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.
Пікірлер
cheers
its a wild world we are moving into im not sure if you know friendly jordies he called out the old qld premier in a video called coronation basically he was a crime boss and jordies house got firebombed by the same gang and then they threatened to kill him so he had to remove the video and he got slapped with spreading misinformation terrorist thing crazy
Superb video as always. Whilst I appreciate the offence people take I’m strong advocate for freedom of expression. I find your video cut slightly short for the following reasons. 1. The Nazi Salute has been used in popular culture for decades including comedy. 2. The Nazi party disbanded on October 10, 1945 and this law was enacted in Victoria 78 years later only after a political revolt against the then premier Daniel Andrew’s where the people of Victoria could legally use the symbol for freedom of political expression against the Victorian Government and other governments within the commonwealth of Australia for oppressive and authoritarian governance. So it appears that the motivation of the law was not to protect people from harm of being offended but rather protect politicians from scrutiny.
There are plenty of other ways in which the people can express their views about politicians, and giving a salute does not amount to scrutiny.
@@constitutionalclarion1901I thought you could remove your personal opinions in the same manner for constructive discussion.
Most of those points are covered in the "cut short" video! If you enjoy scrutinising with salutes you should look into refereeing a sport.
I have often wondered whether this is the reason that the Queensland Parliament has a Scrutiny of Legislation Committee? (The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the 53rd Parliament was established by the Queensland Legislative Assembly on 15 September 1995. The committee's area of responsibility as set out in the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 is to consider the application of fundamental legislative principles to particular Bills and subordinate legislation; and the lawfulness of particular subordinate legislation by examining all Bills and subordinate legislation. The committee also has a general monitoring role in relation to various matters, including: regulatory impact statements; explanatory notes; and tabling and disallowance of subordinate legislation) (Taken from Qld Parl website)
Yes, it is important to have such a committee, particularly when you only have one House. But the effectiveness of the committee will depend upon whether it is controlled by the Government or acts independently (and I have no personal knowledge of how this committee actually operates - so it may be good, or it may not).
If the Constitution and Law was taught in High School, none of the would be happening.
I find misinformation interesting and reserve my right to listen to it!
I sometimes find it interesting too - but the problem is that many people cannot identify it as misinformation and believe it. For example, see the recent violent riots in the UK which were the result of misinformation spread on the internet about the identity of the person who committed an attack on young girls. Misinformation can have real effects - including deaths. So we need to consider carefully how to deal with it.
This is rife in Universities.
I clicked on this thinking it would be dry and boring - but your explanation was perfect. Thank you for sharing this with us. I have now subscribed. Great video .
Thanks. I'm really glad you found it interesting.
If someone had no other Nazi paraphernalia or relationship to any such groups, what would happen if they claimed that they were merely imitating the once popular in the USA "Bellamy salute'?
There are some exceptions in the legislation, so you would need to see whether it fell within them.
Thank you. Can a State leave the Federation?
The issue of secession is a tricky one. I'll do a video on it one day. The short answer is that it was intended that it not be permitted (see the reference to 'indissoluble' in the preamble, which was included as a result of the horrors of the US civil war). But the Constitution could, theoretically, be amended to allow a State to secede, or the State could defy the Constitution and leave by force. Hopefully, we never encounter that position.
You explain items so well. Do you think SFSS debts were illegal? It appears so but no one is addressing it
I haven't looked at it, I'm afraid. But I suspect that it it were unlawful, someone would already have taken the point and had it resolved.
Any reason why they didn't move to an elected upper house instead?
Elected upper Houses (eg in Victoria) could also be very conservative and obstructive, particularly where there was a property qualification. Overall, Labor opposed upper Houses for a long time.
After Harold Holt died
I’ve really been enjoying your videos and I’m currently binge watching them all. I mentioned it in another video but one video I suggested was the discussion on abolishing the states and moving to a system of just a federal government and local governments. I’m personally opposed to it for many reasons but maybe you can weigh in on this topic and explain the validity of it.
Yes, one day I will. I've written about it before.
I hope they find it again!
It's well hidden!
It would be interesting to know if the law allows replacing the member if they quit, or if they are removed from the party. The anti defection measure might be useful if it only comes into force where the member chooses to leave the party. Quits. But NOT if they are expelled from the party. That would be useful to prevent the party enforcing the actions of a member. Better still would be to have the law require a by-election rather than simply allow the party to appoint a replacement. But to be honest I have no issue currently with the status quo.
There is only delusional rights in Australia 🇦🇺 look what is going on with the communists labour greens teals leading a invasion of Australia against Australians nothing the political industry is doing right now is in Australians interest the same thing with net zero delusion all against the people treason all around our country
What legitimacy does a government have when they along with all their government bodies and departments become a corporation?
As far as local councils, most were established as "municipal corporations" prior to Federation, other states redefined them as "bodies politic" as opposed to "bodies corporate". It doesn't make them "trading companies" for the purposes of section 51(xx) of the Constitution, that is another matter entirely, it must be answered by looking to whether, as a matter of substance, not form, the trading activities constitute a significant proportion of the council’s overall activities. (DP Anderson of the Fair Work Commission made some observations regarding this in Martin Cooper [2017] FWC 5974). Some councils have indeed been declared "trading companies" such as the City of Port Phillip in Matina Bastakos [2018] FWC 7650. It ultimately means very little and does not affect their obligations to collect rates, or any other statutory obligations. All it does is shift their obligations from State Industrial Relations policy to Federal Industrial Relations policy under the Fair Work Act 2009.
I admit my first reaction was "well if the law just happens to benifet them" but you point out laws take pubilc money to be use. Curious would see an a MP with immgrant relatives voting in favor of Law that would benfiet them or something like that be corruption?Also nice to see you actually have opinions!
a bit of pork barreling for the party & the then boyfriend, a win win outcome, but in fact it is corrupt, those with commonsense would see it as corrupt, does that mean there is a lack of commonsense among certain politicians? it does, based on your assessment.
This an excellent briefing and I’m encouraged.
Corruption runs rife in NSW. Unfortunately, this is common in Australian history and it's refreshing to see at least some politicians exposed and hopefully brought to justice. I would contend that there is much more to be investigated both federally and in the states. Another comment mentions Scott Morrison. Most definitely a suitable subject for investigation. Any of the sudden resignations and golden parachute grabbings would also be a good starting point for further investigations.
TLDR " multiple voting has never been a major problem in Australia "
Yep.
From my studies, local government is a creation by state parliament via statute giving limited bylaw creation authority to an 'elected' local council. In Victoria the minister for Local Government has powers to sack a council without a court order or approval by parliament, and this is not a rare occurrence. This alone shows, Local Government is a creature of statute. The channel presenter is spot on, constitution is not required to create local government, local government is a creation of parliament. People who claim local government is unconstitutional in an effort to fight an infringement notice, would be better served to study and understant 'absolute liability' and 'strict liability' offences. These are what infringement laws are based on, these 'liabilities' remove the right to a presumption of innocence, a far more malevolent and sinister suppression of our rights. An instance is s84 Road Safety Act Vic which states the owner of a car is presumed guilty of the offence as if he were driving the car, and courts consistently enforce this suppression of our right to a presumption of innocence. These type of liabilities suppressing our right to a presumption of innocence appear to have been created by a US Supreme Court Justice many decades ago. Justice Oliver Wendal Holmes, a judge whose priorities were so warped, when he died, he left his entire estate of considerable wealth to the government!
To the channel owner, perhaps consider expanding on one very crucial point made in your video, if a statute appears to suppress a fundamental right, in interpreting that provision, the courts apply the 'principle of legality of statutory interpretation' - Courts will only accept the right is suppressed if there is unambiguous and clearly expressed intent by parliament to suppress a particular right. PJB v Melbourne Health VSC 327 [2011], Bell J explains this interpretation by the courts. A very good judgment to read and explains judicial review of a government decision whether judicial decision or a decision by a govt department or non govt organisation carrying out a government function.
Yes, I've explained the principle of legality before in other videos, and I think I mentioned it in this one too.
To the channel owner. Please consider doing a video on the prerogative writs.
"To the channel owner". You don't know who you're talking to do you? Perhaps google Anne Twomey and rethink your comments.
TopG good info i never got the jab and almost lost all my rights now i want to buy some land and become sovereign is it possible? im thinking if i can fully pay some land off and get the deed then the land is mine and whatever happens on the land is up to me im hoping this is the case i looked through your videos but couldn't see anything on the subject... i don't want to be in the same situation again and not have any land to live on
No. You would merely have a title in Fee Simple, and the state government has power to regulate your actions on that land as much as they like. You cannot "become sovereign" in that way. There is extensive case law on this subject I've covered in published articles.
If your land is in a country, then its laws will apply to you, whether you own the law or not (as will the laws of subnational Parliaments, such as the States).
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for being smart and knowledgeable on the subject
@@auspseudolaw cheers for the reply Rob im gonna check out your stuff im hopeful to at least be unseen by the watchful eye of the gov
@@michaelgilchrist6255 I've lived remote. off-grid and mostly self-sufficient for over 4 decades. I often complain because there's no police or emergency services or even presence within 50km, sort of like we live in an anarchist zone. I regularly abuse NSW Police about it, even sent them a "dear john" letter a month ago that I'm dumping their incompetent arses and employing my own security lol. The community here has just about appointed me sheriff because I'm the one they call for help, they're sick of police ignoring their calls. We've survived floods, droughts and frightening 90km/h firestorms completely alone. I've always loved the idea of ceding from the state and forming a micronation, but I know section 123 of the Constitution prevents that. I even sat at the feet of Leonard Casley of Hutt River Province for weeks back in 2006 racking his brain about it.
You lied about tax payers paying for the court cases, then stated that the people paid the costs… so they paid their own way in the court AND that of the opponents. You are a baseless lofty Antiwhite female who should be at home with your family. Please, go home and stop yabbing on against your own people. We SHOULD mistrust the corporate foreign occupation of the communist “democracy” of this country run by International Monetary Fund that is a private corporate that owns our currency, fiat, military scrip. You are completely ignorant of the real situation and law. You are partial in your “knowledge.”
When a person pays costs in legal proceedings, they are paying the costs of the lawyers for the other side (or in practice, a portion of it). They don't pay for the time of the judges and the court officers, or pay for the costs of the court rooms, facilities, etc. It does cost taxpayers a significant amount to fund the courts to hear meritless litigation. Litigants do not pay their own way. And yes, I am at home with my family. I film these videos in my home. Not sure why I would be 'antiwhite', seeing I'm quite obviously white - but you seem to think you know more about me than I do. Finally, while the government is not a foreign corporation, it is fascinating that you think that corporations (which are essentially capitalist in nature) are actually communist.
Being that they have contracted as corporate international traitors, yes local councils are against Commonwealth law. Equity still prevails.
Equity prevails, just as Wang's equity prevailed over your own “nonsensical” and “wholly misconceived” claims. Isn't that right?
The tone of this woman is insulting to the intellect. She should try humility of a real woman of the West instead of being lofty. It is a long fall when you fail to support and assist your own people.
I came across your litigation history in Cathcart v Wang [2021] VSC 685, Wang v Cathcart (Residential Tenancies) [2021] VCAT 1461, (and recently Cathcart v YWCA Housing (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 705) and decided to add them to my website in regards to the damaging effects of the ideas spread by the "International Tribunal for Natural Justice” I have previously covered.
I am explaining the law - as it is. It's not a matter of supporting or assisting people to achieve things outside the law. Sometimes people just need to understand the legal reality.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 A bit of judicial humour I just had to share, Croucher J in Cathcart v Wang [2021] VSC 685 (at 122) accepting the applicants' testimony that she didn't hang up on VCAT in the hearing, but her phone connection simply dropped out. He noted "It is common experience that mobile phone connections drop out on occasions." and wrote in footnote (20): "This, we all know, is one of the minor irritations of modern life. But I sometimes wonder how it is that, despite the technological (and engineering) triumph that saw Man rocket to the Moon and back, safely, in 1969, today, 52 years later, mobile connections are still often unreliable. Maybe Neil Armstrong and his chums should consider themselves lucky that their lives did not depend upon something as unreliable as mobile phone connections." 🙂
Equity still prevails.
Thanks I appreciate the clarity after seeing fringes suggesting otherwise. Also nice to know what still stands wrt Denying people right to Justice which I experienced after very violent assault causing full thickness laceration to scalp at crown after being dragged by hair to fall onto top of my head which could have permanently impaired me or killed me..by person left in same state housing unit above me for 11 years subsequent while I was gaslight as mentally ill despite trauma diagnosis not paranoia which led to force fed tranquilsers/antpsychotics, making me an even softer target for a mob of Maori's who personify snitched get stitches, after I tried to complain about their attempted forced entry to "bash" me for daring to try and have some privavcy by placing a small can lounge under my kitchen window which made it harder to stand at my window looking and listening in. State Housing forums on violence against women by drug addicts is sickening.. I saw many victims like me facing forced psychiatric drugging when seeking justicw, my case is on Hansard Qld Parliament inquiry into victims of violence , same name, and Disability Royal Commission , though they seem not to make that public despite my requests to name and shame enablers.
We should ban political parties rather than donations.
Before there were political parties, governments were very unstable and could fall on any vote. Members could be bribed or otherwise influenced to swap their vote on an issue, to cause a change of government. There are huge economic effects from having such instability, and no capacity to do long term planning (because each politician just votes for what is popular today, not what is needed in the long term).
Imagine the technology they will have in the future to pay on us
Hello.......Scott Morrison,when is he being investigated??
We do not know whether he is being investigated for anything, because the NACC does not tell us who it is investigating.
Once you understand the depth of corruption you'll understand more public money will be wasted on the top end of town with minimal odds of penalty...it's a protection racket
So glad to see your channel gaining more traction. Well deserved and way overdue! 👍
Thanks. It takes a while to build an audience and get the algorithm working, but it seems to be starting...
Cafes charge me a tariff for a cappuccino. This is must be illegal, because the establishment of cafes is not in the constitution. (Sarcasm alert)
Thanks for the alert. Given the nature of many of the other comments, I could have taken you seriously!
Barry Ofaral's bottle of Grange ( apparently a gift ) cost a lot less than the tax payer funds Glady gave her boyfriends electorate. Both guilty under the code of conduct. The state premier should no better.
My recollection is that no findings were made against Barry O'Farrell. He chose to resign because he made a statement that was later found to be incorrect. Personally, I sympathised with him, as my memory is far from infallible and I can understand how he could have just made a mistake.
Nsw government code of conduct also encompasses the Pubic Service gift register. That's what got Barry
Ive been a NSWRFS employee for 20yrs ( she was my boss for her term. All public servants are required to undertake a regular in-service program of the nsw code of conduct. She is guilty
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.
Labors had its history of corruption but knowone beats the LNP state and federal hands down when it comes to corruption. Federal Labor wins the election on many promises one being a transparent corruption body and we get one with secret hearings. The federal ICAC was corrupted by the demands of Dutton and the totally corrupt LNP and Labor happily agreed. The Morrison government was the most corrupt federal government in Australian history and if any of the Morrison government ministers were to be hauled before the corruption body as they should we will never know as politicians were worried about their reputations being trashed by public awareness of their corrupt behaviour. The list of corruption by the Morrison government is way to long to list hear will any of them be held to account probably not just like Gladys the only price they pay is the embarrassment of being caught out. There are 2 tiers of justice in Australia one for us and another for the political class.
💯
I agree but surely investigators should be politically impartial in their chosing of who's next. There must be a swag of corruption that would bear fruit. Any fines/funds that are recovered should be rolled back into financing further cases rather than disappear into general revenue.
I wonder if Fanny was one of the few English, Welsh and Scot young women who were persuaded to come to the Australian colonies in the late 1840s early 1850s to domestic service and to provide marriage partners in the overwhelmingly male populations ? 3000 young Irish girls, mostly orphans from the Famine in the workhouses came. Interesting times. This is a very interesting ‘channel’. Constitutional history gives us a reliable perspective on the history of our country.
Thanks. Yes, Fanny did travel to Australia as a servant to a ship's surgeon.
1. How is it that the council dictates what you can do on your own property . Surely having a dog on it is not under their jurisdiction ? Council flaunt the fee simple tital deed Bob Hawk got rid of in the 80s taking away the property ownership rights away (first in law) making them tenants on their own land governed by the council. . 2. Then there is the council's acknowledgement of traditional owners of the land that's not what the people who paid good money for their property or Anzacs that died for. This is a new development outside of people's will and proof that the members are not acting in the people's interest , If that is not treason then I don't know what is .
The powers held by local government are conferred by legislation. Look at the Local Government Act in your State and look at the relevant legislation concerning domestic animals. For example, in New South Wales it is the Companion Animals Act 1998. You shouldn't just assume that Councils act unlawfully - look at the actual law. As for treason - you are correct that you don't know what it is. I have done a video about it here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/i6x6ldmrfLC_maQ.html.
A good case to read on the "Fee simple alienation" myth spread by various people online is Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA 120. This decision was appealed to the High Court, where leave to appeal was rejected in Bone v Mothershaw [2003] HCATrans 779. In Queensland the Constitution Act 1867 gives the Executive power, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly, to “make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever.” These words have traditionally been used to confer “the widest legislative powers appropriate to a sovereign”. (See Ibralebbe v The Queen1964 AC 900 at 923 and Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1998) 166 CLR 1 at 9-10) Such words permit the Legislative Assembly of Queensland to pass laws restricting, modifying or even removing common law rights.
Can you make a video on changing the electoral system in Australia to a proportional representation model, preferably the party list system?
I am actually related, by marriage albeit, to one of the barons of Cinque Ports!
Wow. An interesting link to a very long history.
A politician can be found guilty of corruption in court and still keep their job while also being innocent at the same time. If any of us tax slaves were found guilty of being corrupt we would be fired and lose everything because everybody is equal but politicians are more equal than us. And we cannot be guilty and innocent at the same time. That miracle of a situation is only for politicians.
First, Ms Berejiklian was not 'found guilty' of anything. The ICAC is not a court and is not allowed to make findings of criminal guilt. It did, however, make findings of fact of serious corrupt conduct. Conduct can be corrupt without it being a criminal offence. Second, as you would be aware, Ms Berejiklian did effectively lose her job as Premier and a Member of Parliament, as she felt compelled to resign. I am unaware of any politician who has had findings of corruption made against them who has continued on for a significant period as a politician - although perhaps it has happened somewhere. It is pretty much always the case that they resign, sometimes in the face of a threat of expulsion from Parliament. This does not mean that no employer should ever employ them. If an employer chooses to do so, it is their free choice.
This speaker needs to Google vocal fry - for potential health reasons, and improved communication reasons.
Hay fever - bad allergies for the last two weeks. Am desperately waiting for the wattle blooms to disappear.
Nonsense she’s doing a great job. If you don’t like it go create your own channel and bugger off
In 1847 British Colonial Secretary Earl Grey suggested the setting up of some kind of central body to enable co-operation amongst the Australian colonies in regard to such matters as communications, posts, and customs. By 1849 criticism in New South Wales especially resulted in Grey withdrawing his federal scheme. The annexation by Germany of North Eastern New Guinea 1883-4, made the Australian colonies, especially Queensland realise the cost of their failure to act co-operatively to force the U.K. to take preventative measures. However impetus towards a 'federation' grew albeit with at one stage New South Wales advocating for an 'Imperial Federation' with London as the Capital. Things began to progress more speedily as London became concerned with the expansion of the U.S.A. into the Pacific. The Americans annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 despite the U.K. guaranteeing Hawaii's independence. The U.S.A. was also taking possession of numerous Pacific islands rich in deposits of phosphate and in 1899 the U.S.A. also took possession of the Philippines. (Which may have led to Foreign Office in London instructing that the following be included in the 'Commonwealth of Australia Act' - "A member of either House of Parliament shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the other House. 44. Any person who is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights & privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power.)
To quote the late great JRR Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings, who was alleged to say, “there is no curse in the entish elvish as the tongues of men sufficient to describe the stupidity of local county councils” Local government is just another state government department. As an example, the minister for local government has the power to sack local councils. Another good one, keep them rolling Anne. Thanks.
As a former mid level public servant, I am absolutely amazed that any of arguments put forward were run. The arguments are so obviously consistent with the basic requirements of administrative decision-making.