Great video, thank you. To those interested in the case of New England there's a great museum at the Saumarez Homestead in Armidale. The White family who owned the station were ardent supporters of statehood, and there remain in the homestead several artefacts related to their endeavours in promoting such notion.
Of course North Queensland and New England should be new states, but the politicians and businessmen of the big cities will make sure that it doesn't happen.
Yea, and Brisbane residents end up subsidising the outback and North Queensland, due to low population density, generally lesser paying jobs and the same need for services (but since everything’s so spread out it’s a lot more costly and inefficient than the cities. But North Queensland is valuable for Queensland’s Tourism and it’s got some mining, so everything balances out. Also, there’s kind of an incentive problem because the state has already invested in NQld, but politicians would want make sure that their investments stay in the state. Although investments up north are relatively sparse…It’s quite complicated…idk if asked, I think it depends on how much of our mining rev. comes from NQld, because that’s valuable for our states finances, and qld energy and jobs plan (where most investment is mainly put in regional qld) is also quite important for the whole state (whether you believe in climate change or not, both sides have made commitments to transition away from coal) as we move to a low carbon economy, and if a majority of our new energy infrastructure goes to a new state, well, then we have issues.
Yes - the ACT was part of New South Wales and then became a territory for the purpose of the establishment of the capital. The Northern Territory was originally part of South Australia before it became a territory of the Commonwealth.
Dear CC, Have you spent much time north of the Tropic of Capricorn ? We are so sick of BNE and Canberra sucking us dry and kicking us when we're down. Regards, Ade.
It's not just coal mining, there is other minerals, plus agriculture. The north has it's own ports etc . Plus many businesses would move for cheaper costs that would be offered.
A thing that needs to be noted for the New england state referdum was that the "borders" of the state where extended past trraditional New englsnd including Newcastle. From what im aware its pretty much been confirmed that this was done to gerrymander the borders, the feredum was popular and passed in traditional New England but was very unpopular in Newcastle.
Yes, I've also been told that Newcastle was deliberately included in the referendum area to affect the outcome - although I have no primary or reliable sources for that.
It seems to me like an issue in which the idea actually DOES have a (big asterisk) relatively clear provision in the constitution, but in just about every case in real life would lead to political, social, and economic headaches all around. I wonder if the framers of the constitution predicted that Australia would have its own "manifest destiny" period of growth some time in the 20th century in the same way the US did in the 19th, which would require the creation of more states.
Driving through Australia, it does seem like the borders aren’t in logical locations. North Qld is very different to SEQ and also a long distance away. Additionally why is there a border through Coolangatta and Tweed Heads? Also locations like Kingscliffe, Byron Bay, and even as far south as Lismore seem more culturally connected with SEQ than Sydney. Furthermore, drawing a border right down the Murray River is a ridiculous idea as there will always be settlements on both sides of the river, why should they be in different states? Surely towns along a river have more in common with each other rather than Sydney or Melbourne. At least the following states make a lot of sense: - Victoria - Riverina - NSW - South Qld (from Lismore to ~Bundaberg) - North Qld
100% often thought exactly that. Having lived in Albury and Gold Coast, borders dont make sense, especially the Qld/NSW coastal boarder. Shifting the south Qld border to the 29th parallel just south of Lismore inline with the inland border or north of Coffs Harbour at the 30th parallel makes a lot of sense. Then a North Qld state just south of Bundaberg at the 25th parallel. Riverina state makes a lot of sense. The Murray state border splits so many communities and that region is culturally an economically intertwined and quite profitable. Then even a New England state. I currently live in Rural Victoria and many would like to see Melbourne become its own state or even better its own country.
Conversely could a federal referendum remove the status of an “original state”. It would require only a majority in 4 of the 5 remaining states, and the votes against in the state in question need not have much impact on the national vote.
I think this might trigger the penultimate paragraph of s 128, as removal from 'Original State' status would affect guaranteed representation in the Senate. So the people of the affected State would also have to pass the referendum by a majority, for it to succeed.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Even though everyone in the state might vote against the downgrading, I thought that the vote in other states would override.
@@petergale9200 But that's precisely what the penultimate paragraph in s 128 is there to protect against. It is to protect the States with small populations from being overridden by the the ones with bigger populations.
Queensland does need constitutional reform due to a unicameral parliament in a vast state with a strong regional population. If they don’t look at the electoral system (NZ style?) or restarting the Legislative Council, then splitting the state into two is the next path.
If we can cope with the NT (yes not a state) and Tas and perhaps in a bad year SA, economics have nothing to do with "statehood"! A greater reason for NOT splitting is that we have enough "characters" (ie idiot politicians) from that part of the world.
I totally agree, but from memory the erratic nature of Western Australian mining royalties means that they have demanded more assistance from the Commonwealth than South Australia ever has.
Economics have a lot to do with statehood, because establishing the infrastructure for a separate State is very expensive and potentially wasteful duplication, making us all poorer.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 If your goal is to reduce "wasteful duplication" the obvious place to start would be abolishing self-government in Victoria and merging that state back into NSW. The Victorians have time and again proven themselves too immature to govern their own affairs.
Most interesting as are all your posts. I do remember that back in 1980 the Fraser Govt offered statehood to the NT. No wonder they ran a mile from the idea. Another constitutional question could the ACT ever seek statehood or like the NT run a mile from the idea? I was living in Canberra at the time the Hawke Govt kind of forced self government on the ACT despite not being popular at the time.
Section 125 of the Constitution says that the 'seat of government' shall be within 'territory' granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth. It is somewhat unclear what is the 'seat of government' - whether it is the whole of the ACT, or Canberra, or the parliamentary triangle. But we know the Constitution requires the 'seat of government' to remain in a territory, so the ACT could not become a State without excluding from it the 'seat of government'.
Using the referendum system, could the current commonwealth constitution be suspended and subsequently replaced in its entirety by another constitution?
There is a chicken and egg issue about how to replace the Constitution without some kind of legal break. One could use a combination of referendums and the cooperative mechanism under s 15 of the Australia Acts to repeal both the Constitution and the British Act in which it sits, and one could use a referendum, as an act of popular sovereignty, to enact a new Constitution.
@@constitutionalclarion1901Would rewriting the constitution also make it easier for Australia and our respective states to become republics, as in The federation of Australia is a republic, all three levels of government.
@@petergale9200 I think that one of the arguments given in favour of it was that North Queensland was capable of supporting its own football team, and therefore should become its own State! There was something in the Hansard about it.
If it became a state it would start life with its share of what is now a $189 billion dollar debt. That could be split by population in which case it would be about $40b. Or by area. Since they plan to take the minerals and prime agricultural land for themselves it would be fair to split it by potential revenue. In which case it might be over half of the debt. Then there is the 10 to 15 year deficit in infrastructure Labor has left the North, all the replication of services, bureaucracy and government. Then they would have under a million people to tax to make up the difference. One of the stated aims of the move is to rid themselves of the moribund Labor government of the south east. Most of the northern city centres have Labor members now. They will still be there if a new state came into being and contesting their elections. They need to be careful what they wish for.
To me the issue comes down to wanting self-governance. The reality is in Australia we have very large centralised population centres per state that hold all the political power. The state of Melbourne the state of Sydney the state of South East Queensland. North Queensland may be worse off economically but it still gets to decide its own path free from the dictates of South East Queensland. Isn't that what democracy is all about. Tasmania might be better off economically joining Victoria, but having lived in Tasmania there's no way in hell they'll agree to it.
Fascinating. This is the second time I've listened to this video and having thoroughly absorbed it, I have two questions (as a Brisbanite): Did you say the constitution allows for some of the 6 Queensland Senators to be allocated to represent certain regions of the state, i.e. 2 for the north? If so, how would the region be defined? By population, like electorates? And do you think this is a good compromise for the Katters? I understand John Howard offered statehood to the NT (and perhaps they ran from it screaming). If, as you say it's possible for Queensland to secede it's western border with the NT east to the longitude of SA's eastern border (upon agreement of the parliament & assembly and the people of the state & territory involved), thereby giving Mt Isa to the NT, would that give the NT enough land, resources and population to justify it becoming Northern Australia? As you say, as a 'new state', the number of MPs would be negotiated with the Commonwealth and no doubt be fewer than the founding states. From memory, it was Mt Isa that was opposed to the daylight saving referendum Qld held in the 1990s - it being part of a NA's time zone might be better, to name another minor benefit???
Section 7 of the Commonwealth Constitution says 'until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of the State of Queensland... may make laws dividing the State into divisions and determining the number of senators to be chosen for each division, and in the absence of such provision the State shall be one electorate'. This probably doesn't apply anymore, because the Commonwealth Parliament has otherwise provided. The NT did hold a referendum on whether to become a State in 1998, but it failed.
My patnernal grand mother, originally resided in Masuren (Eastern Prussia)! The "bird flying distance" between Neidenburg (Masuren) and Warsaw (Masovia) is around 160 kilometers in distance! Are you fluent in the Polish language?
Hi, I love your video. I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts on national bodies created by state legislation - such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). There seems to be lots of confusion around what kind of entity AHPRA is and what jurisdiction it falls under - it's created by state legislation, replicated (with amendments) in each state but it refers to itself as a national body. The confusion recently caused a state government body to state: "While I accept that AHPRA has participating jurisdiction (state) offices with State Managers in each jurisdiction, the agency is not a State entity or department.The current arrangement [the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (Qld)] maintains the powers of the State without conferring power to the Commonwealth per se". The former health minister Hon MP Greg Hunt's office has stated categorically that AHPRA is not under federal jurisdiction and Qld state government bodies have stated it's not under state jurisdiction (and obviously it's not a local government body)...what class of entity is AHPRA and what jurisdiction does it fall under and is it constitutionally valid to create a body that "reprsents the state" and "binds the state", that represents itself as a state public administration in state Supreme Court judicial review, but does not accept oversight of either the federal or state anti-corruption bodies because it defines itself as a "national entity" and not a state body.
Commonwealth parliament is unlikely to ever agree to creating another financially unviable state, when the country already has to subsidise both Tasmania and the Northern Territory, which are unviable.
why in god’s name would you call a northern state splitting off from Queensland “Kingsland”. The obvious name is “Capricornia”since the vast majority of the state would be inside the tropical zone.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 sorry if I seemed to be agitated. In fact you aroused by interest in this subject . I think it is ridiculous that people living in the far north-(I used to live in Cairns, now Townsville) over 800 miles north of the capitol city of Brisbane do not have our own state . I am very appreciate of your very intelligent and well thought out opinion on the subject.
THERE CAN NEVER BE >= 1 "GOD"! I have been to a sunday´s church service, exactly once in my life, so far! Mysthique is very much rubbish! In the Peoples Republic of Albania, the practicing of every religion was banned from 1967 to 1991! The nun "Mother Teresa" went from Albania, to the Republic of India.
thank you Professor,i always enjoy your contributions......Nth Qld has a climate that tends to wreck havoc on its infastructure. Any new state would be bankrupted by climate change
So theoretically does a new state HAVE to be created from an old state/territory ?I know it would never happen but could legally Australia have a non contiguous state ?or even accept an former country as a state? on that note its a common myth here that Texas can Unilaterally spilt into five and/or secede due to there agreement when they joined the union . This is a myth however .the treaty does state that Texas has that power to spilt up..but with congressional approval.(so basically Texas just gets to ask quicker) and secession is impossible. great video as always thank you!
Yes, the Commonwealth could accept new States under s 121 of the Constitution from outside its existing territory - such as the islands of New Zealand or even Fiji. New Zealand is mentioned in the definition of "States", in covering clause 6 of the Constitution, but only to the extent that it becomes part of the Commonwealth.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for this, I was always curious to know if it would have been possible to accept the territories of Papua and New Guinea as a state or states rather than granting independence.
@@wood9625 This is a very difficult area, and I don't have the expertise about the history of PNG to answer. I can only say that it was complicated because Papua and New Guinea have different colonial backgrounds, with New Guinea being a German territory, over which Australia was given a 'mandate' by the League of Nations after WWI, and a later mandate after WWII, leading to the merging of the administration of Papua and New Guinea. These mandates were always intended to lead to independence, not permanent absorption by Australia. So the answer is probably that while under domestic law, Australia could have admitted PNG as a new State, it could not do so under international law. But as I said, I don't have sufficient expertise in the background to give a confident answer.
Interesting hypothetical if Queensland had become a federal colony in its own right. Would the Federation of Queensland have still joined the Federation of Australia?
To accommodate that possibility, section 7 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that the Parliament of the State of Queensland, if that State be an Original State, may make laws dividing the State into divisions and determining the number of senators to be chosen for each division, and in the absence of such provision the State shall be one electorate.
Quinkinland has at least 7 big zones that naturally sub divde further in ecological arrangements. I don't know how the indigenous people mapped the song lines, their "religious" mnemonic navigational systems, but I heard that at least one group saw 13 seasons. Better ask Bush Tucker Man Les. Ie it's more respectful of Aboriginal lores to learn by doing experience of their stewardship and be careful how they saw justice than to play around with another PPP, pernicious persecuting penal system that is.
Of course it's over 160 years too late, but I wonder if Australia wouldn't be better off with a couple of dozen 'provinces' such as New England, Gippsland, the greater Mt Gambier / Hamilton area, etc. The provinces would incorporate the powers of local councils and only have some of the state powers, with the rest going to the Commonwealth. That would give us only two tiers of government, so less idiot politicians, but genuine local representation in the provincial governments. Of course, it's totally impossible for it to happen now, but I find it an interesting thing to ponder.
Much harder to coordinate if you have a large number of provinces, and you lose economies of scale. You also end up with much greater centralisation and no competition, resulting in a bloated central government which operates at the lowest common denominator. Countries that are as geographically big as Australia need at least 3 levels of government, and all comparably sized countries are federations with at least 3 levels of government - except Communist dictatorships.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Very good points, but I'm not convinced about the economies of scale argument. Most Aust and Canadian colonies had modest populations when they were granted responsible government in the late 1850s, but they thrived. Today UK colonies with small populations and responsible government like Gibraltar, Bermuda and The Falklands are booming economically and often wealthier than the UK. The costs of running their own affairs don't seem to be holding them back.
Didn't Gough kick this idea around - have 20 or so provinces and cede some state powers to the Feds and other powers to these provinces. I don;t think it was ever ALP policy.
Not sure about needing a third tier, the states already control councils, there's only around 26-27 million citizens, there's cities as big as Australia. I may be wrong but it seems there's already too much beaurocrisy so surely we could run a more efficient leaner governance @@constitutionalclarion1901
How long have North Queensland state Idea floating around, Answer 1901 (OK, I might be wrong on the year). Bobby Carter please got back to Trager and leave SEQ alone
The number of state is listed in the constitution, so any isplit of Queensland would take a referendum and the other states couln't give a stuff about North Queensland so getting the numbers will be worse than sleezies' voive question!
No, that's not right. The Constitution defines 'the States' in covering clause 6 as such of the listed colonies 'as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth' and such as 'may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States'. Section 124 also clearly permits a new State to be formed by separation of territory from an existing State.
Why would you want to call NORTH QUEENSLAND "Kingsland"? Is your country still that tied to Britain? Well I guess it is considering your flag and that Australia is still under the British monarchy, a British Dominion or Crown "Realm"and although independent , not really a sovereign nation yet !?? But I'm sure most North Queensland people would prefer "North Queensland"!
I was being facetious, as I expect you know. I really can't imagine that anyone would want to call it Kingsland - and it was referred to as North Queensland throughout the video, other than in the opening comment. Some have suggested that it should be called Capricornia - but that's about as exciting as the naming suggestions seem to be.
Queensland was originally going to be called Cooksland (referring to Cpt James Cook) but in order to separate from NSW, Queen Victoria sponsored the separation. Her support was conditional on the state being named Queensland, and the rest is history. It's only fitting that a new state be named in honour of the monarch of Australia.
You'd have to have universal time, too, with all the deficits involved. All those different state charges- car rego, rates, land tax, etc. One police force, one fire brigade, one rubbish collection service.......... A single bad government of whatever level could ruin things from wheelie bins to airline flights.
Would be disastrous. You want to centralise all government to Canberra? Competition is the best defence against idiot politicians. You only have one source of power you need to corrupt to ruin the entire country.
The separation of powers mean that we're able to legislate and best represent local opinions. For example, the opinions and the demands of the NSW or VIC alpine region for snow ploughs would not be a beneficial priority for the cyclone prone north. Also it's awesome. That we have the ability to shop around for government services for example, registration in VIC is cheapest in the country and valid Australia wide. Getting a motorbike licence is easiest in the ACT. Etc. In saying that we need more states to best provide for local demands and laws. Australians in Cairns shouldn't have a say on base level local laws for Brisbane. However, we benefit from having a strong national government for big stake issues, for example human rights, defence, identity and nationality and our borders, standards is a big one, interconnecting the country, major infrastructure, standardising tax, providing high level services like Medicare and social security.
I'm certainly a constitutional expert, not an economics expert. But I have worked in government and know quite a lot about federalism, so I do have some expertise in this area. If you are interested in the economics aspects, I suggest you have a look at the paper I wrote with economist Glenn Withers, 'Australia's Federal Future' (crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/staff/glenn_withers/federalist_paper.pdf). It draws together the economic, constitutional and political aspects of federalism.
They're knowledgeable enough to offer up a series of ideas and possibilities. Based not on ignorant speculation, but built on a clear knowledge of the constitution. It's entertaining, educational, and thought-provoking. Scott, first thing ppl see when they visit your channel is a pair of buttocks. For some reason, I prefer this channel.
Great video, thank you. To those interested in the case of New England there's a great museum at the Saumarez Homestead in Armidale. The White family who owned the station were ardent supporters of statehood, and there remain in the homestead several artefacts related to their endeavours in promoting such notion.
Thanks, that's useful to know.
Of course North Queensland and New England should be new states, but the politicians and businessmen of the big cities will make sure that it doesn't happen.
There's a lot of support for it in North Queensland.
Great idea, but you’d have to take the whole of QLD and WA with you
Yea, and Brisbane residents end up subsidising the outback and North Queensland, due to low population density, generally lesser paying jobs and the same need for services (but since everything’s so spread out it’s a lot more costly and inefficient than the cities. But North Queensland is valuable for Queensland’s Tourism and it’s got some mining, so everything balances out. Also, there’s kind of an incentive problem because the state has already invested in NQld, but politicians would want make sure that their investments stay in the state. Although investments up north are relatively sparse…It’s quite complicated…idk if asked, I think it depends on how much of our mining rev. comes from NQld, because that’s valuable for our states finances, and qld energy and jobs plan (where most investment is mainly put in regional qld) is also quite important for the whole state (whether you believe in climate change or not, both sides have made commitments to transition away from coal) as we move to a low carbon economy, and if a majority of our new energy infrastructure goes to a new state, well, then we have issues.
Question: could a portion of an existing state become a territory and not a state?
Yes - the ACT was part of New South Wales and then became a territory for the purpose of the establishment of the capital. The Northern Territory was originally part of South Australia before it became a territory of the Commonwealth.
Dear CC,
Have you spent much time north of the Tropic of Capricorn ?
We are so sick of BNE and Canberra sucking us dry and kicking us when we're down.
Regards, Ade.
BNE supports North Queensland more than North Queensland helps itself😂
@@WoodysOpinion101 Motherhood statements don't work on me.
Thank you so much for this. Fascinating.
You're welcome.
It's not just coal mining, there is other minerals, plus agriculture. The north has it's own ports etc . Plus many businesses would move for cheaper costs that would be offered.
A thing that needs to be noted for the New england state referdum was that the "borders" of the state where extended past trraditional New englsnd including Newcastle. From what im aware its pretty much been confirmed that this was done to gerrymander the borders, the feredum was popular and passed in traditional New England but was very unpopular in Newcastle.
Speaking of Newcastle, I can imagine the Hunter (Newcastle to Murrurundi, Lake Mac to Port Stephens) achieving statehood one day.
Yes, I've also been told that Newcastle was deliberately included in the referendum area to affect the outcome - although I have no primary or reliable sources for that.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 They needed Newcastle as a strategic port for their agricultural / mining produce.
Was the stopping of the Dorrigo rail line short of the New England tablelands part of the plan?
Katter might have more luck in moving the Qld Parliament to Mt Isa. I'm sure the Brizzy based polies would have fainting spells at the thought.
The whole of QLD is used to quench the thirst of money by brisbane
It seems to me like an issue in which the idea actually DOES have a (big asterisk) relatively clear provision in the constitution, but in just about every case in real life would lead to political, social, and economic headaches all around.
I wonder if the framers of the constitution predicted that Australia would have its own "manifest destiny" period of growth some time in the 20th century in the same way the US did in the 19th, which would require the creation of more states.
Driving through Australia, it does seem like the borders aren’t in logical locations. North Qld is very different to SEQ and also a long distance away. Additionally why is there a border through Coolangatta and Tweed Heads? Also locations like Kingscliffe, Byron Bay, and even as far south as Lismore seem more culturally connected with SEQ than Sydney. Furthermore, drawing a border right down the Murray River is a ridiculous idea as there will always be settlements on both sides of the river, why should they be in different states? Surely towns along a river have more in common with each other rather than Sydney or Melbourne. At least the following states make a lot of sense:
- Victoria
- Riverina
- NSW
- South Qld (from Lismore to ~Bundaberg)
- North Qld
Probably a bad idea, but the ACT could be expanded to include the Riverina.
Brisbane is closer to Melbourne than to Cairns...
100% often thought exactly that. Having lived in Albury and Gold Coast, borders dont make sense, especially the Qld/NSW coastal boarder. Shifting the south Qld border to the 29th parallel just south of Lismore inline with the inland border or north of Coffs Harbour at the 30th parallel makes a lot of sense. Then a North Qld state just south of Bundaberg at the 25th parallel. Riverina state makes a lot of sense. The Murray state border splits so many communities and that region is culturally an economically intertwined and quite profitable. Then even a New England state. I currently live in Rural Victoria and many would like to see Melbourne become its own state or even better its own country.
American here. Its seems that in Australia, like some parts of the USA, the borders were drawn before the area was settled leading to these anomalies.
Conversely could a federal referendum remove the status of an “original state”. It would require only a majority in 4 of the 5 remaining states, and the votes against in the state in question need not have much impact on the national vote.
I think this might trigger the penultimate paragraph of s 128, as removal from 'Original State' status would affect guaranteed representation in the Senate. So the people of the affected State would also have to pass the referendum by a majority, for it to succeed.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Even though everyone in the state might vote against the downgrading, I thought that the vote in other states would override.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Actually reduction in ( over ) representation would be the aim
@@petergale9200 But that's precisely what the penultimate paragraph in s 128 is there to protect against. It is to protect the States with small populations from being overridden by the the ones with bigger populations.
Queensland does need constitutional reform due to a unicameral parliament in a vast state with a strong regional population. If they don’t look at the electoral system (NZ style?) or restarting the Legislative Council, then splitting the state into two is the next path.
It is certainly one approach, but they have been arguing about it since the 1890s at least, with no real action, so I won't be holding my breath.
Just make North QLD its own country
If we can cope with the NT (yes not a state) and Tas and perhaps in a bad year SA, economics have nothing to do with "statehood"! A greater reason for NOT splitting is that we have enough "characters" (ie idiot politicians) from that part of the world.
I totally agree, but from memory the erratic nature of Western Australian mining royalties means that they have demanded more assistance from the Commonwealth than South Australia ever has.
Economics have a lot to do with statehood, because establishing the infrastructure for a separate State is very expensive and potentially wasteful duplication, making us all poorer.
@Dave_Sisson there was a National Press Club debate over GST about a week or two ago, and this came up.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 If your goal is to reduce "wasteful duplication" the obvious place to start would be abolishing self-government in Victoria and merging that state back into NSW. The Victorians have time and again proven themselves too immature to govern their own affairs.
The existence of of states is more depended on geograhical and cultural distinctions than economics.
Most interesting as are all your posts. I do remember that back in 1980 the Fraser Govt offered statehood to the NT. No wonder they ran a mile from the idea. Another constitutional question could the ACT ever seek statehood or like the NT run a mile from the idea? I was living in Canberra at the time the Hawke Govt kind of forced self government on the ACT despite not being popular at the time.
Section 125 of the Constitution says that the 'seat of government' shall be within 'territory' granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth. It is somewhat unclear what is the 'seat of government' - whether it is the whole of the ACT, or Canberra, or the parliamentary triangle. But we know the Constitution requires the 'seat of government' to remain in a territory, so the ACT could not become a State without excluding from it the 'seat of government'.
Using the referendum system, could the current commonwealth constitution be suspended and subsequently replaced in its entirety by another constitution?
There is a chicken and egg issue about how to replace the Constitution without some kind of legal break. One could use a combination of referendums and the cooperative mechanism under s 15 of the Australia Acts to repeal both the Constitution and the British Act in which it sits, and one could use a referendum, as an act of popular sovereignty, to enact a new Constitution.
@@constitutionalclarion1901Would rewriting the constitution also make it easier for Australia and our respective states to become republics, as in The federation of Australia is a republic, all three levels of government.
That actually was really interesting.
Glad you enjoyed it.
But how would it impact State or Origin ?
@@petergale9200 I think that one of the arguments given in favour of it was that North Queensland was capable of supporting its own football team, and therefore should become its own State! There was something in the Hansard about it.
Bob Menzies once dallied with the idea of re-dividing Australia into seventeen states. However, wiser counsel prevailed.
Very interesting, thank you.
What is wrong with the Katter family?
Nothing. Patriots to Australia and Queensland.
@@adelarsen9776 Sorry - the Babel fish in my ear translated that to 'red necks' and an embarrassment to all Australians
North Queensland has more than coal. It has bauxite, copper, tin and gold. Also sugar, cattle and tourism.
True. but whether that remains enough is the question.
If it became a state it would start life with its share of what is now a $189 billion dollar debt. That could be split by population in which case it would be about $40b. Or by area. Since they plan to take the minerals and prime agricultural land for themselves it would be fair to split it by potential revenue. In which case it might be over half of the debt. Then there is the 10 to 15 year deficit in infrastructure Labor has left the North, all the replication of services, bureaucracy and government. Then they would have under a million people to tax to make up the difference. One of the stated aims of the move is to rid themselves of the moribund Labor government of the south east. Most of the northern city centres have Labor members now. They will still be there if a new state came into being and contesting their elections. They need to be careful what they wish for.
To me the issue comes down to wanting self-governance. The reality is in Australia we have very large centralised population centres per state that hold all the political power. The state of Melbourne the state of Sydney the state of South East Queensland. North Queensland may be worse off economically but it still gets to decide its own path free from the dictates of South East Queensland. Isn't that what democracy is all about. Tasmania might be better off economically joining Victoria, but having lived in Tasmania there's no way in hell they'll agree to it.
❤you made me giggle over 36 Politians and Bob is a fool.
Fascinating. This is the second time I've listened to this video and having thoroughly absorbed it, I have two questions (as a Brisbanite):
Did you say the constitution allows for some of the 6 Queensland Senators to be allocated to represent certain regions of the state, i.e. 2 for the north? If so, how would the region be defined? By population, like electorates? And do you think this is a good compromise for the Katters?
I understand John Howard offered statehood to the NT (and perhaps they ran from it screaming). If, as you say it's possible for Queensland to secede it's western border with the NT east to the longitude of SA's eastern border (upon agreement of the parliament & assembly and the people of the state & territory involved), thereby giving Mt Isa to the NT, would that give the NT enough land, resources and population to justify it becoming Northern Australia? As you say, as a 'new state', the number of MPs would be negotiated with the Commonwealth and no doubt be fewer than the founding states. From memory, it was Mt Isa that was opposed to the daylight saving referendum Qld held in the 1990s - it being part of a NA's time zone might be better, to name another minor benefit???
Section 7 of the Commonwealth Constitution says 'until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of the State of Queensland... may make laws dividing the State into divisions and determining the number of senators to be chosen for each division, and in the absence of such provision the State shall be one electorate'. This probably doesn't apply anymore, because the Commonwealth Parliament has otherwise provided.
The NT did hold a referendum on whether to become a State in 1998, but it failed.
My patnernal grand mother, originally resided in Masuren (Eastern Prussia)!
The "bird flying distance" between Neidenburg (Masuren) and Warsaw (Masovia) is around 160 kilometers in distance!
Are you fluent in the Polish language?
Hi, I love your video. I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts on national bodies created by state legislation - such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). There seems to be lots of confusion around what kind of entity AHPRA is and what jurisdiction it falls under - it's created by state legislation, replicated (with amendments) in each state but it refers to itself as a national body. The confusion recently caused a state government body to state: "While I accept that AHPRA has participating jurisdiction (state) offices with State Managers in each jurisdiction, the agency is not a State entity or department.The current arrangement [the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (Qld)] maintains the powers of the State without conferring power to the Commonwealth per se". The former health minister Hon MP Greg Hunt's office has stated categorically that AHPRA is not under federal jurisdiction and Qld state government bodies have stated it's not under state jurisdiction (and obviously it's not a local government body)...what class of entity is AHPRA and what jurisdiction does it fall under and is it constitutionally valid to create a body that "reprsents the state" and "binds the state", that represents itself as a state public administration in state Supreme Court judicial review, but does not accept oversight of either the federal or state anti-corruption bodies because it defines itself as a "national entity" and not a state body.
Really interesting issue - and a very hard question. I'll have a think about it.
Perhaps a vid on the Western Australian referendums to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia which ultimately was voted down.
Yes - a few people have asked about this. I'll hopefully upload it on Wednesday.
Commonwealth parliament is unlikely to ever agree to creating another financially unviable state, when the country already has to subsidise both Tasmania and the Northern Territory, which are unviable.
I'm rolling my eyes right now to Katter's Bob. lol
If Queensland split into two, how would you decide which part was "new" and which was continuing, or the "original" state? Wouldn't they both be new?!
Good question. I guess an agreement would have to be reached on the issue before it happened.
why in god’s name would you call a northern state splitting off from Queensland “Kingsland”. The obvious name is “Capricornia”since the vast majority of the state would be inside the tropical zone.
As I said before - I was being facetious. It's just a play on words - no need to get agitated about it!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 sorry if I seemed to be agitated. In fact you aroused by interest in this subject . I think it is ridiculous that people living in the far north-(I used to live in Cairns, now Townsville) over 800 miles north of the capitol city of Brisbane do not have our own state .
I am very appreciate of your very intelligent and well thought out opinion on the subject.
@@beththurling4965 Thanks - much appreciated.
THERE CAN NEVER BE >= 1 "GOD"!
I have been to a sunday´s church service, exactly once in my life, so far!
Mysthique is very much rubbish!
In the Peoples Republic of Albania, the practicing of every religion was banned from 1967 to 1991!
The nun "Mother Teresa" went from Albania, to the Republic of India.
A ‘hot head’ is not a description that I’d generally use to describe Robbie Katter; other adjectives come to mind. 🙊
thank you Professor,i always enjoy your contributions......Nth Qld has a climate that tends to wreck havoc on its infastructure. Any new state would be bankrupted by climate change
So theoretically does a new state HAVE to be created from an old state/territory ?I know it would never happen but could legally Australia have a non contiguous state ?or even accept an former country as a state?
on that note its a common myth here that Texas can Unilaterally spilt into five and/or secede due to there agreement when they joined the union .
This is a myth however .the treaty does state that Texas has that power to spilt up..but with congressional approval.(so basically Texas just gets to ask quicker)
and secession is impossible.
great video as always thank you!
Yes, the Commonwealth could accept new States under s 121 of the Constitution from outside its existing territory - such as the islands of New Zealand or even Fiji. New Zealand is mentioned in the definition of "States", in covering clause 6 of the Constitution, but only to the extent that it becomes part of the Commonwealth.
@constitutionalclarion1901 thank you
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for this, I was always curious to know if it would have been possible to accept the territories of Papua and New Guinea as a state or states rather than granting independence.
@@wood9625 This is a very difficult area, and I don't have the expertise about the history of PNG to answer. I can only say that it was complicated because Papua and New Guinea have different colonial backgrounds, with New Guinea being a German territory, over which Australia was given a 'mandate' by the League of Nations after WWI, and a later mandate after WWII, leading to the merging of the administration of Papua and New Guinea. These mandates were always intended to lead to independence, not permanent absorption by Australia. So the answer is probably that while under domestic law, Australia could have admitted PNG as a new State, it could not do so under international law. But as I said, I don't have sufficient expertise in the background to give a confident answer.
Interesting hypothetical if Queensland had become a federal colony in its own right. Would the Federation of Queensland have still joined the Federation of Australia?
To accommodate that possibility, section 7 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that the Parliament of the State of Queensland, if that State be an Original State, may make laws dividing the State into divisions and determining the number of senators to be chosen for each division, and in the absence of such provision the State shall be one electorate.
Thanks
Can you do a video on WA seceding please
Yes, it's on my list. (But the list is quite long...)
The Victorian government’s doing a pretty good job of that
That's not the real question. The real question is, "Can you split a State into two?"
Gold Coast and Brisbane would become slums without the regional centres that keep it going, they'll suck the life out of everything that's left
Quinkinland has at least 7 big zones that naturally sub divde further in ecological arrangements. I don't know how the indigenous people mapped the song lines, their "religious" mnemonic navigational systems, but I heard that at least one group saw 13 seasons.
Better ask Bush Tucker Man Les.
Ie it's more respectful of Aboriginal lores to learn by doing experience of their stewardship and be careful how they saw justice than to play around with another PPP, pernicious persecuting penal system that is.
Of course it's over 160 years too late, but I wonder if Australia wouldn't be better off with a couple of dozen 'provinces' such as New England, Gippsland, the greater Mt Gambier / Hamilton area, etc. The provinces would incorporate the powers of local councils and only have some of the state powers, with the rest going to the Commonwealth. That would give us only two tiers of government, so less idiot politicians, but genuine local representation in the provincial governments. Of course, it's totally impossible for it to happen now, but I find it an interesting thing to ponder.
Much harder to coordinate if you have a large number of provinces, and you lose economies of scale. You also end up with much greater centralisation and no competition, resulting in a bloated central government which operates at the lowest common denominator.
Countries that are as geographically big as Australia need at least 3 levels of government, and all comparably sized countries are federations with at least 3 levels of government - except Communist dictatorships.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Very good points, but I'm not convinced about the economies of scale argument. Most Aust and Canadian colonies had modest populations when they were granted responsible government in the late 1850s, but they thrived. Today UK colonies with small populations and responsible government like Gibraltar, Bermuda and The Falklands are booming economically and often wealthier than the UK. The costs of running their own affairs don't seem to be holding them back.
Didn't Gough kick this idea around - have 20 or so provinces and cede some state powers to the Feds and other powers to these provinces. I don;t think it was ever ALP policy.
@@davidbrown4849He also wanted more cities than we have now to spread out population growth.
Not sure about needing a third tier, the states already control councils, there's only around 26-27 million citizens, there's cities as big as Australia.
I may be wrong but it seems there's already too much beaurocrisy so surely we could run a more efficient leaner governance @@constitutionalclarion1901
How long have North Queensland state Idea floating around, Answer 1901 (OK, I might be wrong on the year). Bobby Carter please got back to Trager and leave SEQ alone
The idea goes back into the nineteenth century, as it was certainly the subject of serious debate in the 1890s.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 thanks
Robbie Katter keep up the fight for us in Regional and Rural Australia!
@@paulheywood5205
The 6 state capitals, could each become their own respective city states!
This would make 12 states and 2 territories!
Rockhampton, Townsville and Cairns do not deserve to be in capital cities
The number of state is listed in the constitution, so any isplit of Queensland would take a referendum and the other states couln't give a stuff about North Queensland so getting the numbers will be worse than sleezies' voive question!
No, that's not right. The Constitution defines 'the States' in covering clause 6 as such of the listed colonies 'as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth' and such as 'may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States'. Section 124 also clearly permits a new State to be formed by separation of territory from an existing State.
Why would you want to call NORTH QUEENSLAND "Kingsland"?
Is your country still that tied to Britain? Well I guess it is considering your flag and that Australia is still under the British monarchy, a British Dominion or Crown "Realm"and although independent , not really a sovereign nation yet !?? But I'm sure most North Queensland people would prefer "North Queensland"!
I was being facetious, as I expect you know. I really can't imagine that anyone would want to call it Kingsland - and it was referred to as North Queensland throughout the video, other than in the opening comment. Some have suggested that it should be called Capricornia - but that's about as exciting as the naming suggestions seem to be.
Queensland was originally going to be called Cooksland (referring to Cpt James Cook) but in order to separate from NSW, Queen Victoria sponsored the separation. Her support was conditional on the state being named Queensland, and the rest is history. It's only fitting that a new state be named in honour of the monarch of Australia.
How about eliminating all borders, one size railway line, one law for all people, less politicians and no councils Australia wide
What a nightmare! It would also be unworkable - I'm not aware of any democratic country that only has one level of government.
You'd have to have universal time, too, with all the deficits involved. All those different state charges- car rego, rates, land tax, etc. One police force, one fire brigade, one rubbish collection service..........
A single bad government of whatever level could ruin things from wheelie bins to airline flights.
Would be disastrous. You want to centralise all government to Canberra? Competition is the best defence against idiot politicians. You only have one source of power you need to corrupt to ruin the entire country.
The separation of powers mean that we're able to legislate and best represent local opinions. For example, the opinions and the demands of the NSW or VIC alpine region for snow ploughs would not be a beneficial priority for the cyclone prone north. Also it's awesome. That we have the ability to shop around for government services for example, registration in VIC is cheapest in the country and valid Australia wide. Getting a motorbike licence is easiest in the ACT. Etc. In saying that we need more states to best provide for local demands and laws. Australians in Cairns shouldn't have a say on base level local laws for Brisbane. However, we benefit from having a strong national government for big stake issues, for example human rights, defence, identity and nationality and our borders, standards is a big one, interconnecting the country, major infrastructure, standardising tax, providing high level services like Medicare and social security.
Are you an economics expert? Or a Constitutional expert? Might be a good idea to stick to your knitting.
You, however, just need lessons in civility.
I'm certainly a constitutional expert, not an economics expert. But I have worked in government and know quite a lot about federalism, so I do have some expertise in this area. If you are interested in the economics aspects, I suggest you have a look at the paper I wrote with economist Glenn Withers, 'Australia's Federal Future' (crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/staff/glenn_withers/federalist_paper.pdf). It draws together the economic, constitutional and political aspects of federalism.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I love this classy comeback to the random internet oik. 😊
They're knowledgeable enough to offer up a series of ideas and possibilities. Based not on ignorant speculation, but built on a clear knowledge of the constitution. It's entertaining, educational, and thought-provoking.
Scott, first thing ppl see when they visit your channel is a pair of buttocks.
For some reason, I prefer this channel.
Kingsland my arse call it Capricorn