AGIR:

I did ask several of my neighbours about the case - and I won't repeat all of their replies - because they were not very polite. However, this one I will quote because it's the least offensive:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Enough said. Except to tell you to do a bit more research into this case - and find out what the Director of Housing failed to provide..., amongst other things.

I'm thinking of setting up a Boaz translation service. I'll start with this one, 'cos it's a gem.

>>Hi team. Another vigorous discussion is underway!<<

Translation: I wrote something that was so completely and utterly inaccurate that a whole lot of people jumped in to tell me how wrong it was. So I'll pretend that my continuing to argue is not simply a load of hot-air and bluster, designed to cover up how wrong I was, but is instead... ah yes, a "vigorous discussion".

Face it Boaz. You claimed the "reason Justice Bell declared it 'unlawful' was because of 'Human Rights Law' which...according to him.. trumped Australian law."

And followed it up with a load of huffing and puffing about "Aussie 'law' which was produced by our democratically elected representatives is declared UNlawful in favor of a different law which we did NOT vote for"

You cannot hide behind the claim that "the 'Charter' is based on the UN conventions". That is irrelevant. We are talking about an Act passed in open parliament by a democratically elected Australian government.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it "foreign".

But hey, you have a Liberal government now. I am sure, if you asked them, they would repeal such a subversive, left-wing-inspired piece of legislation, in a New York minute.

Wouldn't they.

I hate to say it Boaz, but Pericles pointing out the presence of an actual domestic parliament-implemented law holds solid (though I am surprised there was one implemented in Victoria, myself):

As such, even speculation on the (potential UN) origins becomes moot and the topic aught to discuss why (or not) this domestic law is now wrong and aught to be repealed.

You don't like our law?

Then work to get it changed

No need for porkies

Still and all, here’s an interesting read:

“Obligations assumed by Australian government under international law
In ratifying CROC, the Australian government in 1991 entered into an agreement with the United Nations and with all other parties to CROC. That agreement places an obligation on Australian governments to implement the rights in CROC by taking all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures: Article 4. This agreement is binding on Australia in international law.
In practice Australia is required under CROC to:
•Review all existing laws and regulations to ensure that they comply with the rights set out in CROC and to repeal or pass amendments to any laws that are non-compliant
•Review all policies at Commonwealth, State and Territory and Local Government level to check that they conform with CROC and to review and amend any policies that fail to comply
•Develop systems for reviewing and monitoring new laws and policies to make sure that they do not breach CROC
•Prepare and implement a global policy and plan of action based on the rights set out in CROC
•Incorporate the rights in CROC into Australian Commonwealth State and Territory law.
Australia has not performed well in meeting these obligations”

http://www.ncylc.org.au/croc/crocbenefits.html

a choice between precision and simplicity,
jaylex,
You must be a lawyer. To my understanding the Law is already precise & fairly straight forward. I mean, I understand when the law says stealing is an offence & if one does indeed steal than punishment is heading your way. Same goes for violence.
A lawyer however sees it as an opportunity to make money by arguing this precise & simple rule. Politicians & bureaucrats are for some inexplicable reason exempted by those who make the ruling. There you have it Australian Law in all its glory. The Law is like a railway track. Going off in every direction but constantly parallel. Widen or narrow the track & you're de-railed ! Stay within the lines & you're right, except of course if you report a bureaucrat then it's your fault.