Australian Judges rule against the separation of powers.
Paul Kelly is a political writer/editor for The Australian. He and I have differing views on politics. Still he is a person whose opinion I respect even when I disagree with him. And his latest article is a case in point I just can’t agree with him but have to admit he does bring up a good point or two.
Under the Howard government we in Australia have lost more and more civil rights without so much as a whimper let alone a real protest. The Howard Government has introduced more “terror” laws than any other western democracy since 9/11 and these laws go further than any other in removing or diminishing the rights of its people. This latest ruling erodes even more the speration between the executive and the judiciary. It effectively grants the executive the power to make things up as it goes along and the ability to hide information from the judiciary whose job it is supposed to be to put a check on executive power.
The excuse is that we have to protect ourselves from terroists. But at the end of the day we have to ask ourselves what is it we’re trying to protect. If we’re really willing to give up our values and way of life without a thought, was it really worth protecting anyway. I say we’re given up too much without proper justification or explanation.
Not that most Australians would agree with me given that under Howard most Aussies seem to worry more about their own individual and economic safety at the expense of a broader community.
As for the High Court decision it just shows that having Governments rather than the legal profession make appointments to the Court allows the executive of the day to stack things in its favour.
If you want to read a good book about Austrlain Politics in the ’80s I highly recommend Paul Kelly’s “The End of Certainty”.
