Letter to the Editor,

In a recent answer to a voter survey Senator Andrew Bartlett the leader of the Democrats and a Senator for Queensland, states, "The courts determined that she stole half a million dollars from the Australian people." regarding, a question concerning Pauline Hanson. Obviously, Andrew had missed the point that One Nation candidates the same as any other candidates once over the 4% receive electoral compensation, even if they are lowly individual Independents. (I would, of course, not perceive them as lowly, but the only candidates free to represent their electorates rather than serve party controllers.)

Andrew, obviously missed the point that Pauline and One Nation had to reimburse those candidates that had earned that electoral reimbursement Andrew had obviously missed the fact that Pauline Hanson and One Nation had to repay that half a million dollars back to the Electoral Commission even though they could not claim it back from the candidates they had paid out. So when most people who followed the case to a slight degree are aware that One Nations was out of pocket by half a million plus and double that for legal costs, how is it the so called "Watch Dog" Democrat Leader was not watching? Or was he watching the reducing amount of electoral rebate that had fallen into the hands of the Democrats and considers their losses, are theft by Pauline Hanson and One Nation.

Andrew Bartlett states, "The Democrats have been calling for the introduction of a Bill of Rights for years and recent bills passed by the government have again highlighted the need for it". Then states, "This government is relying on fear to allow it to undermine the public's freedoms."

 

The Bartlett Watch Dog seems to be unaware that we have had a Bill of Rights for over three hundred years and has forgotten that it is ignored by Parliamentarians except when any contention occurs on the Freedom of Speech in parliament, then they drag out the Bill of Rights of 1689 and point the finger at :-

" That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament", as in the Carman Laurence Case and Wayne Goes v Stanbridge Case.

When firearm owners remind politicians, (Democratic Watch Dogs as well) with many thousand of letters that their freedoms are protected by the Bill of Rights 1689:-

"By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law."
"All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm."
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
"Confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come."
they are treated with impunity and ignored.

 

The Bill of Rights then ceases to exist until a politician needs it. The Democrats in 1996, en-mass, voted with the government to remove the people's freedoms. We have to ask the question, if the so called ‘Watch Dog' Democrats are unaware that we have a current Bill of Rights and keep on sleeping when they are reminded of it, should the public trust that it would be any different with a new Bill of Rights? As, if they cannot "Watch" the one we have, would the emphasis be in the new Bill of Rights the protection of politicians or the "true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom."

Ron Owen