Видео

Do they? I haven't read the law yet, but that would be surprising.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 : Not at all surprising for Labor and a betrayal of the people for the LNP. Please add your opinion in your next video.

I'll have a look at it and see whether there is anything useful I can say about it.

Entering into treaties and international agreements is an executive power. It doesn't require debate in Parliament, unless there is a statute that provides otherwise. However, only statutes enacted by Parliament can change Australian domestic law to make it consistent with any treaty commitments.

AUKUS was supported by Labor and was debated in Parliament. Look it up in Hansard.

That's a matter for the police in their investigation and the director of public prosecutions to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support a prosecution. There is a difference between allegations and claims in the media on the one hand and actual evidence that will stand up in court on the other hand.

It should have been "investigated" not "Covered Up".

Yes, some people are not prepared to risk the prospect that they might learn something that would disrupt their strongly-held prejudices.

I outlined the new US Supreme Court view on presidential immunity in this video: ruclips.net/video/XeL3Wu2f9UU/видео.html. What was new, and most surprising to me, was that in determining whether a function falls within 'official conduct', the majority of the court said that one cannot consider whether it was being exercised for an improper purpose or was in breach of a general law. Hence, the Court gave absolute immunity for corrupt abuse of power. This is what I was contrasting in the videos about the King/vice-regal officers and this one about MPs and Ministers.

Yes, accepting or seeking a bribe is a crime under a Commonwealth statute.

Yes, the establishment of anti-corruption regimes in the various States has shown that the bulk of corruption happens at the local government level. Fortunately, in at least some jurisdictions, these commissions have had a good effect in identifying and deterring it.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 : I'm a builder and I know that corruption in local councils is still rampant. In my area I can name the only council that can't be bought. That is how bad it is.

The Australia Act 1986 did not require a referendum, as it didn't alter any part of the Constitution, but dealt entirely with state matters, not Commonwealth matters. As upheld by the High Court in Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) HCA 67 and Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) HCA 72, it was passed in reliance on section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, which gives the Commonwealth parliament power to legislate at the request of the State parliaments.

Yes, there can be real problems in this regard. Usually, courts will take this into account and place a stay on proceedings if they cannot be conducted fairly.

@constitutionalclarion1901 how does that square with the ruling in Barilaro v Shanks?

No. The Palace always required written advice, and sometimes that it be accompanied by someone authorised to give it (eg a Minister). This normally gave a day or two for political events to sort themselves out. Usually, by the time the person bearing the letter of advice landed in London, the vice-regal officer would have resigned or the issue otherwise resolved through political means.

@ Thank you for the reply.

You're most welcome.

Yes it is, s 49 of the Constitution gives the Parliament power to determine the scope of its privileges.

The scope of the Act falls largely within the existing privileges and immunities that were held by the House of Common in 1901. Indeed, for the most part, it actually limited or removed powers and privileges (eg the power to expel Members).

Terry was a brilliant writer but also a thoroughly committed curmudgeon.

Or fewer.

Only with respect to what they say in parliamentary proceedings (including committee hearings).

Hate speech laws are hateful on their own merit, hate of hate speech, enshrined in law. I hope the courts have a similar approach and trow any such cases out of court. Hate is an emotion and can not be the basis of law, only actual damages should be considered!

@@constitutionalclarion1901 : Have you read the legislation? It appears politicians are exempt along with 'Media'.

Yes I also would be very interested in a video on judicial immunity!

Maybe. It depends on whether the High Court’s decision on Wednesday is sufficiently clear and interesting (as I haven’t done my own research on the subject).

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Is that Salvatore Vasta's case?

Yes, it's being handed down on Wednesday.

You need to read the entire case. Shanks put out VERY misleading videos on that case. I fact he blatantly lied on at least one occasion.

You are most welcome.

Yes, privilege can be used for good and it is important that it exists. It can also be used abusively and sometimes turns the House into the 'coward's castle'. One has to hope that MPs have sufficient integrity to use it wisely and appropriately.

Suzman was an "activist" who regularly abused the privilege. Does her good use excuse the abuse? No, it does not.

Well, we get who who we vote for. If Australians actually took greater interest and responsibility in the electoral process, things would be better. We want all the services, low taxes, and minimal government intervention. So now that it's a 'what's in it for me' approach to everything, you are surprised that there is corruption and a lack of bold leadership?

@@peterroach3377 wow, that's a very expansive and presumptuous reading of my comment. WE don't get who we vote for - we get who the majority of votes select in each electorate of whatever the mystical machinations of the senate selection process delivers us. I'm in no way surprised in the level of corruption in politics within Australia. It's far less than in the UK with it's bonkers upper house and quite simply amateur hour compared to the corporate capture that is the US system. I merely hope for a time when the sort of corruption the LNP, at state & federal levels has demonstrated so thoroughly, and yes there's more than enough corruption on the other side, is called to account and punished. You presume too much from reading so little and not well.

@raycochrane3971 clearly you have no clue of how our electoral system works. Please get some professional help to conduct cult deprogramming for you and maybe lose the left wing bias and eight wing chip on your shoulder

@@peterroach3377 it amuses me that a simple wish to have accountability brought to rorters is seen as an extreme political act. evidence of indoctrination and ignorance of civics processes. Your comment speaks more of you than me. I'd have included a list of equally expensive ALP rorts but, as you know, they're few & far between at those levels. I ask for a better world and you prefer the current one...nice.

@@varietynic17 You’re most welcome.

😓😓

The general principle of administrative law is that decisions have to be lawful, considered and justified with reasons. The decision maker has to ensure they are firstly qualified to make the decision, apprise themselves of the facts, make a lawful decision based on those facts and justify the decision with 'reasons'. This principle would appear to preclude a decision, particularly one affecting the rights and welfare of individuals, being made by a robot. The robodebt decisions were null and void because they didn't follow the principles of administrative law. If the robot had been human it might well have breached the law. The public service managers who implemented the scheme might have breached aspects of the Public Service Act, particularly the Code of Conduct. They were duty bound to ensure the scheme was lawful. It seems they forgot to seek the required legal advice when setting up the scheme. As it stands it was a sloppy and costly mistake that reportedly cost Australian taxpayers over $2bn. I don't think anyone was greatly punished, but undoubtedly a number of careers were severely circumscribed.

The problem with robo debt I believe was the concept of whole of government processing. DSS asked the ATO for $ value of how much a person worked for a specific period or day. The ATO gave dss an app to call with a number which the ATO did not have access to. The ATO gave them an estimation or average. Nothing robotic just stupidity by politicians who asked for this calculation and the it developers who accepted the request. I do not know exactly what happened but have worked on many large HR payroll systems in Australia. The ATO does not get roster data from the payroll system which it requires to do such a calculation.

​@paulphotios3920 It was negligence from the get go as the ATO is only concerned with the year you earned in which taxes are due. Not the start and end dates of group certificates overlapping with centreline payments. They are often wrong and don't match timesheets which you should always keep! They had no right to rely on the ATO's data which was not fit for purpose!

@@matthewsheeran agree with you completely. Gave not worked on payroll for a couple of decades now but the interface to the ATO is publicly available. Like it is something that anyone with an interest in payroll systems has to deal with and the ATO gets what is on the payslip which is not roster or timesheet data. Waiting for Musk in the USA to come up with the new USA tax system. I think it will be robo debt on steroids.

Parliamentary remuneration is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal under the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 (www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pbra2017375/), which was enacted under the Coalition Government.

It is wise to take legal advice from those with legal qualifications and those who hold legal practising certificates. Otherwise, you may be misled to your detriment.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Here's an opportunity to show how this person is being misled to his detriment. Right or wrong, he has actually cited a court decision, so here's your opportunity to show how he's wrong, if you can.

Wayne Glew actually adopted this "Fee Simple Alienation" or "Deed of Grant" argument from David Walter, who "assisted" a few litigants in a series of cases in Queensland in the early 2000's claiming a title of fee simple alienates the property from the state, and therefore the Queensland parliament had no power to regulate activities on the property. See for example Dore & Others v. Penny [2006] QSC 125, Burns v. The State of Queensland & Croton [2006] QCA 235, Wilson v. Raddatz [2006] QCA 392, Glasgow v. Hall [2007] QCA 19, Watts v. Ellis [2007] QCA 234 etc). The argument itself was rejected in Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 Qd R 600 (leave to appeal was rejected by the High Court in Bone v Mothershaw [2003] HCATrans 779). As expressed in Dore v State of Queensland and Anor [2004] QDC 364 (From 14): "It has been said that a grant of an estate in fee simple in land is a grant of the largest interest in land known to the common law, and one which gives the owner “the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to the land every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination including the right to commit unlimited waste”: Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (Isaacs J). But the right to use such land has in modern times, been severely restricted. 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. The Legislative Assembly of Queensland is the supreme law-making authority in the State of Queensland and there is no doubt that it had the power to pass the Integrated Planning Act and the Land Act. Equally there is no doubt that the Integrated Planning Act applies to the land owned by the three brothers or that the Land Act applies to Bellenden Road. The brothers’ property has not been “alienated from the State” in the sense that Queensland State law does not apply to the property or that the Queensland legislature is precluded from passing laws adversely affecting the property." Due to his "assistance" in these matters, David Walter had an injunction placed on him in Legal Services Commissioner v Walter [2011] QSC 132 to restrain him from engaging in legal practice in Queensland when not an Australian legal practitioner, after he had "repeatedly sought, in many different proceedings, to ventilate a fundamentally misconceived legal argument, and has done so indirectly by advancing these arguments through the cases brought by other parties."

freemandelusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Fee-Simple.pdf

Wayne Glew also often claims that the decision in Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 was upheld in Fejo v Northern Territory of Australia [1998] HCA 58, but overlooks the qualification contained in the passage which mentions it, "unless conferred by statute" (Fejo at 43): “An estate in fee simple is, “for almost all practical purposes, the equivalent of full ownership of the land” and confers “the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination”. It simply does not permit of the enjoyment by anyone else of any right or interest in respect of the land unless conferred by statute, by the owner of the fee simple or by a predecessor in title.” He does this with most decisions he refers to, like claiming the Queensland Rail decision is an authority for the proposition that "if you have an ABN, it makes you a corporation" despite it not appearing anywhere in the Queensland Rail decision.

VFI is something that certainly concerns me, as it undermines the effectiveness of the federal system. But as I'm not an economist, I don't want to wade into it beyond the depths of my knowledge. While some might see advantages in the Commonwealth directing how public money should be spent, my personal experience working in government was that such direction was usually administratively costly and counter-productive when it came to efficiency, effectiveness and accountability.

If a right is in legislation, you do have a right that is enforceable at law until such time as it is altered or removed by other legislation. This is the way that the system of law works.

That would be problematic, because the government would have to fund equally every single person who decided to run for Parliament, even if their own mother wouldn't vote for them. There would potentially be thousands of candidates in each seat, with their own equally funded campaign, regardless of how much public support they had. It would be extremely expensive and not terribly helpful for voters.

@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for your reply. That seems like a relatively minor detail that could be mitigated by restrictions on who can stand based on what they have managed to achieve thus far in terms of legitimate and official political activity.

Suggest Australia becoming a republic needs to be progressive unhurried possess, perhaps, more suitable to the psyche of populations in 2030 and beyond. Yes23 failed owing to rushing and Government not recognising the high involvement nature of the Voice to Parliament referendum. A Preface acknowledging First Peoples was probably achievable, but overreaching and marketing finds, now, even small needed outcomes have not been achieved. Likewise, with the move towards an Australian Republic, meaning amendments to Constitution now, could ready Australia to become a republic before a decade from now, but not tomorrow. My understanding is ARM wants a hybrid model having Parliament and the Public offering a list of nominees to be be voted on. My own preference is for a minimalist approach derived from the capacities of the G-G. I certainly wouldn’t want the US Presidential model, which concentrates too much into the hands of one person. To address two key points, perhaps, the new Australian Head of State needs to born in Australia and no ex politician can stand for five years after the completion of parliamentary duties (Correspondently, no politician can hold a political post and be President at the same time).

@@petersinclair3997 I personally really like the Swiss representational system!

There is no 'King's privy council' in the Australian context. Britain has a King's privy council though. It's essentially a group of advisors to King Charles. They don't hand out advice to the Australian parliament though.

The privy council is partly the house of Lords and the house of commons ​@@Madeline77-e7j

@@garyfindlay5503but such a thing could never happen!

@@cesargodoy2920 Yes, it is hard to believe that it actually happened. I still don't understand why the governor-general (or his constitutional advisors) didn't caution or warn the PM that it didn't sound like such a good idea.

@@cesargodoy2920 Why do you doubt it? Is what was widely reported unreliable?

@petersinclair3997 I was being sarcastic since it did happen and was quite a big deal

In Australia, if a Governor was regarded as behaving badly, they were traditionally 'recalled' - meaning they were called back to the United Kingdom and relieved of their vice-regal office. That ceased to be relevant, once vice-regal officers came to be Australians. Now they are elbowed into resigning, if necessary.

You are most welcome.