The author doesn't mention whether Australian women's sole right to male supervision will be included.

The nation's Constitution makes no provision for a women's legislature or women's jurisdiction at law

Timothy Watson lives in Melbourne and he can go down to Information Victoria in Little Collins Street, and for an investment of about thirty five dollars he can discover what twaddle he is talking here. He can buy a copy of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and in it he will find as Schedule 2 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He can also buy the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) and in that he will find in s 13 that a schedule is part of an Act, and we have enacted the Australian Bill of Rights, as a Commonwealth Act, constitutionally guaranteeing the same thing as the Father Frank Brennan team is consulting on.

If he then does the student thing and buys a Constitution at the same time, he will see in S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, this Act is binding on the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State. He will also be able to look at S 109. That says that where there is an inconsistency between a law of the Commonwealth, and a State Law, the Commonwealth law prevails.

As a Tax Consultant, he probably has clients who pay land tax. Land Tax is illegal by reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because it discriminates against landowners. Article 26 of the Covenant says: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

So as a Student he fails, and as a Tax Consultant he should be conscientious and deliver a bit of good advice to his clients. Stop paying Land Tax. The third thing he should stop doing is failing to research his subject before writing articles for OLO

m'lords might also note the Australian Bill of Rights Act 1985 makes no mention of women's sole right to male supervision.

neither does Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

neither does Timothy Watson.

someone should deliver a bit of good advice to Peter the Believer.

Compelling is the need for a greater realisation of universal human rights in Australia.

Australia does require a binding charter of its own to represent recognition of historical struggles. Legally for the sake of all minority groups, in the name of long-term civic health, human dignity and wellbeing. A charter to help work against all forms of stuctural volience and or careless degree's of social, economic and institutional oppression.

As Foxy asks, "Why on earth would anyone be against a Bill of Rights Charter - that would afford protection for minorities against the majority?"

As John Clearly asked back in 2008, "Is the proposed new legislation about the rights of minorities or the tyranny of the majority?" Find discussion link below....

http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s2446068.htm

Also hear Geoffrey Robertson on the History of Human Rights

http://abc.com.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/04/17/2545992.htm

Human Rights is on about more than just a nations conscience. It is a way to add some legal resource tools to citizens through the system.

Australians all need to do more to help understand and address the ideas of respect, fairness, justice and equality. The "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."

http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/2008/

Of most importance it may help to encourage common-sense policies and decisions that promote human dignity and addresses disadvantage.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

I wish to make a Catholic case FOR a Bill of Rights, and register the fact that not all religious or theological opinion is as opposed to a Bill of Rights, as Paul Kelly maintains. Indeed, my concern is that the Church's opposition to a Bill of Rights relates to its own fear of losing its exemptions in respect of its schools.

I take the view that the exemptions that the Catholic Church has regularly sought to Anti-Discrimination legislation are as unnecessary as they are unjust, and, far from enabling Catholic institutions to carry out their mission without fear of interference from the state, actually counter Catholic Social Teaching.

My additional concern is that legislative frameworks, such as the Code of Canon Law, do not provide sufficient safeguard against abuses of power in dealing with disputes within the Churches, especially as canon law shows scant regard for the principles and practices of 'ascending' authority that are drawn from democratic theory.

A case in point is the treatment of Fr Kennedy, a Brisbane priest, who has recently been ousted from his parish against the wishes of the vast majority of his parishioners. In a civil court his treatment would have been mediated by an attention to a much more open judicial process as well as the views of his parishioners, a consideration that has played no part in the existing canonical process in which the rules are made by a star chamber and without regard to issues of freedom of conscience and local conditions.

G'Day All; The Australian Independece was given by way of an enactment of the British Parliament which is governed by the British bill of rights. By that enactment we would be also through our Parliament be given those rights as we are still a member of the British Commonwelth & a Monachy as the Crown of Britain is our head of State, they also are subjected to the British Bill of Rights through thier Parliament.Check the Court papers (crown-v-whoever)then we as well must be subjectable to the Bill of Rights. It then goes to follow that what ever is prosecuted through our Courts must also face the scrutiny of the British Bill of Rights the same as the British Courts.The only problem here is that people wont stand united & keep with "she'll be jake mate".Thanks again. Dave.