VIC Commonwealth Vs State control?

[Danman132]

Nothing to do with it but if I come across this I'll be a step wiser
And for your own future reference they can't charge fees for quarantine. You probably already knew that.

This is an old matter now.

You guys touched on why. S51(9) of the constitution gives the fed government exclusive power in relation to quarantine. They legislated that they will pay under s108 of the Biosecurity Act and they can't reneg that.

The states can administer that but we're foolishly conned into paying for it. Now they think they can trick their own citizens into paying those costs.

As I said. Old issue, already resolved.
But thanks for the input anyway.

 

[Tim W]

And for your own future reference they can't charge fees for quarantine

The State of Victoria doesn't seem to entirely agree with you.
For international travellers, there's this.
For domestic travellers, it's a case of "don't always charge", not "can't charge".

 

[Danman132]

The State of Victoria doesn't seem to entirely agree with you.
For international travellers, there's this.
For domestic travellers, it's a case of don't charge, not can't charge.

That's a shocking response given that you're a lawyer.
But thanks for your input all the same... It's been interesting and somewhat revealing.

 

[Rod]

Hmm, perhaps you are confusing federal Biosecurity measures with the States' powers under health laws.

States can and do force people into quarantine under State laws.

 

[Danman132]

Hmm, perhaps you are confusing federal Biosecurity measures with the States' powers under health laws.

States can and do force people into quarantine under State laws.

Well, seems we're completely off topic now....

No. Not confused at all. The states public health regulations can work 'concurrently' with but not in 'conflict' with the Biosecurity Act in matters of Biosecurity (look at section 109 of the Constitution.

Yes the states, in this context, can administer quarantine. After all, they have the resources. But they can't charge for it. That's Commonwealth domain s208 of the Bio Act.

But...if you think that the fact that the states have legislated this and that's the final word (because the government would not do the wrong thing) then have a look at the outcome of Robodebt.


They will do whatever they can get away with simply because there are no consequences.

 

[Rod]

Yes the states, in this context, can administer quarantine. After all, they have the resources. But they can't charge for it. That's Commonwealth domain s208 of the Bio Act.

You are wrong. States are not in conflict with the Biosecurity Act when they enact health laws. No cross-over. Think about why it is the State Premiers calling the shots and not the PM.

And Robodebt is not relevant to a discussion on Federal v State laws. The Labor called out Robodebt as likely not legal, turns out they were right.

But all is moot point. You said the matter is over.

 

[Danman132]

You are wrong. States are not in conflict with the Biosecurity Act when they enact health laws. No cross-over. Think about why it is the State Premiers calling the shots and not the PM.

And Robodebt is not relevant to a discussion on Federal v State laws. The Labor called out Robodebt as likely not legal, turns out they were right.

But all is moot point. You said the matter is over.

You have skirted the issue! Somewhat telling since it's a closed issue now. And ...You're a lawyer??

States can run it but feds have to pay for it. There's no way around it unless you lie to the public and strike the fear of the law into them. That doesn't sound like Robodebt does it?