Read on Twitter
The problem with framing the point as being that this "could be unconstitutional" (which happens all the time, not just on this issue) is that our Constitution is simply not set up, or intended, to determine whether policy decisions like this are good or bad. https://twitter.com/hughriminton/status/1275943485724475393
The question of whether some law or measure is unconstitutonal is often presented as if it is the ultimate test of whether a politician has acted appropriately or inappropriately, or whether a policy is acceptable or not.
Framing the issue in this way also inevitably also leads to statements like the High Court has "approved" indefinite detention or has "approved" the banning of mobile phones, if and when legislation or policies are upheld as "not unconstitutional", …
… when all they have done is rule on a particular, often quite technical, legal issue that is not directed, or at least primarily directed, to "approval" of the policy at all.
It also leads to the perpetuation of an assumption that the High Court (and courts more generally) decide all or most cases based primarily on the basis of policy or political reasons, and the discussion and judgement of the quality of High Court decisions based on outcome.
A related issue is the tendency to portray people (especially politicians) as incompetent or stupid if they do something that is later held to be unlawful or unconstitutional, or …
… if they suggest that others' conduct might be either unlawful or unconstitutional and it is later held not to have been. These judgments are often contestable until decided by a court (the whole point of judicial power is conclusively to settle such controversies).
NB: I don't mean any criticism of Hannah Ryan, (or Hugh Riminton -- both are top journalists who do, I think, appreciate all these points). These are more general observations. The focus of this article is really not primarily on constitutional validity at all; more the headline.
