Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079494)

If a nationally consistent and effective response to a pandemic is not squarely within the Commonwealth’s executive power, I’ll cartwheel nude down Northbourne Avenue.

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079494)

It’s just that Scotty wants to be able to spread the blame.

Originally Posted by MickG0105 (Post 11079537)

The top search response is for the Australian Parliament House's Parliamentary Paper No 63 - Commonwealth Executive Power and Accountability Following Williams (No 2) (where Williams (No 2) is Williams v Commonwealth (No. 2) (2014) 252 CLR 416, as opposed to Williams v Commonwealth (2012) 248 CLR 156 (Williams (No. 1)).

Apart from the problem that "nationhood power" is essentially a legal construct that sits outside of the Constitution, there's prior High Court precedent, specifically Williams (Nos 1 and 2), that has found that the concept of a "nationhood power" does not trump the the division of legislative responsibilities spelled out in S.51. In the cases where the High Court has found that the "nationhood power" provides a legitimate basis for the Commonwealth exercising a power not otherwise articulated it has been largely related to S.61 - for example, Davis v Commonwealth (1988) 166 CLR 97 regards the Commonwealth's power to establish the Australian Bicentennial Authority.

Then there's the matter of what exactly is "nationhood power"? The High Court has found that it is an implied executive power derived, in part, from Australia’s national status. And the only reason that the concept of "nationhood power" gets a run is that when the Constitution Act was passed in 1901, there were certain external national powers that Australia could not at that time exercise. For example, at the time Australia could not declare war or enter treaties. It was only after the retreat of the Crown through things like the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930, the passage of the Statute of Westminster and the corresponding Australian legislation, the Statute of Westminster (Adoption) Act, and finally the Australia Acts, that Australia had the opportunity to fully exercise external powers.

With regards to what exactly falls under "nationhood power", the High Court routinely relies on a definition provided by Justice Mason in Victoria v Commonwealth and Hayden (the AAP Case) (1975) 134 CLR 338; specifically he describd it as ‘a capacity to engage in enterprises and activities peculiarly adapted to the government of a nation and which cannot otherwise be carried on for the benefit of the nation'. It's often referred to as 'peculiarly adapted' test although the 'which cannot otherwise be carried on' element is also important.

On the basis that a determination on how best to manage health matters had been made at the outset of federation, there's an argument that the 'peculiarly adapted' test was done and dusted 120 years ago - the determination was that the Commonwealth was not 'peculiarly adapted' to manage the nation's health, that would be an activity that would be 'otherwise be carried on for the benefit of the nation' by the states. The fact that that arrangement was tested by a pandemic less than two decades later could be seen as an argument in its favour.

Further, without having to invoke "nationhood power" to support a Federal power grab, there are a range of mechanisms to provide for a nationally coordinated and effective response to national health emergencies, things like the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, the Advisory Committee on Vaccines and the like.


That'd be a matter for the High Court - just in case, you would probably want a summer hearing on the matter.

Originally Posted by Green.Dot (Post 11079861)

A bit like a PROB40 on a TAF yeah?
:}

Originally Posted by Turnleft080 (Post 11079911)

I will wether that.
Thanks Mr Dot.

PROB40 TEMPO 1623/1703 SEV TURB NSW/VIC REGION FROM ASSOCIATED POLITICAL TROUGH

Originally Posted by SHVC (Post 11079942)

Ouch, 19 new cases for Vic seems to be running away already. NSW predicted to have 111 today. Liberal Vs Labor battle techniques, who will win.

Originally Posted by SHVC (Post 11079945)

Fox, I bloody hope so. I’m a Glady fan but SY ppl are not doing the right thing and she is worried about upsetting them. Time to close everything down tonight, if she does we could come out of this by early September if she doesn’t well this will dribble on well into 2022 and NSW being locked out of rest of the country.

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079904)

The High Court ultimately decides these things? Who knew?

It’s as nearly as startling a revelation as viruses being virulent.

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079904)

Any second year law student analysis of the vertical fiscal imbalance and section 96 of the Constitution, and the implications for the Commonwealth’s powers?

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11079904)

I’m not sure how a Schools Chaplaincy Programme has quite the national significance as an existential threat like a pandemic. But I suppose it depends on one’s religious views. Perhaps Chaplains can pray our way out of the pandemic.

Originally Posted by Foxxster (Post 11079948)

you can put your house on it, assuming you still have it… we will be in FULL, proper lockdown this time tomorrow. Will be announced this morning… major embarrassment to Gladys. And the nsw health experts. Again. Remember why we are in this cluster …. in the first place.

Originally Posted by PoppaJo (Post 11079952)

Victoria will have problems with leakage for as long as this is alive in Sydney. It will be a question of how many days post this short lockdown, they go before the next leak arrives. Sydney are stuck with this active in the community for at least August and into September. How do we protect Victoria for those two months?.

Would be great if we could invest in rapid testing. If the FedEx crew had been, the chances of all this going on would have been greatly reduced. All foreign based aircrew should be at a minimum on arrival and exit. They are only here for 24/48 hrs.

Brisbane to Cairns set to be the number one route again

Originally Posted by SHVC (Post 11079942)

NSW predicted to have 111 today.

Originally Posted by Torukmacto (Post 11079969)

At some stage ( hopefully soon ) numbers won’t be released . It’s here to stay . Get on with it should be the line from Goverment.

Originally Posted by Foxxster (Post 11079966)

NSW ..111 new cases, 29 in community. Premiers press conference..

further actions from today..

until July 30, people in western Sydney 3 local govt areas have to stay …cannot leave for work or any other reason unless health or emergency workers. Liverpool, Bankstown and one other..

from midnight, only CRITICAL retail to remain open… they have a list of what is critical on website.

no car pooling allowed

until July 30, NO CONSTRUCTION WORK, at all across Sydney. Including large construction ie commercial sites. Plus residential. Except emergency repairs.

of course July 30 will be a moveable date…