McGowan versus Palmer Federal Court Clown Show

Following a murky series of political shenanigans between Queensland mining magnate, Clive Palmer, and Emperor of the Known Universe, Shadam IV (aka Mark McGowan) over iron-ore mining rights, a dodgy piece of legislation was rushed through the rubber stamp 'parliament' of Western Australia to deny Palmer any legal recourse against the state and premier McGowan personally for....basically anything. This all occurred at the beginning of the Covid 19 crisis in 2019, which allowed McGowan to use the lockdown to ban Palmer from visiting the state and raising the matter in court. This whole affair stinks to high heaven of government corruption - why else would the state government rush through secret legislation that indemnified themselves and the state from prosecution. Both Palmer and McGowan then took their dispute public with full page adverts in The West Australian slagging each other off as tyrants, crooks and fat bastards. It was childish and pathetic, but that's modern politics for you.

From there the dispute moved into the courts with Palmer suing McGowan for defamation and McGowan countersuing. This debacle of a court case has finally come to a resolution, Justice Lee pretty much declaring that both parties have wasted a huge amount of money - public money in McGowan's case - on a petty, personal spat.

Ultimately the outcome is a turd. Palmer gets $5000 and McGowan gets $20,000 - I wonder if he'll pocket that himself or pop it back in the treasury? What is more interesting in the findings below is the exposure of the dodgy goings on around the indemnifying legislation, how it was pulled together and slipped through parliament. This is what you get in a single party state that is able to write and pass legislation to legalise whatever illegality it is involved in.

My earlier post on this matter: https://stolzuntermenschen.blogspot.com/2022/03/a-crack-in-western-australian-covid.html

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Palmer v McGowan (No 5) [2022] FCA 893

SUMMARY
In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in cases of public interest, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the orders made today. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and is not a complete statement of the conclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court’s reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be available on the internet at the Court’s website. This summary is also available there.

INTRODUCTION
Enoch Powell once remarked: “for a politician to complain about the press, is like a ship’s captain complaining about the sea”. As these proceedings demonstrate, a politician litigating over the barbs of a political adversary might be considered a similarly futile exercise.

Both the applicant, Mr Palmer, and the respondent, Mr McGowan, have chosen to be part of the hurly-burly of political life. Many members of the public will have instinctive views about them absent any personal interaction. These views are likely to align with their broader political beliefs.
Although Mr Palmer resisted characterisation as a “political figure”, in truth, these proceedings arise out of a prolonged and heated dispute between two political antagonists dealing, in large part, with matters best described as political. This reality presented a recurring challenge during all stages of these proceedings, including when dealing with both liability and damages.

BACKGROUND
Two contextual matters dominate the background to this dispute: first, the COVID-19 pandemic and the controversy as to the Western Australian “hard border”; and secondly, the enactment of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Act 2020 (WA) (Amendment Act) preventing the maintenance of a claim for damages (said to have been worth approximately $30 billion) arising from the Western Australian Government’s proven breach of an agreement with Mineralogy, a company controlled and beneficially owned by Mr Palmer.

While the first of these matters is well known, the second requires some elaboration.

In late May 2020, Mr Quigley and Mr McGowan had an SMS exchange in the following terms:

Mr Quigley: I must be a bit OCD! I have been awake since 4.15 thinking of ways to beat big fat Clive and his arbitration claim for 23.5 billion in damages remembering the turd has pulled off 2 big wins in arbitration … The solution is to be found in an amendment to legislation obstensibly [sic] to protect us Re [the possibility of an unrelated dispute] … which amendment for that purpose is merely a Trojan horse as within the very small legislative amendment will be a poison pill for the fat man … It’s such a neat solution obstentially [sic] to solve one almost non existent problem but the side wind could drop drop the fat man on his big fat arse ! … Hey are you glad me single again … not making love in sweet hours before dawn instead worrying how to defeat Clive! 😂😂😂🤣
Mr McGowan: Let’s discuss the $23 billion claim. We need to really sort out what to do. I don’t want to let Parker know or any journo before we r ready.
Mr Quigley: Absolutely secrecy of essence … 😂😂😂

Work on the proposed legislation continued until just before 5pm on 11 August 2020, when the Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. The Bill moved through the Parliamentary process with the speed of summer lightning. It reached the Legislative Council on the morning of 13 August; passed the Legislative Council at about 10:35pm on the same day; and the Governor provided Royal Assent approximately 40 minutes later.

Other than Mr McGowan and Mr Quigley, and possibly one or two other Ministers, no member of Cabinet had any inkling of the Bill’s existence until 45 minutes prior to its introduction.

It was common ground that the Amendment Act was extraordinary legislation. Among other things, it terminated the arbitration in relation to the damages claim of Mineralogy, and granted immunity from the criminal law to “the State” (including Mr McGowan) in relation to “protected matters” (including any conduct “connected with” the Amendment Act).

On 13 August 2020, Mr Quigley gave a colourful radio interview on ABC Radio Perth, during which he purported to explain the tactics adopted in relation to the preparation of the Amendment Act:

(1) “[I]t is like a complicated game of chess, but in no way is it a game. I certainly, together with the Premier, feel the heavy weight of responsibility on behalf of all Western Australians to repel this rapacious claim by this … by this … Palmer man”. (2) “[T]his is a game of tactics. Ah, Mr Palmer got … an Arbitrator’s award back in 2014 and in the intervening six years has failed to register the award. We … identified this weakness … in his position. And so we prepared legislation that terminates the arbitration, terminates it, full stop … the crucial part was it had to be terminated prior to … the arbitration being registered in the Supreme Court.”
(3) “[W]e kept it so tight and then brought it in at 5:00pm on Tuesday, after every court in the land was closed, and the doors were locked”.
(4) “And as I said to you, it is like, it is like a fight. And like my near neighbour, Danny Green says, you’ve just got to jab, jab, jab with your right, and move him over to the left, and then just knock him down with a right – a left hook. And what’s happened here is that Mark McGowan has been jab, jabbing away with insults, his lawyers have been busying themselves, were sending us back reams of defamation writs, when they should have been looking at the main game, of file – of registering the arbitration. And we got through in time. We got that legislation into the Assembly on Tuesday night while all the courts were locked”.
(5) “This is crucial that this bill is introduced and passed. And the academics and the other people can write about it afterwards, can analyse it afterwards, all they like for months to come. And criticise us, whatever. I don’t care. But we’ve got to unleash the left hook today. We’ve gotta knock [Mr Palmer] down, and knock him down today. There is too much at risk for all Western Australians, for namby pamby inquiries; “what does this word mean, what does that word mean?””.

With the background now explained, it is appropriate to turn to the alleged defamatory publications.

THE PLEADINGS AND PUBLICATIONS
Mr Palmer commenced these proceedings in August 2020. He sues Mr McGowan on six alleged defamatory publications, all made in a two-week period between 31 July and 14 August 2020 (Primary Proceeding). By way of response, in September 2020, Mr McGowan filed a cross-claim, by which he sues Mr Palmer in respect of nine alleged defamatory publications (Cross-Claim).

In the Primary Proceeding, Mr Palmer’s pleaded defamatory imputations, and my findings as to whether those meanings were conveyed, are as follows:

First Matter

• Imputation 3(a): Mr Palmer is a traitor to Australia - No
• Imputation 3(b): Mr Palmer intends to harm the people of Western Australia - No
• Imputation 3(c): Mr Palmer intends to harm the people of Australia - No
• Imputation 3(d): Mr Palmer represents a threat to the people of Western Australia and is dangerous to them - Yes
• Imputation 3(e): Mr Palmer represents a threat to the people of Australia and is dangerous to them - Yes

Second Matter

• Imputation 5(a): Mr Palmer intends to inflict harm on the health and wellbeing of the people of Western Australia for his own selfish gain - No
• Imputation 5(b): Mr Palmer represents a threat to the people of Western Australia and is dangerous to them - Yes

Third Matter

• Imputation 7(a): Mr Palmer promotes a drug which all the evidence establishes is dangerous - Yes
• Imputation 7(b): Mr Palmer is seeking to harm the people of Western Australia by providing them with a drug he knows is dangerous - No
• Imputation 7(c): Mr Palmer is dishonestly promoting hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19 when he knows it is not a cure - No

Fourth Matter

• Imputation 9(a): Mr Palmer deliberately intends to damage the health of Western Australians for his own personal gain - No
• Imputation 9(b): Mr Palmer selfishly uses money he has made in Western Australia to harm West Australians - Yes

Fifth Matter

• Imputation 11(a): Mr Palmer intends to harm Australians - No
• Imputation 11(b): Mr Palmer represents a threat to Australians and is dangerous to them - Yes

Sixth Matter

• Imputation 13(a): Mr Palmer intends to steal $12,000 from every man, woman and child in Western Australia - No
• Imputation 13(b): Mr Palmer is prepared to bankrupt a state merely because he is unhappy with standard conditions set on a project by the State Government that apply to all mining projects - Yes
• Imputation 13(c): Mr Palmer is so dangerous a person that legislation was required to stop him making a claim for damages against the State of Western Australia - Yes

As to the Cross-Claim, Mr McGowan’s pleaded imputations, and my findings, are as follows:

First Cross-Claim Matter

• Cross-Claim Imputation 3(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan lied to the people of Western Australia when he said that he had acted upon the advice of the Chief Medical Officer in closing the borders - Yes
• Cross-Claim Imputation 3(b): As Premier, Mr McGowan lied to the people of Western Australia when he told them their health would be threatened if the borders did not remain closed - Yes

Second Cross-Claim Matter

• Cross-Claim Imputation 5(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan was abusing the parliamentary system by overseeing the passing of laws designed to protect him against criminal acts he intended to commit - No
• Cross-Claim Imputation 5(b): As Premier, Mr McGowan lied to the people of Western Australia about his justification for imposing travel bans - Yes

Third to Seventh Cross-Claim Matters

• Cross-Claim Imputation 7(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan corruptly attempted to cover up the personal involvement of himself and others in criminal acts by overseeing the passing of laws designed to provide exemptions from the criminal law - Yes

Eighth Cross-Claim Matter

• Cross-Claim Imputation 9(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan behaved criminally, and was improperly seeking to confer upon himself immunity from the criminal law - No
• Cross-Claim Imputation 9(b): As Premier, Mr McGowan was acting corruptly by seeking to confer upon himself immunity against his criminal acts - No
• Cross-Claim Imputation 9(c): As Premier, Mr McGowan was acting corruptly by seeking to confer upon himself criminal immunity - Yes

Ninth Cross-Claim Matter

• Cross-Claim Imputation 11(a): As Premier, Mr McGowan was open to accepting multi-million dollar bribes from Chinese interests in return for permitting them access to valuable state natural resources - No

As is evident from their terms, each of the imputations conveyed was defamatory.

DEFENCES
Mr McGowan’s only substantive defence is to rely upon three versions of qualified privilege: (1) common law qualified privilege; (2) statutory qualified privilege under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) (Defamation Act); and (3) the species of common law qualified privilege concerned with publication of government or political matters, being the defence identified in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520.

Mr Palmer advances three defences against the Cross-Claim: (1) substantial truth; (2) contextual truth; and (3) the reply to attack aspect of common law qualified privilege.

For the factual and legal reasons set out at length in the judgment, the defences advanced by Mr McGowan and Mr Palmer have been unsuccessful.

OBSERVATIONS AS TO THE WITNESSES
In making factual findings and considering relief, it has been necessary to pay close regard to the evidence of three witnesses. Both parties made lengthy submissions as to credit. In summary, my findings are as set out below.

Mr Palmer

Mr Palmer is an indefatigable litigant. This was evidently not his first experience in a witness box. His confidence and self-assuredness was evident. Indeed, he carried himself with the unmistakable aura of a man assured as to the correctness of his own opinions.

Although Mr Palmer displayed obvious intelligence and was across the relevant detail, he was generally a combative and evasive witness who, on more than one occasion, was unwilling to make obvious concessions. Further, in one important respect, he gave fantastic evidence (in the original but now secondary sense of that word).

Mr Palmer gave evidence-in-chief (not adduced directly by his highly experienced senior counsel) that upon first reading the Amendment Act, he had a genuine fear for his physical safety, the safety of his employees in Western Australia, and his family. I asked clarifying questions on this topic because I was unsure of what Mr Palmer meant. Was he really saying that he thought the Premier or other agents of the State may either initiate or authorise physical violence towards him or those associated with him? The unsettling spectre of Western Australian Government thugs or assassins needing immunity from the State to absolve them from the criminal consequences of physical violence had, I confess, not occurred to me.

To even his most rusted-on partisans, Mr McGowan would be unlikely to have been thought to resemble Ian Fleming’s fictional MI6 character, James Bond. But Mr Palmer gave evidence that he thought Mr McGowan had a “licence to kill”. He swore he regarded the Amendment Act as “a statute that authorised Mark McGowan to kill Clive Palmer”. One does not need to dwell long on the principles explained by the High Court in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 to form the view that this is an unsound construction of the relevant provisions of the Amendment Act.

But Mr Palmer is not a lawyer. He submits that any attempt to discredit him by reference to his fears upon reading the Amendment Act must be rejected. It is not to the point that Mr Palmer’s approach to statutory construction does not accord with orthodox notions, but his assertion he was fearful was genuine.

This submission is fanciful. Although Mr Palmer may have subjectively believed that the Amendment Act was drafted in such broad terms so to absolve specified persons (including the Premier) from criminal liability for physically harming him, this is not to be equated with any belief of Mr Palmer that the passage of the Amendment Act meant that there was a real prospect that he or those associated with him would be attacked.

Mr Palmer was angry and upset about the Amendment Act. That is hardly surprising. No doubt he thought he had wide scope in attacking its swingeing immunities. But his evidence he was genuinely concerned about his health and safety was so unbelievable that it had the effect of seriously undermining the persuasiveness of his evidence as to his subjective feelings generally.

Further, other aspects of his evidence were unsatisfactory and overall, my impression was that Mr Palmer was often willing to fashion his evidence to suit what he perceived to be best for his case. After reflecting upon his evidence generally, I do not consider it safe to place any significant reliance upon it.

Mr McGowan

Mr McGowan is often required to field questions from journalists. Superficially, such engagements might be perceived as being similar to exchanges between a witness and cross-examiner in a courtroom. But there are many differences, including one critical distinction: in the courtroom, a witness cannot (or at least should not) avoid a question with an indirect answer. The witness is there on the cross-examiner’s terms. Mr McGowan was generally an impressive witness, but sometimes when he was pressed on aspects of his evidence, he did exhibit what might be described as the muscle memory of a questioned politician in being non-responsive. It suffices to mention one example.

In his cross-examination, Mr McGowan accepted that what he was telling the public over an extended period was that the medical advice was that the hard border was “necessary”. In response to questions from senior counsel for Mr Palmer, Mr McGowan skirted the substantive question as to whether Dr Robertson (the Chief Health Officer) had given advice to the effect that a hard border was necessary. This approach did not assist. But although Mr McGowan was sometimes non-responsive, he was otherwise generally candid in his evidence.

Mr Quigley

Mr Quigley is the Attorney-General of Western Australia. Regrettably, his evidence was both confused and confusing. Mr Quigley’s evidence-in-chief was directed to one proposition: there had been no “Attack Plan” as alleged by Mr Palmer.

During cross-examination, however, Mr Quigley debunked the claim made by him in the ABC Radio Perth interview that he and Mr McGowan had “identified a weakness” in Mr Palmer’s position, namely the non-registration of the arbitral awards. In doing so, he engagingly accepted that his version in the witness box was “truly spectacularly different” to what he had said at length and in detail in the radio interview and repeatedly stressed that his evidence should be preferred because he was under oath.

Then, on 8 April 2022, Mr Quigley was recalled. Mr Quigley’s second appearance in the witness box just added to the brume of his testimony. Mr Quigley was placed in the uncomfortable position of having to concede that part of the account he gave in the radio interview was not “completely and utterly false” – as he had asserted on 9 March 2022 – but was, in fact, “completely and utterly true”.

Mr Palmer submits that Mr Quigley’s evidence was a web of untruthfulness. I do not accept this submission. Senior counsel for Mr McGowan frankly conceded that “[i]f one were to try logically to reconcile [Mr Quigley’s evidence], you would be utterly defeated”, labelling it as “outright silly”. To similar effect, my comment at the time was that I considered Mr Quigley’s evidence was not dishonest, but was “all over the shop”. I adhere to this view. It is worth stressing that being a confused witness is a quite different thing from being a dishonest one. As anyone experienced in calling witnesses is aware, the unexpected sometimes happens. This is one of the vicissitudes of litigation. It appears Mr Quigley had limited time to prepare himself for the giving of evidence. But whatever the combination of reasons for Mr Quigley’s confounding testimony, I do not think any are malign. It suffices to note that Mr Quigley was not a reliable historian of events.

DAMAGES
The defences having failed for a combination of legal and factual reasons, it was necessary to turn to the question of relief. Damages were sought for non-economic loss. The award of damages is governed by the statutory requirement “to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship” between the harm sustained and the damages awarded. This requirement ensures remedies are fair and effective in the context of achieving the objects of the Defamation Act with the aim of ensuring consistency of awards and correcting any imbalance with awards of damages for personal injuries.

The three purposes of an award are: first, consolation for the personal distress and hurt caused; secondly, reparation for harm done to the person’s reputation; and thirdly, vindication of reputation. The assessment is an intuitive, evaluative process conducted at large, but subject to the provisions of Pt 4 Div 3 of the Defamation Act.

Four general observations are worth making about damages in this case before identifying the assessment.

The first relates to the environment in which the publications were made. Mr Palmer submits that it is incorrect to characterise the exchanges between the parties as taking place “between two political combatants”, and that any characterisation of him as “an active political figure” needs to be approached with care. This is because at the time of Mr McGowan’s publications, Mr Palmer was a former Australian politician, having retired from Parliament in 2016. Rather, it is said that at the time of the relevant publications, Mr Palmer was involved in actively pursuing his business and philanthropic interests.

These facts may be accepted, but no-one picking up a newspaper in Australia in 2020 could be in any doubt as to the political profile of Mr Palmer. Although he was not running for office in 2020, he was the Chairman of the United Australia Party, and was one of the most well-known figures operating in the sphere of Australian politics generally. The contention that the exchanges between the parties in July and August 2020 were not taking place between two political combatants is unpersuasive and superficial.

Secondly, and relatedly, a consequence of the protagonists in this case being political figures is that many listeners and readers will have had well-entrenched perceptions as to their character and reputation. Indeed, people could likely be placed on a continuum between admiration and resentment, with some who are neutral or open-minded in the middle. The parties recognised that those on the admiration end will tend to support the political figure no matter what material is published, while those who resent the political figure will tend to disbelieve and criticise. Some in the middle, in an ideal world, will be influenced by reason, independent judgment and a scrutiny of the facts. Mr Palmer submits it is necessary to put aside those persons who have views about either Mr Palmer or Mr McGowan that are so prejudiced or stubborn to mean they are impervious to the impacts of defamatory statements. That is said to be because such a person is not an ordinary, reasonable listener, viewer or reader. But this puts the matter too highly. As White J explained in Hanson Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4) [2019] FCA 1981 (at [78]) and repeated in Dutton v Bazzi [2021] FCA 1474; (2021) Aust Torts Reports ¶82-713 (at 63,437 [186]), many ordinary, reasonable people will not be influenced, positively or negatively, by statements concerning a politician about whom they have already formed a view.

Thirdly, this is a case where Mr McGowan and Mr Palmer have taken advantage of the opportunities created by publication of the impugned matters to respond forcefully in public and (particularly in the case of Mr McGowan) to advance themselves politically. Because there must be an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained and the amount of damages awarded, if a person defamed is able to avoid some of the damage to reputation by use of media and public statements to reduce, to an appreciable extent, some of the harm to reputation which would otherwise have resulted, this is necessary to take into account in an assessment. Fourthly, both parties advanced lengthy submissions as to aggravated damages, which largely mirror arguments deployed in seeking to establish malice, being arguments I rejected. No aggravated damages should be awarded.

As to Mr Palmer

Imputations 3(a), 3(b), 5(b) and 11(b) (which relate to Mr Palmer representing a threat and danger to the people of Western Australia and Australia) position Mr Palmer as acting contrary to the interests of the broader community. Imputations 7(a), 9(a) and 13(c) (that Mr Palmer promotes a drug which all the evidence establishes is dangerous, selfishly uses money he has made in Western Australia to harm Western Australians, and is so dangerous a person that legislation was required to stop him making a claim for damages against Western Australia) are pointed criticisms of Mr Palmer.

One cannot dismiss these imputations as being trivial, but any evaluative assessment as to seriousness must take into account context. Justice Windeyer observed in Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1966) 117 CLR 185 (at 210) that political discourse “extends to the use of language that is vigorous, and sarcastic, as well as that which is reasoned, restrained and elevated. Invective is not banned”. Further, and importantly, his Honour remarked that “a man who chooses to enter the arena of politics must expect to suffer hard words at times”.

Mr McGowan had a bully pulpit. He was a highly popular Premier who had an opportunity to speak out to a wide audience. The tone of political discourse in this country is not usually characterised as being milquetoast (or to adapt Mr Quigley’s term, used in a different context, “namby-pamby”). Mr McGowan was speaking to an audience including reasonable people used to receiving criticisms by politicians expressed forcefully, and often couched in hyperbolic terms. Mr McGowan used hard words, but Mr Palmer’s submission that the publication of these defamatory imputations amounted to a serious libel pitches his case too highly.

Linking or demonstrating any causal connexion between the defamatory publications and any actual damage to reputation cannot ignore the reality that for many, views as to Mr Palmer’s reputation were already “baked in”. The estimation of some may have diminished, or the adverse views held by some may have become more entrenched, but identifying any real or material damage to reputation in the present context is difficult. While damage to reputation is presumed, I conclude there was very little damage to Mr Palmer’s reputation caused by reason of the defamatory publications.

Mr Palmer also gave evidence about his hurt feelings.

While I accept that Mr Palmer was upset with the course that the State was taking as to the hard border, it seems to me that his real frustration and anger, unsurprisingly, was directed to the passage of the Amendment Act. Although standard hurt to feelings evidence as to the publications was carefully adduced, this case reinforced my view that it is best to receive such evidence in person and orally. In general it was unpersuasive, peppered with defensive comments as to why Mr Palmer was in the right and Mr McGowan was in the wrong, and consistent with Mr Palmer not suffering great vexation but rather forming the view that he “didn’t think [the comments] were called for” and thought they were “unfair”.

I have not reached a state of actual persuasion or reasonable satisfaction that Mr Palmer suffered any real or genuine hurt to feelings by reason of the defamatory publications.

Mr Palmer submitted that even if the Court considers that there is no damage to reputation, vindication is still necessary and the judgment should still reflect the baselessness of the charges. While I accept that vindication is a separate consideration that must be given weight in assessing any award of damages, the relationship between the three purposes of damage, particularly damage to reputation and vindication, ought not to be forgotten. To use language drawn from the speech of Lord Hailsham LC in Broome v Cassell and Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027 (at 1071), there is little need for an award of damages to convince the ordinary bystander of the baselessness of the charge if it has not been demonstrated that the charge has materially affected the opinion of the ordinary bystander. Given the lack of significance of the damage to reputation, the appeal to vindication is overstated.

In the end, I am required to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm I have found sustained (which is very minor) and the amount of damages awarded (which should, as a consequence, be very minor). Taking all matters into account, I assess damages in the amount of $5,000.

As to Mr McGowan

Mr McGowan’s case as to damage to reputation collided head on with the objective facts.

It is not in dispute that at the time of First Cross-Claim Matter, in July 2020, the West Australian celebrated Mr McGowan as “Mr 89%”. As at March 2021, some seven months later, Mr McGowan’s personal approval rating was still at the stratospheric level of 88% or 89%. Indeed, a little later, at the state election that same month, the Australian Labor Party won 53 out of 59 seats in the Legislative Assembly. This victory made the “Wranslides” of 1978 and 1981 look close run things. Further, Mr McGowan increased the margin in his own seat of Rockingham to 37.7%, achieving a swing that made it the safest seat in Western Australia.

Notwithstanding any presumption that arises from the extent of publication and the seriousness of the imputations carried, the evidence establishes the inconsequential impact of the publications upon Mr McGowan’s reputation. Indeed, it is more likely that Mr McGowan’s reputation was enhanced. As Mr McGowan accepted, Mr Palmer was someone with whom Mr McGowan was “happy to have a blue with”. Although his damage to reputation was non-existent, Mr McGowan’s evidence as to an aspect of the subjective hurt he suffered was compelling. But he is the Premier of Western Australia. Robust criticism is, and should be, part and parcel of the job. Weighing up all the factors, I have concluded that the appropriate amount for general damages is an award of $20,000.

OTHER RELIEF
As to the mutual applications for an injunction, this is a part of the case where context matters. The right of free speech is essential to the proper functioning of a representative democracy, and subject to certain statutory and other exceptions, should generally not be interfered with or restricted. No injunction should run.

CONCLUSION
The game has not been worth the candle.

These proceedings have not only involved considerable expenditure by Mr Palmer and the taxpayers of Western Australia, but have also consumed considerable resources of the Commonwealth and, importantly, diverted Court time from resolving controversies of real importance to persons who have a pressing need to litigate.

Political figures occupy a special place in our system of representative and responsible government. Insofar as a subset of political figures (serving members of Parliament) are concerned, this special place carries with it protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. Political figures more generally have a position which allows them to further their agenda, and potentially influence the course of economic and social policy and current events. But balanced against these considerable privileges are the costs or downsides of a political profile, including the reality that such figures must expect a degree of public criticism, fair or unfair, not usually visited upon other members of the public. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1996, 999 UNTS 171, 6 ILM 386 (entered into force 23 March 1976) relevantly provides that no-one shall be subjected to “unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation” and that “(e)veryone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks”. This important human right does not vanish like a will-o’-wisp once someone becomes a political figure. But at a time when public resources devoted to courts are under strain, and judicial resources are stretched, one might think that only a significant interference or attack causing real reputational damage and significant hurt to feelings should be the subject of an action for defamation by a political figure.

I will hear the parties on the appropriate award of costs. A relevant consideration will be the glaring disproportion between the damages awarded and the extent of legal expense.

JUSTICE M B J LEE

2 August 2022
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/palmer-v-mcgowan

Better get yerself a lawyer son, better get a damned good one!

Liberal Senator from South Australia, Alex Antic, has been a dogged defender of civil rights and rule of law. The governments, state and federal have been denying all Freedom of Information requests to present the often claimed 'medical advice.' All across the country, as cases start to hit the High Court, mandates are being scrapped everywhere. You can follow his work here:
https://alexantic.com.au/media-releases/sky-news-4-march-2022-the-mandate-agenda/

As he says, "If I was a business that had followed in suit based on these health care directions that have come from these bureacrats, I'd be getting myself a lawyer right at the moment because if anyone was stood down based on zero medical advice, there is an extraordinary path ahead." Extraordinary path indeed and it must include all those lying state premiers and their associated enablers.
As the song says:


Even in the tyrannical state of Western Australia: https://stolzuntermenschen.blogspot.com/2022/03/a-crack-in-western-australian-covid.html

A Crack in the Western Australian Covid Propaganda Wall

The parochial West Australian newspaper, possibly one of the lowest quality newspapers in the country (mind you, that cannot be saying much), loves Communist party supreme leader, premier Mark McGowan. They just lap up whatever bullshit flows out of his lying mouth. While the rest of the world comes to realise that Covid is over and begin returning to normality, Marky Mark wants to increase restrictions, further limit the last remnants of personal freedom, shit on the constitution, and cut Western Australia off from the rest of the country and the world.

As omicron moves inexoribly through the community, Mark is currently distracted with legal woes. When he first locked down the state in 2020, Queensland mining mogel, Clive Palmer, initiated a High Court challenge against the legality of the states imposing border controls. Under the Commonwealth Constitution (1901), all colonial boundaries became null and Australia became an indissoluble self-governing colony. The Palmer vs West Australia case quickly became personal when the good saviour of the Western Australian people took to slandering Palmer in the media and press conferences. McGowan denied Palmer permission to enter the state claiming Palmer was a health risk. Palmer intended to press the matter in the High Court and actually gained the support of the Federal Government, which for a very short moment was concerned about the states running amouk. Pressure from the states led to that case being withdrawn.

All of these shenanigans was something of a smokescreen. Behind the public brawl, Palmer and the McGowan government were engaged in a dispute of mining rights and iron ore exports. The details are hazy - mainly because I haven't had time to research in detail - but the bottom line was that the McGowan government used their majority in parliament to pass a law that would indemnify the state against any legal claims by Palmer for the losses his company would incur when they shut down his mining lease rights. The whole business stinks of... something, but was portrayed by McGowan and his puppet media as a great deal for West Australians.

So, Clive Palmer sued Mark McGowan for defamation. Defamation laws are particularly onerous in Australia and can be used by the powerful and wealthy to crush criticism. McGowan had publicly characterized Palmer in very unbecoming terms so there was a case to answer. To maximise McGowan's discomfort, Palmer sued him in the Federal Court, New South Wales, requiring him to travel interstate at a time when he was preventing other West Australian's from leaving the state, and forcing him to quarantine himself on his return. With Mother Theresa-like humility McGowan bewailed his being dragged from saving the people of Western Australia from the clutches of omicron.

Being used to the fawning media, McGowan was obviously discomforted being held to account in the dock. McGowan's lawyers had fought desperately to keep the state's medical advice and cabinet discussions out of court, to no avail. No FOI has forced the government to reveal its advice - until now. In South Australia the government there has been exposed as having nothing to show. Nothing. Nada. They made it all up. The Palmer case will expose this for WA and, being in a Federal Court, will be usable for cases around the country. McGowan is going to lose, but don't worry. He's spending tax payer money on his defence as He is the State.


For details of the case:
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/palmer-v-mcgowan

Not that you'd know any of this if you were watching the news in WA or reading our newspapers. The West Australia continues its daily orgy of Covid hysteria....and then, this headling on 15 March 2022:

Most COVID cases in Perth ICU were being treated for other conditions, department head reveals.

One of Perth’s major hospitals has had just one patient in intensive care due to COVID-19-related illness this year, with others suffering major traumas and incidentally testing positive for the virus once admitted.

It is the first indication of how many people in hospital are being treated with COVID-19 – as opposed to for COVID-19 – with the state government refusing to release this data.

Of the 50,000 cases recorded since WA’s Omicron wave began, four people have died in hospital with COVID-19, each suffering from unrelated serious health conditions. None were on a ventilator prior to their death.

Royal Perth Hospital ICU department head Anton Leonard on Monday said the hospital had not yet treated a patient presenting with severe COVID-related lung disease.

This story by senior reporter, Heather McNeill, is extraordinary. Publishing the open and honest facts that this state has had only ONE PATIENT in ICU for Covid this year would have gotten her and Dr Leonard fired from their jobs only a month ago. McGowan, quarantined in his bedroom, must have been champing at the bit to call a press conference and stop this disinformation and ramp up the fear.

McNeill finishes her article with an important footnote:

"WA Health has ignored requests for a copy of the data set used to create its modelling graph which shows the expected peak in cases and hospitalisations. As such, the graph has been recreated in this article using rounded figures. The department also declined to confirm the date of ‘Day 0’ in its modelling. As such, Day 0 in this article’s graph reflects the date the first case of Omicron was detected in the community."

It's only a crack in the great wall of Covid propaganda, but it's a sign.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/most-covid-cases-in-perth-icu-were-being-treated-for-other-conditions-department-head-reveals-20220314-p5a4lg.html

I have long stated that businesses and companies in Australia could have stopped this BS at the beginning, instead of just rolling along with the government idiot train. Time to get a lawyer. : https://stolzuntermenschen.blogspot.com/2022/03/better-get-yerself-lawyer-son-better.html

The Great Weakness and the Next Phase of the War

The Covid narrative is falling apart left and right around the world. Even Justin Trudeau's Emergency Powers crackdown on the protests in Ottawa will not save it or himself, no matter what he thinks. The naked exercise of force will ultimately be as destructive on his regime as it will be on the individual protesters arrested. The battle will just move into a different arena.

As I mentioned in earlier posts, the powers that underestimated the opposition against their plans and must salvage what they can for the next round. They had believed that fear of the dread disease (that wasn't), Covid, would keep people in fear and in line while we were stripped of our rights and assets. The key weakness in their plan was their dependence on that most fickle and weak resource - politicians. While the political class have been more than willing to pocket the enormous bribes that have been thrust into their pockets to sell out their people, they are sadly dependent on those very same people to hold power, and here, people power is making itself felt. In the US, the sitting Democrats face annihilation in the mid-terms. In Australia, the smirking milquetoast Prime Minister, Scotty from Marketing, will soon be booted from office. The openly sociopathic New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinta Ardern, is looking decidedly nervous as protesters openly jeer at her. There is only so much shit these people can throw into our faces and still expect us to vote them back into power, and now they can see it with their own eyes. The coming elections will be very interesting indeed.

Before we congratulate ourselves, know that this isn't a victory. It won't be the end. We could - and should - throw out every sitting member who hasn't opposed this travesty in the next election. Send a message. But the next generation of politicians will include all the usual sell-outs and traitors, whether for cash or through blackmail. The powers that be also recognize this weakness and would rather replace the corrupt and incompetent political class with a corrupt but efficient bureaucrat class, and there are endless cadres of these waiting in the wings. We can see the next phase coming together in the WHO's Global Accord for Future Pandemic Response. https://www.who.int/news/item/01-12-2021-world-health-assembly-agrees-to-launch-process-to-develop-historic-global-accord-on-pandemic-prevention-preparedness-and-response This initiative will see countries sign up to an international treaty to centralize any future pandemic response into the hands of the impartial bureaucrats of the WHO. This will dispense with pesky problems like democracy, constitutions, and law. This internationalization into the hands of an impenetrable bureaucracy represents the end of the nation state, the end of democracy.

This is nothing more than a war against humanity. Most people still don't know the battle has been joined.

The EU want to implement the treaty by May 2022: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/coronavirus/pandemic-treaty/

A good article about the next step: https://cjhopkins.substack.com/p/the-naked-face-of-new-normal-fascism

Djokovic Appeals Minister of Immigration's Decision - A Critical Case Looms

"The personal opinion of the Minister is extraneous and irrelevant"

On 14th January 2022, the Immigration Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, Alex Hawke, used his ministerial power "under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act to cancel the visa held by Mr Novak Djokovic on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so." Djokovic lodged an appeal against the minister's decision which was held and televised on Saturday 15th January 2022, however, the full bench of the Federal Court decided in favour of the minister on the grounds that under the Migration Act, the minister's powers to revoke a visa is "final and conclusive, must not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called into question in any court, and is not subject to prohibition, mandamus, injunction, declaration or certiorari in any court on any account." Djokovic was duly deported from Australia, denied the ability to defend his Australian Open title. He has subsequently commenced a legal action against Australia for his treatment and loss of earnings. https://stolzuntermenschen.blogspot.com/2022/01/djokovic-vs-minister-for-immigration_18.html

At the time of the Federal Court's decision, some legal and constitutional commentators expressed the view that the Federal Court indeed had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the minister's decision and erred in its decision. Instead, the case should have been heard in the High Court. In Australia, the High Court is the highest court in the land. It is both a court of appeal against decisions made in lower courts but also has jurisdiction to hear cases directly, especially where matters touch on the Constitution. Few Australians know anything about our Constitution. It is no great work of literature like the Constitution of the United States, but a relatively short and rather tersely worded Act of Parliament of Great Britain that defines the rules for the operation of the government of the Commonwealth of Australia. Reading it alone, one may come away with the impression that 'we the people' do not count for much in the constitution as we are barely mentioned. This is what our government would like us believe of course, but that would be wrong. To understand the meaning of every clause and word used in the Constitution, one must referred to the Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth by Justices John Quick and Robert Garran (1901). The Annotated Constitution is 1056 pages of extremely detailed legal explanation of every right, power and obligation of the supreme law of this country. It is important - critical in fact - to understand that the Constitution protects the rights of every man, woman and child in the country and that we, the people are the “Supreme, Absolute, Uncontrollable Authority”, not the politicians. https://constitutionwatch.com.au/annotated-constitution/ It is also an extremely detailed history of the evolution of law and human rights, not only in Australia but across the world.

Djokovic's legal team are now appealing the authority of the minister to revoke his visa on Constitutional grounds. At issue here is a fundamental point of law of whether politicians, in drafting the powers of their office in legislation, are able to set those powers above the Constitution, which is the ultimate source of authority for all law in this country. I believe the Constitution is clear on this matter and that answer is firm no. I will quote some of the arguments from their submission to the court, emphasizing key points were appropriate in bold.

The legislative authority of the Commonwealth is derived pursuant to section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution. The pertinent clauses relating to this case are:

SECT 51. Legislative powers of the Parliament.
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-
(ix.) Quarantine:
(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:
(xxvii.) Immigration and emigration:

The powers defined under the Constitution s51 act as a restraint upon the government and must be read together, i.e., the government cannot pick and choose which clauses to apply or ignore. So, while the government can enact legislation to regulate immigration, it cannot demand or require anyone to undergo a medical procedure as this authority is explicitly denied the government under s51 clause xxiiiA. Djokovic's lawyers argue:

"All constitutional guarantees operate as a restraint on legislative power and disapply any authority in the part of the executive to exercise any personal discretionary powers contrary to this prohibition. Thus the personal opinion of the immigration Minister in relation to vaccination is irrelevant as the Commonwealth’s authority to force vaccination does not exist and is prohibited under the Constitution. Furthermore, the Commonwealth acknowledged Mr Djokovic was not a serious risk and therefore the decision in the matter had no basis in fact or law."

Opponents of the mandatory vaccination regime have long argued that neither the state nor federal governments have any lawful authority due to the Constitutional guarantee against medical conscription at s51 xxiiiA. In 2021, the Victorian Supreme Court, in a serious error of interpretation, narrowly ascribed the guarantee to be limited to 'military conscription of medical services' in a finding against the petitioners. Case law against any form of medical conscription (enforcement) is conclusive on this matter and that erroneous decision is being appealed in the High Court.

The second part of the Djokovic appeal touches on public health and the powers of quarantine. Djokovic's lawyers continue:

"The only authority that the Commonwealth has to make laws in relation to people's health is the quarantine power pursuant to section 51(ix). The Commonwealth has made a law in the Biosecurity Act in relation to quarantine, that law makes it very clear that a person is only subject to quarantine powers when laboring under infectious disease. The immigration Minister has no authority in relation to quarantine, that power being exercisable [only] by Biosecurity Officers. No control order was issued by these officers on Mr Djokovic. Therefore Mr Djokovic was no longer subject to Federal Jurisdiction on the grounds that quarantine powers could not be exercise against him without showing signs or symptoms of an infectious disease.

Mr Djokovic did not have any signs or symptoms of any infectious disease so he was not subject to that Act. The other question that must be asked and answered is does the Minister have authority under the Bioecurity Act? The answer to that question is no. When Mr Djokovic entered the country he should have been looked at by Biosecurity officers, they and they alone would have determined whether he was laboring under an infectious disease and therefore issue a control order against him. Mr Djokovic does not have any control orders against him, he has therefore satisfied the quarantine powers of the Commonwealth and is no longer subject to federal jurisdiction upon entering to the State of Victoria, he was subject to state jurisdiction and yet again on two accounts he was deemed to be safe..."

Summing up the arguments, Djokovic's lawyers affirm - above and beyond Mr Djokovic's personal situation - the governments of the Commonwealth, state and federal, do not have any lawful powers to impose either immigration controls, vaccine mandates, lockdowns, or restrictions on interstate or international travel.

"The Commonwealth authority to make laws in relation to immigration are only granted subject to this Constitution and that draws in the prohibition against civil conscription, a forced legal or practical compulsion to have a medical service such as vaccination. As there is no legislative authority to support the actions of the Minister his personal opinion is an irrelevant consideration of the court, “The constitutional constraint does not operate directly upon the exercise of executive power. It invalidates the executive act only by operating upon the legislation, disapplying the legislative authority for the executive act if the legislation would otherwise trespass against the constitutional limits upon legislative power.” The Migration Act is invalid in its operation as it contravenes s51(xxiiiA).

The Minister is basically stating that he will only allow entry into the country to those that are vaccinated, a power the Commonwealth clearly does not possess.

The ruling of the Federal Court not only was it applicable to Mr Djokovic personally but has ramifications to the population as a whole."

Djokovic's lawyers close their arguments by challenging the Federal Court's decision and failure to consider the Constitutional guarantees and prohibitions in weighing their decision.

"The judges acted on a wrong principle; the Minister cannot exercise his own personal opinion contrary to law as the discretionary power granted to him can only be exercised so [i.e., in accordance with the law and Constitutional guarantees]. The personal opinion of the Minister is extraneous and irrelevant, and the court allowed itself to be guided or effected by him. The court failed to take into account the material consideration that the Minister himself considered Djokovic was a low risk in spreading the virus, his vaccination status being irrelevant. Furthermore, it is clear that the court has committed further jurisdictional errors in believing that decisions on the basis of unreasonableness, irrationality or illogicality do not constitute grounds for judicial review and fall within the realms of judicial review ultra vires of the court."

That the courts, especially those in the state Supreme Courts, have been acting partially in these matters is highly concerning. State courts, refusing to hear constitutional arguments within their jurisdiction, are acting unconstitutionally. ALL law in this country is subject to the Constitution. Djokovic's lawyers fired a particularly telling shot across the Federal Court's bow with this statement "The constitution does not allow immunity to be confirmed on lower courts against judicial review of their decisions." The message here is clear - you need to follow the law or your decisions will be invalidated on appeal.

The government, in its desperation to achieve a propaganda victory against 'an icon that could be used by the vaccine hesitant', has burned the already shabby credibility of the Federal Court. Well, it achieved a fly-by night win but at the same opened the door to a High Court challenge that has the potential to completely destroy their entirely unlawful over-extensions. A loss in the High Court - and by any reading of Constitutional law - the government is facing a loss that would bring down the whole house of cards. At a stroke, the Migration Act and many other pieces of legislation will be automatically invalidated. By extension, all the numerous state laws around vaccination will also be immediately invalidated as the states no more have the power to enforce medical conscription than the federal government does. Section 109 of the Australian Constitution states: "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid". Section 109 is invalidating or destructive; it has no reconstructive aspect. Its operation is automatic and does not require a judicial order. All laws the State Government propose that exceed their authority or contradict Federal laws are automatically invalid.

There are separately several cases going through the High Court at the moment arguing this fundamental point of law. Djokovic brings big guns and deep pockets to the table. The word to use is 'own goal.'

For more information: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/further-legal-argument-to-support-the-decision-in-the-djokovic-matter-being-absent-jurisdiction-and-the-requirement-of-the-federal-court-to-remake-the-decision-according-to-law/

Notice of jurisdictional error: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/notice-to-the-federal-court-of-jurisdictional-error-in-the-matter-of-djokovic-v-minister-of-immigration-citizen-migrant-services-and-multicultural-affairs-mlg116-2022/

West Australian Premier Mark McGowan shits the bed

"This evening, I would like to provide you with an update on our Safe Transition Plan, which we first announced in November. This plan was based on the impact of the Delta variant, which was prevalent in the Eastern States for six months, after it first emerged in NSW in June last year.

Under that plan - modelling at the time indicated we would peak at 338 daily cases, with 62 hospitalisations, and one life lost each day.

Unfortunately, the world changed in December - Omicron arrived.

Omicron is a whole new threat that we can’t ignore. And right now we don’t know the full picture of what Omicron could mean – but we do know how easily transmissible and infectious it is.

There is insufficient data to make any meaningful assumptions of what it will look like once Omicron takes full effect and case numbers peak over east.

But we know there has been a surge in hospitalisations around Australia, with an average of almost 5,000 Australians hospitalised a day since the start of the year with COVID-19.

And tragically, in just 19 days of 2022, we have seen 664 Australians lose their lives to COVID-19. It would be irresponsible and reckless for the State Government to ignore the facts and ignore the reality of the situation playing out on the east coast.

Allowing hundreds or thousands of Omicron infected people to fly straight into Perth from 5 February, with no testing, no quarantine and no public health measures, would cause a flood of COVID-19 across our State. It would cause a surge in cases, a surge in hospitalisations and result in thousands of people not being able to work or go to school. It would cripple our community, like it’s doing on the east coast.

What we do know about Omicron so far is that a third dose of the vaccine is so vital in giving people effective protection. We currently sit at 25.8% of third doses for Western Australians aged 16 and over.

But we can lift the third doses rate significantly, and we can give ourselves the best chance to vaccinate our children. If we can hold back this current Omicron outbreak, we will be one of the only places in the world that can achieve a high third dose rate before we reach widespread community transmission.

WA’S UPDATED TRANSITION PLAN
In light of what’s occurred in the rest of the country, having closely assessed the situation over east and listening to the latest health advice, we have reworked WA’s Safe Transition Plan to fit the environment that now confronts us. So, from 12:01am on Saturday February 5, a new hard border will be in place with a focus on both safety and compassion.

Under the new hard border settings, approved travelers are permitted to enter WA, or leave WA and return, with testing and quarantine requirements under the new expanded exemption criteria:
- Returning Western Australians, with strong recent connections or direct legitimate family connections with WA;
- Compassionate grounds including funeral, palliative care or terminally ill visitation;
- Member of the family of an approved traveler;
- People entering for urgent and essential medical treatment;
- Reasons of national and state security;
- Commonwealth and State officials, Members of Parliament, Diplomats;
- Provision of specialist skills not available in WA, health services, emergency service workers;
- People required to attend court matters, judicial officers and staff of court, tribunals and commissions; and
- Special considerations and extraordinary circumstances determined by the State Emergency Coordinator or Chief Health Officer.

INTERSTATE TRAVEL
If you’re coming from interstate as an approved traveler, you will need to meet the following requirements:
- Have an approved G2G Pass, under new exemption criteria;
- Be triple dose vaccinated if eligible (double dose vaccinated if not eligible for third);
- Provide proof of a negative Rapid Antigen Test within 24 hours before departure;
- Undertake 14 days of self-quarantine at a suitable premises, with the same requirements for household members at the self-quarantine premises;
- PCR testing within 48 hours of arrival and on day 12 of self-quarantine, and household members will also be required to do a PCR test on the traveler's day 12.
- Subject to mandatory use of G2G Now and in-person checks by WA Police as required
Additional requirements are in place for domestic road travel to keep WA safe:
- Approved domestic travelers to limit travel to 1,500km from road borders, to enable people to travel by road to suitable premises for quarantine in Perth from Eucla;
- Entry at the Kununurra border only for transport, freight and logistics and border community residents;
- Restricted travel into remote Aboriginal communities.

OVERSEAS TRAVEL
International travel into WA will be permitted with the following requirements:
- Meet the Commonwealth requirements to enter Australia under the arrivals cap;
- Undertake 14 days of mandatory quarantine including, seven days in hotel quarantine and seven days of self-quarantine at suitable premise, if eligible,
- PCR testing on days one, six, nine and 12, and household members will also be required to do a PCR test on the traveler's day 12
- Subject to mandatory use of G2G Now and in-person checks by WA Police as required
- International travel in-directly into WA via another state or territory will be subject to the same entry and quarantine requirements as domestic travelers
Current entry arrangements remain unchanged for transport, freight and logistics, maritime, aircraft crew, rig/platform and specific industries approved by the State Emergency Coordinator and Chief Health Officer.
Future review of border controls will be considered over the course of the next month.

I know this decision will be unpopular for many people as holiday plans and family gatherings will have been disrupted. For that I am very sorry. I understand that many people have planned around this date, and it is important we now provide people with a pathway to reconnect with families, on compassionate grounds, in a safe manner.

WA will be taking on more risk as many people enter under compassionate grounds from 5 February. But if we proceeded with the original plan, we would be deliberately seeding thousands of COVID-19 cases into WA, at this point in time that is not what I’m going to do."

Commentary
The National Cabinet made a commitment last year to reopen the country and drop all the interstate 'border' restrictions by 5 February 2022. This was part of the government's commitment to end the state of emergency and 'live with Covid.' Of course, there was one notable hold-out to this commitment - the secessionist WA Premier Mark McGowan. Since the beginning of the crisis, McGowan has cut WA off from the rest of the country and refused to adhere to any dates or commitments. Imagine my surprise when McGowan announced an emergency press conference at 7.30pm - prime news time - on Thursday 20th January 2022. What could he want to tell us? Looking anxious and with a visible tremor in his hands - which he tried to hide behind the lectern - the Good Premier announced he was keeping WA in lockdown from interstate and international travelers because of omicron. Surprise! Not.

Mark then proceeded to lie about the omicron and push hard on booster shots, which was the obvious motive for the extended lockdown. Everything he said about omicron and booster efficiency was a bare faced lie (I will expand more later). Interestingly, he mentioned that there was a crisis management group advising the government on this matter. Who is this group? What financial interests do they represent? This is certainly something for a Freedom of Information request.

What advice did this group give? Like all advice on the Covid response, the government refuses to disclose any details. Another Freedom of Information request I think.

I will provide more research and evidence against Mark McGowan's lies, but here are some quick links:
Perhaps Mark and his advisors could have read some of these instead of Pfizer and Moderna press releases?
The declining lethality of omicron: https://regenexx.com/blog/new-cdc-data-on-omicron-says-it-all-91-less-lethal/
Omicron as the end of the pandemic: https://www.novinite.com/articles/213129/Virologist%3A+Omicron+is+the+End+of+the+Pandemic
Boosters are NOT effective against omicron: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-19/mrna-boosters-don-t-block-omicron-south-african-study-shows
Repeated boosters are not a long-term strategy: https://bnanews102.bna.com/coronavirus/repeat-booster-shots-spur-europe-warning-on-immune-system-risks
PCR tests are ineffective/flawed: https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/
WHO warns against vaccination of children without more data: https://www.who.int/news/item/24-11-2021-interim-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-for-children-and-adolescents