This right to vote is perceived in two senses: express and implied. Section 41 of the Constitution provides for express protection. It provides for restricted protection by giving those citizens who have become adults or have obtained the age of majority, thereby gained the right to vote for the lower house of Parliament of the States. No law passed by the Commonwealth Parliament can take away the right of these people to vote in the Federal elections. This segment is being viewed and observed has been called upon to secure the privileges of foreigners who are based in Africa or Asia, Natives, individuals falling between age of 18 and 21, individuals not enlisted on the discretion of Commonwealth move before the rolls are shut for a political elections. On the other hand Section 24 of the Constitution provides for implied constitutional protection for right to vote. Various Justices of the High Court have interpreted the phrase "directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth" as the application of a universal franchise. In the case of Sykes v Cleary, Deane J clearly held:
“Section 44 imposes an overriding disqualification on a person who comes within its terms regardless of whether the Parliament thinks that that disqualification is unjustified. This kind of overriding disqualification provision should be considered as taking away the democratic right of a citizen, in my view that is keen to participate in Federal elections just because the words of the provision requires so.
Under s 163 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the qualifications of a person seeking nomination for election require the person:
Since the adoption of adults testimonial by all the states, was that Commonwealth residents not under an exceptional incapacity were qualified for share similarly in casting a ballot powers. This strand of thinking was gotten by Toohey J in McGinty v Western Australia, who was set up to find from the guideline of agent popular government a wide prerequisite of uniformity in the estimation of votes. Gaudron J concurred with the methodology of Toohey J, including that given the guideline of agent popular government just as arrangements, for example, ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution, any endeavor by the Commonwealth to deny the establishment to ladies or to individuals from a racial minority, or to force a property or instructive capability on casting a ballot qualification, would be hostile to the Constitution.
To choose the law making body for the Commonwealth, elections are done in Australia intermittently. There are some standards that are to be considered while holding elections. There is a proper legal framework to hold elections in the country which is same for each and every State in Australia and the elections for state and federal Parliaments are held under the constituent arrangement of each of the State and region. Qualifications to take part as a voter in elections are provided clearly in Part IV of Chapter 1 of the Australian Constitution. It doesn't endorse how races ought to be directed. Political races and related political commercials have some guideline. Public financing of ideological groups and gathering enrollment was presented in 1983. Casting a ballot is predominantly led by paper polling form and is mandatory for grown-ups. The casual vote isn't typically critical, However, a donkey vote is more normal. They may, notwithstanding, have a choosing sway in minimal seats.
The rule of law concept devised by Sir A.V. Dicey stated that the government shall also be held accountable in the normal court and by a normal law. The negligent action on the part of guards or even a negligent advise from the guards in the quarantine center can impose a liability on the Government of Australia as both the guards as well as the government are parties to the agreement. Talking about the payment of compensation, the Department can only be held liable if reasonable care has not been taken by any of its official which happened in this case as one of the guards has sexual intercourse with the visitor. The compensation will be paid under Section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA). In the instant case, contributory negligence will arise as both the guard as well as Matt did not take reasonable care in the quarantine center. In this case it is contributory negligence and Matt will be liable for his own fault. However, it is a major principle of the rule of law that nobody is exempted from the laws that apply to everyone. This rule applies not exclusively to normal residents, but to the administration, its officials and instrumentalities as well: their direct ought to be managed by the law. According to Sir AV Dicey, the basic standard of law incorporates within it the balance in the eyes of law or equal protection of these laws to all the class of people residing in the country so that all of them follow the rule of law which will do away with the exceptions of public authorities to exercise their powers in an arbitrary way and everyone shall be under the law and nobody above the law. The law is supreme.
As a rule, the legislature, and those following up for its sake, ought to be dependent upon similar liabilities, common and criminal, as any person. The overall insusceptibility is currently repealed by rule in every single Australian state and regions and in the Commonwealth. For the government, Crown resistance from suit was nullified by the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and apparently under s 75(iii) of the Australian Constitution, proposing Australia's established game plans neutralize extraordinary invulnerabilities from suit for governments. Under ss 56 and 64 of the Judiciary Act the leader is, so far as could reasonably be expected, subject to similar lawful liabilities as residents.
The issue here is whether Ava Label is under an obligation to join the Order Force made under the Order Force Act, 2020. The second issue which arises in this question is whether for the delivery of food, Con Sumer is liable to pay $2 as a “special fee” imposed under the Act. According to Clause 5 of the Australian Constitution, any law made by the partliament of the Commonwealth country will bind the Courts, the Judges and the citizens in every State of Australia. The common law principle of rule of law bars the parliament to make any law which does not have any legal or lawful basis. Such laws cannot be imposed by the Parliament on the citizens of the country. The laws must be intelligent, understandable to every citizen and capable of everyone’s knowledge. The main purpose of rule of law is to maintain a society free from arbitrariness of the government actions where the law is not forced upon citizens and citizens are free to accept the law which is beneficial to them. The Order Force made on the other hand is not based on equitable principles of law. "Function of the Legal Profession in the Rule of Law", labeled in the Supreme Court, Brisbane on 31 August 2007 by Hon’ble Sir Brennan as:
The key goal of the Law Council is to hold the integrity of rule of law. It must not in any way be compromised by the legislations passed by the Government or any activity of the government. These key goals are known as “Principles of Rule of Law”
Hence, Con Sumer is not liable to pay any money as special fees and the law will be held invalid when challenged before the court. Also, Ava will not be liable to join the force and can challenge the law easily.
The Act passed to amend section 7B and 26 of the Constitution Act, 1975 Vic cannot be held valid. In addition to the manner of making Rules of Court specified in section 26, the Judges of the Court may exercise the power to make Rules of Court by means of a majority of Judges of the Court (not including any reserve Judge, Associate Judge or reserve Associate Judge) agreeing to the proposed Rules.
In the Commonwealth of Australia, the responsibilities of the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments are divided. This has been provided by the Constitution itself. For combating coronavirus pandemic and maintain coordination among each other, a National Cabinet was formed in March, 2020. COVID-19 entered Australia through airports. With this view it became important to restrict foreigners to enter the country. In case entry is given to the people coming back to their own country majorly Australians, it can only be done if they are ready to get into federal quarantine for 14 days. States in Australia have also placed their own rules and restrictions on entry of individuals in their respective States. Civil Liberties provided under the Commonwealth Constitution, 1900 has also undergone a significant change. Freedom of Movement has also been impacted. Limitations on freedom of movement followed these border controls. Since the leader reported the fixing of limitations on March 29th to forestall the spread of COVID-19, all states have sanctioned laws or given orders to forestall social events. All social events got restricted to a limit of two individuals. Notwithstanding, there are noteworthy contrasts in how each state has actualized limitations. This confusion is heightened by local governments and urban communities presenting their own limitations and organizations adjusting their desires and administrations.
To help deal with the pandemic, remarkable powers were given to the police. Coronavirus related fines and jail terms shift the nation over and their requirement is fluctuated across bunches in the public area. Punishments incorporate fines of over $50,000 for partnerships and fines and prison time for people.
The State of Victoria's Deputy Commissioner of Police said that a few people had purposely violated quarantine rules and in this way the state was thinking about punishing such individuals of direct setting an individual at risk for genuine injury, which conveys a prison term of five years, or lead putting an individual at risk for death, which conveys 10 years detainment.
During the pandemic residents are being urged to examine their neighbors as to whether they are positive and give them away to the police. Australians have followed these calls. People have additionally embraced "self-improvement" gauges that have no lawful premise and meddle with another's thoughtful freedoms.
The blend of vulnerability of what is allowed and not allowed and the watchfulness conceded to police raised genuine concerns. Traditional press began to report peculiar police direct. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) gave some illustrative instances of the concerning police direct, for example, a jobless man fined AUD $1,000 for sitting in his vehicle and a lady followed by police while heading to visit her child's grave.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....