![Constitutional Clarion](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 100
- 352 934
Constitutional Clarion
Australia
Приєднався 5 вер 2022
This channel is about constitutional matters - largely Australian, but sometimes broader international constitutional issues. It is conducted by Anne Twomey, who is a Professor Emerita of the University of Sydney and has both taught and practised in constitutional law and policy for a long time. Some of the videos are directed at education of school students while others concern matters of contemporary discussion or broader public education.
What power does the military have in disasters and pandemics?
This video addresses the question of what powers the Australian military (known as the Australian Defence Force or the ADF) can exercise during civil emergencies in Australia, such as natural disasters and pandemics. It follows significant use of the ADF during catastrophic bushfires in January 2020, followed by its deployment to aid State police during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The video explains the scope of the defence power in section 51(vi) of the Commonwealth Constitution and the obligation on the Commonwealth to protect the States from invasion and 'domestic violence' (meaning internal State violence, such as riots or terrorism) under section 119 of the Constitution. In the exercise of these powers, the ADF may use force and coercive powers.
However, these constitutional powers do not extend to support the deployment of the ADF to aid the community during disasters and pandemics. In such cases, the Government has relied upon 'non-statutory executive power', such as the nationhood power and prerogative power. In such deployments, the ADF can exercise the same powers as any other person to perform acts that are not unlawful (eg rescuing people at risk, clearing roads, rebuilding bridges, and providing logistical and communications support). But it is unlikely that these non-statutory executive powers support the use of coercive power. Hence, during the pandemic, ADF officers were deployed with police officers, leaving the police to commit any necessary coercive acts.
The video explains the scope of the defence power in section 51(vi) of the Commonwealth Constitution and the obligation on the Commonwealth to protect the States from invasion and 'domestic violence' (meaning internal State violence, such as riots or terrorism) under section 119 of the Constitution. In the exercise of these powers, the ADF may use force and coercive powers.
However, these constitutional powers do not extend to support the deployment of the ADF to aid the community during disasters and pandemics. In such cases, the Government has relied upon 'non-statutory executive power', such as the nationhood power and prerogative power. In such deployments, the ADF can exercise the same powers as any other person to perform acts that are not unlawful (eg rescuing people at risk, clearing roads, rebuilding bridges, and providing logistical and communications support). But it is unlikely that these non-statutory executive powers support the use of coercive power. Hence, during the pandemic, ADF officers were deployed with police officers, leaving the police to commit any necessary coercive acts.
Переглядів: 2 177
Відео
What subjects can the Commonwealth make laws about?
Переглядів 1,9 тис.14 годин тому
This video explains how legislative power is distributed between the Commonwealth and State Parliaments by the Commonwealth Constitution. It discusses why the power to make laws about certain types of subjects was conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament. It addresses the different categories of heads of legislative power and where they are to be found in the Constitution. It briefly discusses ...
How a sleeping MP and a fast car saved a Labor Government
Переглядів 2,8 тис.21 годину тому
This video recounts the dramas faced by the first Labor Government, elected to power in New South Wales in 1910. It involves a lost majority, a dash to Government House, the exercise of the reserve power to refuse a prorogation request, the resignation of the Government, the failure of the Opposition to form a new government and the resurrection of the old one. Further political shenanigans inv...
Secession - Can a State or person secede from Australia?
Переглядів 11 тис.День тому
This video answers two questions from viewers. The first is why Western Australia failed in its attempt to secede from Australia in the 1930s. The second is whether a State or a person can secede from Australia today. The video discusses the Western Australian secession campaign, the referendum passed in the State in favour of secession, and how the State petitioned the Westminster Parliament t...
Can an oath 'invalidate' a Minister?
Переглядів 3,2 тис.14 днів тому
This video is about a claim that does the rounds every time Australian Commonwealth Ministers are sworn-in, that their status is 'invalid' because they have not taken the oath set out in the Commonwealth Constitution, with the consequence that bills they initiate are also invalid. It explains that the oath set out in the Commonwealth Constitution is a parliamentary oath, taken by all Members of...
How Queensland lost its Upper House
Переглядів 6 тис.14 днів тому
While all other Australian States have bicameral Parliaments, Queensland is unique in being unicameral (along the with Territory legislatures). This video explains how Queensland came to lose its upper House - a tale which involves a lost referendum, a bit of skulduggery and a cameo from Winston Churchill. It discusses the constitutional deadlock process that led to the referendum and the legal...
Corrupt conduct, politicians and public duty - the Berejiklian case
Переглядів 19 тис.21 день тому
In 2023, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption ('ICAC') made findings of 'serious corrupt conduct' against a former Premier of New South Wales, Ms Berejiklian. She sought judicial review of those findings, arguing that the court should take a more limited view of the nature of conflicts of interest and partial conduct that could amount to a breach of public trust and a finding of se...
Magna Carta in Australia
Переглядів 22 тис.21 день тому
This video responds to myths about the application of Magna Carta in the Australian legal system. It addresses the history of Magna Carta, how it was received as part of Australian law, and what remnants of it remain as part of the law in the United Kingdom and Australia. It explains how Magna Carta is not constitutionally entrenched. As with any law, it can be overridden by later statutes vali...
How women won the vote in colonial Australia
Переглядів 2,8 тис.28 днів тому
This video is broadly about the female franchise in Australia. It starts with the story of Fanny Finch, a black working single mother, who defiantly voted in Victoria in 1856 in municipal elections. It then discusses the tactics used by suffragists in South Australia, including Mary Lee and Catherine Helen Spence, to win the vote in 1894 for women. It contrasts these political tactics with the ...
Assassination, Treason and a Pikestaff
Переглядів 5 тис.Місяць тому
This video traces some of the history of 'treason' in Australia, starting with the response to the failed assassination attempt upon Prince Alfred in 1868. It discusses the treason felony law enacted in New South Wales, which had such unusual and excessive provisions concerning disloyalty to Queen Victoria that the British Government requested that it be amended, or risk disallowance. The NSW G...
COVID-19 and rights in Australia
Переглядів 13 тис.Місяць тому
This video is about the operation of rights in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic and their interaction with emergency laws. It discusses cases about freedom of movement (both in its common law form, and under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities) and whether there is a constitutional implication of freedom of movement (the Gerner and Loielo cases). It discusses the in...
COVID and the Constitution - Crossing State borders
Переглядів 3,8 тис.Місяць тому
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some Australian States shut their borders, preventing cross-border movement, except for people falling within particular exceptions. This meant that some States were COVID-free for long periods. Some argued that this was constitutionally invalid, because section 92 of the Constitution says that movement among the States shall be 'absolutely free'. This video explai...
Is Senator Payman disqualified? Section 44 redux
Переглядів 57 тис.Місяць тому
Questions have been raised by journalists about whether Senator Payman is disqualified from being elected to, or sitting in, the Australian Senate because she is a dual citizen of Afghanistan and Australia. This video addresses the interpretation by the High Court of Australia, as the Court of Disputed Returns, of section 44(i) of the Constitution and its application to dual citizens when there...
Is Local Government Unconstitutional?
Переглядів 9 тис.Місяць тому
There are lots of claims spreading on social media that local government in Australia is unconstitutional because it is not mentioned in the Commonwealth Constitution and referendums to include mention of it were defeated. It is also claimed that local government has no power to impose council rates. This video addresses these claims. It explains the history of local government and how it fits ...
Should (and can) we ban political donations?
Переглядів 2,9 тис.Місяць тому
The South Australian Government has released draft legislation that proposes to ban political donations and replace them with full public funding and electoral expenditure caps. There is currently a consultation process for comments on the proposal, closing on 11 July 2024: yoursay.sa.gov.au/electoral-reform. This video discusses the advantages and disadvantages of replacing political donations...
Can Julian Assange stand for the Australian Parliament?
Переглядів 6 тис.Місяць тому
Can Julian Assange stand for the Australian Parliament?
How courts killed nuclear waste facilities in Australia
Переглядів 7 тис.Місяць тому
How courts killed nuclear waste facilities in Australia
The nuclear option and the Constitution
Переглядів 23 тис.2 місяці тому
The nuclear option and the Constitution
State referendums and plebiscites in Australia
Переглядів 2,6 тис.2 місяці тому
State referendums and plebiscites in Australia
Can treaties expand Commonwealth power?
Переглядів 2,8 тис.2 місяці тому
Can treaties expand Commonwealth power?
Steele Hall and two Governor gambits
Переглядів 2,2 тис.2 місяці тому
Steele Hall and two Governor gambits
Who is the head of state of Australia?
Переглядів 6 тис.2 місяці тому
Who is the head of state of Australia?
Can you change the Australian Constitution without a referendum?
Переглядів 4,4 тис.2 місяці тому
Can you change the Australian Constitution without a referendum?
Truth in Political Advertising - Where the risks lie
Переглядів 1,6 тис.2 місяці тому
Truth in Political Advertising - Where the risks lie
Queensland and Kingsland - Can you split a State in two?
Переглядів 6 тис.2 місяці тому
Queensland and Kingsland - Can you split a State in two?
The Night of the Long Prawns - Senate manipulation during the Whitlam era
Переглядів 3,4 тис.3 місяці тому
The Night of the Long Prawns - Senate manipulation during the Whitlam era
Anti-party defection laws - the legal and constitutional pitfalls
Переглядів 1 тис.3 місяці тому
Anti-party defection laws - the legal and constitutional pitfalls
Should a Member of Parliament lose their seat if they defect from their political party?
Переглядів 2,2 тис.3 місяці тому
Should a Member of Parliament lose their seat if they defect from their political party?
Detaining uncooperative non-citizens - the ASF17 judgment
Переглядів 1,3 тис.3 місяці тому
Detaining uncooperative non-citizens - the ASF17 judgment
They registered on Washington stock exchange Every gov dept is look it up for yourself.Suggest using VPN.(ps stock exchange = share holders/owners.) Washington in District of Columbia (foreign)😮😂
It would be hard to look it up, given that the Washington Stock Exchange ceased to exist in 1953. What I think you are trying to say is that the Commonwealth Government is registered with the US Security Exchange Commission. It is - but it is registered as a 'foreign government', rather than a corporation, because (unsurprisingly) the Commonwealth Government is actually a 'foreign government' from the US point of view.
Some 65 or more years ago, my father subscribed to a book club, which gave him a new book each month, and the another club which gave him each quarter a large volume containing compressed/digested parts of 4 newly published books. One of these contained an account by one of the "thieves" of the Imperial State Crown in the early 1950's. My memory is that the theft followed the coronation of Elizabeth II but I don't want to swear to that. The "thieves" were wanting to publicise the cause of Scottish independence. Well, they got the publicity but it was none too favourable. Thanks for your series of videos, I've been finding them very interesting, as well as containing a fair bit of nostalgia for times past.
Glad you enjoyed them. There have been a few attempts to steal the Crown Jewels, but not recently. I think you might be thinking of the theft of the Stone of Scone (which sits in the Coronation Chair). See the video on that one.
Thank you for your clear and concise discourse on this most important and interesting matter. Its so refreshing to hear the finer points of the Law explained in a non political no nonsense manner. Look forward to more videos from you. Cheers from Michael. Australia.
Thanks. It's a relief to get a comment from someone who cares that I'm explaining the law, rather than engaging in conspiracy theories.
Thanks
You're most welcome.
Sounds to me as though a Federal Government of the day can order the ADF to take action against the Australian people if they say it is warranted. Tiananmen Square spring to mind anyone ?
Perhaps you should read the Defence Act and become better informed.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 You're the expert but you did say a Federal government does not need a request from a State government for assistance. And why would the Law need to be changed so ADF personnel can't be sued. So, can the ADF be engaged to use force against the Australian people Yes or No. Think peaceful unarmed insurrection against a State government if you like.
@@Mrbullet1952 Section 39 of the Defence Act says that when a call-out order is made, the Chief of the Defence Force must utilise the Defence Force in such manner as is 'reasonable and necessary' for the purpose specified in the order and 'must not stop or restrict any protest, dissent, assembly or industrial action, except if there is a reasonable likelihood of: (i) the death of, or serious injury to, persons; or (ii) serious damage to property.'
1988 referendum said so people voted .
Watch the video. It explains what people voted on at the 1988 referendum.
How then does New Zealand rate higher than Australia on the Democracy Index?
Enjoyed that. Can I suggest a video on defamation might be topical with recent high profile cases still in peoples' minds? What is defamation and libel? Is truth a qualified or absolute defence? Can you be sued for speaking truth? If you honestly believed your statements were true is that a defence? Is motive important? Does the complainant have to prove you were being malicious or reckless? How do Aussie laws differ from America's? Should be plenty of material there.
Also variations between the states.
Agreed. I see to many American UA-camrs woefully sating what our Defmatin Laws actually are ... over and over again. Woudl love to hear exactly what they are and how 'Truth' or 'Honest held belief' works as a defence.
Sorry - but defamation law is well outside my expertise. I just try not to commit it!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 pity ... it's a hot topic.
@@michaelsecomb4115 It's a hot topic but there's plenty of information available on defamation laws in Australia online. Just make sure it's a reliable source and updated information. This link is from the Judicial Commission of NSW - updated this year. uwww.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/defamation.html
I would much rather have a county system like the USA were we vote for a sheriff and vote for our judges.
ok but dosint someone by law have to be proven to have such infection or disease to be quarantined in the first place ??
No - because in many cases deadly diseases can be carried and spread without yet appearing in the carrier. That was the whole point of quarantine for people entering Australia - to wait the relevant period during which the disease would have manifested itself in symptoms before letting them into the rest of the community.
The fundamental problem over covid is that we don't have enough full-on epidemiologists in Australia. The bureaucrats didn't have enough access to good epidemiology. So they did what bureaucrats do: advise the government to restrict and constrain.
That may be true - but as I'm not an epidemiologist, I do not know. I'm here to explain the constitutional issues, which is my area of expertise.
0ur fundamental rights are inherited in the common law, and are not derived from the Constitution. Rights are also created by statutes that impose obligations on persons to give options to others.
were abouts in sydney can i go to to get these books ??
Not sure which books you mean, but when it comes to legal books, the specialised bookstores have all gone. There's a small number of legal books in the large Dymocks on George Street. Otherwise, best to order them online from the publisher or through a large online bookseller.
I worked in emergency management in Victoria during the 2009 fires. We had the ADF turn up to assist as one of many support agencies. In an emergency all of our services operate under an AIIMS (Australasian Inter-Service Incident Management System) Chain of Command structure; with the Lead Agency, dependant on the type of incident, managing the response strategy with the support of many other agencies. It was always interesting and educational attending inter-agency training or incidents because we would all learn so much from each other, it would be so beneficial for everyone if the ADF got more involved in these network s as an available support agency. We had them on our base camp site for a few hours while the Incident Management Team worked 19:26 19:26 19:26 19:26 out what jobs they could do, our team and site were well staffed so from what I understand they were tasked with clearing roads to gain access to burnt out towns and provided general support for the other agencies involved in these incidents.
If the Constitution doesn’t give fundamental rights (e.g. freedom of speech) to protect Australian "democracy", what is the relevance of the Australian Constitution to the majority of Australians? The Australian Constitution describes the structure, function, and limitations of the Australian government and its institutions, but if the Constitution isn’t written to protect the interests of the majority of Australians and the democracy; for whose interests is the Australian Constitution written? Is the Australian Constitution written to protect corporate, major shareholder, and financial interests (e.g. Wall Street, City of London) and to create a legal structure into which corporations are protected, tax-payer nurtured, and can function uninhibited? Is the Australian Constitution a relic of the Dickensian "City of London" "British East India Company" with a few tokens thrown in for good measure; and are the Australian people bound to follow its impoverished trajectory? As the ceremonial Governor General moves to the side while the corporate and financial sectors subsume western governments, what is the contemporary meaning of sovereignty in Australia? It appears that the implicit meaning of sovereignty being “a self-governing state” must now be reinterpreted as “a state, owned and controlled by foreign corporations and plutocracy”. Surely this makes any mention of an Australian democracy absurd! Again, what is the relevance of the Australian Constitution to the majority of Australians?
The Constitution establishes a Parliament, comprised of representatives elected by the people, which has the power to make law. The Executive Government is drawn from those Members of Parliament who form a majority in the lower House. None of them are corporations.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 : I never said any of them are "corporations", but many of them have begun consultancy work with corporations affiliated with their political history (e.g. Morrison {AUKUS}, Hockey). If the "elected" representatives are either directly captured by foreign interests, dependent on donations from corporations owned and controlled by these same foreign interests, or have their hands tied by such institutions like the World Bank’s “International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes” (ICSID), that makes any discussion of a democracy absurd. For an example, the ICSID is Washington's powerful covert shadow legal system that operates across the world prosecuting governments on behalf of any corporation that has lost profits due to government legislation, refuses to privatize and “remove public competition”, or a multitude of other "recalcitrant" government acts that may be beneficial to their people. You may remember the threat of litigation by the tobacco industry when the Australian government tried to introduce plain-paper packaging of cigarettes? Since then, this entity has gained more teeth and many countries (e.g. South Africa, El Salvador) have now been successfully sued for legislating in the interests of their people. I use this ICSID example because it can be researched and its control mechanism can be mechanistically established. There are also references on the mafia tactics by these foreign interests as they indebt countries, blackmail, and subtly threaten world leaders; but that's probably going outside the scope of this discussion. Many excellent books have been written on how the ICSID was created as a result of the collapse of the British Empire; when imperialism became a dirty word and another covert mechanism was needed to exploit countries; but for some unknown reason these books rarely hit the review list. So one can perpetually recite how an electoral process and democracy functions in theory (The Constitution establishes a Parliament, comprised of representatives elected by the people, which has the power to make law. The Executive Government is drawn from those Members of Parliament who form a majority in the lower House.), but until the people are taught about the oligarchical corporate machinery behind this Potemkin sovereign democracy, they will continue to believe the illusion presented to them by the special interests and their media outlets and windup on the trash heap of history.
@@animalfarm7467 learn to properly form an essay instead of insane rambling and people might treat your point with some respect. As it stands it's impossible to address near anything as it's entirely composed of "questions". Maybe stick to one or two, get some paragraphs in there, a thesis and conclusion.
@@cloaker416 : If one can't ask questions, how does one analyze what another has said? I was just wondering if I was talking to a bot? Every time I question the credibility of the Australian democracy, I get the usual "The Constitution establishes a Parliament, comprised of representatives elected by the people, which has the power to make law. The Executive Government is drawn from those Members of Parliament who form a majority in the lower House." That's why I thought it was a bot; I've asked similar questions, and that's the only response I've ever received. It's as if when questioned about the credibility of the Australian democracy, that's the automated response. And you really didn't understand the point I was making? Everyone else understands the point I've been making perfectly. Maybe you should check your comprehension skills?
@@animalfarm7467 your point is buried within 20 paragraphs of shit. Forms a clear, succinct and concise (that means short) argument and try again.
I Know Whos Talking Complete Codswallop! LOL We Havnt Had a Legitiment Govt Since 1973!!
Yes, we have. No one has succeeded with any challenge to the validity of government. This is because the stuff made-up about 1973 is just that - made up!
Rather ironic that the religious, the centre of exactly this type of discrimination, can claim "discrimination" against them
Another great video Anne. I was asked a related question and covered it as part of an article "Pandemic Arguments" (2022) on the Freeman Delusion website, mainly referring to "The Australian Government's Use of the Military in an Emergency and the Constitution" by Anthony Gray (2021 UNSW Law Journal). I have now added this video the article too.
Thanks.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 ua-cam.com/video/Sis1vVNXqnI/v-deo.html
I was a paratrooper based in Sydney in 1999, we were called out for the hailstorms that year. We assisted with putting tarps on roofs and clean up after the storm went through and we had a passive security role for the Olympics in 2000.
I'm sure your aid was very much appreciated. It's good that the defence forces are there to help in times of need.
The only pandemic of our time is government corruption, not actual medical.
We're a parliamentary democracy. Parliament reigns supreme. This isn't the USA.
What I would like to know is if in Australia we can get into a situation with the High Court similiar to what we are seeing in the US with the supreme court where a bunch of unelected people making policy (i.e. roe v wade) and/or are actively working to destroy democracy (i.e. absolute immunity for a convicted criminal) and where the court itself appears to have absolute power because the congress/senate are unable to work together for the good of the country.
Roe v Wade was a decision based on the 14th amendment of the constitution's due process clause. This provides for the courts to examine and rule on both the procedural fairness of laws and the actual content of laws (whether they violate rights contained within the bill of rights/constitution or further unlisted rights which are recognised by the court, such as the right to privacy). The court had already recognised the right to privacy extended to certain medical decisions (contraception) and interracial marriage - there was no compelling government interest in banning these, only their proper regulation. The court extended this argument to abortion, balancing it against the states interest in protection potential life by establishing a ruling based on trimesters. There was enough variability regarding the viability of a foetus to provide for this privacy argument fully in the first trimester, and partially in the second. To be clear, this was not policy from the bench and rather a decision regarding clashes between the right to bodily integrity and the right to life and the states interest in that life. The Supreme Court's job is to set the limits on these things. Drawing a line is a judicial decision that affects what policy can and cannot be written.
@@cloaker416 That was not the question I was asking. I used Roe v Wade as an example on how the court has been politicised by a single party/cult and stacked with judges unsuitable for the job. There are other decisions that stink to high haeven like gun control. My point is that this court can stifle progress for decades through it's decisions.
@@rwo5402 that it certainly can. It could happen here but just like the US would require a lot of degradation of our institutions and cultural environment to allow it to happen I think.
Ps and the police are politically motivated
Police have attack weapons and tanks .Is that not an army????
No, because it's function is internal policing of the domestic law - not defence from outside threats.
Also to be clear police do not have tanks in Australia.
No Australian Police Force has ever had 'a tank'. Could you also describe for us lay people, what 'attack' weapons are?
The law is complex indeed. Especially when it comes to interpretation. It's good that the ADF can help the states and i think the ADF are wise to avoid coercive powers as this is the role of the state based forces and allows them to focus on the support. Seeing troops deoloyed in Melbourne CBD was a first for me. They were in full uniform but if course lacking any weapons or alike. I thought at the time that would be something to tell the grandkids about. I think they were allowed do welfare checks without state police but i thought at the time they would not have expansive powers. COVID19 was a really unique period especially in Vic.
The Australian constitution is Worthless. As per High Court ruling, the Only Rights Australian citizens have is the Right to Vote, nothing else.
The Constitution has few rights. It does, however, establish a democratic system which allows the people to elect those who make the laws. It is those laws that address rights.
Wrong, It is a Constitution that sets the rights of people. It is the ultimate right and stops politicians taking away your rights. As proven by the High Court ruling during Covid, because Australian citizens have no rights except the right to vote, the government can lockdown it's citizens permanently, it can cancel any and all demonstrations and it can permanently close the borders. It can hold trials in secret and can lock Australian citizens up indefinitely. You need to do some reading. As for democracy, Australia is Not a democracy as it doesn't have any safeguards whatsoever. No recall laws, No system for anyone to get on the ballot, No way for citizens to get laws thrown out. No way to force a referendum or a Royal Commission. In fact No powers. Worse than any other Western countries.
You've been watching too much American television, I'm afraid.
Referred to as "making sausage" not a desirable thing to witness the contents of?
I am worried. What will happen when the people defy the Australian state. The ADF will come at them and kill them because they threaten the state. Gosh. Thank you Professor.
It rather depends upon what you mean by 'defy'. If you mean riots and terrorism, then a State can request the help of the ADF to restore order. If you mean peaceful protest - then there is no role for the ADF.
This supposes that the members of the ADF, those men and women who wear the uniform and carry a rifle, will want to shoot unarmed Australian Citizens, which includes their own family members - which is a kind of flaw in your TEOTWAWKI fantasies. The ADF isn't the PLA or the KPA.
Trust of government has become a problem by reason of their corruption.
You seem to spend much time in other videos decrying the effect of weirdo ideas by citizens being a threat to our democracy. This and a few other CC videos, emphasise, it is not the citizens who are the main cause of concern but weirdo ideas by the pollies themselves that threaten our democracy.
Thanks as always
You're welcome.
Thank you
Glad you found it interesting.
Thanks
Much appreciated.
TopG
Thank you for these videos. Question - can The Senate voting system be changed without a referendum. Ie First past the post, D'Hondt method, etc. Thanks.
Yes - the Commonwealth Parliament has power to change the voting system for the Senate, although it would have to be consistent with section 7 of the Commonwealth Constitution which says the Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate. The High Court has drawn implications from section 7 which support representative democracy and might limit the choice of electoral system (eg if it resulted in a Senate that was not 'directly chosen by the people').
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you!
I find your videos very informative, thank you. Is there anything in the constitution that protects us from our elected government if we need it?
Not a lot. The framers of the Constitution tended to trust Parliament and the good sense of the people in choosing their representatives. But there are some constitutional implications concerning representative democracy and the separation of powers that could be used to strike down extreme laws.
There is a great protection method - it's called 'an Election', we have them every 3 years or so. Worked every time, not a single Civil War in over 120 years and counting. Far better track record than the mighty United States.
Love your videos! Could you perhaps do a topic on how and when the states’ respective legislative councils became elected bodies rather than appointed bodies?
I'll add it to my very long list!
Could you please discuss the constitutional basis allowing coercive power for the AFP within states? I suppose that's dealt with entirely separately from the ADF but a full explanation would be great. Thanks
An interesting question. I haven't really looked into it. I'd guess that it is a matter that is incidental to the enforcement of Commonwealth laws. If I ever do have occasion to find out more about it, I'll also do a video on it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 thank you! I enjoy your videos very much no matter the topic but I'll keep an eye out for that one
@@benmuller6103 We can build a pathway to the valid use of police powers by ADF officers in the states by examining the constitution. At the base is the executive power of the Commonwealth (S. 61) which provides for the execution of the laws of the commonwealth and its constitution. second to this is the incidental power (51 (xxxix)) which provides for laws to be passed incidental to the execution of commonwealth powers, as in, powers that naturally must exist to execute the functions of laws affirmed by the other heads of power. The executive powers should allow for the enforcement of laws through investigation, notice of penalties which are then left to the courts to adjudicate under separate provisions, and the use of compelling force in preventing the breaking of Commonwealth law. Investigatory functions such as the searching, seizure of evidence and the compelling of people to do certain things are all in the service of maintaining and enforcing the laws of the Commonwealth. Quick and Garran make it clear that all functions incidental to the execution of government powers that were left to the colonies are transferred to the Commonwealth. Interestingly this opened a large can of worms for me regarding the ability of the AFP to enforce state laws with 'federal aspects' (a law or section of one that would be within the Commonwealth's legislative power given it had passed it), and the interesting Commonwealth-State cooperative agreements that confer power to the Federal Government in exercising functions given to state officers in certain cases. The constitutional and legal basis for this is so muddy I cannot even make a cursory examination of it. It's well beyond my comprehension skills and understanding.
Governments always Decide what they called Social Srandards. People Never get a Vote or a Say as to what Social Standards are because this is how they slowly Take Away Your Rights. Now We must once again Trust Government to Decide what is Good for Us.
The people get their say every time they vote in elections.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Rubbish....Two Parties who have the Same Agenda and Always get the Same Outcome and they use the Cover of having a Mandate to Justify their Corruption and Never Reverse each other's Corrupt Laws.
Who decides the policies of the parties and who votes them in? The people. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the majority of people have different views to you, which is why certain parties are elected?
@@constitutionalclarion1901 People don't have à choice because elections are all Rigged to favour the Two Party Criminal Corporation.
ive stopped paying rates to my thieving port stephens council as the roads are like a 3rd world country after a bombing and yet they put on a new general manager at 230k a year--- i welcome them trying to get the money---i dare them to try
They do eventually, it's inevitable. But if you want to be extremely insistent, they will wait a few years and then take what you owe out of the money they get from auctioning off your property, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Thank you, I enjoy your informative video's. Different topic, could you please explain how Politicians were exempt from taking the Covid vaccines, when others who had proof they had medical advice not to take the vaccines, were forced too?... How is this fair or legal.?
I am not aware of anyone being 'forced' to take COVID-19 vaccines, or politicians being exempted from doing so. Vaccination was required in some cases if people wanted to work in particular jobs, or enter particular places (such as hospitals or nursing homes), or travel to some countries overseas, etc. But people could choose not to do so.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 It was interesting at least in Queensland, I say as pro-vaccination fella and from a medical family; that in retrospect, the Police/Health workers who were dismissed from their employ won their case pertaining to our own legislation regarding human rights legislation. Now each proposed bill here, is meant to be assessed against human rights laws when proposed. Just interesting, and a comment, not a position. I would have thought, clearly wrongly, that lawmakers would have considered such a position to wit's end and advised of this possible/probable outcome. Anyway yet again the walls of Policy making and law are interesting.
Thanks. Yes, there remains a legitimate debate about the appropriateness of vaccine mandates (which did not 'force' anyone to be vaccinated, but resulted in people losing their job if they chose not to be vaccinated). It involved a clash of rights - the rights of those who were most at risk (eg people in nursing homes and hospitals) to life and health, and the rights of the individual to refuse a form of medical treatment. One would expect in such circumstances that an appropriate analysis of risks and impact upon rights would have been made, including the application of the human rights legislation.
As an Army Reserve soldier, I was lectured on, among other things, the legal basis of Aid to the Civil Power. But it did not cover coercive powers - it was primarily about natural disasters, as I recall. Hopefully we will never have to rely on the Australian Army to keep order in our cities as seems to regularly happen in the USA. It seems we are still a long way from the US example of calling out the National Guard, for example, to arrest rioters. But then the US National Guard is a State, not a Federal force, until it is ‘federalised’ by the President, and most police forces are City rather than State employees and have limited resources. As an aside, I understand that Lance Barnard as Minister for Defence in the Whitlam government in 1972 required that he be informed in advance of all troop movements in Australia - it seems Gough was worried about a military coup! Probably apocryphal, but in keeping with the spirit of the times!
Am I correct in believing that martial law would not be constitutionally permitted in Australia?
There is no provision for it in the Constitution. The only thing that could support it would be the 'doctrine of necessity' - but that can only be used to restore democratic governance.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you. Your responses are always informative and insightful.
Put simply that’s why there are state police near by when ADF personnel are participating in those type of activities! People need to get out of their heads that we are similar to America. Defence Aid to the civil power has been around for ever & only now people question it, because we have far too much influence from our American cousins. Finally as you said there are other laws (including state emergency laws) which provide powers to various classes of people during an emergency. Cheers
Yes, part of the problem is people watching too much American television.
Bingo! 100% dead right Ken. People consume far too much American 'Content' and think we have the same/similar laws and functions here.
Amazing how well we are supported by our governments, military, legal, police etc.. And just how belligerent so many are to following instructions.. Great vid🙏
Thanks.
Questions. Can the Cth legislation re rent or house prices when property prices have been driven up by foreign ownership for the defence of Australia? Can they legislate or act in relation to monitoring like phones or cars as per Prince Harry's cases or is that a state right? Or was that monitoring unauthorised? Are the powers in UK similar cf. Borough powers?
To the first question, I doubt that that could be properly characterised as an exercise of the Defence power. It might in some circumstances fall within the External Affairs power where the property was owned by a non-citizen residing overseas. A lot would depend on the particular legislation and circumstances, but the Commonwealth can certainly place conditions on foreign investment in Australia. To the second, the Commonwealth under the posts and telegraphs power has full power to legislate over telecommunications interception, and has done so. I don’t know if the actual provisions are similar to the UK, but would assume so. Not sure what you mean by monitoring of cars, but they can and do monitor the movement of interstate heavy vehicles via highway cameras and licence plate recognition software, but this is under an agreement with all State governments. Monitoring of individuals these days is really a matter of data aggregation rather than legislative power - the data is bought and sold, and while the Privacy Act and other legislation is meant to limit the effect of this, in my view anonymity these days can only be guaranteed by being of interest to no-one.
@glennsimpson7659 thankyou that is great clarification. I appreciate your reply. I will look at the previous video on Cth Powers by virtue of constitution.
I found your disclaimer at the end utterly hilarious and I don’t know why. It is kind of sad that some members of society chose for whatever reason to use a video like this to justify behaviour that places unnecessary stress on the work of others. Whilst it is not a deep academic tome, I love the title of a book called tyranny of the minority, although the book focused on politics in the USA in a sense it would be interesting to see what your opinion on what principles should underline where the collective needs of a society can override the individualistic will of one person, for example just because some people refuse to comply to lockdown laws does that mean a majority of the community should be put in danger? In a sense whilst we should avoid a tyranny of the majority, in a kind Aristotelian golden mean kind of way do you think we should also avoid a tyranny of the minority? From a human perspective I’m sure many soldiers would not appreciate belligerent people saying that soldiers had no coercive powers because they watched a UA-cam video. Unfortunately I never got to ask, but do you think that in cases where: a) people refuse to cooperate with a soldier and; b) There is no law or executive prerogative that allows a soldier to exercise coercive powers. That in such cases a law enforcement officer must be called in to deal with such a situation? PS on an unrelated note I have been reading the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (this might seem lame to others but I kinda want to see how one day NSW might outline rights in a way that is consistent with Parliamentary sovereignty and the Principle of legality which I think the Victorian law does very well) but my question is as follows is Part 3 of that act an example of the use of Manner and Form. Just for context here is a quote of the provisions that I think might be an example of manner and form; 1) A member of Parliament who proposes to introduce a Bill into a House of Parliament must cause a statement of compatibility to be prepared in respect of that Bill. 3. a statement of compatibility must state- (a) whether, in the member's opinion, the Bill is compatible with human rights and, if so, how it is compatible; and (b) if, in the member's opinion, any part of the Bill is incompatible with human rights, the nature and extent of the incompatibility. PPS I am sorry for so many questions
Thanks. While I'm doing my best here to explain legal and constitutional matters, I can't cover everything or how the law would apply in particular circumstances, and I'm afraid that too many people these days seem to think they are experts on a subject just because they've watched a video or two. As for the Victorian Charter, as I live in NSW these days, I'm not sufficiently familiar with it to comment authoritatively on it. I'll leave that for the Victorians. On the manner and form issue, it would depend upon whether it was a legal requirement for the validity of the law and was itself entrenched. I haven't looked - but there may well be a provision somewhere that says something to the effect that if no such compatibility statement is made, the law is still valid. I'll do a video about manner and form soon. I started preparing it, but it is quite a lot of work to do it clearly and succinctly, given its complexity. It will have to wait until I have time to do it properly.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Funnily enough the section below it, says nearly exactly what you just said “A failure to comply with section 28 (which is the section that requires a compatibility statement be made) in relation to any bill that becomes an act does not affect the validity, operation or enforcement of that act or any other statutory provision” the reason I asked was because I was wondering if this was, in a sense a law about the process that legislators should generally follow before they pass a bill, and that even though there is a clause that means laws are still valid if they don’t follow this process, this law still constitutes a type of manner and form since it outline the manner in which other laws should be made but as you said in your response it would seem their are other considerations that need to be made for the term manner and form to apply and as such I eagerly await your video but I also understand that this process to make concepts digestible can take time :)
So, can I take your comment as meaning; when the sheep are scared, the shepherds should be too?
@@tonstril I’ve not heard this expression before but in General if a flock of sheep are panicking about something, then the Shepard should also be concerned about pacifying the nerves of said flock, now obviously in a democratic context the Shepard is elected by the sheep and in this sense a good Democratic Leader both leads and is lead by the needs people, this is because an effective politician should understand that they will only be able to hold onto their mandate if they make policies that are beneficial for at least half the population. Note that so long as Governments are structured in a way that preserves at the very least a two party system and forces leaders to build public goods which can be accessed by all people (even if they don’t vote for the government of the day) then that means that there will always be a sub group of that society who are able to freely switch between supporting one political party and another political party and will suffer no consequence because either way they can still access public goods and so long as there are swing voters in a democracy then in a sense when the sheep are scared the shepherd should be to because some of those sheep might think that their lives would be better if they had a different shepherd.
@@tonstril I’ve not heard this expression before but in General if a flock of sheep are panicking about something, then the Shepard should also be concerned about pacifying the nerves of said flock, now obviously in a democratic context the Shepard is elected by the sheep and in this sense a good Democratic Leader both leads and is lead by the needs of the people, this is because an effective politician should understand that they will only be able to hold onto their mandate if they make policies that are beneficial for at least half the population. Note that so long as Governments are structured in a way that preserves at the very least a two party system and forces leaders to build public goods which can be accessed by all people (even if they don’t vote for the government of the day) then that means that there will always be a sub group of that society who are able to freely switch between supporting one political party and another political party and will suffer no consequence because either way they can still access public goods and so long as there are swing voters in a democracy then in a sense when the sheep are scared the shepherd should be to because some of those sheep might think that their lives would be better if they had a different shepherd.
Thank you for the informative video I was working during the Hotel Quarrantine period at the Airport. The ADF were present to support what was basically a Police operation. They are actually very good at what they do, in tasks not obviously related to military force. They managed the handling of passengers and luggage under struct protocols courteously and competently. They had a sentry stationed at each end of tge coach in case anyone tried to make a break for it, but they were unarmed and mostly just helping people who wandered in the wrong direction. Also directing smokers to a safe spot to have a cigarette while waiting for the coach to to their hotel to be ready.
Thanks. It's great to have people explain their direct experience of these things.
Thank you , I will probably have to listen again to try and wrap my head around all the ifs, ands, buts and otherwises, I appreciate your time💕
Yes - this one's quite a tricky one. It is made harder by the lack of clarity because we have very few precedents to rely on. But do persevere!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I most certainly will, thank you again .
Further to my comment; could you please do a video on your book 📖?
It's a very long book! When I run out of other things to say, there's plenty of material there.