30 Apr 2010, Comments (2)

The gates of hell are open wide, with a nice fresh coat of paint in Federation colours

Author: Helen

The A-G has just announced that after much deliberation the Government has decided we’re not going to have a national Bill of Rights. We’re going to have a Framework instead, apparently. What that would mean I’m not sure. (My guess: Whatever the people administering the “framework” decide it is at any particular time.)

Not everyone is happy with this decision. Father [Frank] Brennan told The Age: ”I am disappointed that more coherent reasons for not adopting a human rights act were not offered by the government in light of the strong community sentiment for one.

Oh, Frank, Susan, you sillies! I have no background in Human Rights law or government whatsoever but the reason is as about as coherent as it gets. Having enthusiastically taken over the job of putting the indigenous unemployed of the Northern Territory on the Susso, they’ve been busily repainting and doing up the old Curtin gulag. Signing up to a Bill of Rights at this time would just lead to embarassing questions from all the wrong sort of people.

Move along.
 
 
 
Crossposted

Comments (2)

  • Ann O'Dyne says:

    re-arranging, for a better aspect, the deckchairs on The Titanic

  • ukiah says:

    Mm. Because a Human Rights Act, even a fairly truncated or vestigial one, establishes the legal concept of human rights, and provides a platform for legal action on the grounds of infringement.

    And, as you say, a “framework” is a marvellously flexible thing, twisting out from under you every time you think you can stand on it, leaning and groaning to the right every time you think you’re covered by it…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.