Coronavirus: Border advice exposes WA Premier Mark McGowan

WA Premier Mark McGowan has come under pressure to justify the state’s hard border after his Chief Health ­Officer told the government travel bans could be substantially relaxed.

WA Premier Mark McGowan. Picture: Jackson Flindell

West Australian Premier Mark McGowan has come under pressure to justify the state’s hard border after his Chief Health ­Officer revealed he had told the government travel bans could be substantially relaxed.

Mr McGowan has consistently said WA’s hard border ­arrangements are based on health advice, but the Liberal ­opposition claimed he was “caught out” on Wednesday when WA Chief Health Officer Andy Robertson told a parliamentary inquiry that quarantining arrivals from the NT and states with no community spread might not be necessary. Dr Robertson said he had given that advice to the WA government.

“I have just given broad guidance to say that further exemptions could be considered — whether that includes things like business travel or family reunion — we could consider removing the quarantine requirements for states that have no community spread,” he said.

“That would be dependent on our confidence with the border arrangements in those states.”

Dr Robertson told the committee: “We obviously still continue to have concerns about NSW and Victoria, but we would continue to look at whether there are options for — it may be that opening up to some jurisdictions but not to others is a possibility. That obviously will be considered in any future advice.”

Dr Robertson gave his evidence as the McGowan government conceded the probability of COVID-19 entering the state from Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the territories was “low” or “very low”, but insisted its hard border closure was “necessary” to protect citizens.

In its submission to the High Court, which will hear Clive Palmer’s challenge against the constitutionality of the WA border on November 3, the state government also warned of coronavirus cases arriving from “border hopping” travellers.

The ACT, for example, was “more vulnerable to transmission from people entering from NSW” and so a person from Canberra — where there has been no community transmission for months despite ongoing cases in Sydney — posed a “real, and not fanciful, risk”.

Mr Palmer, who is unable to travel to WA for work, believes the state’s hard border is invalid under section 92 of the Constitution, which says movement among the states “shall be absolutely free”.

The WA government, backed by Police Commissioner Chris Dawson, said Mr Palmer should pay the costs of the special case.

Because the border only prevented interstate movement for two-week periods at a time, was temporary and for a particular health reason, the WA government argued it was valid.

Mr McGowan has also failed to nominate a date to open the border to any other jurisdiction. The state and federal budgets last week assumed that would not occur until at least April.

“The court should find that the directions are reasonably necessary for the purpose of protecting the Western Australian population against the health risks of COVID-19, and that the directions are suitable, reasonable, necessary for, and adequate in achieving the balance for that purpose or object,” the state’s submission states.