Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Howard's agenda behind the agendas?

By Judy Cannon - posted Wednesday, 7 December 2005


Michael Raper, President of the National Welfare Rights Network has warned the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry that changes to government welfare represented the most significant downgrading of income support provisions in the social security system since the Social Security Act was introduced in 1947.

He said, “Too little of the detail of how the new system will work is contained in the proposed legislation. This represents a fundamental shift in that many rights, entitlements, obligations and responsibilities, previously spelled out in legislation, will now be based on policy guidelines developed by bureaucrats. Such policy is developed without the scrutiny of parliament and may be changed at any time.”

Universities and research bodies have already felt stung by government funding dictates and strictures. They find themselves out in the market having to sell themselves on similar terms to business. The traditional idea of universities being places of fundamental research and reflection - so established thinking on anything and everything could be questioned - has been tossed out in favour of the gods of the market.

Advertisement

One impact, highlighted by Stuart Macintyre, Professor of History and Dean of the Arts at Melbourne University (The Age, November 16, 2005), suggests some researchers have become “victims of a form of political interference in the system of national competitive grants that is unique to this country”.

As a former chairman of an Australian Research Council’s panel - humanities - he claimed Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson had “vetoed some grants in the humanities that had been approved by the ARC”.

Now the board has been made non-existent, “A committee appointed by the minister, meeting in secret and applying mysterious criteria, is vetting academic applications. Those with applications rejected by the committee never find out what was wrong with their application or have an opportunity to argue their case,” he wrote.

Ironically, the proposed counter-terrorism legislation has struck more terror in people’s hearts than the likelihood of being hurt by an actual act of terrorism. Law and order proposals invariably put journalists on guard, no matter the colour of the political party pushing that barrow. Although the threat of terrorism has a dangerous and international face, both media and lawyers are widely appalled at the attempt to strengthen sedition laws which would endanger freedom of speech.

A number of Coalition backbenchers (Australian Broadcasting Commission, November 10, 2005), have also expressed reservation on the counter-terrorism legislation. The government has agreed to review the sedition provisions, but this needs to happen before legislation is passed. The counter-terrorism Bill seeks to upgrade penalties for sedition to include seven-year jail terms for promoting the use of force to overthrow the federal government.

Liberal backbencher Petro Georgiou believes such laws would threaten free speech. He is also concerned about proposed search and seize powers and a provision prohibiting those detained from contacting family members. Older migrants with personal experience of police states well understand his concerns.

Advertisement

Barrister Ian Barker (Sydney Morning Herald 14/11/05) has pointed out the significant difference between existing and proposed sedition laws. He wrote that previously a person had to commit a proscribed offence, and, at the same time, have a seditious intent. That would no longer be the case:

The definition of seditious intent is now limited to the seditious intent which may be a mark of an unlawful association. The new offences of sedition do not require proof of a seditious intention. They can be committed by mere recklessness, and they carry a penalty of seven years' imprisonment. There is a good faith exception which seems to me to be a reversal of proof. In other words, the practical effect of the new legislation is that a person accused of doing any of the things in the new criminal code bears the onus of showing he or she did not act with a seditious intent. This is repugnant to the notions of fair process.

For example, urging disaffection against the government seems to be what many ordinary people often do, born of sheer frustration … The problem is, the crime is all about words and the construction of words. It is becoming increasingly dangerous to be honest and direct in the use of words.

This is 2005, not 1605 when words could see you executed. A cool, clinical look at what is being proposed overall has to ask: are these pieces being put in place in the national jigsaw to benefit the nation, or to control the nation? What is the real agenda? Unsavoury measures allowed to slip through in phoney haste will set an uphill task for others to redeem.

By the way, there is no sin in watching carefully and trying to assess what is really happening - and then commenting publicly on it. Well, at least, not for the moment. But it is reasonable to wonder whether this article would be regarded as “seditious” next year? And if so, would it get published?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Article edited by Chris Smith.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Judy Cannon is a journalist and writer, and occasional contributor to On Line Opinion. Her family biography, The Tytherleigh Tribe 1150-2014 and Its Remarkable In-Laws, was published in 2014 by Ryelands Publishing, Somerset, UK. Recently her first e-book, Time Traveller Woldy’s Diary 1200-2000, went up on Amazon Books website. Woldy, a time traveller, returns to the West Country in England from the 12th century to catch up with Tytherleigh descendants over the centuries, and searches for relatives in Australia, Canada, America and Africa.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Judy Cannon

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Judy Cannon
Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy