> An extract.
> The Relationship between Commonwealth and State Powers
> Although the State Parliaments can pass laws on a wider range of
> subjects than the Commonwealth Parliament, the Commonwealth is generally
regarded as the more
> powerful partner in the federation. One of the principal reasons for this is
section 109 of the
> Constitution which provides that if a valid Commonwealth law is inconsistent
with a law of a
> State, the Commonwealth law operates and the State law is invalid to the
extent of the
> inconsistency.
Pity its more complicated than that, as the below makes clear.
> Accordingly, the Commonwealth can, where the Constitution gives it power over
a subject matter,
And that does not apply with local water use
restrictions, or how the road rules are applied either.
> override State laws. As a result, many subjects of Commonwealth
> power are regulated almost entirely by Commonwealth law, for example,
bankruptcy, marriage and
> divorce, and immigration.
But not the two areas being discussed.
> Further, the States have traditionally not raised sufficient revenue
> to perform all
> their functions and therefore they rely on grants of financial
> assistance from the
> Commonwealth. During the Second World War, Commonwealth legislation
> effectively excluded the States from imposing income tax, and since
> then, various
> political and economic considerations have resulted in income tax
> being
> imposed solely by the Commonwealth. Also, the States are unable to
> impose
> taxes of customs and excise (section 90).
> Consequently, the Commonwealth grants financial assistance to the
> States, often
> with conditions attached in accordance with Section 96 of the
> Constitution. This
> power to impose conditions on how the money is spent by the States
> allows the
> Commonwealth to influence the way things are done in areas over which
> it has
> no direct power to pass laws. For example, the Commonwealth has
> exerted
> significant control over universities in this way even though it has
> no specific
> power in relation to education.
>> Section 109 as I read it "any state law, which conflicts with
>> federal law, becomes null and void due to conflict. Federal laws
>> apply to all states and any conflict is treated this way..
>> Further, the states are applying traffic laws to measurment of speed
>> cameras, which means any document purporting to be a legal document
>> of accuracy of the speed camera is void unless it is made in
>> conjunction with the National Measuremnt Institute. If you know this
>> you can challenge any ticket issued. But they are also ignoring this
>> issue. It becomes terribly expensive to fight them.
>>
>>> Blondie wrote:
>>>
>>>> Irrespective of the right or wrong of Victorian */_STATE_/*
>>>> government water restrictions, does this excerpt from the
>>>> constitution enable somebody to bypass the water restrictions.
>>>> Section 100
>>>> [Federal laws must not abridge State water rights]
>>>>
>>>> The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or
>>>> commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein
>>>> to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or
>>>> irrigation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you found a law of the Commonwealth that purported to do such a
>>> thing, then you could ask the High Court to rule it invalid.
>>>
>>> However, any restrictions that you are currently subject to are
>>> being imposed on you by your state government, not the
>>> Commonwealth, so the issue does not arise.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
Rod Speed is a fundamentalist who backs government and appears to be
employed by same, to poo poo anti government policy.
Get a real job Rod. Ive seen your antics b4.
What I wrote was genuine prose from a Federal government site. Water is
an essential.
But as far as I'm concerned, we would all toe the line "if" the
government wasn't involved with corporation's who choose every downturn
to fine, mutilate and strangle those who would stand up against the
common man or gardener due to our feeling of their mismanagement due to
"no Dams " policies. While Rome burns Bracks fiddles. Or should that
read while Bracks fiddles, the bush burns.
Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> An extract.
>
>> The Relationship between Commonwealth and State Powers
>
>> Although the State Parliaments can pass laws on a wider range of
>> subjects than the Commonwealth Parliament, the Commonwealth is generally
regarded as the more
>> powerful partner in the federation. One of the principal reasons for this is
section 109 of the
>> Constitution which provides that if a valid Commonwealth law is inconsistent
with a law of a
>> State, the Commonwealth law operates and the State law is invalid to the
extent of the
>> inconsistency.
>
> Pity its more complicated than that, as the below makes clear.
>
>> Accordingly, the Commonwealth can, where the Constitution gives it power over
a subject matter,
>
> And that does not apply with local water use
> restrictions, or how the road rules are applied either.
>
>> override State laws. As a result, many subjects of Commonwealth
>> power are regulated almost entirely by Commonwealth law, for example,
bankruptcy, marriage and
>> divorce, and immigration.
>
> But not the two areas being discussed.
>
>> Further, the States have traditionally not raised sufficient revenue
>> to perform all
>>
>> their functions and therefore they rely on grants of financial
>> assistance from the
>>
>> Commonwealth. During the Second World War, Commonwealth legislation
>>
>> effectively excluded the States from imposing income tax, and since
>> then, various
>>
>> political and economic considerations have resulted in income tax
>> being
>> imposed solely by the Commonwealth. Also, the States are unable to
>> impose
>> taxes of customs and excise (section 90).
>>
>> Consequently, the Commonwealth grants financial assistance to the
>> States, often
>>
>> with conditions attached in accordance with Section 96 of the
>> Constitution. This
>>
>> power to impose conditions on how the money is spent by the States
>> allows the
>>
>> Commonwealth to influence the way things are done in areas over which
>> it has
>> no direct power to pass laws. For example, the Commonwealth has
>> exerted
>> significant control over universities in this way even though it has
>> no specific
>>
>> power in relation to education.
>>
>>> Section 109 as I read it "any state law, which conflicts with
>>> federal law, becomes null and void due to conflict. Federal laws
>>> apply to all states and any conflict is treated this way..
>>> Further, the states are applying traffic laws to measurment of speed
>>> cameras, which means any document purporting to be a legal document
>>> of accuracy of the speed camera is void unless it is made in
>>> conjunction with the National Measuremnt Institute. If you know this
>>> you can challenge any ticket issued. But they are also ignoring this
>>> issue. It becomes terribly expensive to fight them.
>>>
>>>> Blondie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Irrespective of the right or wrong of Victorian */_STATE_/*
>>>>> government water restrictions, does this excerpt from the
>>>>> constitution enable somebody to bypass the water restrictions.
>>>>> Section 100
>>>>> [Federal laws must not abridge State water rights]
>>>>>
>>>>> The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or
>>>>> commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein
>>>>> to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or
>>>>> irrigation.
>>>>>
>>>> If you found a law of the Commonwealth that purported to do such a
>>>> thing, then you could ask the High Court to rule it invalid.
>>>>
>>>> However, any restrictions that you are currently subject to are
>>>> being imposed on you by your state government, not the
>>>> Commonwealth, so the issue does not arise.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>
>
XML site map
> The Relationship between Commonwealth and State Powers
> Although the State Parliaments can pass laws on a wider range of
> subjects than the Commonwealth Parliament, the Commonwealth is generally