Quick write What is the referral of powers and why does it happen? What is one strength and one weakness of this method to alter the D.O.P?

The Protection of Rights under the Commonwealth Constitution

The barbed wire image is reminiscent of the Amnesty International logo
The barbed wire image is reminiscent of the Amnesty International logo. Have you ever heard of Amnesty International?

The Australian Constitution lays out the rules by which Australia is governed, however unlike many other countries, it says very little about the rights of our citizens Australia is the only advanced, democratic country in the world that does not have a clear statement of this nature So, which rights does our Constitution actually protect, and how do we measure up against comparable countries?

Key knowledge

Introduction to rights
What does the term “rights” actually mean? How are rights balanced with responsibilities? In an ideal world, what rights would you like to have? What rights should be guaranteed to all people in all countries throughout the world? How would you feel if they could eat only in certain restaurants, drink from certain drinking fountains, attend only specified schools and attend only specified cinemas based on the colour of your skin? What human rights are being denied in these situations?

What rights should all countries have?
Does Australia have this? Do all countries have this?

Democratic Rights Sometimes known as civil or political rights, these are the rights of a citizen to participate in the government and political processes of their country. They also include the right to be protected by legal processes from the arbitrary abuse of government power over individuals. Democratic Rights Include: Civil or political rights Right of a citizen to participate in the political process of their country Right to be protected by legal processes Power to determine who will represent our views by electing members of parliament Equality before the law, irrespective of race, ethnicity ,wealth or social position

Economic, social and cultural rights
These rights include the rights to resources necessary for an adequate standard of living, such as food, clean water, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education Eg: labour rights: the right to be treated fairly in the workplace and freedom from child labour adequate standard of living: including the right to water, food and housing access to health services: including protection from disease and adequate levels of sanitation access to free education: to allow all individuals to achieve their full potential cultural rights: including the right to preserve language, religion and unique cultural practices, and access to the arts and to the benefits of scientific advancement property rights: the right to own property and not to be arbitrarily deprived of property rights as refugees: the right to escape persecution and to seek refuge in another country.

How are rights protected in Australia?
Few rights are expressly guaranteed by our Constitution We have no Bill of Rights The Constitution used three means to help ensure Human Rights Structural protections Express rights One implied right

The ways in which rights are protected in Australia are:

The Constitution and Protection of Rights
Unit 3 AOS 2 Outcome 2 B

Key Knowledge

How are our constitutional rights enforced?
The Constitution protects rights via: Structural Protections Structural protection of rights refers to the systems, structures and mechanisms found in the Constitution that operate to indirectly protect human rights by preventing the misuse or abuse of power. These include the separation of powers which ensures no abuse of power, representative government (s.7-24) which insures government represents the people, and responsible government, requiring the executive to be responsible to the parliament and the people. Express Rights Those rights that are expressly stated or entrenched within the wording of the Constitution - they are explicit rights. Therefore, they can only be changed via referendum under section 128. These act to limit the commonwealth parliament and they cannot pass law that infringes these rights. The acquisition of property on just terms (s. 51xxxi), trial by jury (s. 80), freedom of interstate trade and commerce (s.92), freedom of religion (s.116), freedom from interstate discrimination (s. 117). One Implied Right An implied right is a right not expressly stated, but inferred from a broad interpretation of the Constitution. We have the Right to Freedom of Political Communication (Nationwide News Pty Ltd v. Wills and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1992) and Roache V. Commission 2007)

One Implied Right An implied right is a right not expressly stated, but inferred from a broad interpretation of the Constitution. We have the Right to Freedom of Political Communication (Nationwide News Pty Ltd v. Wills and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1992) and Roache V. Commission 2007)

Definition of express Rights
Those rights that are expressly stated or entrenched within the wording of the Constitution - they are entrenched within the Constitution and are explicit rights. Therefore, they can only be changed via referendum under section 128. Note: it is important to define this term using a word other than express. They are explicit or entrenched rights.

Our express/entrenched rights are:

Express rights Some sections of the Constitution protect specific rights written in the Constitution by acting to limit the actions of the Commonwealth Parliament, which cannot pass legislation that infringes these protected constitutional rights. These rights are protected by the written word of the Constitution and are referred to as express or explicit rights They are also entrenched rights meaning that they can only be changed via referendum (section 128). The authors of the Constitution believed that the structures such as representative government, responsible government, separation of powers, bicameral system, would protect rights, and hence only 5 express rights are stipulated in the Constitution

Section 80 Trial by jury – limited right
Section 80 of the Constitution states that “the trial on indictment of any offence against the law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury”. This is a limited express right as section applies only to Commonwealth offences, further, jury trials are mandated (not optional) only for indictable offences (serious criminal offences eg rape murder). Hence, this section (section 80) provides only limited right to trial by jury as most crimes are under state residual law which are not bound by this section Due to section 109, Commonwealth could also overcome this restriction by stating that a crime is a summary offence (less serious offence) where a jury is not required The High Court has also stipulated that jury decisions in such cases need to be unanimous

Section 116 Freedom of religion
The commonwealth shall not prohibit, impose or establish a religion This freedom is clearly protected by section 116 in four ways: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion Or for imposing any religious observance Or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth Section 116 ensures that the Commonwealth cannot use any of its law-making powers to giving one religion an advantage over another religion, or to force people to observe a particular religion This has also been used to protect people from having no religion Note that this is a Commonwealth restriction, and does not extend to the states

Section 92 Freedom from interstate trade and commerce
Section 92 upholds an economic right for freedom of interstate trade by stating that ‘trade, commerce and intercourse among the states…shall be absolutely free”. The High Court has interpreted this section in a number of cases It is thought that this applies to both Commonwealth and State parliaments, and for example tariffs or customs duties cannot be placed on interstate trade

CONSTITUTIONAL CASES INVOLVING INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE Cole v
CONSTITUTIONAL CASES INVOLVING INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE Cole v. Whitfield [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360 Whitfield ran a seafood business in Tasmania, and as part of that business he bought crayfish from South Australia to be transported and sold in Tasmania. South Australia and Tasmania had different regulations relating to the minimum size at which a crayfish could be sold, with a smaller size allowable in South Australia. Whitfield was not permitted to sell the South Australian crayfish in Tasmania, as they were below that state's minimum size. Whitfield challenged the Tasmanian regulations, claiming they were in breach of s. 92. The High Court found against Whitfield, as they held that the Tasmanian regulations were designed as a conservation measure and not aimed at restricting free trade

Case example freedom of interstate trade and commerce
Betfair Pty Limited & M. E. Erceg v. State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418 Betfair established a betting exchange in Tasmania that allowed gamblers to place bets either on the internet or by phone on horse races throughout Australia. The Western Australian government brought in legislation to prevent gamblers from that state from betting through Betfair. The stated reason was that Betfair allowed its customers to bet on horses losing a race and the Western Australian government did not believe this was a desirable type of bet. Betfair and Mr Erceg, one of its Western Australian customers, challenged the Western Australian legislation in the High Court. The Court found that the legislation was invalid, as it contravened s. 92 of the Constitution.

Section 117 - Freedom from interstate discrimination
Section 117 gives protection to Australian citizens from being discriminated against on the basis of what state they live in This is thought to apply to both commonwealth and state parliaments An example of its application is where a resident of Victoria on a holiday in South Australia can not be subject to SA laws if it puts tem in worse a position than the equivalent law in Victoria.

The acquisition of property on just terms
Section 51 (xxxi) states that any acquisition of property by the Commonwealth from any state or person must be on “just terms”. The Commonwealth Parliament can therefore only acquire property for a purpose or area in which it has power to make laws, eg national parks– must also compensate people for their property. It must also provide compensation that is reasonable and fair in the circumstances Note that this section does not apply to acquisitions by states. Test your understanding: 1.) The Commonwealth Constitution contains only a limited number of rights that are expressly protected for the people of Australia. What is an express or explicit right? (1 mark) 2.) Describe three rights of Australians that are expressly protected by the Commonwealth Constitution. (6 marks) 3.) Analyse the scope of protection that each right offers the Australian people. (6 marks)

One right explicitly protected by the Australian Constitution is trial by jury in section 80. this requires citizens to have trial by ones peers should they commit an indictable Commonwealth offence. To some extent this right protects rights in Australia. This allows citizens to have their human rights protected by offering a trial by one’s peers should they commit a serious commonwealth offence, allowing for a fair and unbiased trial. However, this right is significantly limited as Criminal Law generally falls under residual state law, and this protects only from commonwealth infringements such as treason, or serious indictable offences such as rape or murder. Therefore, to some extent trial by jury protects Australians’ rights Another right entrenched and expressly protected is freedom of religion found in section 116. This right adequately prtoects human and economic rights as it ensures people are not discriminated against based upon their religion. It also protects citizens from having the commonwealth prohibit, create or impose a religion upon the country, which can be also used to protect those with no religion. However, this right does not extend to the states, creating inconsistency and confusion.

Structural Protections
Structural protection of rights refers to the systems, structures and mechanisms found in the Constitution that operate to indirectly protect human rights by preventing the misuse or abuse of power. These include the separation of powers which ensures no abuse of power, representative government (s.7-24) which insures government represents the people, and responsible government, requiring the executive to be responsible to the parliament and the people.

Application of Structural Protections
the separation of powers ensures no abuse of power through separating the branches of legal rule in Australia so that no one body has absolut power and each can act as a check on each other. One way in which the separation of powers protects democratic rights is by separating the legislative function from the judicial function. This allows those that make the law to not have control over those than enforce the law, meaning citizens are given the opportunity of a fair an unbiased trial if accused of a crime.

Representative government
Another important structure that indirectly protects human rights is representative government. This structure prevents governments from abusing power by making them answerable to the people at the time of election, and ensuring that members of parliament represent the views and needs of those who are voted in – indirectly protects right to vote Representative government is set up by several sections of the Constitution including: Section 7 requiring that the Senate be “directly chosen by the people” Section 24 which also states that the House of Representatives but be “directly chosen by the people” Section 13 allows for senators to face election every six years Section 28 provides for three-year terms in the House of Representatives

Responsible government
The Constitution requires that members of the executive arm of government be responsible to the parliament and therefore ultimately responsible for the electors Section states that the governor general should generally act on advice of the ministers

Structural protection of rights
Structural protections are structures and mechanisms found within the constitution that indirectly protect our rights. The separation of powers divides the lawmaking powers of the country into three branches, legislative which makes the laws, executive which administers the laws and judicial which enforces and makes judgements on the law when cases arise. This protects human rights as it ensures each branch acts as a check on the other, disallowing abuse of power. Representative government, protected by sections 7 and 24 of the constitution, allow the members of parliament to be directly chosen by the people, indirectly protecting our democratic rights, and responsible government ensures the government is accountable and answerable to parliament and therefore the people, once again indirectly protecting our human and democratic rights. Test your understanding: 1.) The Commonwealth Constitution contains only a limited number of rights that are expressly protected for the people of Australia. What is an express or explicit right? (2 mark) 2.) Describe the five rights of Australians that are expressly protected by the Commonwealth Constitution. Are any of these rights limited? How does this limit our rights?(8 marks) Test your understanding: 1.) There are a number of rights protected in the Commonwealth Constitution due to its structure. Explain what is meant by “structural protection of rights” (2 marks) 2.) Describe the main structures that exist in the Constitution to protect rights (4 marks) 3.)Explain one example of how the separation of powers can protect Australians' democratic rights.

Partner A: Tell partner B all about express rights, including our 5 express rights Partner B: tell partner A all about structural protections, including our three structural protections of rights

Quick write exam Differentiate between express rights and structural protections 4 marks

Sample response Structural protections are systems or mechanisms within the constitution that indirectly protect human rights. They are not entrenched, rather exist within the structure of the constitution, for example, responsible and representative government which protect our democratic rights, such as the right to vote in the Roach v Electoral commissioner case. Whereas express rights are those rights explicitly stated within the constitution and are entrenched, meaning that they can only be changed via section 128, through referendum. Examples of our entrenched rights are section 80 trial by jury (a limited right) and section 116, freedom of religion.

Implied Rights An implied right is a right not expressly stated, but inferred from a broad interpretation of the Constitution. We have the Right to Freedom of Political Communication found in the Australian Capital Television case. In addition to entrenched express rights, the High Court has considered that some rights may be implied by the Constitution This means it is meant or intended but not actually said The suggestion that the Constitution can be interpreted to include rights that are implied, but not entrenched, is much debated In interpreting the text of the Constitution and considering the systems such as representative and responsible government that it embodies, the High Court has indicated that there are implied rights to freedom of speech and communication on matters concerning politics and government The High Court has found one implied right – freedom of political communication.

Interpretation of Constitutional rights
Under section 76 of the Constitution, the High Court is the only court that can interpret the Constitution Interpretation: the High Court can only interpret the constitution when a case is brought before it, and the case requires the court to give meaning to the words or phrases in the Constitution in applying it to a case If it is a right that is being interpreted, the effect an be to broaden or narrow the scope of the protected right – implied right of freedom of political communication was found through interpretation by High Court

CONSTITUTIONAL CASES ON THE FREEDOM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

Australian Capital Television and Ors v
Australian Capital Television and Ors v. Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; (1992) In 1991, the Hawke government passed the Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991, which banned paid political advertising during state and federal election campaigns. The Act did not ban political discussion on news or current affairs programs, and provided for TV and radio stations to provide equal free time to political parties to convey their policies to the voters. The stated aim of the Act was to attempt to prevent a situation where only those with large amounts of money could afford to engage in political advertising. Australian Capital Television and a number of other television broadcasters argued that the Constitution contained a right freedom of political communication, and that this Act infringed that right. They also argued that to demand free time for political parties was an unjust acquisition of property under s. 51(xxxi). The Court held that an implied right to freedom of political communication existed because the Constitution contained an expectation of representative and responsible government, and this could not exist without the free interchange of political information. Those parts of the Act that restricted this freedom of political communication were declared invalid.

What to write ACT Case – Facts and Challenges
Facts: In 1991, Government passed an act that banned paid political broadcasting during election time and also required television and radio stations to give free air time for political party policies. Challenge/sections interpreted: ACT (Australian Capital Television) challenged act in High Court stating commonwealth was ultra vires, as the constitution had an implied right of freedom of political communication (through sections 7-24 and 61: Representative and Responsible Government) and also as infringed right to acquisition of property on just terms (section 51).

Decision and significance of High Court Case
The High Court held that an implied right to freedom of political communication existed because the Constitution contained an expectation of representative and responsible government, and this could not exist without the free interchange of political information. Those parts of the Act that restricted this freedom of political communication were declared invalid. Significance: greatly extended protection of rights as found an implied right that was not explicitly stated but implied through the wording of Constitution

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v. Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992)
Nationwide News published an article that was critical of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), describing it as corrupt. The Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Clth) made it an offence to bring the AIRC into disrepute. The High Court was asked to determine whether attempting to prevent the publication of articles such as that published by Nationwide News was a breach of the right of freedom of political communication. The Court found for the plaintiffs, and held that the use of the Industrial Relations Act to interfere with the right of freedom of political communication was unconstitutional.

Albert Langer v. Commonwealth of Australia [1996] HCA 43; (1996)
Prior to the 1993 federal election, Albert Langer had advocated that voters should vote in a particular way, so as to put candidates from both major parties last. The Australian Electoral Commission warned him not to continue with his campaign, as encouraging people to vote informally would contravene the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cwlth). Langer took the issue to the High Court, declaring that his rights of freedom of political communication had been infringed. The Court held that a right to freedom of political communication is not absolute and could be restricted if it interferes with the democratic process, so Langer's case failed. The Electoral Commission then took out an injunction in the Victorian Supreme Court to prevent Langer from distributing his election material, but he ignored the injunction and was imprisoned for three weeks.

David Russell Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997]
David Lange was a former New Zealand Prime Minister, who believed that he had been defamed by the subject matter of an ABC Four corners program and sued the ABC for defamation. The ABC used a defence of the right of freedom of political communication and the High Court was required to rule on whether this defence was applicable in this case. The court found that the implied right of freedom of political communication does not confer rights of free speech on individuals, but is designed to prevent attempts by the executive or legislative arms of government to interfere with the right of voters to have access to information necessary to maintain representative and responsible government. The court accepted the ABC's defence of the right of political communication.

A SIGNIFICANT HIGH COURT CASE ON THE IMPLIED RIGHT TO VOTE — ROACH V
A SIGNIFICANT HIGH COURT CASE ON THE IMPLIED RIGHT TO VOTE — ROACH V. ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER [2007]

Only write underlined: Facts of the case
Vicki Lee Roach, was an Australian woman of Aboriginal descent convicted of five counts of offences (that included burglary, conduct endangering persons and negligently causing serious injury). She received a total effective sentence of six years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole in 2008. Roach challenged the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 2006 (Cwlth) as it banned prisoners from voting in federal elections at all (before it had been only those serving sentence over 3 years)

Challenges/section interpreted:
Ms Roach challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments on four grounds. It was this fourth ground that the High Court based its decision : any legislation for disqualification of electors must satisfy the representative government criteria, the Commonwealth had no power to legislate against people convicted under state laws, the implied freedom of political communication protects voting in federal elections, the act limited the operation of the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution through sections 7-24 and 63 of the constitution.

High Court Decision The High Court held that the amendment imposing complete ban on voting rights for all prisoners was invalid and unconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the principle of representative government. They found that in sections 7 and 24 relating to representative government enshrines the constitutional right to vote as the senators and members of the House of Representatives must be directly chosen by the people. This right is restricted (limited) for factors including prisoners serving terms over 3 years – whilst amendment ultra vires, Roach could still not vote.

Significance Test your understanding:
The decision of the court affirmed that there is a constitutional right to vote for adult members of the Australian community, which is protected by the structure of representative government found in section s 7 and 24 of the Constitution. This is a limited right that can be removed in some situations such as serving a prison term over 3 years. This is not an implied right, instead this right is a reflection of structural protection – representative government Thus representative government can act as a limit on the powers and of the Commonwealth Parliament, which cannot legislate away the right to vote without a valid reason. Test your understanding: 1.) Explain what is meant by an implied right and contrast this with one express right. (2 marks) 2.) What is the implied right to freedom of political communication? Explain one case in which the High Court has considered the definition of this right. (4 marks)

Enforcement of constitutional rights
A case may come before the High Court that questions the validity of legislation in terms of possible infringement or restrictions of rights Protected rights are fully enforceable by the High Court – meaning that the High Court is able to declare invalid any section of legislation that violates protected rights, so it is no longer in effect Such rulings cannot be overruled by parliament Parliament may then decide to amend legislation and pass it without the offending sections, or seek to alter the Constitution through referendum and remove the right that the legislation is offending (this is very unlikely to succeed)

Strengths and weaknesses of our protection of rights: Express/entrenched rights:
Strengths of protection through express rights Weaknesses of protection through express rights These rights are entrenched in our constitution and can therefore only be changed via successful referendum. This requires overwhelming support due to double majority provision - There are only 5 entrenched rights, very limited compared to other countries such as the USA, and these rights fail to protect basic human rights such as the right to life or freedom of speech - Change by referendum is mostly unsuccessful (8/44 successful) so to add a new entrenched right would be difficult High Court can deem any Act ultra vires if it infringes upon our constitutional rights A case must be brought forward which is time consuming and costly

Strengths and weaknesses of our protection of rights: Structural protection of rights:
Strengths of protection of rights through structural protection of rights Weaknesses of protection of rights through structural protection of rights The structures within the constitution indirectly protect democratic rights such as representative government (s.7 and 24) protects our right to vote, and responsible government makes government accountable to the people (through election time and question time) and separation of powers protects from one body having ultimate power These rights are not technically entrenched within the constitution – our right to vote, for example, is limited (Roach case – limited in some circumstances eg serving sentence longer than 3 years) Overlap occurs with separation of powers Structural protection of separation of powers protects us from having a body that has absolute control, protecting us from an unfair system The structural protection of separation of powers does not stop powers from overlapping – overlap occurs between legislative and executive.

Strengths and weaknesses of our protection of rights: Implied rights:
Strengths of protection of rights through implied rights Weakness of protection of rights through implied rights The interpretation of rights through the High Court allows the constitution to stay up to date and valid in society – the founding of freedom of political communication through ACT case allows for freedom of speech Only one has been found – A case must be brought to the High Court it is very costly and time consuming The parliament cannot abrogate rights found to be implied in the constitution – meaning our government cannot overrule an implied right There is only one right found – freedom of political communication, and the High Court’s ability to find more is restricted by the text and structures of the constitution – there is little suggestion that there many more to be implied

Test your understanding
1.) What is the difference between express rights and implied rights in the Constitution? 2.) Give an example of an implied right that according to the High Court is upheld in our Constitution. 3.) True or false? Give reasons for your answer. a.) The Constitution implies that everyone must have the right to vote in Australia. b.)The Constitution does not imply that we have the right to free speech on any matter. 4.) Section 24 of the Constitution may imply we have the right to vote. Were all Australians given the right to vote when the Constitution came into force in 1901? Explain.

Apply your understanding
6.) Examine the four cases above in which the High Court has ruled on the issue of the implied right to freedom of political communication, and answer the following: Why was the Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991 considered to be unconstitutional? Does the implied right to the freedom of political communication provide a guaranteed right of free speech? Explain your answer, using examples from the cases outlined. 7.) Read the Roach Case case study and answer the following questions. Why did Roach challenge the validity of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act? Explain when, according to Justice Gleeson, parliament does have a ‘substantial reason’ to withdraw the right to vote. Explain why the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act was held to be invalid by the High Court. Explain the significance of the Roach Case in relation to the protection of rights in Australia.

With the use of an illustrative case example, explain how the High Court can impact on rights protection in Australia (6 marks)

Sample response The high court has been charged with being the guardian of the Constitution, it is the only court through section that can hear constitutional disputes. Through reading, interpreting and applying the words of the constitution, its decisions can affect rights protection. For example, in the case of Roach v Electora Commissioner, the high court was called upon to examine amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and to determine their constitutional validity. The amendment prohibited all prisoners from voting in elections (previously it had only been those serving a sentence longer than 3 years). Vicki Roach was serving a sentence of six years.

The High Court found that the legislation was unconstitutional, and threfore ultra vires, as it was contrary to the principle of representative government through sections 7 and 24. These sections require that federal parliament be directly chosen by the people, so that there is a right to vote in order to uphold representative government as a structural protection. However, the court also recognised that the federal parliament could place some restrictions eg people of unsound mind. This was significant as it confirmed the right to vote is enshrined within the structural mechanisms of the constitution, specifically representative government.

The high court has been charged with being the guardian of the Constitution, it is the only court through section that can hear constitutional disputes. Through reading, interpreting and applying the words of the constitution, its decisions can affect rights protection. One such case that affected rights protection in Australia is the Langer v Commonwealth of Australia case. Prior to the 1993 election, Langer advocated that voters should vote in a particular way, so as to put candidates from both major parties last. The Australian Electoral Commission warned Langer against such action, where he then took his case to the High Court, arguing that the Electoral Commission’s warning was unconstitutional as it restricted his right to freedom of political communi

Differentiate between express rights and implied rights, using examples (4 marks)
Express rights are those rights that are explicitly mentioned within the constitution and are entrenched, meaning they can only be changed via referendum under section 128 of the constitution, for example trial by jury for indictable offences and freedom from discrimination based upon your state of residence, whereas implied rights are not entrenched within the constitution, but have been found by the High Court to have been intended by the writers of the constitution to be protected. We have one implied right, the right to freedom of political communication, which was found through the Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth case.

Quick write What is the referral of powers and why does it happen? What is one strength and one weakness of this method to alter the D.O.P?

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Quick write What is the referral of powers and why does it happen? What is one strength and one weakness of this method to alter the D.O.P?"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Quick write What is the referral of powers and why does it happen? What is one strength and one weakness of this method to alter the D.O.P?

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Quick write What is the referral of powers and why does it happen? What is one strength and one weakness of this method to alter the D.O.P?"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback