As another bumper week draws to a close, readers continue to tackle the injustice evident at the trial of Witness K and Bernard Collaery (into which Madeleine Miller took a deep dive yesterday). Meanwhile, the Victorian election preference storm continues to rage (comments suggest that we shouldn’t expect anyone to come out unscathed) and PM Scott Morrison’s religious bent was once more at the forefront of questions about his leadership.
John Richardson writes: If the trial judge in the Bernard Collaery/Witness K trial is persuaded to conduct proceedings in secret, which may have the effect of denying the accused a fair trial, then that judge will have imposed nothing short of an authoritarian system government on this nation and rendered the judicial system entirely redundant. Every member in every parliament throughout the country should be screaming in protest against this corrupt attack on the independence of the judiciary, the base assault on our democratic rights and freedoms and the abuse of power being perpetrated against the accused by the executive.
AR writes: What is the point in letting the accused know the evidence against them — they’d probably deny it and waste valuable court time. Just go straight to sentencing, stop mucking about.
The Curmudgeon writes: Hard to escape the conclusion that Victorian Labor hate the Greens so much that they’re prepared to assist in the election of the Rooters, Shooters and anyone else rather than have the dreaded Greens achieve any more power. It seems that advancing a progressive legislative agenda is less important to the Victorian ALP than carrying on the tedious and at times juvenile war against the Greens. I’m assembling my “ticket”, and in light of the above, not sure where to put Labor!
Jim Hart writes: What an absurd system. You would think after the feds finally improved the system for the Senate elections the states would all follow, if only for consistency. I doubt if one voter in 1000 knows where their preferences are going if they simply mark one above the line.
Graham Thorburn writes: At the time of Scott Morrison’s ascension to the prime ministership, the minister at his church claimed it was miracle resulting from fasting and prayer, and would ensure that Australia’s government follows “godly principles”. Which begs the question: how would “godly principles” differ from the values of any decent Australian? And do those “godly principles” account for the PM’s continuing obsession with moving our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem — an action with no discernible benefit to Australia and significant downsides?
Xoanon writes: That’s the interim PM’s basic problem, isn’t it — intense religiosity is about as unAustralian and unrelatable as you can get. Not because we particularly dislike religion, but because we’re highly sceptical about people who take things too seriously. Sometimes that drives me crazy, but it’s definitely going to be the PM’s downfall.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to firstname.lastname@example.org. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name.