Australia's fe(de)ral CONstitution is not a valid act of any parliament anywhere. wrap the fish heads up in it, throw it in the bin where it belongs & let the States once again have the self determination that existed before this almighty great CONstitution. BTW, there was no q'ld rep at the CONstitutional CONvention held in Melbourne in 1898 while the colonies of WA, SA, TAS, VIC & NSW all had 2 each in attendance.

The reason Qld was not present in 1898 was their own doing, but they nevertheless accepted the DRAFT constitution! The Queenslanders were busy fighting if the State was to be split in two or three parts and so, basically had no time to attend.
As for the High-Court-of-Australia or any other Court sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns, in my recent book published in “032-Chapter 003 LEGAL FICTION - persona designata” I did set out that this is not a Court of law at all and no judicial decisions can be made.
Still the judges try to pretend that they are judicial decisions.

A Court-of-Disputed-Returns is acting on behalf of the parliamentarians to deal with the right of a person to sit in parliament or not, a political not a judicial decision. Politicians have no judicial powers and hence any other dispute that comes down to legal issues, requiring a “judicial determination” cannot be heard before the Court of Disputed Returns. However, the judges of court of laws are now taking a decision of a Court of disputed Returns as being that of a Court of law, and as such ignoring the division between the executive, legislative and judicial parts of the Constitution.

For example, when I sought to file a case regarding the legal validity of the 2001 writs as well as a Section 75(v) of the constitution writs the High Court of Australia insisted I filed in the Federal Court of Australia. Marshall J then argued that it should be heard before the Court of Disputed Returns. To me he was a complete idiot to argue that somehow politicians can hear and determine writs against the government, or for that matter judges acting on their behalf.
When judges do not comprehend what is legally applicable then where is it going one may ask?
Judges are selected to head a Court of disputed Return not because of their "judicial" position but because it was deemed they would conduct matters in a fair manner. If just they understood that themselves! Seems no one told them about this.