Comments on: National Security Legislation: worst discussion paper ever.

By: SHEILA NEWMAN

SHEILA NEWMAN — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:18:49 +0000

Also, could the author please clarify what is meant by the statement below?

notably this phrase: “public interest immunity” (of whom?)

“And while the bulk of the discussion paper is given over to a series of amendments to simplify and clarify the operation of the public interest immunity in trials of those charged with terrorist offences – because the Attorney-General plainly does not have enough power to intervene to gag witnesses and lawyers in court proceedings – the paper is silent on the absurdity that is restrictions on an individual’s right to alert their family or legal representatives that they have been interned by security agencies.”

Thanks.

By: SHEILA NEWMAN

SHEILA NEWMAN — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:16:44 +0000

There may be little liklihood of a real terrorist attack in Australia, but the governments are probably afraid that groups among its citizens will revolt against the rapid disappearance of their rights and quality of life. Take Victoria’s increasingly dictatorial legislation and policy on population growth, infrastructure expansion and housing density and the loss of green spaces. This planning rules-over-democracy is happening in every state and territory to my knowledge. Democratic representation in government was initially structurally affected by the removal of power from local governments.

These changes are taking place accompanied by increasing costs for residents (rising land-for-housing prices, rising water prices, rising food prices and rising cost of business and living, and grabs at profit by a variety of arms-length-from-government authorities, business cases and commercial entities cleaning up the crumbs from power and water-retail.

Citizenship carries less and less meaning as rights acquired through tradition but never articulated at law disappear in the face of lobby groups - notably the property development groups which are virtually synonymous with government - maybe they ARE the government now.

By: bakerboy

bakerboy — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:32:29 +0000

Howard has a lot to answer for re terrorism. The likelihood of a real terrorist attack in Australia is remote. It just doesn’t add up. We have a reasonably peaceful, homogenous community and overall the best living conditions in the world. Migrants fall over themselves to come here legally or otherwise. Howard used 9/11 to create a climate of fear. His commitment to the war in Iraq actually increased the chance of terrorism here but still a low risk. These misguided fools from the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne that have been hatching ‘terrorism’ down the local coffee shop are not a threat to anyone but themselves. The AFP and ASIO, both discredited organisations, have trunped up the threat to get more money from the goverment and more highly paid desk jobs. Don’t mention Bali or any other attacks in Indonesia, different situation to Australia.

By: AR

AR — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:16:38 +0000

To combine and paraphrase Lord Acton & WH Auden, “The Ogre tends to absolute corruption”.