Comment on Fact-checking for the "No" referendum pamphlet was not compulsory
Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 year agoThe High Court does interpret constitutional legislation
That’s not whar was argued though. Stop lying. Actual quotes from the article:
- The High Court would ultimately determine its powers, not the Parliament.
Incorrect. The referendum amendment clearly says parliament will have the power to make laws with “respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”. Legal experts – including Australia’s former chief justice – say high court challenges are unlikely and even then, the court cannot change a decision made by parliament. It can only send a matter back for reappraisal.
And later:
- Once the High Court makes an interpretation, Parliament can’t overrule it. We will be stuck with the negative consequences forever.
Incorrect. Legal experts – including the former chief justice of Australia – say the high court cannot change a decision made by parliament. It can only send a matter back for reappraisal.
Nowhere did The Guardian claim that the High Court cannot interpret constitutional legislation. That’s a complete strawman invented by you.
w2qw@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Is the Voice not (or will be) constitutional legislation? I do agree that it largely hands over the powers to the parliament but there is a caveat that they can rule on what it means for them to be able to make representations to parliament.
Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Whether the Voice is, or is not, constitutional legislation was never commented on by me or the person I replied to. It wasn’t raised in The Guardian article either, so I’m not sure why you’re asking me this question.
w2qw@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Sorry I was referring to this bit “The referendum amendment clearly says parliament will have the power to make laws with “respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures””. It would be up to the high court to interpret what that means. I think that’s what OP was referring to when saying that High Court interprets constitutional legislation.
Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 year ago
The Guardian never claimed otherwise.