Look – and please do remember that I have a fervent dislike for our Prime Minister – there’s no way we’re going to go down the same limp-wristed route as the UK.
If our High Court decides to make an interpretative ruling that effectively negates the intentions of a law passed by our elected government, we’ll change the wording of that law to make it crystal clear to the judiciary who is actually in charge of our nation. And it ain’t the Chief Justice.
Although the legislation has not yet been passed, Juliar has today convinced her cabinet and the Labor caucus to support her in the introduction of the requisite alterations to the Migration Act.
She has, sensibly and pragmatically, declared that the changes will not define any particular solution to our immigration problems, but will clarify the undisputed right of the current executive to take such actions as it considers necessary, irrespective of foreign legislation or the High Court’s view of our obligations under any foreign legislation to which we may be a signatory. This should make it politically viable for Abbott and the opposition to support the amendments.
The Greens will, of course, oppose the changes, but if the (Liberal-National) Coalition goes with Labor, the Greens will be irrelevant.
Whether one agrees with Juliar’s Malaysian solution, or not (and I don’t), it is gratifying to see a government stand up for itself against overseas pressure and a left-wing bleeding heart liberal judiciary.
Incidentally, I have read the entire judgement, which is available on the High Court’s web site, and in my opinion the decision is politically motivated and ignores the intention of the legislators who passed the Act. In other words, the Court has tossed the prime directive of its review function out of the window for extra-territorial motives.
The solitary dissenting judgement is, in my view, correct – and it’s far better argued and written than the majority verdict.