rant ...

Labor screw up - again

In a sellout which undermines their supposed concentration on policy, Labor have caved in and decided to help pass the government's ASIO legislation. In the coverage I've read so far, there's been no indication of why any change in the law is required. Surely that should be the first rule of thumb for any legislation - do we need it? Or are our current laws enough?

As discussed on Media Watch this week, the substance of the legislation is really scary. The SMH explains one provision thus:

Imprison for up to five years any suspected `terrorist sympathisers' who refuse to volunteer `highly relevant' information, fail to answer questions accurately or to produce documents or other requested items.

So, if you refuse to talk, they'll gaol you. If you honestly don't know what they think you know, they'll probably gaol you for that too - you've got to be able to prove that you don't know it. That's seriously screwed up logic and makes a mockery of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

You will have access to a lawyer of your choice but ASIO will be able to prevent you from using 'particular lawyers'. Does that mean they'll give you a choice from three that they like?

As some have pointed out, this legislation goes further than anything implemented by the US or the UK. As I said above, the question of why our current laws aren't good enough hasn't been answered. Labor, you're shooting yourself in the foot here - just because Howard wants you to play his stupid game doesn't mean you have to.

Repeat after me...

John's not one for original thoughts is he? From the SMH:

Mr Howard said yesterday any inquiry was premature and the Opposition wasn't giving the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction enough time.

That sounds familiar doesn't it? Didn't the UN weapons inspectors say something like that before the war? And didn't Howard and Bush respond with "time's up?" Well John, time's up, now let's have that inquiry and find the truth...

John Howard: megalomaniac

John Howard disgusts me. That's a strong statement but almost every time I hear him speak, that's usually my reaction. I don't mean it in a light-hearted sense either: he disgusts me as comprehensively as anyone could. He says and does things which strike me as reprehensible. Today, in announcing that he'd like to dismantle the power of the Senate to block some of his more outrageous proposals, he said this about Australia:

"We no longer are mesmerised by the self-appointed cultural dieticians who tell us that, in some way, they know better what an Australian ought to be than all of us who know what an Australian has always been, and always will be."

That's a statement lacking in hope if ever I heard one.

When Australia began to turn away from racism, whether it be recognising the rights of our aboriginal people or by encouraging multiculturalism, we stepped forward as a nation. When we began to encourage equal recognition for both sexes, we stepped forward. When we began the discussions of whether we should be a republic, we stepped forward.

When John Howard had the opportunity to say sorry to the aboriginal people, he shied away from it. When he was given the opportunity to clearly denounce racism, either by responding to Pauline Hanson or Fred Nile (and his concerns over traditional muslim dress possibly concealing weapons), he shied away from it. When he had the opportunity to introduce paid maternity leave in his latest budget, he shied away from it. When he had the opportunity to help our country stand on its own two feet as a truly independent nation, he shied away from it.

Instead we get him attacking the concept of free higher education, we get him attacking the safety net provisions of our health system, we get him attacking the integrity of our national broadcaster and now, just because there's nothing else left, he decides to attack the very foundation of our system of government.

I can't think of one positive thing he has done to improve the social fabric of our country and I find that genuinely distressing. I think of Australia as a place where we believe in honesty, justice and a fair go for all (a cliche I hope we cling to for years to come) and I can't think of anything he's done to promote that. Maybe he spoke about it in a speech once but what has he actually done?

Liberals like to say that John makes the tough decisions. Yes, he does, but that doesn't mean those are the right decisions for our country. Deciding to invade Iraq was probably a tough decision but was invading a country without UN approval and without concrete evidence of the need for it the right decision? Will it make Australia less or more susceptible to terrorism?

These are indeed frightening times in Australia and our PM can take most of the credit for that.

Johnny to the rescue

So Johnny's going to hang around eh? "While ever it remains in the party's best interests and my colleagues want me to, I'd be honoured to continue as leader." That's rubbish. Being PM is in his best interest and he'll do it as long as he can get away with it. You can't tell me that he doesn't love the overseas trips, the hobnobbing, the applause and of course, the power. I suspect the decision will now begin to cause him grief, as it will force Costello to decide how he's going to proceed when his ambitions are pretty clear. It will also force the Labor Party to smarten up their act as they realise that they're going to have to fight Howard at yet another election. The most amusing thing I saw today was the archival footage of Howard denying that he would even think of challenging Peacock for the leadership in terms that suggested Costello had referred to that press conference in preparing his own response to the same question today.

Personally, I think Costello could prove a real danger to Howard. He's usually played his cards very close to his chest (he rarely says much outside his role as Treasurer) and when he has expressed personal opinions, such as his thoughts on Aboriginal reconciliation and the republic, he's represented the polar opposite of Howard. I'll be interested to see how what he does now.

As for the Labor leadership, I suspect Crean's days are numbered. If Labor has to fight an election against Howard, Crean won't stand a chance. In that case Beazley would be a reasonable choice because this time he won't let Howard get away with the sort of racist rubbish and scaremongering we saw in the last election campaign. The electorate began to warm to Beazley after witnessing him in action against Howard in that campaign's debate and I suspect the same will happen next time around. If Labor opted for anyone else, they'd have the almost impossible task of establishing themselves against someone as entrenched as Howard. Mark Latham has been mentioned as leadership material but as refreshing as his blunt comments about Howard's "arse-licking" were, he needs to find a way of being blunt without alienating the general public through his choice of words. If he toned down the language but retained the directness of the message, he could be a deadly opponent for a run-of-the-mill politician who likes to dance around with fancy words. When was the last time you used 'multilateral' in a sentence?

a thought

If a manager in a company makes a decision that causes people to lose their jobs, it should be compulsory for them to shake the hands of the affected staff and wish them well when they leave. If they're not prepared to do that, they're not qualified to make the decision.