---
LOUSIE YAXLEY: But can a passenger stepping onto an aircraft today and
into the future, be confident that the person sitting next to them won't
be wielding some form of wooden implement or weapon?
JOHN ANDERSON: Well firstly they can be assured that if somebody is
carrying a weapon or seeks to use that weapon, the full force of the law
is available to, you know, to be deployed against them, but secondly, look
this does raise issues, I mean, about non-detectable items being carried
on people's person, and we will have to think through carefully what the
options are for checking those sorts of things.
---
I think the only way the law would be of any use at 30,000 feet would be if you had some law books to thump the guy over the head with. Thanks John, that was very reassuring.
and then this exchange later in the discussion:
---
LOUISE YAXLEY: What's your reaction to hearing Sir William Deane making
comments about the government, saying that it's failed to protect
Australian citizens' human rights in the case of David Hicks, or protect
the human rights of children at Woomera?
JOHN ANDERSON: I've not directly heard those. I think the only general comment I would make is that they sound very much as though they are commentary that belong in the political domain, and as to whether or not even though the position is no longer occupied by the Governor-General as to how they might reflect on the office, I must say I have a reservation or two.
LOUISE YAXLEY: What do you mean by that?
JOHN ANDERSON: Well, that's, that's all I have to say.
LOUISE YAXLEY: Minister, thank you for your time.
JOHN ANDERSON: Thank you.
---
I think her final question was a very good one.
This article in The Age expanded on that final discussion a little. I found Howard's response interesting ("I don't agree"), especially in light of Deane's statement "If the coming generations of leaders refuses to honestly confront the denial of justice or truth ... our nation will surely lose its way". I hope Howard doesn't disagree with that proposition.
Then, in what would be comical if it wasn't so offensive, Howard offered this: "Whether he actually said all of those things I don't know because I have not seen the speech." Why comment if you don't know what exactly you're commenting on John? Isn't that how the whole children overboard thing happened in the first place? Isn't a "I'd better not comment now" a safer response to the whole line of questiioning?
Posted by david at May 30, 2003 11:51 AM