Here's how the judge handled the precedent from
stated above: '[49] The courts will give effect
to limits imposed on the legislature’s ability to
amend its own statutes only where they
constitute “manner and form” requirements.'
and a stated requirement: "It [Parliament] would
not remit the decision to an entity [farmers]not
forming part of the legislative structure.
In this case the judge dodged the issue:
"The Minister has attempted to argue that s 47.1
does not meet the requirements of a 'manner
and form' provision. I dismiss this argument and
find any debate on 'manner and form' is not
properly before the court for determination."
Those wanting marketing freedom should support
the government instead of playing into the hands
of Wells and Pallet et al by criticizing the
governments methods.
stated above: '[49] The courts will give effect
to limits imposed on the legislature’s ability to
amend its own statutes only where they
constitute “manner and form” requirements.'
and a stated requirement: "It [Parliament] would
not remit the decision to an entity [farmers]not
forming part of the legislative structure.
In this case the judge dodged the issue:
"The Minister has attempted to argue that s 47.1
does not meet the requirements of a 'manner
and form' provision. I dismiss this argument and
find any debate on 'manner and form' is not
properly before the court for determination."
Those wanting marketing freedom should support
the government instead of playing into the hands
of Wells and Pallet et al by criticizing the
governments methods.
Comment