Tas Dam Case and Government Bills

[[email protected]]

I Have two questions

1.After the high court found in favour of the commonwealth and declared that under S51 External Affairs, that the commonwealth did have the power to legislate in that area to ensure that international treaties could be upheld, did it become a concurrent power? 

2. Are we required to know about all the different types of government bills such as private member bills etc....

Thanks

[michak]

I Have two questions

1.After the high court found in favour of the commonwealth and declared that under S51 External Affairs, that the commonwealth did have the power to legislate in that area to ensure that international treaties could be upheld, did it become a concurrent power? 

2. Are we required to know about all the different types of government bills such as private member bills etc....

Thanks

1. Yes it now becomes a concurrent power, this case increased the commonwealths power but at the expense of the states as they now can't make inconsistent laws to the commonwealth because of section 109
2. Im pretty sure we don't have to but not 100%

[[email protected]]

Okay great thank you!!!!!

[michak]

No worries happy studying

[JCurmi]

I Have two questions

1.After the high court found in favour of the commonwealth and declared that under S51 External Affairs, that the commonwealth did have the power to legislate in that area to ensure that international treaties could be upheld, did it become a concurrent power? 

2. Are we required to know about all the different types of government bills such as private member bills etc....

Thanks

1. Yes it now becomes a concurrent power, this case increased the commonwealths power but at the expense of the states as they now can't make inconsistent laws to the commonwealth because of section 109
2. Im pretty sure we don't have to but not 100%

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding...

1. The external affairs power is an exclusive power which can only be exercised by the Commonwealth. What the High Court did decide was that the Commonwealth had the ability to use their external affairs power to ratify an international treaty, even if that treaty involved an area of residual power as it did in the Tasmanian Dams Case. Because of Section 109, the legislation created by the Commonwealth overruled that of the States. The external affairs power remains an exclusive power of the Commonwealth, and the power to legislate over environmental issues remains a residual power.

2. You should probably know that supply (money) bills can only be introduced by the lower house, as the upper house can't introduce these types of bills.

[michak]

I Have two questions

1.After the high court found in favour of the commonwealth and declared that under S51 External Affairs, that the commonwealth did have the power to legislate in that area to ensure that international treaties could be upheld, did it become a concurrent power? 

2. Are we required to know about all the different types of government bills such as private member bills etc....

Thanks

1. Yes it now becomes a concurrent power, this case increased the commonwealths power but at the expense of the states as they now can't make inconsistent laws to the commonwealth because of section 109
2. Im pretty sure we don't have to but not 100%

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding...

1. The external affairs power is an exclusive power which can only be exercised by the Commonwealth. What the High Court did decide was that the Commonwealth had the ability to use their external affairs power to ratify an international treaty, even if that treaty involved an area of residual power as it did in the Tasmanian Dams Case. Because of Section 109, the legislation created by the Commonwealth overruled that of the States. The external affairs power remains an exclusive power of the Commonwealth, and the power to legislate over environmental issues remains a residual power.

2. You should probably know that supply (money) bills can only be introduced by the lower house, as the upper house can't introduce these types of bills.

External affairs is a concurrent power because the only area under external affairs that the states can't make laws on is ina areas that the commonwealth have signed international treaties and they have passed laws to uphold these treaties.
As the constitution doesn't states what external affairs are this means the high court in the future can interpret other meanings.
Just because a state law is made invalid that doesn't make the power exclusive
Powers can only be exclusive if they are listed under section 52 (expressely stated), exclusive by nature (impratical for states to make laws on) and exclusive by prohibition (the constitution specifically states that the states can't do something)

[meganrobyn]

Signing treaties is an exclusive power, but 'ex affs' means anything of international concern, which is broader. If the Cwlth signs a treaty on an otherwise residual area they can implement the treaty as though the topic were concurrent.

[JCurmi]

Signing treaties is an exclusive power, but 'ex affs' means anything of international concern, which is broader. If the Cwlth signs a treaty on an otherwise residual area they can implement the treaty as though the topic were concurrent.

Yep, thought so. So external affairs is an exclusive power (which has been interpreted to give Cwlth the ability to sign international treaties?) Also, signing treaties in areas of residual power (such as the environment) does not make that area a concurrent power, the external affairs power merely gives the Cwlth the ability to intrude on those residual powers if they can find an appropriate treaty to sign?

[michak]

Signing treaties is an exclusive power, but 'ex affs' means anything of international concern, which is broader. If the Cwlth signs a treaty on an otherwise residual area they can implement the treaty as though the topic were concurrent.

Yep, thought so. So external affairs is an exclusive power (which has been interpreted to give Cwlth the ability to sign international treaties?) Also, signing treaties in areas of residual power (such as the environment) does not make that area a concurrent power, the external affairs power merely gives the Cwlth the ability to intrude on those residual powers if they can find an appropriate treaty to sign?

You miss interpreted what they said
"sigining treaties is an exclusive"
"external affairs is broader" so they can sign treaties in areas of law that were originally residual

Anyway i have been taught that it's a concurrent power

[JCurmi]

Yeah I'm still not 100%, but I'll also just go with what I've been taught unless Megan ends up popping up soon hahaha.

[oizoo]

I Have two questions

1.After the high court found in favour of the commonwealth and declared that under S51 External Affairs, that the commonwealth did have the power to legislate in that area to ensure that international treaties could be upheld, did it become a concurrent power? 

2. Are we required to know about all the different types of government bills such as private member bills etc....

Thanks

1. Yes it now becomes a concurrent power, this case increased the commonwealths power but at the expense of the states as they now can't make inconsistent laws to the commonwealth because of section 109
2. Im pretty sure we don't have to but not 100%

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding...

1. The external affairs power is an exclusive power which can only be exercised by the Commonwealth. What the High Court did decide was that the Commonwealth had the ability to use their external affairs power to ratify an international treaty, even if that treaty involved an area of residual power as it did in the Tasmanian Dams Case. Because of Section 109, the legislation created by the Commonwealth overruled that of the States. The external affairs power remains an exclusive power of the Commonwealth, and the power to legislate over environmental issues remains a residual power.

2. You should probably know that supply (money) bills can only be introduced by the lower house, as the upper house can't introduce these types of bills.

You don't need to know about different types of bills as it is not examinable, however it does provide a grounding for a more solid understanding of the legislative process.

[meganrobyn]

Yeah I'm still not 100%, but I'll also just go with what I've been taught unless Megan ends up popping up soon hahaha.

Ha ha. Everything you said is correct *except* the fact that ex affs on the whole isn't exclusive - just the signing treaties part of it.

[JCurmi]

Ok perfect! Thanks Megan