Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

House of unrepresentatives

Man of Steel champions representative democracy, from the SMH:

'There are occasions where I make decisions [...] which are based clearly on the majority view of the public, and there are occasions when I don't.'

In a related issue, is this statement on the Australian Government Attorneys General's Department 'Hot Topics' page a proper use of taxpayer funded information delivery (and reflective of the separation of powers), or a politicised platform for the minister to attack legitimate critics of legislation?

'Sedition

It is clear the most vocal critics and commentators have not read the legislation - that is the only way of explaining why many have ignored the existence of a "good faith" defence or the fact a person would need to have intentionally urged the use of force or violence to be prosecuted for the offence of sedition. For those who would like to know what the legislation actually states, here is the link (see Schedule 7): Anti-Terrorism Bill (No2) 2005.'

[Note, the supplied link to the Bill no longer functions. Also note public criticism arose from the previous draft of the laws, which the minister objected to being released by the ACT Chief Minister. After changing the Bill, the AG continued to criticise objectors to the wording that was removed - Ed.]

The Department's own publication Australia's National Framework for Human Rights - National Action Plan states:

'Australia has a strong and representative democracy, signifying government by the people through their representatives.'

'Signifying' but not guaranteeing.

The Australian Government Information Management Office publication Guidance on Departmental and Ministerial Websites clearly is at odds with the AG's practice:

14. Nor should departmentally funded websites contain material of a party political nature. [...] It is not in order, however, for material that relates solely to party political issues [...] to be placed on a departmentally funded site.'

To 'attack the policies of the Opposition' is a very different proposition to attacking critics of unpopular law. Whether the critics of the Sedition laws were right or not is not at issue here: the use of government websites for political purposes in supporting that law by criticising the public demands consideration.

The AG is currently contemplating expanding the Sedition provisions to allow banning of books and other publications.

Item posted by AutoEditor at 11:36 am ::