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.