LibertyWorks Inc v Cth  FCAFC 90
A private think-tank challenged a COVID overseas travel ban made under laws to prevent the spread of disease3. It said its members should not be subjected to a measure a named individual could not be. Also, the ban could only cover domestic movements – cf s 21(1)(b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 – and its members each had a human right to leave Australia4.
Rights of movement are never absolute in their character or operation, however, and a clear purpose to protect public health would be emasculated otherwise. Section 21(1)(b) is also subject to contrary intention – as was shown in this context5. Further, government is empowered ‘to respond to a crisis’6.
This principle is from Episode 75 of interpretation NOW!
3 Determination made under s 477 of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth).
4 Art 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
5 s 2(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
6 Palmer  HCA 5 (at ) quoted, cf Pape  HCA 23 (at ).