Talk:New South Wales v Commonwealth (Workplace Relations Challenge)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	New South Wales v Commonwealth (Workplace Relations Challenge) is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Page title 1.1 Long and short names 2 parties 3 merge? 4 Number of lawyers 5 Recent edits 6 Update

[edit] Page title

Since there are about a dozen New South Wales v Commonwealth cases, it would be best to disambiguate by year. Since this one doesn't have a year yet (could be 2006 or 2007) I've disambiguated based on the popular or common name for the case, which at the moment seems to be "Workplace Relations Challenge". --bainer (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it has a year: [2006] HCA 52. --SilasM 14:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We've currently only got this and New South Wales v Commonwealth, so unless we start writing articles on the other ones, might creating a disambiguation page be a little premature? Or should we do it anyway? enochlau (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Its probably still worth it. Xtra 03:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If no one else objects, I'll move New South Wales v Commonwealth to New South Wales v Commonwealth (1990) and New South Wales v Commonwealth will become a disambig page - I'll flesh it out with a case list from a textbook. enochlau (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There's at least one other major one, New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975), the Seas and Submerged Lands case. Do you think it's better to disambiguate by year or by common/popular name? --bainer (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

popular name. Xtra 03:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I came to the conclusion that it wasn't a sound idea. There are some cases called NSW v Cth in my textbook's case list without a popular name? Or are they the minor ones that will never get an article anyway? e.g. (1908) 85 CLR 545 and (1915) 20 CLR 54. enochlau (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to clause it (WorkChoices challenge) as opposed to using the Howard PR term "Workplace Relations" or "industrial relations", which is too long. In any case, I don't think it should be capitalised.—cj | talk 09:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it sounds better too, but the transcript service is calling it Workplace Relations Challenge: [1]. It may acquire a different name in time. --bainer (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

We should leave it at what Austlii is calling it. But in any case, wouldn't calling it WorkChoices be more pandering to PR than the other two terms, which are rather generic terms? enochlau (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would. To use WorkChoices is to acknowledge the régime without extending it credence, whereas to use "Worplace Relations" is to accept the minority dialect. However, I agree we should follow AustLII's lead.--cj | talk 03:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambig page has been created at New South Wales v Commonwealth. enochlau (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long and short names

The infobox has two params for the name of the case, the one at the top has the short name, and lower down there is a "full name" param, which, not surprisingly, has the full name :) The short version just has the first named plaintiff/appellant, "v", and the first named defendant/respondent. "& Ors" and stuff like that appears only in the longer version. The AGLC sets all this out. --bainer (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] parties

re: my recent edit. at [2] the hight court lists the parties as:

State of New South Wales v Commonwealth of Australia (S592/2005)
State of Western Australia v Commonwealth of Australia (P66/2005)
State of South Australia v Commonwealth of Australia (A3/2006)
State of Queensland v Commonwealth of Australia (B5/2006)
Australian Workers Union & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia (B6/2006)
Unions NSW & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (S50/2006)
State of Victoria v Commonwealth of Australia (M21/2006)

Xtra 03:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Tasmania, the ACT and the NT are all intervening, you can see their lawyers in the list of introductions: [3]. I'm not sure which of the seven actions they're intervening in. So they're not actually parties but for all intents and purposes they're part of the case. --bainer (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge?

IMHO this article should be merged with the workchoices article... but some might not agree with me. Timeshift 13:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The WorkChoices article (which deals with the legislation) is already substantial enough on its own without needing to include this. Furthermore, this case is certain to take on a life of its own since it is considering a very important issue (the extent of the corporations power) which has significance outside the context of the legislation. --bainer (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

They are two different things. One is a set of laws, the other is a court case. Xtra 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose merger. This challenge should certainly be discussed in WorkChoices however.--cj | talk 02:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with merge. Note the difference between Franklin Dam and Commonwealth v Tasmania. There is a difference between information on the background and information about legal argument and the case outcome. enochlau (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also disagree per what Enochlau said. Dankru 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with bainer on this one. It is not appropriate to merge the two articles. Sambo 12:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of lawyers

at [4] I count 39 lawyers for this case and at [5] I count 34 for Wik. Xtra 02:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I reverted the recent edits by Cyberjunkie - there were no weasel words, and I think what is there now is a fair summary of the background to the states' challenge. The background part could, of course, do with some cleaning up. Sambo 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Now that the final decision has been made, this article could do with a bit of an overhaul, but it's so long! Anyone attempted to read the decision yet? enochlau (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. 914 paragraphs and 1227 footnotes... might take a little while :) When I've finished exams in a week or so I'll give it a crack. --bainer (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise me. We could split up the joint judgment, Kirby and Callinan...? Sambo 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea splitting it up. enochlau (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dibs on Kirby's judgment. --bainer (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take Callinan's... Sambo 04:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh what! I wanted those - alright, I'll take the majority judgment. enochlau (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

=O damn got here too late. i'll help with the majority judgment? don't miss the "impotent debating society" quote with callinan's. --Sumple (Talk) 08:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)