02-19-2020, 11:06 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2020, 11:19 AM by thorn bird.)
The time has come,' the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.'
From the poem by Lewis Carroll, a poem basically about smoke and mirrors and deceit.
Of rights, privileges and the rule of law.
English law is said to be derived from the Magna Carta, medieval Latin for "The great charter of liberties."
It came about in 1215 in an attempt to curb the excesses of the crown by rebel barons.
Pope innocent 111 annulled it, but the concept of "Divine Rule" was continually challenged and the so called Magna Carta was re-issued in modified forms in 1216,1217,1225 and finally became part of statute law in 1297.
The Magna Carta was a bit of a political myth, its concept of of protecting ancient personal liberties was more about protecting the privileged aristocracy from the excesses of the crown, the ordinary people didn't really get a look in.
Never the less it remained a powerful iconic document even after most of it's content was repealed from statute books during the 19th and 20th century as the political elite gained ascendancy over the crown.
The fledgling republic in America drew on it to form their constitution.Their declaration of independence opens with;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Under British law, rights are called privileges conferred by the crown ie the political elite, but just who are the political elite?
In Australia, some of our laws were taken from the Americans, but mostly our bureaucracy is based on British law, refined into an art form. The term "Civil Servant" in UK refined into "Public servant", the Bureaucracy refined as the "public service" and lately the "Public Sector" the implication redefining its purpose not as a servant of the people but as an administrative arm of the political Elite.
In Australia there are no rights, there are only privileges conferred by the crown via the political elite, which may explain why Australia churns out vast volumes of statutes, because permissions must be granted for almost every facet of civil life, the concept of personal responsibility and freedom an anathema to our bureaucrats.
The rule of law fortunately or unfortunately is enshrined in our constitution and just as the Magna Carta was believed to be a brake on a rulers excesses our courts were supposed to act as a brake on the excesses of our political elite.
In recent times however even the good judges want into the act of control. They are required to impartially interpret the law and how it is applied, but are increasingly giving judgements of what they would personally like the law to be rather than what the lawmakers intended. This could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on which side of the fence you sit, notwithstanding it aint what our founding fathers intended.
The same could be said of our bureaucrats. We elect politicians to reflect the will of the people and federally the interests of the country as a whole and we expect appointed ministers to conduct that ethos, and direct their bureaucrats accordingly.
In the schoolyard battleground of politics unfortunately, our euphemistically described as managers must spend vast amounts of time and effort to score enough points to get re-elected. Some so much so that they leave it to the Mandarins to look after the miniature while they concentrate on digging knives out of their backs.
The mandarins in many cases are left to their own devises to get on with the business of government their way. If a minister wants to interfere they are easily distracted by confidential leaks providing political opponents the knives to stab with.
The public sector has grown fat on the publics largesse. Remuneration rivalling the private sector with all the perks still attached. As time has gone by the Mandarins now govern in their interests not the public's they are supposed to serve.
As we have seen so vividly in our aviation industry the mandarins are proving not very adept at managing.
For sure CASA is a Commonwealth owned Corporation not exactly part of the public sector but what have they actually achieved since incorporation?
The litany of failures is long and a national disgrace.
Its subversion of the rule of law a blight on our constitution.
Its deceit and bastardry an anathema to what Australia should stand for.
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.'
From the poem by Lewis Carroll, a poem basically about smoke and mirrors and deceit.
Of rights, privileges and the rule of law.
English law is said to be derived from the Magna Carta, medieval Latin for "The great charter of liberties."
It came about in 1215 in an attempt to curb the excesses of the crown by rebel barons.
Pope innocent 111 annulled it, but the concept of "Divine Rule" was continually challenged and the so called Magna Carta was re-issued in modified forms in 1216,1217,1225 and finally became part of statute law in 1297.
The Magna Carta was a bit of a political myth, its concept of of protecting ancient personal liberties was more about protecting the privileged aristocracy from the excesses of the crown, the ordinary people didn't really get a look in.
Never the less it remained a powerful iconic document even after most of it's content was repealed from statute books during the 19th and 20th century as the political elite gained ascendancy over the crown.
The fledgling republic in America drew on it to form their constitution.Their declaration of independence opens with;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Under British law, rights are called privileges conferred by the crown ie the political elite, but just who are the political elite?
In Australia, some of our laws were taken from the Americans, but mostly our bureaucracy is based on British law, refined into an art form. The term "Civil Servant" in UK refined into "Public servant", the Bureaucracy refined as the "public service" and lately the "Public Sector" the implication redefining its purpose not as a servant of the people but as an administrative arm of the political Elite.
In Australia there are no rights, there are only privileges conferred by the crown via the political elite, which may explain why Australia churns out vast volumes of statutes, because permissions must be granted for almost every facet of civil life, the concept of personal responsibility and freedom an anathema to our bureaucrats.
The rule of law fortunately or unfortunately is enshrined in our constitution and just as the Magna Carta was believed to be a brake on a rulers excesses our courts were supposed to act as a brake on the excesses of our political elite.
In recent times however even the good judges want into the act of control. They are required to impartially interpret the law and how it is applied, but are increasingly giving judgements of what they would personally like the law to be rather than what the lawmakers intended. This could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on which side of the fence you sit, notwithstanding it aint what our founding fathers intended.
The same could be said of our bureaucrats. We elect politicians to reflect the will of the people and federally the interests of the country as a whole and we expect appointed ministers to conduct that ethos, and direct their bureaucrats accordingly.
In the schoolyard battleground of politics unfortunately, our euphemistically described as managers must spend vast amounts of time and effort to score enough points to get re-elected. Some so much so that they leave it to the Mandarins to look after the miniature while they concentrate on digging knives out of their backs.
The mandarins in many cases are left to their own devises to get on with the business of government their way. If a minister wants to interfere they are easily distracted by confidential leaks providing political opponents the knives to stab with.
The public sector has grown fat on the publics largesse. Remuneration rivalling the private sector with all the perks still attached. As time has gone by the Mandarins now govern in their interests not the public's they are supposed to serve.
As we have seen so vividly in our aviation industry the mandarins are proving not very adept at managing.
For sure CASA is a Commonwealth owned Corporation not exactly part of the public sector but what have they actually achieved since incorporation?
The litany of failures is long and a national disgrace.
Its subversion of the rule of law a blight on our constitution.
Its deceit and bastardry an anathema to what Australia should stand for.