Wednesday, April 01, 2009

How the hell did Brian Pape get standing?

Taxpayer prerogative to challenge all spending?

The full bench of the High Court set aside two days — yesterday and today — to consider the challenge brought by law lecturer Bryan Pape. The barrister and University of New England academic argues that the payments — worth billions — exceed the Federal Government's taxation powers.

Did something change since I studied intro to public law? What on earth is this fool's particular personal interest in blocking a payment? Per Gibbs J: interest, for present purposes, does not mean a mere intellectual or emotional concern. A person is not interested within the meaning of the rule, unless he is likely to gain some advantage, other than the satisfaction of righting a wrong, upholding a principle or winning a contest, if his action succeeds or to suffer some disadvantage, other than a sense of grievance or a debt for costs if his action fails..

If merely being a concerned taxpayer who doesn't want their money spent improperly gives standing, I'd like to question about 400,000 different pieces of expenditure, thanks.

Have I missed some specific law change to facilitate overfed Barrister/Academics have a pot shot at their will, or is this just another case of the so-called black letter lawyer's High Court dropping the bar for something close to their hearts?

UPDATE: High Court has knocked the fool back. That would have cost the taxpayer at least 3 schoolteachers worth of legal costs, wonder if they'll recover all...?


Kerryn Goldsworthy said...

I gave this some thought when I read about it the other day. My guess is that the only possible real motivation for this kind of behaviour is the kind of wankitude that either wants to be famous or refuses to let go of a pet obsession. Perhaps it's his equivalent of fractional reserve banking. But does he really imagine that at least a million enraged citizens deprived of their Kevinbucks won't descend on his house with rotten eggs and worse?

Mindy said...

Apparently he is from the National Party, so I'd say there is a fair whack of politics involved. Although no one else seems keen to get involved. Self important twerp springs to mind too.

Guy said...

It must take a fair whack of ego, is all I'm thinking..

Legal Eagle said...

Apparently it's all tied up with his notion that the Federal Government has too much power, and has illegitimately extended its reach into many areas which should be restricted to States. I wouldn't call this the best case to test it on.

Anonymous said...

Great post mate!