How has COVID 19 affected your flying or intended flying

[turboplanner]

Section 92 of the Australian constitution makes the whole state boarder closed thing illegal. No if's or but's There is no higher law than the constitution if there is a conflict between laws the constitution trumps it. Declaring a state of emergency makes zero difference.

I've lived with Section 92 all my life, so I'm very familiar with it; in a nutshell it guarantees free trade and intercourse between States, and I can see where using the word "closed" is technically incorrect. What is happening is when you want to cross a border Police will be assessing you and taking appropriate action, which may be to let you continue if you are driving a truck (transport is an essential service), or vehicle on the way to a job, or even in your car/caravan, subject to you spending two weeks in isolation. As of today's announcement, in Victoria that would be at the nearest motel, or wherever they take you, then you would go through, and do the same at the next border.

So Section 92 would not be breached; trade and intercourse (which had a different meaning when S92 was established) will still be taking place.

I think the State of Emergency frees up money. The lever which hasn't been pulled is State of Disaster.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the #125 or SoD unless we go to full lockdown, when in fact no one will be crosing a border except a few emergency workers.

[SplitS]

I've lived with Section 92 all my life, so I'm very familiar with it; in a nutshell it guarantees free trade and intercourse between States, and I can see where using the word "closed" is technically incorrect. What is happening is when you want to cross a border Police will be assessing you and taking appropriate action, which may be to let you continue if you are driving a truck (transport is an essential service), or vehicle on the way to a job, or even in your car/caravan, subject to you spending two weeks in isolation. As of today's announcement, in Victoria that would be at the nearest motel, or wherever they take you, then you would go through, and do the same at the next border.

So Section 92 would not be breached; trade and intercourse (which had a different meaning when S92 was established) will still be taking place.

I think the State of Emergency frees up money. The lever which hasn't been pulled is State of Disaster.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the #125 or SoD unless we go to full lockdown, when in fact no one will be crosing a border except a few emergency workers.

Do miss quote it to be misleading? Or you just don't understand the meaning??

"trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

Simples.

[octave]

States are shutting their borders to stop coronavirus. Is that actually allowed?

[SplitS]

We have very few rights in Australia one of them is the freedom of movement between state's

http://www.primafacie.com.au/2017/03/08/rights-protected-australian-constitution/

“A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.”

— Section 117

[facthunter]

Is it OK to suspend the sitting of the Parliament and the CABINET runs the Country?. That is NOT the government. It's ONE part of it.. Many electorates are currently not represented at all in the lower house with this current situation.. That cannot be an acceptable situation. Nev

[turboplanner]

Do miss quote it to be misleading? Or you just don't understand the meaning??

"trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

Simples.

They're not reintroducing tolls.

[octave]

FREEDOM TO TRADE AND MOVE AMONG THE STATES.

 

Australians carrying out trade or commerce between states are guaranteed reasonable freedom of economic regulation. That is for example, you can’t introduce a tariff for products produced in Queensland and then sold in Victoria.

“On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported before the imposition of uniform duties of customs into any State, or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein, becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into another State within two years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty chargeable on the importation of such goods into the Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the goods on their importation.”

— Section 92

[facthunter]

Not just Tolls. If you can't do work on your interstate property or supply it by access being not permitted you are disadvantaged compared to some one who resides there . Vehicle registration is state based but you can drive a VIC registered car all over the Country without discrimination. supposedly. Nev

[turboplanner]

Is it OK to suspend the sitting of the Parliament and the CABINET runs the Country?. That is NOT the government. It's ONE part of it.. Many electorates are currently not represented at all in the lower house with this current situation.. That cannot be an acceptable situation. Nev

It's a bit late in the day to pull that one since the National Cabinet was established weeks ago.

The Commonwealth Parliament is still operating normally

The State Governments are still operating normally

The Territory Governments are still operating normally

 

I've mentioned before that when the Federal Parliament is sitting, 4,000 people are employed on site. Even when it's not sitting there are 2,000 people there, so the parliamentary process is continuing to process the usual load of bills, and the same thing is happening .

 

The two Territory Governments which are subservient to the Commonwealth Government are doing the same.

 

The Six Sovereigh States which govern all internal State affairs are doing the same.

 

The Coalition Cabinet in the Commonwealth Parliament is still meeting and still discussing Australia's day to day external affairs.

 

Normally, because the States are self-governing, their decisions and approaches to any subject can be quite different, and they are under no legal obligation to listen to what the Commonwealth wants and vice versa.

 

During the recent fire crisis we saw the States, who own their own fire services fighting the fires and the Commonwealth sitting back unable to enter their jurisdictions until reequested. That's how we operate.

 

For this crisis we had to have a common approach, legislation had to be drawn up fast and matching, as the crisis unfolded, so a stand alone National Cabinet was formed consisting of the Prime Minister representing the Commonwealth, the State Premiers, and the Territory Chief Mininsters.

 

They in turn are taking their advice from the AHPPC (Australian Health Protection Principal Committee

 

And I think, if we go a State of Disaster, The Chief Medical Officers gets even more powers.

[facthunter]

The Commonwealth Parliament is NOT operating NORMALLY. It's not sitting .The CABINET is NOT a government. The Governor General swears in a Parliamentary group including Independents and a group called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition which is the Government of Australia including the Senate which also is not sitting.

A Cabinet meeting in Canberra these days is from the Liberal National Parties Ranks .No one else. They can decide LNP Policy but not be a substitute for a Parliament or act as such. LEGALLY. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

@Flying Binghi - I agree that we don't know whether or not the 21 year old had underlying issues or not - however, how many people aged, say 18 - 50 have or don't have some underlying issue that will allow the virus to take hold and kill them? We don't know. Regardless, in today's western societies, it is unacceptable that we do not apply our medical knowledge to save lives of people even wuth unknown medical conditions and the problem then becomes, if we allow too many beds to be occupied by people and have to start making decisions about who to give those beds, the percentage and number of deaths will rise - possibly exponentially - and many of those will have been preventable deaths but for the lack of resources to cope.

 

The question then becomes somewhat qualitative - how far to we go to protect what could go well beyond the average mortality rates caused by the flu to preserve our individual freedoms. It's highly subjective and I think comes down to something like this: Do we prevent the spread to keep the infection rate curve shallow so that the herd builds up its immunity but preserving all but those that would succumb to it regarldess of treatment - but maybe even stop many of those from even contracting it, or do we allow it to spread like wildfire and take out those we could normally treat, but make the herd stronger as a result? They are extremes but this is the sort of questions it boils down to. At present, governments on the east and west divide seem to be going for the former and I personally am not uncomfortable with that.

 

@SplitS: I am by no means even knowledgeable on the Aussie constitution and don't have the time to do research. But the article you presetned about declaring an emergency, although not seemingly enshrined in legislation has common law roots - possibly inherited from the British legal doctrine of Royal Prerogative. In the judgment of Pape cited in the article, the majority of the HCA ruled:

 

‘The Executive Government is the arm of government capable of and empowered to respond to a crisis be it war, natural disaster or a financial crisis on the scale [of the Global Financial Crisis]’. In that case the executive government (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) can act to take control of the disaster even without legislative authority. '

 

There was a strong dissent by Brennan, but notwithstanding, there was no legal authority cited that overturned or substantially modified the decision in Pape. So, while there is no legislative authority, there appears to be a legal authority. It is conceded the question of fact wasn't tested in the case - but that comes down to whether or not the GFC is sufficient to be called a disaster, emergency or whatever the terminology is.

 

On section 92, the Wikipedia entry is illuminating - basically it is not black and white as people are asserting.. In fact, it seems to come down to as long as there is no discrimination amongs the people of all states, the barrier may well be legal.

 

Under Nationwide News v Wells, cited in the Wikipedia article, the tests of the barriers are, and let's face it, if you are immobilsing people for 14 days for entering, it is in effect a barrier:

 

• whether the law is enacted for the purpose of burdening interstate intercourse. [JA: Not technically - they are enacted to stop the spread of Coronavirus]
  
• 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. [JA: Tough question - see below]
  
• 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. [JA: Definitetly not its chief purpose. I like to think the days of rivalry between Vics and NSW, for example, are long gone and only held by a few relics, or those at high risk to COVID-19]
  
• 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. [JA: The first part is met and the second part seems to talk to appropriateness above]
  

The bits in [JA...] are obviously my take on it; others may have a different view. The question of appropriateness is probably subjective; why state borders and not local council borders, etc? I can only think that (at least the time of me leaving Australia) is that the states are responsible at least for the administration of the public health systems and therefore, going back to the idea is to slow and hopefully stop the spread so the state health systems can cope, this would seem sensible.

 

I am not a lawyer, and am certainly not a judge.. so my 2 cents worth more than anything. Bu s. 92 appears to be anything but cut and dry.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks guys. Now here is another question... My wife is a registered volunteer at the Edenhope hospital. She has been asked if she will do some volunteer work, like transporting patients.

I said to ask about the details of what protections she will be offered.

What protections should we insist on before she agrees to help?

My personal inclination is to approve the work, but surely they should have precautions in mind to protect their volunteers?

[turboplanner]

Thanks guys. Now here is another question... My wife is a registered volunteer at the Edenhope hospital. She has been asked if she will do some volunteer work, like transporting patients.

I said to ask about the details of what protections she will be offered.

What protections should we insist on before she agrees to help?

My personal inclination is to approve the work, but surely they should have precautions in mind to protect their volunteers?

I've been working flat out allday today trying to get four Councils to post links on their websites so people can get information. In amongst that I found a link for medical staff, I think on the Victorian SitE but my brain is abouy fried. I'll have a look in a minute and if I can find it I think it will be exacty what you need.

[turboplanner]

Thanks guys. Now here is another question... My wife is a registered volunteer at the Edenhope hospital. She has been asked if she will do some volunteer work, like transporting patients.

I said to ask about the details of what protections she will be offered.

What protections should we insist on before she agrees to help?

My personal inclination is to approve the work, but surely they should have precautions in mind to protect their volunteers?

Try these:

[phantomphixer]

If I got into conversation with a stranger about aviation and they referred the the aircrafts accelerator rather than the throttle I would probably dismiss what they had to say or at least realize that they were certainly not knowledgeable on the subject.

 

The virus is Cov-2 it causes the Covid 19 illness.

 

The use of inaccurate terminology detracts from any point you are trying to make. I am wondering why you believe china flu or china virus is better or more accurate language to use? Apart from the fact that calling it flu is just incorrect even calling it china virus is hopelessly vague especially after this is over. How will people know whether you are referring to SARS of 2003 or any other illness that was first detected in that country.

 

Oh by the way where did the Spanish flu (N1H1) originate? (probably not where you think)

I believe it was in France.

[octave]

Whatever the legality the fact is it is the logical and rational thing to do as was done in the flu pandemic of 1919. I will undoubtedly save some lives and it would be moronic for anyone to object given the gravity of the situation. I can't imagine there would be many people objecting to this.

 

Fears of coronavirus spike as backpackers and holidaymakers continue to crowd into Byron Bay and nearby towns

[spacesailor]

Will we Deport those backpackers after their holiday, considering their countries are Closed to them !. ?

spacesailor

[Flying Binghi]

@Flying Binghi - I agree that we don't know whether or not the 21 year old had underlying issues or not - however, how many people aged, say 18 - 50 have or don't have some underlying issue that will allow the virus to take hold and kill them? We don't know. Regardless, in today's western societies, it is unacceptable that we do not apply our medical knowledge to save lives of people even wuth unknown medical conditions and the problem then becomes, if we allow too many beds to be occupied by people and have to start making decisions about who to give those beds, the percentage and number of deaths will rise - possibly exponentially - and many of those will have been preventable deaths but for the lack of resources to cope.

 

The question then becomes somewhat qualitative - how far to we go to protect what could go well beyond the average mortality rates caused by the flu to preserve our individual freedoms. It's highly subjective and I think comes down to something like this: Do we prevent the spread to keep the infection rate curve shallow so that the herd builds up its immunity but preserving all but those that would succumb to it regarldess of treatment - but maybe even stop many of those from even contracting it, or do we allow it to spread like wildfire and take out those we could normally treat, but make the herd stronger as a result? They are extremes but this is the sort of questions it boils down to. At present, governments on the east and west divide seem to be going for the former and I personally am not uncomfortable with that.

 

 

?......?

 

Apparently my few posts have been blown up into something.............

 

So far basically I’ve looked at the possibility of low blood oxygen in some virus victims and pointed out media hysteria mongering... plus attending to some inane comments..?

 

 

 

 

.

[Flying Binghi]

The China Virus... maybe it should properly be called the Chinese communist party virus..?

 

The more we find out will change opinions...

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2020/03/chinese-company-flew-80-tons-of-medical-masks-suits-to-china-in-feb/

 

 

 

 

.

[turboplanner]

Will we Deport those backpackers after their holiday, considering their countries are Closed to them !. ?

spacesailor

You make the decision.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Jeez, @turboplanner - do you not sleep?

[Marty_d]

There's going to be some interesting social changes come out of this.

 

Firstly, when it comes to pensions and Newstart (now called Jobseeker Payment), the old status quo has been turned upside down. Previously pensions have been higher than unemployment payments - before this hit there were constant calls from everyone except for the LNP to raise the rate of Newstart because it was abysmally low compared to the rate of Pension.

 

Now, the "temporary" Coronavirus supplement of $550 a fortnight applies to Jobseeker Payment, Youth Allowance, Austudy, Abstudy, Parenting Payment, Partner Allowance, Sickness Allowance, Farm Household Support and Special Benefit.

 

There is no mention of Age Pension or Disability Support Pension.

(source: More financial support for people affected by coronavirus)

 

So in effect the unemployed will now be getting more than Age Pensioners. Judging by the screams when Labor tried to fix Franking Credits, we'll need earmuffs when age pensioners realise this.

 

The most likely thing to happen is that the government will quickly add a pension supplement to raise the rate to the same as the total of Jobseeker Payment + coronavirus supplement.

 

The reason I put "temporary" in quotes is that while it's easy to give people a raise in their payments, it's bloody hard to take it away. 8 years after Abbot killed the carbon tax, people are still receiving a clean energy supplement (albeit renamed "energy supplement").

 

In case you think that I'm opposed to any of this, I'm not. It's a good thing to happen and it was shameful that people who can't get work (and we've seen how easy it is for people to lose their jobs) were paid such a pittance before.

 

What I do enjoy is the irony of a right-wing government who have shat on the unemployed for years (remember Smokin' Joe's "lifters and leaners" BS?) - being forced to, in effect, introduce a form of Universal Basic Income which would be ideological anathema to them.

 

To be honest, I think the government is doing a pretty good job of handling the current crisis, and the opposition has been nothing but supportive. It's refreshing to see that when the excrement hits the fan they can actually act like a proper government.

 

But whatever happens with the virus medically, socially it will change Australia hugely.

[Mewp]

The problem I see is the government is selling bonds to the reserve to raise money and at some stage it has to be paid back when those bonds mature.. How close we come to a full economic depression is anybody's guess but funds are needed and it has to be done. It also worries me that so far the economic packages being offered places people out of employment and onto the Jobseeker Payment. it would be better paid into the payrolls of the companies effected, this would keep staff employed (possibly on holiday pay) and on their books ready to return to work when their industry gets the all clear. By funding the Jobseeker Payment I can see a wages war with people vying for any job that becomes available.

[SplitS]

The problem I see is the government is selling bonds to the reserve to raise money and at some stage it has to be paid back when those bonds mature.. How close we come to a full economic depression is anybody's guess but funds are needed and it has to be done. It also worries me that so far the economic packages being offered places people out of employment and onto the Jobseeker Payment. it would be better paid into the payrolls of the companies effected, this would keep staff employed (possibly on holiday pay) and on their books ready to return to work when their industry gets the all clear. By funding the Jobseeker Payment I can see a wages war with people vying for any job that becomes available.

We are getting a depression for sure it's now baked in.

Banking crisis next Australia's realestate bubble is popping and the fall out means someone is going to be eating trillion's.

Every time the government "prints money" it reduces it value. Should not really call it money because money is meant to store value at the moment this is not the case it should be called currency.

Take notice of the price of food it's going to be the real indicator going forward.

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... “Realestate bubble”...... I suppose if yer an ‘investor’ from China it will be a buyers market..?

 

As the old timers say, the world belongs to those that keep their head in a crisis...?

 

Ben Shapiro has been interviewing and talking to some of the same people Trump talks to re the China virus.

Here’s his latest grab bag of what things look like at the moment...

“The Coming Storm | Ep. 981”

https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Coming+Storm+%7C+Ep.+981

 

 

 

 

.