Is this out of the lesson you have learnt from the way you treated the Haneef case?

Hope that is so.

Not just a continuation of disingenuous politicking.

Collapse of democracy comes to mind.

Australia presently has government capable of controlling CSIRO and other science in order to milk the public and Treasury to fund multi billion CO2 nonsense.

The role of government is clearly to feather the pockets of 'honorable' members, to pander to their big business cronies, to create ridiculously overpaid positions for utterly inept friends, to do whatever is deemed necessary to ensure a permanent position on the gravy train, and to take all steps possible to avoid any suggestion of accountability.

Hi Kevin,

I think the role of government is a personal thing and depends where one sits on the political spectrum. On that basis I’ll offer my preferences.

I like the idea of small government. I don’t like government that is all over my life choices as I prefer to have the widest possible range of choices and feel confident in myself, that I can make wise decisions. I also accept that if I make bad choices I have to wear the consequences.

I warm to any government that demonstrates its willingness to keep me informed of the issues, is open and honest with the public about the inputs to their decision processes, what those processes are and how they are adhered to.

It also follows that in so doing I have no need to blame the government or its ministries.

In particular I do not wish to have to blame unelected academics, media outlets, NGO’s, banks, big companies, political/social/ecological activists, foreign governments, the UN or the EU.

I mention these because I expect my government to protect me from policies driven by those we did not elect. Anything short of this is a direct assault on what I understand to be democracy.

Currently we have a government that breaches every democratic principle I hold dear.

It seems that the majority of Australians are capable of thinking for themselves, absorbing complex issues, refuse to support manufactured populism based policies and pandering to the squeaking but vocal minorities.

In summary, we need smaller, efficient, effective and less intrusive government. A government that will serve the best interests of all Australians rather than their own narrow, divisive, sectarian self interest. Sadly this will not appeal to the minority who will lose their influence over the majority.

I have a pathological distrust of anyone in authority. Lord Acton warned us about power corrupting back in 1887. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.", and in 1997 David Brin observed 'It's said that "power corrupts," but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.' Even George Orwell in 'Animal Farm' told us in no uncertain terms what to expect from allowing a few to have power over many "All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others".
Given the number of warnings, one wonders why we didn't have the foresight to demand a proper robust system of checks and balances before allowing politicians to create their own rendition of Animal Farm. Its not even as if we can't apply sanctions at this late stage, rather we (collectively) don't possess the intestinal fortitude to DEMAND our rights. Note that politicians / councillors are still reliant on the sheeple to elect them ... whilst the scumbags would obviously dearly love to side-step this requirement & indeed attempted to move in that direction with the republic referendum, at this point they are OUR EMPLOYEES. OK then, its generally accepted that employers have a right to determine working conditions for their employees. All we need is complete & irrevocable control of the parliamentary renumeration tribunal. The present rort whereby a tame (politically appointed) governor appoints known politician friendly drones is clearly anything but 'independent', morally indefensible & to my way of thinking, constitutes intent to defraud.

Agree with Praxidice!
And I do remember the almost bizarre way Haneef was treated, Kevin!
The comedy of keystone cops and the patent racist way, some tried to justify it, on the most disingenuous grounds, I've ever been exposed to, from the born to rule elite?
Exactly when did Ms Gillard bypass cabinet?
Where can I see validated reports, the date, time and the author of the report?
Or is more of the same, according to senior Labour figures fiction, used to persuade the intellectually challenged? You know, the ones Lincoln remarked, quote unquote, you can fool all of the time!
[And given the level of leaking, maybe Julia had cogent credible reasons?]
Or is this simply more of the same endlessly trotted out, risible rubbish, used to try and justify the shameful treatment, of a very gentle and compassionate Dr Haneef?
Accountability Kevin? Oh my aching ribs!
Arguably, if the good Dr had been implicated in some sort of conspiracy, or terrorist cell activity? Surely then, covert intell gathering/surveillance, would have produced far more positive results, if there'd been any foundation of factual basis, in the rumour-mongering, that substituted for any reportable facts?
If subsequent proper fact gathering had concluded there wasn't a case to answer, the most likely outcome? The covert surveillance, could had simply ended, with none the wiser, offended or hurt!
And here you are trying to lecture us on proper process?
Are you serious?
Finally, how do we know when a polly is telling prize porkpies?
Well the short answer is, his/her mouth moves?
Rhrosty.