The Defence Power : The Defense Power

In this essay I will be talking about the impact of the fall of Singapore on Australia’s immediate security, and also be giving a brief background of important events during that time.

The discourse surrounding an appropriate defence policy in Australia has been an intense debate, extending back to the beginning of the 20th century. Stemming from the Creswell-Foster divide has emerged two sides, the state centric, geostrategic concept of the ‘Defence of Australia’ and the alliance-centric concept of the ‘Security Based Defence’. As well as these policy approaches is the state coercive notion of ‘puritive deterrence’.

Political thinkers Rousseau, Locke and Montesqieu claimed that the powers of government should be limited, divided and checked. The principle is that there should be a division of government executive, legislative and judiciary powers into three separate arms or institutions that act separately and are independent of one another (members of one branch cannot be members of either of the other two). Australia’s constitution separated powers by delegating the legislative power to Federal parliament (s.1), executive power to the Governor General (s.61) and the Judiciary to the High Court (s.71). However due to Westminster conventions (adopted from the British system of parliament) commonly practiced by the Australia government, the members of the executive (cabinet) are selected from the legislative by the Prime Minister (going against the concept of having no cross-branched members). The PM (also Westminster convention) is not mentioned in the constitution and yet exercised executive power; for example in 2003 PM John Howard exercises (s.68) by sending troops to Iraq. The constitution also provides the executive with the power to appoint the High Court Judge (s.72) and thus is could be argued that the executive has power over the Judiciary in that sense; However the constitution actively safeguards the position of the Judiciary by stating the High Court Judge “Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the

The Australian Criminal Justice system has an intricate and diverse structure that makes it one of the most unique systems in the world. The Commonwealth of Australia was approved by the British Parliament in 1900 and came into existence on January 1, 1901. The federal constitution combined British and American practices, with a parliamentary government, but with two houses - the popularly elected House of Representatives and Senate representing the former colonies. This began the start of a new era of policing. (Findlay, Odgers, Yeo). The Commonwealth of Australia is a federalist government composed of a national government and six State governments. There are nine different criminal justice systems in Australia - six states, two territories, and one federal. The eight States and Territories have powers to enact their own criminal law, while the Commonwealth has powers to enact laws. Criminal law is administered principally through the federal, State and Territory police. (Chappell, Wilson, Heaton). In this essay an in depth analysis of the Australian criminal justice system will be given, along with a comparison to the United States criminal justice system throughout the essay. As well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the system and finally a brief summary of how the Australian criminal justice system structure could be improved to better suit the evolving society. Australia has a complex and very intuitive system of policing that

Much of the Federal legislation was implemented to comply with international terrorism treaties that Australia was party to (PA, n.d.-a). Examples of this legislation include ‘Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994’, which complied with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and use of

Essay: Federation of Australia By Tristan Scheirs

Defence
A very important reason why Australia decided to become a nation (having a federal government) was because of an inadequate defence force. Each of the six colonies in Australia had their own military force. But when it came to patrolling the extensive Australian coastline, they had to rely on the British navy to fulfil that task. Due to there being a number of countries such as Germany, France, and Russia who had colonised parts of the Pacific, there was a growing fear that one of them could have attacked Australia. There was a report released by British Major - General Sir J Bevan Edwards in 1889, states the individual colonies of Australia did not have enough soldiers,

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

Section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution of Australia grants exclusive power to the Commonwealth to legislate with regard to external affairs. Since its inception, through the development of case law, the external affairs power has been found to consist of three limbs:

The act was then nullified by the High Court in  the Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (the Communist Party Case)[14]. The Defence Power (section 51(vi)  of  the  Constitution) was the chief  foundation  of power in support of both the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) and section

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

Many cases require alternate defences for those who suffer from mental disorders, this defence is known as Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder also known as NCRMD. A defence such as this is used to explain that the perpetrator had a disorder that made them unaware of the crime they had committed and that the crime was wrong. Applying NCRMD as a defence can be difficult as there are many requirements a person needs to meet before they are deemed not responsible. In some cases, it is hard to prove that the offender had a mental disorder at the time of the crime and that it is a valid defence as to why they committed the crime unknowingly. There is a lot of discussion around NCRMD being successful or unsuccessful and what should happen to the offender if they are deemed NCRMD. A recent case where NCRMD was used as a defence and was successful, was in the case of David Siu. NCRMD is a successful and valid defence if it is used in the right case to protect those in the system with mental disoders.

It appears that sections 2, 3 and 4(1)–(3) may be supported by the Defence Power, under section 51(vi). Section 2 provides the objects of the ASIATIC Act. It states that the legislation’s purposes, with respect to “defence of the Commonwealth of Australia”, to support any Australian Government agency and its members (s 2(i)), to control anti-social behaviour interfering the policies for defence (s 2(ii)), to prevent the recurrence of the anti-social behaviour (s 2(iii)), and associated the purposes (s 2(iv)). Dixon J stated that a law with respect to the defence power expresses connection to defence of the Commonwealth in its purpose or object, according to its purposive nature. This provision clearly states that the Act has the connection to the

As a result of the Second World War the power and prestige of the Australian Government increased significantly. Most of the powers acquired by the Commonwealth were gained with the passing of the National Security Act on the 9th of September 1939. The sweeping powers allowed the Federal Government to control the civil liberties of civilians, industry manufactures and the workforce, the role of women and many activities of everyday Australians. Although these controls brought hardship and some tensions within society, the Australian people were united in the war effort and in the ‘austerity’ required from them.

Australia is a British settled colony; nevertheless, Australian forces have fought together with the United States military in every significant conflict since World War I.

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas