Fraser's anti-terrorism law concerns.

Howard rejects Fraser's anti-terrorism law concerns.:

"Prime Minister John Howard has refused to be drawn on comments by his former leader, Malcolm Fraser, criticising the Government's proposed anti-terrorism laws."

The difficulty with not discussing anything is you end up making unilateral decisions and when you are the head honcho it means you are then a tyrant at worst and a dictator at best. John Howard is no tyrant but he tends to stand alone on a number of issues. His strength is he will not be drawn, but it is also his weakness, for it means he no longer has a democracy here in this country. That may suit him, but it means we are no longer governed by consultation and expert opinion. It worries me greatly that a number of people of import, including Mr. Fraser, have raised points about the new anti terror laws. In a democracy I should expect these people to be heard and their points discussed. It is a really healthy sign when a nation can raise issues and debate them at length and at breadth. One of the things I like about NZ is when you go over there everyone is talking about everything. The whole nation is in debate about current issues. In delis, in cafes, at the bus stop. The television and radio include tyou in debate. You really feel like you belong and that decisions are then well founded and solid. Same in France, big issues are widely discussed and sometimes debated with great gusto. Everyone has a point of view. It feels so good. The heads of state have also raised issues about the "shoot to kill" policies which have slid in. Mr. Beattie says there is no point in making a political issue of it. It is a political issue, because the heads of state discussed our anti terror porcedures with Mr. Howard. then they were all happy. Suddenly there is a new twist and Mr. Howard is saying, well, sorry, I am not discussing this. No-one is really against changes to manage situations where we are exploded, maimed and abused because we were there. That is occurring, it is a blatant use of the ordinary citizen and it creates a lot of pain, destruction...and media hype. Those who would explode us get a lot of media mileage from their mayhem. Our laws already cover the right of police to kill anyone who is going to harm the general public with a grenade, gun, blah...The anti terror laws have increased the amount of time someone can be held on suspicion without any real case. There's a good side to that and a bad one. These are the things we ought to be discussing so we fully understand the changes and we stop ourselves from tying ourselves in knots or replicating procedures we already have. I agree with Mr. Fraser, we need wide ranging discussion. Animated debate is great.