Home > Current Affairs, Harry's Growl - Election 2013, Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL HGZ [Harry's Growl Zone] > EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013  – Growl No: 3 – Roxon’s Rocky Status as the AG –

EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013  – Growl No: 3 – Roxon’s Rocky Status as the AG –

February 1, 2013
Latest ‘Harry’s Growl’ Posts:

– 31st Jan – Election 2013 – Growl No: 2 – Gillard lifts her skirts to thrill the Media  –

– 28th Jan – Election 2013 – Growl No: 1 – Senator Penny Wong … policy exposed –

– 18th Jan – Hedley Thomas and Larry Pickering – – Resume their AWU crusade against Gillard  –

– 1st Jan 2013 – Jenny Macklin – Joins Swan as another ALP Fu_kwit – Claims she can live on the Newstart allowance –

– 20th Dec – Wayne Swan – His backflip on the 2012-13 Surplus – Makes him the Fu_kwit of all Fu_kwits –

– 16th Dec – Lenore Taylor – Chief Political Correspondent for the SMH  – Part II – – A correspondent pushing her own political agenda  –

– 15th Dec – Lenore Taylor – Chief Political Correspondent for the SMH  – A correspondent with her own political agenda  –

– 14th Dec – Gillard’s Gutter Mouth – The dishonour she does to the office of the Prime Minister –

– 3rd Dec – The GREENS – Leader Milne has her head in the sand –

– 28th Nov – The Dogs have their BONE Part II – The Wilson Interview and how it reflects on Gillard –

– 27th Nov – The Dogs have their BONE Part I – Gillard’s kicked them out the house –

– 23rd Nov – The ALP and Obeid Train Wreck  – is it meant to distract from Gillard & the AWU Scandal –

– 22nd Nov – Gunfights at the OK Corral: Misandry v Misogyny – GILLARD v Ralph BLEWITT – GILLARD v Hedley THOMAS – GILLARD v Mike SMITH – GILLARD v Larry PICKERING – GILLARD v ALP Caucus – GILLARD v All Australians …

– 13th Nov – The Day the heavens began to cave in – – Obeid and his entourage to bring it all down … –

– 10th Nov – The 2012 US Presidential Election Part II – The Fallout – the GOP beating up on itself –

– 8th Nov – The 2012 US Presidential Election Part I – what does it really mean —

– 7th Nov – Bob Carr … Foreign Minister – as profiled by “The Australian’s” Ross Fitzgerald –

– 29th Oct – The Most Irrelevant of all Irrelevancy – Independents – Slipper, Thompson, Windsor, Oakeshott, Katter & Wilkie – hanging on to office rather than face the electorate –

– 27th Oct – Julia Gillard does not understand Hypocrisy – ALP Powerbrokers dump Penny Wong – makes Gillard look foolish over her ‘sexism’ claims –

To see more EYE-BALL Harry’s Growl posts: click here …

– Election 2013  – Growl No: 3 –
– Roxon’s Rocky Status as the AG  –
| Author: EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl | 1st Feb 2013|

The position of Australia’s Attorney General is a prestigious appointment. It would normally go to the most credentialed Lawyer serving in the Government.

Nicola Roxon has been serving in the position since Dec 2011 when she replaced disposed Rudd supported Robert McClelland, who was in turn appointed with the change of Government under Kevin Rudd in 2007.  Philip Rudduck served as the AG in the former Howard Government.

Late last year the AG’s office introduced draft legislation to re-write laws relating to ‘Human Rights and Anti Discrimination’ Laws.   A full copy of the draft proposal can be read via this link.

A summary of the proposed changes in the Legislation can be read via an article published in The Australian on the 23rd Nov 2013 – it is re-published below:

Proposed law a further attack on free speech

| Author: SIMON BREHENY | Date: Nov 23rd, 2012 | Link to On-Line Story. |

THE law that was used to silence Andrew Bolt has been supercharged by the Gillard government’s proposed changes to anti-discrimination laws.

Bolt was found to have breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which says it is unlawful to offend or insult someone on the basis of racial or ethnic characteristics in a public space.

But Attorney-General Nicola Roxon’s proposed changes massively expand the list of characteristics people can be offended by, expanding the jurisdiction into shops, workplaces and sporting clubs.

The regime will provide a new weapon in the war on free speech by even including “political opinion” as a ground on which people can be discriminated against.

This extraordinary change makes even innocuous political expressions subject to the law – a person need only be offended or insulted in order to make out a claim. Shop owners displaying signs in support of a political candidate may now be legally discriminating against employees who want the other guy to win.

By now we’re used to politicians undermining our legal rights. But rarely is it as blatant as the Gillard government’s changes to anti-discrimination laws.

Not only do the changes represent an extraordinary attack on freedom of speech, they also undermine fundamental legal principles derived from 800 years of common law. They would reverse the onus of proof, forcing employers to prove that they are innocent of discrimination.

English lawyer William Garrow coined the term “innocent until proven guilty” in 1791. That statement has become one of the most famous and enduring terms in the legal sphere. Garrow was referring to one of the most important principles of our legal system in the context of legal proceedings, a person is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Central to this principle is the idea that the burden of proof rests with the person bringing the legal claim to the court. This ought to be the norm in all cases: whether it is the state attempting to prosecute an individual for alleged criminal activity or an individual suing another in civil proceedings. Placing the onus of proof on the prosecution or plaintiff is the hallmark of a mature and just legal system.

The rationale behind this principle is simple: it is difficult, even impossible, to produce evidence of a thing that does not exist. In a free society, it is a principle of utmost importance that we protect the innocent even if it makes it harder to punish the guilty.

A reversal of the onus of proof tends to result in absurd and unjust outcomes. And this is precisely what the Gillard government’s proposed changes will achieve. Section 124 of the draft legislation reverses the onus of proof in the case of a plaintiff providing some evidence that discrimination could perhaps have occurred. After jumping this small hurdle, it is then up to the defendant to prove otherwise.

For some reason the Gillard government doesn’t see this as a reversal of the burden of proof, but a “shift”. It at least gets points for creativity.

Discrimination claims will also cost the complainant nothing even if they lose. The laws have been designed to create a no-cost regime (at least for those who allege discrimination).

This is not how civil cases are usually run. Sure, free lawsuits may sound appealing but generally the losing party must pay all legal costs, which helps discourage any frivolous claims from making it to court. Instead, the already struggling court system will be burdened with a flood of new litigation from people who no longer have to take any financial risk.

Indeed, the new law creates a regime that skews so heavily towards plaintiffs that it actually encourages false allegations. Most employers, faced with potentially substantial costs in terms of time and money, will settle even spurious claims out of court. Smart lawyers already know how to squeeze “go away” money out of employers.

Transferring the lessons learned under the present industrial relations regime to a new anti-discrimination regime is a recipe for huge problems.

Current definitions of discrimination vary among the five pieces of commonwealth legislation that govern this area of law, including the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The new anti-discrimination law will have just one definition: “unfavourable treatment”.

Harmonisation of all the various laws aimed at reducing discrimination is a good idea in principle but the method used by the government in this case is to draft a definition of discrimination that is broad in the extreme.

Unfavourable treatment could cover almost anything, and simply ensures an increase in the number of discrimination claims being made.

The proposed legislation also makes just one defence available to employers. The defence of “justification” is an important one in the context of discrimination law, and it is right that it has been included, but there are a range of defences that should be available. Mistake, duress and a range of other defences also could have been included in the legislation.

The reversal of the onus of proof only increases the importance of having a robust defence framework if claims can be made out so easily; the legislation should at least allow employers and others accused of discrimination a number of grounds on which to defend themselves.

We’ve already seen the consequences of the Racial Discrimination Act for freedom of speech. If you thought that was a miscarriages of justice, just wait until you see the extraordinary wave of free speech litigation Roxon’s new laws will unleash.

Simon Breheny is the director, Legal Rights Project, ‘Institute of Public Affairs – linked here

The public debate ensured over the Christmas break – another ’cause and effect’ matter arises on the timing of the release of the proposed new laws.  One has to ask why the draft was presented at the time of year where Government shuts down. Was it Roxon’s intent to use the ‘shut-down’ period to limit discussion on the draft legislation?

This question hangs in the air for the time being.

Submission responses to the draft legislation closed on the 21st Dec 2012 – and perusal of the dedicated AG Web Site – linked here – shows some 230 submissions from the public, Corporate, Law Firms, Groups, Clubs etc have been lodged in response.

These proposed new laws found public outcry and the outrage continues. In the face of this outrage – Roxon has conceded that perhaps the proposed laws went a bit to far.  She has now indicated she might roll-back some of the laws in response to the public outrage.  Story on roll-back reproduced below.

Roxon’s rollback too little: Brandis

| Author: Brendan Nicholson | Date: Feb 1st, 2013 | Link to On-Line Story. |

THE Attorney-General’s backdown on Labor’s proposed anti-discrimination reforms does not go far enough, the federal opposition says.

Writing in The Australian today, opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis says there is a lot more still wrong with the bill, which was “an outrageous attack upon our most fundamental freedoms”.

Senator Brandis said the government had shown no sign of making further changes.

The Australian revealed yesterday that Nicola Roxon had rolled back Labor’s proposed reforms to remove the prohibition on causing offence, which had been criticised by the media, judicial figures and the human rights lobby as an attack on free speech.

Senator Brandis said the Gillard government had tried to use anti-discrimination law as a Trojan horse to impose a regime of political correctness.

He said the partial removal of the offend and insult ban meant the consolidation of discrimination laws would be flawed because there would be inconsistent definitions of discrimination, with a severe one for matters to do with race and a less onerous approach elsewhere.

The Law Council of Australia welcomed Ms Roxon’s changes and said it supported consolidating the five existing commonwealth acts that protect against discrimination into a single act.

Council president Joseph Catanzariti said the body was concerned the act could still unduly infringe on freedom of expression. He said two more areas required attention. One was the test of discrimination and the other was the justifiable conduct exception.

“The Law Council supports the general rationale behind both of these provisions,” Mr Catanzariti said.

“However, these provisions have been drafted in a way that gives rise to uncertainty about their potential scope and the extent to which subjective factors will be considered when determining whether particular conduct is discriminatory and if so whether it falls within the ‘justifiable conduct’ defence.

“This has in turn given rise to concerns about whether the protections against discrimination in the draft bill unduly infringe upon other human rights such as freedom of expression.”

One of the harshest critics of Labor’s reform package, the Institute of Public Affairs, welcomed yesterday’s changes. Simon Breheny of the IPA said the idea that five separate anti-discrimination laws could be consolidated was flawed and the project should be abandoned.

The draft bill is being considered by a Senate committee that is due to report on February 18.

Opposition AG spokesperson George Brandis has been very vocal in his attack on the proposed new laws.   His interview on ABC radio on the 21st Jan 2013 is required listening – linked here – justice cannot be done to his comments here and to hear him speak in this interview is to learn what this legislation is really proposing.

His comments near the end of the 12 minute interview give insight into his opinion about Nicola Roxon’s agenda as the AG, and reason why all Australians should be alarmed – again the interview is – linked here.

Roxon exposed:

On the back of Brandis’s comments it was necessary to do some private and personal research into Roxon’s background. Her personal bio as presented on Wikipedia states in part: link to source data

… Roxon was educated at the Methodist Ladies’ College in the Melbourne suburb of Kew, and the University of Melbourne. She ultimately came to the view that “governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can’t controleither through their health failing or an accident“. She has publicly stated that she is an atheist.

Between 1992 and 1994, Roxon was employed as a judge’s associate to High Court Justice Mary Gaudron. She then became involved with the trade union movement, joining the National Union of Workers as an organiser. Roxon was also an industrial lawyer and senior associate with the law firm Maurice Blackburn and Co. from 1996 to 1998. …

The above information is a friendly summary written by herself or some one who knows Ms Roxon personally.  Roxon would have approved these comments.  There is no independent arbiter to any comments posted on Wikipedia unless someone challenges what someone else has posted.

Her own Webpage has her bio information as pasted below: … link to Roxon’s Webpage

Nicola Roxon MP, Attorney-General

The Hon Nicola Roxon MP became Australia’s first female Attorney-General in December 2011 and the Minister for Emergency Management in 2012. Nicola’s focus is to ensure access to justice for all Australians, prioritising fairness and safety in family law matters, keeping our national security laws up to date with rapidly evolving technology and helping communities around the country get back on their feet after natural disasters.

As an honours law graduate who finished top of her class at the University of Melbourne and an Associate to High Court Justice Mary Gaudron, Nicola’s appointment as Attorney-General follows a solid foundation in the law. Working to protect the rights of individuals has been a hallmark of Nicola’s career which included working as an industrial lawyer and union organiser before being elected to the Federal Parliament in 1998 representing Labor in the western suburbs seat of Gellibrand in Melbourne.

As part of the Federal Labor Government, Nicola served as Australia’s Health Minister for four years and oversaw major reforms to Australia’s public hospital, primary care and preventative health systems. Nicola has received national and international awards for her accomplishments in tobacco control where Australia now leads the world by requiring plain packaging for tobacco products. Nicola is married with one child.

Again – friendly fire – the electorate only knows Roxon from her personal appearances as a politician, and a Minister.   Media commentary is another source of information, but her profile since becoming the AG has certainly proved that her credentials to serve as the highest Law officer in the land is found wanting.  

The Attorney General Responsibilities:

A full summary of the AG position and responsibilities appears below as provided via Wikipedia: sourced from Wikipedia

The Attorney-General of Australia is the first law officer of the Crown, chief law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia and a minister of the Crown. The Attorney-General is usually a member of the Federal Cabinet, but need not be. Under the Constitution he or she is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister, and serves at the Governor-General’s pleasure. In practice the Attorney-General is a party politician and his or her tenure is determined by political factors.

The Attorney-General administers the Attorney-General’s Department, and is the minister responsible for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the OFLC, the government agency responsible for classification of films, literature and video games. The Attorney-General also serves as a general legal adviser to the Cabinet, and has carriage of legislation dealing with copyright, human rights and a range of other subjects. The Attorney-General is nearly always a person with legal training, and 11 former Attorneys-General have received senior judicial appointments after their ministerial service.

Billy Hughes was the longest-serving Attorney-General of Australia, serving for nearly 11 years over three non-consecutive terms. Since 1987 the Attorney-General has usually been assisted by a Minister for Justice.

Following the 2007 general election, at which Labor’s Kevin Rudd defeated the Liberal/National coalition led by John Howard, Robert McClelland replaced Philip Ruddock as Attorney-General on 3 December 2007. He retained this portfolio under the prime ministership of Julia Gillard until 14 December 2011, when he was replaced by Nicola Roxon, who became Australia’s first woman to serve as Attorney-General.

It is accepted that these might be the official responsibilities – but as with all things in politics, the individual portfolio position/responsibility allows Ministers to do whatever they have to do to impose the Governments, and their own personal will and agenda.

In the AG Ministerial position this translates to the Laws the Government wants to amend, and the new Laws they want to legislate – like this Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012.

Another interest of note about the AG position from above is that it also has responsible for the ASIO [Australian Federal Police – AFP] division.   As reported by Larry Pickering a year or so ago – and after Roxon became AG – Gillard had knowledge of the AFP’s ability to intercept mobile phones and determine hacking intrusions.

Pickering reported that it was this knowledge provided by the AFP of similar ‘News of the World’ type celebrity hacking being carried out by media outlets in Australia that allowed Gillard to ‘blackmail’ media proprietors to pull and retract the AWU scandal allegations published in late 2011.  It is not claimed here that Roxon or her predecessor Robert McClelland were involved. How the information about the ‘phone hacking’ came to the attention of Gillard is unknown to this blogger. 

Why GROWL at Roxon?

Well – Under Roxon’s agenda the AG Department has proposed new laws concerning ‘Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination’.  I happen to agree with Brandis in that they are not what Australian culture is all about, and they challenge the right to ‘free speech’, and the freedoms attached to the ‘expression’ of that free speech.

By example – this blog site commentary would be seen to be acting discriminately via the comments contained in blogs posted about politicians, governments, and other idiots accused of lunacy via the opinions expressed via the various authors contributing to the site.

In fact – the proposed laws threatens the freedom to express an opinion if it disparages, criticise, or uses vernacular and descriptive commentary to describe any idiot politician, like ‘dunce-hat’ Swan, or ‘the wicked witch’ Gillard and the like.

There – that small rant might land me in big trouble if these proposed laws are passed unchallenged, and un-amended.

Roxon’s credentials to act as the AG, or in any portfolio is further challenged on the basis of her exposed life experiences, and her lack of a broader spectrum of community involvement that would allow her to understand true and real Australian culture.  

Her protected education environment, combined with her limited legal exposure to Industrial Law, her political experience in opposition, and as a minister of the Government might all have give her a rounded exposure, but not a grounded exposure.  Her Law credentials are lacking stature and recognition and as the serving AG it makes her someone that is really dangerous in how she tries to impose her limited grasp of Law and its broader refinement as a necessity to serve as the AG.  In essence – the Law fraternity do not respect her.

Under her guidance the AG Office gave protection to Peter Slipper during his committal hearing over ‘sexual abuse’ claims.  This showed very poor judgement and when asked by the Opposition about her involvement in the House late last year – Albanese quickly rose to shut the House Question time down.  This allowed Roxon to escape having to provide a response.   The Government saw need to protect her from responding and that gives reason to suspect she had something to hide.  This adds to the perception and history of the corruptiveness this Government goes to in protecting itself from self-exposure.  

See link here to read story on ALP caucus revolt over her handling on the Peter Slipper affair.   This link is to another story about Roxon’s involvement in trying to influence the Ashby/Slipper outcome – both are worth the read.

Also – the Craig Thompson affair links back to the Fair Work Australia [FWA] investigation that took forever, some years in fact.  How FWA  came up with their stupid findings is another story, however when the police became involved they cut through the investigation within months and have now lodged charges and effected an arrest.

Roxon’s office could have intervened on the side of the Law in that case as well, yet her Office intervened on the side of the Government ensuring Thompson continued to serve as a ALP member and provide a crucial vote to allow the minority Government to survive.

There is a story within the story here – the Barristers providing the advice to Roxon on both these cases, above, and the proposed Legislation relating to the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 could provide comment if allowed to do so – i.e. a Royal Commission, into the instructions they received from the Government – what were  the instructions received from Roxon, and/or Gillard, or whoever else who had imput to the content and purpose of the Legislation, the Slipper involvement, and the Thompson FWA case.  

That will not happen under this Government but could be arraigned under a New Coalition Government if they wanted to pursue Gillard and her ‘handbag brigade’ beyond the humiliation of defeat.

Roxon enjoys a healthy margin in her seat  – some  74%/26% majority.  The seat was established in 1949 and has only ever been held by the ALP.   Previous holders of the sear include:

  • Roxon, N (ALP) 1998–
  • Willis, R (ALP) 1972–1998
  • McIvor, H J (ALP) 1955–1972
  • Mullens, J M (ALP) 1949–1955

 Roxon owns the seat as long as she wants, or for as long she does the bidding of her Leader … this is a perfect example of how the ALP pre-select their delegates for safe seats as reward for loyal service.  To change the way the Union movement operates within the ALP via its factional allegiances will take some almighty vision and electoral education.

In the interim all we can do is to highlight the inadequacies of the ALP, the Greens, the Independents, and the Coalition Members, and have and their creditability questioned when they make a decision that challenges Australians and the opinions of activists.

This post’s intent is to expose Roxon as someone who is a very dangerous person to be in charge of a portfolio that has the ability to make laws that change Australia and its culture.

Please – this Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 is and important issue and needs people to become vocal about their concerns.  Please use the links provided to share this post on your social networks, or to write to your local MP about your concerns.

To bring some much-needed levity – there is always the Larry Pickering Cartoons … below is a sample of his summer offerings – his images page can be access here[click on image below to enlarge] … enjoy and don’t hurt yourself with the belly laughs …

Larry Pickering also writes some very intelligent blogs including many on the AWU scandal.  Whilst not as regarded as Hedley Thomas in journalistic circles – his penmanship and his heady wit give him a take on things not easily publishable in mainstream media.  None the less … his take on events cuts to the chase and he does not mince words … his Facebook page can be accessed here

Added 1st Feb 2013:

Added 31st Jan 2013:

Added 28th Jan 2013:

Added before 28th Jan 2013:

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.  Thankyou.

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam. Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s:

Subscribe to EYE-BALL’s – Harry’s Growl

  1. February 1, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    Something that takes on new meaning given Gillard’s long term position on Thompson is the $150k legal bill some Union paid to keep Thompson from going bankrupt …

    Gillard was behind that – not that you would find any evidence but bankruptcy is an automatic by-election – whereas criminal charges is a coin-toss …

  2. david the pragmatist
    February 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    I could not agree more with what you have said. I just question your hippocrisy when it comes to freedom of speech and a presumption of innocence, enter Thompson’s lawyer and Thompson’s right to plead innocent.
    Hope your not confusing Goons with Coons and finding the words politically incorrect Mr Eye Ball.
    Just to reinterate your main point M/S Roxon is one very dangerous lady who is taking us down a very dark path. I can only hope that somehow she loses her seat and justice can be done.
    PS because she choses to be an atheist is her perogative and again I sense an hippocrisy on your part in repeatedly emphasizing such things, likewise with the Prime Minister.
    Please, being conscious of such things if memory would serve me right, is to think you are not a pious man yourself. Not that we should descriminate regardless.

  3. February 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    Tosser’s like you draw a bow and misfire all the time … how do you connect the McArdle pleading innocent with hypocrisy … Goons and coons – ????

    McArdle called the police who did the strip search ‘goons’, and under Roxon’s version of the proposed free speech legislation that would be against the law …

    How can Roxon lose her seat when she has a 72% – 28% margin … [info included in post above] ….

    The ‘Atheist’ highlight was to confirm that her and Gillard are the same on religion … how many other members of the ‘handbag brigade’ are also,men hating atheist’s …

  4. hack the bitch
    February 1, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    Great article, totally what I was looking for.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: