Well - I find myself in uncomfortable waters here -

I am half in agreement with the silver fop -

3.5 out of 6 aint bad :

english I can take or leave as a pillow - more luck than anything, similarly the Crown I can take it or leave it.

I am with him on Federation , the rule of law, responsible government under the Westminster system and I am half way with him on Judeao Christian values as I dont believe that value set is all that unique in the human experience.

The problem we face in this debate is concepts of English and JC values for example are being used as exclusive points of differentiation - that "they" have to take it or leave it - much in the some ways as the IR laws and GW Bush 'you're with us or agaisnt us" approach to life - always a recipe for a disaster;-

people are being separated from the main stream by inconsequential differences to give substance and a face to a hidden and in some instances fabricated enemy.

Save us from more of the Flintone's ramblings. Why does this bloke get so much space on this website for his repetitive, conservative, unimaginative views.

Rule of Law? As personified by Howard? The invasion of Iraq was not according to the rule of law. The detention of David Hicks is not within the rule of law.

And how about a core value of honesty? No, that would not be safe ground for Flinty - his best mate Howard would fall at the first hurdle.

I can understand your angst amsdal even if I cant spell it -

Sure Howard rorts the Rule of Law however not at every turn - it remains something between us an absolute despotism and honesty would fall within the scope of JC values but not exclusively so.

And yes Flinty gets a lot of air time here - but he's an old man with time on his hands - what else is he going to do - after doing his hair sure he exchanges the odd love letter to Alan Jones - but hey - there are 24 hours in a day - he has to fill in the time doing something

Trust Flinty to make one of Australia's core values the worship of the Queen of England. Good try!
As for Judeo Christian values as one of his six. Surely that would consist of dozens of items, hundreds maybe. Kim Beazley's exam on values is going to have to be a three hour University level exam if Flinty is right.

Good article, David. The real issue is that the states, under Labor Governments, have done their utmost to evade the core principles enshrined in our federal constitution. Many of the core principles of the westminster system and the common law are under serious threat from state legislation.

In Queensland we have instances of interests in land being acquired by the state for less than just causes and by neither agreement nor just compensation. Legislation and subordinate legislation is being drafted in such manner as to evade the duties of parliamentary counsel to ensure that measures uphold the principles of parliamentary governance and have proper regard for the rights and liberties of the people.

When the federal constitution was drawn up it was with the clear understanding that the principles enshrined therein were also binding on every state and every citizen. Yet, we now have departmental spin merchants seeking to imply that any power that is not ceded to the commonwealth is retained by the states and that the lack of any limitation on a state power in a state constitution amounts to a defacto acceptance or assignment of that power under the federal constitution.

So while the Commonwealth may not acquire land without just compensation etc, the states are claiming that they can take property, as and when they see fit, without 'just cause' and without 'just compensation', on the basis of their generalised state constitutional power to "make laws for the peace, order, and good governance" of the state.

But there is absolutely no doubt that if Premier Beattie were to be transported back in time to the Queensland of 1901 and make known his interpretation of both state and federal constitutional powers, he would most certainly have been howled down and, quite possibly, lynched by a mob, with parliamentarians at the fore.

His oath of office, "to well and truly serve" both the crown and the people of Queensland, has not, and cannot be, interpreted as enabling the improper exercise of power. But that is where the serious erosion of Australian values is taking place.

It is a long time since I have read such a load of old cobblers... I would request that David Flint at least give some indication that he has a basic knowledge of Australian history instead of presenting his personal fantasies as fact.

Australia was settled with violence aplenty - against the indigeneous human population, against nature itself, and against the convicts.

Australia was settled as a violent and bloody military dictatorship which quickly degenerated into the violent and cruel oligarchy of the Rum Corps. After Phillip left, the uneasy truce between the aboriginal people and the Europeans devolved into the (undeclared) First Black War.

And lets not forget that Australia was begun with an orgy, and that the first attempt at imposing the old world religion on the convicts led to the destruction and burning of the first 'house of worship' erected in the new colony. Oh, yes, we were settled with plenty of 'respect' for Jesus and his gang!

And all the above happened in the first 20 years. I could go on and detail our history of riots, rebellions, strikes, lockouts, massacres, and shootings which characterise our relationship with the indigeneous people of this stolen land, and characterises the 'class war' (for want of a better term) between the wealthy and the rest of us in this 'land of the young and free'.

Believe me, David, everyone isn't young and free!