Sev Ozdowski was Human Rights Commissioner, The facts are:
Fact 1: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1986.

Fact 2: The Acts Interpretation Act 1901,is a Law declaring a Schedule as a fully functional part of an Act, in S 13.

Fact 3: The ICCPR forms the basis of the Privacy Act 1988.

Fact 4. The ICCPR is referred to in S 138 (3) (f) Evidence Act 1995 and we are told where it can be found.

Fact 5: The ICCPR is described as "The Covenant" in the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Schedule) Dictionary.

Fact 6: By Sections 5, and 109 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act it prevails over every inconsistent State Law, and repeals the Australia Act 1986, because it was passed at a later date. ( A fundamental tenet of Statutory Interpretation).

Fact 7: The current Human Rights Commissioner, Catherine Branson, in fourteen years as a Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, not once applied its provisions.

Fact 8: The Reverend Father Brennan, should do his homework, and declare that he does not need to examine the ICCPR and its application, because it was ordained as law, 22 years ago. We have had a Bill of Rights, but no one has shifted the rock under which it has been hidden.

Fact 9: Anyone who can drive a computer mouse, can find it on the Official Roll of Laws passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, called Comlaw.

I believe, I believe it is time that someone started being honest. Probably starting with Robert McClelland and his staff, closely followed by the Staff and Judicial Officers in the Federal Court. It is a beautiful document,worthy of a Sovereign. The Second line of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, sets out who that Sovereign is. I believe in Him too. So too did the electors in 23 Federal Seats last election who found they could support a Labor Christian for Prime Minister. A real 21st Century miracle. Sixty years of Lawyer rule was ended

Personally speaking, I have lost rights and liberties over the past decade and more. I go by behaviour not by the rhetoric of politicians and the pronouncements of the intellectual elite and the sad fact is that there is now a host of government agencies who can interfere in my personal life and come onto my property uninvited without my approval. Private life and private property are no longer very private.

For a house I was building in Brisbane, the Council purported to tell me what I could do with the INSIDE of a new house as well as the external envelope, structure, style and features. Under the guise of allowing smaller housing lots and clever twigging of definitions, the town planning apparatcheks had managed to extend their 'small lots' regulations to include thousands of previously existing building lots that thirty years ago were the usual, reasonable size for many sub-divisions.

That is how we lose many of our rights, through the policy advising and exercise of delegations by unelected, faceless bureaucrats who are never accountable to the electorate.

On a country property where generations of my family have protected some scrub lands and a coastal lagoon from government (how often have they demanded the drainage of the 'swamp' for midges as they have done elsewhere). Recently we were contacted by an official to 'require' us not to touch the said scrub without government approval. Say what?

Both sides of government have or have tried to enact legislation to gag me and control my behaviour. In this, John Howard was no worse than his opponents, but was more up-front and less sanctimonious when doing so. Attempts to trash our individual rights would have been seen as an outrage back in the sixties and seventies. For instance, people back then would have taken to the streets over the video surveillance that is now commonplace and all for our 'protection' of course.

contd....

contd..

What about the federal government's ridiculous attempts to install an internet filter so that Big Sister can look over our shoulders while we are on the Net?

Have I mentioned the so-called privacy legislation that is abused more in the avoidance than compliance by government and ensures that I can easily be frustrated in getting information on myself while my information is shared around government agencies and with a revolving door of private contractors?

I understand that the author was a federal human rights commissioner. I wonder if he supports the legislation Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls has on the books to legalise 'positive discrimination' against white males? We must curtail the rights of some to give others rights it seems.

www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771759-2862,00.html

In the media, the spokespeople of 'organisations' with highly secretive sponsors regularly demand curtailment of our personal rights and liberty. A few decades ago broadsheet editors wouldn't contemplate lending legitimacy to a secretive 'organisation' by printing its unfounded rhetoric, but now it is par for the course.

Sixty years of human rights in Australia? You could count the 'advances' on one hand after it has been stuck in a blender and then you have to factor in the collateral damage to the rights of others, whereas to sum the losses of human rights you could be totting away with a pencil stub for hours.

More government and its statutory authorities 'protecting' our rights? No thanks, lets get rid of the unaccountable statutory authorities that have blossomed over the years and reduce the ever-growing government octopus that continually finds more excuses to encroach on our rights.

I lasted for the first paragraph before I ripped up the article and threw it in the bin..(figuratively speaking :)

It happened when I saw these words:

<<UN General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); a document which set out a new direction for humanity.>>

HUMANITY?.....How arrogant is THAT?! Such a statement is just total rubbish.

There happens to be over a billion people in the Islamic world, and a billion people in the Chinese world... who do NOT SEE it as any such thing.

It might be a new direction for SOME of humanity but certainly not for all.

It's getting toooo close to 'secular religion' when it states almost dogmatically 'for humanity'.

PETER THE BELIEVER.. *welcome*.. we need more of your input!

(Peter Faris?)

I would rename the article 60 YRS of WESTERN POLITICAL IMPERIALISM.

Because to claim that the UN convention is for the whole of humanity when a very large chunk of humanity does not subscribe (or is not allowed to subscribe) to it is plain stupid not to mention arrogant.

No it is not Peter Faris, but I remember when we had rights, and oh how they have been trashed. The NSW electorate, before 1970 and in Queensland before 1991, had a very handy way of calling Government to account. It was called a Writ of Summons. Anyone could issue them, and they were not disposed of by a Lawyer appointed by the State Church ( government) but by the 12 electors chosen at random, from the electorate. The ICCPR restores those rights, and that is why Lawyers, hate it. To their credit, the Rudd Government is moving to abolish cartels, and has redefined the word "court" in the Trade Practices Act 1974, so that reforms introduced by the Keating Government applying to all Governments can be enforced. A Court ( Capital C)is not in line with the word as spelt in the Constitution, and Judge does not appear at all. The word in s 79 Constitution is “judges” without a capital J. It means a jury of electors. Since 1275, it was a basic English civil right not to have to submit to a Judge/ Priest appointed by the King ( Tyrant/government).

The English had a dispute with Rome, saying that any single judge was a pagan, because judging others is prohibited in the Holy Bible. ( Matthew 7 Verse 1) Things came to a head in 1533, and Henry VIII ended Roman Domination of England. When the Roman Catholics refused to support the first Constitutional Referendum in Australia, Protestant Politicians, had to do a deal, to get support, and had S 116 inserted in the Draft. Its purpose was to retain the established religion of Australia, but it has had the opposite effect. It has allowed non religious people to take over. Those non religious people are the lawyers. By taking electors ( sixty five percent Christian) out of “Courts” and installing Lawyer/Judges in place of juries, big business, including Banks, Councils, State Governments, and the Federal Government have been playing merry hell. The Rudd government is moving to fix it for us all

60 years of human rights? In what country mate?

More like millions of years of human wrongs, and counting.

There is no evidence that human beings have progressed much at all since we stood erect.

We still fight over nothing and everything, hate for little reason, often just appearance or a difference of opinion.

Food shortages will demonstrate exactly how far we have come. ZIP.

For goodness sake a majority of the world population still believes that Gods determine their fate. Various types of Gods. The main God in many countries today is money and then religion.

Both fantasies.

Human Rights indeed.

Th strong countries still sit back and do nothing while genocide is practiced in various countries, same as the Nazis. And we do nothing. Human Rights. Rubbish.

Open your eyes writer and stop writing trash.

If the emphasis was more on responsibility that comes with rights we would not have Africa as a basket case full of corrupt leaders, we would not murder the unborn in the name of rights and people would not think it is their 'right' for sit down money. The more humanistic we have become the more violent and unhappy. 'Human rights' is just a smokescreen for social engineers with a perverted agenda.

It is interesting to note that it is those of rightwing belief, that oppose a Charter of Human Rights.

Could it be that their mode of indocrination and denigration,to the rights of minority groups in society, may be legally challenged and they fear the loss of their "self moral status"in society.

kipp [i think from memory the world court dosnt 'enforce' its rulings[they dont have a world 'policing' force [yet][peace keepers dont do the policing [they just stand by and c'let it happen' then occasionally report what they had to stand by and just watch.

i would jump on my soap box about bosnian/serb issue where one or the other was handed over by the dutch 'observers'? or rave on about how the murdered were deliberatly chosen because they were the ones who could read and write [mail masters, lord majors etc [that cleanses the 'ethnic' that the other claims god gave to them

or the other huge one [the starvation of the palesteins, because some agetators want the palistein issue [hey again for free land]

or idi amin ,or [heck the list goes on [and all well within the un declaration [is it a declaration or just an agreement[regardless it is one of the few 'good' things it has [almost] done

im not seeing where this 60 years of human rights ever really got off the ground[1,000,000 iraqies dead] millions from african power plays [noting thatchers own son was gun running to get control over some area [to exploit]or mug-abie ,or angola ,im just not seeing how elenor rossevelt vision was ever realised.

really
besides ausyralia is a coleny [we never actually voted our REFERendumb to become a REAL country[we still have the queens reperasentive who vets our laws [who dseems who is our pm[who tells parlement when it can sit and wjhen it cant

like canada GG just shut down the parlement to protect its stooge pm[it isnt legally a member then either [25 percent of the world is still overseen by HRH] long may you prosper maam[did you ever get to read the petition i delivered to you at chogm 2002]the elders still await your reply.

soon the sovereigns of the world will unite to turn the UN into the SUN[sovereign'S united nation[your still invited still maam]

Where is the proof of people not wanting detention of children? What is the popularity of other options such as immediated deportation?
There is billions of people in the world who would immigrate to western countries if they could. We will only let a small proportion in. THey shouldn't all have equal rights in this respect. The money spent on the welfare payments for one refugee could feed an entire village in the motherland.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOLUTION

Local Government comes under the provisions of S 51 Placitum VI Constitution, and the Commonwealth has a duty, to control the forces that execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth and one of those bodies is Local Government.

Because the Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second represented by the Governor General by s 61 Constitution, and She owns the root or radical title to all land in Australia, and the ownership of land, is only held on grant from Her, Local Government over that land, is vested in the Commonwealth, as soon as it becomes Freehold.

The Commonwealth must free up access to the Federal Court of Australia and abolish Section 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules so that its Executive Officers, appointed to the Federal Court of Australia as Justices, must comply with Ch III Constitution, in all matters involving local planning laws. The States have no jurisdiction over Freehold Land, but currently the Federal Court of Australia does not provide a political venue, with 12 local electors selected at random, in which to settle Land Disputes.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the Land and Environment Court in New South Wales, Queensland or Victoria has jurisdiction over Freehold Land, while they remain State Courts. They must be federal Courts before they can exercise jurisdiction over Freehold Land, because all Freehold Land is Commonwealth land, by reference to the Constitution and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second.

If the Commonwealth had all its executive officers including Catherine Branson, the Human Rights Commissioner, take a crash course in Statutory Interpretation, and act honestly, then Local Government would immediately come under the Commonwealth because 22 years ago, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was legitimately enacted. It is Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and no amount of hand wringing will make it go away

Dear Peter...I note with interest your mention of the Land and Environment court and Local Government.

Have you taken an interest in the Camden Islamic School issue?

Previously, the Baulkham Hills council decision against an Islamic Prayer Centre at Annangrove was overturned by the Land and Environment Court. Now...there is an identical situation emerging in Camden.

Google the issue to find out more pls.

How does all this stack up in the light of your knowledge of the consitution etc?

-Can the Land and Environment court legitimately overturn a local council decision?

Another potentially interesting forum hi-jacked by the loony religious right.

Oh well, move on Elizabeth. There are intelligent posters elsewhere.

Cornflower

"For a house I was building in Brisbane, the Council purported to tell me what I could do with the INSIDE of a new house as well as the external envelope, structure, style and features."

In the light of seriously-pending climate change and the subsequent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most people expect and are demanding that government at all levels enact and enforce strict building codes. The days of individuals building Mac mansions emitting whatever levels of pollutants they please, or landowners exploiting the land they are in reality only short-term custodians of for personal profit, are or should be well and truly over.

We all have to make personal adjustments in the interest of the common good. Mistakes will occur along the way and there will always be some people with genuine grievances over specific issues, which, with sensible negotiation and good will on both sides, can I'm sure in most cases be overcome through striking a reasonable compromise. But as for the wholesale moaning over loss of liberties, I say get over it and just be thankful we've got governments rising to the task.

If you think the rest of us would agree to a Bill of Rights that winds back this much-needed, future-oriented legislation, think again. It won't happen.

othercon

"The money spent on the welfare payments for one refugee could feed an entire village in the motherland."

This statement indicates a total lack of understanding of refugee issues. Refugees do not leave their 'village in the motherland' because of poverty. They do so because they fear for their lives.

Feeding the village is not in itself going to make it any safer. Deporting asylum seekers back to danger and death, which Australia to its very great shame has done in the recent past, should never be an option for any civil society whose citizens overwhelmingly believe in respecting human rights.

Despite the huge language and cultural adjustments facing refugees, they receive no more than the same limited welfare assistance given to other citizens. A large proportion of refugees exist on bridging visas where they are not entitled to any welfare support at all and are not allowed to work to support themselves, even though the majority want to and are perfectly capable of doing so. They are forced into a situation where they have to rely on the charity of refugee support groups, which is very demeaning when they want to be independent and support themselves.

I hope your obscure linking of refugees and welfare payments hasn't been influenced by the ubiquitous Canadian email and its erroneous claim, kicked along by ignorant shock jocks, that refugees are treated more generously than pensioners. It's a total lie and has been officially repudiated by both sides of government.

About two years ago, an argument was put to Justices Pain and Talbot, that unless and until the Land and Environment Court complies with the “Kable Principle” enunciated by the High Court in 1996, and confirmed twice in 2006 and 2007, then it had no jurisdiction, to adjudicate on Land Issues. A learned gentleman from Queensland argued recently on behalf of the Hudsons, in the Land and Environment Court, that all charges laid under an Act are indictable offences and must be tried by a jury. The Land and Environment Court, is by its Constitutional Act, equivalent in rank to the Supreme Court in New South Wales. It was argued that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits discrimination absolutely, and as a consequence, any “court” that does not offer a jury, is not legitimate. Both Justices Talbot and Pain rejected that argument.

The Land and Environment Court should not overrule or confirm an elected body’s decision, except on the verdict of twelve electors. One mans opinion is worth nothing. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights all people are equal before the law, and entitled to have their opinions given equal weight, in a fair, just and impartial tribunal established by law. The Court of Appeal, when Justice Keith Mason was president, was asked by Peter King, and Dr John Walsh of Brannagh, Barristers at Law, to consider the legality of the Land and Environment Court, in the light of the “Kable Principle”. The Court insisted the client abandon that argument. The Appeal failed anyway. Brett Walker failed to get it reconsidered in the High Court.

In the “Kable Principle” four out of six Judges on the High Court Justices McHugh, Gummow, Gaudron and Toohey, said the States are not free to legislate in respect of courts. If the High Court would file an application to enforce its opinions, the decision on the Islamic School would be overturned, as not made after due process. The Land and Environment Court cannot offer Due Process, as required by the Constitution. Perhaps the Federal Court of Australia

Peter the Believer

I am one of the researchers for the Hudson case referred to. Our 1000's of hours of research are focused on Land Ownership Rights. The importance of land is that the rights attached uphold and preserve every free right we have in Australia. Only crimes committed under the Crimes Act can remove our rights. We have been battling for over 5 years and momentum is growing, Legal people are gradually asking questions.

I am the spokesperson for this group & have a newsletter out today on this exact issue. flora at reachnet dot com dot au. if you want an email copy. It goes out to over 700,000 people currently and growing.

I will abbreviate for space.

1.High Court can only rule over cases coming from common law courts. Land & Environment, magistrates, Family Law, etc. are all civil law courts. Unknown to Common Law jurisdiction. However, common law is superior.

2. Panels, commissions, boards, etc which are not Chapter III courts through the Judiciary Act CAN NOT make judicial and punishable rulings over anyone in this country - Harry Brandy vs Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission.

3. In 1995, Federal government used the Bill of Rights 1668 to make sure they were protected in the Parliament. If they can use it, so can we.

4. Labour govt complicit in every removal of right since 1973 – would prefer to trust a mad dog.

5. Council is major remover of rights under instructions from state.

6. Twice Aus public have been asked to allow Constitutional recognition – twice refused outright – smart Aus people!

IMPORTANT – WE DO NOT OWN FREEHOLD LAND, WE DO NOT OWN TORRENS TITLE LAND.

THE USE OF THOSE WORDS IS DECEPTIVE AND COMPLICIT IN THE THEFT OF OUR LAND OWNERSHIP RIGHTS.

We own A Grant in Fee Simple. Learn about it or lose it

cornflour – flora at reachnet dot com dot au – answers there for you

1. We lose our rights because don't know what they are and how protected under constitution.

2. Give them to government via registration processes. Eg. Rate Notice – never pay unless a bill, rate notice is never bill. Cannot be forced into a contract – rate notice is contract.

3. Assume government can do what they do and so eventually agree, eg again rates – Notice comes out, we have 72 hours to respond. Usually don’t . No correspondence or complaint is deemed as our agreement. Or we just pay and “willingly” enter into contract at that time.

4. Trespass – all government acts tell you they have entry rights. Yet HC has clearly stated as late as June 2008, not even policemen can enter without the authority of a proper warrant under Crimes Act. Not under the Local Planning Act or any other pseudo authority. Neither can they serve a summons past a gate which carries a trespass sign, or they are punishable by law. Can’t even enter a car!

5. If police can’t, what makes council think they are superior?

6. Always ask the question – Show me the law! And they never, ever can. I know because myself & others have been trying to get an answer from councils and government all over Australia and not one person has received any lawful legitimacy.

Under One God

The Aus people agreed to unite under one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth 9th July 1900. WE the people are the Commonwealth. The Constitution is our protection – not parliaments. Parliament is there specifically and only to protect and administer the assets of the people – that being the land known as Australia.

We have a pseudo government in place, who have stolen our words, our meanings and created phony country with our assets. At all times it is our agreement and our apathy that allow it to happen.

Bronwyn – my apologies, but you need to start learning truth or learn to do without.

The ICCPR has not been given the authority it deserves, because it says the same thing as the Magna Carta. It is anathema to the States, because it overrules their draconian media driven urge, to satisfy public opinion, and mass hysteria.

Sue M, says that she cannot trust the Labor Party. She is shooting the wrong dog. The real Dog in the Manger, is the Liberal Party, dominated by lawyers, who abolished jury trial in NSW in 1970, have created a Federal Court of Australia that is a lawyers private club, and abolished the Federal Supreme Court in 1070, and conned us into believing that the High Court is the same thing. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights simply spells out what the Constitution guarantees.

The Internet is doing a great job, of debunking the myths, that lawyers promote. A few clicks on a mouse, and you can go here. http://bar.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hraeoca1986512/sch2.html

It looks like a LAW. It is published as a LAW. You can buy a hard copy of it as a LAW, and it looks suspiciously like the Parliament of the Commonwealth legitimately enacted it. With another click, you can find the Rule, that says a Schedule is a LAW.

http://bar.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s13.html

Clickety Click, again, and here you will find the Imperial Acts that say exactly the same thing as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Here:

http://bar.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s13.html

and here, is a Statutory Rule, that says the above LAWS, are to be applied throughout Australia.

http://bar.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s118.html

All that needs to be done, is to persuade Father Frank Brennan to go clickety click, on his computer, and tell Catherine Branson and Kevin Rudd, that he has discovered the law of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is in place after all, and there is no need to pay him anymore.

Professor Rees of Newcastle University, teaching about Judicial Review, said it is all about money and power. If lawyers and journalists can get some clickability, and just do some old fashioned research, then we will all be better off

Australians at federation drafting then accepted our Constitution seeking to make unlawful ALL legislation which qualified rights and responsibilities of Australians by race.

NOTE Australians let Commonwealth qualify rights of persons NOT Australians.

Ensuring this understood, they specifically mentioned in s.51(xxvi) exclusion of Commonwealth from qualifying rights and responsibilities of Australians happening to be Aboriginal.

Dismal failure of High Court to protect rights of Australians who happen to be Aboriginal lead to 1967 referenda.

In their 1967 Referenda Australians sort make unlawful ALL legislation seeking qualify rights and responsibilities of ALL Australians on basis of race.

Since overwhelming result declared Commonwealth claims Australians in 1967 sort widen opportunity for Commonwealth to practice racism amongst Australians is treasonous, bloody disgraceful.

Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM working with other Australian Human Rights Commissioners contributed their part to this disgrace going unchallenged.

Challenges were filed privately in court after conciliation rejected.

The Commonwealth = both Labor and Coalition governments, NT government, the HREOC, and other Commonwealth agencies and various authorities aware of, or involved, rather than addressing issues towards resolution, chose instead to protect their commitments to the practice of racism, defending Commonwealth ability to segregate Australian families on basis of racial testing.



Ongoing attempts to get these issues struck out from being considered before the courts failed.

Commonwealth achieved a stay order preventing matter from receiving Judicial Consideration, by the Commonwealth consistently refusing to provide legal assistance the court believed essential for these matters to be fully and properly addressed.

The Applicants -including belatedly acknowledged "Traditional Owners", not silly enough to rush into court representing themselves.

The Commonwealth continues to deny them their right to have their family - all Australian citizens, live together in their home on the grounds of race...

Racists are those seeking to qualify rights and or responsibilities on grounds of race.... particularly when they are coming to help !

Seems word "Aboriginal" still negates otherwise held responsibilities, accountability and rights.

.

The Average pensioner either lives alone or with their partner. This is 2 welfare payments. A refugee family has anywhere from 2-10 family members in the one house. Per household they would get more handouts having never contributed to Australia unlike the pensioner.

There is billions of people who would immigrate to Australia if they could if it weren't for deportation, borders, costs,etc.

Im saying I don't care what they are fleeing some of them deserve what is coming to them in the motherland. Im more concerned about Pakistani earthquake victims, Disabled people from war rather than abled bodied people who want to take the easy way out.

Dr Sharman Stone, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, appeared on the ABC’s Radio National “Saturday Extra” program on December 20. A very interesting (and worrying) point she made was that in the 1960s there were twenty seven people working to support each person on welfare. However, now there are only four people working to support each person on welfare. Add to this the existence of large public services and bureaucracies (including HREOC) which need to be paid for by taxes. A society generating adequate wealth can afford a high level of human rights, but what happens when adequate wealth is no longer being generated. And can countries with welfare systems afford to have a constant stream of asylum seekers and immigrants arriving and making demands on the welfare system, in the short term and long term. It will be interesting to see what happens when there is only one or two person working to support each person on welfare. This may come sooner than expected as more and more people lose their jobs due to the very worrying world financial crisis.

franklin,

You refer to Dr Sharman Stone's "very interesting (and worrying) point she made was that in the 1960s there were twenty seven people working to support each person on welfare. However, now there are only four people working to support each person on welfare."

You don't honestly believe Dr Stone was comparing like with like, do you? A very large proportion of the increasing numbers 'on welfare' is due to the explosion of middle class welfare introduced by successive Howard governments as election bribes. Hundreds of thousands of middle Australians who would never have qualified for welfare in the 1960s now routinely receive government hand-outs of one sort or another even when they are in stable well-paid jobs.

Traditional welfare as we knew it in the 1960s is a far cry from what we see today. The worry is that taxes the proceeds of tax revenue are now being redistributed to many middle Australians who don't need support.

Until 1936, the Commonwealth got by without an income tax. Menzies saw WWII coming, and started taxing income, to get ready for it. Commonwealth taxes were challenged in WWII in the High Court, and found legal, under the wartime powers of S 51 Placitum vi. They were given some kind of legitimacy in peacetime, by S 51 Placitun xxiiiA after a referendum in 1946.

The worst thing any government has done since federation has been to turn Australian Courts into Administrative Courts, instead of courts of judicature. It is illegal, and has been held so by the High Court on three occasions. That way governments have been robbed of one of the most lucrative income streams available to a Monarch. The Penal Action where half went to the prosecutor and half to the Crown, was abolished in NSW in 1970.

Now the Honourable Robert McClelland has appointed Father Frank Brennan, to find our guarantee of human rights. This Jesuit Priest and Lawyer, would have to be either a rogue, or an ignoramus, not to realize the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was made binding law in Australia in 1981, and confirmed in 1986, as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 . It must be great to have a mate in Parliament, another lawyer who will pay you a great salary to hide the obvious. It is a bit like the diner, when asked by the waiter, “ How did you find the steak”? And the diner’s reply, “ I moved the roast pumpkin and there it was.”

How long can Kevin Rudd put up with some lawyers in Government, who simply choose to be blind, and refuse to see. The effect of the ICCPR as a law, is to free Policemen from their present State imposed discrimination, ( s 122 Fines Act 1996) which prevents them from entering Free Enterprise, so gangsters like Abe Saffron and drug dealers can thrive. I suppose a wealthy Policeman is a shame, but Norman Allen and Rob Askin did alright, but not from free enterprise