lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:57pm:


Heydon can comment on any OH&S issues in his workplace ... he's certainly not qualified to comment on the runnings on on a building site or a mine

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:54pm:



And as I pointed out, according to his CV - neither is Dave Noonan.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:39pm:



What are "probably unsafe political recommendations"? Ones that impact on one political party? Is a union a political party?

If you are talking about potentially unsafe legislation, that is a different matter.

I would think that would be handled the Commonwealth Solicitor General. That's why we have them.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:59pm:



Nope. There are specific requirements for OH&S. 25 years service just doesn't cut it.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:25pm:


And a 6 month tafe course does or even the glorified 4 year uni version of the six month tafe course does ? I assure you on the job experience counts for everything , I work in the industry and you my friend have no furkn idea what you're talking about. Do you think a fresh out tafe uni student much less that furkwit heydon is going to know what I am talking about when I say come and check the outriggers on the franna?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:37pm:



And that is the preserve of the Commonwealth Solicitor General.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:42pm:


Who singularly fails to even suggest that a piece of mooted legislation is suspect, and merely suggests that the government rely on the utter inability of the common person to challenge any such legislation.

You mistake the game of power for the game of reason, decency, justice and Law.

You will not even get a challenge into the appropriate court for under around a quarter of a million... how does Joe or Jo Bloggs challenge legislation?  At the ballot box - where both parties battle for their own version of the same thing, as long as it suits them and not Jo and Joe?

EVERY piece of legislation must be open to challenge for a nominal fee of $25... by any person adversely affected by it.  It is no longer sufficient, based on historical failure of courts, to rely on a court to overturn illegal/UnLawful legislation... or to rely on the forces of law to refuse to accommodate to it. Indeed, the oath of office of the forces of Law forbids such action... thus we are left with the tenuous and diaphanous proposition that the courts will abide by their oath of office and ensure justice for all equally.

History shows us that is not the case, and that the courts fall mos often into the fallacy that they are bound by the same oath as the forces of Law, and must therefore abide by 'law as written', rather than making a valid and independent judgement on the merits of any piece of legislation.  Courts thus fall into the error of considering themselves one aspect of 'the thin blue line' - rather than as the guardians  of Law (the thin black line) itself.