The national plan is not set in stone. States will make their own decisions about complying with it - including on border closures.
Everyone from human rights experts to famous cricketers are expressing their disgust at the federal government’s India travel ban. Its legality depends on what laws you are looking at.
As a “Voice” that would allow Indigenous Australians to have a say in parliamentary and government decisions that affect them takes shape, it is vital it be enshrined in our Constitution.
The mission of Voice. Treaty. Truth in the Uluru Statement represents very carefully sequenced reforms. A proper understanding of these should guide any constitutional changes.
There are many questions regarding The Dismissal that can still be debated. But the queen simply advised the governor-general to follow the constitution, which is as she should have done.
After a long court battle, Australians are finally about to learn more about one of the most pivotal episodes in our political and constitutional history.
There are many ideas on how Indigenous recognition can be achieved in line with the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We need to keep exploring them until we find one that will work.
The answer is in the reason for re-opening only to some parts of the country. And our constitution allows states a bit of leeway to decide what is in their citizens’ best interests.
However, the win does not necessarily mean the public will have access to the letters - much now rests on what the National Archives does next.
The Indigenous Constitutional Voice has been miscast by mischievous politicians as quasi-separatism. Australians were frightened by the inference it was not just illiberal, but un-Australian.
It is important government continue – and be able to be properly scrutinised – during this time of crisis, and the Australian Constitution allows it to be done electronically.
The short answer is ‘yes’ - the states can impede people moving across borders if it is for the protection of public health.
Two former high court justices and constitutional experts have thrown their support behind the importance of a First Nations Voice to parliament.
The Constitution says that the governor-general can only act to fill a vacancy in the prime ministership if there is one - but in this case, some complex questions would have arisen.
Media companies’ legal challenges to the legitimacy of recent AFP raids will allow the courts to clarify where the line is between national security and press freedom.
At a recent constitutional convention, high school students from across the country designed a new preamble to the Constitution to bring it into line with their idea of how Australia should be.
We now wait for the final count of seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate - and in the meantime, government continues.
First, change the constitution. Then, negotiate the detailed design of the First Nations voice to parliament: this is the only way to bring about meaningful reform.
The short answer is no. But the longer answer is that it has a complicated history (and the best remedy remains at the ballot box).
A decision to award A$2.5 million compensation for loss of native title marks an important shift in how such claims are handled.