QLD border restrictions, what it means for business and industry
https://www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets...fact-sheet.pdf
Printable View
QLD border restrictions, what it means for business and industry
https://www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets...fact-sheet.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Under the Constitution it's actually the states that have the power to levy income tax - but they ceded it to the Commonwealth in WW2 as an emergency measure that was then formalised afterwards, and it's remained that way ever since. And it's fascinating that people aren't even aware that used to be the case.
Ditto for the corporations power - in order to pass the Corporations Act in 2001 the States first had to refer power to the Commonwealth and then enact matching acts.
Right ... please show me where the Constitution mentions a "national cabinet'? The point of my comment was that there are a lot of current arrangements that don't strictly accord with the Constitution, so people shouldn't be quite so literal about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob10
Yea, I do know this so, if I do, I'm certain that there will be plenty more people on here that are aware of the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arapiles
Anyway, for those of you that like looking at graphics and graphs that supply most of us with knowledge, which at best, enables us to feel sympathy, sadness, amazement, incredibility, anger and self-righteousness, about something in other countries that we have no say in, here's another graphic with lots of pretty lines and colours.
Attachment 161184
NSW and VIC should be concentrating on getting the virus under control in their own states first instead of spending so much time and effort on trying to bully the other States that HAVE managed to get some sort of control in place to open their borders to them.
Where is the Logic in opening up the rest of Australia to the States with the most cases and deaths that haven't themselves yet managed to stop the spread of this disease.
Constitutional or not the hard closures on the State borders ARE preventing the spread of this Virus and IS saving lives.
The snivel libertarians and academics that are arguing about this and are trying to impose their will on the other States need to take a good hard look at themselves then they will realise just how short sighted and selfish they are about this situation. [bigwhistle]
[QUOTE=Arapiles;3001555]Right ... please show me where the Constitution mentions a "national cabinet'? The point of my comment was that there are a lot of current arrangements that don't strictly accord with the Constitution, so people shouldn't be quite so literal about it.[/QUO
The National cabinet was really an extension of COAG, the Council of Australian Governments, the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia.
Though called a cabinet, the national cabinet is technically an intergovernmental forum. The conventions and rules of cabinet, such as cabinet solidarity and the secrecy provisions, do not apply to the national cabinet.Its power is that which the leaders of all Australian jurisdictions bring to negotiate on behalf of their people, and to implement the decisions reached. This model is called executive federalism.Advantages of executive federalism in a time of crisisIn a crisis, decision-making automatically shifts upwards with the expectation that leaders will work together to find a way through the crisis. The National Cabinet meets these expectations in several ways.Timeliness and riskResponse time is critical, and with the national cabinet meeting multiple times a week, issues can be addressed as they emerge. Risk is reduced by bringing together technical and political experts. The national cabinet is supported by the chief medical officers, who meet as the Australian Health Protection and Principles Committee (AHPPC). They pull together the modelling, research and data that form the basis of decisions made by the national cabinet.Read more: View from The Hill: A contest of credible views should be seen as useful in a national crisisThe national cabinet is the mechanism to bring together information and intelligence sharing, and the capacity to pool and test ideas before locking in coordination and jurisdictional capacity. Because of the frequency of meetings, decisions are expected and made. The consideration of different jurisdictional viewpoints and expertise puts rigour and contestability into the decision-making and strengthens the outcome.
Executive federalism forums such as the national cabinet can be criticised for being undemocratic and unaccountable, with the role of the parliament marginalised. However, these forums are undertaking different roles. The national cabinet deals with negotiation and compromise between states, which recognise difference and diversity. The parliament is about majority will. The connection has not been lost with parliament, which is suspended not pro-rogued, and will be brought back to pass legislation from decisions made by the national cabinet.Once the COVID-19 crisis has passed, the full democratic accountability processes can scrutinise the decisions taken. This includes parliamentary committee investigations and royal commissions. The checks and balances of the democratic constraints on our leaders will reassert themselves.
The National Partnership on COVID -19 response.
https://www.coag.gov.au/sites/defaul...ovid19-npa.pdf
About C.O.A.G.
About COAG | Council of Australian Governments
Parliament during the pandemic.
A virtual Australian parliament is possible – and may be needed – during the coronavirus pandemic
Now for the big one. Can States shut their borders, and is it legal? Short answer Yes.
States are shutting their borders to stop coronavirus. Is that actually allowed?
the High Court has accepted that a state law may impede the entry into the state of persons, animals or goods that are likely to injure its citizens. These include risks of the transmission of animal and plant diseases and the entry of noxious drugs.
Current proposals to restrict the movement of people across state borders are clearly for the legitimate purpose of protecting public health. No one could argue that the reason is “protectionist” or simply an objection to residents from other states entering the state.
But in any case, the High Court would take into account the evidence that the state was relying on and its efforts to calibrate the restrictions appropriately in the circumstances. More extreme risks may justify more extreme measures in limiting interstate intercourse.
First, any state action must fall within its existing legal powers. These include those under its public health legislation, or it first may need to enact new legislation or make appropriation regulations under existing statutes. If a state is restricting the liberty of its residents, then it needs lawful power to do so.Secondly, while states have extremely broad legislative powers (subject to section 92 of the Constitution), if the law of a state conflicts with a law of the Commonwealth, then section 109 of the Constitution provides that the Commonwealth law prevails and the state law is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.
Overall, despite the constitutional guarantee that intercourse among the states shall be absolutely free, the states retain a degree of latitude to limit border-crossing as long as it is appropriate and to protect public health.
Section 109 of the Constitution
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109Inconsistency of laws
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109
Inconsistency of lawsWhen a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, thelatter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of theinconsistency, be invalid.
