InJustice Dyson Heydon and a Bill of Pains

(With thanks to a twitter friend,
I also make the disclosure that “IANAL”
Hidden away in his report on the Trades Unions Royal Commission is the wonderfully written “Recommendation 60”.
bill of pains3
According to Webster’s New World Law Dictionary, a bill of pains is   “Any legislative act similar to a bill of attainder that imposes a punishment less severe than death. Such enactments are forbidden by the United States Constitution’s prohibition of bills of attainder.”
However, Australian Law does not seem to have the same limitation.
From a submission ( ) by the WA Government to a High Court case in 2011 come the following paragraphs.
bill of pains2
And also,
bill of pains1
So, accepting that US Law is not applicable in Australia, it does still bill of pains4raise the question. Bills of Pains were instituted in England in the 1500’s and is it reasonable to use it 600 years later in the Australia of the 21st Century?
It may seem quite reasonable in a particular case for a Government to declare some people “Not fit and proper persons” and to force them out of an organisation even though it has not been possible to convict them in a Court of Law.
If you are Grocon Pty Ltd it may seem perfectly reasonable to find ways to remove the CFMEU from your list of obstacles. If you are a Coalition Government, it may seem reasonable to remove the skillsets at the head of the CFMEU and so cause pain to your political opponents. Perfectly reasonable and relatively harmless to the general population. Especially if it is not blown up out of all proportion by the main stream media.
Yet it is worth looking at an extension of Dyson Heydon’s Recommendation 60.
We do not have, thank goodness, the Prime Minister who created TURC and appointed its head in power at the moment. Although there are moves afoot to – – – never mind, look away, nothing to see here!
Anyway, should the Coalition chose someone similar to lead it, then the way is open to declare – oh, I don’t know – say the AFL or the NRL to be incompetently led because of the illegal drug scandals they caused. Their leadership has obviously led to Australia being lowered in the esteem of the world and so should have a similar law created to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. It would be good for the Nation if they were all declared “Not fit and proper persons” and so should not hold office in any “Registered Organisation”.
Then there is that pesky, almost treasonous Australian Labor Party. It would be good for the Nation if they were all declared “Not fit and proper persons” and so should not hold office in any “Registered Organisation”. It would be good to remove their non-parliamentary leadership. After all, the Coalition knows how to run it far better than it is being run now.
Next, the Coalition, after it is elected for the third time in a row in 2019, could begin looking at that pesky Opposition Front Bench. It would be good for the Nation if they were all declared “Not fit and proper persons” and so should not hold office in any “Registered Organisation”.
So!    Am I stretching things too far? With the dedicated backing of all the journalists in Australia is there anything to stop a scenario such as Injustice Heydon has opened? Will we all be subject to “Pains” now?
Or are the Australian voters wiser than I give them credit for?

2 responses to “InJustice Dyson Heydon and a Bill of Pains

  1. Was it fit and proper for Abbott & Pyne & Abetz to declare Kathy Jackson a heroine, a lion etc in the Aus Parliament? For that matter was it fit & proper for AG Brandis offering the same Jackson assistance at the RC? I’m sure this parliament won’t (well definitely the HORs not sure about the Senate) but a future parliament may declare such persons not fit & proper. They could then ban them from being in any parliament or even be a member of a political party.
    If that were to pass then the net could spread to Costello, Reith who promoted Jackson through the H R Nicholls Soc.
    And then we come to Lawler……proceeds of crime….
    Oh yes that fit and proper test as determined by parliament what a wondrous/ Pains thing it could be.


  2. Well spotted Archie, This is a very subjective recommendation. If your liberal then its a good idea to subject the people you don’t like to a test you make up. On the other hand we could make up a law about the apprehension of bias and make that a subjective test as well. We could even take it out of the hands of the person who is being adjudicated against, himself. Wouldn’t that be a good recommendation?

    There is also a howler in the report re being a Union Member and joining the ALP. Volume 5 chapter one paragraph 80 something.

    The Industrial relations sections as a history leave much to be desired as to a balanced view. not surprising really as this man has zero experience on the social characteristics that make workers thrive for the type of lifestyle and privilege he has.

    In my view a totally biased political review, weak in evidence and totally one sided. He even castigates the ACTU for not responding to his issues papers and singles out Ged Kearney for not responding to a letter.

    This man is the antithesis of all that has transpired in the Industrial relations battles over time, from the Employers side.

    but that is entirely the point of the TURC.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.