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