• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

"I for one welcome our insect overlords" - The Politics Thread

Roger the Cabin Boy

Well-Known Member
And for an alternative analysis as to whether the High Court can make rulings and whether broader contextual materials should be consulted by it, the download is worth reading.

 

Roger the Cabin Boy

Well-Known Member
As mentioned above, the high courts ability to legislate on this is negligable and able to be over turned by legislation
No one is taking anyones house
The High Court does not legislate, and an amendment to the Constitution cannot be overturned by legislation, it would require another Referendum.

I dont think anyone has suggested that a house is being taken.

The download of the IPA research note suggests that the High Court is likely to make rulings, and where there is ambiguity that it would consult extraneous/contextual /background material for its interpretations. Controversial concepts such as treaty, sovereignty, and reparations are are mentioned in these materials, yet are not presented as a risk by the Yes advocates.

The advice here does not consider the risk of the High Court ruling on this as negligible; it considers it to be likely. The risk of legal challenges could have been minimised by the drafters making amendments to the wording but they chose not to- see point 12 of the downloaded pdf.

The assurances of current politicians and Yes advocates will be worthless if it succeeds and becomes a matter before the High Court.
 
Last edited:

Insertnamehere

Well-Known Member
And for an alternative analysis as to whether the High Court can make rulings and whether broader contextual materials should be consulted by it, the download is worth reading.

Please dont use IPA as a resource for any information. Its an alt-right think tank that has functionally destroyed the LNP.
 

JoyfulPenguin

Well-Known Member
The High Court does not legislate, and an amendment to the Constitution cannot be overturned by legislation, it would require another Referendum.

I dont think anyone has suggested that a house is being taken.

The download of the IPA research note suggests that the High Court is likely to make rulings, and where there is ambiguity that it would consult extraneous/contextual /background material for its interpretations. Controversial concepts such as treaty, sovereignty, and reparations are are mentioned in these materials, yet are not presented as a risk by the Yes advocates.

The advice here does not consider the risk of the High Court ruling on this as negligible; it considers it to be likely. The risk of legal challenges could have been minimised by the drafters making amendments to the wording but they chose not to- see point 12 of the downloaded pdf.

The assurances of current politicians and Yes advocates will be worthless if it succeeds and becomes a matter before the High Court.
The IPA are entitled to their view, but there are multiple former High Court Justices disagreeing, including a former Chief Justice in Robert French.
 

JoyfulPenguin

Well-Known Member
The High Court does not legislate, and an amendment to the Constitution cannot be overturned by legislation, it would require another Referendum.

I dont think anyone has suggested that a house is being taken.

The download of the IPA research note suggests that the High Court is likely to make rulings, and where there is ambiguity that it would consult extraneous/contextual /background material for its interpretations. Controversial concepts such as treaty, sovereignty, and reparations are are mentioned in these materials, yet are not presented as a risk by the Yes advocates.

The advice here does not consider the risk of the High Court ruling on this as negligible; it considers it to be likely. The risk of legal challenges could have been minimised by the drafters making amendments to the wording but they chose not to- see point 12 of the downloaded pdf.

The assurances of current politicians and Yes advocates will be worthless if it succeeds and becomes a matter before the High Court.
It's incredibly rare for extraneous materials to be ever be used in frankly any case and there would be plenty of material disagreeing with the IPA, from the co-designers and drafters.
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
Charles Kemp co-founder of the IPA (with Keith Murdoch) would be aghast at the turn the IPA took when Rod took over. Much the same way as today's Liberal Party would have Menzies spinning in his grave.

Many of the same people were involved in the founding of the Liberal Party and the IPA around the same time and of course many IPA members have become politicians.
 

Roger the Cabin Boy

Well-Known Member
The IPA are entitled to their view, but there are multiple former High Court Justices disagreeing, including a former Chief Justice in Robert French.

On such a crucial issue I think its important to get a wide range of advice to cover all of the bases.

The lawyers on this forum well know that nothing is certain when it comes to court and that different lawyers can provide different advice on the same piece of legislation. I think its always preferable to avoid Court in the first place, and if there is even a small risk to the most stable democracy in the world then I'll vote No.
 

Roger the Cabin Boy

Well-Known Member
It's incredibly rare for extraneous materials to be ever be used in frankly any case and there would be plenty of material disagreeing with the IPA, from the co-designers and drafters.
I think that is the point being made, that if it came to this then the co-designers and drafters material could open a can of worms. The advice quotes Michael Kirby at the end where he suggests that other judges be activist, creative and not be constrained by formulae.
 
Last edited:

Big Al

Well-Known Member
On such a crucial issue I think its important to get a wide range of advice to cover all of the bases.

The lawyers on this forum well know that nothing is certain when it comes to court and that different lawyers can provide different advice on the same piece of legislation. I think its always preferable to avoid Court in the first place, and if there is even a small risk to the most stable democracy in the world then I'll vote No.
Also depends on the argument and law stated by who ever puts in a challenge. The skill or argument provided to the high court is what is important and whether the argument has merit or not.
 

Online statistics

Members online
28
Guests online
453
Total visitors
481

Forum statistics

Threads
6,788
Messages
394,719
Members
2,733
Latest member
pragmaticplay1001
Top