Skip to main content

Howard's Australia: Unfair Go

Julian Burnside QC is a well-known Melbourne silk who has been involved in many high-profile cases, in particular those relating to refugees in Australia. Burnside is also often called on as a commentator and speaker.

In an article just published in New Matilda [on the www - but available only by subscription] entitled "Howard's Australia: Unfair Go", Burnside, validly and forcefully, attacks the Federal Government's new refugees laws including the processing of asylum seekers off-shore.

Amonsgt the things Burnside addresses in his article is this:

"But the Howard Government has developed a taste for unfairness, which has been masked by Howard’s deceptive rhetoric about ‘Australian values’ and a ‘fair go.’ In a speech in Adelaide in 2004, Howard reaffirmed his faith in Australia as ‘a fair and decent society.’ What bullshit.

Unfair: Howard has overhauled the Workplace Relations Act. One aspect of the new law expressly permits employees to be dismissed unfairly. Another aspect makes it a jailable offence to ask a co-worker how much they are paid.

Unfair: Another provision forces employers to punish employees if they engage in any unauthorised industrial action. Recently, a group of workers had four hours’ pay docked because they took one hour off to raise money for the widow of a mate who had been killed at work.

Unfair: In John Howard’s Australia, it is possible for a person to be jailed for 14 days without trial and without being told the evidence against them. It is now possible for a person to be placed under house arrest for up to a year without trial, without being told the evidence against them. It is possible for an Australian citizen’s passport to be cancelled, without them being told why. And it is possible for a person’s visa to be cancelled without the visa-holder being told why. These measures are ostensibly designed to protect us from terrorism, but Howard’s new laws now permit, even guarantee, unfair trials.

Unfair: When the so-called anti-terrorist legislation was introduced, the Howard Government explained that basic rights would be protected, because people would be able to go to court to challenge the decisions. They failed to explain that the review process could be rendered futile by the Attorney-General. This is because the Attorney-General can, by conclusive certificate, prevent the applicant from hearing the evidence and the submissions relied on by the Government. In addition, the applicant’s lawyers will be prevented from hearing the evidence and the submissions relied on by the Government. This means that decisions which have a profound effect on a person’s life will be, in effect, be unchallengable.

It is virtually impossible to show that a decision was wrong if you are not allowed to know the facts and the reasoning on which it was based. Secret hearings based on secret evidence are anathema in any democracy, but they are a fact of life in Australia today.

Unfair: In any proceedings that touch on security, the Attorney-General can, by conclusive certificate, prevent a person from calling relevant evidence to advance their case or to contradict the Government’s case. This is made possible by the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Trials) Act. It can be done when the Attorney-General considers that the evidence might jeopardise our national security."

Do yourself a favour and be well-informed and challenged by subscribing to New Matilda. Check out its web site here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more