Comments on: A Tale of Two Half-Centuries http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/11/16/a-tale-of-two-half-centuries/ Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:26:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: cam http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/11/16/a-tale-of-two-half-centuries/#comment-63006 cam Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:49:09 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2006/11/16/a-tale-of-two-half-centuries/#comment-63006 SJ, No worries, I was trying to make the point that the High Court is accommodating enough that in most cases Parliament doesn't have to bother with referendums anymore to get what it wants. SJ, No worries, I was trying to make the point that the High Court is accommodating enough that in most cases Parliament doesn’t have to bother with referendums anymore to get what it wants.

]]> By: SJ http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/11/16/a-tale-of-two-half-centuries/#comment-63004 SJ Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:39:31 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2006/11/16/a-tale-of-two-half-centuries/#comment-63004 Sorry, Ken. I misread that badly. Apologies to you, too, Cam. Sorry, Ken. I misread that badly.

Apologies to you, too, Cam.

]]> By: Ken Parish http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/11/16/a-tale-of-two-half-centuries/#comment-62996 Ken Parish Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:27:27 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2006/11/16/a-tale-of-two-half-centuries/#comment-62996 SJ The post is by Cam not Ken. I agree that the statement is to an extent an oversimplification, and the two cases you mention are examples that certainly didn't enhance federal power. There are other such examples, including numerous cases on the trde and commerce power where Australia's High Court hasn't been anywhere near as centralist as the US Supreme Court (despite the fact that our provision is essentially identical to the US one). Nevertheless, Cam is certainly right that the general trend has been decisively centralist since 1920, and the Work Choices decision is another one in that line. SJ

The post is by Cam not Ken. I agree that the statement is to an extent an oversimplification, and the two cases you mention are examples that certainly didn’t enhance federal power. There are other such examples, including numerous cases on the trde and commerce power where Australia’s High Court hasn’t been anywhere near as centralist as the US Supreme Court (despite the fact that our provision is essentially identical to the US one). Nevertheless, Cam is certainly right that the general trend has been decisively centralist since 1920, and the Work Choices decision is another one in that line.

]]> By: SJ http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/11/16/a-tale-of-two-half-centuries/#comment-62981 SJ Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:49:27 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2006/11/16/a-tale-of-two-half-centuries/#comment-62981 Ken Says: <i>"The High Court has been highly accommodating to increases of constitutional power at the national level in the last fifty years making referendums less necessary in this area."</i> Is this true? What about <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1990/2.html" rel="nofollow"><i>The Incorporation Case (1990)</i></a> and <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/27.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Re Wakim (1999)</i></a>? It seems to me that in these cases the High Court was not being accommodating at all, even where there were "workarounds" agreed between the commonwealth and the states. Please note that I'm no expert in this area, I'm just asking the question. Ken Says: “The High Court has been highly accommodating to increases of constitutional power at the national level in the last fifty years making referendums less necessary in this area.”

Is this true? What about The Incorporation Case (1990) and Re Wakim (1999)? It seems to me that in these cases the High Court was not being accommodating at all, even where there were “workarounds” agreed between the commonwealth and the states.

Please note that I’m no expert in this area, I’m just asking the question.

]]>