This is an important article that raises a number of issues. I think that the following are some of the more important ones.

1. The last election produced a huge majority for the LNP but with only half of the vote. One way to safeguard against an abuse of power generated by the electoral system is to reform the system to one of proportional representation.

2. The abuse of power by a Queensland government whose commitment to democratic accountability is at best tenuous would be constrained by a Bill of Rights that enshrined constitutional protections not easily abused by governments.

3. The actions of the Queensland government since its election and set out in dismaying detail by Professor Keyser is able to be maintained because we lack a fourth estate that should perform a role of monitoring and criticising the abuses set out in the article. One could not seriously argue that the Courier Mail performs that function.

These criticisms apply, ceteris paribus, to the Federal system, which at least has the saving grace of an upper house that does actually act as a restraint on the wilder (and almost invariably undemocratic) ambitions of the government of the day.

I actually prefer that politicians have the power to reverse a decision of a court. We elect them to make decisions in the national interest and we can vote them out.

If these politicians don’t like the way the laws are applied or interpreted, they can change them. I expect no less as that is the way it should be.

The judiciary, university academics, human rights activists and legal professionals on the other hand, were not voted in and cannot be voted out. If these groups make decisions that I feel are contrary to the resolutions of public interest for which I voted, they become an obstacle to public interest.

There are many Queenslanders who feel we are being “abused” by criminal activity, who feel we have the “right” to end this abuse and would like some of that “protection” to which you keep referring.

Curiously, the hypocritical rhetoric seeks to suppress the real public rights in favor of the criminals and the progressive non-elected squalk-a-tariat.

It is always the path of least resistance to adopt such rhetoric as “abuse of power”, Bill of Rights” and “enshrined constitutional protections”. Such rhetoric invokes for me the question, who is abusing whom? To whose rights are you referring and just who are you protecting?”

Have your say by all means but please examine your rhetoric for common sense before you spew it into the public domain.

Should politicians have the power to reverse the decision of a court? Of course they should. It is done all the time. It is called legislation. The politicians are elected by the people, represent the people, and must have the power to override unelected judges, otherwise we are at the mercy of the political elite.

There was a recent case in NSW when the high court struck down political donation legislation enacted by the O'Farrell government. The basis they claimed for this were "implied" clauses in the Constitution which the court discovered several years ago. These clauses have never been approved by the people at a referendum. Moreover, several referenda attempting to enact some of these principles have been defeated by the people by significant margins. And yet the constitution says that it shall not be changed except by the procedure outlined in Section 128.

I am surprised that, following the conspicuous failure of the people to vote for a republic, the elite don't request the High Court to rule that the existing provisions relating to the Queen are temporary provisions, and that there are implied clauses providing for a President elected by a two thirds majority of parliament.

Perhaps we need a referendum that would declare that there no implied clauses in the Constitution, and that the failure of any Justice, in the opinion of the Governor-General, to interpret the Constitution other than by the ordinary meaning of the words contained therein, shall constitute proved incapacity under the terms of Section 72.

There have been several occasions in the history of this country when the people have been able to ram a red hot political poker up the political back passage of the elite, the best one being the conscription referendum in 1916. Perhaps it is time for another.

We don't seem to have a good system when you look at the number of injustices perpetrated every day by all three branches of the government. But it is a good idea to try and have separation of powers where - as far as I understand it - to change a court decision would mean parliament revisiting the law. However, it should be much easier for people to appeal court decisions - judges are capable of errors, prejudices, bias etc and it is appalling that a victim of such human foibles should not have the chance to appeal without the permission of the original judge and not merely on points of law. But wot do I know??. beyonhttp://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/separation_powers_parliament_executive_judiciary.html

this article would not even be necessary if judges acted in accordance with public interest rather than contempt for victims. Yes Politicians are open to corruption however judges are open to treachery. Many murdered and raped woman would agree.

Indeed mongrielle,

As you so eloquently put it << But wot do I know? >>

You have offered a range of possible solutions but left out just one small issue and that is, what was the problem?

I find it difficult to reconcile the opinions of some who propose answers but fail utterly to articulate or understand any questions.