Sorry about the lack of inspiration in the 'writing' last night, but when a reasonable topic came up halfway through the evening, I was too tired/bored to consider writing it. So now I will do a twenty minute rush job before work LOL. Just remembered I have to do some internet banking as well, so yay even more distractions.
I love some aspects of Australian politics, one of these aspects being the uncertainty over where the state/federal government responsibility boundaries are. Whereas in the United States, at least from a distance, it looks like the state/federal divide is pretty static, and has the guardians of the Supreme Court keep an eye on things - although, if you believe small government conservatives, the federal government has gotten the better of things since Warren was Chief Justice - in Australia, being a younger country without a Supreme Court perhaps, no one really seems to know where the outer limits of their responsibilities are.
Point in question, the anti terror laws proposed. Now, seemingly, the federal (or commonwealth), state and territory governments all need to sign off on the legislation. When they had the Grand Meeting in Canberra a couple of weeks ago, the feds basically said we can't show you all the legislation, but trust us - oh, all right then, we will have a ten year sunset clause. That concession was only given through gritted teeth it seemed.
Then the ACT (Australian Capital Territory, like District of Columbia, but bigger and less people) Chief Minister put up the proposed legislation on his website, the federal government got in a strop - John Howard and Phillip Ruddock unhappy, oh dear what a shame LOL - and even then the other state government leaders said well that will help the terrorists blah blah.
The thing has been on a slow burn this week, they had a debate by academics on Monday night I think, but finally the state premiers woke up to the fact that the legislation had a shoot to kill provision for undercover police, and the Victorian and Queensland premiers were on TV last night saying they weren't told about this in the first place. Hmm OK - passing the buck LOL.
The Victorian premier being one of those who said the ACT minister was irresponsible, and of course the Queensland premier being slaughtered in the integrity stakes by a local health inquiry.
Okies, gotta rush to have a shower and get ready for work now. At least the above must be better than inspirational emails?
Pauly
I love some aspects of Australian politics, one of these aspects being the uncertainty over where the state/federal government responsibility boundaries are. Whereas in the United States, at least from a distance, it looks like the state/federal divide is pretty static, and has the guardians of the Supreme Court keep an eye on things - although, if you believe small government conservatives, the federal government has gotten the better of things since Warren was Chief Justice - in Australia, being a younger country without a Supreme Court perhaps, no one really seems to know where the outer limits of their responsibilities are.
Point in question, the anti terror laws proposed. Now, seemingly, the federal (or commonwealth), state and territory governments all need to sign off on the legislation. When they had the Grand Meeting in Canberra a couple of weeks ago, the feds basically said we can't show you all the legislation, but trust us - oh, all right then, we will have a ten year sunset clause. That concession was only given through gritted teeth it seemed.
Then the ACT (Australian Capital Territory, like District of Columbia, but bigger and less people) Chief Minister put up the proposed legislation on his website, the federal government got in a strop - John Howard and Phillip Ruddock unhappy, oh dear what a shame LOL - and even then the other state government leaders said well that will help the terrorists blah blah.
The thing has been on a slow burn this week, they had a debate by academics on Monday night I think, but finally the state premiers woke up to the fact that the legislation had a shoot to kill provision for undercover police, and the Victorian and Queensland premiers were on TV last night saying they weren't told about this in the first place. Hmm OK - passing the buck LOL.
The Victorian premier being one of those who said the ACT minister was irresponsible, and of course the Queensland premier being slaughtered in the integrity stakes by a local health inquiry.
Okies, gotta rush to have a shower and get ready for work now. At least the above must be better than inspirational emails?
Pauly
No comments:
Post a Comment