Australia has the right over International pressure to conform to any Un-Australian intervention into its National Policies.
IE:UN Human Rights watchdogs can criticise all they like but the final decision on any matter rests with the Autonomous Government of the day.

And in spite of the complaint by the Author of this piece of open borders dogma, the records show that the chances of an immigration rejection by appeal to the AAT, are more likely to succeed than fail by a large percentage; that’s in spite of the alleged stacking of the committee with LNP supporters. So his argument of political interference fails to materialise on those grounds.

In fact it could be argued that the AAT is actually overturning Government decisions by less than subtle means of condemnation of the Government rulings, which is seen as unacceptable to overseas interests (viz UNHRC desires), and that in spite of the coincidence of a majority membership of LNP on appeals committees.

And the inference here in the article that the white Australia Policy was bad and discriminatory, and Evatt was wrong to insist it remained in place during the inaugural processes of the UNHRC only proved his stance on the issue to be correct.

Multiculturalism has only served to divide societies like Australia, which were once homogeneous and United behind its Government decisions on National grounds.

Multiculturalism has also divided itself up automatically into disunited ghettos of cultural dissimilarity, which can easily be compared to the apartheid era of South Africa.

The end of apartheid era in SA did not end well for the Nation of SA did it, it’s been down hill ever since without question.

Dan

Ok, so to clarify the ambiguity of the cross dressing of apartheid and multiculturalism into positive and negative ends, it’s important to consider a most relevant question:

If the Apartheid State is a failure, on what grounds is it a failure, is it economic grounds or human rights grounds. And from that, what would be the outcome if multiculturalism were to be dismantled as a Government Policy.

If we imagine one outcome to be the reintroduction of the White Australia Policy, which would of course be hotly opposed by the UNHRC, that outcome would be interpreted as outside interference in Australian Government Policy.

If the UNHRC meddled in the domestic policies of South Africa to the point of SA Economic decline, and worse outcomes for its Native populations, why does Australia not abandon the concept of HR alone, as a failure?

And will the inevitable abandonment of Multiculturalism have the same consequences to Australia as the abandonment of its first Cousin, Apartheid?

We should consider carefully.

Dan

We have to face this fact.
Politicians are going to find a way to give 'plum jobs' to those who are likely to support them.
They see them as friends to be cultivated.
This is human nature.

Knowing this is going to happen, we should have in place policies which safeguard us from this (possibly) unfair conduct.
Having appointments made by some external mechanism might be a step towards achieving a more acceptable outcome?
Frequently done for other situations, so why not this time?
As always, the public needs to remain vigilant, and awake to any irregularity.

But my sense is that the public are a mite apathetic when it comes to making a necessary change?
Perhaps they are not sufficiently informed?
Or do they forget by the time an election comes around?
Do the ruling politicians create a 'snow-storm' at election time, to distract us from any unpleasant reality?

Perhaps more vegemite and cornflakes would make us concentrate better?
Or an extra cup of that excellent billy tea?

What a typically pointless Academic waffle ! What we really need is a Human responsibility commission that makes people like Binoy accountable for not really contributing anything to society's betterment ! Crap-stirring & mostly snapping at the hands that feed them for really nothing in return.