The nuclear option and the Constitution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- In Australia, the Opposition has committed to building seven nuclear power plants in the future in five of the Australian States. A number of States have objected. There is existing legislation at both the Commonwealth and the State level that forbids the construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
This video explores the questions of what heads of constitutional power the Commonwealth could rely on to support legislation to construct and operate nuclear power plants in Australia and whether the Commonwealth could override State laws that would prohibit or impede its actions.
WOW! I can’t believe someone on UA-cam that is explaining something (very well) and not putting in their own opinion. Very refreshing.
There are lots of other explanatory videos on this channel too, on everything from the external affairs power and State referendums to the head of state and job-sharing for politicians. Lots of material to enjoy!
Well, that answers 99% of my questions. Thank you Anne.
Glad to be useful.
The Australian Constitution becomes a handy tool when it suits a particular issue. Both Labor and Liberal have ignored sections of the constitution when it may have been detrimental to their particular causes.
Go ahead and cite those particular causes and the actual instances where they have broken constitutional law without being successfully stopped with lawsuits and/or other actions?
@@Ineluki_Myonrashi There has always been a question as to whether the remote area allowances for income tax are valid because of s 99; see Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Clyne (1958) 100 CLR 246. But as the people they effect benefit from them, they are never challenged.
Very true
@@henryh3800 Beautiful! I hope your intelligent reply shuts down Ineluki A. Hole.
@@Ineluki_Myonrashi covid and trade and intercourse between the states (S.92)
I fear the only outcome from this nuclear debate will be a lot of rich lawyers.
Leave it to Labor and it will 🤔
Causing Con Fusion.
What an important contribution to our civic life this channel is, and so generously shared with those of us who would not otherwise be exposed to this level of knowledge. Thank you.
You are most welcome.
So very true. Thank you Prof.
Very often a voice of reason and facts amidst a world of mis and dis.
You explain this stuff so well. Thank you.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
A lot of young people think that intelligence is about using the longest possible word to describe what you're trying to say. This lady is proof that you can be highly intelligent and speak and a clear and succinct way
Fascinating. Thank you. My take on this is if a Liberal gov can get the bills through the senate, it should be able to proceed. In a resource rich country like Australia it's absurd that proper planning for the electricity infrastructure is run down to the point of frequent backouts.
Well done tackling a news-relevant issue so quickly! 👏
Parenthetically, the EPBC Act's prohibition on nuclear installations doesn't apply to conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. These amendments were made last August. Nuclear-powered surface warships, such as US and French aircraft carriers, and Russian Kirov class cruisers, are prohibited at this time.
I was looking for this because I wondered if the definition of "nuclear installation" had been drafted in such a way as it assumed that installation = land. The definition, however doesn't tie itself to land. Rather, it lists particular technologies and facilities.
Awesome, just 1 question, how does the operation of reactors sections fit in with the AUKUS and the Nuclear subs?
Using a very long cable.
They're completely separate questions. The EPBC Act's prohibitions don't apply to nuclear submarines.
There is a strong link in training a licenced workforce and developing a waste management scheme. Importantly waste will be dealt with under the Defence Act. I suspect it will be located at Maralinga, a location already restricted due to the amount of plutonium buried there.
Hopefully, it will lead to a much better designed and managed facility than what is currently there with radioactive metal lying around all over the place.
@@sheriff0017 Said: "The EPBC Act's prohibitions don't apply to nuclear submarines" - How do you know? Logically, there is no difference between building a nuclear reactor on shore or off shore.
@@peteranderson7497 I read the Act, obviously.
Australia will find the best and cheapest solution when it is finally to broke to afford it!
First time I have come across your channel. Great video. Will definitely be checking out more.
Welcome. There are plenty there, and more to come.
In all fairness and logic.
A huge gap between nuclear boiling of water for steam powered generators, and a nuclear weapon.
There must be allowances to change with the time.
The problem Kevin is in the type of Nuclear energy that is used. There are 2 types. Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion. Fusion produces the radiation we get from the Sun. Fission produces heat and radioactive radiation and is the power that produces the weapons grade. Fission nuclear in the form of the fuel rods used in power stations to produce heat to boil water to produce the steam that drives the turbines and generators has to be cooled by that same water. It's greatest drawback is that it takes a long time to perform a shutdown in an emergency such as the one that occurred at Fukushima in Japan because of the Earthquake and resultant Tsunami that overwhelmed the plant. It went into meltdown and exploded because the reaction became uncontrolled. Fusion is yet to be done outside of certain experimental facilities. It does however offer the safety aspect of being able to be shut down quickly. As far as I am aware though it does not yet exist in a usable form. If and when it is, it could be the answer to compact electricity generation. I just hope by then though that someone has come up with a way to do it directly and not just as a way to boil a big kettle.
Extremely interesting. Very well explained. Thank you.
You're very welcome
Excellent! Somebody tell the ABC. They have no clue.
No pronouncing ts as a Ds as we so often hear. I heard a reporter refer to Dutton as Dudden today couldn't believe my ears
@@James-kv6kb I hear some say..."Last yeaya "...instead of Last year...
Priceless… I love it🙏🙏 pretty straightforward.., great way to start my day…
Super grateful, love your talks🙏🙏
It does not matter what the constitutional laws at state and federal level say, Australia will go nuclear when it becomes obvious that green energy and battery storage will never be able to replace coal fired power stations in Australia. Those involved in electrical engineering, mining and physics know that electricity cannot be effectively stored in batteries for baseline purposes, that there is not enough mineable copper and nickel on earth for humanity to depend on solar and wind generation and that current nuclear power station design would not allow accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima to happen. South Australia on a sunny day can produce enough solar gigawatts to power the grid, but although they have the world's biggest battery, the battery storage is only 150 MW. The SA grid is expected to reliably supply 1.5 gigawatts, 100 times as much. The total battery capacity of SA could not keep 1% of their grid going for very long. So, on a normal cloudy day and during the night, SA draws on current from coal fired stations in VIC and NSW. Politicians and lawyers cannot be expected to know this, but you would hope they would make the effort to find out. Nature does not care what we think, the physics of electricity generation and storage is what it is. When it is obvious to them, they will change the laws. But the long lead times for nuclear mean that Australians will suffer power shortages, rationing and outages for years, possibly a decade or more, before they have the reliable electricity supply their parents, grandparents and great grandparents had.
I believe you are more or less correct. For Labor's renewables plan by my calculations there is a substantial under investment in energy distribution and storage. In regard to the latter 2,000GWHrs at a 14GW rate (equal to about a further seven Snowy Hydro2 projects) is missing from the plan. It seems they want to fill the gap with gas power plants, but that doesn't solve the green house gas problem.
I asked Co-Pilot and this was the response...
The argument that renewable energy sources can't meet baseload power demand is a common one. Baseload power refers to the minimum amount of electric power needed to be supplied to the electrical grid at any given time⁵. Traditionally, this demand has been met by power plants that do not change their power output quickly, such as some large coal or nuclear plants, which are generally called baseload power plants⁴.
However, this doesn't mean that renewables and battery storage can't replace coal-fired power plants. In fact, numerous studies and real-world experiences have shown that a transition to 100% energy production from renewable sources is possible within the next few decades¹. Here's how:
1. **Reducing Baseload Demand**: We do not currently use our energy very efficiently. For example, nighttime energy demand is much lower than during the day, and yet we waste a great deal of energy from coal and nuclear power plants, which cannot be powered up quickly¹. These plants can be replaced with solar hot water and renewable electricity. Baseload demand can be further reduced by increasing the energy efficiency of homes and other buildings¹.
2. **Renewable Energy Sources for Baseload Power**: Some renewable energy sources are just as reliable for baseload energy as fossil fuels. For example, bio-electricity generated from burning the residues of crops and plantation forests, concentrated solar thermal power with low-cost thermal storage (such as in molten salt), and hot-rock geothermal power¹.
3. **Energy Storage**: Power plants can store different forms of renewable energy in order to meet varying energy demands. Storing renewables to meet baseload electricity requirements is more feasible now than ever before, particularly with advancements in compressed air energy storage technologies².
4. **Geographical Distribution**: Although the output of a single wind farm fluctuates greatly, the fluctuations in the total output from a number of wind farms geographically distributed in different wind regimes are much smaller and partially predictable¹.
5. **Flexible Generation**: New capacity based around renewables often employs flexible generation⁴. Current power grid systems are already built to handle fluctuations in supply and demand with peak-load plants such as hydroelectric and gas turbines which can be switched on and off quickly, and by reserve baseload plants that are kept hot¹.
In conclusion, while the transition to renewable energy does present challenges, it is not only possible but also increasingly feasible with advancements in technology and energy storage solutions. The argument that renewables can't provide baseload power is increasingly being debunked by both research and practical implementations¹²³. So, the statement "we need baseload and a green system cannot provide that" is not entirely accurate. Renewable energy systems, when properly designed and implemented, can indeed provide baseload power.
For more detailed information, you may want to read these articles: [Renewable energy can provide baseload power - here’s how](^1^), [How Renewables Can Provide "Baseload" Power](^2^), and [Can renewables provide baseload power?](^3^).
Source: Conversation with Copilot, 20/06/2024
(1) Baseload power - Energy Education. energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Baseload_power.
(2) Base load - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load.
(3) Renewable energy can provide baseload power - here’s how. theconversation.com/renewable-energy-can-provide-baseload-power-heres-how-2221.
(4) How Renewables Can Provide "Baseload" Power (2-Year Process). powerphase.com/baseload-renewables-two-years/.
(5) Can renewables provide baseload power? - 4 Hiroshimas. skepticalscience.net/pdf/rebuttal/renewable-energy-baseload-power-advanced.pdf.
(6) Renewable energy can provide baseload power - here’s how. theconversation.com/renewable-energy-can-provide-baseload-power-heres-how-2221.
(7) How Renewables Can Provide "Baseload" Power (2-Year Process). powerphase.com/baseload-renewables-two-years/.
(8) Can renewables provide baseload power? - 4 Hiroshimas. skepticalscience.net/pdf/rebuttal/renewable-energy-baseload-power-advanced.pdf.
(9) Baseload Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baseload.
(10) For decades, these power plants ran on coal. Now, they're converting to .... www.fastcompany.com/90795442/for-decades-these-power-plants-ran-on-coal-now-theyre-converting-to-clean-energy.
(11) Coal to power: SSE transforms former plant with batteries. www.energylivenews.com/2024/06/04/coal-to-power-sse-transforms-former-plant-with-batteries/.
(12) Clean energy storage may give coal-fired plants a second life. www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/clean-energy-storage-may-give-coal-fired-plants-a-second-life-66514190.
(13) Batteries and renewables can replace coal and gas for reliable and .... reneweconomy.com.au/batteries-and-renewables-will-outmatch-coal-and-gas-for-reliable-and-cheap-power-experts-say/.
(14) Repowering Coal-Fired Power Plants. restservice.epri.com/publicdownload/000000003002025590/0/Product.
(15) undefined. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Ferrybridge_%27C%27_Power_Station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_35089.jpg.
(16) undefined. energypost.eu.
(17) undefined. skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-by-2050.html.
I agree with much of what you say, but there is an alternative way to store electricity. Pumped storage hydro. All that is required is building one dam (or tank) at the top of a steep hill and another at the bottom and connect them with a pipe. Then buy electricity when there is a surplus and it is cheap and use that energy to pump water up the hill. Later, you release water through the turbines to generate power when there is a shortage and electricity can be sold for several times more than you bought it for. These systems are about 75% efficient and last forever with minimal maintenance or overheads.
@@BradGrove Hi Brad, I'm aware of these sources and arguments. Energy can be stored multiple ways from hot sand to salt lakes to tones of concrete suspended by cables. All work, but also none are able to provide multiple hours of megawatt current. You can get around this by having a lot more of them, on a kilowatt output if they are large enough, but you quickly run into major expense and complexity. The elephant in the room is that all these require vast amounts of copper and nickel. If the world tries to go renewable these will run out very quickly. Possibly we could mine Antarctica to source them. But that opens yet another threat to the environment. Geothermal will provide baseload as reliably as coal, gas, hydro or nuclear, but the geology has to be suitable. SA does have some areas where this is possible, but for most of Australia geothermal is not feasible. We already have the technology to go nuclear now, hoping that we will have advancements in technology and energy storage for green energy is just that, being hopeful. Hope is not a strategy. I'm not opposed to reducing carbon dioxide, spikes in CO2 have caused mass extinctions in the geological past, so to avoid disaster we need net zero very quickly. But if we are in a race against time, we had better start building nuclear capacity now. You can always go green at a later time when the hoped for advancements in technology and a reduced human population make it possible.
@@Dave_Sisson Hi Dave. You are or course correct, but to do that on a megawatt scale we need the geology to provide suitable valleys for flooding. Australia does not have enough of these. The Snowy is one of the few geologically suitable areas we have. We can get around this by creating multiple smaller reservoirs, but that will have cost, complexity and environmental issues. We could use solar to send electrical current to the sea and split water into hydrogen and oxygen. We could then store the gases before recombining them at night to produce heat, spin turbines and create electricity. Net zero but very expensive.
Many thanks for another interesting talk.
You are most welcome.
The one thing that Dutton has no control over is the nimby side of this argument.
Latest polls show 61% of the population support nuclear and the sites picked will gain enormously from it, rather than being devastated by closures
Wtf is NIMBY?
@@kevinwortz8301 NIMBY is acronym for someone who is not generally opposed to something, as long as it is 'Not In My Back Yard'.
@@kevinwortz8301tree huggers
@@kevinwortz8301 Not in my back yard. So yes I want someone else to do it.
Nuclear reactors require vast amounts of water. The supply of water in most jurisdictions is controlled by State instrumentalities or Government Departments or Agencies. Leaving the Defence Power to one side, can the Commonwealth direct a State Government to supply its water hungry reactors if it won't do so voluntarily?
Good question, Bob. I guess it could always compulsorily acquire water on just terms, subject to the mysterious s 100 of the Constitution. It would make an interesting constitutional fight!
Section 100 of the constitution contains use of water by states if part of the river system
The secondary cooling systems could be cooled by sea water, except this would wreck marine ecosystems and greatly add to the cost due to corrosion resistant pipeworks
@@chriswarren-smith62 de-salination plants are very costly to build and run. And the States control the coastal waters out to the 3 nautical mile mark.
@@bobbennett5013 surely they're not planing to use the Murray darlin system?
I managed to find this channel, about 3 hours after finishing my australian conlaw exam... well better late than never great video
Keep watching - there's plenty of good stuff here, and it's always good to learn, even when you don't have to sit an exam. But do pass the secret of this channel on to your fellow students.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Oh I do plan to, thank you for making this it seems like an exceedingly good resource to have avaliable.
I would like to hear of a referendum on this matter, it would be more beneficial than the one's of the past.
Check out my recent video on referendums and plebiscites!
I do wish to have a constitutional conference that regulates different levels of sovereignty - with the most devolved level of 2000 citizens being the most powerful - and the bigger units having very limited and specified sovereignty-functions . Human psychology is naturally designed to be able to distinguish between 1000 and 2000 individuals maximum . . everything bigger than that becomes very much influenced by wishfull thinking
There is another head of power potentially available: defence.
Given the commitment to purchase nuclear submarines it is arguable that the Commonwealth will have to obtain a reliable source of enriched plutonium (as fuel for the submarines).
The 7 reactors could then be seen as a means of procuring a necessary defence item and the electricity supply as an incidental function to the production of plutonium.
You might give us a short follow up on how the national Electricity supply market was created by Commonwealth legislation and that it could amend that Act to allow it to tap into the poles and wires network.
The subs are returned to UK /US for refueling Australiaa has not committed to provided enriched uranium nor has the capability to produce it, no intent to have the necessary breeder reactors in breach of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.
From memory the NEM was a national agreement with model laws passed by all states with SA as the lead. Modifying the NEM may be beyond the Feds if the states don’t agree.
The Feds enacted the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act in 1987 and have been operating the Lucas Heights reactor for decades, apparently without Constitutional impediment
Lucas heights isn't used to generate power its for medical purposes, so not really the same as we are also talking about a different type of radioactive isotope.
@@DeepseaSteve ha ha, and that's in which section of the Constitution?
Lucas Heights has been operating since 1958. I'm guessing there's some exemption for it.
@@banjobluedog He's right though. That reactor is legally forbidden from producing power.
If you are genuinely interested, have a look at s 6A of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987, which lists the range of constitutional powers relied on by the organisation which operates Lucas Heights: www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ansatoa1987505/s6a.html.
I love these videos. I’m interested in the way the Commonwealth applies state laws to its own places. What mechanism does it use to identify and apply these laws?
The Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 does this (www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cpola1970376/). It already has a number of exceptions in it, including where the State law would be unconstitutional if applied at the Commonwealth level, or where a State law would otherwise be inconsistent with a Commonwealth law. It's quite a tricky area, and I might do a video about it one day.
@@constitutionalclarion1901
I would be excited if you would make a video on that topic.
Is it true that the Act was passed to stop state police arresting anti Vietnam war protesters on university campus?
All laws must be established by the people, and the people only serve themselves well if they are well informed and well equipped with the ability of reasoning.
The word "nuclear" evokes fear and fear deprives all common sense and sound judgement. Yes, there are many extensively reported disasters brought by the failure of nuclear facilities, however, the progress and the accumulated technology in the field are largely ignored. Facts: nuclear power plans do not have to be huge in size and prohibitive in cost. The first miniaturised nuclear power device was the one that drove an icebreaker in the Soviet Union, named Lenin, starting its serves in the year of 1959 and lasting 30 years. The first aircraft carrier that driven by nuclear power plant was USS Enterprise and it was in the year of 1961. Many similar vessels appeared thereafter, all in service and in good condition.
That simple fact tell us that small scale nuclear power plan is viable and safe.
We need to make the technology available to the general population, not only for the purpose of destruction. Some countries have already started the process, for example, China. Small scale nuclear power plant can be built underground with better safety measures and less demand on capital investment.
Now, it is up to the Australian people to make a sensible decision, not for politicians to score cheap point.
The biggest problems with nuclear are it is too expensive and would take too long to build. Also commercial SMRs do not exist.
@@andrewjoy7044bullshit, you have been brainwashed by the radical left (aka The Greens)
Two small scale nuclear reactors exist, both built by state-subsidy and neither produces market-competitive energy. They are very much test-bed, proof of concept and are not, regardless of the name, modular as they are not mass-producable in order to actually bring down per-unit cost.
The two actual commercial venture SMR projects outside of Russia and China, that being NuScale and TerraPower, have seen NuScale cancelled and TerraPower delayed several times, each time with an upward revision of its estimate finally cost... all for a 345 MWh at US$2 billion (half provided by government subsidy through the DoE) while 400 MWh of solar was just turned on in Queensland for 20% of that, meaning even if battery storage cost 4 times the panels it would still come in under the only SMR currently under construction (as in they just broke ground, whether or not it will deliver on time or even be cancelled).
Nuclear can, from a technical perspective, serve to fill the need and be fit for purpose.
But this isn't a matter strictly of technical feasibility but of delivery time, cost-effectiveness and value for money as well.
@@KentRigeI if what you said here is true, something has gone wrong. We all know there are more than 10 nuclear aircraft carries sailing all over the world and some of them have up to 5000 members living on the ship. Why don't they install the same facility in small towns, suburbs, or, even in different part of the large cities?
@@PCHUANG-yk9pw Because those reactors, built into those aircraft carriers and submarines, are not modular. They can't be replaced without the ships/subs being dismantled. They aren't meant to produce market competitive quantities (they produce MWh of power, not GWh) of electricity, nor deliver it at competitive prices. They are built to provide a portable, contained, low-fuel requirement solution for electricity with the objective of military application, not civilian and industry needs.
It would cost a STAGGERING amount of money to build hundreds, if not thousands of military ship/sub type reactors to supply even one multi-million population city.
There is a claim that some have made, that because High Court judges are chosen by the federal government, they tend to lean towards decisions that favour federal power over state power. Do you think there's anything to this?
You would be no doubt aware of the Sandy Ridge facilityand the Walton facility both in WA, and research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. We already have reactors and store nuclear waste. That's why many of these laws exist.
Quite so. That is why we already have these laws, and they are therefore very good indicators of the types of power the Commonwealth will rely on if a law is enacted in the future to permit nuclear power plants. There is also considerable existing Commonwealth-State cooperation on these matters. The report by Ziggy Switkowski on the subject is very useful on this issue, but a bit out of date.
You forgot about the approval of a Nuclear waste facility for WA's HMAS Stirling naval base. Garden Island.
Something that’s always interested me, when it comes to State Gov/law vs Federal, is how Australia would look if we simply melded into a single system. Eg, the dissolving of state governments, in place of an umbrella government and replacing State premiers with Federally appointed ministers.
I’m guessing that this could require a complete overhaul of the constitution, but the idea isn’t new, and in past polling, isn’t an unpopular opinion. In fact, it was close to 50/50, for and against 🤷♂️
The new nuclear power plants will be Fusion and not Fission, which is a substantial difference. Look it up on UA-cam, the Europeans have made recent major breakthroughs in Fusion technology.
Just found your channel. I like your delivery method and breakdown of issues that would otherwise be a quagmire of confusion. Thanks!
Glad you found it useful.
Given that the federal government has already agreed to deal with all nuclear waste from the AUKUS subs, transporting of nuclear waste MUST be overcome or put us in violation of that agreement
NT is the main US/UK port in future so NT or SA would end up the dumping ground for nuclear waste for AUKUS. But that the plan is to have nuclear plants in most States in 20 years time is fraught with delay, delay, delay. We could join NT and SA and create several in the heart of Australia but it still doesn't deal the fact USA and EU are funding their nuclear plants, as we have climate change and hotter conditions those plants can't function in hot regions. That's the problem we have. Australia is not Antartica so how can we operate such plants in Australia's hot climate?
@@leonie563 Try again, the Saudis have just built four nuclear reactors.
If they can do so, so can we.
May I strongly suggest reading up on modern nuclear tech, not myths from the 1950s and 1960s.
The Saudis built those plants in ELEVEN years with NO pre-existing nuclear infrastructure.
As for nuclear waste management, we would have had an approved site if Bowen had not stepped in.
@@leonie563 As for NT becoming the main port for US/UK trade, try again. It is too far from everywhere.
@@lokai7914
Saudi Arabia is a borderline totalitarian monarchy which has nigh unlimited credit based on the collateral of their resources and the protection and leeway being part of OPEC grants them for building nuclear during a time when they are clearly expanding their military capabilities...
They are hardly comparable to Australia where social license, legislative process and a court system to rule on matters of state and commonwealth law are all things more complex than 'MBS says build this, here, now or else'.
Likewise choosing the Saudis is cherry-picking while ignoring that countries like France, the UK and the US have all by contrast with much greater nuclear industry, experience and reactor portfolios were instead going well over budget and well passed expected delivery dates on their upcoming reactors.
You really expect Coalition Nuclear to be any more likely to deliver within budget and on time than Coalition NBN or Coalition Snowy 2.0, both mentioned as 'prime examples' of the commonwealth choosing to engage in creating corporation to act within the market?
@@KentRigeI Despite your anti-Saudi rhetoric, what you have missed is that the reactors were built by the South Koreans, who could do the same things for us.
Risk Management. As I understand, Nuclear contamination and pollution is excluded by Insurance Companies. This means, in the event of a nuclear disaster, Australians will suffer loss without compensation, unless the Commonwealth Parliament underwrites to make-good the loss to People & Property?
Interesting and oh so very current! I would imagine it would be a very "courageous" Federal Government to take on three or four states in the High Court using the "laws inconsistent..." powers without a truly huge and probably unprecidented popular mandate. Particularly when considering that the court cases would need to be fought and won two plus DECADES before there were whatever benefits the government was selling could possibly come into effect.
In a future episode, can you please address the Nuclear Submarine acquisition currently underway by the RAN/Defence Department?
No, I'm afraid that's beyond my expertise.
What about nuclear submarines??
what about nuclear medicine.
Very informative. Thanks for setting out the Constitutional position. Corroborating your conclusion, I see the NSW Premier has conceded that the Commonwealth can override his state’s prohibition.
I assume that when the Gorton, McMahon and Whitlam Governments planned and then commenced construction of the first reactor for power generation at Jervis Bay it was on Commonwealth land and hence potential conflict with state law was not an issue. I’m wondering now if Lucas Heights is on Commonwealth land and, if not, on what basis does the reactor operate now?
I'm not sure whether it is a 'Commonwealth place'. It might be. But because it provides essential medical isotopes for people suffering from cancer, there is general support for it from all jurisdictions.
ALP changed the law for nuclear submarines pretty easy. Nuclear parasitism is welcomed by the ALPLNP Extinction Coalition.
Is there any requirement under the Constitution for the States to be co-operative (or not bloody minded) with the Commonwealth ?
For example I presume that the nuclear power plants would be located some distance from other businesses and people.
The state could choose not to run any water or sewerage system, garbage disposal, roads etc within a couple kilometres of the plant. The could just acquire that land to.
The states could presumably pass laws to prevent the sale of services eg water, electricity, garbage disposal etc to the nuclear plant.
Are states required not prevent the provision of services to Commonwealth?
Would it just be consider 'bloody minded' and the Commonwealth would just thump the state financially?
There is no constitutional requirement of cooperation, but in practice there are very high levels of cooperation. This is not seen by the public, because the media is only interested in reporting conflict, not cooperation.
Valid Commonwealth laws override State laws, hence there is a significant capacity for the Commonwealth to override State laws that would otherwise disrupt Commonwealth projects. Further, States are dependent upon Commonwealth funding, so the Commonwealth can force cooperation by putting conditions on grants to the States.
On point as usual. Thank you.
I would love to know what Constitution you read and tell the people? Is it a Red covered book? or a Green covered book? Or do you just read from a .Gov website
I use the one and only Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The colour of the cover doesn't matter (although the one I bought when I went to Law School, which I still have, is a pale blue/grey colour, but rather faded). I've done a whole video about the colour of the Constitution, and show examples of each here: ua-cam.com/video/IE6SCmeUMUc/v-deo.html
This is my favourite reality TV show.
Glad you enjoy it.
Nice to finally come across a site on constitutional law ,much of which most Australians ,including myself, have little clue about. What I would like to know , are we the people protected under our constitution as the British are under theirs and the Americans are under their constitution? Are we like the UK in regard to being protected from Government overreach via the Magna carta?
Magna Carta is just a statute in both the UK and Australia. It can be altered by any later legislation, and most of it has already been repealed. It is not entrenched, unlike the Commonwealth Constitution which can only be changed by a referendum.
Australia does not have an entrenched bill of rights. The Constitution contains very minimal rights (eg just terms compensation if property is compulsorily acquired, trial by jury and freedom of religion), as well as implications concerning freedom of political communication and voting rights. The people who wrote the Constitution preferred to leave such matters to Parliament to decide. The people get to choose their Parliament and government at regular intervals, and those that they choose get to decide on laws that affect the people. So vote wisely.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Do we actually have trial by jury or a jury trial?
Could (if a nuclear facility in a state was built by the Commonwealth) the state pass legislation that for example made it a crime to work at a nuclear facility? So not banning a nuclear plant itself just preventing its operation by making it a crime to work there.
It would depend upon whether the State law was inconsistent with a valid Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth could probably devise a valid law to create such an inconsistency if it tried hard enough.
Is the AUKUS agreement which will involve the handing of nuclear waste in the states be prohibited by sections of the constitution?
No. The Constitution includes an 'external affairs power', which gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws that implement treaties or concern Australia's relations with other countries.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 That's a shame
US Aircraft carriers powered by nuke, were not allowed to port in Australia because of there nuclear power. Yet we plan on buying Nuclear Subs and operating them from Australian bases. So the bans have already been ignored.
Your opening statement is nonsense, Nuclear powered US Aircraft carriers and submarines have and do berth at various Australian commercial ports.
glad I found your channel, thank you for so succicntly explaining this very confusing topic!
Start by nullifying the antinuclear power aspects of the constitution then have responsible people put a minimum of legislation back into the replacement document.
What are the anti-nuclear aspects of the Constitution. Did you watch the video?
Thanks Prof. Twomey for covering this topic
You're welcome.
I do hope we avoid nuclear. Thanks for the explanation
Glad you found it useful.
I note that New Zealand is named by the Constitution as a State, while in practice New Zealand is obviously not a State are there any legal implications from New Zealand being listed as a State, and for instance do New Zealanders qualify as Australian citizens because of this inclusion in the Constitution?
No, New Zealand is not named as a State. Covering Clause 6 only lists it as a potential State that could join the Commonwealth. It defines as the States 'such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland [etc] ... as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth'. As New Zealand has never been part of the Commonwealth, it is not and has never been a State of Australia.
WESTern Australia is far far better off moving into a position of Independence from CWealth. Its good for Indigenous WA, good for Natural born WAers, and starts a new Constitution with a "clean" sheet of paper, fully United Nations and third Millennium compatible.
For WA to progress, WA must leave something behind.
Ironically Western Australia currently has the oldest and most out of date Constitution in Australia
@@JamesVCTH the "underfoot caldera" support (every LGA) for WA Independence by WAers is "currently" greater than the primary vote enjoyed by federal labor last election.
I'm very happy for nuclear power to be reconsidered.
Once built they have zero emissions and I'd be happy to live next to one. They have one huge advantage over solar and wind in that they can generate power when the sun isn't shining, and the wind isn't blowing.
What they are not is cheap to operate. I would expect that the power would cost roughly double what we currently pay but this may be similar to the cost of a huge number of batteries that would be required to store energy instead. Those batteries will probably need to be replaced at least every 10 years if used daily at night and recharged during the day. Current batteries are not great from the point of emissions when being manufactured.
We really should have a wide-ranging discussion on the safety, lifetime costs, emissions rather than just trying to scare people with the word "nuclear".
Having said that I wouldn't vote for Dutton anyway. Way too right for my liking.
Nuclear power doesn't replace renewables, what it primarily does is minimise the need for new distribution networks and energy storage, big batteries, pumped hydro etc. A major weakness of Labor's renewables policy is that it hasn't fully costed in energy storage and distributed source energy networks. By my calculations Labor's plans currently fall short by about 2,000GWhrs of on line storage capacity at a 14GW rate.
In this regard there is $50-80bn in missing investment from the Labor program.
Under the coalition this missing investment would be presumably be switched into nuclear power stations. Four large stations at 3GW each and three small plants at 1GW each plug the on line capacity gap and obviate the need for large scale storage.
More importantly it means future energy capacity needed for economic growth can be largely met by wind and solar alone, unconstrained by the high investment costs associated with energy distribution and storage.
A mixed solution involving nuclear and renewables plus a modest amount of storage makes a lot of sense.
Nuclear is far too expensive and would take far too long to build. Australia would need 15 X 1.4 GW nuclear power stations just to replace the 21 GW of coal fired power stations. How long would it take to build all of these? There are many ways of storing excess solar and wind beside chemical batteries. As an example, a compressed air battery is being built near Broken Hill with capacity of 200 MW that can generate over 8 hours. Also heat batteries are being developed that turn excess solar and wind into heat that can then be stored and then used later to generate electricity.
@@andrewjoy7044
Common myths Andrew. It is neither too expensive or too slow.
The UAE went from zero to Nuclear with 5 large GW power stations in only 12 years. Longest of which took only 7 years from first concrete pour to first electrons on the grid. The last reactor only took 5 years.
Energy storage has a physics problem. Batteries have terrible specific energy. 0.57 MJ per kg is the best Tesla has yet made for a high performance Li battery. Compressed air, heat, gravity all share similar problems in that they are simply too inefficient at the scale we need.
So specific energy…
For perspective:
Petrol: 40 MJ per kg
Black coal: 60 MJ per Kg
Hydrogen:141 MJ per kg
And then there is uranium: 330,000,000 MJ per kg.
That right there is why Australia will go nuclear to replace coal on the grid. Nothing else is even close. Energy density equal’s efficiency equals lower consumer electricity prices.
Which is why grid scale nuclear is HALF the price of solar per kWh.
Sorry to burst your renewables and storage bubble, but physics is not on your team.
so what was Lucas Heights?
Lucas Heights is used for nuclear medicine and scientific research.
It's also tiny, about 20MW if memory serves.
Where do Lucas Heights and nuclear powered submarines fit into the legislative order?
Lucas Heights isn't a prohibited nuclear installation because it doesn't do any of the prohibited things. It is used for research, and producing isotopes for medical uses. Nuclear submarines (armed with conventional weapons) are also not prohibited.
@@sheriff0017 Do either generate any nuclear ‘waste’?
@@robweaver1075 With Lucas Heights, it clearly doesn't generate enough waste to be a problem. As for submarines, the nuclear fuel lasts for the life of the vessel. Questions of nuclear waste are, therefore, bound up in disposal of the decommissioned submarine.
@@sheriff0017 Thank you.
@@sheriff0017 I watched a doco about encapsulating decommissioned Soviet nuclear subs above Russia, life long job, even for their kids & grand kids
Great summary. Do hope that we can have a proper debate on the topic rather than a solely ideological debate. Hope the Australian public is smarter than the scare mongers whose very ill informed messaging around cost and safety is total malarkey. As things stand the only proven path to maintain a first world electricity system is to have nuclear in the mix - those that say we can go fully renewable (if that might be possible with technology that doesn’t yet exist) without scarring the country with high voltage transmission lines and a very costly short life of wind/solar that will outstrip the cost of nuclear over its life by many many times are fools. Will common sense prevail???
... like SMRs which don't yet exist or the few that have been built went way over state-subsidised budget, over delivery time and aren't commercially competitive? That, as the South Australian premier just pointed out, that even a new nuclear reactor built in SA at the sight of the former coal burner would require all new transmission infrastructure anyway since the existing transmission infrastructure is at capacity servicing the battery capacity already built on the site? That China, which pro-nuclear are always happy to point at for 'Look at how fast it gets deployed!', is installing much, much more solar capacity at an even greater speed... but for some reason that's completely separate and not important?
Nuclear is, very likely, safe and would definitely do the job if we had it.
But we don't. It wouldn't be here for 15 years if Dutton took power tomorrow. We can't have it AND have renewables for multiple reasons, which Littleproud spoiled the secret of with asserting a need for 'caps' on renewables and that we can't feasibly afford and deliver both when already insisting renewables are too expensive and nuclear (even more expensive) add up to far, far more cost to consumers or public debt.
We live in a different world now .
We should change the constitution for the benefit of our country...
wow! uncommon insight for a land of amiable sheep ruled by 150 hyenas.
That would require a referendum which going bybpast history is very unlikely to succeed.
hahaha.... given the successes vs failures of past referendums, history says 'no'.
@@lucindachilds3581 Good point.
There were two successful referendum questions put to the Australian people to expressly increase Commonwealth power.
They were in 1946 (Social Services); and in 1967 (Aboriginals).
All other referendum questions to expressly increase Commonwealth power had failed.
With respect to non-proliferation, it's odd that an act banning developments in the civilian nuclear industry purports to rely on an act banning the proliferation weapons. The "bargain" that the Non-Proliferation Treaty strikes is that, in exchange for renouncing the acquisition of nuclear weapons, a country can develop nuclear technology, or import it, for civilian uses with safeguards in place to prevent the technology being used for weapons development. There's a question of whether such a law is appropriate and adapted to meet the NPT's obligations.
Having said that, with treaties with respect to nuclear waste, environmental protection, etc, it wouldn't impact the validity of such a law in practice.
Thank you for going into the constitution law side of this debate. A couple of things I need to raise, first is the state laws operating on federal lands, I remember a conflict of this at the old Hoxton Park airfield. When airports were federally run there was a petrol station that was able to sell alcohol on site as it was on federal land, therefore avoiding the ban on alcohol sales in convenience stores, and the state government couldn’t do anything about it.
Secondly, could the federal government face a combined states constitutional challenge on overturning the nuclear ban, on the basis that all laws were in harmony prior to any federal change?
Thanks again for providing a clear understanding (as possible) on the issues.
Apart from the real good factor, I expect the real purpose of the anti nuke legislation, both cmth and state, is to enable labor to run long delaying court actions in the hope that there is a change of legislative power.
The Commonwealth prohibition on nuclear power plants was enacted under the Coalition Howard Government.
Your mention of §52(i) reminds me of a question about power of legislation for the Australian Capital Territory, and whether it is an exclusive power of the Commonwealth or can be delegated to the ACT Assembly. I have heard that the High Court ruled that the phrase "seat of government of the Commonwealth" does not apply to the whole of the ACT, §125 requiring that the seat of government be _within_ a territory described, but not that it _consist of_ such territory. But what about the second clause of §52.(i)? Was the ACT acquired by the Commonwealth for a public purpose?
No one has ever been quite sure precisely where the 'seat' is, other than that it is somewhere in the Territory. But it also seems clear that s 122 applies to the Territory and allows the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws for it, and that s 52(i) is 'subject to this Constitution'.
I've never done the research to try to work out how this all works re self-government, but I agree it is an interesting question.
If the federal government uses constitutional powers to force the states to accept nuclear power. Could the state use succession. Could by riding ruffshot over the states lead to the breakup of Federation.
One day I will do a video on secession. It is not easy to achieve.
Could the states use there leverage to give a scenario of leaving the federation on this matter. Could the states ulturnatively withhold taxes to the federal government. What majority would be needed to find peace using a state run referendum. I would like to know. Thank you. T
Western Australia tried to leave the federation in 1933, and it proved harder than expected. I will do a video about it one day, as it is quite interesting.
As for taxes, most are raised by the Commonwealth, with some being returned to the States. So I'm afraid the States cannot withhold taxes to the federal government - the real risk is the reverse.
Regarding State referendums and plebiscites, see my earlier video on this. A State could certainly try to pressure the Commonwealth by holding a plebiscite on the issue and showing (if it did) that the people of the State reject the establishment of nuclear power plants in the State. Politicians are more receptive to the wishes of voters than most things. But ultimately, it would be a matter for the Commonwealth Parliament as to whether it sought to override State laws, assuming that it has a valid head of power to do so.
Prof Twomey, would the Cth still need a separate head of power to 51(xxxi), because the nature of that power is acquisition ‘for any purpose in respect of which the [Cth] Parl has the power to make law’? So that head of power in combination with s 52 wouldn’t by itself give them what they need for the whole legislative scheme, is that right?
Yes, that's right. They still need a 'purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws', although interestingly I'm not aware of any acquisition ever being struck down on that basis. But I think the corporations power and the trade and commerce power would be enough to get them over that line.
How did Lucas Heights get around all these laws years ago?
Lucas Heights is permitted by the law, because its functions are to provide isotopes for nuclear medicine and to conduct scientific research. It is a different type of facility, and one that hospitals in every State need.
NOW THIS IS A COMPETENT LADY ! DOES ANYONE KNOW HER NAME AND WHAT´S HER POSITION IN COURT OR GOVERNMENT?
Anne Twomey, highly regarded Australian constitutional lawyer. Regularly gets interviews on mainstream media too, but this has one less layer of editing between her words and you.
Quite so. I did a few radio and television interviews yesterday on this subject, but the UA-cam channel allows me to say what I want and give a bit more detail. It's still intended for everyday people, but it gives them a more sophisticated answer and helps them to understand the detail. Its purpose is public education - so do subscribe!
I didn’t realise you had a UA-cam channel. Glad I found it.
I have a rather odd question; I think you may have addressed it in your writing before.
There’s an argument made by some constitutional scholars that the sovereign of Australia comprises 7 separate crown personalities not one - reflected by the fact the governors are not subordinate to the GG.
In the event of a referendum would a state be free to ignore the federal result and not enact the necessary enabling legislation to severe itself from the crown? Could a state do this now without a federal referendum?
Thanks. These are quite complex questions, and I've already put on my list for future videos the one about States cutting their links from the Crown, and another on the 1999 referendum and how it dealt with the States. So I'll get to those in the next few months.
On the bigger issue about how many Crowns, I discuss this in my book 'The Chameleon Crown' (Federation Press, 2006). It is an unresolved issue.
The political "monopoly" (two party system) is doing what it always does and people think they are voting for a different way of being governed. It's clear, no matter if it's Liberal or Labour, you get the same policies that best suits the banksters and globalists (pretty much one and the same). Digital IDs being the most notable partisan legislation pasted recently, but you could also point to 2020, Occupy Wall Street being an older example. All the other right-left stuff is irrelevant and performative as is serves as a distraction, which also serves the needs of the banksters.
I used to believe I lived in a modern western representative democracy, those days are long gone.
Left and right doesn't exist it is a concept to get boring people from the suburbs arguing with each other so the government's can screw you over. Nothing to do with globalist bulshit if somebody is being paid $20 an hour to make a car that is going to be sold for 20 grand they need to be distracted which is why they invented sport religion and then the internet.
Agreed I even spent the better part of my life in the ADF. I now realise it wasn't worth defending.
democracy may be possible, but requires citizen-quality people. not present, as such people do not grow under politician rule.
Google is removing comments again bloody censorship
Ok then, nobody is forcing you to stay. You can go whenever you like. Bye.
Thanks so much for this clear and thorough explanation, Anne.
One of the political aspects of the issue is already elapsed time from decision taking to first generation of electricity. Assuming that Libs can get relevant legislation through the Senate, let’s assume that at least one State will be invested enough to take the argument to the High Court. Based on historical precedent, roughly how long do you think it would take for the High Court to make a judgement permitting the Feds to proceed with construction? In other words, how much time should we front load into the project plan for resolution of Cwlth/State legal arguments?
The High Court used to take a long time to decide matters, but it is now much faster. Probably 6-8 months at most.
Some of this ground was expressly covered in Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation v Minister for Resources [2023] FCA 809.
Thanks. That's really helpful. For anyone else interested, the link is here: www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2023/809.html.
Off topic, I was wondering if you had a view on constitutionality of the Royal Powers Act 1953? We have a Royal visit coming up this year, so we may have His Majesty giving assent to something in the Governor General's place.
The Royal Powers Act only allows the monarch, when in Australia, to exercise a power 'under an Act exercisable by the Governor-General'. (www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rpa1953177/s2.html.) It doesn't alter any powers conferred on the Governor-General by the Constitution.
If a Parliament, by the enactment of a statute, can validly confer a power on the Governor-General, it can validly confer the same power on the monarch, if it so chooses.
Excuses me about the change of subject , Anne how do you feel about going cashless? Have you considered the negative impacked?
Why add the so called local governments, no such thing. Which section of state or Australian constitution are they mentioned.
There are such things. They existed before federation, under the legislation of the colonies, and continued to exist after federation, under the law of the States. They fall within the legislative power conferred upon the States.
nuclear power is safe. Anyways on topic the consitutional issues at play are very interesting.
who owns what?A federal system just automatically leads to drama(for lack of a better word).is there no "eminent domain "type concept that the federal goverment could use?
I should probably be watching my lectures instead of Australian consitutional law but its just so interesting.
it also seems like this channel is getting a whole bunch of viewers now so congrats(even though some are crazy)
Thanks. Yes, there's a price to fame...
Surely it's the vibe of the thing.
Haha
Constitution is nt respected by courts
So at what point are Duttons advisors going to "tell him he's dreaming"?
@Robert-xs2mv Putin and Abbott get things done? Which think tank do you represent? The Institute for Public Affairs, The Centre for Independent Studies, Advance Australia, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute or The Dictators Institute for Neo Conservatives? Everything is a market, everything is for sale. Even the lives of people. How do you define your ethics Robert?
What about the nuclear ☢️ power plant at Lucas Heights in Sydney ?
This is a functioning nuclear power reactor so using this as precedent in law there already a nuclear ☢️ power plant in existence in Australia 🇦🇺.
I believe you could build nuclear ☢️ power in plants according to the Act ANSTO Act
ANSTO is subject to the provisions of various Commonwealth Acts, Regulations made under these various Acts and Commonwealth Awards. The principal Act is the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 (ANSTO Act) which details the organisation's functions, powers, Board, Chief Executive Officer's duties, staffing, finance and other roles and responsibilities.
The Act (No. 3 of 1987 as amended) and taking into account amendments up to Act No. 46 109 of 20112017, as prepared by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney-General's Department, Canberra (19 September 201727 December 2011) and can be found on the Federal Register of Legislation website.
Yes, it operates for the purpose of nuclear medicine and scientific research. It is permitted under Australian law. It is not a nuclear power plant. The various laws do make a distinction.
to be a pedant, they are nuclear energy stations, it is time to use the correct term, we do not interchange the terms distance and speed - distance and its rate of change, in this case energy and its rate of changing it (power), these stations will generate energy
Well I guess we're about to find out the true power & force of AUKUS to transplant nuclear power (and its popularity) into Australian states.
This is non-subject. Everyone knows the laws would have to be changed, and that would be difficult.
The madness of councils declaring "nuclear free zones" has at least in some places has abated. I note the long standing sign on Ipswich Rd about the boundary into Ipswich has been removed so the long suffering residents can now at least get an X-ray at local medical centres. Lol
Fascinating, and clear now
Terrific.
We the people should be the ones having the say on nuclear, we the people should have the right to add or change any of commonwealth and state law acts and constitution. We the people pay pollies wages, we by all rights should be heard on these matters.
We the people also don't get sucked in by right wing propaganda. We the people also voted in the same party who chose to do nothing to develop Australia's energy needs for over a decade. Wake up and vote for a future not a past. By the way the Climate only responds to real action.
That's why the Constitution requires that elections are held at least every three years, so the people get to vote to choose those who make policies and pass the laws.
@@MaxMitch22 OR Left Wing propaganda. If you dont know about nuclear get educated. That doesn't mean watch a few Simpsons episodes.
we the people, do.
it's called an election and a referendum.
another great video, I watched your video on section 25 of the constitution, I was wondering your thoughts on section 51 (xxvi) (26) of the constitution
I wrote a long article about it many years ago (pre Voice referendum). It's here: classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/2012/16.pdf. But take into account it was written in 2012 and a lot has happened since. If I was writing it today, I might have slightly different views, as one's thinking develops over time.
Thank you for this expert opinion from the constitutional Clarion. If a federal election is fought on nuclear power generation and the coalition is succesful then isn't the onus on any opposition (senate or otherwise) to allow enabling legislation? Thank you for this expert opinion from the constitutional Clarion.
It depends on one's point of view. Some would say that the Coalition would have a 'mandate' if it won the election, and therefore its laws should be supported. Others would say that those parties which campaigned on the basis of their opposition to this proposal, should continue to represent those who elected them and follow through with that commitment.
Critically, there is also the argument that if people vote for the Coalition in the House of Representatives, but against them in the Senate, it is most likely because they don't necessarily want all the Coalition's policies and hope that the Senate will block the more extreme ones. The Senate is a more representative chamber, because of proportional representation, and therefore has its own mandate of sorts.
I thought that might be the answer. sigh.....
Fabulous ! Can you review the relevence of the 2004 case where South Australia took the LNP govt to court over compulsory acquistion of land for a nuclear waste facility, and won !!
I was actually contemplating doing one on the Barngarla case from 2023 re the nuclear waste facility, as it illustrates a lot of useful points. So yes, something will come on this soon, once I get some other things done first.
I've now looked at the 2004 case - SA v Slipper. It's very interesting on compulsory acquisition. So I'll try to do a Clarion addressing both. Thanks for the suggestion.
How should Parliament respond to a Govt Department changing the wording of an Act?
Not sure what you mean here. Government Departments can't change the words of Acts, although they might interpret them differently. If Parliament has included a "Henry VIII" clause in legislation (which is relatively rare), this allows the legislation later to be altered by way of a regulation. But it is the Government (usually through advice to the Governor in Executive Council, or a decision made by a Minister) that makes the change - not a Department.
Could the Federal Government force a State Government to provide infrastructure for a Nuclear Energy Station, like roads and water that feed the new projects?
This is commonly done through conditions imposed on grants to the States regarding road funding, etc.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 thank you, I look forward to your next talk
Anne, great video as always.
I was struck by your comment that the Cth could compulsorily acquire the land and turn it into a Cth place for the purposes of s 52. This is consonant with the direct authorities relating to s 52.
I do, however, wonder about the interaction with the Melbourne corporation doctrine. The practical effect of this would be to deny the State the ability to legislate over that place, including the ability to collect land taxes and other revenue. Thus, it is arguably substantially interfering with their capacity to govern.
Maybe this issue is ameliorated by the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970. But my reading is that that applies the content of state law as a Commonwealth law so the State's ability to independently legislate has still been undermined.
As the Melbourne Corporation doctrine is an implication, and s 51(xxxi) expressly allows the Commonwealth to compulsorily acquire property from the States and s 52 expressly gives it exclusive power, I don't think the Melbourne Corporation doctrine would win in such a clash. While I'm a strong supporter of the doctrine, the High Court is less keen on it and has messed around with it quite badly in recent times.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Yes, good point, Anne. Thank you, I agree.
Who, if anyone is interested, is trying to further refine nuclear waste??? Never hear of it. Must be possible if waste is still so powerful
I do somewhat feel uncomfortable with the term ''''Commonwealth'''' as it was established in a time and by people whose motivations were very much doubtful
Queen Victoria was not keen on the term 'Commonwealth' because it had republican overtones. She was assured that it did not (but actually, it was deliberate on the part of Sir Henry Parkes).
I don’t think nuclear power is the answer but for the weapons they will create. Elon Msk is going with hydrogen fuel cells rather than electric by 20,27
Hi Anne, would the Government be able to acquire the offshore gas fields and infrastructure? Just curious
There's a lot of complex law concerning offshore mining and other activities, which depends on whether it is in coastal waters or other offshore waters, up to and including the continental shelf. The TL;DR is that the Commonwealth has ultimate legislative control over offshore places within Australian jurisdiction, but under an agreement with the States, the States have some powers with respect to coastal waters.
As for acquiring things like infrastructure, s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution allows the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to the 'acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws'. So the answer is probably Yes, depending on the purpose and whether it falls within Commonwealth power.
I thought I'd posted a while ago but my appreciation didn't seem to come through. Anyway thanks so much for replying Ann. I wasn't actually expecting one. Brilliant information. Being a leftist I just have to throw it out there: wouldn't it be great if we could just nationalise one offshore gas rig? Even nationalising one might make Big Gas behave.
@@pmcamacho6447 I worked out in a few Australian deserts 45 years ago on gas/oil exploration drill rigs, there were plenty of gas/oil wells capped, some had been capped for 15 years back then
Get out of the past and into the present! What about the nuclear submarines! What does the constitution say about that? 😂😂😂
The Constitution says nothing about nuclear power and nuclear submarines. But it gives the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws with respect to 'defence' in s 51(vi), which would cover nuclear submarines, and it gives the Commonwealth power to make laws with respect to trading corporations (s 51(xx)) and interstate trade and commerce (s 51(i)) as well as the power to implement treaties (s 51(xxix)), which would allow the Commonwealth to participate in the commercial generation and trade of electricity through nuclear, hydro (see, eg Snowy Hydro) or other means. Perhaps watch the video, and you will find out.
Dutton has been disproven on each main point for the nuclear power stations and it seems its not going to fly legally. The guy is a complete muppet.
A State could support dirt cheap rooftop solar PV and Battery Vehicles storing dirt cheap solar PV all day long.
And feed into the national grid.
Renewables are too much for the grid now.
UTILIZATION would dictate millions of former grid customers private electricity storage and generation would take priority over Nuclear UTILIZATION needs.
Nuclear generation with no customers or customers not prepared to pay high Nuclear grid electricity rates does not sound economic.
Nuclear grid electricity is playing with nuclear fire economically. 🔥 😮😮😮