Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:
The fed is in control of all international ports of call. However as Australians we are enshrined the right to freedom of movement within the federation. We are also enshrined as subjects of the Queen, a resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination
which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
According to the UNs definition Australians are "internally displaced people" for not allowing freedom of movement within its borders. Which means our basic human rights have been breached.
This is from pg 8 which is an explanation of how some sections of the constitution and how they work.
I'm inclined to think that discrimination is different to closing borders to everyone. I think it can only be considered "discrimination" if its applied to individuals or sectors of the community. Say, Asians.
In any case didn't Clive Palmer have that argument in the courts and lost? If that be true you would not be correct. Not that I'm a constitutional lawyer LOL.
You mention the military. Anecdotally my understanding is that constitutionally the Army cannot be used to control the people. But I could not find where it specifically said that.
But it does say under Sec 51.
Sec 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament:
(vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces
to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;
So, my take from that would be that they can act as "police" under some circumstances, for want of another term. It would be a "tricky" area. I think the State would have to agree to them doing that which I think is allowed under the constitution.
In addition there is the following Act that could further explain what hey can and cannot do..
They all need to be read in conjunction with each other. Not that I have read it.