{"href":"http://player.captivate.fm/services/oembed?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplayer.captivate.fm%2Fepisode%2F853db583-4e5e-462c-b49e-be46d13e059e","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Captivate.FM","provider_url":"https://www.captivate.fm","width":600,"height":200,"type":"rich","html":"","title":"Episode 261 \u2013 Victorian Shutdown and Branch Stacking","description":"
\nVictoria
\nBack to square 1.
\nSoviet-style public housing.
\nWhat is it with hairdressers?
\nFrom The Conversation
\nStates are shutting their borders to stop coronavirus. Is that actually\u00a0allowed?
\nMovement of people and goods across state borders in Australia is guaranteed by the Constitution.\u00a0Section 92\u00a0of the Constitution says
\ntrade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
\n\u201cIntercourse among the States\u201d in this context, means the movement of people, goods and communications across state boundaries.
\nIf the movement of people across state borders must be absolutely free, can the states hinder or even prevent such movement during the coronavirus pandemic? The short answer is \u201cyes\u201d.
\n\u201cAbsolutely free\u201d does not mean what it says. The High Court has accepted that there can be limits if they are reasonable and imposed for a legitimate end, such as protecting the public from a dangerous disease.
\nWhat limits does the Constitution impose on the states?
\nA state cannot exclude people from entering it because it has some objection to them, such as their character or behaviour. For example, shortly after federation, NSW enacted the\u00a0Influx of Criminals Prevention Act 1903\u00a0to prevent convicted criminals from other states entering New South Wales. It tried to use the act to prevent John Benson, a convicted vagrant, of entering the state.
\nBut the High Court\u00a0struck down the law\u00a0because it prevented freedom of interstate movement in breach of section 92 of the Constitution. While some judges recognised that a state may have power to act where it is necessary to protect \u201cpublic order, safety or morals\u201d, they did not consider that the exclusion of vagrants could be justified as such a necessity.
\nSince then, the High Court has accepted that a state law may impede the entry into the state of persons, animals or goods that are likely to injure its citizens. These include risks of the transmission of animal and plant diseases and the entry of noxious drugs.
\nJustice Brennan stated in the case of\u00a0Nationwide News\u00a0that where the true character of a law
\nis to protect the State or its residents from injury, a law which expressly prohibits or impedes movement of the apprehended source of injury across the border into the State may yet be valid.
\nA court would need to consider the severity of the restriction and the need for the measure.
\nIf the law is enacted for a purpose other than simply impeding movement across state boundaries, such as to protect public health, and the measures imposed are appropriate and adapted to fulfilling that purpose, then the law is likely to be held to be valid. It will depend on the factual circumstances in any particular case.
\n 
\nWhat\u2019s wrong with Australia
\nFrom David Donavan in Independent Australia.net
\nPEOPLE OFTEN ASK\u00a0me what the problem is with Australia.\u00a0For ten years, as managing editor of news website Independent\u00a0Australia, I have been closely studying our nation.
\nI have personally edited and published thousands of articles on practically every feature of Aust...","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300,"thumbnail_url":"https://artwork.captivate.fm/085762e2-797c-4ef4-9b10-434ecde61c07/logo2018v2.jpg"}