I would have thought such a serious action of threatening the separation of power would require some legislation and not pursuing simply what is already “legislation”.

Of course, when labor had the upper hand and “the unions ran the country” (to quote Greg Combey), good old Greg Barnes had no such reservations, unless he was being paid by the liberals at that time.

From his previous articles, Barnes is a malcontent of the lowest order, happy to be paid by anyone to say anything. If he were female and there was a pole handy, I am sure you could even get him to dance, at a price - but please, a full brazilian first. (which is possibly an even worse mental image than the apt one contained in citizen’s post).

Albie Manton in Darwin, your posts come across pretty strident and cynical, and display a worrying fixation with the anal region.

But, to one of your points - why should the cosntitution enshrine the 'right to life'? In what circumstances should such rights apply?

Activist courts in Australia, now that is a bizarre notion obviously peddled by those who don't have a clue what is really going on

In Australia - we are the only country on the planet to ever legislate for lifetime detention for people who have never committed a crime but simply have no country to go "home" to. The High Court held 4-3 that is OK even though they also admitted that there is no offence being in Australia without the visa people have applied for. Some activism. I would suggest people read Al Kateb in the High Court.

The only nation on earth that legislated to lock up children for the whole of their lives if necessary because of the above law. In Al Kateb there were 9 Palestinian children facing such a fate living in Baxter.

The only nation on earth that says refugee children have no rights at all even though the refugee convention and the rights of the child have both been signed by Australia and both guarantee we won't lock up kids except as a last resort.

Most of our pollies are so dumb they think the rule of law means obeying the law when it is about the separation of powers and means that only courts can impose detention or punishments.

Anyone can obey the law, but the government has thrown away the rule of law.

JohnJ,

The relevance of quoting an american example of judicial activism is simply to show how ridiculous the whole process can get.

My comments about aviation were not a plea for states rights, it was simply an example of an instance where judges have amended the Constitution against the expressed disapproval of the people in a referendum. Another such instance was in 1973, when the people rejected a referendum proposal for the Commonwealth government to have power to control prices. After the rejection, we had a so-called "Prices Justification Tribunal" for many years. There are many other examples where the judges of the High Court have effectively amended the Constitution by interpretation despite the provision of section 128 that the constitution shall not be altered except as provided in that section.

Another enormous area of unconstitutional action relates to the abuse of the external affairs power. Any rational individual would agree that an external affairs power would relate only to actions outside Australia, but this has been perverted to enable the Commonwealth to legislate in many areas undreamed of in 1901. The Constitution has no reference to the United Nations and assigns no powers to it because it did not exist then. Neither does it authorise the Commonwealth government to delegate any such powers to it.

Is it any wonder that people who would like the Commonwealth government to remain the second-class, second-grade sovereignty of limited and strictly enumerated powers that was provided for in the Constitution, seize the opportunity, whenever a referendum question is put to the people, to vote "NO".

We should be thankful that we are permitted referendums at all, as I believe that Switzerland is the only other country that has this method amending their federal constitution. Usually the politicians can do it alone.

Possibly one day we will achieve popular intitative referendums, where the people can enact provisions into law in the teeth of the combined opposition of the political, legal and media fraternities.

This would be a process called democracy. The first such referendum would be on the question of bringing back hanging.

Plerdsus, I don't want to rain on your parade, but this 2005 poll http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2005/3947/ shows only 27% of Australians in favour of the death penalty for murder, compared to 66% opposed to it. This result was probably influenced by the Van Nguyen controversy. Even so, the chance of a referendum getting up nationwide and in a majority of the states would seem pretty remote.

I agree with you on the the dubious use of the external affairs powers, but we don't need to go that far back. A bit more contemporary is The Rodent's use of corporations power to control industrial relations. This seems (to me) far beyond the original purpose of the section and has been argued as unconstitutional in the High Court http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/law/workchoicesbill.htm#highcourt . But I guess that if the High Court knocks the Workplace Relations Act down, you'd see that as "judicial activism"?

While I believe that many government powers could (and should) be handed back to individuals, it won't happen because,
a) The average punter doesn't care unless it directly affects them (and likes to be able to blame someone else when it does) and
b) Politicians hate giving power away- witness the endless arguments about states rights.

Anth hit the nail on the head, pointing out that the legislature and executive are (by definition) not separated in Australia. Thus the judiciary is the only body with separated powers in our system and some politicians seem to hate that.

I think you're trying to have it both ways. After all the PJT was instituted by the Fed Govt and any court challenge that threw it out would have been "judicial activism".

Constitution is a difficlut word to type PK, but let's not denigrate one another by actually reading your full 122 posts to OLO either.

I may not agree with you PK, but I will however defend to the death your 'right' to say it. Those who do not know their rights - do not have any.

To clarify - our elected government is Walkering the same dangerous path as the Bush administration - regional appeasement (the Indonesians) to the detriment of human rights. A continuation of the status quo and the old White Australia Policy by proxy.

(The WAP was based very literally upon the Sth African Natal Act) which became the manifesto of the Apartheid regime(s). From this we had the establishment of 'concentration camps' See: Boer War. The lateral expansion was then taken to its zenith by the Nazi party during the 1930's.

To answer your question: We need to:

(1) Write a new 'Constitution'. Hmm where to start on that one? A Bill of Frights maybe? A 'Statement of Liberties' perhaps.

(2) Indict John Winston Howard as a serial human rights abuser and War criminal.

(2) Elect the judiciary members who sit on state/territory/federal benches - (Repeal all the various Judiciary 'acts' for starters).

(3) Sack, burn & bury this insidious 'two party abused system' of voting.

(4) Go to a 'two tiered system of governance' e.g. local law and Federal law. Get rid of this cumbersome '3 tiered system' and have all state/territory jurisdictions aligned i.e road rules, insurance laws etc etc. I have no qualms with the historic identities of the states but the legal system is in a mess. Oh a massed squealing from the legal fraternity ensues.

Proscribed 'rights' will always be a subject of great contention,it is up to the people under those governments to uphold the rights contained, as it is similarly our duty to be informed of our rights and then insist our government abides and upholds them.

Google my OLO handle if you must (it is my name - I do not hide behind nom de plumes), unlike some.