The political history of Australia is bloody, murderous and tyrannous.

Government has wilfully and deliberately discriminated against any politically vulnerable minority.

This has extended from acts such as kidnapping children from their parents, to the mind-numbing indifference of indefinite detention.

How can government get away with such violations of the rights and liberties of individuals?

The answer is; our system is weak, and contains no process to protect the inviolable and inalienable rights of the individual.

We have no-one representing our rights and liberties in government.

Representative government has proved incapable of protecting our rights and liberties.

Party politics has been the vehicle of oppression and aggregation of power - not liberty. So there is no relief for us there either.

The only figure that is capable of acting outside of parliament, and capable of vetoing legislation that contravenes rights, is the Governor-General.

This gives the Governor-General a genuine political role, and elevates the Australian Head of State to the protector of our rights and liberties.

Equity demands that the Australian Head of State be popularly elected in the Australian Republic.

The candidates for Governor-General would be competing over how well they can protect our rights.

This would be a positive.

The Governor-General would be limited to vetoing legislation that violated the explicit enumerated rights that are contained in a Bill of Rights.

Consequently Australia needs to establish an entrenched Bill of Rights that is universal and inclusive.

Since rights are an intrinsic property of being human and an individual, rights must pertain to all under the jurisdiction of government. Not just citizens.

Having a popularly elected Governor-General does not protect Australian liberties against the pollution of the party political system.

There remains the probability that factions will skew the Governor-General role and usurp the rights of individuals by passing legislation that violates our rights.

The second innovation that is required is the citizens being injected into the process between the Governor-General and Parliament as Ratifiers capable of rejected repugnant legislation.

The Ratifiers would be a considerable percentage of the population, possibly 1%, that would vote on a single legislative bill.

The Ratifiers would be chosen by sortition. This is a form of lottery.

The Ratifiers would not be able to vote yes on legislation, only abstain or no. A majority of no votes would send the legislation back to the Senate.

The Ratifiers are like a citizens secret ballot for each bill. A kind of superior Senate without the pollution of party discipline.

The innovations of having the Governor-General represent the Bill of Rights, and the injection of Ratifiers between Parliament and the Governor-General are necessary additions of process in our system to cover its main failing - that of not being able to protect our rights.

These innovations are also eminently achievable, and would be best purposed within the framework of an Australian Republic.

Cameron Riley. June 18th, 2005.