14 September 2018

Australia's new police state laws banning travel open to abuse in breach of Section 92?

Think it can't get any worse travelling between the colonies, well you're in for a surprise.

Those pesky people who invented the constitution in Australia, made it difficult for some MPs to be in office lawfully, under what the plebs are now aware of as Section 44.

To make things worse the numbers go all the way up to 128, where section 127 has a bit of liquid paper on it

Why couldn't they just stick with "do no harm", where life so much easier in the 'good ol' days' prior to this pesky occurrence called civilisation or something that has a bit more of a corporate slang like Civil CIVIC COMPLIANCE VICTORIA (ABN: 97 103 604 897)

Some plebs just recently became aware of Section 92 (via social media, of course), and get that wrong, and now even more pesky plebs are going to be aware of this section which talks about intercourse (no, not sexual silly) and get that wrong as well.

Thankfully we have the honest High Court of Australia to interpret Section 92 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), for those who may want to get there as their final destination.

See article from 12 September 2018 by brisbanetimes.com.au of the headline:

Fines or imprisonment for travellers if they do not comply with new police powers at airports

Travellers could face fines of up to $4200 or imprisonment if they do not comply with new police powers to request identification at Australian airports, eject people from the premises and ban them from flights.

Under legislation introduced to Parliament by the Morrison government on Tuesday, police will be able to carry out identity checks when they suspect people are involved in criminal activity that poses a threat to the public.

Police will be able to issue a "move on" direction if someone refuses to cooperate or if they believe it will disrupt an imminent security threat. The person can also be banned from entering airports for 24 hours.

There will be boosted security at Australian airports. Photo: Justin McManus

“Police at our airports are highly trained in behavioural analysis and threat assessments. However, they don’t currently have the power to check ID unless they can link behaviour to a specific offence,” Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said in a statement.

“The proposed powers are commensurate with aviation security threats and will help our police protect the Australian community."

If people do not cooperate with police orders, they face fines of up to $4200 under the Crimes Act. They could also be imprisoned for up to 12 months if they provide misleading information or for up to two years if they are deemed to be obstructing a Commonwealth official.

Government identity documents or other personal identity cards and documents can be used by travellers when they face an identity check by police. If they do not have any documentation, they can provide their name and other details.

The government believes the current laws – which place a stricter limit on authorities' ability to conduct identity checks at major airports – are outdated given the increased terror threat.

Explanatory information provided with the legislation says, "Without specific intelligence that an offence has been, is being, or will be committed, AFP officers have reported that, under the current framework, they are unable to assess potential threats within airports by directing a person to provide evidence of their identity."

Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said Labor would examine the legislation closely and come to a position in due course.

"We expect this bill to be thoroughly examined through the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security," Mr Dreyfus said.

Greens senator Nick McKim said Mr Dutton was "attacking the basic rights of every Australian to distract from the multiple scandals he’s involved in".

Senator McKim warned the Home Affairs Minister could not be trusted with law enforcement agencies in his ministry and called on Labor to oppose the legislation.

“There is no justification for this ‘papers please’ policy," he said.

“This adds to the over 200 legislative changes over the last 20 years which remove fundamental rights and freedoms from Australian people.”

The laws are in addition to a $300 million expansion of security at Australian airports, including the introduction of advanced X-ray and body scanning machines.

End of article by brisbanetimes.com.au

See what the ALRC (Australian Law Reform Commission) states on Section 92 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).

Protections from statutory encroachment

Australian Constitution

5.9          Section  92 of the Australian Constitution provides:
On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.[6]
5.10       In Gratwick v Johnson (1945), Starke J said that the ‘people of Australia are thus free to pass to and from among the states without burden, hindrance or restriction’.[7] However, in Cole v Whitfield (1988), the High Court said that this does not mean that ‘every form of intercourse must be left without any restriction or regulation in order to satisfy the guarantee of freedom’.[8]
For example, although personal movement across a border cannot, generally speaking, be impeded, it is legitimate to restrict a pedestrian’s use of a highway for the purpose of his crossing or to authorize the arrest of a fugitive offender from one State at the moment of his departure into another State.[9]
5.11       In Cunliffe v The Commonwealth (1994), Mason CJ said that the freedom of intercourse which s 92 guarantees is not absolute:
Hence, a law which in terms applies to movement across a border and imposes a burden or restriction is invalid. But, a law which imposes an incidental burden or restriction on interstate intercourse in the course of regulating a subject-matter other than interstate intercourse would not fail if the burden or restriction was reasonably necessary for the purpose of preserving an ordered society under a system of representative government and democracy and the burden or restriction was not disproportionate to that end. Once again, it would be a matter of weighing the competing public interests.[10]
5.12       It has also been suggested that a right to freedom of movement is implied generally in the Constitution. In Miller v TCN Channel Nine (1986), Murphy J said that freedom of movement between states and ‘in and between every part of the Commonwealth’ is implied in the Constitution.[11] However, this view has not been more broadly accepted by the High Court.[12] Professors George Williams and David Hume write:
This reflects the lack of a clear textual basis for such a freedom and for the incidents of the constitutionally prescribed system of federalism which would support it, and an implicit view that the Constitution’s federalism is not intended to protect individuals.[13]
5.13       In any event, a right to freedom of movement implicit in federalism would presumably only extend to movement within Australia, rather than to a broader freedom which would include the freedom to leave and return to Australia.

Principle of legality

5.14       The principle of legality provides some protection to freedom of movement.[14] When interpreting a statute, courts will presume that Parliament did not intend to interfere with freedom of movement, unless this intention was made unambiguously clear. In Potter v Minahan (1908), O’Connor J said:
It cannot be denied that, subject to the Constitution, the Commonwealth may make such laws as it may deem necessary affecting the going and coming of members of the Australian community. But in the interpretation of those laws it must, I think, be assumed that the legislature did not intend to deprive any Australian-born member of the Australian community of the right after absence to re-enter Australia unless it has so enacted by express terms or necessary implication.[15]
5.15       Freedom of movement is an essential part of personal liberty, which is also protected by the principle of legality.[16]

International law

5.16       Freedom of movement is widely recognised in international law and bills of rights. For example, art 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
(1)     Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2)     Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
5.17       Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides, in part:
1.      Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2.      Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
4.      No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
5.18       International instruments cannot be used to ‘override clear and valid provisions of Australian national law’.[17] However, where a statute is ambiguous, courts will generally favour a construction that accords with Australia’s international obligations.[18]

Bills of rights

5.19       In other countries, bills of rights or human rights statutes provide some protection from statutory encroachment. Freedom of movement is protected in the United States Constitution,[19] and in the human rights statutes in Canada[20] and New Zealand.[21]
5.20       Freedom of movement is also expressly protected in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) and the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).[22] Section 12 of the Victorian Act provides:
Every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it and has the freedom to choose where to live.
[6]           The Constitution 1901 (Cth) s 92. (emphasis added)
[7]           Gratwick v Johnson (1945) 70 CLR 1, 17.
[8]           Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360, 393.
[9]           Ibid, 393. See also: AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160, 177–179 [40]–[45] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh & Gummow JJ).
[10]         Cunliffe v The Commonwealth (1994) 182 CLR 272, 307–308 (Mason CJ).
[11]         Miller v TCN Channel Nine (1986) 161 CLR 556, 581–582. ‘The Constitution also contains implied guarantees of freedom of speech and other communications and freedom of movement not only between the States and the States and the territories but in and between every part of the Commonwealth. Such freedoms are fundamental to a democratic society. They are necessary for the proper operation of the system of representative government at the federal level. They are also necessary for the proper operation of the Constitutions of the States (which derive their authority from Chapter V of the Constitution). They are a necessary corollary of the concept of the Commonwealth of Australia. The implication is not merely for the protection of individual freedom; it also serves a fundamental societal or public interest.’ The freedom, Williams and Hume write, is arguably ‘implicit in the system of free trade, commerce and intercourse in s 92, the protection against discrimination based on state residence in s 117 and any protection of access to the seat of government as well as in the very fact of federalism’: George Williams and David Hume, Human Rights under the Australian Constitution (OUP, 2nd ed, 2013) 120.
[12]         In Kruger v Commonwealth (1997), Brennan J said that a constitutional right to freedom of movement and association which restricts the scope of s 122 had not been held to be implied in the Constitution and ‘no textual or structural foundation for the implication has been demonstrated in this case’: Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, 45 .
[13]         Williams and Hume, above n 11, 120.
[14]         The principle of statutory interpretation now known as the ‘principle of legality’ is discussed more generally in Ch 1.
[15]         Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277.
[16]         See DC Pearce and RS Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 8th ed, 2014) 256.
[17]         Minister for Immigration v B (2004) 219 CLR 365, 425 [171] (Kirby J).
[18]         Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, 287 (Mason CJ and Deane J). The relevance of international law is discussed more generally in Ch 1.
[19]         United States Constitution amend IV.
[20]         Canada Act 1982 c 11, Sch B Pt 1 (’Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’) s 6(1)–(2).
[21]         Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZ) s 18.
[22]         Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 (Vic) s 12; Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) s 13.

Source:  https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/protections-statutory-encroachment-1

No comments: