The controversial Indian travel ban confronted the first legal challenge, criminalizing the return of Australians from a country struck by COVID.
However, we may face constitutional challenges in the coming days.
A Melbourne male lawyer stuck in India claimed that Greg Hunt’s order was invalid.
Their reasons included that the minister did not adequately meet relevant prerequisites, such as “not more restrictive or intrusive than required in some circumstances.”
However, Federal Court Judge Tom Thorley dismissed the first two parts of the four-sided challenge on Monday.
Biosecurity law allowed the minister to “prevent or control” the entry and exit of certain human illnesses from Australia.
“The most obvious way to achieve either outcome is to prevent access to Australia,” he said.
The order issued on April 30th, which has been in effect since May 3rd, indicates that the Biosecurity Act was used for the first time to prevent Australian citizens and permanent residents from entering Australia.
The challenge was brought about by a Melbourne man Gary Numan stuck in Bangalore after flying to Bangalore / Bangalore to meet a friend in early March 2020.
The 73-year-old is in a particularly vulnerable health demography and wants to get home as soon as possible, his lawyer said.
Mr Newman claimed that the minister’s order, which expires later this week, affected the basic common law rights of citizens re-entering citizenship countries.
“Biosecurity Act was aimed at infringing common law rights,” said Judge Thawley.
On April 27, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a ban on direct flights from India.
Hunt then ordered on April 30, with the advice of Chief of Attorney and Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly.
The order prohibits Australian citizens and permanent residents from landing in Australia from any country if they were in India for the first two weeks before departure.
Anyone who attempts to violate the rules may be fined up to $ 66,600, five years in prison, or both.
Mr Newman’s lawyer argued that the second ban on travel through third countries was introduced too early and without an analysis of the effects of the first ban.
“(Prohibition) is the most restrictive and intrusive method that may have been adopted,” said Christopher Ward SC.
However, Professor Kelly mentioned the first ban in the minister’s advice: “Flights through transportation hubs continue to provide a way for individuals who have recently arrived in India to enter Australia.” The judge said.
“It is acceptable from the letter of the Chief Health Officer that this measure will bring further relief to the Australian quarantine system,” said Judge Thawley.
Monday’s decision leaves two undecided parts of Mr. Newman’s bid that the travel ban will be ruled invalid.
The first allegation claims that it was not within Congress’s intention when the bill was passed.
The final alternative argument is to ban travel to the court by imposing an unacceptable burden on the implicit freedom of citizens entering Australia under the Constitution, or by bans and powers exceeding the powers of Section 51. I hope to convince the minister’s authority behind it.
The Indian Ministry of Health reported 366,161 new infections and 3754 deaths on Monday, a short distance from its recent peak. The total number of infectious diseases in India is 22.66 million, and 246,116 have died.