cynicismcentral.org - TOWNSVILLE AUSTRALIA

www.cynicismcentral.org

Bill of rights Dead?

So , the first test of this site is a success . In response to the article “Addressing the time wasting arguments of pollies against a bill of rights” www.cynicismcentral.org/node/37 , I have received a reply from a key independent Senators Office – Nick Xenophon . This was sent to all senators.

The Senator is not convinced that we need a bill of rights or that if we had one it would work. Thats my interpretation. Its also my interpretation that if he and Senator Fielding, the godbothering family first senator do not support one, and neither do the unprincipled liberals, then thats it, because it appears the labor party is run by very unprincipled people . That is, unless people pull their fingers out. Senators emails can be found on my site.

Consider my email address validated Senator.

Pat

RE: Email from Senate Website‏
From: Xenophon, Nick (Senator) (Senator [dot] Xenophon [at] aph [dot] gov [dot] au)
You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as unsafe
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2008 12:10:34 PM
To: cynicismcentral [dot] org [at] hotmail [dot] com

Dear Mr Coleman Thank you for your email to Nick Xenophon regarding a Bill of Rights for Australia, and I apologise for the delay in responding to you. While Nick supports all human rights, he is not convinced a Bill of Rights assuch is the best way to achieve this. For example Cuba has a Bill of Rights but its people lack fundamental freedoms. Instead Nick believes it is important to ensure all Bills before the parliament are scrutinized to ensure they the don't infringe on the rights of all Australian citizens. Thank you for taking the time to contact Nick on this issue.
Kind regards
Hannah Wooller
Correspondence Officer for NICK XENOPHONIndependent Senator for South Australia 212 Grenfell Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000Telephone 8232 1144Fax 8232 3744Email Senator [dot] Xenophon [at] aph [dot] gov [dot] au The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or legallyprivileged. If you are not the intended recipient, access to it isunauthorised and any disclosure, copying, distribution or action takenor omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may beunlawful. -----Original Message-----From: autoresponder [at] aph [dot] gov [dot] au [mailto:autoresponder [at] aph [dot] gov [dot] au] Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2008 5:39 PMTo: Xenophon, Nick (Senator)Subject: Email from Senate Website Please do not respond to this email Comments: Addressing the time wasting arguments of pollies against abill of rights. On 14/8/08 Senator George Brandis came to Townsville to tell the peopleof Australia that the Liberal Party of Australia will not supportAustralia having a bill of rights. Excerpts from a draft of his speechappears in an article by Glenn Milne in the Australian (11/8/08) (1).George Brandis should know better as a lawyer than to try and use legalarguments about changes to the relationship between the parliament andthe judiciary and about a bill of rights being a limitation of the powerof parliament. He is quoted as referring to Chief justice Spigelman ofthe NSW Supreme Court who was talking about the change the UK HumanRights Act may have had there. Brandis states that BOR proponents havefailed to show why we need one. He stated that the parliaments are best placed to decide what rightsshould be developed or qualified by competing interests, and quotesformer premier of NSW Bob Carr who says that- "Parliaments areelected to make laws. In doing so, they make judgments about how therights and interests of the public should be balanced. Views will differin any given case about whether the judgment is correct. However, if thedecision in unacceptable, the community can make its views known atregular elections. This is our political tradition. A bill of rightswould pose a fundamental shift in that tradition." The other argument you will find come up again and again that is used byboth major parties is that a BOR will be a "lawyer's picnic" (2). Thiswas repeated by John Howard. None of the legal arguments against a bill of rights holds water. TheEnglish Tradition has been different to ours since 1901 when we got arigid constitution and since 1986 when the English no longer wanted thepower to pass laws for us though they still could. The EnglishParliament, though bound by the ECHR cannot bind itself without a rigidand entrenched constitution. Our High Court has repeated that our systemis the same as the English where the courts cannot find anything in theconstitution to strike down legislation, parliamentary supremacy means"absolute despotic power" (3). The 2 major parties control who our votes go to at federal electionsthrough the compulsory allocation of preferences. Their policies aredictated by market forces and not the public interest. The high courthas said on a number of occasions that it will not overstep itsterritory and into the political domain. That is implied in theseparation of powers doctrine (4) . The Court has stated in Ha v NSW that under the Constitution they willdetermine rights and issues as they arise regardless of the consequences(5) "A hallmark of the judicial process has long been the making ofbinding declarations of rights and obligations arising from theoperation of the law upon past events or conduct. The adjudication ofexisting rights and obligations as distinct from the creation of rightsand obligations distinguishes the judicial power from non-judicialpower". What George Brandis and all other labor/liberal opponents of a bill ofrights are trying to do is to draw attention away from the fact thatAustralia's politicians cannot be trusted with the protection of humanrights . The NSW Council of Civil Liberties website carries a list ofhis previous government's violations of the ICCPR as long as your arm(6). George Brandis and co have no leg to stand on in arguing against a billof rights. People should now try to get the real answers from him andhis ilk. (1) Article : Liberals aim to wedge Labor on bill of rights , GlennMilne , The Australian , Monday 11/8/08http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24158142-33435,00.html (2) Qld Legal and Administrative Review Committee Report no. 121998 The preservation and enhancement of individuals' rights andfreedoms in Queensland: Should Queensland adopt a bill of rights"http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/documents/lcarc/reports/Bill%20of%20Rights%20report%20-%20Report%20No%2012.pdf (3) Kartinyeri v CTH at pars [12]-[13]http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/22.html (4) See Dietrich v Rhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/57.html online version ,decision of Brennan J at pars [4]-[10] See also the decision of the HighCourt in Kable v DPPhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1996/24.html (5) Ha v New South Wales [1997] HCA 34; (5 August 1997)http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/34.html (6) http://cynicismcentral.org/node/19 Name: Mr Pat ColemanAddress: City: State: Postcode: Country: Australia Telephone number: 0439839121Email Address: cynicismcentral [dot] org [at] hotmail [dot] comNote: Sender provided an email address that could not be validated