I WOULD like to reply to Richard Hazlewood’s letter ‘Voter betrayed’ in the August edition of The Toodyay Herald.
It seems that Mr Hazlewood does not understand the duties and responsibilities of Christian Porter in his capacity of Attorney General of the Commonwealth.
In addition to the duties of a normal Member of Parliament, a minister in the Federal Government swears an oath to faithfully perform the duties required for the portfolio.
The Attorney General, as first law officer of the Commonwealth, is obliged to defend the Australian Constitution and it is normal for the Commonwealth, through the Attorney General to intervene in any dispute before the courts that involves the Constitution.
Read more
The Commonwealth intervenes to defend the Constitution and it would be absolutely abnormal for the Commonwealth to have no role in such a dispute.
In the case of the border closure, the Commonwealth was defending the provisions of the Constitution, and this is a normal position to take regardless of the identity of the parties.
Any citizen has the right to go to court in support of a position and the courts apply the law as it stands.
The Constitution can be changed only by referendum.
It cannot be changed by court action – it can only be upheld.
In my opinion, the State Government should lose the case because it seems to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.
I think the Premier also knows this and this is why he has brought in all the emotional arguments to get the population on side.
The court should rule according to law and not be swayed by emotion, especially when it comes from a politician.
Finally, just because a position is popular does not mean it is right or legal.
I do not believe that a State Premier should have the power to lock up the state or restrict the movement of the people because this constitutes authoritarian rather than democratic government.
Bruce Dann
Bejoording
