IT sounds like the judges might have been open to expertly presented arguments on the question of inconsistency but didn’t hear any. On the other matters, the court’s acceptance that the disgraceful bill in question wasn’t one of attainder because it could conceivably apply to others (even though it was rushed through specifically to get Mr Palmer), is trite. Moreover, the argument that the rule of law has no relevance when interpreting the Constitution and that “other sources” cannot influence the way it is applied, is not convincing. The Mabo case, the external affairs power and the “implied freedom” of political communication suggest that broader rights do exist in a superstructure whose purpose is to constitute a democratic nation.
There is more to it – not all complimentary to the Queensland tycoon – as Henry Ergas explained in August – but this is a very dangerous precedent. We desperately need constitutional protections from the state in this country but, unfortunately for us, the sacred document itself belongs not to the people but to the Uniparty that controls the referendum process.