When consultation is not consultation

Former Senator Susan Ryan, Chair and lead spokesperson for the New Class organisation Australian Human Rights Group, gives examples of “system failures”. All pertain to refugee detention centres and associated issues plus matters to do with Indigenous Australians. In explaining why a Bill or Charter is needed, Ryan asserts that claims that the system (without a Bill/Charter) was successful are wrong. Why? Because of all the problems referred to above that happened over “over the last decade”.

So both the Chairman and, far more crudely, Ryan, are saying that the problems arose because of the Howard government. Since Howard has gone, complete with horns and tail, things will presumably improve. But against the possibility that the proles get it wrong again and an equally evil government is elected in future we need a Bill/Charter to preclude a re- occurrence of the problems that occurred “in the last decade”.

Historically the thrust for representative, Parliamentary democracy has generally come from the Left of the political spectrum. For me it is the greatest achievement of that side of political thinking and action. So it is disappointing that the push for a Bill or Charter - which must weaken the authority of Parliament - is coming mainly from the New Class which generally identifies with the Left.

In 1988 one of the amendments put to the people “sought to enshrine in the constitution various civil rights, including freedom of religion, rights in relation to trials, and rights regarding the acquisition of property”.

A grand total of 30.8 per cent of the voters said “yes”. The lowest yes vote ever.

Professor Judith Brett, a prominent Rights person, sneers at Howard because he took notice of opinion polling, saying that under that approach “the opinions of the ignorant or uninvolved are given equal weight to those of the passionate and knowledgeable”. (Quoted from the “Rear View” section of The Weekend Australian, January 10, 2009.)

At best that is egotistic elitism, at worst it is crude authoritarianism. The New Class exposed in all its arrogance. It is axiomatically anti democratic. I hoped that the quotation was wrong, but sadly I have seen no denial.

The attitudes that Brett apparently holds are probably common within the New Class. Their lust for a Bill/Charter of Rights is equalled only by their contempt for the people at large. Hence their opposition to a referendum - the ignorant and uninformed proletariat got it wrong in 1988, so let’s not go for a referendum, forget all that democracy stuff, let’s ooze in through the back door.

We are the fortunate heirs of many who have striven and suffered for our democratic system and a substantial amount of free speech. We have done nothing to deserve it, we are just lucky.

We should make a stand and defend democracy and freedom of speech.

The Consultative Committee should either:

1. recommend to the government that they do nothing vis a vis a Bill/Charter; or
2. recommend to the government that a Bill of Rights be constructed and put to the people of this nation as a whole in the form of a Constitutional amendment.