Unelected judges have overridden the elected government in NSW, finding that a bipartisan decision to stop the “weekly occupation of Sydney streets by the hard-left” , is unconstitutional.

These judges have once again “found” a freedom of political communication that does not appear in the Constitution. Made it up, in other words.

Unlike in the US, which has clear and enforceable rights of political communication, the “freedoms” in Australia don't protect us, but are a “license for judicial bias” with serious discretion afforded to activist judges.

In that regard, the example is given of coming down on someone praying outside an abortion clinic, compared with backing the “right” of aggressive minorities to block roads and bridges, and spout antisemitic hatred while waving flags and symbols that have been declared illegal.

The “creation” of this sort of freedom for a lunatic minority is a serious mistake for judges playing politics instead of doing their real jobs. And, if any changes to our Constitution are really needed or wanted by a majority of Australians, they should be decided by referendum and public consultation as happened when it was first written “with an elected convention followed by a serious, considered debate and a series of referendums”.

It is believed by Professor David Flint, who has had extensive experience with Constitutional law, that our Constitution was seriously damaged when activist judges “went into league with a political class”; the very people who appoint judges.

To replace the “value judgements” of the High Court we need a referendum to incorporate citizen-initiated referenda in the Constitution.

(Source: David Flint, ‘ The judicial invention of freedom: A bridge too far?’, Spectator 18/4/26)