Friday, October 21, 2005
Stanhope No Longer Invited to the Party
I've been listening with horror to the news today that John Howard has elected not to consult with the ACT any longer about the new terrorist legislation.
For those of you that don't know the backstory, in a nutshell, the States and Territories have been working together with the Commonwealth on this legislation, which gives ASIO more powers to detain, investigate, etc, people connected with terrorism. (The reason the States and Territories need to be involved is because, Constitutionally, the powers required in the legislation belong to them, not the Commonwealth.)
The Commonwealth provided an in confidence copy to the premiers and chief ministers for them to look at a week ago, and our chief minister, John Stanhope, posted it on his website for people to look at, his theory being that he was a co-author of the legislation and he'd go through his normal consultative process, including with his constituents.
John Howard has now had a tantrum and, because he only needs the approval of four States or Territories now to pass the legislation, he's opted not to send a copy of the latest draft to the ACT ... or if he does provide it, it will be under strict security restrictions.
I find this absolutely galling, and it confirms to me how patronising this government is. They say that people who don't have anything to hide won't have anything to worry about, but if that's the case, why are they hiding the legislation? And how dare they just cut us out of the loop?
I'm so mad I could spit. On John Howard.
For those of you that don't know the backstory, in a nutshell, the States and Territories have been working together with the Commonwealth on this legislation, which gives ASIO more powers to detain, investigate, etc, people connected with terrorism. (The reason the States and Territories need to be involved is because, Constitutionally, the powers required in the legislation belong to them, not the Commonwealth.)
The Commonwealth provided an in confidence copy to the premiers and chief ministers for them to look at a week ago, and our chief minister, John Stanhope, posted it on his website for people to look at, his theory being that he was a co-author of the legislation and he'd go through his normal consultative process, including with his constituents.
John Howard has now had a tantrum and, because he only needs the approval of four States or Territories now to pass the legislation, he's opted not to send a copy of the latest draft to the ACT ... or if he does provide it, it will be under strict security restrictions.
I find this absolutely galling, and it confirms to me how patronising this government is. They say that people who don't have anything to hide won't have anything to worry about, but if that's the case, why are they hiding the legislation? And how dare they just cut us out of the loop?
I'm so mad I could spit. On John Howard.
// posted by Cass @ 7:52 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Where did he say that ?!?!?! I must know !?!?!?!
Man I am about fit to be tied. Which is what will happen to me I am sure, since I have the words ASIO and Hamas together in the same place on my blog.
Now you do... er .. PRANK CALL, PRANK CALL (click)
Seriously, is Howard deluded? I mean what the fu???
Man I am about fit to be tied. Which is what will happen to me I am sure, since I have the words ASIO and Hamas together in the same place on my blog.
Now you do... er .. PRANK CALL, PRANK CALL (click)
Seriously, is Howard deluded? I mean what the fu???
No, he's not deluded. He knows he can get away with anything. After all, look what Australia has let him get away with already...
*$%$^%$£&~#!!!!
*$%$^%$£&~#!!!!
Allegedly the PM has said he can still have a copy, despite Stanhope being 'discourteous'.
Reminds me of a king that line. 'Who will rid me of this troublesome chief minister???'
Stanners better avoid hanging out in chruches, or some knights might turn up to take him out.
Reminds me of a king that line. 'Who will rid me of this troublesome chief minister???'
Stanners better avoid hanging out in chruches, or some knights might turn up to take him out.
I read a quote from Howard in yesterday's paper along the lines of "I'll give it to Stanhope because I am not going to penalise the people of the ACT for him being a prat". (He didn't use the word prat but it was along those lines.)
Will weigh in now as Terchnohorrors idiot brother.
First,
Have been reading a book called Freakonomics (A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything). The book looks at conventional wisdom, ie a terrorist is going to try to blow me up, and compares it to things like the chance of being killed in a motor car accident, or a hurricane. With dial up it is hard to put funky links in, but Google Steven D. Levitt. I love it when economists go rogue.
Anyway. I think the government should seriously consider banning cars ahead of capping citizens for being for wearing a puffer jacket on a warm day...
First,
Have been reading a book called Freakonomics (A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything). The book looks at conventional wisdom, ie a terrorist is going to try to blow me up, and compares it to things like the chance of being killed in a motor car accident, or a hurricane. With dial up it is hard to put funky links in, but Google Steven D. Levitt. I love it when economists go rogue.
Anyway. I think the government should seriously consider banning cars ahead of capping citizens for being for wearing a puffer jacket on a warm day...
I found the reference, it was to heart disease rather than cars. Close but no bannana. Perhaps a ban on hot chips, or deep fried Mars Bars?
By the way Ruddock was on the radio today defending the fact that 'Australians have had plenty of time to review the proposed legislation'
No thanks to you, you pallid f_ck.
No thanks to you, you pallid f_ck.
So threatening to introduce it on Melbourne Cup day is retaliation for Stanhope posting it on the web?
Post a Comment
<< Home
