Talk:Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Article name
Should this be moved to Inconsistency rule, given that is the most common name for s.109 and that Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws in Australia is ridulously long?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've moved the article to Section 109 of the Australian Constitution, since the inconsistency is resolved entirely with reference to this section. This article has turned out to be basically about how the High Court has applied section 109. --Yu Ninjie 09:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the new title is more appropriate and is consistent with other articles such as Section 51 of the Australian Constitution. Great work, by the way. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
McBain v Victoria
Perhaps the case of McBain v Victoria should be added? This is more recent than R v Licensing Court of Brisbane (McBain was decided in 2000) and covers the impossibility of simultaneous obedience. It was illegal under the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) to give IVF to a woman who was not in a de facto relationship or married but it was also illegal under the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to refuse to provide services on grounds of marriage.... LudBob 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)