Constitutional Expert Debunks Youtube Comments with Professor Anne Twomey | AUSPOL EXPLAINED
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2024
- Not everyone understands the Constitution, but not all misunderstandings of the Constitution are equal. Over the years I've gotten a lot of very bizarre comments that make outlandishly wrong and even conspiracy theory level claims about what is actually in the Constitution, or what has become of it. Is the Australian Government actually a corporation registered in Washington DC? Are Australians secretly classified as cargo under maritime law? Is Western Australia non-existent? Did Gough Whitlam secretly replace the Constitution with a different colour? Of course not. None of these claims make any sense. So to debunk them I've got Professor Anne Twomey, constitutional expert, to explain how it actually works and to encourage people to do the most basic fact checking exercise of all: actually reading things. Enjoy!
Check out the Constitutional Clarion to learn more about the Constitution: / @constitutionalclarion...
Read the Constitution here: www.aph.gov.au/about_parliame...
Support the channel on patreon here: / auspolexplained
Like Auspol Explained on Facebook: / auspol-explained-10789...
Auspol Explained would like to acknowledge the Whadjuk Nyoongar people and their Elders as the owners and custodians of the Land that the episode was recorded and edited on. This Land was stolen and never ceded. It always was and always will be Aboriginal Land.
“Until the Parliament otherwise provides” is my favourite deliberately ignored phrase in the Constitution 😂
As an American, I have heard/read several conspiracy theories about the U.S. Constitution, some or which refer to maritime/admiralty law, the common law, governments are actually corporations, or some combinations of the foregoing. All of them conveniently allow the adherents of these theories to claim exemption from laws and taxation.
P.S. i prefer "referenda" as the plural.
I’ve had my own copy of The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, printed by P.J. Grills, Commonwealth of Australia Printer Canberra, since late in year 12, 1987.
I love it when someone on TV says “the constitution says…” and I can pull it off the shelf to verify or debunk the claim.
Mine is a 1993 printing of the 1987 edition by the Parliamentary Education Office, printed by A.J. Law Commonwealth Government Printer. I bought it for my father because he kept insinuating that the Constitution was some obscure and arcane document that no-one could get a copy of to actually check.
It is thirty-six A4 pages of nice large type in a nice, open layout, and is bound together with the Statute of Westminster (1932) and its Adoption Act (1942), and the Australia Act (1986). The cover is neither red nor green but buff.
Mine is a copy of the 1901 print
Not the reprint
I believe 'How to Vote' should be taught in all senior years in High Schools to Vote out parties/in parties . I had to teach my children otherwise they just believe the politicians jargon, we Australians are NOT being represented at all
Just say the word constitution and sovereign citizens come out of the woodwork.
I anticipate some fun new sovereign citizen comments under this video any day now
The fun fact is that you can either have a citizen, or a sovereign. You cannot have someone who is a sovereign citizen. That term in itself is an oxymoron.
Sovereign citizens and people living on unceeded lands 😂
All Australian citizens born here are indigenous. It's in black and white.
@@MassageWithKlayyou are just being a parrot by posting that. Bet you don’t even know what an oxymoron is
The silliest thing I've heard about the constitution: "The Hansard of the 1890s Constitutional Convention has no bearing on the actual Constitution." At that rate I imagine that the dictionary has no bearing on it either?!!
In the same way that a "preamble" has no baring on the document to which it is attached. That was the con of the "yes/no" referendum... a "preamble" to the Constitution would have gad no baring at Law.
Much like the Hansard on any Parliament doesn't carry any legal weight. It's non-judiciable.
Anne appear to be getting a bit frustrated by the stupidity of some of the "conspiracies". I don't blame her. Do as she says, read the Constitution, its free from the POE.
If you look at the people who wrote the constitution they had a very different idea than those who interpret it today. They ruled often in favour of the states. Now the fed government gets more and more power.
Therefore the 'debates' on it don't really matter anymore
Also it's a shame our High Court declared that the constitution is not abiding for all Australians by granting a second sovereignty called Native Title
@johnchrysostomon6284 nodsnods... It's a crying shame about native title... I mean it should be as obvious now as it was in the 18th century that australia was not occupied! ahem.
PS... I do believe you're right in terms of the federal/ state balance.... wasn't the senate supposed to be a house of parliamentarians representing the interests of their constituents and state, rather than one of the two major parties, with party bloc voting?
Congratulations, this is one of the most interesting, articulate and intelligent conversations I have ever had the Privilege of listening to. What a refreshing and wonderful experience to be able to hear this fantastic lady make sense of the convoluted BS creeping into the Australian Vernacular via Social Media. Well done. Cheers from Michael. Australia.
I agree. This video clearly shows how the Constitution provides the legal basis for the three levels of government in Australia. It also dispels all the misinformation, bullshit and self-serving deceit behind these fanciful claims. Thank you. Prof Twomey and your amiable interlocutor.
I heard the first one about local governments being invalid around 30 years ago when I was working for my local city council - from someone that didn't want to pay their council rates, of course, as you do. This was around '93, before the internet was made public, when people still communicated in person, by phone, and facsimile. It stuck with me because up to that point it was the most bizarre thing I'd ever heard (in the past 10 years the weirdness has accelerated quite a lot). Now that people can just pull a device out of their pocket, look up and actually read the constitution at any moment that suits, them, it's painful to know that people are still gullible enough to actually belief such nonsense.
How come then there were referendums on creating local governments? And what does it mean when these are rejected by the people?
119A. Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State." - this means that if local governments are to be created the power must exist in their constitutions - show where this power is?
Refusing to pay council rates is not a Constitutional Question anyway, its a contractual situation - ALL contracts regarding the purchase of existing or new homes has a clause, stating 'one agrees to paying council rates' - Being contractual law, it is actually higher than the Constitution itself. So if one can remove that clause in the contract before signing it, and never pay the rates or receive any privileges a council offers - that would be a very good position to be in, should the matter be raised anywhere...including a Court.
@@musclecarbear4704 There is nothing preventing having local councils - as a statutory authority - that is fine, just like Melbourne Water etc - but whether you can call them governments is another question. Thus municipal authorities are fine, but calling them local government is not.
@@DavidNotSolomon Tell me you paid no attention to the video without telling me you paid no attention to the video.
Thanks for bringing Anne Twomey back!
Why do we have the Australian Government and not the Commonwealth of Australia Government? The Australia Coat of Arms, has it been changed? Why do we not continued using "Commonwealth Department of ..."? Is it all a short-cut thing in expression? Can you give some references on all these questions as I didn't find answers on the Parliamentary website.
The Whitlam Government changed the usage from ‘Commonwealth’ to ‘Australian’. As Gough also changed the name of the Department of ‘External Affairs’ to ‘Foreign Affairs’. The subsequent LNP government kept it, as it helped when dealing with foreign countries and people. And it psychologically boosts the status of Canberra as speaking for the whole country, rather than emphasising its status as a Parliament of limited sovereignty. It is just a matter of useage and without (so far as I know) legal significance. The Coat of Arms still says ‘Australia’ (changed in the 1920s from ‘Advance Australia’) and the reference to the ‘Federal’ government is an acceptable alternative when dealing with affairs within Australia.
It is a sad indictment on the Australian population that time had to be spent on debunking these ridiculous claims.
Sadly, none of the people spreading these ridiculous claims will change their wilfully ignorant minds as a result of this video.
Luckily we don’t have a bonkers high court like Americans do which would likely give credence to some of these absurd theories.
@@coasterblocks3420 Good point. The other benefit of the High Court of Australia compared to Scotus is that High Court judges must retire when they turn 70.
I laugh when Australians say the constitution gives them "rights" .. Its only a document setting out how the country should be run. Individual citizens don' get a mention.
as an australian first amendment auditor I represent that!
Chapter 11. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT.61 The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative,and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution,and of the laws of the commonwealth.( of course now it is her successor the King who holds that power) Now all this power is subjected by the constitution to the advice of the Federal Executive Council.Did the governor general at the time of dismissing Gough Whitlam follow this advice or refer to the Queen or some one of her aids when he dismissed the Australian prime minister?This constitution is open for abuse and deserves to be seen for what it is .An instrument of authority designed to hold power over its subjects.
I was handing out pamphlets during the last Victorian state elections and a guy from the fishers and shooters party asked who I was voting for. I told him I couldn’t vote because I am still a New Zealand citizen. He tried to tell me that because I am a “Commonwealth citizen” that I actually was eligible to vote. I pulled up the AEC website to show him but he was adamant and said I was being lied to… he seemed relatively normal until then.
If you were on the electoral roll before 26th January 1984 and living permanently in Australia you could vote in federal elections. It used to be "British subjects" were eligible, but now it's only Australians (except the few people who qualify under this rule change from 40 years ago which is admittedly not many people).
They walk among us. They vote. They drive cars and have children!
Sweet trivia, so this would also count for people from Hong Kong prior to the return to the Republic?
@@hughaldous5195Yes, if you were on the Australian Electoral Roll…
@@AuspolExplained Its actually how my father is eligible to vote, even though he only holds British citizenship and never obtained Australian citizenship.
As always amazing content. I wish people were reading something beside the headlines, it would make our life as a community so much easier. Thanks for that nice collaboration!
What a great chat - I enjoyed that a lot. Thanks TH-cam Algorithm for popping this one up in me feed - Subbed for more ;)
There is no certainty like the certainty of Ignorance, and I am glad that, on the whole, most of our morons don't have access to firearms like a certain other country that has far more of this idiocy going on than we do.
The USA has gun law 2nd Amendment to fend off a tyrannical govt. Tyrannical govts can exist anywhere, we have our own here in Australia, as evidenced in the past 4yrs. Pity the majority of Australians cannot recognize tyranny when it slaps them in the face. Corruption in our govt and foreign interference is also rife.
We bought a rescue puppy in NSW, micro chipped, 1st injection and registration for life.
Moved to SA, I pleaded free trade between states😊
Didn’t work!
Don’t forget intercourse.😅
I have heard about most of these ideas from "friends" and and even close family, some have raved on to me. Thankyou for this insightful video about the fallacy of these arguments presented to me. I will buy Dr Twomey's book on the Australia Act. I Like how Dr Twomey says to read the sources that people quote in support of their fallacious arguments.
I was pleased to find this video and to see that Anne Twomey has a TH-cam channel. I recall reading a book she coauthored -- the Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution.
What's absurd is flying another country's flag as our own all the while we behave like a "star" on another country's flag, that is all that is absurd.
lot of people died for that australian flag mate ,it has the union jack true enough , but thats a recognition of where we came from ,to change that is to disrespect5 those who fought and died for it and us
@@stevensmith797 What a load of fucking bullshit
@@stevensmith797no it's not disrespectful to want the jack off our flag,my family has fought for Australia in the boer war 2,ww1 ww2 Korea,and Vietnam
An alot of my family are in support for Australia putting a warratar flower or the stockade flag were the jack is
Or becoming a republic too
@@keza3250 had and uncle , 1 of the rats of tabruk , lost a leg in that fight , the very idea of changing the flag was horrifying to him , not against a republic , in fact I want us to have our own head of state , but dont need a flag change for that to happen , what for , we are what we are , a former british colony , that is where we came from , and a flag that represents that isnt a bad thing
@@stevensmith797 plenty of former British colonies have changed their flags or removed the jack,
It would still be pur blue banner with the southern cross an Commonwealth star but the warratar flower or stockade flag instead of the jack
Or atleast change the colour of the jack to purple to represent the sovereignty of Australia from Britain
The Australia act was legal - but it made a mockery of the idea that the constitution is one of the people - the original act said that the constitution could only be changed by referendum - yet it was changed by an act of the British parliament. Pushing this through without any input or people's convention denied Australians the opportunity to discuss and make real reforms to the constitution - such as Citizen initiated referendums - which the Government will never put on the table. But we did lose our right to appeal to the Privy Council and it created the fiction of a Queen of Australia - a title and role that has no legitimacy.
Great comment...I'm off to check your channel out now!
The Australia Act explicitly states in section 5 "Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of Westminster not affected", and there was no alteration to the Commonwealth Constitution involved. Kirby delivered a dissent in Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) HCA 67 this was not due to a lack of a section 128 referendum. He argued that the Australia Act was invalid because section 106 of the Constitution guarantees that a State constitution may be altered only in accordance with its own provisions, hence not by the Commonwealth Parliament. However, Sections 50 and 51 of the Constitution Act 1889 (WA) were altered by section 14 of the Act, and sections 11 and 14 of the Constitution Act 1867 (QLD) were altered by section 13 of the Act. In Kirby's view was that this was inconsistent with Constitution section 106, so that the Australia Act was not a valid exercise of Commonwealth legislative power. A majority, however, thought that it was sufficient that the Act had been passed in reliance on Constitution section 51(xxxviii), which gives the Commonwealth parliament power to legislate at the request of the State parliaments.
However, there was an issue involving section 11 of the Constitution Act 1867 (QLD), due to it being double entrenched, meaning it could not be altered but by a Queensland state referendum. This argument proceeds that the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (QLD) requested the enactment of Commonwealth legislation which would alter the office of the Governor of Queensland and that the Queensland Act therefore required approval in a referendum in order to be valid. The argument concluded that the Australia Act 1986 is invalid because it was not enacted pursuant to a valid request from all the affected States. This argument was rejected by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Sharples v Arnison [2002] 2 Qd R 444, and by the Federal Court in Kelly v Campbell [2002] FCA 1125. The fundamental flaw is that the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (QLD) did not of itself have the effect of expressly or impliedly altering the office of Governor. It merely requested the Commonwealth and Westminster Parliaments to do so. A request for a change does not itself affect the existing law. The request may, indeed, be rejected. If so, there could be no effect upon the law.
Abolishing appeals to the Privy Council from the State courts was necessary, as it was contrary to Chapter III of the Constitution which established the High Court as the final court of appeal for Australia. The problem was that State courts could bypass the High Court in appeals and go straight to the Privy Council in the UK, causing complications in Australia's court system.
It was actually the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 that added the word "Australia" to the Queen’s style and titles, and the Queen became Queen of Australia. Popular mythology has it that it was Prime Minister Whitlam who did this with his Royal Style and Titles Act 1973, but that is simply not true. What Whitlam did was remove the words "United Kingdom" and "Defender of the Faith" from the 1953 style and titles as being no longer appropriate for use in Australia, but he added nothing to what was already there.
Look up the Freeman Delusion website.
@@auspseudolaw The Royal Style and Title identifies the authority under which the 1900 Act was passed - you cannot change this - as you are changing the head of power - i.e the authority. Another authority cannot change the Act. You say that appeals to the Privy council had to be removed - why? It was in the original constitution - which clearly had the Crown/Council as the ultimate authority - that was fine - you cannot remove it just because you or the high court don't like it - that is insane. But it is true they could legally remove it - but only by revealing the fiction the the constitution is one of the people. I still say what should have happened is that if you wanted Australia to be separate from the Crown and the High court to be the highest court, then there should have been a constitutional convention and proper new constitution drawn up with input from the people - not one designed by the elites to suit their ideas and purposes - this has been the problem with Australia since settlement - elites have always attempted to rig the system in their favour.
@@DavidNotSolomon The Queen herself assented to the Royal Style and Titles Acts 1953 and 1973, so I am unsure why you claim she can't do so. What seems to be the greatest irk to some, is the established principle of "the divisibility of the Crown". Secondly, some misunderstand that "the Crown" is not actually the monarch personally, but a body politic. It has been this way since Isaacson v Durant in 1886, so well before Federation. Lord Coleridge held that any allegiance owed to the monarch, is owed to their body politic, not to the monarch personally. The divisibility of the Crown was already apparent in that decision regarding the Crown of Hanover, but well established by 1901. In fact, Maitland published "Crown as Corporation" discussing that exact concept in 1901. The Crown of each of the states was already a separate legal entity than the Crown of the Commonwealth, and so on. Each are separate bodies politic, with separate systems. The “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” that appears on the Preamble to the Australian Constitution, ceased to exist after the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1922 put an end to the union of Great Britain and Ireland, creating a smaller dominion of which George V remained King. The Imperial Conference in 1926 proposed a change to the Royal style and titles designated for King George V. The “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” became the “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
It was ultimately the collapse of the British Empire with the Balfour Agreement in 1926 that established the equality of these separate bodies politic, brought into law with the Statute of Westminster 1931, adopted by Australia in 1942. When the monarch acts for Australia, she acts in a separate office than when she acts for the UK or any of the other dominions. Each have different roles, for different systems. As explained in Flowers v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 887 (from 111):
"The allegiance and service to which a judicial officer swears in the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath is allegiance to the monarch, not in his or her personal capacity, but, rather, to the body politic. The allegiance, for example, would not apply to applying or enforcing Canadian law or English law. The Crown as a body politic is “an abstraction”, used in a metaphysical or metaphorical sense. Hence, we speak of the Crown in the Right of New South Wales as a distinct entity from the Crown in the Right of Victoria. As the High Court explained in Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (at 224), the body politic is a creation of law and, as a consequence, the allegiance would be changed by any validly made law or by a lawmaking authority. The allegiance is to the body politic, being the State as an entity, not the government and not the monarch personally."
I have published many articles on this subject which include plentiful references and links on the Freeman Delusion website.
@@auspseudolaw Whatever the laws we know that a system where healthy people can be locked up and everyone who doesnt work for the commonwealth or who is not in a protected class is forced to take a poisionous medical treatment (when safe and more effective) alternatives were available is beyond saving. Also - so much for legal principles such as everyone being treated equal under the law. The problem is not actually the system, but the people running it have no respect for the law or human rights, therefore justice and true legality is impossible. Only Christ can save us now.
Q, so local council government was established first in Sydney before the constitution, by the people, and when commonwealth government was created all states agreed that the people vote, to amend commonwealth law, which is set in stone, and if it has a conflict, with states legislature/not laws, the commonwealth voted by the people over rides state legislature/regulation etc,is not by definition laws, is this correct.
We vote people into state government by the people, so why do they ignore constitutional commonwealth law, the courts in Australia all count are ignoring the constitution, not as powerful as you think, just my opinion. People are losing there homes and farms, land etc and supposed constitutional court non existent
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.
Excellent. Professor Twomey is always hugely interesting and informative. The 'Constitutional Clarion' TH-cam channel is a wonderful resource. Go raibh maith agaibh (Thank you both)
Fantastic stuff! I have some trouble finding high-quality *Australian* politics channels like you two
Would love some more recommendations if anyone has them!!
In ref to the discussion 20:00 of the Queen signing at the top, I note that the July1900 Bill for an Australian Constitution is on permanent display in Members' Hall at Parliament House, Canberra. It is displayed on Queen Victoria's writing desk from Windsor Castle. The Bill has in text at the bottom 'signed by her own hand'. So people quite often think it is not the document actually bearing the signature. Queen Victoria's signature appears, quite faintly, at the top.
Question 1: Why did the Barons petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61 of Magna Carta 1215. 7th February 2001.?
Question 2: What is clause 61 of Magna Carta 1215?
Question 3: Please explain Royal Assent?
1. They invoked Clause 61 of the Magna Carta against the Queen to stop closer integration with Europe through the UK’s signing of the Treaty of Nice. A lot of good that done, considering the UK subsequently joined the European Union. The authority to act upon such a demand had long since passed out of her hands and into the hands of the parliament, partly as a result of the very document they relied upon, the Magna Carta. The only thing that had the ability to undo this move was the voice of the people, expressed in the Brexit referendum.
2. In the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada, in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 and on the same basis in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790, Graesser J heard arguments from Jacqueline Robinson, (a.k.a. Jacquie Phoenix), who claimed "lawful rebellion" under Article 61 of the Magna Carta. As the court noted
"Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that MCLR adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late."
So to put it in plain terms, Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta doesn't actually exist.
3. Royal Assent is a process in passing legislation, generally the monarch's sign manual on bills. In Australia, pursuant to section 58 of the Constitution, the Governor General has the discretion whether he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen’s pleasure. A similar procedure exist in the states and territories for their legislation, except that pursuant to section 8 and 9 of the Australia Acts 1986, State laws are not subject to disallowance or suspension of operation by the monarch, nor withholding of assent or reservation by the Governor.
There have been several pseudolaw adherents in recent years demanding a court or police to show them proof of Royal Assent, a Proclamation Certificate, Seals and similar things. Unfortunately, such a request is moot, as section 143 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) provides: "Proof is not required about the provisions and coming into operation (in whole or in part) of:an Act, a State Act, an Act or Ordinance of a Territory or an Imperial Act in force in Australia..." etc. Provisions regarding judicial notice also exist in State legislation: • Victoria: Section 143 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) • New South Wales: Section 143 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) • Queensland: Section 123 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) • South Australia: Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) • Western Australia: Section 53 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) • Northern Territory: Section 143 of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) • Tasmania: Section 143 of the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas)
As pointed out in Fekete v Child Support Registrar [2016] FamCAFC 14: The well-known proposition that the burden of proof falls on the person asserting the claim does not help the Applicant because that relates to the burden of proving the elements of the offence or the cause of action and not the law itself. ... the court is to take judicial notice that the date appearing on a copy of an Act printed on a Government printer is evidence that the date of assent on that copy is the date that the Governor-General so assented." See also Lade and Company Pty Ltd v Finlay & Anor; Lade v Franks & Anor [2010] QSC 382: "Secondly, I am required to take judicial notice of Acts of Parliament and assume the accuracy of copies of such Acts: s 43 and 46A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). So, without evidence to the contrary, I am not concerned with the question of whether the constitutional requirements relating to the valid passing of any Act of Parliament have been complied with."
No idea for the first two but I'm sure you could google those pretty easily to see if that's anything. Same for question 3 but I can answer that: royal assent is where the monarch (or representative like Governor-General) gives approval to a bill for it to become an act.
@@AuspolExplained Understanding the hundred or so popular Australian pseudolaw motifs getting around is really a field of law all its own. I found a judicial deficit in this a decade ago, hence I decided to compile all of them together as well as the case law from the appellate courts where they had been authoritatively addressed. This stuff rattles lawyers, because it requires diving into some pretty strange concepts. Harry Hobbs, Joe McIntyre and Steve Young have made a great summary of the main concepts sourced from my encyclopedia in a paper recently published in the UNSW Law Journal, "The Internationalisation of Pseudolaw: The Growth of Sovereign Citizen Arguments in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand" [2024] UNSWLawJl 11; (2024) 47(1) UNSW Law Journal 309 following their previous NZ-specific paper "The Growth of Pseudolaw and Sovereign Citizens in Aotearoa New Zealand Courts". Well worth a read.
please if you can, get her and Wayne on the same show together lol
It’s the vibe, but I’m not sure what section that is.
Refreshing to hear Ann Twomey's plain language and knowledge. And also, as a student of words and grammar since high school, there is a lot of Latin in the Law. So the plural of Referendum is Referenda,btw.
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this very compelling information great content cheers Frank 😊
easy sub, have been following CC/Anne and the algorithm lead me here :)
Great video David. Thanks
i think this is what i have been looking for. thank you guys
Brilliant by the brilliant Anne Twomey.
"The exact time" Did they have the GPS then?
I don't believe her about the restriction of the Australia Act - if the two governments can pass an act to limit their powers, the two governments can pass another act to give powers, although I admit this is highly unlikely at this stage. That is the whole problem with the Australian Constitution - it is not a proper constitution but an Act of Parliament - and any act of parliament can be changed by the parliament - that is how the Australia Act was passed in the first place.
She is right, you are wrong
Arrrrgh! Pirate constitution! We are all cargo.
To a lot of us non-legal types, the Australian constitution isn’t always top of mind, having listened to a few of your TH-cam “lectures”, I reckon your uni- lectures would have been interesting, but really complicated🤔.
Changing the constitution: what are the steps and or protocol required to change the the Australian Constitution?
Here's a video on referendums I prepared earlier: th-cam.com/video/NLMDlkZfc7U/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Pxx14xLryN3-b2Zf
But what about new Zealand actually being part of the original nsw colony
Or was it constitutionaly illegal for Papua new Guinea to get independence from Australia when it was part of Australia at the time of federation,
In particular part of the state of Queensland
Our constitution says an INDESOLVABLE union so was the 75 break away of png constitutionally illegal
Professor Anne Twomey has a video about New Zealand and it's connection to NSW before the two officially split: th-cam.com/video/iIG4KspSZ58/w-d-xo.html
Papua New Guinea was not part of Australia at federation and was never part of Australia. Post-federation Australia administered the area as territories because the British government didn't want to manage it themselves. So your premise that it's somehow against the constitution that PNG gained independence is inherently flawed, because it's not a state of Australia nor is it mentioned in the constitution as part of the Commonwealth. Additionally, territories are mentioned in the constitution as different to states, and the Commonwealth government can do as they wish in terms of management. There were no territories at federation - now there are ten. We can gain and lose them. It'd hardly go against the constitution if Australia decided to no longer manage the Coral Sea Islands. This is entirely within the powers of the Commonwealth within the constitution. As Professor Twomey said: the information is there if you read it.
@@AuspolExplained yes Papua new Guinea was part of Queensland and administered as a territory of Australia
Settled by Queensland when Queensland was an independent colony the southern half was included at federation of Australia
The northern half Australia annexed during ww1 aka german new Guinea an joined with southern Papua to form Papua new Guinea
Its was never a British overseas territory but part of the Australian commonwealth
I know 3 of my uncles were white new Guinean Australians who died fighting the Japanese in png its Australian soil an never should have been allowed to break away in 75
Constitutionally illegal
It... it wasn't part of Queensland though. States do make laws and manage services for non-self governing territories near them but that doesn't make them one entity. Christmas Island is not part of Western Australia. It's the Territory of Christmas Island. Do you see how that's a legally distinct entity? I can explain more detail about the distinction between States and Territories and how PNG is an independent nation whose independence doesn't violate the constitution in any way, shape or form, if you're willing to listen but I need you to request that.
@@keza3250 coughbollocks. excuse me.... waves a hanky.
@@AuspolExplained you do know the history of png dont you ha ha,
The southern half of Papua new Guinea is called papua an was settled by the colony of Queensland because of German colonization of German new Guinea in the northern half,
Which the colony of Queensland was worried about so Queensland sent its navy to the south coast of png aka called papua an colonised it
During ww1,
a federated Australia fought Germany for control of German new Guinea
An it became Australia new Guinea
Or what we know as png
An Queensland administrated papua as integrated territory of the state Queensland up to an after federation
Its rightfully Australian territory that was included at federation
So is the northern Solomon islands
So is fiji
So is new Zealand
If people you or the labour party keep up this partition an declonisation agenda of Australia we will lose even more territory wether states,territory's,or offshore islands
Or worse even our Antarctic territory
Federal Constitution is a small document, but its the extensive case law that gets ya. The fun is in the heads of power vs plenary powers.
RE: Authentic Commonwealth Constitution Royal Assent - What is the role of the Governor General regarding government & Royal Assent??
Governor General gives royal assent to bills to make them law, and also appoints ministers to govern Australia.
Governor General (Kong's cousin) grants Royal Assent for a Bill to be passed however when lawful governance is functioning honestly regarding such Bills the legislation is suppose to be in alignment with the Constitution & not infringe on the People's rights & liberties
Love this!
As a junior lawyer i once had a rich client whose de facto was claiming half his house on the basis of baumgartner v baumgartner. He wanted us to take it to the high court and claim baumgartner was invalid because of the magna carta (this was before The Castle). I cant remember his actual argument but it was pretty nutty. And he was a surgeon, so he was highly educated - in surgery, anyway. We politely refused and i ended up as the guy who had to attend court to get us off the record.
Yes.... sophistication in one field is surprisingly commonly paired with naivety in some other fields... such as being victims of fraud.
Well, the declaration of a constructive trust approach is quite an interesting intervention by the court.
@@james3744 yeah, but would you want to be the one arguing in court that the magna carta doesnt allow it? Thats literally what the client wanted us to do.
@@tileux that's a no from me.
I really enjoyed this, but don't stop your deep dive lectures
Most people vote 1, 2 & 3 leaving selections of candidates up to the parties
Yes. Now that I think about it I had no tuition on the Australian political system or the constitution at all while I was at school from grade 1 to grade 12. Nil. Nada. I do think it would be a very good idea though.
Interestingly, my father was upset about a decision over a decade ago, and said to me "They should appeal that to the Privy Council!" I explained to him that the right of appeal to the UK ended in 1986, and he had never heard of such a thing. This may also be an issue as far as public knowledge, as it occurred long after he left school, in fact I was a teenager in 1986. The evolution of the development of Australian nationhood had some crucial points while he was an adult, like the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 and Australia Acts 1986, and yet many of that generation were so used to the existing paradigm of the "Queen of England" that they never really understood the subsequent developments.
Could you please explain " queen of australia ". Albanese took his oath to the Queen of Austral i a. Who is this Queen, whats her name, a n d when and where did she get coronated?
Queen Elizabeth II was coronated 2nd June 1953 at Westminster Abbey. She was Queen of Australia from 6 February 1952 - 8 September 2022.
"I'm a natural man on the land, travelling under my Common Law rights, don't enter contracts with government and your Admiralty Law doesn't apply to me! It's all in the REAL constitution." LOL
Lmao
I wish i could send this to a former boss- she was down ALLLL the rabbit holes. Sovereign citizen, its illegal to make us vote and pay tax, climate change doesnt exist, recycling /anything eco related (except being a wildlife carer) was bs.
It was a challenge
Masters degree in upspeaking.
Any plans for her bowling into this forum to answer questions from the more astute scholars?
Her youtube channel is mentioned more than once for those with a genuine desire to learn from her expertise. I don't believe she reads my comments section.
prof twomeys channel is superb!
Great content
Wow. Brilliant.
Can the Crown become a Corporation?
A start up, perhaps
The Crown doesn't need to "become" one, it already IS. It is defined as a CORPORATION SOLE, and has been this way since Henry VIII became Supreme Governor of the Church of England, creating an identical corporate structure to rival the corporation sole of the Papacy.
The governor of Victoria told me in a letter that her job is "to do what the premier tells her" - that is not her job and how can our constitution work when the people charged with protecting it don't do their job?
The Governor by convention acts on the advice of the Premier and Cabinet, in line with the principles of responsible government - where those who manage the executive branch of government are chosen from elected members. To expect the Governor to act entirely independently of those actually responsible to the Parliament and the people would be like expecting the King to openly defy Parliament's wishes. That's not how our system works. Our system of constitutional monarchy does not allow the Governor/King to do as they wish whenever. I'm sure both I and Professor Twomey have videos that expand on this if you'd like to know more.
@@AuspolExplained "The primary obligation of the Governor is to oversee the workings of the government of the day to ensure that it acts within the boundaries of the Victorian Constitution and the rule of law." - I asked how the governor could sign off on state laws that clearly overlapped with federal laws - specifically the Biosecurity Act - and the state laws were the Emergency ones passed during the pandemic and the Pandemic Bill passed at the end of it. These are constitutional issues which are not subject to the Premier - in fact in conflict with the Premier's wishes - in these cases the Governors job is to uphold the constitution, not do what the Premier tells her.
I also note the Australia Act removed the role of the Monarch in relation to approving laws - that was never put to the Australian people - and certainly not to the people of Victoria whom it most affected (in this state, but also in others), The whole thing is crooked - however Ann justifies it. Laws that cannot be understood by diligent and well meaning people are not reasonable or good laws.
States can legislate on matters mentioned in section 51, but in case of a contradiction with a federal law then the federal takes precedence. If there isn't a contradiction then there isn't an issue. The High Court has ruled the biosecurity acts of the states to be constitutionally valid so there is no concern or issue with the Governor signing those bills. There would be an issue with the Governor refusing to sign.
Additionally, the Governor is not the Judiciary. A challenge to the validity of the exercise of an act is to be tested and determined by the Supreme/High Court. As mentioned, it has been tested.
I hope this clarifies and helps you understand better. Thanks for the comment!
@@AuspolExplained Sure - and that is a good answer but that is not the answer she gave. And the one she gave was very concerning as it completely avoided her responsibilities. But in which case did the high court judge that the biosecurity acts of states are valid?
I don't see a contradiction in what you've said and what I've explained the role of the Governor is. As for High Court examples: Palmer v Western Australia demonstrated that WA's emergency health legislation that was used for lockdowns was valid and not contradicting the federal constitution.
Love to see Anne debate with Darren Dixon on the Constitution, she wouldn't do it for a million bucks !
Such a debate would be pointless, as Darren's opinions do not impact the decisions of the High Court that are directly inconsistent with them, especially the plentiful decisions regarding the principle of the divisibility of the Crown. For example, he really pushed the section 51(xxiiiA) "civil conscription" premise regarding vaccine mandates, something I had covered in my work back in 2015, and was rejected in the Kassam decision in the NSW Supreme Court as being quite confused. Secondly, he supported Rodney Culleton's case in the UK High Court, despite the UK High Court rejecting both the challenges to the divisibility of the Crown, and the notion a UK court can interfere in Australian affairs, back in the 2004 Fitzgibbon decision. He's 20 years behind, and needs to catch up.
She would rip him to shreds actually. Darren Dixon knows less than a first year law student.
New Zealand is mentioned in the Australian Constitution
Where?
@@auspseudolaw you clearly have not read it.
@@offshoremigrationagents6984 I simply asked where it's "mentioned. There are only 128 sections, it's not a difficult question. All you had to do was point to the section. It has nothing to do with whether I've read it, but whether you have..
@@offshoremigrationagents6984 It was a simple question, and has nothing to do with whether I've read it. Of course, I know you cannot find it in any of the 128 sections which make up the Constitution, because it is only mentioned in covering clause 6 definitions. The covering clauses sit outside of the "four corners" of the Constitution, at the head of the Imperial enactment to which the Constitution was appended for passage through the British Parliament. The Constitution itself begins at section 9. Your words would be accurate if you said "New Zealand is mentioned in the Commonwealth Constitution Act".
@@auspseudolaw Read it. If you Watch this video more carefully New Zealand was also mentioned in its content
The Constitution gives New Zealand the option to join Australia. Covering clause 6 of the Constitution states New Zealand may be admitted into Australia as a state. (Section 121 provides the rules on how new states would be admitted.) As non-Australian citizens, New Zealanders cannot vote in Australian elections.
GOOGLE IS GOUR FRIEND
peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/new-zealand-is-mentioned-in-the-australian-constitution-does-that-mean-that-new-zealanders-have-the-legal-authority-to-vote
Brilliant video!!!
I would agree with you about this only, its all wrong, based on the fact that the professor's bookcase is closer to the camera than yours.
We really need government based on the timeless principles of the Lotto ball.
Agh! You got me :( The bookcase was the wrong distance. The clues were there all along.
@@AuspolExplained indeed, very inconvenient hahaha thanks mate from a new subscriber
“About to get a bit conspiratorial”. LOL, you’ve already had Linda Reynolds on, she’s a huge conspiracist.
Even conspiracists have people intriguing against them. It will be interesting to see what the Federal Court makes of the evidence apparently inculpating Senators Wong and Gallagher. Nothing like a carefully considered Court decision, based on all available evidence, to clear the air.
Who is the Crown?
peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-is-the-role-of-the-queen-in-australias-system-of-government
@@AuspolExplained Your link doesn't address the question. "The Crown" is not even the monarch, so your response is misleading. Ever since the term was redefined by Lord Coleridge CJ in Isaacson v Durant in 1886, "The Crown" is defined as the body politic, not the monarch in a personal sense. Anne Twomey has written on this herself, for example her work "The Constitution of New South Wales" on page 386. (see footnote 136).
@@auspseudolaw Thanks for the info. If I recall correctly this person had commented more than once despite replies on the subject so I figured I'd just link to a handy resource of information instead as a general way to provide them a better way to research instead of repeating questions.
@@AuspolExplained I wish I could post links, but even some of my comments have disappeared, likely by algorithm, despite there being no justification I could figure. My website has thoroughly referenced individual articles addressing each of the questions asked on these threads. The article "What is the Crown" covers this point, citing dozens of decisions of the courts and also other scholars like Anne Twomey. Because of its accuracy on pseudolaw, Harry Hobbs, Joe McIntyre and others regularly cite my website in the UNSW law Journal. Have you had a look?
How about both of you have a debate about this with Wayne Glew I believe him more than I believe both of you as do many many more Australians PS oh that’s right Mike Holt ask you for a challenge 4 years ago @Anne Twomey he’s still waiting
It's not a debate? There aren't points or winners. I asked an expert to explain misconceptions and she did. It's not a competition we're just learning things here.
This isn't really about "belief" but established, easily verifiable principles of law as held by the highest courts. Considering each of Mike Holt's claims have been rejected by the High Court and Supreme Courts, the debate is already over. Especially considering his recent case Holt v The King [2023] VSCA 165 (12 July 2023) where Priest and Niall JJA addressed his claims.
@@AuspolExplained have you seen Wayne Glews video in relation to your video as i would say he has very clearly Debunked your video and most of what Anne Twomey has said, i know there are no points and winners however the truth needs to be told and the truth is this government is unlawful and sitting in treason no matter how Anne Twomey likes to twist it with her writings the whole system is corrupt
@@daniellawson1776 Each one of Wayne Glew's assertions in the video have likewise been addressed by the appellate courts, most in his own cases, where despite them being authoritatively addressed by the Supreme Court, he kept repeating the same claims over and over in 18 separate proceedings, until they had no choice but to declare him a vexatious litigant.
Section 76(i) of the Commonwealth Constitution confers "original jurisdiction on the High court in any matter arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation". It is the highest appellate court in Australia, and its judgements are the final word on the interpretation of any part of the Commonwealth Constitution. You often hear Wayne Glew say that the decisions of the High Court are binding on all other courts, and he is correct about that. He has filed lengthy and detailed submissions on his various beliefs and interpretations with the High Court. So what does the High Court think about Wayne Glew's ideas?
Glew v Shire of Greenough [2007] HCATrans 520:
"The Local Court of Western Australia at Geraldton gave judgment for the respondent and against the applicants for a trivial sum, being arrears of rates. That court rejected the applicants' argument that the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) is unconstitutional, as is s 52 of the Constitution Act 1889 (WA). The District Court of Western Australia dismissed the applicants' appeal. In turn the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed a further appeal as "entirely lacking in legal merit". We agree, and the same expression applies to the prolix, offensive and vexatious documents filed in support of this special leave application."
Re Wayne Kenneth Glew [2022] HCATrans 101:
"The submissions and materials provided by Wayne Kenneth Glew do not give rise to any “cause or part of a cause arising under the Constitution” sufficient to fall within s 40 of the Judiciary Act. The issues raised by Wayne Kenneth Glew are “incapable on [their] face of legal argument” and are “legal nonsense”. In the long-established language of abuse of process, the proposed application is “manifestly groundless” or “manifestly hopeless”. There is no possibility that any oral submissions in this Court could further advance the application. The application is an abuse of process. I direct that it be dismissed on the papers without listing it for an oral hearing under r 13.03.1 of the High Court Rules."
You can read Wayne Glew's complete litigation history at freemandelusion. com/2018/07/23/wayne-glew and I address each of his individual arguments at freemandelusion. com/2021/04/05/response-to-wayne-glews-videos
Same applies to Wayne Glew he has already been proven wrong on all counts
Perhaps you could ask the Good Professor about your claim that the land on which Australia was founded was 'stolen' and never 'ceded'.
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.
It is a British Act - that is an Act of a Foreign Power.
So?
@@greybirdo So it is not a 'constitution'. It can be, and was, changed by a foreign parliament - not by the people of Australia.
It was not a foreign power in 1901. It was our overarching government. Whether you like that or not, it was the law that the majority of our people believed in. It was also accepted by other nations. The Indigenous people can argue that case, no one else can.
@@DavidNotSolomon , Statute of Westminster 1931 and Australia Acts 1986 old boy.
A (very) little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
@@greybirdo Oh it is a constitution all right - but not what most Australian's think - the Australia act demonstrates, that this constitution can be changed by politicians, not the Australian people (as most people expect of a constitution) - the removal of the right to appeal to the Privy council proves two things - that we are not proper subjects of the commonwealth, and that government (ours with permission of a foreign government) can change it without any need for a vote from the people. Also you cannot change the title of the authority that created the original act (The Queen of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland) to another non-existent authority - (The Queen of Australia).
Hi mate I just stumbled across your video.
I posed a question to Anne a few days ago and would love your opinion...Roast me if you want but please use facts to do it....
My question is .. When Gough Whitlam made communion with the Holy See in 1973 did it invoke the "default" clause of The Act of Settlement 1700?
My prima facie evidence is of course The Act of Settlement 1700 ...In 2005 O'Donahue v Canada and 2015 TESKEY V CANADA on the restrictions against Roman Catholics in the Succession to the Crown law and tried to have them overriden Judicially in the Canadian supreme Court which ruled that the Succession to the Crown is part of the Canadian Constitution and beyond the power of the Executive or Judiciary. It can only be changed by the consent of all 16 Commonwealth realms as written in the Statute of Westminster. It is not JUSTICIABLE...
Australian Learned Treatise on the Act of Settlement is in the 1981 Federal law review volume 12 starting at page 212 a chapter entitled "The Act of Settlement and employment of Aliens " says at page 214 . That parts 1 and 2 of the Act of Settlement 1700 dealing with "heirs and successors" are part of the Constitution and cannot be repealed by either the Commonwealth or State Parliaments .
It seems Anne might be wrong with a little bit of truth , there is an emergency clause already enshrined in our body Politic "His Majesty King Charles lll" a corporation created by the Act of Settlement in which his subjects are the members....
The Duchy of Lancaster case 1651 still holds true today with His Majesty King Charles lll just taking it over. The King in his Body Natural and Body Politic are 1 and indivisible although the body Politic is the higher authority of the 2 bodies because it is perpetual and infallible. The Body Politic is "THE KING and HIS SUBJECTS"
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.
Anne Twomey how do you feel about the fact they want us to go cashless, have you thought about all the problems that can arise from this.
She doesn't read my comments section. You'll have to ask her on her channel, constitutional clarion.
Thanks , how do you feel about going cashless?
Well as a coin collector it does make my hobby a little bit more difficult but I'm otherwise not going to comment.
@@AuspolExplained wipes my coffee off the screen.
Talk about co-incidence. Watched this video, and about 30 mins later, a video popped up about an idiot in NSW trying to get out of a random breath test. th-cam.com/video/FEnm1zvzUIY/w-d-xo.html At 2m15s in, he explains how he doesn't agree to contract with the police becuse they are a corporation registered with the SEC in America.!! Sound familiar? (Hint, it didn't go well)
A professor at Sydney Uni, who is a constitutional law specialists and has written many books on federal and state constitutions. Hmm, I think I’m going to believe her over some “TH-cam punk” who hasn’t presented any qualifications whatsoever.
You only know what you are told
You only understand what you learn
Most acedemics are indoctrinated
This is a very disingenuous presentation of a number of anomalies and principles..
As in the comments are disingenuous? Or the expert debunking?
That I assume means you lack the literacy to read the bloody thing.
@@AuspolExplainedI found your snickering arrogance quite breathtaking. Showed your immaturity fully.
Please answer the questions correctly.
What is the Crown??
The crown is the abstract concept of sovereignty and authority of the state
The Crown is a useful shorthand concept in common law countries for what other countries using Roman law or the Code Napoleon would call the State. Of course, in the United States, which is also a common law country, they use the words ‘The People’ ( as in ‘People vs Al Capone’) to express the same concept, since they overthrew the Crown in 1776 and can’t use that word. It would be clearer if we also said ‘the State’, but the English (and Australian) common law hangs on to every bit of tradition it can, for much the same reason as the Catholic Church does - respectability through mystery.
is Anne Twomey a CPO.?
No. And neither is Wayne Glew, despite his beliefs. See for example in Re Glew; Ex Parte The Hon Michael Mischin MLC Attorney General WA 2014 WASC 107: (at 59): "When told that if he did not address the proposed grounds of appeal the court would adjourn and decide the matter on the papers, he responded by saying that if the court did that he would formally charge the judges as he claimed to be entitled to do as a Commonwealth public official. This was absurd histrionics. He is not, and was not, a Commonwealth official; there was no basis for charging anyone and his remarks were nothing less than preposterous. The incongruity of Mr Glew's contentions, and of his claims, was plainly obvious to their Honours and must have been obvious to any fair-minded, reasonable observer. No such observer could attach any credit or plausibility to Mr Glew's behaviour, which was that of an ignorant man disastrously pursuing his own obsession."
First of all i may not be an expert on law but going by Magna Carta i believe the King or any form of government has no right to enforce people to pay taxes it has to be only by donation for buildings and things like that. Secondly i believe what the person was stating that we have not had a proper government for decades and that we have been controlled by International board of directors and stake holders and stake holder and that the so Called laws that the so Called PM has made in the decades of absence of government is null and void and that Australia is an incorpation in general we have lost our democracy decades ago you might disagree but Australia is Australia Incorporated and not Australia as a sovereign nation so no we dont have to follow any current laws because the Original constitution is still in play.
Actually the Magna Carta meant the King can't tax the public without consent via Parliament which is elected by the public to choose how we spend money. So the Magna Carta does mean taxation is legal. Also, the Magna Carta is not a legal document still in force in Australia - and it's almost entirely repealed, if not entirely, in the UK at this point. It's a historic document that shows a shift away from absolute monarchy towards the constitutional monarchy and power of parliament we have now (but is very far removed from our modern system). It inspired modern systems. It's not a legal document you can reference about how taxation works today.
@@AuspolExplained Can I ask you this question when the King reappeared the Magna Carta did he sign it with his Official Seal because weather you reckon it has no stance in our government it had an Official Seal to Legitimise it because for my understanding the Monarchy seal means it's official so regardless of what you think but the Magna Carta was an Official document because it contains the Monarchy Official Seals that makes every thing legit. I know the official document that the so called PM meant to sign in Parliament is called a Wit which has to contain the Monarchy Official Seals without that seal none of the laws are legal .
@@gizelacooke6184 The seal is not relevant to this discussion. Legislation can be repealed/replaced. While the ideas in the Magna Carta have inspired legislation and shifts in the English, then British, and also Australian systems of government, it is not the central document that outlines our contemporary rights and legal system. Other pieces of legislation do that. We don't live in the 13th century and so I don't see why you're bringing up what kind of seal was used when signing a document about the rights of land owning Barons. Also, to clarify, which Magna Carta are you referring to? They are different ones. Is one more relevant to this than the other?
@gizelacooke6184 Spoken like a true sovereign citizen!
PS... I do appreciate newton's 4th law, demonstrating that pigs can fly!
@@annpeerkat2020 lol you and me both
do you think Henry Lawson would ever have said "auspol"? or Gough, or anyone? how does this idiot neologism help in any way? though I otherwise approve of your undertaking...
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.
Wow, this TH-cam channel hit a nerve, just asking a Question, get the keyboard worriers hopping around, and opinions are just my own, sorry to up set , your headspace
You asked a question and I answered it? I'm sorry if being straightforward came off as rude.
To be fair, you being an author makes you a primary source 😊
A primary source of an original created work... is not a peer source referring to their direct observation (reading, say, a founding document).
If you are trying to educate deficiencies in peoples knowledge gaps, I don't think mocking them whilst doing so is going to win them around to your way of thinking.
This video comes across as a video for personal entertainment rather than education.
I was curious to hear what the corrections were and learning more - but now I am put off sitting through any of your other content if it requires wading through irrelevant condescension to do so.
Just because you dont like facts doesnt mean its condescending.
@@johnoneill6231 I liked the facts... wading through irrelevant condescension to get to them was my complaint.
@ TheSecrecyOfFrequency most of BC these debunking channels are challenging
Most of them have interesting content but they disappoint with psyop
Excellent video, thanks very much to you and Anne. She is absolutely brilliant, I've read many of her works, and fell in love with her extraordinary mind years ago. I have added this video to my website Freeman Delusion and linked back here to your channel. I have published articles on these and many more pseudolaw and constitutional misconceptions in the past decade, which has grown into the largest database of Australian pseudolaw-related case law. I would love Anne to do more of these videos with you, the presentation is impeccable. Cheers.
Judge made law.That is interesting.They interpret the law and if they fill it in and have to adjudicate it that may mean the law is not clear and without precedent to go by.Up to interpretation by vested interests or bias or factional politics might sway the branch Eh.
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.
interesting explanations from professor Twomey thank you. The attitude of the presenter however was supercilious, rude, and showed an alarming degree of ignorance in terms of dealing with the honestly held views of some people, however wrong or misdirected they may be. and I will not be tuning into this channel again as a result of that cringeworthy attitude. I will however look forward to getting copies of professor Twomey's interesting publications.
I don’t trust you two you were massive ‘Voice’ supporters and guess what the majority of Australians voted 🗳️’NO’ !!!
Not relevant to either of our credentials. Also a false assertion as I never advocated either for the Yes or No side. But thank you for still watching and commenting so that the algorithm boosts viewership and more people see this.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 [UK]...the original constitution proclaimed the supreme Law of the Land at Federation. Now cannot be found anywhere on the BIGDOTWEB. Why is that? Oh, I know!. The government printed their own Corporate Constitution and enacted that version in 1998, because they couldn't get around the 1901 [UK] version, and without lawful and binding referendum! That's called High Treason! Do your research properly!
Well there is no 1901 act and never was but here's the 1900 act: www.aph.gov.au/constitution
@@AuspolExplained I had a couple of copies of the 1901 UK version on a flashdrive that got misplaced in transition, but now I can't find it anywhere on the web. I wonder why that is?
@@MichaelThomas-mb4kr did you read the link I sent you? Or are you after something that isn't the constitution? Because the constitution is super easy to find
I was hoping for a critical analysis of the garbage we call a constitution, all I got was self serving rubbish. It's time we had a real discussion about the document we call a "constitution" which was written by a bunch of public servants to serve their own interests, and not the interests of the Australia public, and the current basket case that is Australia, is the sad result.
A real constitution would not be an Act of a foreign parliament.
Unfortunately you seem to misunderstand its history. It was written by representatives of the states. They were politicians rather than public servants. It is a fairly useless document written to preserve the status of the British Crown rather than us "colonials". If you think this is self serving then you were not paying attention. The US constitution has turned out to be even more dysfunctional than ours. Suppose you suggest something rather than ignorant carping?
@@stringpicker5468 The US constitution has been effective for around 200 years before the current recent decline - ours is just over 100 years and our country is in a massive mess that cannot be fixed. In any case, at this stage I recommend repenting and turning to Jesus while there is still time.
@@DavidNotSolomon gawd.... how quickly this turned! the stringstimmer's last line of rudeness brought out your evangelical passion!
(I did double check your channel to filter whether I was missing a subtle twist, and the good lord was simply deflecting tension by doing a double backflip level of difficulty 7.9... but alas my hopes were dashed. However after contemplating the situation, I will remember that strategy to add spice to future discussions.... as an atheist)
So thank you for that bit of value adding.
@@annpeerkat2020 Well Ann gave the truth away when she admitted the High Court will ultimately make decisions that preserve themselves and the system. As they did with Mabo. Also gave away legal principles when they interpreted 'absolutely free' as not absolutely free in the commerce between states decision.
but you didn't admit the world IS flat! ahem
Fun fact 1
"Australia includes Christmas Island, Cook Island and Norfolk Island"
Source
From government website
Fun fact 2
Legal definition of "includes" : when something is included it excludes all else.
Source
Blacks legal dictionary.
Fun fact 3
The land u currently think is Australia isn't and is actually called Terra Australis or New Holland.
Source
You can look up old maps to verify.
Long story short international law said you couldn't claim a land that was inhabited... "Australia" had aboriginals so the English claim those 3 islands previously named started Australia Corp and has been raping and abusing people of the land with fake governments, 😅 sorry defacto instead of dejure and here we are still to this day living under one big criminal fraud.
Ya ya ya ya ya you wanna battle me? 😊
the definition of "australia" appears in various acts of federal parliament...... but those definitions apply only to the legislation they are attached to. Thus for example the customs act can have a different definition of what includes australia, than another act. My memory isn't kicking in on the specific acts, but I'm guessing the customs act, excise act, and immigration act are examples where australia is defined differently FOR THE PURPOSE OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL ACTS.
and a definition on a government website has no power.... the legislation behind it is the power.
@@lycanmychances7926 One day y’all will realise Black Law Dictionary comments on US law and not Australian law
@@annpeerkat2020 The word "includes" holds special significance to pseudolaw adherents, as it can have an expansive or exhaustive function. This seems to originate in the Latin maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" meaning "expression of one thing is the exclusion of another". Generally, they insist it only has an exhaustive function, and attempt to limit the subject to a particular stated example: "I'm not a "person" because a person "includes" a corporation, and I'm not a corporation." etc. (See Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451 (at 14, 37, 40). Same with other terms like "driver" or "vehicle".
This one regarding the definition of "Australia" is seen in that way, that it is limited to the subject matter which "includes". (See O’Hagan v Commissioner of Taxation [2020] QDC 288 where Morzone QC, DCJ noted (at 10): "...the appellant has a deep rooted but apparent genuine and firm belief that, amongst other things, the Australian Government and it subordinate bodies and beings are illegitimate, the laws of Australia are confined to Norfolk Island being the only place uninhabited at the time of federation and terra nullius..."
The distinction between an expansive and exhaustive function has been explained well in various decisions. In R v Hermann (1879) 4 QBD 284 (at 288), Lord Coleridge CJ observed: "The words "shall include" are not identical with, or put for "shall mean". The definition does not purport to be complete or exhaustive. By no means does it exclude any interpretation which the sections of the Act would otherwise have, it merely provides that certain specified cases shall be included." Different results followed the application of Lord Watson's latitudinarian test in Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99 (at 105-106). In YZ Finance Co Pty Ltd v Cummings (1964) 109 CLR 395, Kitto J observed (at 6): "Unlike the verb 'means', 'includes' has no exclusive force of its own. It indicates that the whole of its object is within its subject, but not that its object is the whole of its subject. Whether its object is the whole of its subject is a question of the true construction of the entire provision in which the word appears. The well-known statement of Lord Watson in Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99 should not be taken so literally as to reduce the inquiry in a case like the present to an inquiry into the meaning of the word 'includes'. Strictly speaking, that word cannot be equivalent to 'means and includes'.