![]() The Indian Evidence Act is the adjective law, steps in for the enforcement of the substantive law. Adjective laws are those, which define the pleading and procedure by which substantive laws are applied in practice. Substantive laws are those, which define the rights, duties and liabilities, the ascertainment of which is the purpose of every judicial enquiry. The entire corpus juris (body of laws) is broadly classified into 2 categories, i) substantive laws, and ii) adjective laws. Substantive laws are those, which define the rights, duties and liabilities. To know that there is a difference between hurt feelings and public policy.The entire corpus juris (body of laws) is broadly classified into 2 categories, i) substantive laws, and ii) adjective laws. ![]() The impossible art of getting things done without blowing things up.Īnd perhaps more than anything the ability to distinguish between the personal and the political. Progress without revolution, a win without a war. Only the due process of the justice system can tell.Īnd this brings us back to the first ever prime minister of an ancient political culture we have inherited and a practitioner of the most important political value: Stability. Yet perhaps now she has exposed someone who has debased the privilege of parliament even more. On other issues she has so debased parliamentary and public debate that little she said could be conceived as believable at face value. When she first made her explosive allegations against David Van, many assumed it was merely another of her trademark political rants that struggled to meet credulity. Ironically it is Lidia Thorpe who has brought the public’s attention to this very question. The true question isn’t “Why aren’t there rules against such behaviour?” – There are! – but why are such people in the parliament? Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe addresses the Senate following her allegation that Liberal Senator David Van sexually assaulted her at Parliament House in Canberra. Instead we must surely return to some kind of sensibility that some things are so obviously stupid or wrong they automatically disqualify a person from public life not by legislative or regulatory edict but basic commonsense. In recent years politicians have been inventing evermore rules and protocols dictating the limits of human interaction that are almost as creepy as their violation. Meanwhile Labor will be drawing the world’s biggest sigh of relief that the laser has been diverted back to the LNP for a while.īut that is not enough. These are profound and weird questions and they speak to a profound and weird dysfunction in both the parliament and the Liberal Party machine. ![]() How on earth did someone who the tougher-than-nails conservative Amanda Stoker said had violated her remain on the Victorian Liberal ticket?Īnd how on earth did all of this get finally exposed by Lidia Thorpe? How on earth was someone whose entire office had to be moved because of complaints about his behaviour not moved out of the Senate itself? There will of course be a soaring conclusion to this column that as usual prays for a modicum of sanity or intelligence in our paltry current polity but before we reach those dizzying heights let’s just ask a couple of quick questions. ![]() Senator David Van in the Senate at Parliament House in Canberra. Eventually our histories catch up with us all and ghosts of the past come back to haunt us.įor this government that spectre is just how close it got to exploiting the sexual assault allegations raised by Brittany Higgins for its own political advantage while in opposition.Īnd on a more personal and tragic plane it is also the ghost of the late great Kimberley Kitching, who was said to have been so mortified by this that she warned her fellow senator Linda Reynolds that the weaponisation of such allegations was afoot. It has been refreshingly scandal free and defined by issues of – shock horror – governmental policy.īut as all romantics know, the first flush of love exists only in the present. It has now been more than a year since the Albanese Government was elected and it has rightly enjoyed a honeymoon period double the usual six months offered to blushing political brides. Stabilisers should be celebrated and a stabiliser is what our modern political miasma desperately needs. Yet compared to his many world famous successors – two Pitts, a Peel and a Palmerston plus Disraeli, Gladstone, Churchill, Thatcher and Blair – Walpole is hardly a household name.Īsked why this was the case, historian Jeremy Black responded: “Walpole is a stabiliser and stabilisers are unusual as heroes.” The first episode named the very first prime minister: Robert Walpole. A BBC history podcast once asked historians to nominate who they thought was the greatest British prime minister.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |