Ok, so we shouldn’t be critical of Dyson Heydon. He’s a judge – a highly respected judge. And as Tony Abbott suggested, criticising a Royal Commissioner could be against the law.
However, when a judge rules that the Environment Minister didn’t follow correct procedures, it was an “appalling” decision according to Georgie Brandis. Mind you, he wasn’t criticising the judge. Just the decision. It was appalling that the judge chose to uphold the law, because around here, certain Liberals adopt the Wild West philosophy of “We are the law round here, and what we say goes” and if it doesn’t well it’s the law that’s wrong.
Apparently, the bar has been set too low resulting in what our Eminent Attorney-General refered to as “vigilante litigation”.
Mm, poor George needs to read more because the meaning of vigilante:
A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
One wonders how going to a court of law can ever be considered a “vigilante” action because the definition suggests that they themselves do the punishing. That they take the law “into their own hands”. That they appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner. Like Abbott wanted to do with the citizenship of dual citizens accused of terrorism.
Nonetheless, the Liberals have now decided that only those “directly affected” should be allowed to object to projects, and there’s a plan to introduce legislation to that effect. They’ve decided this all by themselves – like some Stalinist collective. They don’t need a plebiscite for that one.
Which, of course, begs the question, who is “directly affected” by allowing certain projects to go ahead?
One assumes that the snake and the skink would be directly affected by the decision, but I very much doubt that these are what the Liberals have in mind. (By the snake and the skink, I’m not refering to Abbott and Credlin, but to the actual snake and skink in the Adani decision.)
And while I might sound like I’m being flippant, it does raise a serious question. Are these “inner city greenies” affected by the potential extinction of a species?
Well, on some level, of course. There’s a strong case that reducing biodiversity may have unintended consequences, so it’s arguable that anyone is directly affected.
However, the Liberals are making it clear that they don’t like “inner city greenies”.
Or anyone else who isn’t a coal miner or Royal Commissioner, come to that. Come to think of it, they don’t seem to like each other very much.
In fact, like Reclaim Australia, they claim to love the country while hating most of the groups in it.
