MEMBER for Mildura Ali Cupper has not ruled out a High Court challenge to the validity of the New South Wales and South Australian hard border closures.
And she has called for the appointment of a federal minister for temporary borders to be be tasked with creating formally defined and separately managed low-risk zones across state lines to maximise safety and minimise disruption.
Ms Cupper said the interstate zones would temporarily redraw state borders in order to keep hot spots contained and low-risk zones open.
“The current approach, which shuts down access along state lines, is unworkable and unsustainable,” she said.
“Despite the effective ring-fencing of Melbourne, New South Wales and South Australia have still seen fit to rip cross-border communities apart.
“I wonder how Adelaide and Sydney would fare if a border was drawn up the middle of King William or George streets.
“It would be untenable there, and it’s untenable here.”
Ms Cupper said the longer the hard borders were enforced, the stronger the case was for a High Court constitutional challenge under Section 117.
“That section of the constitution is designed to protect Australians against discrimination based on the state they live in,” she said.
“Governments are allowed to discriminate to some degree, but the rules must be appropriate and adapted (or ‘proportionate’) to the purpose.
“It is my strong view that the hard border lockdowns by NSW and South Australia, at least in relation to north-west Victoria, are disproportionate to the purpose of protecting the health of NSW and South Australia,” she said.
“In relation to those on the cross-border, it poses a threat to their mental and physical health.”
Ms Cupper said strong leadership was needed by the Federal Government to use its power of persuasion or influence to negotiate the creation of a temporary border bubble between SA, north-west Victoria and south-west NSW.
“If this cannot be achieved, I will be considering my options in relation to a High Court challenge,” she said.
“We are willing to make sacrifices for the public health of the nation; we will even accept extreme measures, but not if those measures have no scientific rationale.
“Not if those measures are patently disproportionate to the risk — not when the goals can be achieved through far less disruptive means.
“If the Federal Government won’t listen, maybe the High Court will.”
