"In May 1998 Sir Anthony Mason delivered a paper at an Australian National University Law School seminar jointly sponsored by the Public Policy Program and the Centre for International and Public Law."

A more precise reference to that paper would have been nice.

Thank you, David Smith.

We should all be appreciative of the insights given to us by OLO and people who take the trouble to contribute.

Another recent contribution, plus articles in the general media, have given we members of the laity valuable information about activist judges.

We now know that democracy, always under threat from many directions, is also threatened in Australia by some arrogant, unelected judges with influence and public 'respect'.

Irrespective of political beliefs, we should all be supporting and demanding that elected governments root these characters out and, more importantly, be a lot more careful about whom they appoint.

I say again, perhaps we should be electing judges.

David

I remember you saying "God save the Queen" on the steps of Old Parliament House.

I still maintain my rage over this disgraceful act. Viva Le Republic.

"Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor General!"

Sir Anthony Mason's seminar paper was entitled "The Republic and Australian Constitutional Development" and it was given on 11 May 1998.

David Smith

ruawake, kerr did the oz people a great favor, and a small favor: the small favor was to invite the electorate to judge the whitlam circus, which they did.

the big favor was to demonstrate that oz is not a democracy, nor even close. not many ozzians have learned that lesson, then or now. like the perpetual adolescents they are, they prate endlessly about their democratic rights, but they are totally unwilling to put in the effort to create a democratic state.

i have come to feel a little sorry for kerr. what i've read about him is entirely unfavorable- but don't believe all you read. he probably was a drunk,and a fool. but his main problem was he read the constitution, and believed it. so he did what he thought was his duty under the law, and was ostracized by a society that was determined to ignore it's fundamental law.

Well, it's reassuring to know that a former member of the High Court, tasked with interpreting constitutional law, has such a sterling knowledge of it.

It certainly explains a few of the High Court decisions of the past years.

"Certainly there's an implied freedom of speech in the constitution!"
"But there's no implied freedom from indefinite detention without charge or trial."
"Well of course the corporations power of the Commonwealth covers every last company in the country, down to the last fish and chip shop."
(etc)

Excellent job, chaps.