The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.
Share this post

The Australian Constitution records the legal structure of the government of Australia. It was drafted in Australia in a series of constitutional conventions held in the 1890’s, then passed in the British Parliament as part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, and came into effect with the Commonwealth of Australia on January 1st 1901.

The Constitution can only be changed by passing a referendum of the citizens eligible to vote.

Section 100 of the Australian Constitution states ‘The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.’

The meaning and intention of Section 100 are clear and have no need of forensic analysis,

As the Water Act 2007 and its subsidiary Basin Plan are Commonwealth law that regulate the use of river water, their existence contravenes the Australian Constitution.

The authors of the Water Act 2007 and its subsidiary Basin Plan recognized that these Acts appear to contravene the Australian Constitution, and so claimed their Constitutional validity in Section 9 of the Water Act (Constitutional basis for Act).

Section 9 of the Water Act quotes various clauses of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution (Legislative powers of the Parliament) as justification for overpowering Section 100 of that same Constitution. However, the first subsection of Section 51 states ‘The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws etc.’ Visibly, Section 51 itself states that its clauses are subject to other Sections of the Constitution, including of course Section 100. This means that Section 51 cannot validly be claimed to overpower Section 100.

Section 9 also quotes ‘any implied legislative powers of the Commonwealth’. Obviously, ‘implied powers’ do not overpower written powers such as Section 100.

The citizens of Australia are confronted with the problem of Federal politicians contravening the Australian Constitution by their forming of the Water Act 2007 and its subsidiary Basin Plan. The citizens of N.S.W, Victoria and South Australia are confronted with the additional problem of their State parliamentarians approving of this contravention by participating in the legislation’s implementation.

A resolution to both these problems is needed.

David Landini

Share this post
0 0 votes
Article Rating
61 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Lonergan
2 years ago

We need to take the Goverment to court and overthrow their in lawful changes which are all unconstitutional.

joe attard
2 years ago
Reply to  Mark Lonergan

they run the courts so we need thousands of people in and outside of the courts ready to take control and incarcerate all of those who aren’t on our side.

Vynka
2 years ago
Reply to  joe attard

This will be a rebellion much like the Eureka Stockade but at least today we should be able to do this in peace. I wonder if there are any doliditors or legal citizens that would help this cause. It is truly timely as our country is on the brink of loss if we as people don’t stand up for our rights.

Kath
2 years ago
Reply to  Vynka

You have that spot on we all need to stand together and fight

Sue Phyland
2 years ago
Reply to  Mark Lonergan

Yes

Lewis
2 years ago
Reply to  Mark Lonergan

Have a look at Lee v Cth (2014) 220 FCR 300 which deals with this exact issue and held that the Water Act was valid and the Constitution does not render any part of the Act invalid

Mark Lonergan
2 years ago

We must take the Goverment to court on the basis that these changes were all unconstitutional

2 years ago

Brilliant. I was not aware of this.

Lewis
2 years ago
Reply to  Bruce

Have a look at Lee v Cth (2014) 220 FCR 300 which deals with this exact issue and held that the Water Act was valid and the Constitution does not render any part of the Act invalid

2 years ago

Brilliant, I was not aware of this.

joe attard
2 years ago

this goes to prove we the people are within our rights to blow every corporate dam wall with C4 and let the water flow. If they try to put us in court for our rights to act upon them then these corporate need to be removed from our country by our courts. If our judges do not recognise our rights to act then they too need to be removed.

Phil
2 years ago
Reply to  joe attard

Agree Joe.Divert the Water Back to its Natural God(or ET) given Directions. as a Aussie am NOT taken this Bull-Sh*t Anymore Bugger the polling booths C-4 the GREED dams Back to the River Systems

Noel Downs
2 years ago

The term “Reasonable use” is the bit that they will rely on… They can regulate, but not in a way that prevents reasonable use. Sustainable, irrigation and domestic and stock use would be protected, but commercial irrigation, etc would not be under regulated supply. This would also allow them to charge for use. However the favouring of commercial interests like minimal charge for water licences for major users would suggest they are misusing this power.

Suesie
2 years ago
Reply to  Noel Downs

They will use the fact that there is a drought at the moment and twist that fact to there own use

JOHN Gilbert
2 years ago
Reply to  Noel Downs

I also agree, Flood irrigation should be totally banned on the Darling river system due to the small total volume in a normal year and flow should be unrestricted all the way to the Murray except for small holding ponds for farms an small townships . Farmers and grazier’s need to survive as well as any corporate business. Our Politicians know this but totally ignore it Time to VOTE them OUT of Office. John.

Vivien Leek
2 years ago
Reply to  Noel Downs

Also , there appears to have been little to no monitoring of the licences, the accurate metering of water being drawn. The Commonwealth and States have abrogated their regulatory function to ensure compliance.
Also, the amount of water that was recommended to be left for environmental reasons has NOT been allowed. The environmental flow that remains is inadequate for maintaining healthy flowing rivers, lakes and marshes and the lives that depend on a healthy river system; this is not fair use for the environment.
Fair use must be fair for all, not favouring big agriculture which practise is very much questionable given our climate change crisis.

Helen Russo
2 years ago

You need to get behind Rod Culleton and Co. GAP Great Australian Party. He is in the process of getting our original constitution back. That is the only way. No current Emu or kangaroo Court has the jurisdiction of common law because they all operate under the fraudulent corporate government. Follow Rod, get educated on how this deceipt began. Time to address the source of all issues, this fraudulent government has created.

jeff-.Kay
2 years ago

Any law pasted post The Commonwealth Government Of Australia being the Constitutional Government of the People For a Corporate Colour formed by the Major Parties without a vote by the people is an Outlaw organisation and as such are not a Lawfull entity and any law code ordinance our any other bullshit name implied The People of this Ausralia have an Obligation to repel break side track and disregard and to hold those same political parties and their agents to Grande Juries for judgement for Treason

Rita Warleigh
2 years ago

Well done Mark Landini. Thanks for your research and showing us that the commonwealth has acted illegally. We citizens must take action.

Hal
2 years ago

The politicians Usurped our Constitution with The Australia Act. You are right , but the Parties no longer operate under our rules so we no longer have any rights under their leadership.

Stacey
2 years ago

Doesn’t the Australia act 1985, overrule some of the constitution?

Trevor Gunning
2 years ago
Reply to  Stacey

NO, Invalid law that was never submitted via the GG, the Queen signed the top of the page and her signature does not appear in the correct place…

James G
2 years ago

I think you may need to read a bit more about constitutional law. But it is an important topic to be critical of.
Key word is ‘reasonable’ use of water. If people are running out of water then it’s no longer reasonable for mines and cotton fields to drink it up. So laws need to be passed to prevent water take by big business while citizens and wildlife suffer

Jason Blake
2 years ago

I heard it during my time in the ADF – people claiming they are willing to die for Australia. Hear outside in normal Australia, but really how many people are really willing to die for their country.

We think the Hun is going to come over the water to attack, that it will be overt and visual.

[ “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”

Sun Tzu over 1500 years ago. ]

To succeed was never going to be easy and without sacrifice.

Sandra Lea Parker
2 years ago

Does this mean the Government is not allowed to charge for water?

Ray
2 years ago

Conmonweath yes, Australian Gov. (Registered) no.

Ma Ree
2 years ago

We don’t have enuf water in many rivers to call them rivers coz the water table & aquifers r being disrupted or drained by multiple forms of Mining.

Vynka
2 years ago

Thank you. I did download our constitution with intension to go through it but have not had the opportunity. Please keep sharing with us other important parts of this document of governance. It is so important but as usual we are and have been left in the dark. At the time this was created there were not many citizens that could read and write. It was archived and forgotten to the at vantage of ego driven leaders that like the way know one knows it even exists. School children should be taught it. At least in the US the constitution is a document of knowledge here it is hidden away in the hope no one will ever read it.

Maureen
2 years ago

For all current politicians and those going back a certain number of years (say 20) it should be mandatory that they disclose any water holdings or water market businesses they or their family are aligned with. I think we will get a rude shock when we realise who and just how many in high positions do. Why is this any different to disclosing any other businesses which are conflicts of interest, In Fact, with the devastating results of water redirection to the landscape, farmers and the general public it is extremely important these business dealings are transparent.

Phil Mann
2 years ago

hello Fellow Generation Aussies..G8 Page..Yes 100% Legally Correct without Standing United-Nations charter applying to Basic Human Rights Violations of ILL-legal State-Federal Government by laws passed Without Constitutional referendum Legality..I Am a 59 yr Old Caucasian Male Descendant 1ST Cousin from our Natural Owners Indigenous People..Not a Convict Nor were my Fore Fathers..As a Former Country Born-Bred Old School Hard Working Class Aussie *Our Countries Political ALL of Them Members Need to be put on Notice **The Australian Federal Police and All Australian Military Personal** Ist and Foremost Oaths Taken are To the Natural-Nationalized Citizens of the Country-Land they serve is to Defend its People First Not the Country’s Governments…I Am A Patriot- Tax payer – Man of Gods LAWS to Our Land-Country but Enough is Enough of This New Global World of Story Telling Self Righteous Greed and Manipulation of Our Human Basic Rights called Contrived STEALING OF NATURAL GIVEN WATER…for GREED CORRUPTION and Violating of the United-Nations Human rights..Please Note I am Not a Man of Words but Actions Under Gods Laws not Mans law….
With True-Blue Regards-Respect….Phillip John Mann

Mick Rebbeck
2 years ago
Reply to  Phil Mann

Well said mate! I hope that many Australians would stand by your words, I would. You’re right, this gov needs one hell of a shake up, put on notice, could nearly charge with treason! If we would only all stand together.

2 years ago

The Commonwealth Water Act was passed because the States had made a bloody mess of it for 100 years, over-allocating water to buy votes. Sure, the Commonwealth seems to have made a mess of it too, not by intervening, but by compromising it’s intervention to mollify sectional interests rather than fully implementing good scientific advice available to it, indeed commissioned by it. Our problem is not waiver of State’s rights; it’s a crummy Constitution.

noel
2 years ago

Found this bit of information too, Section 109. Inconsistency of laws
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to
the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Jodie turner
2 years ago

it boggles me how our government has been getting away with their lies
Why do so many Australians believe our constitution is a conspiracy???

Cazz
2 years ago

We need to start a petition to send to the Queen to STOP this BS.

Peter
2 years ago

You might want to look at s 51xxxvii – referral of powers – matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law
Probably covers the MDBA? See Water (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2008

Lewis
2 years ago
Reply to  Peter

Have a look at Lee v Cth (2014) 220 FCR 300 which deals with this exact issue and held that the Water Act was valid and the Constitution does not render any part of the Act invalid

2 years ago

Here is a further reason why Australia needs to replace federation with a decentralised unitary state.

The water issue is now of such paramount importance that Australians cannot allow a state to fail to carry out agreements made between states in good faith to favour citizens living their state. My understanding is that is what happened here.

2 years ago

Clearly, Australia needs to rewrite its Constitution altogether, not to try to amend it. To argue that the 2007 Act is unconstitutional throws up new problems of this Constitution apparently not recognised at the time.
We could on and on. Surely the water issue is now much more important than what it was in 1901. I have not mentioned it in my 2018 book YE, s we can …..rewrite Australian Constitution which was triggered by the Section 44 Drama – still completely unresolved as well. A sovereign people surely can decided through it government that it should rewrite its entire Constitution, an archaic frozen document, in one go via section 128. It’ll take a Government with guts to do that. Obviously, not the current one.

2 years ago

Sorry, I wrote this in some haste. Here is an improved version:

Clearly, Australia needs to rewrite its Constitution altogether, not try to amend it. To argue that the 2007 Act is unconstitutional throws up new problems of this Constitution apparently not recognised at the time.
We could go on and on. Surely the water issue is now much more important than what it was in 1901. I have not mentioned it in my 2018 book: YES, we can …..rewrite Australian Constitution (BookPod/Amazon) which was triggered by the Section 44 Drama – still completely unresolved as well. A sovereign people surely can decide through its Government that it should rewrite its entire Constitution, an archaic and demonstrably frozen document, in one go via Section 128. It’ll take a Government with guts to do that. Obviously, not the current one. The time has come to recognise that further attempts to amend it will fail again. Major unresolved issues in Australia await a fresh start.

Marianne
2 years ago

Sadly our Constitution needs a full overhaul. When it was written it gave very little to ‘We the People’ and mainly dealt with the Politicians.

2 years ago
Reply to  Marianne

Correct Marianne, but “sadly”? Wouldn’t you think “gladly”? The last attempt to make amendment easier was knocked back in 1988, when a highly qualified group of researchers,
put the amendment to the people to require three states to approve an amendment instead of four (“a majority of states”). That was a perfectly sensible attempt but failed. So, not only is the amendment procedure just about impossible but, in practice, the adversarial two-party system, resulting from the dominant Australian electoral system Single-Member-District, is ahuge hindrance for amendment. Unless the major parties agree, it becomes impossible to get it passed. So let’s start with changing the electoral system to Proportional representation – Party List, used in 89 countries of which 43 are European states. Knowledge about such a sensible alternative is very sketchy in Australia. Why would that be?

Sarantis Stamboulakis
2 years ago

Needs a High Court challenge which is both costly and time consuming, and before parliamentary changes to laws are again enacted.

Lewis
2 years ago

Have a look at Lee v Cth (2014) 220 FCR 300 which deals with this exact issue and held that the Water Act was valid and the Constitution does not render any part of the Act invalid

Douglas Wakefield
2 years ago

Dedicated PEOPLE SHOULD BE ELECTED TO FORM A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT FOR THEIR OWN POSPERITY OR SELF GAIN.
THEY SHOULD BE PAID A REASONABLE REMITTANCE FOR THEIR SERVICES AND WHEN LEAVING GOVERMMENT ALL ENTITLEMENTS CEASE FORWITH.
ON ENTERING GOVERNMENT ALL FINANCIALS SHOULD BE DISCLOSED AND OPEN FOR INVESTIGATION AT ALL TIMES.
WHILE SERVING IN GOVERNMENT ALL FINANCIAL ACTIVATIES SHOULD CEASE IMMEDIATELY.

Bruce wood
2 years ago

We need to remove these overpaid leeches that don’t put the countries best interest above their own greed.

Bruce wood
2 years ago

Water rights

2 years ago

So now how do we revert it to how it should be ?

Bill
2 years ago

That should set the cat upon the pigeons hey?

Lewis
2 years ago

Have a look at Lee v Cth (2014) 220 FCR 300 which deals with this exact issue and held that the Water Act was valid and the Constitution does not render any part of the Act invalid

Julia Temby
2 years ago

How about having this post edited, with proper grammar and punctuation, so that it can be understood?

Vivien Leek
2 years ago

Interesting. Does it apply to artesian/ underground/ subterranean/aquifer?
Can they be taken to court to have this atrociuos and harmful/ exploitative Water Act revoked?

Lewis
2 years ago
Reply to  Vivien Leek

Have a look at Lee v Cth (2014) 220 FCR 300 which deals with this exact issue and held that the Water Act was valid and the Constitution does not render any part of the Act invalid

Lynette Chase
2 years ago

All this does not mean you cannot have your share, nor does it mean any company can take 1000’s of litres leaving nothing for you, make you buy your own water back by importing it back to Australia
!

Lynette Chase
2 years ago

Action is required immediately. For Farmers water is required with no ifs or buts! Nor should companies be permitted to use the most water, export it and then sell it by importing this same water back to Australia. No exporting water.

stephen
2 years ago

We the people have not been ask by referendum to change the constitution. The changes to our Constitution since 1947 are illegal and need to be abrogated.; Time to stand up is close.

Kathy & Roger Brady
2 years ago

Good post!

Gerard Cec
2 years ago

How would this apply to having free residency water?

Sandra Morvell
2 years ago

Obviously the powers that be didn’t read the constitution. Stupidity at their worst

Michael A Griffin
1 year ago

they have abridged citizens rights because, in the Water Act, they have repealled common law riparian rights.