Here is a page of strange warnings. On the 11th one from the bottom, you may notice the famous 'thought for the day' from Chatswood Highschool, "laziness can burn your neck", still applies:
A household iron warns users: "Never iron clothes while they are being worn."
I'm moving house soon, and I have no faith whatsoever that Telstra will make my internet connection transfer smooth. Also, there is a strong likelihood I'll be going over to Cowra for the 60th anniversary of the Breakout. So I probably won't be writing here all of next week. You've been warned. :)
- Art Neuro
3 comments:
It's not so bad as long as you're not the one wearing them.
Burning issues sidelined
By PIERS AKERMAN
August 1, 2004
Question: What do diverse issues such as same-sex marriage, ATSIC, anti-terrorism and the US-Australian free trade agreement (FTA) have in common?
Answer: Federal Labor can't decide how to handle them, or has delayed making a decision for political reasons.
Opposition Leader Mark Latham hasn't really had to do much since he was voted in as the candidate-of-last-resort last December but, what he has had to do, he has flubbed.
His dilatory approach to legislation governing same-sex marriage, ATSIC, anti-terrorism and the US-Australian FTA are just a few examples of his inability to provide clear direction, but there is a downside – his ineffectual leadership is actually costing the Australian taxpayer.
The Government's Bill to abolish ATSIC was passed in the House of Representatives on June 2, but Labor delayed its passage through the Senate, ensuring it won't be passed until 2005.
The rub is that although ATSIC commissioners have almost nothing to do, they continue to be paid from the public purse, and the cost to taxpayers of their idleness will amount to almost $3.5 million before they finally depart the scene.
And it's not as if there was anything particularly complex about the Bill's proposal to abolish the ATSIC board from July 1, 2004, and the ATSIC regional councils on June 30, 2005 – even Mr Latham backed their abolition.
In its retrogressive fashion, however, Federal Labor referred the Bill to a senate select committee for consideration, although it has already announced its position on the legislation.
One of the beneficiaries of Labor's attempt to garner votes through this messy indigenous politicking will be former ATSIC boss Geoff Clark, who continues to draw his salary while awaiting the result of his appeal against termination of his appointment.
Similarly, the ALP has referred same-sex marriage legislation to a senate committee, although it passed the Bill in the House.
Simply put, the Government decided to amend the Marriage Act to include a definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman, the historical cultural and legal understanding of marriage in Australian law.
The legislation also provided that same-sex couples could not adopt children from overseas and has been referred by Labor to a senate committee.
The ALP indicated it would support the same-sex marriage amendment, but baulked at the adoption provisions. When, however, the Government introduced further legislation dealing solely with the definition of marriage and banning recognition of overseas same-sex marriage, the legislation was rejected in the Senate by Labor and minor parties.
Labor wouldn't even allow it to be debated, refusing its first reading in the Senate.
The Government's attempt to introduce strong anti-terrorism legislation has also been blocked by Labor, despite its rhetoric on national security.
The original Bill included a consorting offence; confiscation of foreign passports where the Australian passport had also been confiscated; facilitation of victim identity through use of the national DNA database in the event of a mass domestic incident; and the provision for transfer of prisoners between states, for security purposes.
Labor's shadow attorney-general, Robert McClelland, asked that the Bill be split, offering speedy passage of a Bill dealing with disaster victim identification and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock agreed, adding the confiscation of passports to the disaster victim identification provision.
Labor hasn't given a commitment to supporting this Bill and has referred the consorting offence legislation to a Senate committee.
It also delayed a Bill allowing Federal police to access stored telecommunications (voicemail and e-mails) to a senate committee, although the AFP asked for speedy passage to meet operational requirements. At least this has now been reported on and should pass in the next sitting.
Labor's inability to announce its preferred position on the FTA legislation has had widespread publicity and though Mr Latham has been reluctant to commit himself to a position on the critical trade bill, there has been no shortage of voices from the anti-American Left of the ALP denouncing the trade agreement.
Labor was silent on similar trade agreements with Thailand and Singapore, making a mockery of its concerns about the job security of Australian workers.
Informed decision-making is important, but as these four examples demonstrate, the ALP under Mark Latham seems incapable of making up its mind – or is it that he is so unsure of the strength of his leadership that he is prepared to prevaricate until a consensus view is reached?
Referring issues such as these to senate committees for decisions after they have been approved by the ALP in the Lower House shows nothing but contempt for the electorate and for the diligence of Labor's own MPs.
If Mr Latham can't trust his team in the Lower House to get it right, why does he think he can trust the team in the Upper House, and why does he believe that the electorate should trust the team as a whole?
It is patently clear Mr Latham hopes to persuade voters that he supports the pros and cons of each issue but, by attempting to straddle the political divide, he won't convince the electorate of anything but his inability to make a decision.
If Mr Latham can't offer clear-cut leadership on simple issues like these, how can he be relied upon to cope with the big decisions that face political leaders?
akermanp@sundaytelegraph.com.au
The Sunday Telegraph
My God, Piers Ackermen has been to our blog again! Doesn't he have something better to do?
Post a Comment