Qantas CEO calls out "politics" on domestic border closures

I can see the logic of closing borders to isolate Victoria, but the blocking of residents returning to their homes is unreasonable.  It is easier to get into WA from a another country than it is from another state.

Medical borders should not be defined by State boundaries.  They should be based around hot spots that are clearly defined.  If this was the case, then Melbourne would have been locked down earlier and then the rest of the State could have stayed open.

I live in QLD and I don't consider that our premiere has been grandstanding at all. Can't blame her though for responding robustly to strident bleatings from NSW who has yet  to get a grip of the virus.

While I don’t agree at all with your post I respect your opinion. Out of interest will your view change if no vaccine is available March 21 that you are confident for? How long would you be prepared to be locked down with a closed border for if no vaccine? Especially with the rest of the world seemingly getting on with it now.

Well, Perflyer you don't have much faith in our scientists both here and all over the world.

With technology and commonsense border waivers, so freight and businesses can continue to trade and make a profit within Australia, businesses apart for the travel industry, and the Arts Industry will see our economy start and get back to some sort of normal, whatever that may look like.

Allan Joyce has accepted that International travel may not resume until June next year at the earliest and may have to accept Domestic travel might no return to some sort of normal or high patronage until we have a vaccine or all states have 3 full months with no Covid-19 cases. 

SA is not in lockdown due to no COVID-19 outbreaks for several months, I think we have 2 now from overseas travelers returning and we, SA had to take our share of returning Australians who do not live in SA, who are in hotel quarantine. 

We can go about our normal lives here but just follow the social distancing rule and opening our borders would jeopardize this. 85 percent of South Australians are happy with our borders closed.

So our borders might remain closed for another 6 or 7 months, short term pain for long term gain. Like I said before if we get a second wave of COVID -19 here due to relaxing our border, allowing infected interstate Travellers into our state, every business in SA will suffer here including airlines if we go into lockdown again, a lot that made it through the first lockdown might not survive the 2nd all due to one sector in the business community, jeopardizing all the other business sectors.

The only thing that would change my mind should a vaccine NOT be available before March 2021and maybe available in June 2021 or beyond would be NO more overseas flights with returning Australians or visitors allowed into Australia, including overseas students, until we have a vaccine OR each state having 3 full months with no COVID-19 positive cases in each state then we could open our domestic borders but NOT our international borders to ANYONE.

The cold hard fact is Money talks and people's lives run a distant 2nd to money. So Australians should have some say in their home states where they live and their own wellbeing is at risk instead of being dictated to by an Airline Boss.

The rest of the world getting on with it? do you watch a trusted news service? Do you look at the worldwide Covid-19 cases and deaths each day or doesn't that matter to you? The USA slogan should be "get back to work, but hey you might die of Covid-19, but that's ok, the economy is ticking over and will tick over with or without you.

I also respect your opinion but fundamentally disagree with you. 

Your assumption that every Australian overseas is in holiday and should have returned in April is offensive. 

Your "90 day visit" claim illustrates your view that the only Aussies overseas are sunning themselves on a beach in Bali. There are tens of thousands of Aussies who actually live and work overseas. Selling houses, cars, arranging the packing of furniture, taking children out of school, giving notice, settling tax, closing bank accounts etc (in the midst of a pandemic) can take months not to mention employment contracts, the breaking of which prematurely, will damage careers for life.

Do you appreciate, for instance, that the Australian government gives the recipient of a permanent or temporary residence visa 12 months to take up residence AFTER the visa is issued. PRIOR to the issue date, the applicant would have been going through the process, thus EXPECTING to be approved for anything up to 24 months.

Having done this myself 3 times, even knowing that you are likely to be approved, I have only just made the 12 month cutoff such is the complexity of closing down your whole life and preparing to set it up again elsewhere. 

The pandemic was declared on 12 March and you suggest a "cutoff" on 30 June.

With all due respect, if you haven't walked in my shoes, please don't speak for me. There is more to "moving back" than tossing a pair of thongs and a Bintang singlet into a suitcase and heading for the airport.

The Australian government's job firstly is to take care of its citizens within Australia. You are absolutely right in saying you and others just cannot drop everything to come home to Australia, so this is something you and others need to consider Before relocating overseas, so you all made your choice to work or live overseas and now the world as we know is now facing the biggest challenge it has ever faced with this coronavirus pandemic and all of us are caught up in it no matter where we are in the world.

I'm talking about people who departed Australia when the pandemic was declared and flew out of Australia for a holiday period, up to 90 days for whatever reason, NOT for migration or work purposes for relocating elsewhere in the world. 

When you decide to migrate or to accept a job in another country for whatever reason, you need to way up the pro and cons and this should include: does the country I'm moving too have great healthcare?, if I lose my job can I survive in this country if I can get another job?, What is my plan if that happens? Because the only thing in life that's guaranteed these days is we all are eventually going to die. Jobs these days are either casual or on a contract period.

I'm not speaking for you or anyone else who decided to work abroad before or after the pandemic was declared, that choice is yours to make, good or bad, we all have to take responsibility for our own actions and decisions and the situation we find ourselves in now. 

The original question here was about Allan Joyce CEO of Qantas complaining that states within Australia have not opened their borders to interstate travel where there are no or low case numbers of Covid-19. This is what I was addressing in my previous comments.

For Australia to remain pandemic free until we have a vaccine, we need a hard international border closure to protect all Australian citizens living within Australia, otherwise, we risk Australia going down the path of the USA. Overrun hospitals, doctors having to decide who they save and who they let die because the hospital system throughout the whole of Australia cannot cope with so many sick patients, limited respirators, and the knock-on effect is a far worsening Australian economy.

 So Australian's living and working overseas really have one choice only now, to ride out the pandemic until we have a vaccine as this is the only way more frequent international flights back to Australia will resume OR face potential financial ruin, drop everything where they are in currently in the world and if they are very lucky they might get one of the very limited international flights back home and go into Quarantine here if they really are wanting to return home ASAP.

In my opinion, our Australian Government has limited or ceased international flights to Australia to have some sort of control with the pandemic within our country and popular or not, limiting overseas flights here until the pandemic is fully under control here in Australia or we have a vaccine is the only way forward and frequency of international flights to resume and Australians overseas to get back home who want to. 

Most countries all over the world have closed their borders to non-residents to contain the coronavirus pandemic within their country's borders now.

I was in the USA on holiday for 6 weeks when news of the Diamond Princess broke a week before I was due to fly home and this story dominated the news cycle in the USA, if I wasn't already booked to return home on the 2nd of March, I would have changed my booking and got home quick smart because I could see the writing on the wall, first, there were outbreaks in China, now an outbreak on a cruise ship in Japan, I knew something bad was coming. I hate being right.

Ozpeak fully agree but while it would piss me off I would ride it out or pay the $10k to get home in a business class seat on Qatar or or whomever is selling seats on freight flights.

What do you mean by "getting on with it?" exactly. 

They're certainly not getting on with it very well. Witness UK's will we won't policies on international travel.

As for US, well who gives a flying frequent flyer point.

McGowans hard WA border is destroying more lives than Covid 19 is. My wife and I are WA residents in Qld and there are other WA residents in states that have no Covid 19 transmission, but we are literally barred from our own homes, families, jobs and businesses. Surely there is a way at least to begin a process of allowing us to return. We don’t have a problem with self iso, but the actual mental burden of being denied access to our own families and lives is terrible, not to mention the financial burden of paying for accommodation on short term basis. Medical advice is that the virus will be around for sometime and that processes and procedures need to be in place to effectively jump on it as it appears.  McGowan is not governing for all WA residents, but I have no doubt he will be seeking my vote in the March state election.

Fully agree quarantine or monitored self isolation for residents is a no-brainer.

Well said. Joyce should pull his head in. Clearly does not understand what federation means.

My partner went overseas to work at the end of Feb. He was in a bubble and didn't know most of what was going on. He couldn't get home for 4.5 months byv walking out on his job and paying 5000 for a one way ticket. Not everyone can aid to do this. He came back to 2 weeks quarantine willingly. No-one knows anyone else's circumstances and there is no one size fits all answer to this. I'm sick of hearing everyone say all Aussies should have just come home or be locked out. If quarantine was more successful we'd be in a better position nationally, and I'm not just talking about Vic. NZ outbreak has been identified as a border issue not properly managed, as in by water. Nothing is foolproof, no country has it completely right. 

Passports (great idea actually), ankle bracelets, geofencing etc. ALL fully supportive of rather than the ghastly imprisonment in a hotel. Business NEEDS to travel and 14 days isolation after attending an essential meeting etc would be fine by me.

Hey, I LOVE the international terminal idea. First Class lounge here I come.

14 days of isolation after a meeting isn't worth it. I'd opt for a Zoom meeting instead, until such time these restrictions are rescinded.

Cruise not sure Sweden has the right idea more than ten times  the deaths with half the population. Not the best model to follow.

Sweden had major failures in its initial outbreak, primarily in the aged care sector and lack of PPE across medical environments. These are exactly the two major problems we now have in Victoria. 

The difference, however, is that Sweden immediately acknowledged, owned, and fixed those problems. Today, they have among the lowest new infection rates and deaths in Europe and they managed fixing it without a lockdown. Go have a look at the charts. No one can point to what Sweden is doing the last several months and say it isn't working. The evidence simply won't support the argument. Had they been able to protect those high-risk areas from the outset, they may well have avoided even those initial deaths. 

What worries me most is that here in Australia we seem to have forgotten that the purpose of the lockdown was to buy time to put sustainable solutions into place, not as blunt tools to just "make the virus go away." It simply won't happen. Here in Victoria, we had 3+ months to prepare, yet fewer than 200 new infections each day threw us into Lockdown #2. What were we doing with that time we bought? And what are we doing with the time we're buying now? I hear a lot of clichés about "getting to the other side of this" and "driving the numbers down," but I certainly don't hear government presenting sustainable, effective plans for what happens next time, and there will be a next time, as NZ has shown us.

Flying: Sweden’s public health advice now is exactly what it is across most of Australia at the moment (social distancing, limits on gatherings, no table service in bars, advising masks etc) except for Melbourne where it is tighter; and Sweden ended up in the same place as we are now (except for Melbourne) in terms of current level 2/3 restrictions, but with ten times the deaths four times the cases and all with half the population. Not a good record, and the only difference was no higher level lockdown for those critical three months. Not a record anyone should emulate. NZ and Australia got it far more right than Sweden. Not sure Sweden immediately fixed it as you suggest. It took ages for them to sort out aged care and health workers, as it has taken in Australia. Note no international arrivals into Sweden either except for shengen but most of whom have to quarantine on return. And Sweden has a good chance of a flair up in winter (when they are stuck in doors); which we are just coming out of.

Yes, Sweden's infection and death rate initially was far higher than Victoria from the period of March - May. However, the same cannot be said for the last 3 months. That's the point. If you want to just point to the total period without taking into account that their numbers are down to nearly zero in the last few months and asking how they got there, that's fine, but it's not very honest or productive in terms of projecting where we might go from here. (And don't take for granted that Swedish summers aren't much nicer than Australian winters.)

Sweden's deaths were disproportionately in aged care settings, like in Victoria, and while relatively speaking no strategy is "immediate" (as Stage 4 in Melbourne is also demonstrating), the fact that Sweden managed to take bring down such a high spike down to nearly zero without a lockdown in the same amount of time it's taking us with one is impressive. 

The conclusion isn't that "lockdowns don't work." It's that lockdowns are not inherently necessary if you manage to safeguard high-risk settings in a targeted, nuanced way that reflects the differences in risk across varying contexts. As I said initially, had Sweden properly protected those areas from the beginning, they may well have avoided that initial peak of deaths. An initial lockdown in Sweden may well have bought them time to do that (though not necessarily as Belgium and the Netherlands did lock down to little avail in those areas).

Regardless, we DID have that initial lockdown in Australia and yet we have very little to show for it here in Vic, as it took very little to throw us back into one again. And I fear we are being very naive if we think other states that have successfully eliminated for now will maintain elimination permanently, so how will they respond any differently? (NSW, perhaps, is showing us that it can be done.)

In other words: why couldn't Victoria have had its initial lockdown to buy time to prepare (and thus hopefully avoid an initial peak of deaths like Sweden) and then implemented reasonable but sustainable restrictions going forward like Sweden now has? Who knows. It seems we didn't, however, as apparently, despite having had those 3+ months in Lockdown #1 to prepare, the "only" option according to our government now is this crushing Stage 4 Lockdown. 

Where will this leave us? Hopefully right back where we were in June. But that's the rub of it all: until we have those long-term sustainable solutions in place, we'll simply have no choice but to lock down again, and again, and again. Few things are certain, but indefinite lockdown being impossibly unsustainable is one. 

Finally, back on topic when it comes to the article re: border closures, Sweden simply doesn't have those problems, which is exactly the point. 

Flying I just checked and Sweden has had 1300 COVID deaths since the end of June, that is after the Australian lockdown finished. We have had 300 in that time with almost all in Victoria. Not sure what you are suggesting with those figures.

Over the past several weeks, Sweden's daily total of new coronavirus deaths is nearly zero and since end June (in fact mid-April), the trend has clearly been down. Australia (Victoria) is at an all-time high. 

Sweden's numbers previously have not been admirable and fortunately our all-time high has been lower than theirs, but the point is that Sweden borough their numbers down - and have kept them down - without a lockdown or border restrictions.

I'm not envying where Sweden was in April. I do envy and admire what they've done since to bring down an even far higher peak to nearly zero without such crushing restrictions or sealing off their borders. If they can do it, why can't we, especially when we're starting from a much lower peak?

Flying not sure your data source but according to statista.com through August Sweden’s cases are well into the hundreds much the same as Australia, and if Melbourne is omitted, much more. And the numbers of deaths are still in the hundreds, and winter hasn’t arrived yet. Not sure where the zero is from. 

Again, cases and deaths trending down in Sweden with no lockdown or border restrictions. 

Cases and deaths trending up in Victoria with full lockdown and border restrictions.

No reason whatsoever for the states with no cases to have either. 

Sweden has had 40 deaths so far in all of August, with several days of zero in the last few weeks. Victoria had already surpassed that figure of 40 on August 5, despite having only about half the population size. 

Conclusion, again, is not that Sweden is perfect; it's that neither a full lockdown or - in the case of this article's topic - border restrictions are required to bring those numbers down.

(Seasonality may play a role, but as the US has shown us, the virus will happily thrive in warm temperatures as well, and Sweden's summers are hardly hot.)

Sorry: cases and deaths trending down*** in Victoria as well, not up.

Trends down in both situations, but one has had far less restrictive measures to achieve similar (currently better, even) esults. 

Flying you seem to have conflated Australia with Victoria. They are quite different and Sweden’s figures for August are pretty poor compared with the non Victoria that is three quarters of Australia. So my point is we can cherry-pick various bits of various countries but fo most of and most of Sweden the data difference doesn’t look flash. A winter comes there may be further not flattering data from Sweden.

It's not conflation; I deliberately narrowed the discussion to Victoria because there are no real outbreaks elsewhere in Australia so I don't think it would be fair of me to say, "Australia has done poorly the last two months," when in reality it's Victoria that has done poorly. 

That aside, the article is about domestic borders, so let's stick to that. Domestically, and like Australia, Sweden has multiple regions, and some regions were hit far harder than others. Those regions don't have the same power of states, but do have borders that the national government could close. Despite that, Sweden never closed off borders internally and still the least-hit regions initially avoided a massive influx of cases and numbers across the country trended down. Indeed, and even more exceptionally, Sweden has managed to bring its outbreak under control even with international borders open. 

Setting aside Victoria (and NSW if you really want to be cautious and play elimination here), most of our states have no cases or outbreaks and yet have kept their borders closed to each other. That's the criticism, and the defence from these governments is that those closures are necessary even to states with zero cases. They're not, and the relevance of Sweden to that discussion is that even countries that have had some regions hit far worse than other regions domestically have managed to avoid massive waves spreading to those less-affected areas without sealing them off.

Yet we can't even open up states with zero cases to states with other zero cases?

Not sure how for you Sweden with 10 million people managed to bring its outbreak under control and Victoria with 7million and the same incidence rate through August hasn’t.  The difference in per million cases isn’t that great. Sweden may be open to people coming in but people leaving have quite some restrictions so an open border goes both ways.

Sorry Patrick, I just don’t understand what point you’re making. 

Joyce is criticising states who are keeping borders closed on the claim that it’s medically necessary to keep cases and deaths from rising, even from states with no cases. Reasonable minds can differ on whether it’s medicine or politics at play here, but the example here is that even Sweden, an oft-cited target of “what not to do”, is on a clear downward trend in both infections and deaths across all regions of the country despite never implementing the internal border closures (let alone lockdowns) that our state leaders insist are required to achieve that downward trend and keep it down.

Yet even in Victoria with our lockdown and restrictions, as you note, the difference in cases compared to Sweden isn't that great. And again, we're ultimately talking domestic borders here, not international. 

Finally, if climate is a critical factor, then you build that into the guidance going forward. There is no reason for Sweden, for example, to shut internal borders today because of what they fear might happen in December. Rather, they build that potentially increased risk into their strategy and, if the trend starts to reverse, implement it. 

Flying I am merely trying to disavow the mythology of how well Sweden is doing. There is in fact an uptick in cases in August. I agree that border movements should be related to cases. Four Australian states of various political hues 2-lib and 2-labor, could open the borders to each other and as I live in the ACT with close to the best record, and we can’t go to any of those four. If Sweden implemented more local lockdowns and movement restrictions based on data, they may not be back with the current uptick.

I see. I haven't suggested Sweden has the perfect balance.

Nor do I think it's unreasonable to ask for clear, fact-based guidance to determine the how/when/where any border closures in the future are handled, nor that Joyce is being inflammatory when he suggests that states sealing themselves off indefinitely even to other states with a "clean" bill of health at the moment is more a political tactic than a valid exercise of their legislative powers to protect public health.  

On that, I suspect we agree. It's not reasonable for states to keep folks like you in the ACT indefinitely cut off from other states despite having an ever better record than they do, nor as I can certainly tell you from Melbourne today, are these lockdowns a sustainable way to tackle outbreaks in future. 

This a classic example of, "I'm not experiencing the problems being addressed, therefore they must not be real." 

Wonderful for you if your business, work, etc. are continuing better than you initially feared, but for millions of Australians, that's not the case, and for millions more, the artificial propping up of those businesses and jobs by the government in the form of JobKeeper, etc., the clock is ticking. 

That's prudent.

Tell me, though, from whom will you take advice for the economic, financial, mental, and social consequences caused by taking the medical advice? Do you think a holistic approach is necessary here or is it just not relevant to you because the risk for the medical risk is greater to you than the others?

We are in the grips of a pandemic and no I dont have my head buried in the sand as you imply. To allow Australians back home we first need to tackle the out break here so it safe  for you all to return and this takes time. None of us have ever experienced a pandemic like this before. 

So who is to blame for all the displaced and poor people in the world? the answer is all of us and those who dont care about those less fortunate who vote to put leaders in power and into government who dont care either and just worry about their own self interests and what benefits them and not others or the entire future of our planet. 

I'm not one of these people.  For the past 12 years I have sponsored several children in Africa, through world vision so these children can be all they are meant to be and now have endless possibilities for their future. 

I pride myself that Australian's and Australia all come together when we have a crisis here like drought, bushfires or floods and we have a system that helps the unemployed, people with a disability, the elderly here in Australia and yes it should be a higher payment so they can survive instead or remaining below the poverty line. 

It's tough that we cannot be with our families. I have family in Victoria so you are not the only one who can't see their family. 

This pandemic is not going to last for years and we need a common sense plan to get through it. I'm optimistic there will be a vaccine by March and for those Australian's who wish to return home, can in the coming months. I'm also optimistic international travel will start as soon as we have a vaccine.

Both Australian and international law require that we let our own citizens back into the country, so let's start with that and leave the fanciful idea of shutting the borders shut at the door given it's simply not an option.

Looking back domestically, time is running out for states keeping borders closed to other states without medical evidence to do so. The legal basis that the states are relying on to impose these drastic border closures is that they have jurisdiction over "public health." 

Like with any issue, a government can pass any law it likes, but if that law is found to not be justified by whatever basis of power the government claims it's using to enact it (e.g. public health), the law will be struck down. 

The federal government has let states do what they want for the time being but as time (and money the federal government has to find to pay for state decisions) runs out, so too will their patience not to challenge these laws. 

A state like WA blocking entry from Tasmania with zero active cases is simply not justified on any medical ground and therefore is very unlikely to be successfully defended as being necessary to protect public health. 

Harrier, Given the current political pressure I suspect the government will allow some more 'rescue' flights with the A333s they are flying. Maybe-Perth-Dubai and LHR/Paris/Frankfurt etc (Syd Honolulu/LA) then back maybe to the mining camp they used before near Darwin for quarantine.

I hate that innocent workers on JobKeeper have to be collateral damage in all of this, however it seems that until the federal government pulls the plug on the indefinite flow of money, the states won't be bothered to take any proactive step towards moving to a sustainable solution.

And if we're being honest... why would they? Politics has never really been altruistic, and if you can keep your citizens happy and your chances of staying in power higher, why would you bother doing anything differently? Not until the gravy train runs out and citizens of these states start to realise what the real cost is off these restrictions will the tide of public opinion turn enough to move these "leaders" into action. 

Harrier I agree that a long term lockdown is not the answer not that most of Australia is in that space nor are people in most other places. Everywhere seems to be moving to regional/city level lockdowns, as when this bug gets away it does devastate places as northern Italy, Spain, and New York have shown and too many body bags and digging up parks for mass graves is not what people want, or want to see, as that certainly induces panic and fear. I don’t have a problem with closed borders as it seems to be travellers who are the ‘spreaders’. Letting people home whether it is workers from South Asia in the Mideast or Aussies everywhere. That is an issue governments won’t put money to when they should: more flights in and better and more secure self isolation etc. we are six months in and three quarters of a million dead and countless more chronically ill. The Spanish flu lasted two years and killed 50 million. At the current rate of growth this current one would match it. Remember it was the second phase of the Spanish flu that was the deadliest, so we will see after a northern hemisphere winter when people are stuck inside, what the second phase looks like. A vaccine mid next year or good reliable treatments or a mix of both would be great.

Harrier this is on a completely different scale to thE Hong Kong flu you refer to. In six months we have passed the US mortality for Hong Kong flu that was over two years. People now, like you say are carrying working such as me,  but this is a bug on a different scale, and unlike Hong Kong flu antibiotics don’t work on the side effects. And upper respiratory tract infections like this one are also much trickier to deal with. I was around at that time mid-1960s, but perhaps was already socially isolated on a farm. So didn’t hear about it.

A state with zero active cases poses no more risk to another state with zero active cases than it poses to itself. 

So unless you're suggesting that even states with zero active cases should remain shut down even internally indefinitely, you can't rationally argue that it's reasonable for a state with zero cases to remain closed to other states with zero cases.

You can argue it, of course, but to do so ignores that like it or not (and none of us do), the low-but-not-zero risk of recurrence is not the only challenge facing us as a consequence of this pandemic. The financial, economic, mental and physical cost on people has a price too, and it baffles me that people are so willing to discount that cost to zero while simultaneously marking up the potential cost of the virus so highly that it requires total shutdown, even with zero active cases. 

Harrier the question is where the millions of deaths come from looser public health orders such as in most of Australia and lots of other places but with regulated borders; or a ‘let it rip’ and squillions of deaths far earlier than would be plus chronically ill people taking up hospital places. We’ve had a glimpse of what that looks like hence the approach our and many other pollies are taking (current US excepted with its decimated economy). As I suggest I have a differing view to you of what decimates an economy more. Let the disease go unregulated or try to contain it.

Millions of deaths? 

Let's take Sweden: since they got their aged care and medical environment outbreaks under control (those two areas were the largest source of their first wave's high death count), they've brought new infections and deaths in the last 2-3 months down to nearly zero, all without lockdowns and closed borders. What they do have are practical, sustainable public health orders, but certainly these are far "looser" than ours.

I challenge anyone to look at Sweden's new infection and death rates in the last two months and try to argue that what they're now doing isn't working, and why such a Draconian, harsher approach is needed here. 

Flying Sweden’s current public health orders are identical to Canberra and most of NSW, WA, Qld and NT. The death rates for these places are much the same as Sweden. The only difference is what happened in Sweden over the three months before. 

Aside from the distinction that Sweden's "orders" are not legislated, enforced restrictions with civil or criminal penalties, that's true.

Yet Sweden's borders are also open... so why do our states that have similar restrictions (that are genuine enforce restrictions) and that have the virus under control need to be any different? (I suspect on that point, we agree... they need not be, with clear, unified guidelines in place dictating when, where, and how to tighten those borders).

Hello Daco. 

I have a flu-shot every year (and have done for the past 14 years) - I know it doesn't cover me for everything but, on the basis that I believe the research and evidence to be well-considered; it's a choice that I make.

Personally, as long as the (any) vaccine isn't rushed through the side-door (without the requisite testing and evaluation), then I'd have the jab.

I, and a team I was part of, had the jab for rabies (travelling to a place where the incidence of rabies was highly prevalent) and let me tell you the sole searching that stimulated (the virus was cultured on a human brain-cell back in the day; now changed) - Over a third of the team declined the jab. They weren't then able to travel to that part of the World and do the job. It was a personal choice.

Likewise, I am no expert: In the 'new' World that you talk about, it may very well be that you will be refused travel (not just by air) if your passport doesn't contain a stamp (either physically or virtually) saying that you've been inoculated for virus x, y & z. Then, it will be a personal choice to travel or not I'd suggest.

Two comments here: 

1) Morrison cited NSW as doing well because it's managed to actually get a potential second major outbreak under control (no other state except VIC has yet had to face a real threat of rampant community transmission) and keep its borders open to all but VIC. That's not my suggestion, either; he literally cited both of those reasons as to why: getting the virus under control in a manageable way without destroying the economy or shutting down state or borders. 

2) Joyce may not be likeable but like him or not, he owes a duty to his shareholders and company to find a way for the business to survive. You're welcome to disagree with him, but as has been discussed here, it's going to be difficult to justify why a state with zero active cases is remaining closed to another with zero active cases for medical reasons. So what are the reasons? Additionally, Joyce certainly did not "cry poor" and he's foregone his entire salary for the moment, which may not be gold-star worth given his pay normally but it is far more than most corporate leaders, and certainly more than any of our politicians of any political stripe who've not taken even a cent in salary cuts in solidarity with the people living with the consequences of the restrictions they've imposed. 

Rod I hope that is not me you’re directing at. I just like bit of evidence to be thrown around from time to time.

Rob I tend to avoid personal observations about other contributors and people in the public eye. Not everybody does that,  so not sure a score card on good humoured largely respectful debate versus some not very nice free character references equates quite the same way. Below the belt punches also can lead to fights being called off.