Clive Palmer court battle: Queensland says replacing WA’s hard border with travel bubble risks COVID outbreak

Queensland says WA’s fight to keep COVID-19 out of the State would be “weakened” if it was forced to replace the hard border with a travel bubble. The Queensland Government made the warning in a submission in support of the WA Government’s defence of its border closure against Clive Palmer’s court challenge. It comes after the Sunshine State reopened its borders last month and is now braced for a possible outbreak of community transmission as it tries to keep out travellers from Victoria and Sydney. A constitutional expert said the evidence could have a “very powerful” effect in convincing the High Court a targeted hotspot strategy was not as effective or practicable as the border closure. Queensland Solicitor-General Sandy Thompson told the Federal Court that none of the “hypothetical alternative measures” would be as effective in protecting the people of WA. Mr Thompson wrote that the integrity of a travel bubble was “only as strong as its weakest link”. And he pointed to the two Brisbane women who last week tested positive to COVID-19 after partying in Melbourne and returning home via NSW. “The weakness of the hypothetical alternative was very recently demonstrated by the two cases imported into Queensland from Melbourne via Sydney, resulting in secondary transmission in Queensland and the need for a school, shopping centres and restaurants to be closed on the south side of Brisbane,” he told the court. “Were Western Australia a member of a travel bubble with Queensland, it would need to bear the risk Queensland has exposed itself to. “Notably, of the five elimination jurisdictions, Queensland, the NT and the ACT have a porous border with NSW, subject to hotspots. In turn, SA has a porous border with the NT and Queensland. Tasmania does not have a hard border at all, relying upon quarantine. “It follows that none of the elimination jurisdictions meet the requirement to conclude that a travel bubble would be as effective in addressing the risk posed by COVID-19 to Western Australia.” Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey said the biggest issue faced by the court was to decide if the Queensland and NT restrictions on people arriving from hotspots were a “reasonable alternative” to the hard border. “(Queensland’s) evidence could well be very powerful in terms of looking at whether or not an alternative form of law is as effective in protecting public health,” she said. “If Queensland can show that it’s not as effective, then that would make it more likely that the High Court would say: ‘OK, well there aren’t other reasonable and effective alternatives. Therefore, in this particular case, closing the border may be all right.’ “It’s those sorts of developments that will potentially impact upon how the High Court sees what is reasonably necessary in the circumstances.” Professor Twomey said it was “incredibly difficult” to predict the outcome of the case, to be heard in the High Court in October, because the situation was constantly changing. WA Solicitor-General Joshua Thomson, in his closing written submission, said the hotspot strategy suffered from five fundamental deficiencies:

Clive Palmer court battle: Queensland says replacing WA’s hard border with travel bubble risks COVID outbreak

Subscribe today.

Digital

Everyday Digital

Digital & Print

Weekend Papers + Everyday Digital

Register NowJoin Australia’s most popular premier, Mark McGowan, and State Treasurer Ben Wyatt for breakfast.

Regional Network

Contact Us

Sound Telegraph