Why do young people think theyre immortal??

[China]

Section 109

[Ray153]

Sturdee the Australian constitution overides all state constitutions , AlexS You are correct "they have to comply with the relevent Australian standards" the only problem is they don't
Ray the Road safety Act is irrelevent it has never been gazeted therefore is not binding "At no point do any of these regulations or sections say that there is any mandatory requirement from a legal standing point of view for the devices to be tested by an independent testing authority" again read the constitution, you may learn something I can assure it was not include as a red hearing. I have personaly attended meatings at which speed limits were determind by politions with no consultation whatsoever. Alexs the people who do challenge these alleged infringements in a properly constituted court (chap III Commonwealth Constitution Act "Forge V ASIC") do and are winning cases.

China,
It is patently obvious to me that you are unwilling to provide any supporting line of reasoning or logic to the claims you are making. Or you are unable to do so.

What proof do you have that the Aust Standards are not met in the testing and validation process of speed cameras and other prescribed devices?

I speak from experience here when I tell you that a prosecution will not be pursued in the Courts here if the device used does not comply with the testing and validation standards set down in law as they are no longer prescribed devices for the Act and therefore do not allow the use of the data they provide as evidence of the speed of the vehicle. In my current role, I deal with these things on a daily basis in the Courts.

Acts of Parliament are not "gazetted" as you put it. Acts of Parliament receive Royal Assent in this country. Once they receive that Assent, they become law.

As for the Act not being binding, do you own a vehicle? Is it registered? Do you have a licence? If the answer is yes, then I suggest that you feel bound by the Act pretty well otherwise you wouldn't bother with such details like holding a licence, registering your car.

I have done you the courtesy of providing the exact parts of the relevant legislation I rely upon, the best you can do is "read the Constitution". Exactly which part are you referring to?

The New South Wales Supreme Court decision of ASIC v Forge relates to an appeal lodged by Forge and others over a Court decision that banned them from acting as company directors after breaching the Corporations Law. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. Seems much the same shade of similar fish as the Constitution one to me.........

I would point out that the "legal advice" that can often be found on various websites that may appear from time to time such as FightFines, Calendonia Australis and the like is no substitution for legal advice provided by a person actually qualified to provide legal advice. I am not suggesting that these sites have been the source for some of the claims that have been made, but it is certainly sounding familiar.

But again I invite you to produce some evidence that the people you claim "challenge these alleged infringements in a properly constituted Court and win" exist. I am not saying that people are never found not guilty of speeding charges, that happens on a regular basis.

I am talking about people who are found not guilty in cases where the evidence is derived from a speed camera. The only way to win such a case is to prove that the camera was not operated in accordance with the prescribed regulations or malfunctioned in some way. Getting up in Court and saying "Your Honour, the camera could not possibly have been operated correctly or it malfunctioned in some way because I never speed" is not proof.

Point out to me where any politician has the legal authority in any Act of Parliament to set a particular speed limit. Politicians may well promise to raise/lower speed limits but like the promises of many politicians, they are all too often just that. Promises.

Bit like your claims I suspect China.

[Ray153]

Section 109

Says "Australian Constitution - 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."

Now show me the part of Commonwealth Law that relates to road laws. This section only applies where there is conflict between a Commonwealth and a State Act relating to the same subject sought to be regulated. There are no Commonwealth laws about speed limits. As a result, Section 109 of the Constitution does not come into effect.

[Sturdee]

Now show me the part of Commonwealth Law that relates to road laws. This section only applies where there is conflict between a Commonwealth and a State Act relating to the same subject sought to be regulated. There are no Commonwealth laws about speed limits. As a result, Section 109 of the Constitution does not come into effect.


:2tsup:

My view as well as the states never granted powers over road transport to the Commonwealth.


Peter.