Jump to content

Aussies LVII


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Hope everyone's well...not much to report from Sydney other than:

1) The Winged Shadow disgraced himself last Saturday night (he started singing the Rick Roll'd song and then claimed the artist was Rick Ross...);

2) winter sucks;

3) I'm very bored at work right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope everyone's well...not much to report from Sydney other than:

1) The Winged Shadow disgraced himself last Saturday night (he started singing the Rick Roll'd song and then claimed the artist was Rick Ross...);

2) winter sucks;

3) I'm very bored at work right now.

1) It was all a ploy to get you to post here, since I knew you wouldn't be able to resist giving me shit. :leaving:

2) Yes, yes it does. Atleast its not cloudy and rainy anymore (up here anyway).

3) Same. This stupid project keeps getting pushed back. *sigh*

Got a netowrorking event later on today, free booze and finger food! Can't wait!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope everyone's well...not much to report from Sydney other than:

1) The Winged Shadow disgraced himself last Saturday night (he started singing the Rick Roll'd song and then claimed the artist was Rick Ross...);

Heh, I'd forgotten about that. It was a good night.

And we can repeat it again on 10/11 August when I'm back in Sydney :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad the lads had a good time last weekend in Sydney town. I'm here now for work but have been busy today and will be again tomorrow. But Friday evening I'm free so if any Sydneysiders feel like catching up this Friday night then I'm happy to meet up in town somewhere for a bite to eat, a good drop to wash it down and some conversation to farewell the Winter Solstice and the coming longer days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The High Court has delivered its decision in Williams v Commonwealth. For those that don't know, this is the case of a bloke who challenegd the authenticity of the Commonwealth's school chaplaincy program. The HCA has found in favour of Mr Williams, but not on the 'freedom of religion' argument that he ran.

The Freedom of Religion (s 116) argument

Section 116 of the Constitution requires (among other things) that no religious test can be applied to a position of service to the Commonwealth.

Gummow & Bell JJ found that the s 116 question was largely irrelevant, as the chaplains held no 'office' appointed by the commonwealth: at [107]-[110].

Hayne J agreed on the s 116 point ([442]-[448]).

Crennan J & Kiefel J simply agreed with Gummow & Bell JJ: at [476] & [597] respectively.

French CJ also agreed with the reasons expressed by Gummow & Bell JJ: at [4]

It seems then that the application of s 116 was lost on the basis that chaplains are not engaged directly by the commonwealth. This was a bit of a dodge by the HCA, and they have effectively hand balled that aspect of the decision to another time.

The executive powers component

What the HCA did say is that the fed govt cannot simply allocate funds, in certain declared circumstances, without legislation. In that sense, the chaplaincy program is unconstitutional. This decision has wider implications regarding funding, as many programs that the fed govt funds without legislating for that funding may now be regarded as suspect.

It will be interesting to see what the govt decides to do about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a weird choice by the HCA there, they long-grass the religious freedom question but then go and potentially rip the rug out from under a big raft of federal initiatives. What was their reasoning for the second?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a weird choice by the HCA there, they long-grass the religious freedom question but then go and potentially rip the rug out from under a big raft of federal initiatives. What was their reasoning for the second?

Long-winded, mate. :P

The official HCA summary is here.

This is an extract:

Executive Power (Questions 2(a) and 4(a)): By majority, the High Court held that the Funding Agreement and payments made to SUQ under that agreement were invalid because they were beyond the executive power of the Commonwealth. In the absence of legislation authorising the Commonwealth to enter into the Funding Agreement, the Commonwealth parties relied upon the executive power granted by s 61 of the Constitution. Relevantly, s 61 provides that the executive power of the Commonwealth "extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth". A majority of the High Court held that, in the absence of statutory authority, s 61 did not empower the Commonwealth to enter into the Funding Agreement or to make the challenged payments. In particular, a majority of the Court held that the Commonwealth's executive power does not include a power to do what the Commonwealth Parliament could authorise the Executive to do, such as entering into agreements or contracts, whether or not the Parliament had actually enacted the legislation. A majority also held that s 44 of the

Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) did not provide the Commonwealth with the necessary statutory authorisation to enter into the Funding Agreement or to make payments to SUQ under that agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can see their reasoning, if the funds allocated can then by extension be used to employ people contrary to the law then allocation of those funds requires legislation.

Nah it was more basic than that, Griff. They said that the executive simply did not have the power to authorise the funding - whteher the purpose was constitutional or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long-winded, mate. :P

The official HCA summary is here.

This is an extract:

That sounds fairly compelling. Guess whoever advised the feds that s.61 and s.44 were grounds enough must be a little red in the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad the lads had a good time last weekend in Sydney town. I'm here now for work but have been busy today and will be again tomorrow. But Friday evening I'm free so if any Sydneysiders feel like catching up this Friday night then I'm happy to meet up in town somewhere for a bite to eat, a good drop to wash it down and some conversation to farewell the Winter Solstice and the coming longer days.

I'm there! Let's get a drink in the city or Newtown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see why many people and organisations are worried then. What does this mean about specific funding for drug clinics or shelters etc?

No one is really sure yet.

But at the very least it will mean some legislation is necessary for all govt projects that fall within the confines of s 61. It may have to go further than that, which is why some folks are concerned. I remember reading the transcript of the appeal arguments and all of the HCA judges expressing strong surprise that no-one had identified this issue before. In that sense, Williams v Commonwealth is likely to become a core case when constitutional law is taught in Australia.

Also, it seems appropriate to make my 6000th post in the Aussies thread, where most of those posts have been made. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...