What's the Difference Between Local, State, and Federal Government? | AUSPOL EXPLAINED 

Me too! I learned NOTHING about politics in school. (If you know any teachers perhaps convince them to show my videos in class?)

That's why I am here - I am teaching legal studies and its all new to me so I'm learning to be able to explain to my students!

@@chrissievanderhoeven4911 Thank you for the feedback. I'll continue to adjust my style to ensure my content is as broadly usable as possible.

TIME TO START A FARM AND COMPETE ON THE LOCAL EGG MARKET!

@@AuspolExplained - My generation, failed to watch Politicians and they betrayed us - Whitlam, incorporated all Governments and Government Departments - Now it is up to you to tell truth and get Australia from Unlawful Corporations - What are you doing?

@@AuspolExplained My council only lets me have three chickens :(

Never! You know the iron scares me!

@@AuspolExplained Sorry your completely - Wrong - 1988 Referendum - No to Local Government - You need more education - Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1901

@@johnselway9484 No to giving federal government powers over funding local government. State constitutions exist and states are the ones who create, control, and fund local governments so there's no issue here. Glad I could have educated you on something.

@@AuspolExplained David - There were Four Referendums relating to Local Government - All were refused by the Australia People. The Local Government Act 1979 was passed against our instructions. Those who view your site are search truth. It will not be found on any Government site. PS - State Constitutions are subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1901 - There is no Local Government in our Constitution - I thank you for your effort to educate. Why would you only look in one location - Listen to all and the truth will educate YOU

@@johnselway9484 State constitutions can't contradict the federal constitution on matters relating to section 51, and as local government isn't in section 51, then the states are free to make powers related to local government as they see fit. The idea that the federal constitution - which was written to limit the powers of the federal government - is somehow the only document that matters in this discussion and trumps the state powers is a completely inaccurate interpretation of how the Australian political system works.

Must be why the other states all come up on holidays and now they are moving to Queensland in droves.

Thank you! This is actually my fiance's bookcase because she has more aesthetic taste than I do and there aren't many places to film in our house.

Sorry but this guy, like many, claim it is compulsory to vote. It is not! There is no law in Australia that makes you vote. You must be registered to vote. If you are registered to vote you must show up at the booths and have your name crossed off. That’s all. Voting is not required or compulsory.

Glad I could help!

Thank you! And never!

Awesome! Thank you!

Thanks for the info! Classic Tasmania being slightly different

Thank you!

Resist and make an underground potato farm

I might've put it in my first video? But basically the top position is Queen, followed by Governor General. Depending how you want to "rank" it, then goes either the Speaker of the House or the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party entrusted to govern by the Governor General, but is effectively still just a member of the House and constitutionally has no extra powers. The PM can't work harder to make a bill pass than any other member, just that the PM has the backing of a party that works under their direction to pass that bill. The Speaker of the House is the highest authority in that chamber, and can eject the PM from it if they so choose, or order them to take a seat and stop speaking. (Similarly, President of the Senate is the highest authority in the Senate, though the PM doesn't conventionally reside there so the President of the Senate has no ability to tell off the PM in any formal capacity, just as an individual of parliament, like any individual, can voice opinions). Outside of that chamber though, PM exercises the most authority as they're chosen by the party to exercise the authority granted by having (in most cases) a majority government. Then below the PM is the Treasurer, and then the rest of the Ministry and Assistant Ministers, and then backbenchers (any member of parliament not given a ministerial role). Then there's staffers, members of party (which you can become by joining a party), and volunteers, that work to support the party.

Federal government can let states do things that are the federal government's domain - like quarantine which is explicitly a federal responsibility under section 51. If there was some contradiction then the federal government could exercise power.

right, do they have to make an official statement saying that’s what they are doing? I mean, do they have to make a statement saying that they are given power to state do decide? Thanks heaps for being open to have this conversation and I hope you don’t mind, but is very weird and it seems there is a lot of contradiction. If the Federal government say for example that my health is my own responsibility how come am I being force to be in lockdown while I am health and have not be tested positive? and I understand you are not a lawyer and might be hard to give your opinion on this but what would happen if I prosecute state government under those infringements, what do you think it would happen?

@@seuantonio how would you prosecute the state government for a lockdown? Lockdowns are legal as for both federal and state governments to do. I'm not sure what kind of legal defence you could mount to be honest. Clive Palmer already tried to sue the WA state government over the border closures under section 92 of the constitution and the High Court rejected him. So something like lockdowns has already been tested in the highest court in the country and the High Court has sided with the states on their rights and powers. The High Court found lockdowns and border closures reasonable actions to prevent the spread of a deadly disease. For more information about that case here's an ABC article: www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-06/clive-palmer-loses-high-court-challenge-against-wa-border-close/12855286

@@AuspolExplained interesting. Well I was thinking about this: Bio Security Act 2015 section 60 & 61. The emergency requirements are qualified and restricted by the significant fact. The emergency requirements and directions cannot request an individual to be isolated, quarantined, detained, tested, vaccinated, social distance, wear a mask, medically treated or bodily searched amongst other actions in the absence of a biosecurity control order issued to the individual by a judge in a court of law with evidence who is showing symptoms and is sick. So I thought I would have to be under an issued biosecurity control order to be able to respond to a lockdown considering I am healthy. Also in the "deadly disease" part, is this something we would have to first "classified" such epidemic to be part of this particular category? Once again, thanks for your time and knowledge Also thinking about this: Privacy Act 1988 section 94H - no one can ask you to provide medical information. For example: an employer or anyone asking if you are vaccinated. They are not allowed to know anything about your personal health status. It is a privacy issue. No one can track your movements. For example: signing into a cafe or being required to have a tracking app. You cannot be refused entry to a business that is open to the public. Breaches of this act is a punishment of 5 years in prisonment or a 63K fine. How come we are all using QR Codes to entry to open to public places? is this also not a violation of the Privacy Act?

@@seuantonio There's a lot and again, I'm not a lawyer, but I figure someone would've probably tried this before if it had a legal standing. There are a lot of people frustrated about lockdown, but a lot of misinformation as well. To learn more about what you're talking about I looked at the Privacy Act 1988 and section 94 is about jurisdiction of the court. Are you sure that's the right part? I do see a bit under it in 95 about the protection of privacy in relation to medical research. Sorry I haven't read it all, it's a lot of pages. Besides, the courts find things that have reasonable justification take precedent - so while there's privacy laws, we also have our internet metadata tracked and stored for 2 years for the purposes of counter-terrorism and police operations. So really not sure how QR codes for contact tracing to fight a pandemic would be deemed illegal by courts.

OK so basically there is a federal act called the Biosecurity Act (2015) that replaces the quarantine act of I think like 1908. This is the foundation for the restrictions of movement in smaller areas, fines of varying sizes (up to $63,000) and potentially jail time of up to 5 years. This was the law that was causing headlines a few weeks back when people from India were temporarily banned from re-entering Australia. Anyway so Section 51 of the federal constitution does give quarantine to the federal government as a power and responsibility but the Commonwealth can grant the states powers to act on matters in Section 51 if it lets them do so (but ultimately can still rescind that if they change their mind). Health matters are usually the states' responsibilities, like hospitals. So the federal government has allowed the states do act under their own discretion, with their own emergency/health acts forming the legal basis for the fines. There's no federal law saying that the states can't do this and the federal government doesn't want the responsibility of having to make decisions that affect localised areas, hence has continued to have premiers make decisions. There has been criticism that the federal government hasn't adequately supported or funded the hotel quarantine system, as that one can clearly be put under their responsibility instead of lockdowns, so that's a contention between states/federal. The federal government has been critical on occasion of lockdowns, but it has not moved on the position that this is a responsibility that the states can exercise. So hypothetically the federal government could take on more responsibility in this circumstance, but instead has chosen to form the National Cabinet which is the combination of the State Premiers, Territory Chief Ministers, and Prime Minister, to discuss and co-ordinate responses. This isn't a parliamentary cabinet and has no legislative power by itself (it requires either pre-existing laws like that biosecurity act, or the individual state/territory parliaments to pass laws if necessary), it's just a forum to discuss and co-ordinate. This means that they can agree collectively to limit returning flights (borders and quarantine on a federal level therefore enacted by the federal government) or they can disagree and individually go into lockdowns even if other members of the National Cabinet are critical. Here's a video I did on it way back. I quote some figures for fines, and reference laws and amendments that were new at the time so I'm not sure how much of it is still relevant, but I think it says what I said above in a bit more detail: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EFb8_azb2T4.html

I don't but I can make one! So to quickly answer those three terms: a by-election is where a seat becomes vacant during a term and they need to fill it. Instead of having a general election or federal election where the whole country votes it's specific to that one electorate (eden-monaro had a by-election just last week). Swing is when a party gets more or less support than they did last time so if one election a member has 56% of the vote, and then next election they have 51% then they've had a negative swing, and next election they'll need to try harder to improve their margin or risk an even further negative swing and lose the seat. Informal votes are where someone makes their ballot invalid. This is usually deliberate. As voting is compulsory but anonymous in Australia to avoid a fine people will come to polling booths to have their names ticked off, then not properly fill the ballot out (like numbering insufficient boxes, or just drawing on it, etc), and then cast it. This is different from donkey voting. Donkey voting is where a person numbers the candidates in order that they appear on the ballot with no actual personal input involved (so every election when the candidates are arranged randomly, whoever gets first spot gets a boost from apathetic voters not caring who they vote for). Donkey votes, although not really an exercise in personal opinion, are still formal votes because they satisfy the requirements for a vote to be counted (appropriate number of boxes filled in). Informal votes mean the entire ballot is unusable and is discarded. So those are all election related terms and hopefully that helps you a lot next election!

@@AuspolExplained Voting is not compulsory in Australia anywhere! Stop saying it!

​@@marvinmartinsYT It's federal law that eligible voters must enrol and then vote. That's the law. I can't legally say otherwise as that's misleading and both 1) not how the law works and 2) against RU-vid's terms of service. I absolutely must factually inform people that enrolling and then voting is the law in Australia.

@@AuspolExplained Wrong.

@@marvinmartinsYT "It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums." - www.aec.gov.au/enrol/ I cannot mislead people about such a basic fact about the law.

Cats and dogs are pretty much allowed anywhere though there are still things you need to do like microchip them. In Queensland rabbits are illegal as pets statewide. As for goat/pig: people in suburbia don't have space and I think noise also factors into whether or not you're allowed certain animals in certain locations.

Huh, a rabbit ban is surprising. Do "farm" animals really need more space than a dog? And more importantly... are they noisier? (Highly doubt the latter...) But they might be rigth about not keeping animals in suburbia, and just make exceptions for traditional pets, because, well, tradition.

David. I said it at the start of the video. I work for myself as a sole trader with an ABN doing photography as a day job. Who are you and what's your job?

But if local government doesn't exist then who is taking my rubbish away?

@@AuspolExplained Private contractors. In the 1988 referendum, one of the questions was to alter the constitution to include local government. The people said no. Australia operates as a constitutional monarchy.

The 88 referendum was to recognise it in the federal constitution, but local governments have always been the domain of the states who created both local and federal. Do you not recognise that states also have constitutions that outline powers different to the federal?

@@AuspolExplained next you'll be telling me plebiscites give Parliament power to change constitutional law too....

@@neilparry7116 No, why would I say that? Plebiscites are for non-constitutional matters. I don't understand your assertion that the federal constitution is the only legal authority in Australia when, again, state constitutions exist and local governments are under the authority of the states that created and manage them. The 1988 referendum doesn't contradict that, it just would've altered the relationship between federal and local, which currently cannot directly happen as they are the states' issue to manage.

According to my analytics this is mostly watched by 20-somethings which thankfully will enjoy it a lot more than children