Australian constitutional law

No, the Voice proposal will not be 'legally risky'. This misunderstands how constitutions work

Retrieved on:

星期三, 九月 6, 2023

The “no” campaign’s primary argument in the current referendum debate focuses on the dangerous consequences of a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament.

Key Points:

The “no” campaign’s primary argument in the current referendum debate focuses on the dangerous consequences of a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament.
This argument is relevant to the parliamentary debate about how a constitutional Voice to Parliament will be set up through legislation.

What exactly is the ‘no’ campaign arguing?

Although the “no” campaign opposes a constitutionally enshrined Voice, some of its key leaders are not against the general idea of a Voice institution itself.
Instead, many “no” campaigners, including Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, support legislated Voice institutions at the regional level.
A constitutional law expert explains
In its official campaign pamphlet, the “no” side claims that doing this will:

Finally, the “no” side claims the Albanese government has not put forth any details on how this Voice body would function, and it would be a “permanent” change that will open the door for “activists”.

The nature of constitutions

Constitutions are not detailed documents that anticipate every possible circumstance.
On the contrary, they are by nature short and incomplete documents.
The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes.
Indeed, it was left to parliament to establish the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court in the Judiciary Act in 1903.

The Voice to Parliament proposal

Details on how the body is selected and how it will operate are explicitly left to parliament.
The final section of the proposed Voice provision states:
the parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
If the October referendum vote is successful, it will be up to the current parliament to pass the foundational legislation setting up the Voice body.
The proposed constitutional Voice will, therefore, operate in much the same way as a legislated Voice would.

A moral question

Instead, we face a clearer, moral question on October 14: do we support the idea of recognising First Australians in the Constitution by giving them a voice in matters that affect them?
In answering this question, it is worth considering the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody from more than 30 years ago.
This empowerment process began with a series of First Nations regional dialogues that ultimately called for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament in 2017.

Expensive dental care worsens inequality. Is it time for a Medicare-style 'Denticare' scheme?

Retrieved on:

星期日, 七月 2, 2023

Private dental care is increasingly unaffordable, and millions of Australians go without the treatment they need.

Key Points:

Private dental care is increasingly unaffordable, and millions of Australians go without the treatment they need.
The potentially avoidable costs to the health-care system and to people’s quality of life has led to increased pressure for a Medicare-style universal insurance scheme for dental care (Denticare) or the inclusion of dental care into Medicare.
Affordable and available dental care is crucial to addressing inequality in Australia.

Why wasn’t dental included in Medicare in the first place?

There is, however, little to no evidence on the extent to which the Whitlam government pushed for dental to be included or how much it was opposed by dentists.
It seems it was not on the agenda when Medicare was restored by the Hawke government.
Secondly, the provision of public dental health services – often linked to dental hospitals and dental schools – has long been seen (especially by Coalition governments) as the responsibility of states and territories.

A short history

This section gives the Commonwealth the power to legislate and fund these services but it’s not obligated to do so.
The Whitlam government was the first to provide national funding and direction to these state-based programs through the Australian School Dental Program.

The barriers to universal dental care

These figures don’t factor in the savings made to health-care costs due to preventable dental cavities and gum disease (estimated by the Australian Dental Association at $818 million per year) and reduced productivity.
The other approach is to reduce costs by limiting the number of people covered and/or the number and type of services covered.
Means testing access to Medicare Benefits Schedule items for dental care is risky; it could easily lead to means testing of access to other MBS items.

There’s more we can do

Researchers have described the Chronic Dental Disease Scheme (introduced by the Howard government) as as “the most expensive and controversial public dental policy in Australian history”.
As a 2012 analysis showed, it blew out its budget and did not result in dental health improvements.
It’s worth noting many of the preventive actions needed to address obesity (for example, encouraging breast feeding and limiting sugary beverages) will also improve dental health.
Read more:
How to fill the gaps in Australia's dental health system

Jim Chalmers wants a truly independent RBA. He should be careful what he wishes for

Retrieved on:

星期三, 五月 3, 2023

The treasurer says he is on board with all of the recommendations of the independent review of the Reserve Bank.

Key Points:

The treasurer says he is on board with all of the recommendations of the independent review of the Reserve Bank.
One of them – the first – is to make the bank truly independent of the government that owns it by removing the treasurer’s power overrule its board.
One day, Chalmers or his successors might wish they had it.
Read more: RBA revolution: how Chalmers will recraft the bank for the 21st century

GetSwift Welcomes Finality of Only One Class Action

Retrieved on:

星期四, 四月 18, 2019

Technology, Software, Transport, Logistics, Supply chain management, Australian constitutional law, Law, Judgment, Class action, Australian Securities Exchange, Australian law, Appellate courts, High Court

On 20 November 2018, the Full Court upheld the judgment of the Court at first instance, holding that only one class action should proceed.

Key Points:

On 20 November 2018, the Full Court upheld the judgment of the Court at first instance, holding that only one class action should proceed.
That proceeding was the Webb Proceeding.
As a result of the High Courts decision, the judgment of the Full Court is now final and only the Webb class action proceeds.
GetSwift is headquartered in New York City and is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX:GSW).

FS50802225

Retrieved on:

星期四, 四月 4, 2019

Information privacy, South African law, Australian constitutional law

The complainant has requested information relating to a recall petition. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland refused the request, citing the exemption for prohibitions on disclosure (section 44(1)(a)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.

Key Points:

The complainant has requested information relating to a recall petition.
The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland refused the request, citing the exemption for prohibitions on disclosure (section 44(1)(a)).
The Commissioners decision is that the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.