Archive by Author

Jan 28

You know, one of the great qualities about Australians is our passion for a fair-go and our generosity in passing around the hat when someone is down on their luck. That’s mateship. We’re good at that because we feel for them and we’ve been known to really dig deep into our pockets for genuine hardship. Of course we also rubbish people in a mateship way – and unfortunately sometimes not so mateship – and we don’t really like tall poppies if they’re a bit up themselves. But hey, generally we’ve integrated others into our society pretty well and people adapt well to our society because of these values. Naturally we have kept our laid-back casual attitudes – she’ll be right mate – and this often is reflected in children of ethnic origins often eclipsing our Aussie kids in terms of academic excellence.

But this bill of rights, this threatens our cool. We like our fair-go. And it looks as if with specific minority groups pushing their own agendas we might lose some of our traditions that we cherish. Some of pretty fundamental attitudes and values are at risk. If I want to restrict my guest room to couples without children, why shouldn’t I? If I choose not to rent my room to a gay couple, why shouldn’t I have that choice? And if I want to belong to a men’s club, why should women be admitted? And OK, if Ned Flanders wants to send his kids to a religious school and pay for it and the school is forced to employ a male homosexual teacher, why shouldn’t he get upset?

Let’s toss out any bill of rights. It threatens a fair-go for all. Sign up for The People’s Charter – that’s right, just put thepeoplescharter and anything you like after it plus .au and you’ll get into it (but if you remember it is or just google the peoples charter Australia and you’ll get it. Hey, pass it on to your friends to log in and your enemies will probably sign it too!

Jul 28

On page 97 of Don’t Leave Us with the Bill: The case against and Australian Bill of Rights edited by Julian Leeser and Ryan Haddrick, The Menzies Research Centre 2009 the authors argue three broad objections against an Australian Bill of Rights, that it would

  • Undermine national and democratic sovereignty
  • Perverse outcomes of law and policy
  • Not effective at protecting rights anyway
Jun 30

In the majority opinion, Judge Wilkinson wrote,

A partially born child is among the weakest, most helpless beings in our midst and on that account exerts a special claim on our protection… The fact is that we — civilized people — are retreating to the haven of our Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its skull. Surely centuries hence, people will look back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a society of high achievement. And they will shudder.

For full story see:

Now this is a good story but how can it be that 5 judges voted to overturn the ban decided by the government and therefore the people?
How can it be that un-elected judges can override the will of the people?
How can it be that in the face of such a condemnation (“…and they will shudder”) from a moral point of view, 5 judges can just vote on a point of what they consider to be good law and ignore murder?

And we in Australia are considering handing over powers via a Bill of Rights to an un-elected judiciary?

Jun 01

At the heart of the quandary in protecting rights under an Australian Bill of Rights is the ultimate loss of a democratic voice, with government being subject to an un-elected judiciary.

The very process of public discussion and opportunity for submissions to the Human Rights Commission is an example of democratic process but we should not be under the illusion that such contributions will change what the consultation committee decide and recommend. It is likely that the recommendation will proceed along the lines of the agendas proposed by the rights faction.

Why has the government as a result of the 2020 Summit chosen to look at statutory legislation as the avenue of introduction instead of a constitutional change? Precisely because it has been twice before rejected by referendum.