Crispin Hull

The joint statement by three ministers on the way the United Nations deals with human-rights issues in Australia is either a silly over-reaction or wilful politicking and populism. In any event, it is illogical.

The joint statement said Australia would call for a complete overhaul of the way UN human-rights committees go about their business. It called for the UN to respect the primary role of democratically elected governments and the subordinate role of non-government bodies in reportage of alleged human-rights abuses. Australia would not sign a new Un protocol to eliminate discrimination against women. The statement noted that while other countries were engaged in arbitrary arrests, torture and the Like, Australia’s problems were marginal and minor.

Maybe Australia’s human-rights questions are marginal compared to those of, say, Burma or half a dozen African hell-holes — all the more reason not to be so precious and defensive. Australia should be a leading democratic light, unfearful of having the very highest standards of human rights applied to it. Australia should not engage in the business of comparative human rights, saying we are doing better than Country X or Country Y. Human rights are universal and absolute. We should not be fearful of have absolute standards being applied to us. We should not be fearful of a benchmark not just of world’s best practice, but of an absolute standard being applied to us.
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_leader31aug human rights”

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser called this week for a bill of rights, noting that the British common-law system had failed indigenous people in this month’s Federal Court action on the stolen generation. He also called for a political solution, now that the courts had failed. He called for an apology over the stolen generation and reconciliation in the form of an agreement between indigenous people and other Australians. He said governments must act more vigorously and with greater conscience. And if governments will not act, then this is a matter on which people must act to secure a government that will. The dignity and self esteem of Australia at some point will demand it.

It was an extremely powerful statement. It was predicated on the need for this nation to resolve the position of indigenous people in its society, to heal past wrongs so the nation can move forward. That he would suggest voters turn on the present leadership of the political party that he has been a member of and served all his life is a measure of his strength of feeling on the question.

This part of his speech was most telling. Ultimately, it must be up to the political leadership of the country to ensure the healing is done. Whether that is a post-Howard Liberal Government or a Labor Government was left open. Mr Fraser noted that the Labor position on the stolen generation was still lacking.
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_leader26aug fraser”

SHOULD the ACT get a third seat in the Houseof Representatives? The most recent redistribution has delivered an odd result. The Northern Terri�tory is to have a second seat. Its two seats will have 55,000 and 52,500 electors. The ACT will continue to have two seats of 108,500 and 107,000 electors. The ACT’s seats will each be double the size of the North�ern Territory’s. How could this be fair? Surely, the ACT deserves a third seat. Even then its electorates would have more voters than both the Northern Territory’s electorates.

Representation of the territories has a different constitutional base than representation of the six original states. Each original state must get an equal number of senators; a minimum of five members in the House of Representatives; and subject to the minimum, representation in the House in proportion to its population. Also, the House must be approximately twice the size of the Senate.

Redistributions are based on these requirements. The total population of the states is divided by double the number of state senators, to get a quota. The quota is divided into each state’s population to determine how many members each state gets, rounding remainders of more than a half up and remainders of less than a half down.
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_leader22aug third member”

A large amount of public disquiet has greeted the verdicts in the Saudi diplomat murder case. There were two immediately disconcerting elements of the case in the eyes of the public. The first is that a man pleaded guilty to being accessory after the fact of murder and is serving a jail term, reduced after the judge took into account that fact that he would give evidence for the prosecution. The second is that one of the accused attempted to plead guilty to manslaughter during the trial, but the judge refused to accept the plea, describing it as premature. A later element to come out was the nature of evidence excluded by the judge from the jury. That evidence included several witnesses who said they were the recipients of confessions to the killing by one of the accused. In the light of this the average non-lawyer is puzzled, if not outraged.
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_leader16aug saudi”

I wouldn’t be Queen for a hundred pounds,” said Alice.

A predictable public outrage followed the announcement this week that ACT MLAs are to get a pay rise. Most of the fury was directed at the fact that the Chief Minister is to get a pay rise of 24 per cent. It was the tall-poppy syndrome in full flight. It is never a good time for politicians’ pay rises, in the eyes of the public.

However, good governance requires reasonable salary levels for the job done. Good people are not going to seek the job unless the pay is reasonable. Pay is not everything. Many thing motivate people to go into a particular job or vocation. Altruism, fame, lifestyle, excitement, security are among a range of reasons for doing a job, in addition to money. However, money will always be a significant factor. Very few people, other than the independently wealthy, will do a job for nothing. Also, there will always be both self-aggrandising people and people acting with the best motives willing to stand for public office even if the pay is poor.
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_leader10aug mla pay”

Presidential candidates usually pick their running mates with only one thing in mind: how will it help them get elected. Often the vice-presidential candidate is chosen to patch up a weakness in the presidential candidate’s offering to the public, or to add balance. Sometimes the vice-presidential candidate is chosen to give the campaign more geographic spread, or to add youth where there is maturity or to add maturity where there is youth, such as George H. Bush’s selection of Dan Quayle or John Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon Johnson. Or to give Washington expertise when the main candidate is an outsider, such as Ronald Reagan’s selection of George H. Bush or now George W. Bush’s selection of Richard Cheney.

The selction by Vice-President Al Gore of an Othodox Jew, Senator Joseph Lieberman, seems to be as a counterpoint to what has been seen as the moral weakness of the Clinton White House and an attempt to give some georgraphic spread. The fact of Senator Lieberman religion seems not to have been a big factor. Jews tend to vote Democrat anyway and those who would be inclined not to vote for a Jew on that ground alone, would be unlikely to vote for Mr Gore anyway. Rather, Senator Lieberman’s selction seems to be a tactic by Mr Gore to distance himself from President Clinton, esepcially as Republicans have tried to link Mr Gore with President Clinton, particularly Mr Clinton’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Senator Lieberman was the leading Democrat critic of Mr Clinton’s behaviour.
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_leader09aug vicepres”

Outcry greeted the verdict in the Saudi diplomat murder case. Attorney-General Gary Humphries went so far as to wonder whether we should have appeals against jury acquittals, or to put some fresh and different charges against the accused and to review the Evidence Act. But the precious jury system did not get attacked. Opposition Leader Jon Stanhope defended the jury saying he had no doubt they reached the correct decision on the evidence.

The accused have been acquitted, despite one wanting to plead guilty of manslaughter and the fact that an informant is serving a jail term after pleading guilty to being an accessory after the fact of murder.

Accessory to what, the public asks.

Well, the accused have been found not guilty by a jury and that is that, but we should start questioning the jury system.

Bear in mind Justice Terence Higgins withheld a lot a evidence from the jury, including quite a few witnesses to whom one of accused allegedly confessed. A lot of other evidence was not led because the Director of Public Prosecutions knew it would not be allowed.
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_juries saudi”

Prime Minister John Howard gets himself into all sorts of difficulties when he mentions “”states’ rights” in the same breath as any moral issue. Matters like fertility treatment, euthanasia, gambling, pornography, drugs, discrimination and so on do not sit easily on the boundaries of state and federal heads of power.

Howard is not alone in this. Other politicians fall into the same trap: describing something as a matter of states’ rights or federal obligation to justify their stand, but Howard seems to have been inconsistent more often over a shorter period than most.

Most recently, he argued that the states have a right to prevent lesbians and single mothers from access to IVF fertility programs. Victoria had passed a law banning them from access to its state-funded program. The effectiveness of that law was successfully challenged because it was inconsistent with the federal Sex Discrimination Act. Under the Constitution, if a valid Commonwealth law conflicts a state law, the state law is inoperative while the Commonwealth law remains on the books. Howard said he would like to change the Sex Discrimination Act so that the Victorian law would become operative.
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_howard and ivf”

It was denounced as the “”Politicians’ Republic” and defeated. Its central proposition was that the Governor-General/President/Head of State should be selected by a two-thirds majority of the Federal Parliament.

With the defeat of the “”Politicians’ Republic” we continued with the present set up. And this week, the Prime Minister – that quintessential politician – decided to extend the term of the Governor-General by six months. He did not refer to any state leader or any other major political party. He did not have to refer to anyone in his own party. All he had to do was ring up the Queen to inform her. She could not, as a matter of practice, object. In truth, it is the politicians’ constitutional monarchy.

Now, Sir William Deane has done a good job a Governor-General. He has usually made suitable noises on national matters, though some might reasonably argue that he has expressed political views. And that they are contrary to those of the elected government is another sin, in the eyes of some. Personally, I agree with Deane’s view on the importance of reconciliation, but I don’t think an appointed, figurehead head of state should express views running counter to those clearly expressed by the elected government, even in the admittedly careful and restrained way that Deane has done. What if a Liberal appointed Governor-General expressed a view contrary to, say, the Hawke Governments view on multi-culturalism or increased humanitarian immigration under the guise of national unity?
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_deane extend”

The hobby horse is a bit bleary eyed. It was utterly dismayed at being dusted off a month early for its bi-annual trot around the block. Readers who are familiar with this hobby horse will know what is coming and can turn the page.

Daylight saving.

Has there ever been a policy in Australia more riddled with petty interstate jealousy, power hunger and political grandstanding that resulted in so much inconvenience and dissatisfaction? If the power-hunger and grandstanding were put aside it would be quite easy to deliver a system of daylight saving that satisfied far more Australians and inconvenienced far fewer of them than what we have now.

This week we see the absurdity of children going to school in the dark, unnecessarily so. It seems people in this country will do anything for sport. The horror of this year’s premature daylight saving is that it will enrage people so much that any further changes (including sensible ones) will be seen as political dynamite and not touched. It was the same when then NSW Premier Neville Wran extended daylight saving into April one year to save electricity.

The political lesson is a thousand years old, as Canute explained to his followers that he could not order the waves back, but it was beyond Wran, NSW Premier Bob Carr, and Olympics Minister Michael Knight to see it: political leaders cannot change the laws of nature.’
Continue reading “2000_08_augustl_daylight saving”