Constitution Text

Australian citizens are not hindered in their ability to travel throughout Australia and across state borders, but police are also empowered to stop and question people, inspect vehicles, etc.  These laws are predominantly state laws since the Constitution gives States the power to operate police forces.  Precise police powers can vary between states and in specific situations. 

No – the Constitution doesn’t stipulate specific policies. It shows which level of government has responsibility for making laws about particular matters. You don’t explain what you mean by living “in peace” but I would assume that most of the matters you might be referring to would be State responsibilites. It all depends on whether you are talking about crime, privacy, noise, etc. Some of these could be local government responsibilities.

Local governments are established by state governments – each state has the equivalent of a Local Government Act. They do have specified powers to make by-laws and levy fines, rates and charges, etc.

The federal government is currently considering a referendum to entrench local government in the Constitution.

I get a lot of questions about the legality of local government. There are many conspiracy theories about this subject. I suggest you ignore them all.

I can’t find it either so if someone answers you will you let me know?

Just as a follow up Malcolm, I just found a great article noting some High Court rulings, but still keen to hear your opinion.

Cheers Simon

No – you only need to be a citizen and a member of parliament. See Section 34.

You might be confusing us with the United States where the president must be “natural born”.

Neither Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott would be eligible to be PM if we had the same rule!

No, there’s nothing about “free passage”. Section 51 gives the Commonwealth power to regulate immigration and emigration. The States retain other powers over people movement within their borders.

I think you’ll find that a toll road is just another example of government and/or private service provided for a fee. It doesn’t prevent movement from one place to another.

You’re confusing State powers with Commonwealth powers. The States retain extensive powers over water management. Many of the laws and regulations in contention at the moment are State-based.

Section 100 refers only to Commonwealth powers over water. It doesn’t use the word “unalienable” – that’s a word we associate with the American Declaration of Independence.

I’m no lawyer but there’s no such thing as an inalienable right to water. Governments can regulate its use and price. As they’ve done recently, they’ve established a mechanism to allow water entitlements to be bought and sold.

Again, I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me the key to Section 100 are the words “reasonable use”. There’s nothing in this section which suggests that the Commonwealth cannot regulate water use. Any legal challenge to Commonwealth legislation would hinge on the question of fairness and equity, not the power to regulate.

In practice, most laws concerning water usage are made by State governments. When the Howard government set up the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in 2007 it did so through agreement with the States. The Authority’s recommendations will require Federal and State legislation. Water, like education and health, is an area where the States have the constitutional power but the Commonwealth has the money. Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States on irrigation and other water usage in the Basin will be a complicated mix of political and financial factors during 2011.

The power of the States to legislate for water usage is beyond doubt. The recent election of a Liberal government in Victoria means that Federal-State agreement on water management became more difficult.

That’s a good idea for a page… but it won’t be done tonight!

CLICK HERE to download a copy of the 1900 Constitution – the original in its unamended form.

A paper by Scott Bennett of the Parliamentary Library traces Australia’s constitutional milestones. It might help.

This ABC program on Deakin’s constitutional vision might also have what you’re looking for.

And the Australian Dictionary of Biography entries are always worth reading.

There’s also some excellent material at this site but it hasn’t been updated for some years.

I presume you’re referring to Section 114 but it prevents states from raising a “naval or military force”. The non-military police forces are one of the most significant responsibilities of the states.

Your questions don’t really fall within the province of this website. I’m certainly not in a position to provide legal advice but I would suggest you consult a solicitor about the issues you raise.

See Section 6 – must be at least one session every 12 months. I suppose in theory that could be one day. In practice, the Parliament meets for around 60-80 days every year.

that means that nsw cant treat a resident of qld like they are a resident of qld. nsw must treat a resident of qld like they are a resident of nsw. thats why anna bligh had to ditch the stickers on back of licences for qlders to get cheaper fuels than the rest of australia when they came here on holidays. basically you get treated in each state as if you were a resident of that state.

Yes, as I understand it, the definition of marriage rests with the Marriage Act. The Constitution doesn’t define marriage – it simply gives the legislative power over marriage to the Commonwealth Parliament.