Assorted links; minimal commentary

1. Brian Walters SC - president of Liberty Victoria, also involved in the Gunns 20 litigation (and AWB!) - gave a lunchtime speech at the Melbourne Uni Law School yesterday on problems faced by public interest groups when faced with a suit from corporations and bully-boy governments. A number of points came out that are disconcerting enough to repeat. One, is that community groups aren't listened to by courts - c.f. the US, where the ACLU and other organisations don't face the same issues of proving standing. Two, that they're doubly financially disadvantaged in funding or defending litigation, by having limited funds and aren't subject to tax concessions for legal action like corporations. (And in the instance of cases against governments, don't have a vast public purse to pilfer from.) Three, is the great big joke of our Attorneys-General as giving proper legal advice whilst also being members of Parliament. Conflict of interest was nicely evinced by the Port Philip dredging case, where the A-G (Rob Hulls) was also Minister for Planning. Very independent.

One wonders whether it would be better to have an appointed, non-Parliamentarian person in the role of A-G, as in the US and UK. Particularly the UK, where Lord Goldsmith - for all his shady Iraq advice - was at least an experienced lawyer and judge before his appointment.

So who do we have to keep the government in check? No one. Can we, as citizens, actually have our voices heard? Apparently not. Voting in elections simply isn't sufficient. Vote them out? Fine - but the damage is already done. We have no way of keeping the government accountable whilst it is in office. There is precious little access to media, and the media itself often self-censors (I'd give a reference for proof, but it's mere personal communication from someone in the know) rather than face a phone call from someone in the government. Lord knows I've written letters to The Age over the years, and not had them published.

2. On a lighter note - a real life Vicky Pollard. Of course, there are thousands of 'em, but it's always amusing to see someone living down to the stereotype.

3. Sir Anthony Mason on a Bill of Rights - judges are trustworthy? I'd certainly agree they're more trustworthy than politicians. The fact they're not elected - thus do not have a vested interest in populist, knee-jerk policies - is a good thing. And it is naive to suggest that we have a truly representative government. As long as MPs follow the party line, as long as the public is not involved in political and governmental affairs, as long as there are pre-selection battles and secret backroom deals, we have no representative government.

We certainly have no responsible government. We are treated with contempt by the PM and his Ministers - I won't even start on the misnomer of 'the Opposition' (opposition to what?). And the catchphrase of the Howard administration is surely one which decries all responsibility and knowledge...

I wrote an essay last year on autonomous action and decided that responsibility - being taken as responsible - derived not from subjective autonomy but how others view the act itself. Now I think that applies even more pertinently to the government, particularly as it is a product of collective attitudes and ideals (even if those attitudes and ideals are, well, wrong. I'm no relativist.)

In any case, if you've ever seen a judge speak and then heard a politician, it isn't hard to work out who is more on the ball. There's always talk about making sure judges are sensitive to minorities and so on - such a high burden is placed. No such thing on politicians - surely no less important.

4. For once in my life, I wish I was French. Seriously. They may have a mad Interior Minister (I'm sure someone funnier could make jokes about the title alone), but at least people still have the guts and the freedom to have a proper riot and get arrested.

Okay. Enough ranting. Back to thrills and spills of reading.