergency-powers-public-health-and-covid-19#_ftn17

It is the State's call on this one and unless the author is looking to change the constitution to give the Commonwealth government clearly defined emergency powers for civil emergencies then he needs to stop bleating.

" unless the author is looking to change the constitution to give the Commonwealth government clearly defined emergency powers "

Well since the author doesn't mention emergency powers or even use the word emergency perhaps it might be clear to even the dullest members of OLO that that's not his point.

The author is talking about the constitutional guarantees that all Australians irrespective of their state have (or used to have) equal rights with all other citizens.

Perhaps next time read the article before telling the author what not to think.

The really interesting or frightening thing about this whole lockdown fiasco is the way the people and those institutions that are supposed to protect freedoms and liberties have meekly succumb to the 'emergency' powers.

A disease that killed 900 people over a 12 month period (if you accept the numbers) and most of those caused by bureaucrat stuff-ups in the most authoritarian state in the nation. Yet, with the full backing of the media, the medical fraternity, the police, most NGO's, the people were convinced that all life was at risk and that the only way to save themselves and their loved-ones was to bow to the will of the elites.

Favoured groups were permitted to flout these new 'rules' with no apparent health effects. But unfavoured groups who did so were ruthless suppressed by the police, while the media stood by cheering. And as such resistance was squashed, the people were encouraged, brow-beaten into believing it was done for their benefit.

To ease the path of the new authoritarians, the wealth of the nation was squandered to keep the mass appeased. Now, as the effects of that wanton economic vandalism becomes apparent to even the dullest, their only solution is to squander more wealth.

Liberties lost are not easily recovered. Liberties freely surrendered even less so. Those who think or claim that this is a one-off, have little understanding of power structures. The elites and those who are at-heart of an authoritarian bent, have learned how easy it is to suppress a people, suppress the law, suppress liberties, by simply declaring this or that an emergency.

The net pandemic will be likewise. By why wait for that? How far away are we from a 'climate emergency'? And the bar has been set so low. 900 people died to date. More die each year on the roads. More die each year from the 'flu.

There are potential emergencies aplenty. Thinking the authorities won't use them is naivety writ large.

The High Court is appalling, civil liberties have been denied?

Really, well how come the majority of people have supported the process, albeit they would also recognise some of the stuff ups in a difficult situation.

Care to offer any other sensible national approaches that surpass Australia's response?

I deliberately wrote this before reading through the other comments.
My response is both 'yes' and 'no' to the ideas expressed.

We need to keep in mind that each state has its own constitution, as well being covered by that of the commonwealth.
There are written exceptions in all, such as a constitution being suspended in time of war, and allowance for other grave emergencies.
The Covid-19 pandemic is definitely life threatening.
Without remediation, massive casualties could result?
In this unusual and extreme situation, states are right to 'shut the door' to prevent the movement of people, and the consequent transfer of infection?
I suggest this is IMPLIED by clauses in the commonwealth constitution.
So, states do have the right to close borders?

And furthermore..
The commonwealth came in to being by popular vote at the beginning of the last century.
Five generations ago at least.
I don't think present day peoples can be bound by what was decided by others long ago.
Surely those who engineered the agreement didn't think they could make decisions for people living hundreds of years in the future?
Those alive now have an inalienable right to make changes to suit current conditions?
In fact, I think it logical that, as each state declared its individual willingness to form the commonwealth, any can now simply use the same mechanism, and declare its independence from the commonwealth.
It might be convenient not to make changes, but it is still something very much 'on the table'?
However, no changes can or should be made without comprehensive discussion within a state, and the agreement of a large majority in that state.
And, as is universal, any state declaring independence must be willing to defend its right to self determination.
Since federation, independence has been considered several times by particular states?
But so far, all states have stayed with the current arrangement, as no doubt they see it serves their purpose adequately.

Those alive now have an inalienable right to make changes to suit current conditions?
Ipso fatso,
On the nail ! And, only the revenue producers should be allowed to make those decisions !
Public Service Bureaucrats should not be allowed to vote !

All Australians have rights to a degree. And not just so-called revenue earners, who have their revenue earned for them by mostly other folks!

There're several issues we face of an order of magnitude way above the very temporary closure of state borders. One of them is the constant meddling in our affairs by China to change outcomes?

They want us to shut down manufacture and buy all our manufactured goods from them as we export raw materials and play host to around a million foreign nationals?

One of the things they want to change is the fact that we intend to mine and refine rare-earth! And completely shot China plans for this commodity and the industrial blackmail, down in flames? She was trying on the total transfer of manufacturing and technology using this as their ace in the hole, bargaining chip!

I suggest the pandemic and essential border closures has been timely and requires of us to revitalise manufacturing and processing in this country! To that end, we need to reform our current energy policy, given the current paradigm is not fit for the above purpose! See the FB public domain vids I've shared, to understand what is poss.
Alan B.

All Australians have rights to a degree. And not just so-called revenue earners, who have their revenue earned for them by mostly other folks!
Alan N,
Ideally yes, as things stand no ! We have a situation where those who contribute the least end up with the biggest slices of the cake. Why ? Because the system has been manipulated by them under the hood of "Education" whereby anyone "educated" is automatically deemed entitled to receive more than those who produce the goods & revenue we all live off.
Let me make this crystal clear; I don't think anyone has a problem with educated people who pull their weight. The problem are those who don't yet still occupy positions, particularly in Govt funded institutions, where literally nothing of value to anyone is produced at way above average wages/salaries. I have witnessed very competent people being replaced by more "educated" ones yet the former performed many times better ! It's gotten to a stage now where all one needs is a BA & presto, they got the job, no questions asked ! This is wrong ! We must employ people by merit, not by mere Uni attendance !

Suppose the author is correct and the border closures are indeed unconstitutional - so what?