I do not support a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights and I do not see any need even for a non - constitutional statute of that kind .
However , I find it difficult to understand how even conservative - voting Australians can be comfortable with retaining the British head of state , an hereditary foreign aristocrat ,as our head of state . To argue that it is better to leave the present monarchical system in place just because it is there ,ignores the fact that it is an insult to Australian national self - respect .

The referendum on the republic failed because of an unholy misalliance between cashed up monarchy worshippers and well - meaning , but misguided , direct election republicans , not because of a real preference to retain the foreign monarchy .

To say that , because a referendum to change the monarchical system was unsuccessful previously , there should never be another referendum posing the same question , is like saying that , because you failed an examination once , you should never again be allowed to sit the same examination .

Why have another election when the people have already expressed their preference at the immediately previous election ?

Each time a Professor’s mouth is open; we expect a lesson.

This one is a good one; on ‘Constitutions’ or, pointedly, on the Australian Constitution.

The word prominent in this article is ‘Slaughtered’ as used in abattoirs.

A Professor is meant to be impartial. Professoor James Allan is passionate.

‘Constitution and Human rights’

If we had a Constitution “where each one of us is counted equally” would we need other scripts as the one under the title ‘Human right’?

Why do we have to send our kids to learn from Professors the art of war, slaughter, is the question that should bugger every parent.

oh Dear. I think this post could be much shorter perhaps " I hate the Greens and everything they stand for".

I found this post to be funny but it's when I read the proportional voting bit that the tears started coming.

Jaylex in reply to your comment regarding the Constitution Acts 1900.
The Mornarch is no longer our head of state. Although in the Constitution still refers to the monarch.
The Constitution Act 1900 guarantees and safe guards our Rights and Freedoms which most of us take for granted.
Parliaments, Governments and the Judiciary do their utmost to ignore its existance and they rely on peoples ignorance as many of the people of Australia are not aware of it. They dont want the people aware of it as this would stop many of the oppressive practices they use today, such as selling our utilities, farms, mines, water, and industries, to foreign investors investors and some of those are to foreign powers. We must ask ourselves WHY. At the rate this is occuring soon Australia will just be another state of a foreign power.
Our Governments are beginning to worry because more people are learning of our Constitution and are waking up to the fact we are not free as we have been led to beleive.
Why do you think the Federal government refused the people a vote by REFERENDUM concerning the carbon tax? The Labor/Greens did not want the people to have a say on the issue and this is in breach of our the peoples Constitution, this indicates that they operating as a Dictatorship Government and is in a direct breach of section 128 of the Constitution. Prior to January 2010 I did not have a clue, but fortunately thanks to computers and the ability to research my eyes and brain were opened. Now I never assume anything is right or wrong until I research, weigh it up and then form an opinion.
Australia governments refer to Australia as the Australian Federation of the States and Territories, not the Commonwealth of Australia as is our heritage. We need our Constitution 1900 because without it we will forfeit our Democratic Rights.

Concerns about the greens come from every side of politics and from both sides of the Republican debate.
Can we separate our views on such?
Not sure but I have noted if you genuinely hold views we would be better without greens you will be targeted.
If it is your view, shared by many, most Australians resent greens,you must stand by to be confronted.
But if OLO is any rule to measure public feelings about this minority group those concerns are shared too by more than some wish.

Of the plethora of Green-bashing articles that have been published here lately, this would have to be one of the worst. Apparently, according to the good Professor of Law, the Greens are responsible for the push for a Bill of Rights, and also for the republican movement in Australia.

If only it were true - but the reality is that, while they are indeed official Greens policy, according to Prof Allan's own figures support for both initiatives is much wider in the community than just among the Greens. Indeed, most people who support a Bill of Rights and/ or a republic vote for parties other than the Greens. Hardly radical stuff, is it?

Eventually Allan briefly mentions policies that are distinctly Green, one of which is Proportional Representation - under which parties win seats in the Lower House in proportion to their vote, e.g. With 12% of the vote, the Greens would win 12% of the seats. Sound fair? That's because it is, which is why his only argument against it is that it shouldn't be adopted because it would favour small parties like the Greens.

On the question of lowering the vote to 16, I actually agree with Prof Allan in opposing it. However, no party's perfect - not even the Greens :)

Kenny was of course correct.

Allan writes regular columns for the OZ which is on the public record re its mission to destroy the greens. Which is course their perfect right in a democracy.

He is also a contributor to a new book titled The Greens: Politics Reality & Consequences.
A book which is promoted as featuring the opinions of numerous "distinguished experts", all of whom are the usual hollow men who erroneously believe that both human population and the consumer society can expand for forever and a day.
Meanwhile of course, at this stage nobody really knows what the future of the Greens will be, and more importantly the consequences of their various policies.
This publisher of this new book has also published a book titled Test Everything by that chap who wears the funny clothes in Sydney, and who presumes to know the "will of'God'".
Having tried to read various bits of the book in the now defunct Borders, I must say that it one of the most pathetic books on "God", religion and "theology" that I have ever attempted to read.
And yet the author is promoted as THE leading "light" of catholic intellectual and theological opinion in Australia - and even in the world.

Australians are too stupid to be given the choice of right now on constitutional change, so we should leave it alone for maybe 20 or 30 years and hope we smarten up.

We've got a PM who lied on the eve of the last election, has basically stolen an election and if we learn one thing only from that, it is not to trust people who want power so bad they will do or say anything to get it, Greens included.

We are living a train smash, and in years to come will be able to see it for what it is. The ALP and Greens want everyone to stop questioning what they believe is right and correct, and that makes me want to trust them even less.

They know they are unpopular, and want to mandate popularity for themselves and outlaw dissent .. totalitarianism it is called.

The coalition might be better or worse, but that's irrelevant as they have no power and are doing their job, as an opposition it is to question and oppose (as the ALP did in opposition)

When the greens are exterminated, at the next election, and the deal driven lack of morals and ethics party of the ALP is decimated, we'll have to rebuild the country .. then way after that, we might look at this again.

Not now, we are in too much distress and have no leaders to trust.

Amicus, speaking of wall to wall lies, how many lies did Howard tell us when he joined up to in the coalition of the killing in the illegal invasion of Iraq?

How many people were killed as a result of those lies?

How many international conventions on the conduct of international affairs were effectively trashed by this illegal mis-adventure?

Was the world made a safer and saner place?

NO!

@Kenny, @morganzola, @Ho Hum,

Thanks for the background. I could not make sense of the article when I read it. You comments put the point he is trying to make into perspective.

It was very odd. Usually Professor of Law's are very articulate, and the point behind their articles is clear. In hindsight I guess it's obvious the article is just a collection of grapeshot fired at the greens. I just wasn't expecting it from to come from such a source.

Shock, horror, the Greens are being treated like every other political organization in Australia .. who'd have thought?

People are giving them the scrutiny they need and dissecting the way they go about things, no more vague aspersions being cast without question.

They should be pleased.

"Green-bashing articles that have been published here lately", yes usually it is Coalition based bashing, do I see you all complaining then?

ho hum, let it go, PM (MOS) Howard, is gone, out of office and to pasture. BTW, PM Hawke led the first adventure into Iraq, is he of the "coalition of the killing", or was that "special"?

Talk about language of the left demonizing people. Anyway PM (MOS) Howard acted under UN articles, as did Hawke .. nothing illegal about it and you know it, this is just emotional language and hand wringing.

Trying to distract from the disaster of the ALP/Greens is disingenuous and is off topic deliberately to bait and switch .. hey, just like the current government of liars!

The Greens are confronted both by a complacently affluent democracy and the hard reality that the modern West is rapacious and unsustainable. They are forced to fight within the restrictions of the political arena.
When it comes to environmentalism, democracy in the modern West is a comprehensive failure, so I frankly don't care what the referenda decided; history shows that when it comes to national Green politics, if it's popular or unpopular, it must be wrong; that is, the majority is always wrong. There have been the occasional local concessions to the Greens, but these were token gestures towards local communities that had no effect on Australians at large, who were thus happy to get behind them and earn a Koala stamp.
So James Allan's article just tells me what I already new; vested interests are impervious to long term considerations. Altruism doesn't stand a chance.
It must be soul destroying being a genuine Greenie, having to get down and dirty in the cynical world of popular politics.

RPG It is really quite simple, the first war against Saddam Hussein was backed up by international law and the approval of the United Nations.
The second was NOT.
And besides which the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals.
Using the justifications or rather lies of the time re the origins and alleged state backing of the terrorists, why then did the USA and the coalition of the killing invade Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia?

ho hum, off topic strawman argument ..

Did I hear someone say to lower the voting age to 16 ? I suppose they're the same people who advocate poker machines for everywhere & more grog in communities. The Greens I hear you say ? You mean green behind the ears ?

However , I find it difficult to understand how even conservative - voting Australians can be comfortable with retaining the British head of state .
jaylex,
I agree but whom do you have in mind to replace the Queen with, Bob Brown ?

After reading the posts, there are again many good points being put forward but I have noticed that the posts are neglecting to mention what I consider is the most relevent point of all - DEMOCRACY.
We are led to beleive that Australia is a DEMOCRATIC country so I must ask all of you if you know and understand the true meaning of what a DEMOCRACY is?
My understanding of a DEMOCRACY is as follows;
1. In a DEMOCRACY the PEOPLE rule. The people meaning natural men and
women.

2. Parliaments are entities where Officials rule and in most cases,
Parliaments do not adhere or listen to the will of the people and
when they do this they are in fact using Tyrannical rule and this
is a DICTATORSHIP and NOT DEMOCRACY.

3. In a DEMOCRACY there are Laws, Rules, Regulations and INALIENABLE
Rights and Freedoms enacted into the SUPREME DOCUMENT guaranteeing
protections of the peoples Rights and Freedoms.

4. In Australia our SUPREME DOCUMENT is the COMMONWEALTH of AUSTRALIA
CONSTITUTION Act, 1900, which was enacted as Law by the Federal
Parliament in 1901. Our Constitution guarantees our DEMOCRATIC
Rights and Freedoms.

Unfortunately many of the people do not know of its existance or fail to understand the relivence and its importance.
Our ignorance of our DEMOCRATIC Rights and Freedoms has enabled the Parliament and the Government (State and Federal) and Officials to remove and limit our DEMOCRATIC Rights and Freedoms.
Before Parliaments can enact any legislation that will impact on the PEOPLE of Australia and the furure generations of Australia they must by law ask the people to vote in a referendum to vote on the propsed legislation, this will enable the people to either endorse or deny the legislation. Parliaments, Governments and Officials must obey the will of the PEOPLE, that is DEMOCRACY.

Continued from previous post.
Federal and State Government Parliaments and Officials cannot alter, change or in anyway tamper with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia 1900. We the people are the only ones who can amend the Constitution.

Australian Federal, State Governments, Parliaments and Officials are continually abusing their authority and they now enact DRACONIAN Laws, Rules, Regulations and Statutes, This is DICTATORSHIP and TYRANNY.

They have and are continuing to sell the Australian peoples assets to foreign investors and governments without the permission of the people
They sold all of our utilities such as our electricity, gas, telephone and water, which were originally owned by us the people and administered by the Government. They did this without our permission and we are now forced to continually pay the increased price rises.

The Australian mining industry sold to foreign investors. Again without our permission.

Australian farms, land, real estate, properties and forests sold to foreign investors. Again without our permission.

Local Australian Industries are finding it difficult to compete with the prices of imported goods.

Foreign investors can now can supply their own work force with people on work visas, this is at the cost Australian peoples jobs.

Foreign investors pay very little if ant taxation to Australia as they pay the tax to their own countries. We the Australian People have to pay by way of the G.S.T. to make up for what the Australian Taxation Depatment is losing.

Our Governments are finding more ways to raise revenue from the us the People, such as the Traffic cameras, new Road Rules legislations, increased taxes, and now the Carbon Tax, which will eventually be an Emissions Trading SCHEME.

SCHEME is a good word for it. They are trying to sell it to the people by offering a bribe to absorb the initial costs, but the costs will increase to the point where they exceed the bribe.

CONTINUED
I have learnt over many years that our governments cannot be trusted or relied upon.
We can insist the government listens to us the people.

We can stop them enacting evil legislation and we can stop them selling our land, properties, and industries.

We can force them to control foreign investors to stop them unjustly increases the costs of our utilities and water.

When we acheive that only then will we be a DEMOCRACY. Until then we will exist in a Tyrannical Dictatorship.

FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH REQUIRES ONLY THAT GOOD MEN AND WOMEN DO NOTHING

I would not like to see an entrenched Bill of Rights in Australia. Implied rights through other legal means allows for change in attitudes and allows for people on the fringe and for minorities to have a voice and enables mechanisms to make change. It is impossible to include all in the entrenchment of rights and by doing so excludes some and thus defeats its purpose.