If Parliament passes a law with 75% super-majority that conflicts with something in the constitution, what actually happens to the constitutional provision?
Does it just not apply where it conflicts with that specific law, or is there a general interpretation principle that it won’t apply in similar conflicts with other laws, or does it have to be changed to remove the conflict?
I would guess that Sir Geoffrey will propose that the Constitution is over-ridden only in the particular circumstances, although it may be that, depending on the particular case, that the Courts may be more like to defer in related circumstances in the future.
Which reminds me, is the proposed constitution subservient the the treaty (which is after all our founding document), or superior to it? I’m kinda curious, because the legal status of the treaty is something I haven’t really researched.
The Treaty is part of Palmer's constitution.
(at least as it is currently drafted)
We may then be inspired. I’d see the key points as:
- entrenched and enforceable social and economic rights
Sir Geoffrey was asked about social and economic rights. He noted he was a conservative on such issues, asking eg, what we think a court could do in current circumstances if there was a right to housing.
Contrawise, if 60% of the population want a change and 26% of parliament don’t, the parliamentary vote will fail but a referendum vote will pass and the referendum will almost certainly pass.
That's still up for resolution, but under the process in the Electoral Act, it's either 75% of Parliament, without the public, or 50% of Parliament + 50% of the public. The only way the public get asked is if Parliament actually passes a law setting up the referendum.
I will note however, that the alternative, not have an entrenched bill of rights, isn't much of an improvement from your perspective.
I find the idea of needing supermajorities to change things particularly problematic, because that literally entrenches that a constitutional feature could remain very unpopular in near perpetuity, so long as it advantages 25% of the people.
The process in the Electoral Act (which Palmer proposes carrying over) is a 75% majority in Parliament, or a 50% majority at a referendum.
Why are we joining the Press Council out of interest? Are there any upsides to giving people an official ruling body they can complain about us to?
I supported it because there have been a couple of occasions where I've attended court hearings as a member of the public (occasionally with a possible thought about blogging on them) and suppression has been ordered, and I thought it was either totally unnecessary, or at least overbroad, and I've thought that I'd like to be able to stand up and oppose suppression, and writing for an organisation that is subject to the Press Council would give me that right.
I looked at nominating for the Media awards this year, as it was the first time I felt I'd written 3 posts worthy of nominating in a single calendar year. Then I looked at the category, and thought "best blog site, does it have to be the whole site, do I even qualify to nominate myself?" and then never got around to it, so it's nice to know I actually won :-)
I just found that someone has edited together all the bits of "A Good Day" with the Future Leaders for Democracy in into into one video.
Is this in part an endeavour to counter the End Of Life Choice Bill currently before the Health Select Committee?
- so the populace won’t know of deliberate peaceful exits from Life?
When the law changes, such a death could still be called a suspected suicide, you just couldn't describe the death as taking place in hospital.
I will note that the End of Life Choice Bill is not at a select committee. Rather, a select committee is investigating the law generally, with a view to making recommendations.