10 minute read
The Commonwealth, thekinkiest part of the Federation
Law School Playlist.
By Grace Jin.
Let me tell you a story about the one time I accidentally conducted a social experiment.
On a boring, unremarkable and nonproductive day in iso, I decided it was time to forego my second nap of the afternoon and pen a long-overdue article for The Hilarian instead. Work smart, not hard, right? So, I stewed, and I plotted (for like 2 whole mins), and I realised…what better way to work smart than to have someone else do the work?*
So ta da! The law school playlist survey was born. I asked some of my fellow law friends a very serious question: if there was a law school playlist and they were allowed to add ONE (1) song, what would it be? I was expecting to receive some mad tunes. What I actually received was a lot of questions about what sort of tone and mood the playlist was supposed to have (I commend you all, your lawyer is showing), however I wanted the playlist to reflect the genuine, unfiltered thoughts of the people. As a result, I was deliberately and infuriatingly vague, and gave fluffy non-answers (and then received some mad tunes.)
Here are the (anonymous due to popular demand) results, which generally appear to be following a rather sad theme without any prompting:
Results
‘I’m Not Okay (I Promise)’ by My Chemical Romance ‘Hard Sometimes’ by Ruel ‘Escape from LA’ by The Weeknd ‘Frail State of Mind’ by The 1975 ‘Hold On’ by Chord Overstreet ‘OK (Anxiety Anthem)’ by Mabel ‘Survivor’ by Destiny’s Child ‘Fucked Myself Up’ by merci, mercy ‘Cry Me A River’ by Justin Timberlake ‘On My Life’ by Cheat Codes ‘Shake It Off’ by Taylor Swift ‘I Don’t Like’ by Chief Keef ‘Dope’ by BTS ‘Be Alright’ by Dean Lewis ‘all the kids are depressed’ by Jeremy Zucker ‘Eye of the Tiger’ by Survivor ‘Little League’ by Conan Gray ‘Old Town Road’ by Lil Nas X ‘Know Your Worth’ by Khalid, Disclosure ‘Stressed Out’ by Twenty One Pilots ‘Rap Song on the PPSA’ by Mark Giancaspro (this is my addition, and frankly I’m appalled nobody nominated this inspiring masterpiece and it deserves an honourable mention)
The people have spoken, and what they’re saying is that they’re crying. I’m not sure what I was expecting asking for a ‘law school’ playlist, but through this fortuitous incident I now know that most of us are struggling, so at least now we can struggle together.
If you’d like to join me, you’ll find me in the corner of the Liggy basement, crying to this playlist.
*Disclaimer: this strategy is not suitable for all situations, see the Academic Honesty Policy for details. Sincerely, a fit and proper person.
While there are some students out there who think that Constitutional law is boring, irrelevant and (with the possible exception of contract law) the most unappealing of all the legal courses, it is in fact a seductive hotbed of interstate and intra-state lust.
If you find this analogy disturbing, by all means turn to the next article, but if you’d like a more graphic picture of how the Feds have ‘done the states dirty’ in more ways than one, then read on.
Federation:
Australia’s foundation was a curious period. In many countries formed from different regional localities, marriage, conquest or alliance brought them together over a period of hundreds of years. In Australia, we passed around a blank piece of paper, let the states ‘do their business’ by ‘adding a layer of themselves’ into it and then declared the resulting document our ‘Constitution’
The current system means that the Commonwealth is currently in a sort of indivisible polygamous marriage with all of the states, of who have a sort of sibling-in law relationship with each other. It means there’s always some dirty looks thrown around when one or
By Anon Y Mouse.
two of them start getting too close for comfort. Sometimes, it leads to some sort of menage et trios. Take that example when the Commonwealth let two states fight over an arms dealing contract, eerily ‘gunning it’ on the sidelines while the states made their cases.
Interstate intercourse:
The Commonwealth is a purveyor of semi-incestuous relationships between the states. Under section 92, the Constitution also guarantees that “intercourse between the States . . . shall be absolutely free”
While its reassuring that the Commonwealth at least doesn’t charge for ‘intercourse’ between the states, it isn’t a good look for them to be presiding over the dealings in the first place. In this scenario, the Commonwealth is absolutely the one peering into the window like a creepy voyeur that watches a couple of states go at it. (Obviously it’s WA and NSW, horny bastards)
Top v Bottom
The states initially thought they could control the Commonwealth through the structure of the constitution. The ‘states’ house (the Senate) was the ‘Upper House’ of Parliament. Clearly the states believed that the chamber ‘on top’ must be the dominant one in the Commonwealth
relationship. Oh how they were wrong. As it turns out, attempting to ‘cowgirl’ your way out of passing supply in the Senate just triggers a ‘limp’ House of Representatives and a constitutional crisis.
BDSM:
The Commonwealth loves to practice financial BDSM upon the states:
Due to its ability to collect more revenue, there is an inherent financial imbalance between the Commonwealth and states. This is exploited by the Commonwealth under section 96 of the constitution by them granting the states funding in exchange for the states making policy changes where the Commonwealth could otherwise not. Imagine if the Commonwealth said this to you:
“Hey babe, yeah I’ll give you that transport safety funding you need if you bend over a little and allow me to rear end your infrastructure.”
Dom v Sub:
Furthermore, in addition to keeping a firm hand on the tiller of state, the Commonwealth often likes to flex its muscles by keeping a firm hand on . . . other areas. Take for example, the constitutional cock-block the Commonwealth did to Tasmania in the Tasmanian Dam case. Or perhaps when the Commonwealth compelled the state of New South Wales to pay state debts in 1932, and when the Premier objected, he was dismissed by the Governor. Talk about Commonwealth leaders spanking their state colleagues when they got out of line huh.
It’s even written into section 109 of the constitution that inconsistent laws will be resolved in favour of the Commonwealth over the states. Clearly the framers wanted to make it clear that the Commonwealth was the ‘Dom’ in the relationship.
GST and COAG
The current distribution of taxation via GST is also one that leaves states feeling ‘sore the next day’. The system pits states against each other, making them all beg for a bigger slice of the taxation pie. Of course, with only one Commonwealth dishing it out, there are usually least two states (WA and NSW again, gee keep it in your pants guys) who constantly complain that they’re not ‘getting enough’.
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is the accepted (but as of June now outgoing) forum for intergovernmental communication and consultation. Anyway, this multifaceted government orgy is where the states all get the opportunity to blow off a little steam and, on occasion. each other. Great debates such as whether or not contraception and viagra were to be excluded from the GST were historically held here. (Of course, no state needs it, especially those randy WA and NSW bastards that are always ‘on’).
Water rights:
The states do have authority over water rights, especially those over major rivers like the Murray. This however leads to interstate squabbles where all the states on the same river (SA, VIC and NSW) complain about the others states taking more than their fair share of water, thus leaving them without. So anyway, these ‘thirsty’ states in the Commonwealth all lobby for a fairer water sharing deal to advantage themselves and try and ‘ride’ their way to a climactic finish where one state will ‘get lucky’ and get very, very wet.
COVID-19:
And where would we be without a little exaggeration from the Commonwealth. Earlier this year, they took the opportunity to ram a very big stimulus package right up the Parliamentary budget orifice. The icing of the cake is of course the fact that the Commonwealth told everyone that their stimulus package was far bigger than it actually was (almost half the size) Typical Commonwealth boasting about the size of their ‘package’, assuring everyone that the funding will ‘last longer’ than it did last time and falsely claiming that they are a generous ‘giver’ as well as a ‘receiver’ of it.
Referrals and constitutional amendments:
Even the process for referring powers to the Commonwealth or granting them additional powers by referendum has its kinks.
To increase Commonwealth powers directly, a state may choose to ‘refer’ a ‘head of power’ to the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, when a state gives head . . . s of power to the Commonwealth, usually it is only gratifying for the Commonwealth and not for the states themselves since they give up their power voluntarily for no reward.
Thankfully the Australian people have been wary of stroking the Commonwealth’s ego, or stroking anything else of the Commonwealth’s for that matter. Of the 44 referendums sought by the Commonwealth, the people have only satisfied the Commonwealth 8 times, with the ‘yes vote’ failing to ‘rise to the occasion’ so to speak, or hilariously giving the Commonwealth the faint chance of ‘getting some’ additional powers before it realizing that it is in fact a lost cause.
After all, ‘Monopolies’, ‘Trade and Commerce’ and ‘Simultaneous Elections’
have all failed twice, the Commonwealth can only be edged so much before it gives up on constitutional foreplay in its entirety. At least the Commonwealth has never had an ‘accident’ where it has celebrated referendum results ‘prematurely.’
High Court rulings:
Something that must have been agonising for the states, and to the Commonwealth but for a more gratifying reason, was the gradual stripping of powers from the states to be awarded to the Commonwealth via High Court rulings. Cases such as Tasmania Dam and Work Choices slowly built up Commonwealth power. Presiding over the state’s forced constitutional strip tease, the High Court has demonstrated that it lacks objectivity and prefers instead to intimately ingratiate itself with the Commonwealth. And boy and boy, when faced with the choice of ‘sucking’ up to the Commonwealth, they certainly don’t hesitate to ‘swallow’ whatever the Commonwealth tells them to and ‘spit out’ whatever verdict the Commonwealth such desires.
Misc:
As established in the case of Uther, the Commonwealth always comes first regarding priority of debts, but also always ‘comes first’ in other aspects as well.
The Commonwealth’s naked ambition knows no bounds and it will not be fully sated until it has successfully divested the states of all of their plenary apparel, leaving their poor state bodies unadorned for the world to mock.
And despite multiple attempts from various administrations, particular the Liberals who believe in ‘small government’, Commonwealth power just gets ‘bigger and bigger’ and ‘harder and harder’ to control and until eventually the exercise of such power will spray everywhere and soak everything. As per the Communist Party Case, it was ruled that a ‘stream cannot rise above the source’, which is why the Commonwealth has been attempting to enlarge its ‘source’ for many years now. If you measure it up on an A4 sized version of the constitution, the Commonwealth is probably after a ‘12 inch’ paragraph of accumulated section 51 powers.
In conclusion, constitutional law is certainly not a boring, cold and dry topic, it’s a pitfall of hot, and wet action regarding interstate intercourse, financial BDSM and state power strip teasing. While I passionately support federalism and the federal system more broadly, it is without a doubt that in the federal relationship, the states are royally screwed by it. It would appear that when the Commonwealth is ‘in the mood’, there’s only one safe word that’ll make them stop . . . Secession.
To make them stop: Pulling out
