Right Pulse

A New Zealand man is taking NZ Labour Party politicians to the NZ High Court to prevent the introduction of an emissions trading scheme:

Former property developer Basil Walker is seeking an injuction against all Labour Party MPs preventing the scheme being passed into law before this year’s election.

Mr Walker said he was acting in the interests of the people of New Zealand.

“I’ve taken the action because someone had to. This Government is trying to force this on the people and someone had to stand up and say that there is no evidence to support it,” he said yesterday.

It’s not clear on what legal basis this court case could be successful, but nevertheless it might give publicity to the cause. Here in Australia, I know of no constitutional power which gives the Commonwealth government the right to regulate air (carbon). It is interesting that in the Australian government advertising for the future emissions trading scheme, carbon is referred to as a pollutant - which given that carbon is one of the building blocks for life on earth, to claim it is a pollutant is nonsense.

The Australian constitution does not give the Commonwealth any direct power to regulate environmental affairs. It can only do so via commercial and/or external laws, or the like, under the Constitution. This means that challenging environmental issues on legal grounds is difficult. A government only need prove that it has signed an international treaty for instance, which happens to deal with an environmental issue, for it to be constitutional.

When it comes to environmental affairs, the Commonwealth has few legal checks and balances in place to regulate and challenge what it does. One may though challenge the Commonwealth’s assertion that carbon is a pollutant, through various truth in advertising regulations. But when it comes to the Constitution, there are few avenues that will likely lead to success.

On the other hand though, there may be a basis for someone taking legal action against an organisation for supposedly inducing climate change. Of course the link between carbon and the changing climate would have to be established in court and this may very well work in skeptics favour.

Legal researcher Dr Joseph Smith has been analysing scientific evidence for the effects of global warming and the legal basis for court action.

The work has been sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Dr Smith believes scientific evidence linking climate change to pollution is now sound enough to make a civil case against businesses and governments.

If it was shown in court that business had no impact on the climate from their carbon emissions, then they may have a legal basis challenging a Commonwealth carbon tax and any associated regulation that increases liability costs or bankruptcy.

For once I agree with Bob Carr, former ALP Premier of New South Wales. Carr has come out in strong opposition to an Australian bill of rights. This is probably the first article by an ALP member against the idea, and there are so many reasons that make it a bad idea, not least of which, it will remove power from the people and place it in the hands of judges. In other words, undermine the will of the people for the will of a few. As Carr writes:

A menu of abstractions - that is, any attempt to list rights - wrenches from the cabinet table and the legislature and delivers to the courtroom things that ought to be determined by governments.

Governments that are accountable to the people every three years.

When Kevin Rudd looks at the 2020 Summit’s endorsement of a bill or charter, he’ll be politically astute enough to know a move to enact a charter or bill in any form would meet the same commonsense opposition that doomed it in 1988, when Australians voted it down 69 per cent to 31per cent.

Hopefully. As far as I can tell the only people that support a bill of rights are the legal fraternity and some of their dream time cafe latte mates - many of whom seem to reside in the print media. Any right contained by a bill could be legislated for, with enforcement determined by the courts and review by the people through Parliament.

Rights count. So much so they need the give and take of the common law, rowdy parliaments and the ebb and flow of public opinion.

It’s the commonsensical ethos of a people - temper democratic, bias offensively Australian - not a declaration of abstractions that will keep us free.

They both rig elections, surprisingly reported by the ABC:

Professor Flint told a Sydney lunch celebrating the Queen’s birthday that the governance panel that called for an Australian republic was stacked with pro-republican delegates.

He says the republicans had no idea five years ago, and have no idea now….

“If we apply the way the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) counts referendums, the vote was 100 per cent in favour,” he said.

“This is a better result than [Robert] Mugabe has managed in the Zimbabwean elections,” he said, in reference to last month’s presidential poll, the results of which Mr Mugabe has refused to release.

I blogged on the stacked 2020 Summit republican vote yesterday.

One of the most outrageous articles I’ve ever read was recently published in the Melbourne Herald Sun. It was an attack on the outgoing Governor-General Jeffery.

Despite the praise heaped upon him yesterday by Mr Rudd, the former SAS commander has been a disappointment, serving for almost five years without distinction.

Ah, try telling that to all the people the GG helped without seeking distinction and the publicity that goes with it. From the GG’s own website in response. The GG helped over 180 organisations, 4000 special needs children, honoured 40 000 people and visited thousands of military personnel, “…farmers, miners, teachers, emergency service workers, indigenous leaders and nurses across Australia”. Not too mention nearly 50 years of military service, including in Vietnam as an SAS solider (the most successful unit in the entire war). There is also a little known detail that the GG and his wife decided to donate their military pension to charity when they first were first appointed to the post.

Humility in service does not equate to mediocrity. Rudd should think about that next time he surrounds himself with celebrities for shameless publicity sake.

It seems Kevin Rudd is looking to push the Republican issue again, though he says it is not a priority - which is code for ‘nobody cares about it, but I need to say something to keep the the cafe latte set happy and maintain the persona of being a hip rebellious PM’. This despite the fact that 72 per cent of Australian electorates rejected the 1999 referendum to become a republic. Republicans don’t seem to understand the word no. The latest polls also has support for a republic trailing, from ACM:

The last poll by Newspoll on 29 January 2007…shows support for a vague undefined republic had declined to 45%. An in depth poll in Western Australia shows that youth support for a republic is in free fall and is now down to 38%.

And Rudd may well say a Republic is not a priority, from the SMH:

Despite its history and future plans, Labor’s record of actually bringing about change to the constitution is almost non-existent. It is 62 years since a referendum put to the people by a Labor government was passed. That last success was in 1946, when the Chifley government gained support for amending the constitution to allow the Commonwealth to pay maternity, unemployment and other benefits. Even that victory did not follow on from any successes. It remains the first and only time since Federation in 1901 that Labor succeeded at a referendum.

Noting that the ALP has put forward 25 out of the 44 referendums that have been held so far to change the constitution. Also, Australians have never voted yes to a referendum they have already said no too, there have been 8 of those. So it does not look good for Republicans - not that it will stop them.

Since the Liberals have a better track record of delivering constitutional change, the Republicans best hope would be for Turnbull to become PM. A nice catch 22 for the cafe latte set to consider.