วีดีโอ

We don't need a referendum for the Northern Territory to exist. There's a whole clause specifically that enables the NT to exist. Section 111: States may surrender territory. The Parliament of a State may surrender any part of the State to the Commonwealth; and upon such surrender, and the acceptance thereof by the Commonwealth, such part of the State shall become subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

I got the idea after interviewing Laura Nuttall and wondering how disagreements between Greens and Labor get resolved given the mixed duties and policies between the parties, sorry.

@@AuspolExplained LOL, just suspicious timing with my interview only being 2 weeks earlier. Also filmed in the same place.

Yes! He started that business

@@AuspolExplained so he swam competitively, ran for office, and started one of the largest tyre retailers in Australia. [Questions life choices]

The enemy’s on both sides.

The Greens forget which side they should be supporting, particularly federally.

You asked a question and I answered it? I'm sorry if being straightforward came off as rude.

The three tiers of government all have different responsibilities. The federal can't override the states unless their laws conflict with the responsibilities set out in section 51 of the federal constitution. The states don't ignore the Commonwealth and have their own constitutions. Local government exists because the states created it under their own power which is not challenged by section 51 and so how they regulate local is entirely up to them. There is no conflict there.

The multi member electorates are the key to encouraging collaboration: members need the preferences of other parties to get elected much more so than in single member electorates.

I disagree. The Labor people and supporters I know are fed up with Labor constantly attacking the Greens rather than focusing their energy on the real enemy of good, the Coalition.

Don't count your chickens ... the Greens will screw you over, and then eat all your chooks.

The Judiciary is independent and not dependent on the incumbent government

That is how it should be,however they are selected by a state or federal governor or with advice from attorney general.Who thinks that such important selection should be left to one person or faction? That’s the best way as that’s how it has been handed down from a royal edict! Time for some change so that more are involved in the selection to balance out governor or attorney bias,you are correct but Our constitution was written by authority for authority without consideration of rights.Thank you for your extensive knowledge of Australian law it is difficult to unravel and complex.

It's been a while, Ben! Good to see you're here to boost engagement. You've been the most consistently vocal supporter of my videos since the beginning and I was wondering why I hadn't heard from you for several videos. Glad to know you're still subscribed.

There is no debate on that and it is widely accepted fact sovereignty was never ceded (something she has also mentioned in videos) and the diaries and letters of early settlers/Governors refer to it as theft/an invasion. That's just basic information that people generally know about Australian history. What they do with that information is up to them.

australia not neoliberalism there more than 125 taxes robbing the private sector

In ACT even the greens refer to themselves as the greens so your point is invalid

@@johnhamilton6003 you misread. The greens are indeed "the greens". What I am talking about is how Labor insist on adding "political party" when it isnt their official name. Like calling Labor the Labor Political Party.. It's ALP's version of misnaming them for the sake of it. They seem to be confusing the UK's Greens equivalent naming at times.

I'm not familiar enough with what you're talking about to answer your question, sorry.

@@AuspolExplained you claim to be a Constitution expert...This is part of our Constitution...part 1 of The Act of Settlement 1700 .. Succession to the Crown and rights and Liberties of the subject....The matter is not justiciable, said Justice Hackland, because the rules of royal succession are part of the Constitution, and one part of the Constitution cannot be used to challenge another. Justice Hackland pointed out that the prohibition against Catholics succeeding to the throne has been part of our law since the Act of Settlement, 1701. This Act itself is an imperial statute which ultimately became part of the law of Canada. And, in a prior challenge to the constitutionality of this prohibition, O’Donohue v. Canada, the Superior Court of Ontario had held (as summarized by Justice Hackland) that the rules of succession are essential to the proper functioning of the monarchy and are therefore, by necessity, incorporated into the Constitution of Canada. canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/29893 Australian Federal law review 1981 Protestants". Pursuant to this new settlement, on the death of Queen Anne in 1714, the Hanoverian succession commenced with George I, Sophia's son. Section 2 provided that Roman Catholics could not inherit the Crown, and that persons who inherited under the new settlement should take the coronation oath20 and make the declaration set out in the Bill of Rights. Sections 1 and 2 are fundamental constitutional laws on the succession to the throne and the obligations of the monarch. Because the Crown was the executive in the Australian colonies, which were established in its name, sections 1 and 2 of the Act of Settlement, in so far as they identify the sovereign, were approprl.ate for reception. But it is more likely that these sections apply by paramount force because the Crown is described in section 1 as the Crown of "England France and Ireland and of the dominions thereunto belonging"; moreover, a fundamental law on the identity of the sovereign would apply to the colonies by necessary intend- ment.21 Indeed covering clause 2 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which provides that provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Consti- tution Act 1900 extend to Queen Victoria's "heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom" suggests that the statutory provisions which identify those heirs and successors are incorporated by reference into the Constitution Act. If this is so, sections 1 and 2 of the Act of Settlement are in force in Australia and cannot be repealed by either the Commonwealth or the State Parliaments. "The Act of Settlement and the employment of aliens." Federal Law Review, 12(Sept 1981), pp. 212-235

I didn't ever claim to be a constitutional expert. That's why I invited one to explain things to do with the Australian constitution, not the Canadian one (which I fail to see the relevance here). Unfortunately I would love to be able to help you but as I pointed out I simply don't know enough about what you're talking about to help you understand the subject better. Your point is unclear to me. You perhaps should find some lectures by some UK constitutional experts on the line of succession.

@@AuspolExplained ok I will explain the relevance of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling ..We are the Commonwealth realms ..The Succession to the Crown is covered by the Statute of Westminster.....The Succession to the Crown can only be altered by the consent of all 16 Commonwealth nations.... This is easily proven by "THE PERTH AGREEMENT 2011 , that is the only change since 1700 and that is the only way it can be changed.......Gough Whitlam joined the holy see in 1973 ......The Act of Settlement 1700 is part of EVERY CONSTITUTION in every Commonwealth country and every state in Australia.....You can't stick your head in the sand forever . There is only 1 body Politic The king and his subjects. Watching Anne's video on the Succession of the crown it is easy to see where Australia has been misguided, perhaps it is because Professor Orne and The CIA infiltrated Sydney University in the late sixties and now we see what they were doing...

Well there were changes between 1700 and 2011 with the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 in response to Edward VIII. But a minor correction which I'm sure isn't very important, though I'm unsure as I don't know what the line of succession has to do with Gough Whitlam opening diplomatic relations with the Vatican. It is a complete nonsequitor, sorry. I still don't see how that's got anything to do with that, or the separate point about the Statute of Westminster making it so that the Crown exists in separate concepts like the Monarch of the UK acting differently to the Monarch of Australia. I can't help you, sorry.

"Establish a *publicly owned developer and builder* which will build & buy 10,000 public homes over ten years and end homelessness in the ACT" - ACT Greens housing policy.

@@quinnstanley5930 green & teals communist bad for home ownership

I don't know the answer, sorry. To ask Professor Twomey you should go to her channel, Constitutional Clarion.

​@@AuspolExplainedThank you. Big fan of your videos as well. 😀😀😀

It's a common term and hashtag that both effectively conveys the theme of the channel and makes it easy to find. Lawson and Whitlam never had to deal with SEO so speculation about if they would/wouldn't use a term is pointless and proves nothing. It's too late to rebrand so... thanks for the input but I sadly cannot action this unique request that you and literally only you have find issue with in the past 4 years of this channel's existence. I'm sorry.

Just because race is a social construct doesn't mean the social phenomenon of discrimination based off people's ideas of race doesn't exist. You can't argue such a clearly observable thing doesn't happen even if we can agree it's a ridiculous thing to happen in the first place.

@@AuspolExplained but wouldn't you think the law might advance past the 19th century ? You might think it's a social " construct " but that's not the point. Construct all you like but that doesn't make it right. How on earth did we get past phlogiston, and discover bacteria and viruses...and then...deal with it !

Oh it's not important it's just a silly fun fact you can get free things