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

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Apparently at one point NZ were more likely to sign up than WA... who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the federation. They still want away.

Yes, WA held out until a railway was promised to connect it to the eastern states. It still grumbles about us

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...published-read-in-full-annotated-fact-checked

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

The yes pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked

Pamphlets written by politicians and published by the AEC have put the official case for a yes and no vote. They were not independently factchecked before publication, so Guardian Australia has added notes to the full essays to help you make better sense of them

www.theguardian.com

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

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.

Institute Of Public Affairs Research Note Regarding The Legal Risks Of The Voice

The following research note was prepared by the Institute of Public Affairs (the IPA) regarding the potential legal risks associated with the federal government’s proposal to insert into the Australian Constitution the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (the Voice).

ipa.org.au

 

[FFC Mariner]

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

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

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.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

The other thing I worry about is that Johnny Farnham will sing that bloody song for the next six weeks :]

 

[Insertnamehere]

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.

Institute Of Public Affairs Research Note Regarding The Legal Risks Of The Voice

The following research note was prepared by the Institute of Public Affairs (the IPA) regarding the potential legal risks associated with the federal government’s proposal to insert into the Australian Constitution the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (the Voice).

ipa.org.au

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

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

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

Its legal advice isn't valid? I posted the left wing Guardian's advice and no comment was made.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

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]

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.

 

[Insertnamehere]

Its legal advice isn't valid? I posted the left wing Guardian's advice and no comment was made.

Guardian is a news rag. IPA actively has members in parliament

 

[pjennings]

The IPA writes in the the Murdoch rags. Many have been been journos there as well over the years.

 

[Insertnamehere]

The IPA writes in the the Murdoch rags. Many have been been journos there as well over the years.

Correct. It's essentially human centipede between IPA, LNP and Newscorpse

 

[Allreet?]

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

Was about to say the same thing.

You may as well ask the Ku Klux Klan what they think about the Voice...

 

[pjennings]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Guardian is a news rag. IPA actively has members in parliament

It is a left wing source. The IPA is a conservative think tank.
Should we really limit ourselves to the legal opinions of one part of the political spectrum?

As for the 'human centipede' and 'KKK' references, I thought we were supposed to be playing nicely in the sand pit.

 

[Big Al]

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.