Clive Palmer V WA: Federal Court Rules In Favour Of WA Hard Border

The State’s border closure was found the most “effective” way of preventing COVID-19 spread in Clive Palmer case against WA border.

Federal Court Judge Justice Darryl Rangiah found the consequences of re-opening the border could be “catastrophic” and WA should take a “precautionary approach” to rolling back the measures in a ground-breaking milestone of the controversial case. 

“If there were uncontrolled outbreaks in Western Australia, the consequences would include the risk of death and hospitalisation, particularly for vulnerable groups, such as elderly and Indigenous people,” he said.

“In the worst-case scenario, the health consequences could be catastrophic.”

Fresh trial not granted 

Following the involvement of the Federal Government with the case, which they eventually pulled out of, the WA Government lobbied the court for a fresh trial that would not take into account the work (and damage) done by the Government’s solicitors.

However, Justice Rangiah ruled against a fresh trial. 

“Western Australia claimed to be prejudiced by the Commonwealth’s withdrawal because the Commonwealth had already called evidence and made submissions in support of the Palmer parties’ case,” his statement read.

Scott Morrison has since urged Clive Palmer to drop his case against the WA Government, and said on Friday he had not asked WA to change “any aspect” of its border measures.

No other measures can do the job of a hard border

After hearing from several expert witnesses, Justice Rangiah concluded there was no substitute to border closures that would similarly prevent the spread of COVID-19.

“The border restrictions have been effective to a very substantial extent to reduce the probability of COVID-19 being imported into Western Australia from interstate,” he said.

“While there may be alternative methods available of reducing the probability that infected people will enter Western Australia, and which may impose a lesser burden on interstate trade, commerce and intercourse, they would be less effective, and inadequate, to protect the health of the Western Australian population.”

High Court case

Despite the blow against him today, Mr Palmer is expected to keep pushing the case all the way up to the High Court.

When he initially challenged the constitutionality of the border closure, the case was referred to the Federal Court to look at key facts before being taken to the High Court.

However, Justice Rangiah’s decision will play a key role in the High Court case, should it go ahead.

WA vindicated

Mark McGowan said the court ruling proved WA’s border measures were working.

“You know, the Liberal Party endorsing Mr Palmer’s action was wrong and inappropriate, I am pleased they pulled out,” he said.

“I don’t think they were listening to the people of Western Australia and obviously the Commonwealth witnesses were what Mr Palmer relied on.

So all I would say is, I think Western Australia’s case has been vindicated. We have done this for the right reasons and over the course of this, into the future, the borders have and will save lives.”

Feature image: AAP Image/Jono Searle

More Perth news on SoPerth.com.au.