John Ip
@ipster.bsky.social
Associate Professor in law at Auckland University; counterterrorism law and public law. Dad. Husband. Obsessive about my obsessions. Views personal. P(Repost=Endorsement)≈0.5
https://profiles.auckland.ac.nz/j-ip
https://profiles.auckland.ac.nz/j-ip
That is, suppose minister (after being successfully JR’ed for failure to take into account MRC in putative Collins v Clark) makes same decision again. Further suppose decision motivated by desire to penalise certain kinds of research, but framed in terms of government priorities for growth etc.
December 4, 2024 at 10:34 PM
That is, suppose minister (after being successfully JR’ed for failure to take into account MRC in putative Collins v Clark) makes same decision again. Further suppose decision motivated by desire to penalise certain kinds of research, but framed in terms of government priorities for growth etc.
I see your point about mandatory relevant considerations. But I understood Dean to be discussing the substance of what s 267 might protect against in the context of funding withdrawal.
December 4, 2024 at 10:34 PM
I see your point about mandatory relevant considerations. But I understood Dean to be discussing the substance of what s 267 might protect against in the context of funding withdrawal.
Agree but seems improbable that one could show removal of funding was done on this basis.
December 4, 2024 at 9:59 PM
Agree but seems improbable that one could show removal of funding was done on this basis.