"Panic" by David Marr: on John Hatzistergos

David Marr | SMH | 17 April 2008 

That this is the last civilised nation not to guarantee its citizens' rights counts for nothing. We don't have foot and mouth disease or video games for grown-ups. So what's to stop us quarantining Australia against bills and charters of rights?

The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, has been thundering against them lately in the best traditions of NSW Labor. Bob Carr was one of the wittiest and most determined opponents of handing out rights we could enforce in court. It's something one-party states never willingly allow.

"We do not live in a perfect society and never will," Hatzistergos solemnly informed the Sydney Institute last week. "There may well be laws perceived by some to be unjust in our community. It is however wrong to suggest that they can be remedied by enacting charters with wide-ranging values and all will be well."

If only our grim-faced Attorney-General had been around in 1791 to tug James Madison's sleeve and stop him making the historic mistake of presenting the US Congress with constitutional amendments guaranteeing free speech and a free press; the freedom to assemble and the freedom to worship; the assurance that life and liberty will only ever be infringed by due process of law - and, alas, the right to bear arms.

Two-and-a-bit centuries later in Australia, the courts are all but powerless to prevent these rights being legislated away. And a good thing too, says Hatzistergos: "Transforming social and political questions into legal ones … forces the courts to start making decisions … for which they do not have democratic legitimacy."

That's American talk. America gave the world the great model of entrenched rights and lately America has bred mighty rhetoric attacking the courts as undemocratic for protecting them.

The wisdom of experience? Yes and no. Hatzistergos and his tribe are mouthing the words of those sore losers whose democratic sensibilities are offended by the secular, decent revolution pulled off by the US Supreme Court in the last half century that began in 1954 with Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, ending racial segregation of schools.

Constitutional reform crucial to indigenous wellbeing

Noel Pearson | The Australian | December 24, 2011

There is an existential angst about the place of indigenous cultures in the Australian nation.

I HAVE been close to the epicentre of indigenous policy for 20 years now. During this time I have dealt with premiers and prime ministers, ministers and public servants, both great and small, smart and dumb, committed and careless.

I think I have seen every permutation of policy and program, and the swings of the policy pendulum from left to right and back again. Real progress has been made in some areas, but the larger picture is one of waste and failure.

Like other Australians who take this policy scene to heart, my moods swing from ebullient optimism to deep depression. The small gains lift me but the entrenched failures stricken me.

My experience is less than half that of Lowitja O'Donoghue, Marcia Langton and Galarrwuy Yunupingu. I recall sitting on the beach at Yunupingu's Arnhem Land outstation with former minister Mal Brough and hearing Yunupingu list the names of the prime ministers and ministers he had dealings with since the days of the Gorton government. His story could have been titled Groundhog Day.

It is not for nothing that the one conviction I share with these leaders is that constitutional reform which properly defines the place of indigenous Australians in the nation is a matter of first importance.

Gay marriage debate has a long way to go

Frank Brennan | Eureka St | 6 December 2011

On the weekend the ALP party conference voted to amend the party platform on same sex marriage. The platform now states: 'Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life.'

Churches and religious organisations will retain the freedom to perform marriage ceremonies only for a man and a woman eligible for marriage under the rules of the church or organisation.

The conference voted by 208 to 184 to allow Labor MPs a conscience vote on the issue. Tony Abbott continues to insist that Liberal MPs will not be granted a conscience vote. This will change. If it doesn't, several Liberals, including Malcolm Turnbull, will cross the floor. It could even become a leadership issue in the party.

Within the life of the present parliament, our elected leaders will probably be voting on the issue, and in all likelihood the members of all major parties will have a conscience vote.

How should the conscientious Catholic member of parliament vote? If I were a member of parliament, I would support a law for the recognition of civil unions similar to the present United Kingdom law, and I would vote against any bill extending the definition of marriage to include the union of two men or two women.


I would do so because I think the State should not discriminate against couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life (whatever their sexual orientation), while affirming that the bearing and nurturing of the children of the union is a constitutive good of marriage (even though not all marriages produce children).

It's not law Thomson should fear

George Williams | SMH | 30 August 2011

The political furore enveloping Craig Thomson has led to speculation that his disqualification from Parliament will bring down the Gillard government. However, it is unlikely that he will be disqualified. The damaging public debate will no doubt work to the political advantage of the opposition, but the law is unlikely to produce the outcome they desire.

The attempt to have Thomson removed from Parliament rests on section 44 of the constitution. It sets out five grounds for disqualification from Parliament of those who are not fit for office or have a conflict of interest.

A person cannot sit in the Federal Parliament if they: (1) have an ''allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power'', such as by being a citizen of another nation; (2) are ''attainted of treason'' or convicted of any offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or more; (3) are ''an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent''; (4) hold an ''office of profit under the Crown'', such as a public servant; or (5) have a financial interest in certain contracts with the Commonwealth.