If Clive Palmer wins in the High Court, is that the end of WA's pandemic defence?

But what is at stake if Mr Palmer wins? If WA loses, does this mean there would be no border protections for WA?

Not according to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who argued on Wednesday the constitutional issue with WA's border policy was its "all or nothing" rejection of any other Australian wanting to come here without an exemption.

"Let me be clear, we are not supporting Clive Palmer," he said.

"The constitutional position is one that provides for there to be free movement of Australians across borders, that’s what a federation is, and that that free movement should not be prevented.

"I warned the states and territories that if they make arbitrary positions on borders that they are likely to find themselves in this situation, that someone is likely to bring a case and that this may well crystallise a constitutional position that would not be to their advantage."

Attorney General Christian Porter said the compromise would be to "very cautiously in a staged, sensible, jurisdiction by jurisdiction way, start to open your borders".

"What that avoids is the risk is that in October or November you have an adverse finding in the High Court that requires you to do everything at once," he said.

This could perhaps result in an outcome where WA could restrict entry to Australians who have come into contact with an area suffering a breakout in the pandemic.

But the comments from both politicians hint at another possibility that would alarm many West Australians. The High Court could decide – consistently with previous decisions – that WA has extremely narrow powers to prevent Australians crossing their borders.

In that case, a win for Mr Palmer would put intense pressure on the federation. There are already calls on social media for the WA Premier to ignore a decision of the High Court resulting in the fall of the hard borders. The consequence of that would be too bizarre to contemplate, but nonetheless, the sentiment is not as uncommon as some would like to believe.

Loading

Such a win would also leave the WA government in a position where it would be negotiating with Mr Morrison to secure the protection of its citizens. On Wednesday, the Prime Minster insisted he was "very keen to engage in a way with the Western Australian Government that protects the health of Western Australians and protects the health of Australia and the prosperity of Australia".

This is after the Prime Minister warned Mr McGowan his hard border could result in a legal challenge that would limit or reduce WA's legal ability to protect its borders.

And after some of the more interesting evidence in the Federal Court this week revealed the chances of an outbreak in WA remained the same if we just closed our borders to other states where there was community transmission of the virus.

WA's Chief Health Officer Andrew Robertson even conceded there was little public health justification for keeping the border closed to South Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland, the ACT and Tasmania, which had eliminated community spread.

As WAtoday's Heather McNeill reported, Dr Robertson told the court he had written to the state government suggesting it consider a travel bubble with SA and NT. But he did not hear back.

So, if Clive Palmer is successful in his High Court challenge, which could have entirely been avoided, who is really to blame?

It's a question West Australians most definitely will be asking themselves in the lead up to the March state election.