Federal Court finds 'low or very low' risk to WA if hard border dropped to safe states
The Federal Court decision which has been claimed as a win by the state government in its battle with Clive Palmer over its border restrictions has articulated the risks involved in opening up to states that have eliminated COVID-19.
While Justice Darryl Rangiah found the 'hard border' was the most effective method of keeping the virus out of the state, he said there was a low risk infected people would enter Western Australia if restrictions were dropped with South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.
The Federal Court has found there would be a low risk to WA if the border was opened with states where there is no community transmission.Credit:
There was a very low risk if border restrictions were dropped with Tasmania, where the disease has been eliminated.
These risks were determined by Justice Rangiah after taking into account the possibility of "border hopping", where people travel from state to state before departing for WA. The effect of this is lessened by travel restrictions placed on other states and coronavirus hotspots.
Attorney-General Christian Porter, who discontinued the Commonwealth's involvement in the case after a political backlash in WA, said the Federal Court did not take into account the social, economic and other costs of the border restrictions.
"The court assessed evidence by making determinations of the risk of importing the virus into Western Australia if the border restrictions were removed," he said.
"The court determined the risk of importing the virus from Queensland, which is the jurisdiction relevant to the court process, is uncertain, and that the risks from other jurisdictions varied from 'high' to 'very low'.
"The judge specifically found that: 'It may … be possible to ease the border restrictions with some states and territories without a significantly increased risk of morbidity and mortality in the Western Australian population while there is ongoing community transmission within other states and territories'.
"This is entirely consistent with the Commonwealth's position that evidence suggests low risk in establishing travel bubbles with bordering states such as South Australia and the Northern Territory which have lower infection rates than WA."
In his findings of fact ahead of a High Court determination on the constitutionality of WA's border restrictions, Justice Rangiah also assessed the effectiveness of hotspot travel restrictions.
He said time delays in identifying hotspots made them less effective.
"Border measures which restrict travel on a state-wide or territory-wide basis offer greater protection than narrower hotspots, having regard to the issues of time-lag, geographical identification and circumvention," he said.
The business lobby has been calling for more targeted and consistent travel restrictions across the nation.
A statement signed by 28 industry and business groups, including the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the rapid and piecemeal implementation of border restrictions was "impacting families, destroying jobs and crippling the Australian economy’s ability to recover from this pandemic".
"We accept that states and territories have the right to ease – or reimpose – restrictions at a different pace based on medical advice among other factors," the statement read.
"However, many of the border measures imposed to date appear to be arbitrary and lacking timeframes and review or end dates.
"The administration of domestic border controls varies significantly across the country with massive differences in processes for border pass applications, quarantine requirements, and essential worker/ traveller exemptions. This has caused unintended consequences and exposed Australians to unnecessary risk."