As an Australian Democrat, poor old Andrew Bartlett has to preach nonsense. Like other advocates of a Bill of Rights, he is much more interested in non-Australians such as illegal immigrants (posing as asylum seekers), visa over stayers etc., than he is in the people who actually pay his salary and perks to ‘represent’ a miserable (in all ways) 2% of the electorate.

Like all opponents of anti-terror legislation, he hates the idea of an elected government being able to govern without the interference of minorities.

Like all detractors of DIMIA, he uses words like ‘dysfunctional’ and ‘bungling’ in relation to the department. DIMIA is OK when it allows 90% of illegals to stay, but when it makes a couple of mistakes – Rau and Alvarez e.g. – they are incompetent.

Perhaps DIMIA, then, is also incompetent in allowing 90% of illegals refugee status?

The Senator bemoans the fact that thousands of visa over stayers are not treated the same way as illegal entrants in boats. True: it is very hard to deal with people who cannot be found after they disappear into the general population, hence detention for illegals. Are we supposed to tag people with visas, and lock them up the day before the visas expire just to ensure that they don’t stay. If it were as easy as locking up illegals, the Senator would be whining about that, too.

“Australians cannot afford to have a government that is willing to keep perpetrating abuses in our name. It is not only offensive to democratic values; it inevitably ends up severely damaging the lives of innocent people.”, says Senator Bartlett.

The ‘abuses’ occur only in the Senator’s mind, and the Government is quite obviously doing nothing in his name.

And, there is simply no inevitability of the lives of innocent people being damaged. But, of course, Senator Bartlett probably has a very different definition of innocence

For Andrew and other people arguing that these laws are anti-democratic. Here is some basic political science for you.

Democracy is rule by the people. Australia has a representative democracy whereby we the people, elect officials to represent us. The House of Representatives uses preferential voting where preferences are distributed until someone has a majority.
The Senate is elected using proportional representation, whereby those seeking election need to get a quota of votes. Preferences are then distributed to other candidates.

These laws do not impinge on representative democracy.

Perhaps there are arguments for the anti-terror laws being an assualt on our liberalism. They could even be seen to attack the Common Law and rights going back to the Magna Carta.

(As an aside, the Senate, which Mr Bartlett is a member, is one of the undemocratic features of our system. In the name of Federalism, the vote of a Tasmanian is worth many times the weight of a vote by a New South Welshman or Victorian. This might be OK if Senators actually stood up for states rights, but they don't as they are elected along party lines and vote in kind. The Senate is nothing more than a series of gerrymanders. If Mr Bartlett was serious about democracy, he would advocate reform of the Senate so the Government was held hostage by bible bashing zealots from Tasmania, Green zealots from Tasmania or Democrats in the political wilderness trying to get some media attention)

t.u.s.

A bill of rights! What next will the minority parties think of!

Australia does not need any such nonsense. A bill of rights will politicise the judiciary and cause a whole heap of other problems. Just take a look at the most recent edition (Oct-Nov) of "Family Update", newsletter from the Australian Family Association. In it, Bill Muehlenberg comes up with very some strong arguments against such a wacky proposal as a bill of rights.

I wonder when the Democrats, Greens et.al will wake up and realise that the majority of Australians think they talk a heap of nonsense. They advocate anything which goes "against the grain" including illegal immigrants, divisive Aboriginal affairs policy etc and have no regard for the Christian heritage this nation was founded upon. They would rather see a humanist, secularist Government which embraces "tolerance", "social justice" and other such lofty, wafty terms - to the detriment of everyone else. They would also rather see Australia acting subservient to the United Nations. To them, Australian law and democracy just isn't good enough. SHAME!!

Senator Bartlett and colleagues should wake up and recognise that a majority of Australians voted for the Howard Government and thus endorse the current government's policy on immigration, terrorism, Aboriginal affairs, workplace policy etc. I'm proud to say I voted for the Howard Government and would do so again.

Perhaps Mr Bartlett should take an overseas trip and talk to some of the European leaders who are up to their eyebrows with the worry of dealing with their "asylum seekers" and the amount of law breaking that is entailed.
Australia has not escaped that tide of opportunists but it was rationed a bit by the tactics of John Howard. I shudder to think what would have happened if Beazely had been in charge.
Andrew Bartlett and his band of Democrats have proven themselves to be a waste of space. They kept no one honest ..they should be disbanded , they serve no useful purpose.

Andrew Bartlett is making a final bid for relevance.
He and the other Democrats, having failed with the voting public, Andrew is now seeking support from the legally detained economic refugees who wash up on our shores, after a long and gruelling journey through many other lands in which they could have sought asylum!

Has anyone explained to him they do not have the vote - well not yet at least, not whilst we have a Liberal government who respects the taxpaying and legally resident Australians?

Ah well - foiled again Andrew - never mind, you will still have a few more opportunities to feel important as you crash liberal party shindigs and assault female parliamentarians before your tenure ends and we see if anyone at all bothers to vote "Democrat".

Mr. Bartlett should propose a Bill of Rights if he thinks this is what the country needs. don't just stand around talking about one - but put one together that he believes addresses the fundamental rights we, as dinky die Australians, should enjoy.

Put this bill to a vote and see who supports it.

I am quite tired of all the drum beating pollies that think they know what we Aussies should want but have no courage or leadership to make it happen. Who votes for these folks anyway?