Aye Frank,
I acknowledge that only Aust govts make the law.
“ In Australia's case, it is necessary to pass implementing legislation through the Australian Parliament”

(Though I’d add as an aside that “progressive” judges often re-interpret established law in novel, previously unintended ways, & that the policies endorsed by a parliament are not necessarily those favoured by electorate )

My initial argument was rather that too many of our Australian politicians are eager to follow templates established in the UN.without adequately considering the long term affects on Australia.
“The human rights standards developed by the UN have had a profound influence on the national law of the various UN member states, including Australia“.
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/youthchallenge/unit1/stage2/resource_origins.html

And while we may not be LEGALLY obliged, many of our leaders are IDEOLOGICALLY obliged, or influenced by individual career & peer aspirations .

And as for : “What on earth is the connection you are drawing between the UN's role in Sudan and the claim that the UN is overly influential in Australian policy and legislation?”
(By the way -10 out of 10 for the well rehearsed histrionics)
1) Re-read my original comment -in context, &
2) To help to clarify it further.Consider this Zen koan re the UN Refugee Convention (as an example). It is ironic that the countries most concerned about meeting their “commitments“ under this convention as measured by the number & volume of concerned politicians & prominent judges -nearing the end of their domestic careers- calling for greater intake etc ) are largely from the western world - other countries -many actually located next door to the source of the refugees-& culturally or racialy related to the refugees - have been largely quite -are either not signatories, or if signatories do not acknowledge they have any “commitments” .

Now if you cannot work the implications for yourself -then alas, your holding of your breath has already had an (detrimental) affect!

Horus, if I understand your English right, your answers come down to this:

1. Initially you said: "multitudes of career-minded judges & politicians...commit us to UN covenants & use them openly, or surreptiously if necessary, as templates for legislation & decisions". I asked how?

You now acknowledge that only Australian governments make our laws (I note your source - the HREOC website on human rights). But you still claim that (your words) ‘“progressive” judges often re-interpret established law in novel, previously unintended ways, & that the policies endorsed by a parliament are not necessarily those favoured by electorate’. I think that means (a) judges (whether progressive or conservative) do what judges have always done – interpret the law (and publish their reasons – not surreptitiously); and (b) that parliaments elected by the people sometimes don’t give some of the people (what you call the ‘electorate’) what they want. You end up saying that while the U.N, can’t impose laws on Australia, “many of our leaders are IDEOLOGICALLY obliged, or influenced by individual career & peer aspirations”. Got anyone in mind?

2. You then re-stated your initial argument: “that too many of our Australian politicians are eager to follow templates established in the UN.without adequately considering the long term affects on Australia”. And as ‘evidence’ you cite one selected sentence from the HREOC website.

3. Initially you gave an account of the UN’s role in Sudan and I asked how that connected with the claim that the UN is overly influential in Australian policy and legislation. You replied (a) that I should re-read your initial post - I have and I still don’t get the connection; and (b) you then offered an incoherent ramble about the UN Refugee Convention, “concerned politicians and judges nearing the end of their domestic careers”.

You suggested I should be able to work out the implications of your thesis for myself. Do you mean that judges and politicians are foisting black Sudanese refugees on us? I’ll hold my breath a little longer until you tell me I’m right.

FrankGol
It has been accepted for many years now (I thought it was common knowledge) that being a signatory to a UN convention does not require a vote by our parliament. One would think that this would be a major concern to those who believe we have a robust and functional democracy.

The fact is that senior federal bureaucrats have formal authority to act on the behalf of Australians -- generally, a year or two later the population wakes up to the fact and by that time the deal is done and dusted.

I am no expert on the issue but have listened (starting 10 years back) to a number of people articulate the process on talk back radio. No it wasn't the ABC or Stan.

The Convention on Children (something like that) and the Firearms Act are just a couple of examples of the manifestation of UN influence. Hopefully, some of the silent experts who read On Line Opinion could list some of the others for us.

Cowboy Joe, what is this, Dis-information Week? You admit to being “no expert on the issue”, and tell us you rely on what you call “common knowledge” and what you heard on talk-back radio “starting ten years back”. On that basis you kind of know with certainty maybe that “The Convention on Children (something like that) and the Firearms Act are just a couple of examples of the manifestation of UN influence.”

No-one is hiding the facts, Cowboy. They really are common knowledge and you can find more reliable sources than talk-back radio. Try official websites like
www.dfat.gov.au/un/aus_un3.html or
www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/FC93E323D6D76BBACA256FCC001BA335?OpenDocument

By free choice, and only by free choice, Australia can enter into international treaties that are binding. One such is a resolution of the U.N. Security Council made under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Two examples are Resolution 1540 which obliges Australia and all other members of the U.N. to take action to eliminate and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and Resolution 1373 which obliges Australia to freeze terrorist assets.

However, the majority of resolutions of the U.N. are not legally binding on Australia and don’t automatically form part of Australian domestic law. Obligations under a treaty don’t apply within Australia until and unless the Australian Parliament enacts enabling laws incorporating these obligations into domestic law. The Australian Parliament can if it likes pass laws contrary to international laws.

So if, as you say, there anonymous senior bureaucrats out there wandering around signing us up to laws we don’t want the whole of Parliament can soon put things right Cowboy.

Now what's this nonsense about the Firearms Act? By popular acclaim that law is regarded as John Howard's most positive achievement in ten years. It was the Australian Parliament which overwhelmingly supported it. What the heck has the U.N. got to do with it?

Frank,
True enough, Australia is not (YET) legally required to applying UN conventions –though if trends continue as they are, it will only be a matter of time before that is the case.

What is noticeable is while many in the community have a sense of international responsibility.There has NOT been a popular groundswell pushing our leaders to sign such conventions.It has rather been motivated by backroom discussions amongst their peers & select lobby groups.And it’s more extensive than an issue of having “black” refugees foisted on us [ nice try Frank!]

Most in the electorate are not even aware we have signed the conventions, until they are told that we cannot do this or that, or must do this or that because of our "commitments".

Every time a UN agency report comes out criticizing some or other aspect of Aust administration –a raft of notable personages & organizations call for us to step into line, and almost invariable adjustments are made .

This may be Ok for people on the left who have always tended to believe in a directed democracy anyway-as long as its leftist directed -(i.e. there are certain issues that are too important to be decided by the electorate) -but its rather scary for the rest of us.

Horus, you've cracked it. It’s all a left-wing conspiracy: “only a matter of time”, “backroom discussions”, “select lobby groups”, “rather scary”, “directed democracy”. The left can’t win an Australian election so instead they infiltrate the U.N, and surreptitiously usurp the powers of the elected Australian government on the grounds, as you put it, that they believe “there are certain issues that are too important to be decided by the electorate”.

We’ll have to get Mr Howard to issue new fridge magnets: BE ALERT - FOR LEFTIES AND THE U.N