I have been subject to a series of very long lecture from a very intelligent well informed (about his theories) sovereign citizen (deep in the spectrum). Flawed argument but very interesting but cherry picked tour of history and law.
@@gareth4045 I've found the majority of pseudolaw adherents I've debated over the last decade have extraordinary intelligence levels, I'd go as far as saying it is levels above those who comprehensively label them "deluded nutters" as a form of ad hominem, simply because they lack the intellectual capacity to competently address the actual arguments themselves.
Leonard Casley's 'secession' stemmed from his objection to - and subsequent dispute over - WA wheat quotas. It is probably fair to say he was largely ignored by both Commonwealth and State authorities for most of the years following his supposed 'secession'. The Hutt River 'Province' was in mid Western Australia and little more than a quaint tourist attraction. Casley was more a nuisance to authorities from time to time. Nevertheless, the ATO was always coming for its pound of flesh, something Casley either ignored or couldn't see. Moves to claim unpaid tax didn't happen until after Leonard Casley died in 2019. His wife, Shirley, pre-deceased him some 6 years prior. Once Casley died, there was no doubt the land on which Hutt River sat would be sold to cover back taxes.
The idea of whether or not secession is "permitted" by any given state has always been somewhat laughable to me. Any populus who is sufficiently determined to acheive independendence will do so regardless of the legality of doing so in the eyes of the parent state (sufficiently determined being the operative phrasing here). Given that this channel focuses on the legal angle though, a wonderful video!
I'm glad you found the video interesting. I think what is at issue is the local culture. If the local culture is one that respects the rule of law and wants to act lawfully, then the law regarding secession is relevant. If, however, the community is prepared to engage in revolution and reject the law, and it has the will to do so, even at the cost of loss of life, then it will take non-legal methods to achieve its aims.
@@auspseudolawwhat on earth is an “ unauthorised “ protest? Protest are a basic right, and any government imposing on this right needs to be removed quick smart. Time to call out and end the gaslighting and attempted brainwashing.
Is there a legal difference between secession and declaration of independence? Surely any region could declare its independence, in theory, but the actual consequences of doing so would be insurmountable. Getting recognition of other nations, as is the physical aspect of creating a new nation state might well be beyond the scope of such regions to achieve.
Others may be able to give you a formal distinction, but as far as I understand it, secession is about withdrawing from a jurisdiction in accordance with law, whereas a Declaration of Independence or a revolution is about unilateral action outside the legal processes.
Hello, can you help me with a question please? How can they pass DV laws in Australia where the aggrieved's complaint (that is not filmed) can be dated from anytime they were in a relationship/s, or not even in a relationship. And those statements are considered by judges as being 100% true without any investigation to support the aggrieveds claims. The only proof needed is a signed statemt. And the law states that statement made (for whatever reason) cannot be withdrawn, only ammended. Where on earth are our Australian citizens right to a fair trial? When such ignorance to finding the truth is completly ignored and grossly putting Australian men in gaol without any course or pursuit of an investigation to prove all the facts. What the hell is going on, how is this not against constitutional rights, let alone humann, civil and God given rights. Any help appreciated. P.s. your videos are legendary wealths of information to fellow Australians, thankyou for your contribution to our history and culture.
I'm glad you enjoy the videos. Domestic violence orders are outside my expertise. All I can say is that they are made under statutes enacted by Parliaments and that if you disagree with the terms of those statutes, when you need to convince politicians to change them.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thankyou for answering and quickly too. I will look into it now I have more info thx to you. Thankyou Clarion, for helping.
Talking with Westralians a few years back, they were of the view the failure of the WA referendums re secession was due to so many Eastern Australians working in the Western Australian Goldfields voting to keep WA as part of the Federations.
I think they have confused two different things. The goldfields were relevant to the initial referendum on federation in 1900. The later referendum regarding secession was passed, but the British refused to give effect to it, as explained in the video.
Perhaps a longer video on Hutt River Province - the original 1970s legal tactics using old English law and UN law such as Leonard declaring War on Australia, then withdrawing the declaration which supposedly meant he was an undefeated nation under UN rukes. Whether it is believed Prince Leonard successfully seceded from Australia or not, the fact is, that the Aussie Govt left the province alone for years. Also worth looking into is the WA govt introducing laws in the 1960s limiting the amount of produce Leonard could produce on his farm and had a disastrous financial affect upon Leonard which caused Leonard to set in motion his bid to secede.
I was fascinated by it 20 years ago, went and stayed there for weeks racking his brain. (he made me buy him dinner and drinks daily from his restaurant for it too lol). He paid rates every year, but he called it a "donation" to the council. If he didn't, he would of lost the property long ago.
Improved my understanding of participation in Australian culture about 110%, excellent, thank you. The dominion question/assertion is a day-to-day circumstance between the heirachical dominance structure and peer-to-peer competition. Ie yes there's an authority that derives from universal unity-connection and the competition for resources that results in speciation. Personally, education and scientific analysis is the preferred method for resolution of innate differences.
A couple of clowns in NSW tried to secede from the state…mainly to get out of paying their mortgages! The Supreme Court of NSW shut that down pretty quickly. One goose tried to claim a Christmas card from Bob Hawke when he was PM recognised their existence as a “sovereign state” lol
Thank you for the legal description of the flawed process but when will the will of the people be a consideration in this and other matters in this formally great country? It appears that only the legal position has any effect and justice if it does indeed carry any wait at all is very much a secondary consideration. Unfortunately Australia has become extremely biased in favor of the rich, elite and those in power or with power invested in them, something I suspect our forefathers tried to avoid but underestimated the tenacity of our elected representatives to become corrupt and ignore the peoples will. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
So what about Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island is not constitutionally part of Australia and is outside of the federation of Australia. We Bounty Descent never agreed to any terms of conditions to be part of Australia.
@@BoydAdams-y8r technically, Norfolk Island is a territory of Australia. It's residents are covered by Australian Medicare and use Australian currency etc. Yes, there are still ongoing disputes there regarding sovereignty etc, but we don't hear any complaints when they need their healthcare attended to, or about their pensions being paid in $AUD, so... 🤷♀️
I feel sorry that Prince Leonard’s dreams came to naught, but simultaneously feel little sympathy for his ludicrous endeavour. Nice idea Your Royal Highness…
Excellent video. Love the book Chameleon Crown. It would be great to talk about the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) I note this Act was passed in Australia and Britain without a referendum or a vote by the Australian people
I doubt many Australians (including me) were really paying much attention at the time. It wasn't until later that I realized that the Australia Act 1986 was a kind of declaration of independence i.e. the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian states became completely constitutionally independent of the United Kingdom. A really important date in Australia's history.
The Australia Act didn't amend any part of the Constitution, so it didn't require a referendum under section 128. The High Court held in Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) HCA 67 and in Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) HCA 72 that it was passed in reliance on section 51(xxxviii) which gives the Commonwealth Parliament power to legislate at the request of the State parliaments. The State parliaments passed various Request Acts giving the Commonwealth Parliament the ability to pass the Australia Act (Cth).
@@auspseudolaw True, there was no constitutional referendum involved in the development of the Australia Acts. Which is probably why I wasn't paying much attention at the time.
@@mindi2050 The Australia Acts cut UK ties to the States to bring them in line with what had already existed on a Commonwealth level since the Statute of Westminster Adoption in 1942. That's why section 2 of the 1942 Act and section 3 of the 1986 Act are nearly identical, but one was regarding the Commonwealth, the other the States
I have a few coins, and still have my Hutt River passport. I was a big fan 20 years ago, spent a lot of time with Leonard, much of the signage I made stayed there for over a decade.
Met an Aussie pilot in Middle East just after Gulf War 1. His story was that he acquired the Hutt River ambassadorship to Bahrain. Flight crew normally would travel on their crew id, but Germany had a security scare and were checking everyone. He didn't have his Aussie passport but did have his Hutt diplomatic passport and was welcomed with "Your Excellency", Don't know if this is true but it's a good yarn.
@@lynndonharnell422 He's probably being honest, considering Hutt River "embassies" were expanding into the Middle East at the time, until 2007, when the Australian Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Jeremy Bruer, said the Embassy had learned that an office purporting to represent the “Hutt River Province” was operating in Dubai and allegedly selling travel documents. In 2008, the Council of the European Union issued a memorandum identifying Hutt River passports among known “fantasy passports … issued by private organisations and individuals” to which a visa should not be affixed. I got my Hutt River passport in 2005. uae.embassy.gov.au/abud/huttriver.html
Fascinating discussion, and a useful and important conclusion. Potential topic for a future video: should the government in Canberra be referred to as the "Federal Government of Australia" or the "Commonwealth Government of Australia"? For that matter, what is the name of our country: is it "Commonwealth of Australia", or just "Australia"? The Acts Interpretation Act (1973) seemed to torpedo the "Commonwealth" moniker; but was it merely deprecated, or eliminated? Enquiring minds would love to hear your analysis of the situation.
It was noted in The Australian Law Journal in January 1974, that the Federal Government had undergone the replacement in official usage of the terms "the Commonwealth of Australia" with "Australia" and "the Commonwealth Government" with "the Australian Government". Even the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette was renamed the Australian Government Gazette, and various definitions were added to the Acts Interpretation Acts 1901 to remove any confusion in regard to the renaming of various Commonwealth departments. The journal also mentions the Victorian State Cabinet raising concerns over the issue, concluding that the use of the nomenclature will have to be accepted, that such a promotion is legitimate, and does not run counter to any constitutional prohibition.
I use 'federal government' and 'Commonwealth government' interchangeably. What is important is that your listener understands what you mean. For a foreign audience, I also sometimes use 'Australian Government', as the term 'Commonwealth Government' may not have a clear meaning for them. The formal name of the polity of Australia is the 'Commonwealth of Australia', as that is the name specified in the Constitution, and it has not been amended. But if the Government wants to describe itself with the term 'Australian' as it makes more sense to foreigners, then there's no problem with that.
Hi Professor, Really enjoyed your teaching of succession and revision on English Parliament-The Constitution of Australia Act 1901 Also Western Australia's variations to other states. I wonder why WA has its own Family Court? I will 'dig out' my copy of the Constitution: it's just a small softcover booklet with Parliament House on the cover I purchased for a couple of bucks at Southern Cross Uni. I also got my annotated legislation, from memory; * Crimes Act 1900 * Summary Offences Act * Sentencing Procedure So on and so forth 🇦🇺🌏
WA is quite different to the rest of Australia. It does not cooperate with the rest of the commonwealth on road laws and many other matters. This can work both for and against you depending on you're situation and the circumstances.
The reason why WA has its own Family Court is that the other States all referred certain matters concerning family law to the Commonwealth under s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution, but Western Australia chose not to do so - as is its right.
Agree. The closest I have seen was border lockdown during COVID. The premiers taught Scomo who was boss as most of the laws are administered by the state. So WA could lock itself out of the East. Then you had NSW and VIC followed by QLD and it was political suicide to take on Labor states. We really got to see the Federation of States in action. As messy as it got nobody seriously entertained succession.
Thank you for answering my request! .very interesting stuff I think today seccesion in a developed country would look basically like a "no your not" "Yes I am" situation until resolved by elections or a higher court [which is basically what happened in WA] have you ever thought about doing a video on a non australian subject? I know you did a few on England, but It would be interesting in my opinion to see how different consitutions compare and the like. Thank you very much for the video!
Occasionally I dip my toe into non-Australian stuff, but it needs to be in an area where I have sufficient expertise to make a contribution (eg reserve powers of a head of state in a Westminster system). But if something interesting pops up, I certainly will.
Queensland (the Katters) likes to revisit the separation of north Queensland due to lack of support from SEQ. This video would suggest that recent efforts (2016 and 2024) have been for show rather than embracing the full process.
Lol, poor ol' "King Leonard" may he R.I.P, did not succeed in reality, the millions in taxes and fines etc built up so much that after his passing, his son and heir had to give up on their "kingdom" of Hutt River Province altogether in 2020, and then work out how to pay off their enormous outstanding debts, as far as I can recall.
It seems the reason for secession have a bearing on whether the courtsctake it serioysly or not. If frivolous, as in avoiding responsibility for debt, it is not taken seriously. Nor should it be.
The British Act purported to make the Commonwealth of Australia subject to the Colonial Boundaries Act. My understanding is that this meant the legal standing of the C of A was that it was a self-governing colony.
The Commonwealth of Australia, never in its entire existence, had the status of a "Colony". It was a "Dominion" of the British Empire right from its inception in 1900 through to the collapse of the British Empire. The states were formerly "Colonies" but that ended when they became states of a Federation. The words "shall be taken to be a self‑governing colony for the purposes of that Act" (the Colonial Boundaries Act 1895) simply refers to the way the provisions of that Act are to be interpreted, not to be taken as a conclusive general definition, which would obviously be false.
I think that there is also useful precedent in Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217 and Texas v. White 74 US 700 (1869). In particular the Canadian case accepted that whether succession was ultimately effective would now be a matter of public international law, and "It is clear that international law does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their "parent" state.". (I relied upon some other aspects of the Quebec case in a constitutional argument before the Court of Appeal in Vanuatu several years ago, but their Lordships in that Court did not accept that general principles of constitutional law could be read into that Constitution as part of the common law of the constitution (like in Lange)).
Excellent video. I find most interesting the various Aboriginal micronations that have sprung up in the last decade or so, such as the Yidindji Tribal Nation, Euahlayi People’s Republic, Wiradjuri Central West Republic, and the Murrawarri Republic. These peoples actually do have a legitimate claim to sovereignty, (though it's denied) and have native title ownership of their lands that predates the Crown's acquisition.
Yes, there are academics who are writing about this. I haven't ventured into the area yet, so it's still outside my expertise, but there are certainly others in the field.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I'm writing an article on the strawman duality concept and its origins, the basic theory being that one can possess a certain "special status" which makes them immune to law. Interestingly, what I've found goes against the idea that it was an import from the US, but rather, that the concept developed independently in various nations. For example, before the US argumentation regarding the "State National" status (as opposed to US Citizen) was fully developed there, we had an identical argument of a sovereign "Aboriginal National" status that was immune to all Australian law, in Isobel Coe's 1979 High Court case. And from what I can work out, it ultimately came from the "Exemption Certificates" (or dog tags) imposed by the states Aboriginal Protection Acts prior to the 1967 referendum. Following this, they started to reject the whitefella names that appeared on these certificates, and took on tribal skin names, on the premise it provided this "special status". Milirrpum Marika for example, initiated the very first land rights case in 1971 in his first name, Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (the Gove land rights case). Since 2012, I've followed Mark Mcurtrie's "Original Sovereign Tribal Federation" adopting some of the "legalese" aspects of pseudolaw from foreign sources, but the underlying motif remains the same.
Everyone has the same right and basis to claim sovereignty. What matters is whether you can enforce and defend it. There's no such thing as a moral right to tenure over land. The legal right exists subject to your capacity to exert force, as above. Finder's keepers doesn't apply. "We were here first" doesn't apply. You either force compliance with your claim or it is moot.
The Coe decision [1979] HCA 68 has since been consistently referred to in regard to the premise of Aboriginal sovereignty, as recently as last year with Michael Anderson, one of the founders of the Tent Embassy. It stated: “The aboriginal people are subject to the laws of the Commonwealth and of the States or Territories in which they respectively reside. They have no legislative, executive or judicial organs by which sovereignty might be exercised. If such organs existed, they would have no powers, except such as the laws of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, might confer upon them. The contention that there is in Australia an aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty, even of a limited kind, is quite impossible in law to maintain." Also relevant to this, is the principle stated by Gibbs J. in [1975] HCA 58 (at 14) that: “The acquisition of territory by a sovereign state for the first time is an act of state which cannot be challenged, controlled or interfered with by the courts of that state.” and that the principle “…precludes any contest between the executive and the judicial branches of government as to whether a territory is or is not within the Crown’s Dominions.” Basically, because the High Court’s single source of authority, and the extent of the parameters of its jurisdiction are derived solely from the Crown itself, it therefore has no authority or jurisdiction to hear challenges to the legitimacy of the Crown’s jurisdiction, as it would in effect be questioning its own jurisdiction to hear the case.
So the royals in UK came to Australia and just declared that they own all rights to the land and rule over all peoples that happen to reside there, by right of force. If you live in Australia, you are a subject of that force and you have no choice in who rules over you. What if you do not agree with the claim that Australia rightfully is owned by the royal elites from England? What if you don't agree that the UK royals have any powers to make laws over you in the first place? What if we simple just rounded up all Australian representatives of the Crown, and shipped them back to the UK and said, "No thanks, we don't need to be governed by you and we will not be subjects of your Laws".
The first ever Royal visit of a reigning monarch was actually in 1954, and the Royal Powers Act 1953 had to be passed before it to give her powers, because the Constitution placed all the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor General. Australia is not "owned" by the UK Crown, it is owned by the Crown of the relevant polity, the particular state, or the Commonwealth, in other words, the Australian people, who make up that polity. With Crown land, it is subject to consultation with the traditional owners, the first nations of that area. The executive do not make laws, that responsibility belongs to the legislature, and has done since before Australia existed, a result of the 1688 revolution which recognised the supremacy of parliament. Australia inherited this principle as part of the Westminster system of government. Australian citizens are not UK citizens, so they cannot be "deported" as you suggest. The office of monarch of Australia is not the office of the monarch of the UK, they are two separate Crowns, with different allegiances. Hence UK citizens must apply for visa's here, and visa-versa. Section 44 of the Constitution actually prohibits a UK Citizen from sitting as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament.
The High Court has recognised 'popular sovereignty' as the basis for the binding nature of the Constitution. That means that sovereignty is vested in the Australian people.
Very interesting. On a similar question how hard is it to establish a new state from an existing one? Is it the same for all states? I have North Queensland in mind specifically.
I have a related question. Given each State had to enact their own legislation to remove the idea of male primogeniture to avoid each State having a different line of succession (with WA being the last State to pass their own Succession to the Crown Act) Now, if Australians went to a federal referendum to make us a republic and it passed: QUESTION 1: Does each State have to pass its own legislation to remove the King of Australia as Head of State of their own State? QUESTION 2: Assuming a yes to Question 1, what would happen (constitutionally) if, for example, WA refused to enact such legislation? Would it mean that a State, in effect, leaves the new republic? Or would it still be forced to remain part of the Republic of Australia, only with a different Head of State than the other Australian States? Or could the Australian Government do something else to avoid de facto said State independence without even the need for a referendum (ie simply not changing or repealing the relevant state legislation needed to change Australia to a republic)? What would be the effect of a State not ratifying or agreeing to a federal referendum on a republic?
This issue arose in 1999. The Commonwealth decided to leave it to the States to change their Constitutions to remove their links to the monarch if they chose to do so. The 1999 republic referendum, if passed, would only have cut off the links to the monarch at the federal level. Some States would have required a referendum to remove the references to the monarch from their State Constitution, and others would not. It was anticipated that there would be a period during which there would be a republic at the national level, but some States would retain a link to the monarch, with the Governor remaining the representative of the monarch in the State. So we could have had an Australian republic made up of States, some of which retained a link to the Crown (eg the Queen remaining Queen of Western Australia). However, it was also assumed that the Queen would have objected to taking such a subordinate role and told the WA Government that it should take steps to terminate her role. As the referendum was defeated, we will never know whether that prediction was correct.
Its about time that "We the Australian People " became all Australian, and forget the stupid States. We need consistent laws between ALL states, in ALL matters, instead of the mis-match we have now.
I disagree. There are good reasons to have different laws in different jurisdictions to suit different circumstances. For example, most of the innovations in Australia, from seatbelts to environmental protection and capping political donations, have come from States trying things out. If everything was uniform, standards would sink to the lowest common denominator, with no competition to ratchet them up. For example, if there was only one curriculum, you couldn't tell that students in State A were doing much better in maths than students in State B, and then have State B change its curriculum to pick up what State A had done well. Difference also provides choice. For example, if you had a disabled child and thought their needs were best suited by a particular type of schooling, you could change State to go to one which had the system that best suited your needs. If everything is the same, you have no choice but to leave the country. The key is working out which laws need uniformity, and which ones can benefit from difference. This is explained in greater detail in this paper I co-wrote some years ago: www.caf.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/976943/AustraliasFederalFuture-1.pdf.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I actually think states are a good thing, what is bad is city states, they hold all the voting power and are not representative of the general populace in a state, eg; Melbournites vs the outer suburbanites and rural property owners, the latter two see eye to eye more on things, the city voters do not have the same issues. unfortunately there are people who financially benefit from this system so it won't change. I'm 33 and I really see no hope for this country I loved when I was a boy.
The idea that we would cede legislative sovereignty to the clockfiddlers is madness. You lot legally mandate giving your entire state jet lag every year for no reason, and every pub on the eastern seaboard is a living testament to just how captured your politics is by the gambling lobby.
"a majority of voters, in a majority of states and a majority of voters in the state that wants to succeed"..... greater chance of winning Lotto, I'd imagine!
Not the first time a region anywhere in the world declared its independence. Any constitutional rights are ignored in most cases. If only to avoid violent civil unrest.
Hi Anne, thanks for this. Your video raises the question about the date of Australian independence. We traditionally think of 1 January 1901 as the date of independence. However, the Statute of Westminster and Australia Acts indicate that we were still subject to the UK. Is there a common understanding of when Australia became independent? Also, is there a difference between the Commonwealth becoming independent and the State’s? Thanks.
There has long been a debate about when Australia became independent. It was certainly not 1 January 1900, despite popular belief. Various dates from 1930 to 3 March 1986 have been suggested. The problem is that independence came via a number of small steps, leaving a debate about the point at which enough of these steps had occurred to tip the balance. I have argued that 1930/1931 is the time when Australia obtained the 'power' or capacity to be independent, even though it did not choose to exercise such powers until later dates (eg the power to enter into treaties, declare war on its own behalf, establish its own citizenship, appoint is own diplomatic representatives, etc). The mere fact that it could, however, exercise these powers when it chose to do so, is enough to regard it has having independence. But others would disagree. Because no one knows for sure when Australia became independent (and the courts have not agreed on a date either), we don't celebrate our 'Independence Day' like many countries do. It is also (albeit bizarrely) the case that Australia became an independent nation while its States still had colonial ties to the United Kingdom, that were not released until 3 March 1986. I explain all this in detail in my book 'The Chameleon Crown'.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 It often baffles me that in those 11 years from 1931 when the Statute of Westminster was passed, to 1942 when the Commonwealth adopted it, the state and federal counterparts couldn't work out a suitable adoption which would of included the states and therefore eliminated the need for the Australia Acts 55 years after the Act was passed.
The answer is politics. I've written about it in a chapter on Parliament's role in treaty-making and external affairs' in G Lindell and R Bennett (eds), 'Parliament - The Vision in Hindsight' (Federation Press, 2001). There's also a detailed discussion of it in an early chapter in my book on the Australia Acts 1986.
It amuses me academically that the government and legal profession routinely deny the individual or group right to succession as though living ungoverned were somehow a transgression against the natural order. Mostly lawmakers arrogantly consider the secession notion as frivolous and vexatious. This holds true except of course in the case where the secessionists raise an army or equivalent force to oppose the oppressing regime. eg The US colonies leaving Britain, Algeria leaving France, East Timor leaving Indonesia (supported by Australia ironically), Eritrea leaving Ethiopia, Bangladesh leaving Pakistan, Uruguay leaving Brazil etc. What this indicates to me is that governments are really just classic bullies forcefully controlling their citizens with a mixture of threats, intimidation and bluster while stealing their victims lunch money (as tax). Bullies that ultimately respond only when threatened by equivalent opposing force.
Norfolk Island missed its chance: it was originally a part of the NSW colony, as was New Zealand as well. However, it is closer to the latter, which also has a much better relationship with pacific islanders in general. Had they gone to the UN with a successful local referendum (even of their own initiative and polling) asking to depart AU for NZ, I feel that they would have succeeded! Silly buggers!! Regardless of our constitution, given the colonial history above, and then the UNs intervention and our subscription to, and ratification of their power, along with the polite politics involved, then yeah they could have said FU to AU just the same and gone to NZ had NZ agreed I guess which might well then become the crux of the matter in the UN..
About 10-ish years ago the fully self governing and self funding Falkland Islands had a 'referendum' (actually a plebiscite) to confirm that the people wished to retain their current system of government. The result was 99.4% in favour. Despite this being a record for any non rigged vote in history, the Falklands are still regularly referred to the United Nations decolonisation committee, even though Britain has no power over them at all. So your claim that a referendum would have influence over the UN appears to be more wishful thinking than fact.
I believe this is a related issue - is it true that there is still an open offer to New Zealand to join the Federation? If New Zealand were to take up this offer, is there anything the Commonwealth could do to prevent this from happening?
New Zealand is mentioned in covering clause 6 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 as a possible State. It says that the term "States" in the Constitution 'shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland... as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth'. So as long as New Zealand is not 'part of the Commonwealth' it is not a State of Australia. To become part of the Commonwealth, it would have to go through the process for the admission or establishment of new States in section 121 of the Constitution, and this can only happen if the Commonwealth Parliament passes legislation to admit or establish it as one or more new States.
I can't imagine New Zealanders ever taking up the offer of becoming Australians. When I was travelling overseas, I remember how they hated being mistaken for Aussies.
Hi. Thank you for your series. These videos are so informative. I have a question that is completely off topic, but I can't seem to find where I can get an answer to it. So, hopefully, you might find it interesting enough to your viewers to answer it for me. It's a hypothetical question, but one that might actually be useful in the future "If there is, say, a global depression or some other event that crashes the Australian economy, would a local council have the authority and the legal ability to take a privately owned dwelling from someone who is unable to pay their rates?" I am talking about a case where almost everybody is in the same boat. I'm a pensioner and rely on my pension to be able to pay rates etc. 'm thinking along the lines that the Federal Govt. might step in to put some law/regulation in place for owners of private dwellings (not investment properties) might be shielded from local councils being able to take properties if they do not pay their rates for 3 years and such rates owed, end up being greater than, say $5000 Thanks for taking the time to read my question.
The answer appears to be legally yes, but politically no, as mass confiscation of property will not solve an economic depression. But ‘No person’s life, liberty or property is safe while the Legislature is in session’ - Mark Twain.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 The Crown represents the people. Everything that is The Crown is commensurate with and the same as The Public. That's my crazy opinion.
A Clarion is someone who sends out a clear message (originally, a loud trumpeter). So the idea is that I wanted to spread greater clarity about the Constitution. I was also looking for something unique with a bit of alliteration.
Thank you for this, I like the idea of secession from Australia to avoid the taxes but I still want the rest of you to chip in for the infrastructure like hospitals, roads and services to support my selfish little pretend fiefdom that I can access as an "ally"
I'm curious about Western Arnhem Land, they effectively have, or had 30 years ago, two systems of law, and the ability to restrict access for the rest of Australians, amoung many other things assumed or granted, they seem to have a different system... I don't know if it's true or not, I've been told there is even allowance for Aboriginal nations to withdraw from the rest of Australia, and form their own state? I'm loving your channel, thankyou... It seems, what you're saying is it's just humoured by authorities.
So far the Australian courts have consistently held that Indigenous Australians are subject to Australian law. That law, however, may recognise and continue prior Indigenous law (eg common law recognition of native title), or it might, by way of statute, permit others to be excluded from an area of land or accept the application of customary law. So it will depend upon the law applicable to the particular area. There are, however, academic articles that argue for the right to secession by Indigenous peoples or, more commonly, argue for the existence of separate sovereignty (defined in various ways). Such arguments have not yet been accepted, but jurisprudence in this field can change, so the future is not certain.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thankyou, there must be a lot of conflict though, some of the Traditional law is definitely out of sync with Australian law, I don't see how that could ever be sorted out, unless the homogenisation of separate nations happens.
Yes, there have been reports on Indigenous customary law and how it can be reconciled with Australian statute and common law, but this is getting outside my expertise, so I can't give you anything more helpful on that.
If section 128 of the Constitution allows only a referendum to change a section of clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK how did the Parliament of the UK allow section 11 of the Australia Act 1986 to amend section 74 of the Constitution? Also by which instrument did the Parliament of Westminster allow that the Commonwealth of Australia be independent and sovereign while clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act remained intact?
Section 74 wasn't amended by section 11 of the Australia Act 1986. The former deals with appeals from the High Court, the latter was primarily to end appeals from State courts. Appeals to the Privy Council from decisions of the High Court were already effectively ended by the combined effects of the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975. All that remained for appeal from the High Court under section 74 was inter se cases, (which involves a dispute between the federal Government and one or more of the States), but as the section provides, in order for any such appeal to happen the High Court would need to provide a certificate. That ended in with Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty. Ltd [No. 2] [1985] HCA 27, with the High Court holding that it would never again grant a certificate of appeal, stating (at 5): "Although the jurisdiction to grant a certificate stands in the Constitution, such limited purpose as it had has long since been spent. The march of events and the legislative changes that have been effected - to say nothing of national sentiment - have made the jurisdiction obsolete." The covering clauses are outside of the "four corners" of the Constitution, which starts at section 9. The development of Australian nationhood did not require any change to the Australian Constitution. It involved, in part, the abolition of limitations on constitutional power that were imposed from outside the Constitution, such as the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp) and restricting what otherwise would have been the proper interpretation of the Constitution, by virtue of Australia's status as part of the Empire. When the Empire ended and national status emerged, the external restrictions ceased, and constitutional powers could be given their full scope.
@@auspseudolaw So your saying that National Sentiment over rides section 128? As far as I can see section 74 does have the words "Until the Parliament otherwise provides. Where is the head of power allowing the Limitation of Appeals Act and the Privy Council(limitation for appeals) Act in 1968 and 75 respectively while section 74 was and is intact ? With respect to clause 2 or any other clause before clause 9, as as you say, they are outside the four corners of the Constitution, so could you please provide an answer to why clause 5 then would also fall outside of the four corners of the Constitution and the specific wording of clause 5 which clearly states that "This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution , shall be binding on the courts , judges, and people of eevery State....." !
@@1darryloflife No. I'm not saying that, I'm quoting the High Court saying that. Section 74 was not intended to maintain appeals, from its inception it was intended to limit appeals. All that was required by the section to further limit appeals, was the reservation of assent, which was done with each of these Acts. Not sure what your question is regarding c/c 5, but again, it is not legally binding, as it isn't technically part of the Constitution. For example, the "Crown" in the start ceased to exist in 1922 when Ireland split, subsequently becoming "the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland". This, like c/c 2, has evolved with time without need for amendment.
As has already mentioned in the comments, section 74 of the Constitution was not altered at all by section 11 of the Australia Acts 1986. Section 11 deals with appeals from an 'Australian court', which is then defined in section 16 as meaning 'a court of a State or any other court of Australia or of a Territory other than the High Court'. Section 74 of the Constitution deals with appeals from the High Court, and was not touched by the Australia Acts. Please be aware that whoever is feeding you this stuff on the Australia Acts is feeding you nonsense and should not be trusted. If you actually want to know about them, I've written an entire book on their drafting, application and validity: Anne Twomey, 'The Australia Acts 1986 - Australia's Statutes of Independence' (Federation Press, 2010). As for independence, the Constitution does not say that Australia is and must remain a colony. It was always intended that Australia would move towards independence. That change came about as a consequence of a number of external factors, such as changed in convention about who advised the monarch in relation to Australian matters. While there is a debate about the interpretation of covering clause 2, even if it were interpreted as requiring the monarch to be the person who also holds the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, King Charles III of Australia does also hold the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. So there can be no breach, regardless of interpretation.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for the reply Anne. When I read section 11(4) of the Australia Act 1986 there is clearly a modification to section 74 via the retrospectivity being before the commencement of the Australia Act. The third paragraph in section 74 does allow the Parliament to bring about limitation which shall be reserved by the GG for her majesties pleasure, but of course subject to the Constitution. On the subject of the preamble to the Australia Act it seems awfully close to a referendum held in 1984 where the question was regarding interchange of powers enabling the Commonwealth and the States voluntarily to refer powers to each other and which failed in each State and I believe that referendum was as a result of a 10 year effort by Victoria and NSW to over ride section 90 of the Constitution regarding the exclusive power of the Commonwealth to bring about excise.
Why secede? Other alternatives are available. All allowed, its happened all over the World. Its simply a matter of qualification. And boy have we got a series of qualifications like you would not believe. Some say: The Aust Commonwealth is fatally flawed, however thats unqualified!
One hears rumblings of WA wanting to secede from Australia and from North Queensland wanting to secede from Queensland. Obviously this has never happened and likely never will.
If QLD divides into two states as is permitted under the constitution would only one of them be considered an original state, both of them or neither of them? S124 talks about a new state forming by separation of territory from a state so I assume that means one will stay an original state and one a new one, with I assume the QLD Parliament deciding which is the new one. Representation in the Senate would be an interesting topic of debate if such a thing were to occur.
@@bearup1612 I see that and i see what you mean. I should have said "historically". I can see what's happening in the west. The empire of lies is dying and the people are angry.
@@adelarsen9776 I tend to agree with you about the corup governments that we are seeing. The way things are going at the moment I see a massive change and a new emerging world where the people will sort out the crap and hopefully advance.
@@bearup1612 I see oppression, subjugation, tyranny and control. I have empathy for the Sov Cit's because I know how they became like they did. I just don't agree with doing what they do which is pretty crazy.
Can I pose a question.... based entirely on fact not belief.... I do not believe in Lepricorns, nor Easter Bunny or any of the Egyptian, Greek or Roman God's. Logically then since the Christian God is presented to us in the Christian Bible, and that Bible scholars are in agreement that there is not a single verifiable eyewitness account of anything in that bible... As intelligent, thinking individual is it not correct to hold the opinion that there is no God.... a position now held by more than 50% of Australians. Since our laws receive their legitimacy from the Royal Sovereign, if their claim to sovereignty is based on the false claim of being actually chosen by God, then it draws into question their legitimacy and that of the laws made under them. To look at the sovereign as a fraud scam as would be the case if the God belief is abolished by the public .... really would seem to need a major reset and rethink of all the Laws and whom they benefit, do you agree?
Why has the legitimacy of the legal system not been challenged since it is based on an authority derived in a round about way from God, to actually prove beyond all reasonable doubt that God actually exists...rather than everyone trusting the assumption God exists? I think it might be time governments shifted their authority from that given by God, to that given by the people they govern...and be open and fully accountable to the people in every respect, ending legal loop holes etc.
You are looking at a perception of law that has long passed into history. Ever since the supremacy of parliament was recognised by the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the source of law is not the executive, but the legislature. Legislation gains its authority from "the consent of the governed" gained through regular elections where the people elect representatives to create laws according to the respective spheres of legislative power in the Constitution. Under the principle of Responsible Government, the executive is responsible to, and answerable to, the people through the legislative branch.
Our laws do not 'receive their legitimacy from Royal Sovereign' at all. Nor does the Sovereign get their legitimacy from being chosen by God (although there was the odd King who thought so, but Charles I lost his head over it). This is the sort of argument that someone might make in the 1500s or the 1600s, but cannot be treated seriously today. Laws are legitimate because they are passed by a democratically elected Parliament under a Constitution that is sustained by the support of the people. The Sovereign is only Sovereign as a result of law, and can be removed by the law. The 1999 republic referendum provides a good example of the law and the people together deciding whether to retain the link to the monarchy or not.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you again, this time for clarifying what in my mind has been a percieved questionable situation, but is now clear not. Sincere Thanks
They registered on Washington stock exchange Every gov dept is look it up for yourself.Suggest using VPN.(ps stock exchange = share holders/owners.) Washington in District of Columbia (foreign)😮😂
It would be hard to look it up, given that the Washington Stock Exchange ceased to exist in 1953. What I think you are trying to say is that the Commonwealth Government is registered with the US Security Exchange Commission. It is - but it is registered as a 'foreign government', rather than a corporation, because (unsurprisingly) the Commonwealth Government is actually a 'foreign government' from the US point of view.
None - unless RU-vid sends me a tiny amount from the advertising they put on. I do the videos for public education because I think it is a good thing to share expertise. I am no longer paid by the University (as I am now Emeritus), so it cannot even be claimed that it falls within my University remuneration.
The notion that states seceding from the federal government is somehow "illegal" is, frankly, laughable. The foundational ethical principles underpinning liberalism posit the liberal state as a unit not concerned with the size of its borders but the welfare and liberties of its people, once that ceases to be the case the state ceases to be legitimate. If a unified body of people, through a freely conducted plebiscite, have decided that this is no longer the case then they ought to be able to secede and form their own state. A law that cannot be justified in ethics is not truly a law but more aptly an unlaw, therefore should the federal state decide to send in the troops in response to such a secession then they ought to be condemned as criminals.
The history shows that the people of Western Australia only wanted to secede in a lawful manner, and that they did not want to engage in revolution. When some suggested defiance of the law, they were quickly rejected. The rule of law is important in Australia as a foundational principle.
Hi I’ve hear we have been given a personal trust account given by the government. Which is used by the Australian government for personal corespondent . Evidence of this is our legal names written in capital letters like our driver’s license or on grave stones , while writing on our birth certificate is in lower case letters as the majority. Any truth to this.
It is known by the courts as the "strawman duality" theory, the belief that a "legal person" is distinct from a physical human being or "living man", generally seen as represented by upper-case lettering, and thought to be a juridical person or corporation, as opposed to a natural person. It has been consistently rejected by the courts throughout the world for 50 years. There are many recent Australian decisions on this.
@@auspseudolaw someone notified me of a court case in Where a women won by not owning up to here trust. She said”she was the living entity of the trust and refused contract or joiner”?And the case was thrown out.
@@rethinkscience8454 I heard the same rumours many times myself, but none can actually prove it with a court decision. I think someone has been telling you fibs. The main reason being, that the decisions of the superior courts of the states (District, County, Supreme, Court of Appeal) are binding on every lower court (Magistrates Court) in the state. Every single Supreme Court in every state and territory now has precedents explicitly rejecting the Strawman Duality theory. Therefore, it makes it impossible for the argument to succeed in any Magistrates Court anywhere in Australia. Even if the magistrate was tripping on acid, the prosecution would immediately appeal the decision on grounds they erred in law.
Western Australia would be far better off with economics and independent defense capability, but this reality could happen if the eastern state capitals were destroyed in a nuclear war.
Why? Because you think that State Governors should still be appointed upon the advice of British Ministers? Because you think that the Westminster Parliament should be able to change the Commonwealth Constitution?
@@constitutionalclarion1901 we never got a choice. Should’ve been a referendum. There’s lots of things that are downright wrong with this country. Same as when we had a choice to be a republic. It really wasn’t a choice because we the people weren’t allowed to choose who we wanted as president
