NHJ! reader Sam Butler chimes in (via email) on the 'Howard and Gay Marriage' conversation, with a response to the Peter Hackney/Margo K chat last week. Sam writes:

Margo, first up I want to say 'love your work', I think you're one of the last angry people and a passionate champion of your cause to defend democracy and expose the lies of the Howard regime.

I have to say, however, that I was a little disappointed with your reply to Peter Hackney's inquiry yesterday on the website. You were sounding disturbingly similar to Nicola Roxon with: 'Gay marriage has never been a significant issue in Australia - what gay politics is about here is giving gay partners equal rights re superannuation, tax concessions etc. Howard's change to the law is meaningless - it is already clear in our Marriage Act that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.'

While it is true that gay and lesbian

The book is excellent, unfortunately unless you make an impact on Big Brother or do a 'Mike Moore', your sweat and hard work may have virtually no impact. Who reads books anymore? People fill box shelves with dvds of the last squillion episodes of Star Trek. The only voting they really know about is via SMS. Who says we are the clever country? Certainly not in the last 15 years. Certainly Howard doesn't care about people writing negative books about him. He knows that 'his audience', 'his people' won't or more likely can't read it.

What is needed is a way to rouse the 'Our Fellow Australians' who don't give a toss about politics. Maybe you could talk to Phil Adams about producing a movie:

Mike Moore meets Bazza MacKenzie...

Terry Murphy writes again to add to his original 'List of Questions' idea. Let's keep to 'em coming,,,

I was pleased that my idea of presenting a list of questions to candidates was so well received by Antony, but immediately felt the significant pressure of having to come up with more than the two questions that had originally occurred to me!!! A little thought and a quick flick back through NHJ provided sufficient inspiration. See what you think of these.

1. What steps will you/your party take to restore the convention of Ministerial responsibility?
2. What steps will you/your party take to depoliticise the Commonwealth Public Service and the Australian Defence Forces?
3. What steps will you/your party take to return Parliamentary Question Time to a real opportunity for the Parliament to hold ministers to account for their actions or those of their departments?
4. What ste

At this query, NHJ! reader John Chambers asks whether section 51(xxiiia) of the Constitution makes 'work for the dole' unconstitutional. The short answer is 'no'.

Section 51(xxiiia) allows the Federal Parliament to make laws 'with respect to... the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances'. The words 'with respect to' means they can do anything with the power they like. They could ban unemployment benefits altogether if they wanted to. As regards the phrase 'but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription', this clearly applies only to the 'medical and dental services' clause. The section allows laws 'with respect to':
(a) maternity allowances;
(b) widows' p

Margo (or should I ask Tony Fitzgerald QC?):

Isn't the real problem that political force is now exerted baldly, rather than through some sort of court? For close to 700 years the political force of first the English monarchs, and then later, Parliament, was exerted through some sort of court. First, the monarch constituted a court; the English king was thought to be able to make judgments as a common law judge until the Case of Prohibitions in 1607. Then, Parliament was regarded as a court; legislation was called the 'judgment' of Parliament until the seventeenth century, parliamentary privilege is really the privilege of a superior court (see Erskine May, 'Parliamentary Practice' 22nd ed., p.65), and until the nineteenth century the lay peers adjudicated as the UK's highest court as an ordinary part of their parliamentary duties, because, again, Parliament was a court.

Now it is taken for granted that the legislature is NOT a court; no-one calls legislation the 'judgme

As a son of a baby boomer, with little polical learning, it's now I feel the need for the strengthening our democracy and good leadership. This book as provided me with much valuable information that we as a family need to inform us of just how big the our rulers stick is. And how it is being wielded by an infantile Draco, with Gabbe and Goyle as back up. Life in the burbs is real John, and I'm happy being one of the bunch, but I'm not happy being pushed around. It's about time you listen to the people who put you there and understand why you're there. Please don't forget it.

Hello fellow Australians. So much has happened since writing my first piece. As I initially stated, I have been moved to take a stand. If any of you watched the ABC

As I initially stated, I have been moved to take a stand. If any of you watched the ABC

This URL details a US advertising campaign to request that George Bush admit he was wrong about IRAQ. It could almost directly be transcribed for Australian purposes with Howard substituted for Bush. It has some interesting ideas in it.

NHJ! (JR): Going by the PM's post-Flood interview on The 7.30 Report last night, we're gunna need a ute full of gelignite to shift the PM even an inch on Iraq, Mike.

Margo, just for your info - I had a similar experience to Phil Edwards (15/7/2004) at Angus & Robertson in Port Macquarie last weekend. They had quite a good selection of other political books but not NHJ and didn't seem inclined to stock it. I have emailed their Head Office to let them know that I am NHA&R.

NHJ! (JR): Thanks. Let us know if you get any response, Bill.

Could we perhaps persuade Steve Waugh to stand? JH has always said that being the Australian cricket captain was the most important job in the country...replacing JH should be a snap for Steve.

NHJ! (JR). Not sure if SW is so keen on any kind of 'political brand' association with the nation's Number One Tragic, though. Waugh was originally invited to the Bush barbeque, apparently, but declined due to 'other commitments'. JH snaffled Mark Taylor instead - the opportunist polly's consolation Baggy Greener. (Kind of like inviting the PM to your footy grand final brekky and getting lumped with Robert Hill instead, huh. Maybe Waugh was, like, washing his hair on 23 Oct or something.)

However...how about Cathy Freeman for Bennelong? She's definitely got a political edge, and just imagine the fun watching the PM delicately seek out the 'right' populist line in debates on the Stolen Generations...

Congratulations Margo, you have confirmed what I began to realise in my second year (1984) as a Private Secretary on Bob Hawke's staff. Politics has very little to do with Polity and is nothing more nor less than a highly organised power play, with hypocrisy and subterfuge as its major themes.

I have only read the first 2 chapters and no doubt will have more to say when I finish what I see as a necessary read for all on the electoral role.

I really am loving the book, only bought it yesterday but am galloping through it. But it is really depressing to find that all my fears about our so-called democracy, which has turned into a a clerverly disguised dictatorship, are true, and more so. I will do everything I can to stop John ('my best friend is George') Howard from serving another term.

Margo, just wanted to thank you for your excellent book. I found it passionate, well-written and disturbing. Sometimes I laughed out loud, sometimes my blood ran cold. The chapters on media ownership and Bush's visit angered me the most. It's fantastic that in these cynical times, someone has made the effort to write and compile a book like this. And I love the fact that (despite the title) it's not just a partisan rant, but aims to create dialogue across and beyond the old Left/Right divide. Every time I read a transcript of an interview where you asked tough questions of a politician (or one of their media people), I felt so grateful that there are (a few) journalists keeping these people accountable, despite all their attempts to prevent it. More power to you.

The Australian Jewish News (AJN) continues to feature comments and coverage on NHJ and my Ashrawi chapter.

A letter appears today from Michael Danby, Labor MP for Melbourne Ports. He accuses me of being 'a non-entity who represents a telephone-box group of Jewish Australians', a 'fringe player' and says the Sydney media gave Ashrawi far too much positive coverage during her visit to Sydney last November.

(There are a few more letters in print, hammering Margo and myself, not available online.)

Suffice to say, I strongly disagree with the charges made by Danby. Attempting to portray Margo and myself as outsiders on the Israel/Palestine question belies the facts. Important debates about Israel's future, the occupation and Ariel Sharon are increasingly occurring overseas, but perhaps we aren't mature enough to have them here yet. NHJ is the first step in addressing this imbalance.

An opinion <