Posted on 12/30/2021 9:50:24 AM PST by Red Badger
Irony is lost on this Scott Morrison.
Have there been some issues in Australia with regard to COVID? Yes. But those have been caused by STATE governments, not the Federal government. Scott Morrison, as Prime Minister, has had no real control over any of that because of the way Australia's constitution puts all power relating to matters of public health in the hands of the state governments. The Federal government has virtually no power in this area, and cannot overrule the states. Morrison has been trying, throughout the pandemic, to do everything he can to get the states to behave reasonably but he doesn't actually have much power in these situations. Americans (and not just Americans, anybody outside Australia) seem to have this assumption that the Federal government 'outranks' the state governments and can somehow tell them what to do, or overrule them. That isn't how Australia's constitution works at all. The constitution was written in the 1890s by the state governments, who already had something close to sovereignty and independence. They chose to unify as a single nation for a few purposes - primarily international trade and defence. The federal government also eventually got power over foreign relations but not until around 1940 (before that, that was still handled from London - so was a lot of defence). Outside of the domains the states specifically agreed to hand over power to the new Federal government they were creating, the Federal government has no significant power - the states didn't want to give up their powers. And critically one of the areas they kept control of was anything to do with public health. And that is why the state governments have been running virtually everything related to COVID.
If this fire had involved setting one of the state Parliament's on fire (especially that of Victoria), it might have made sense as a COVID protest. But it isn't related to that at all - this is a result of protests by indigenous activists who want something they refer to as 'indigenous sovereignty' - exactly what that means is complex, but it's not a recent thing and it's nothing to do with COVID.
And labelling that way, means diverting attention away from the actual far-left groups that do want to overthrow Australia's constitutional law, and, ideally, kick out anybody they don't regard as indigenous.
I do hate to see old structures like that torched, but if you
push people far enough, something like this will happen.
I’m shocked the full citizenry hasn’t joined in to do it
at this point.
I’m not up on the Aboriginal rights cause, so I’m not actually
backing or condemning them.
The problem is, the Australian government has made itself
almost unable to back in any fight.
At this time, short of a Chinese invasion, F em.
The citizens of Australia should rise up and physically
remove the leadership. They can take 90% of the police
force with them and start over.
We have a good Constitution to ponder, when they start
rebuilding.
Yes, the hard Left would have been my guess also.
I’m not saying the Aboriginals don’t have some beefs. I don’t
think that’s what this is all about.
Communists will exploit any legitimate cause and take it off
the rails into anarchy.
And why do you say that? To me, this is quite a ridiculous comment to make - unless you completely misunderstand how governments in Australia function which wouldn't surprise me. After all, why would an American know that?
But because they don't, I think a huge number of Americans are being grossly mislead about Australia and it's leading them to conclusions that are really problematic.
You start enforcing COVID imaginations the way they have and
all bets are off.
There’s really nothing more to call these FASCISTS than just
that.
Human beings have a right to decide what medications they will
take. PERIOD!
The vaccinated are not protected. They can still catch it
and they can pass it on. In one instance 88 of 89 patients
that died from COVID-19, had been vaccinated.
People who have been vaccinate are filling up ICU units.
Then Australia, with very few deaths in one city over there,
decided they would go on lock-down to protect people.
That is an amazing thing to behold.
Adverse reactions are killing tens of thousands, and leaving
others damaged.
Running around like little Gestapo squads doesn’t curry favor
with me.
And calling me ill-informed about what is going on is just
a way of saying YOU haven’t got the slightest grasp on it.
As I thought. You don't have a clue how governments in Australia function.
You're blaming the AUSTRALIAN government for things that are being done by STATE governments.
The Australian government, the Commonwealth government, the federal government (all these terms can be used) has not been enforcing the restrictions you are talking about.
In fact, it has done everything it can to try and stop those things happening and has consistently opposed those state governments that have gone extreme.
Unfortunately because of the way Australia's constitution works, the states have all the power in this case. The federal government doesn't have the power to overrule them in their own domains, and one of those domains is public health.
As I said in an earlier comment, Americans seem to have this idea that the federal government somehow outranks the state governments. It doesn't. It has different responsibilities under the constitution, and in those specific domains, it is primary. But in any area that it is not explicitly and clearly given power, it has no real power at all. And it cannot force a state government to do anything, and it can not overrule the decision of a state government.
There’s really nothing more to call these FASCISTS than just that.
If you want to call the state government of Victoria, lead by hard-core socialist Premier Daniel Andrews, fascist, I'd have little argument with you as somebody who had to live through his 260 day lockdowns of Melbourne. But those decisions were his decisions taken at state level by the Victorian government, and blaming the Australian government for any of that simply diverts attention away from the people who were actually responsible. Daniel Andrews would love you - you're blaming the conservative federal government and the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, for the crap Daniel Andrews and his socialist government did. Well done. Thank you for helping to screw all of us by allowing the socialists to avoid any responsibility for the stuff they pull.
Human beings have a right to decide what medications they will take. PERIOD!
I agree. And the Australian government opposes nearly all vaccine mandates (the only exception is front line health care workers working with vulnerable populations). Unfortunately the state governments are the ones who get to decide on this. The mandates we have have all been introduced by state governments and the federal government can't stop them.
Here's just one news story for you - Prime Minister Scott Morrison declares ‘businesses can make their own choices’ as he savages COVID-19 vaccine mandates
Then Australia, with very few deaths in one city over there, decided they would go on lock-down to protect people.
Australia has never decided to lock-down. There has been no national level lockdown during this entire pandemic.
State governments have decided to do lock-downs for various reasons, some of which do match what you've described here. I don't support that, but nor does the federal government. Consistently throughout this pandemic, the Prime Minister has been calling on state governments to avoid locking down and to lift lockdowns when they've happened. Again, unfortunately, the states have the power and the federal government cannot overrule them.
Again, another news story for you - Scott Morrison fires a shot at Daniel Andrews as he blasts Melbourne's 'extreme lockdowns' and vows to keep Australia open: 'Freedom must never be taken from us again'
Running around like little Gestapo squads doesn’t curry favor with me.
In as far, as anything like that is happening, it's being done by STATE police forces under the control of STATE governments. Nearly all law enforcement in Australia is handled by state governments - the Australian Federal Police have very limited jurisdiction over only certain federal crimes, except in the Australian Capital Territory where they do also a division that handles local law enforcement.
And calling me ill-informed about what is going on is just a way of saying YOU haven’t got the slightest grasp on it.
No. Sorry. I live here and I know what is going on and how our governments work. You clearly don't because you are consistently blaming the Commonwealth government for matters they have no control over and have no power over, and which, for the most part, they have consistently opposed in every way that they can.
And in doing so, you are helping to allow hard core socialist state governments like Victoria's to avoid responsibility for the damage they've done.
You're attacking a conservative government for things done by socialist governments.
The Australian government has been fairly powerless in this pandemic, but where they have had any power, they have done pretty much everything they can to protect the rights of Australians in the face of totalitarian state governments that have done the opposite. Saying you wouldn't back the Australian government in any fight is - well, frankly, as I said ridiculous. They've been about the only people trying to do the right thing in this country. And they should be backed in that.
Now, does all this point to problems with Australia's current system of government. Hell, yes. If I had my way, I'd abolish every single state government, something I've supported doing for decades. I'd love to change Australia's constitution. Quite a lot actually.
But I wouldn't use the US constitution as a model - why? Because, frankly, a lot of these problems have been made worse by American ideas being added to things here. In Victoria, the adoption of 'Bill of Rights' in 2006 has been a huge reason why the state government has been able to do what it's actually done - because a modern Bill of Rights tends to be quite different from that written over two centuries ago in the US. Another big issue here in Victoria is that we went from the traditional Parliamentary model where a government can be removed from office fairly easily in the middle of it's maximum non-fixed term - to a more American model of having 'fixed terms' which means Daniel Andrews has been able to do all the stuff he's done, secure in the knowledge, he won't face an election until November 2022 - by which time, he's hoping enough of the electorate will have forgotten what he did - a hope that is only enhanced when people blame the Prime Minister and the federal government instead of him and his government for these things.
So what you are telling me, is that the federal government of
Australia has no power at all to stop states from installing
policies that deprive it’s citizens of civil rights.
Not buying it.
In other words, a Hitler could arise in a state in Australia
and the federal government couldn’t do a thing to stop him
from doing just what Hitler did.
He could load Jews into box cars and cart them off to
concentration camps and gas them. Right?
Even you must find that a bit much of a bite to swallow.
So you’re dead wrong and you know it.
Look, I get your point, and to a certain degree I certainly
don’t fault the federal government then, but at some point
if the federal government is going to allow states to do
anything they want, it’s completely useless. It’s also
complicit.
Genocide could occur, and the Feds would simply say, “Well,
it’s not our problem.” Ah yeah it is.
As for our Constitution causing problems, it needs to be
written as ours is. You start chopping out things and
trying to update it to today’s values, and it’s worthless.
I’m generally a supporter of state’s rights, but at some
point you have to step in.
Here in the U. S. we have anarchy is cities across the
nation because states and cities are refusing to enforce
the laws on the books.
We have cities being looted, businesses being burned down,
people being killed, and the Feds have kept hands off. I
blame our federal government in the end, because it has
to rise to the occasion. You can’t allow anarchy to rule
the day. It spreads. People think they can get along
with it.
The national Legislature needs to take some form of action
to allow the feds to go in and quell these situations.
Get it under control, and then back off.
Political leaders need to be removed form office, and barred
from holding office again.
Officers that took part in house arrests and enforcement
should be removed from their position and never allowed
to be in a position of authority again.
Not buying it.
Well, this is how the system works. It's a fact whether you buy it or not.
In other words, a Hitler could arise in a state in Australia and the federal government couldn’t do a thing to stop him from doing just what Hitler did.
Pretty much, yes. That is how the system was designed. To give the STATE governments more power than the FEDERAL government. Fundamentally, the state governments wrote the constitution so it really isn't that surprising that they wrote a constitution that gave them nearly all the power over most areas.
He could load Jews into box cars and cart them off to concentration camps and gas them. Right?
We've never had a situation quite that extreme, but state governments have recently passed euthanasia laws over the objections of the federal government, and when we had capital punishment in Australia, that was a matter of state law as well. State governments do have the power to kill people and the federal government generally cannot stop them.
Now, to your specific extreme example, yes, in the case of genocide the Commonwealth government could probably intervene, but only because Australia is a signatory to the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention. Because that is an international treaty, the Commonwealth could use its powers under Section 51.xxix of the Constitution which gives it powers over matters regulated by international treaties. The High Court would have to decide whether or not it was able to do that, but in the case of genocide, I'm pretty sure the High Court would rule in the Commonwealth's favour.
But they wouldn't over something like vaccine mandates - not unless there's a very clear international treaty somewhere that I'm unaware of.
Even you must find that a bit much of a bite to swallow. So you’re dead wrong and you know it.
No, I'm not. How do I know I'm not?
First of all, because I have extensively studied Australia's constitution over many decades (I've also studied those of other similar nations, including the US in a lot of detail) to the extent I probably am considered a fair expert in the field.
Secondly, because if the federal government had had the power to intervene over these matters over the last two years it would have. Do you think Scott Morrison likes looking powerless? Do you think the federal government enjoys constantly saying "Don't do this" to the states and the states just telling them to get stuffed? Because that is what has been happening for nearly two years now. The Prime Minister has been saying "Don't lock down" and the states have said "We'll do what we like." "Don't have vaccine mandates," and the states say "That's up to us, not you. Don't interfere." The state governments have loved being the powerful ones and the federal government has just had to take it.
Look, I get your point, and to a certain degree I certainly don’t fault the federal government then, but at some point if the federal government is going to allow states to do anything they want, it’s completely useless. It’s also complicit
At the moment, yes, the federal government is pretty useless - by constitutional design. But this is an unusual situation. 'Public health' has given the states a once in a century opportunity to be the ones in charge. As for complicity - there is no constitutional way that the federal government could stop what is happening and I will not hold a federal government complicit for following the constitution. I would be absolutely outraged if the federal government didn't follow the constitution. That is what they are supposed to do. It is absolutely what the Prime Minister is supposed to do. It is his most fundamental duty and it doesn't vanish because he (or I) don't like what the constitution says in a particular case.
Genocide could occur, and the Feds would simply say, “Well, it’s not our problem.” Ah yeah it is.
As I say, the external affairs power could probably be used to deal with that extreme situation because of the existence of the 1948 UN Convention.
But without that - yeah, that is how it works. This discussion started because of the protests by indigenous Australians at Old Parliament House, and the history there actually illustrates the situation quite well.
By the 1960s, most Australian states had accepted the principle that Aboriginal Australians should be treated as equal to all other Australians. But two states - Western Australia and Queensland - refused to accept that principle in law.
And the Commonwealth government could do nothing about that under the Constitution. It just couldn't.
So the solution was to amend the constitution to allow that to happen. That was the only way it could happen.
It doesn't matter if a position is morally right and a human rights issue. The power didn't exist.
So the decision was taken to amend the constitution, but that is, deliberately, not something that is easy to do.
The only way the constitution can be changed is by national referendum. To succeed, the referendum needs to achieve both an overall majority across the entire country, and an overall majority in a majority of states (which because we have six states, means four of the six states must vote a majority for it). Australian governments have attempted to amend the constitution 44 times. Only eight of those attempts have succeeded. The 1967 referendum that gave the Commonwealth power to make laws concerning indigenous people (which gave the Commonwealth the right to overrule Western Australia's and Queensland's laws that denied indigenous people full rights) passed with a Yes vote of over 90% - there was overwhelming public support for the idea. But even with that overwhelming public support, they still had to change the constitution to do anything.
Unfortunately, even if the commonwealth government currently wanted to amend the constitution to give it the power to take control of the pandemic, I think it would be impossible for such a referendum to pass. Too many Australians think the state governments have 'done a good job', and that's partly because the state governments are very good at trying to divert attention away from everything they do, to get people to blame the commonwealth government. Poor Scott Morrison is simultaneously blamed by the left in Australia for 'trying to interfere with the state governments' while being blamed by people on the right for 'not interfering enough with the state governments'. Way too many Australians don't understand how our constitution works either.
As for our Constitution causing problems, it needs to be written as ours is.
No, thanks. I think the US Constitution is a wonderful document. But that's not just because of the text, but because of two hundred years of history, and rulings....
There are definitely changes I'd make to Australia's constitution if I could, but I wouldn't throw the whole thing out - I'd fix the bits that are broken. The primary one is to either eliminate the state governments, or at the very least, change the list of powers in Section 51 to give the Commonwealth government explicit control over everything it funds. I would also explicitly hold states to any federal human rights law (at the moment, the states could - and do - ignore any federal law on this issue).
“...and I will not hold a federal government complicit for
following the constitution.”
Well, you just go ahead and feel as pleased as punch with
this type of activity then, holding up the Constitution to
justify it. Don’t try to correct others for saying the
federal government should get involved.
I don’t give my nation a pass on things going on these days.
I’m sure not going to jump on board the “Complicit Express”
because I used to respect Australia.
People’s lives are being ruined. Their businesses are under
attack. Their patrons are under attack. Homes are being
lost. It’s hard for some people to even get out and buy
food.
At what point does this become unsupportable for you?
So far you’ve pretty much defended everything as it is,
because the Constitution allows anything to happen, even
if a Hitler were to arise there.
I can’t agree with that, and you saying I just don’t
understand Australia’s Constitution doesn’t fix it, or
justify it.
OK, if you want to advocate that governments ignore their constitutions go ahead.
Personally, I think that is stupid and will lead to far worse problems than expecting governments to follow fundamental laws of their countries will ever do, but if you actually want the tyranny of uncontrolled despots...
People’s lives are being ruined. Their businesses are under attack. Their patrons are under attack. Homes are being lost. It’s hard for some people to even get out and buy food.
Yeah. All true.
But suggesting the only part of Australia's overall system of government that isn't acting like uncontrolled tyrants should start doing so as if that will somehow fix things rather than make them worse just doesn't make any sense at all to me. Your proposed solution would make matters worse.
At what point does this become unsupportable for you?
At the point where governments start ignoring the constitutions that give them power. The precise point you seem to want to happen.
What you are arguing is that the Commonwealth government of Australia should just ignore the limitations the constitution puts on its power. Once you let that genie out of the bottle, good luck ever putting it back.
This pandemic is temporary - it can only persist under our laws here for as long as the governments (particularly the state governments) can argue there is a public health emergency in place. That will end. It's already started to end (something else Americans often don't seem to realise).
When we come out of that period - and we will - I don't want a precedent of a Commonwealth government that just ignores the constitution.
So far you’ve pretty much defended everything as it is, because the Constitution allows anything to happen, even if a Hitler were to arise there.
Explaining something is not the same as defending it. A lot of bad things have happened in Australia during this pandemic.
But I place the blame for those bad things firmly with the people who made the decisions to do them.
I don't blame the people who didn't. And couldn't.
Shifting the blame to the conservative Australian government for the actions of socialist state governments is stupid and just helps the socialists escape the blame they deserve to shoulder.
So it’s your honest opinion, that these states are not
abusing their power?
You honestly think they are adhering to the Constitution?
Does that Constitution grant them tyrannical power?
I note you’re pretty protective of the Feds coming in, but
when the state(s) are abusing the rights of Australia’s
citizens you don’t have much to say.
You say you don’t necessarily like it, but you don’t
actually talk about the fear of what they are doing.
If 30% of the citizens in these areas are financially
destroyed, and have to start over having lost everything
they have achieved in the decades of their life, why
that’s Constitutional.
Wow...
I certainly do think they are.
You honestly think they are adhering to the Constitution?
Unfortunately, yes, they are. The federal constitution puts very few limitations on the states. Like I said, the state governments wrote the constitution. They didn't write a constitution that limited their powers.
Does that Constitution grant them tyrannical power?
Yes, in their domains, it does. More accurately, it just fails to put limitations on them.
I note you’re pretty protective of the Feds coming in, but when the state(s) are abusing the rights of Australia’s citizens you don’t have much to say.
Oh, I have had plenty to say about that. In appropriate forums and places where I actually have some ability to make a difference. Especially in my own state.
I would be surprised if I'm not on some sort of 'dissidents list' according to the Victorian government. Of course, they wouldn't admit any such list existed.
I've been involved in actively opposing the Victorian government on its handling of COVID since the middle of 2020. I haven't been rioting in the streets - I've been one of those working to address the issues through political processes. We've had some success - most recently I was part of a group of people who managed to stop Daniel Andrews getting a lot of new legislations which would have dramatically increased his powers in this pandemic and any future pandemic. Unfortunately we couldn't stop everything but we managed to get a significant amount of really scary stuff (like detention without trial or review, simply because the government said you were part of a particular group) cut out of it.
But that task was actually made much harder because of misinformation being spread on the web (including here on Freerepublic) - we had people asking things like "Why does it matter? Can't he already do that?", and, because of people wondering why we were so focused on the state government when they thought we should have been blaming the federal government.
Stuff like that is actually making it harder to get the real problems dealt with and that's why it matters.
You say you don’t necessarily like it, but you don’t actually talk about the fear of what they are doing.
Oh, I have fears. I regard Daniel Andrews as the scariest and most dangerous man in Australian politics since Gough Whitlam. He has already caused massive damage to this state, and as it is the second most populous state in Australia, that's significant on a national scale as well.
But am I scared of Scott Morrison? No. He's a good and decent man, trying to do the best job he can. He's not perfect - I wish Tony Abbott was still Prime Minister, and if I had a choice, I'd probably prefer Peter Dutton in office, over Morrison. But I think Morrison is doing as well as can reasonably be expected in a situation where the constitution severely limits him.
If 30% of the citizens in these areas are financially destroyed, and have to start over having lost everything they have achieved in the decades of their life, why that’s Constitutional.
One area where the Commonwealth does have power is over a lot of the budget, and the Commonwealth government has poured billions of dollars into supporting both businesses and individuals during this pandemic when lockdowns have stopped people working or businesses functioning. $750 a week at its peak for anybody who was losing money from either not being able to work, or being forced to work less. I really do think they did all they reasonably could do, constitutionally, to try and address that issue.
Thank you for your reasoned and well written post.
Looks like some of the more radical aboriginals are taking matters into their own hands. Got popcorn?
The Australian Federal Government is low on the sympathies list right now. The Australian state governments are even lower. Putting people into concentration camps “for their own good” will accomplish that. Beating and jailing protesters will accomplish that.
While the CCP is no doubt fanning the flames, Australian governments have been incredibly short sighted and tone deaf. They may achieve one of those truly rare moments of agreement in being deemed scumbags by BOTH the left and right in the US.
“There are definitely changes I’d make to Australia’s constitution if I could”
A basic bill of rights that’s ironclad so the states can’t ignore it. That’s not to say the public officials of those states won’t try to ignore it, but at least the threat of legal consequences will be there.
Thanks for explaining things from an Australian’s perspective.
Those funds are a great idea. Simply stop sending any federal
funds to the states if they are overstepping.
Look, I realize it’s easy for me to shoot my mouth off about
things there, but at the end of the day, I care about the
citizens rights.
This has really angered me, and it has definitely changed my
view of Australia. It had been one of my escape targets,
but no longer.
If I want to be abused, I can stay here.
Take care. I do appreciate the dialogue.
Sounds like our Natives here in Canada. They want self-government until they screw up and need money. Then its all about how we owe them for this or that and how the rest of the country should make for the checkbook. Choose sovereignty or chose to work within the system. Not both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.