.

Our fragile Commonwealth ...

.

The Honourable the Premier, Campbell Newman MP has just taken Queensland in hostage over an insignificant bill of legislation concerning the conditions under which somebody may succeed to the Crown of Britain.

In dramatic Shakespearean style, he has mounted his thoroughbred, brandishing his coat of arms as chief defender of the British Royalty and declared that he (and his hostage) are determined to go it alone and pave the way for new legislation on who could succeed to the British Throne.

Such legislation is normally referred to the Commonwealth Government which acts in the name of all the States in order to assure cohesion and uniformity. It is uncertain whether the proposed Queensland legislation is constitutionally valid.

What is sure is that the Commonwealth Government can only act if all the States agree. Premier Newman's decision prevents the Commonwealth Government enacting the legislation on behalf of the other States.

It is a breakdown of the federation, each State acting individually. and independently of all the others.

Premier Newman declared that he (and his hostage) has a unique personal relationship with British Royalty which the other States do not enjoy and is therefore justified in passing its own legislation in its own terms.

The Bill makes amendments in three areas relating to the royal succession as follows:

• allowing for succession regardless of gender;

• removing the bar on succession for an heir and successor of the Sovereign who marries a Roman Catholic; and

• limiting the requirement for the Sovereign’s consent to royal marriages to the first six individuals in the line of succession.

Here is the link to the proposed Queensland legislation:

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/docs/find.aspx?id=5413T2110

.

Dear Banjo,

Although Campbell Newman is an ass and his legislation provides the ass with ears and tail I believe what he has done is valid. I personally don't feel any connection with the royal parasites. However, one way to effect democratic change is for the states to make legislation which departs from previous precedent. If other states join them this may encourage the commonwealth to join in. In such case the change becomes the policy of the Australian government.

The only question for me is whether the Australian Constitution allows the state of Queensland the right to pass such legislation.

What fascinates me is the continuing presumption in some parts of our society that a bill of rights will actually have an impact on anything at all.

I'd be intrigued to hear of any evidence of protection afforded to China's citizenry, for example, following that country's commitment in 1949 that:

"The citizens of the People's Republic of China, 'have the rights to elect and to be elected according to law,' 'have freedoms of thought, speech, the press, assembly, association, communication, person, residence, migration, religious beliefs and demonstration' and that 'women shall enjoy the same rights and obligations as men in political, economic, cultural, educational and social activities and women and men enjoy the freedom of marriage.'"

http://www.humanrights.cn/zt/magazine/200402004812104351.htm

An Australian bill of rights would, on the other hand, have a positive impact the earning power of those downtrodden minions in the legal profession, who will have what is demotically known a "a field day", in both the bill's formulation, and its prosecution.

O to be a lawyer, now that a Bill of Rights is near.

But the emperor has no clothes!!

If I have a right to life, surely I have a right to the elements provided by nature for life – including free access to land for shelter?

The United Nations Human Rights Declaration itself skirts this fundamental issue by declaring "shelter" rather than Land air water or sunlight a right. Thus a right to life is made dependent on the willingness or ability of an economic system (run by the rich for the rich) and on a MAJORITY of voters (taxpayers). http://on.fb.me/UbyrlD

What ever happened to my birthright to life that I must now serve an increasingly unsustainable function in an unsustainable system? There is no talk of the land issue in the discussion of rights, and there is an assumption that we are free when we can consume to our physical limit. Was Leo Tolstoy right when he said that solving the land question means the solving of all social questions?

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

Dear Landrights4all,

<<If I have a right to life, surely...>>

Well, apparently you do not have a right for life.
What you have, commonly confused for a right to life, is state-protection, making it illegal for others to actively take your [biological] life and promising to punish those who do (too late for you anyway).

Since nobody owns life (including the United Nations), only swindlers can offer you "a right to life".

I heard the other day on ABC National that the first Commonwealth Parliament wanted to introduce a Bill of Rights along the lines of that adopted by the USA, but the Prime Minister, Barton?, argued against it because then the government wouldn't be able to make laws that discriminated against Blacks and other unwanted minorities. He stated this in parliament and the exact words are recorded. It wasn't an under the table deal - he was proud of it. And that's why we haven't one, and why we'll never get one. Imagine if the Government wasn't able to pass laws such as the NT intervention, or if the Health, police and justice systems were required to tread Aborigines the same as the rest of Australians... The mind boggles.