section 51(v) exclusive or concurrent?

[vididid]

Just wondering but is section 51(v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services; an exclusive or concurrent power?

[Jawnle]

Just wondering but is section 51(v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services; an exclusive or concurrent power?

Exclusive, the brislan case in the high court extended the meaning of 'other like services' in favour of the Cwth parliament

[chasej]

Exclusive, the brislan case in the high court extended the meaning of 'other like services' in favour of the Cwth parliament

An exclusive power is a power which either by it's nature or by specific wording in the constitution is only within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth parliament and thus the states are restricted from legislating in the area.

The power described in S51(V) is NOT an example of an exclusive power, as communication services aren't by their nature required to be legislated only by the federal government, and no other wording in the constitution states that communications services are only powers of the commonwealth.

Yes, the Brislan case extended the powers of the Cth parliament, however the case didn't necessarily make the states lose any powers, the states still have the power to legislate in areas related to S51(V), however if an inconsistency was to develop between state and commonwealth law, it is possible the high court would rule the inconsistent state law(s) to be invalid due to the conflict.

S51(V) is a concurrent power as both the state and federal parliaments can legislate in the area, HOWEVER should an inconsistency develop between laws of the two parliaments, following s109 of the constitution, the federal law would prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

An example of an exclusive power would be, for example, citizenship and immigration, as by it's nature citizenship is granted at a federal level.

[Jawnle]

An exclusive power is a power which either by it's nature or by specific wording in the constitution is only within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth parliament and thus the states are restricted from legislating in the area.

The power described in S51(V) is NOT an example of an exclusive power, as communication services aren't by their nature required to be legislated only by the federal government, and no other wording in the constitution states that communications services are only powers of the commonwealth.

Yes, the Brislan case extended the powers of the Cth parliament, however the case didn't necessarily make the states lose any powers, the states still have the power to legislate in areas related to S51(V), however if an inconsistency was to develop between state and commonwealth law, it is possible the high court would rule the inconsistent state law(s) to be invalid due to the conflict.

S51(V) is a concurrent power as both the state and federal parliaments can legislate in the area, HOWEVER should an inconsistency develop between laws of the two parliaments, following s109 of the constitution, the federal law would prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

An example of an exclusive power would be, for example, citizenship and immigration, as by it's nature citizenship is granted at a federal level.

Yeah that's what I thought aswell, because the Commonwealth and states could both make laws in the area unless there is a case that appears in which the Cwth could challenge the states legislation's validity in the High Court. I emailed my teacher who is an assessor, and she told me it's an exclusive power.

I agree with the points you have made though.

[Jawnle]

An exclusive power is a power which either by it's nature or by specific wording in the constitution is only within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth parliament and thus the states are restricted from legislating in the area.

The power described in S51(V) is NOT an example of an exclusive power, as communication services aren't by their nature required to be legislated only by the federal government, and no other wording in the constitution states that communications services are only powers of the commonwealth.

Yes, the Brislan case extended the powers of the Cth parliament, however the case didn't necessarily make the states lose any powers, the states still have the power to legislate in areas related to S51(V), however if an inconsistency was to develop between state and commonwealth law, it is possible the high court would rule the inconsistent state law(s) to be invalid due to the conflict.

S51(V) is a concurrent power as both the state and federal parliaments can legislate in the area, HOWEVER should an inconsistency develop between laws of the two parliaments, following s109 of the constitution, the federal law would prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

An example of an exclusive power would be, for example, citizenship and immigration, as by it's nature citizenship is granted at a federal level.

Hey Chasej I emailed her again, and she said technically you're correct about the s.109 and all, but due to the nature of brislan and jones the power has very much remained exclusive. What she means by nature is that the states became reluctant to make laws cause they knew they had very little or no chance of winning if the Cwth or other parties challenged it.

[M_BONG]

Hey Chasej I emailed her again, and she said technically you're correct about the s.109 and all, but due to the nature of brislan and jones the power has very much remained exclusive. What she means by nature is that the states became reluctant to make laws cause they knew they had very little or no chance of winning if the Cwth or other parties challenged it.

Yeah but on the VCAA exam you would never write "Brislan's case" made "legislation of wireless sets to become an exclusive power". That would be wrong, to be honest.

Yeah that's what I thought aswell, because the Commonwealth and states could both make laws in the area unless there is a case that appears in which the Cwth could challenge the states legislation's validity in the High Court. I emailed my teacher who is an assessor, and she told me it's an exclusive power.

I agree with the points you have made though.

It's definitely a concurrent power since no other sections of the Commonwealth Constitution states that the State Parliament cannot exercise that power.  You probably misinterpreted what your teacher said.

Exclusive, the brislan case in the high court extended the meaning of 'other like services' in favour of the Cwth parliament

No, I don't think it's exclusive.  It extended the meaning of "other like services" and through the ratio of that case shifted a residual power to a concurrent power. Exclusive means that the States cannot legislate.