rant ...

Political-speak of the day

An exchange from ABC Radio "AM" this morning:

---
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?

The G-G should gallop off

There's much wailing at the moment over whether the Australian Governor-General should stay or go, in light of the criticism levelled at home concerning his handling of allegations of abuse of children within the Anglican Church. It seems pretty clear to me that he should step down, or failing that, PM Howard should ask him to resign. While the criticism of him has no direct bearing on his current position, the office of Governor-General should be above any hint of controversy. While the role is largely ceremonial, it does hold real power (as Gough Whitlam would attest). The Governor-General needs to be trusted to wield that power if and when it is appropriate. Anything that weakens the authority of that position undermines the integrity of our constitution. If for some reason there was just cause for our Prime Minister to be sacked, how can that happen if the Governor-General only remains in that position because the PM has allowed him to remain there? We can't afford to have a lame duck G-G. As I think our current PM is the worst thing to happen to Australia in many years (and his actions will probably have an impact for years to come), I'd like to think if he goes too far that the G-G will retain some ability to act.