Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

Clive Palmer, COVID, and the WA Border



Clive Palmer is one Australian wanting to smash border restrictions during this time of pandemic.  He is threatening to go back to the High Court seeking recognition of his right as an Australian citizen to travel freely between the States. In particular he claims the right to enter Western Australia where he has significant mining interests. One of his companies has offices and staff in both Brisbane and Perth, deriving the majority of its income from Western Australia, also being involved in high value litigation and arbitration in Perth.

He was unsuccessful in his first bid in 2020 when he argued in the High Court that the Western Australian legislation authorising border closures by state officials was contrary to section 92 of the Australian Constitution which provides that ‘trade, commerce and intercourse among the states…shall be absolutely free’. Rejecting Palmer’s bid, Justice Gageler observed, ‘The ‘riddle of s 92’ lies in the question begged by the constitutional text: absolutely free from what?’ The pre-eminent legal historian Professor John La Nauze once observed that the Founding Fathers at the constitutional conventions at the end of the nineteenth century ultimately agreed to section 92 without discussion and ‘ “absolutely free” was, to coin a phrase, absolutely free of legal criticism in open Convention’.

There has been a lot of complex judicial writing about how to apply section 92. Three of the present High Court judges think there is a need for an analysis called ‘structured proportionality’. Two other judges think there is a need only to ask whether the law which limits open border access has a non-discriminatory purpose, imposing no limits greater than are ‘reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate object’. There are now 2 new untested judges on section 92. Last time, all 5 justices were agreed that Palmer did not get to first base. Whatever test is adopted by the 2 new judges and whatever test is to be applied by the majority of judges in his next challenge, Palmer is still unlikely to get any satisfaction from the High Court.

Under the national plan, there is supposed to be a loosening of restrictions at the very latest once 80 per cent of the eligible population are vaccinated. There are indications that states like Western Australia and Queensland might still close their borders. That’s when there will be further debate about free trade and intercourse among the states. But neither Clive Palmer nor any other disaffected citizen is likely to cause much grief to state governments in the High Court. These will be matters for political agitation between the Commonwealth and state governments, not for constitutional determination by the High Court.

Once we reach 80 per cent, the Commonwealth is likely to reduce financial assistance to those being impacted by the effects of lockdowns including border closures. This will create a fiscal incentive for the opening of borders. Also there is growing pressure on all governments to factor in the full human costs of lockdowns and border closures, including the collapse of small business, the educational and social deprivation of children unable to attend school, the long term separation of families, the loss of employment, the impact on mental health, and the unavailability of routine health care for conditions other than COVID.

Those who find the language or rhetoric of ‘rights’ useful need to consider not just the rights of the vulnerable to be protected from the virus because of their advanced age or co-morbidities, but also the rights of others to live a productive life, achieving their full human flourishing in community. There are always limits on rights. There is always a need to balance conflicting rights. There is also a need to set limits on rights so as to serve the common good or the public interest.


'The Court won’t be forcing borders to open more quickly than premiers wisely responding to all political and financial pressures from their constituents and from Canberra.' 


We Australians are not used to the complex public discussion about the limits on rights because, unlike most equivalent countries, we do not have a national bill of rights in legislative or constitutional form. What we do have is a whole panoply of anti-discrimination laws which provide that you cannot discriminate against persons with a particular attribute (race, gender, age, disability). You have to treat those persons as well as you would treat others. Our High Court is fond of saying that the essential notion of unacceptable discrimination is ‘the unequal treatment of equals, and, conversely, in the equal treatment of unequals’. But it’s a much more complex discussion deciding what limits to set on everyone for the sake of everyone.

Our High Court has not only developed a complex jurisprudence of freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse. It has also found in our Constitution an implied freedom of political communication which intersects with other rights and freedoms such as the right to reputation. In both fields, the court has authorised limits on freedom or rights which are reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate objective.

For example, in 1988 the Court was asked to determine whether a Tasmanian law restricting the importation of under-sized crayfish was a valid law given that it placed a limitation on interstate importation of the under-sized crayfish, even though crayfish of that size could lawfully be sold back in their home state South Australia. Tasmania successfully argued that their state officials could only conduct sporadic investigations of crayfish stock in Tasmanian waters and stores, ensuring compliance with the size requirements. There was no way that the officials would be able to distinguish young crayfish imported from interstate which were mixed with crayfish born and bred in Tasmanian waters. The High Court acknowledged that the law was ‘unquestionably a burden on the interstate trade and commerce in crayfish caught in South Australian waters and sold in Tasmania’. But the law did not discriminate between crayfish from South Australia and crayfish from Tasmania. There was ‘no discriminatory protectionist purpose’ appearing on the face of the law. The object of the law was ‘to assist in the protection and conservation of an important and valuable natural resource, the stock of Tasmanian crayfish’.

Provided WA restricts its border closures to what is reasonably necessary to keep the virus out or suppressed inside the WA border, the High Court will leave well alone. The pressures on Premier Mark McGowan will come both from Josh Frydenberg in Canberra turning off the money tap to those governments wanting special assistance for lost economic activity on account of their lockdowns, and from WA citizens anxious to return to a more normal life, living with the virus. This will become a growing pressure as evidenced by the WA farmers last week expressing dissatisfaction that they could not import sufficient labour to help with their bumper crops.

The High Court won’t be breaking the logjam. The Court won’t be forcing borders to open more quickly than premiers wisely responding to all political and financial pressures from their constituents and from Canberra. Meanwhile, McGowan will be able to call Palmer’s bluff.



Frank BrennanFr Frank Brennan SJ is the Rector of Newman College, Melbourne, the Distinguished Fellow of the P M Glynn Institute, Australian Catholic University, and the former CEO of Catholic Social Services Australia (CSSA). He is a peritus at the Fifth Plenary Council of the Australian Catholic Church.

Main image: Image of border as Perth And Peel Regions Of Western Australia Enter Lockdown As New COVID-19 Cases Detected In Community. (Matt Jelonek/Getty Images)

Topic tags: Frank Brennan, Clive Palmer, WA Border, High Court, Constitution, s92



submit a comment

Existing comments

Here, here for Sec 92. Penned before a time of automobiles, tarred roads or trucks. Each state with efficient trade control at boarders because each state had different train track guages and shipping ports strategically spaced and wholly controlled to restrict interstate freedoms. Oh, and who'd have thought about flying to Perth in 1901? Poor Clive, a victim of a legal system contrived in a time when wages paid in gold in WA were tax free! A time before Ord river, iron ore exports or troublesome Clives. Even the Pt Augusta to Kal train line wasn't built until 1917; it was 1970 until it was India Pacific. Who'd wanna go to Perth? I hope our High Court judges are equally keen to live in Victorian era convenience.

ray | 09 September 2021  

Now that the Hutt River kingdom is a quirky tourist attraction Mr. Clive may re-imagine it as Palmer Principality (or something similar) and write his own rules. It's not beyond his capability given his previous form.

Pam | 10 September 2021  

‘We Australians are not used to the complex public discussion about the limits on rights because, unlike most equivalent countries, we do not have a national bill of rights in legislative or constitutional form.’ Untrue. The fossil fuel debate is complex discussion about rights. Constitutionalising morality is writing civil scripture. Scripture is meant to derive from omniscience. Civil scripture simply sets a potentially fallible idea in stone, as the US Second Amendment shows. Even Justice Scalia once remarked that, on his calculation, about 9% of the electorate could block a constitutional amendment, too low, he thought. In any case, a constitution isn’t meant to be changed. All it should attend to are bedrock machinery of government principles, a current question being whether a 'voice to parliament', which enshrines in perpetuity a section of the populace as being holy, is really bedrock machinery. The Christian antenna is, of course, attuned to the hazard that any talk of a bill of rights poses to the unborn. Because the number of rights is infinite and people’s preferences clash, periodic adjudication becomes necessary, but where is the logic that seven unelected judges trump nine elected legislatures in pulpiteering how people should live?

roy chen yee | 10 September 2021  

Great Thanks, Frank, for a fascinating disquisition on Palmer versus States Rights! I once heard +Francis Rush remark, palpably without exaggeration, that the Australian Bench's egregious loss was to the Australian Catholic Church's incalculable gain.

Michael Furtado | 14 September 2021  

Perhaps Clive Palmer's objective is not to get a win against state border closures but rather to beat up support for his 'party' in the next election and thereby increase the chances that the coalition will be re-elected.

Ginger Meggs | 15 September 2021  

Similar Articles

Hoping for hope

  • Barry Gittins
  • 09 September 2021

What does it take to lose hope? For the 4,000 people who attended the anti-lockdown protests in Melbourne last month, an odd coalition of the frustrated, the scared, the angry and the hurt, it takes 18 months of pain and the ensuing changes in employment status, isolation from family and friends, and losses in lifestyle and individual liberties.


Coming out of Coronavirus  

  • Andrew Hamilton
  • 02 September 2021

As restrictions drag on and the number of infections rises, more Australians are asking when lockdowns can cease. Federal politicians and business leaders have argued the case for a quick ending while claiming the authority of scientists. Science being science, the relevant questions have been tied to numbers. They have asked: how few cases should there be in the community before leaving lockdown? What percentage of the community must be vaccinated before the lifting of restrictions? What number of deaths should be tolerated for the gains of opening the economy? And when precisely should the opening of Australia take place?