|
|
The news that the bill would not be tabled before the next election was first noticed in the Australian newspaper this morning, penned by one of the paper's specialist legal writers, suggesting that lawyers involved in drafting the legislation may have let something slip about the lack of progress.
The polarising legislation, supported by a variety of religious and child-support groups and just as strongly opposed by a broad coalition of technical and civil liberty groups has never been made available for formal review.
The view that the filter legislation would not be introduced in the current parliamentary term was first expressed by Green's Sen. Scott Ludlam in late February.
Despite a high degree of opposition by qualified technical people who have insisted that the proposal is unworkable, and even the work of euthanasia supporters who have conducted workshops for people to bypass the filter (in minutes), the Government has insisted that the proposal has merit.
A representative from Sen. Conroy's office noted "A public consultation on improved transparency measures has been held and the Department is now working with other Government agencies to consider the submissions and examine whether the ideas can be used to enhance the proposed accountability and transparency measures."
One wonders exactly which members of the public were consulted.
|
One can only hope that those against the filter but who vote for the Government at the next election will not be regarded as tacit proponents. Mandates are such tenuous things.
For those unfamiliar, the "Soup Nazi" is a character in a Seinfeld episode. The term "Nazi" is used as an exaggeration of the excessively strict regimentation he constantly demands of his patrons. One can't imagine which Government minister this might be referring to.
