Andrew Landeryou has a nuanced post

Not likely.

Not clicking through to check, either.

- It provided a whopping precedent for Federal meddling in State powers, including threats of referenda and withdrawal of funding for unrelated state services.
- The huge chorus of approval from the media and most Australians surely helped build Howard’s belief in a ‘crash through’ strategy when he thinks he is doing something right.
- It is a moral outrage issue, and forces antagonists to choose ‘the side of the angels’.

It’s used during the trial for the most part because the jury has no handed down its verdict. The ‘presumptions’, such as they are, then change. But yes, to a non-lawyer a not guilty verdict can look like an affirmation of innocence.

Thanks for your good wishes, too.

By the way, all the best for when you head overseas.

Notice that the Howard government doesn’t want to take over education or health (but does want them run them on their ideological framework), yet they do want to take over IR and infrastructure etc, why? Simple, everything the Feds want to take from the States are money makers, but everything they want to leave to the states are big money losers (because of their very nature). So the Feds support the private side of these entities but deliberately under fund the public side. If they could the Feds would have no hesitation on lumping the States with Defence and then under fund that as well, which btw Howard does anyway though you would think he doesn’t by the way he spins it.

Re Abbott proposing to take over Health, the states have asked Abbott to take over health on more than one occasion but Abbot and Howard have declined the offer. If Abbott took over health he would not have the states to blame and would have to take full responsiblity for any problems with the health system.
The government took over industrial relations to implement Work Choices, they are trying to take over the rivers to show they have a plan for water resources.
Howard is attempting a take over of aboriginal affairs for short term political purposes, he can blame the states for all the problems yet does not have to accept blame for any failures as the elction will be over.

“Labor have seen the trap and are not responding and Howard is showing some frustration. He clearly wants a fight. His negative response to Beatties sensible proposal for a COAG meeting to coordinate action and plan for the medium and long term also shows he is not really interested in solutions but is after a political objective.”

I also think this. In fact this seems to extend a strategy from Howard to use the states, as being all Labor as a way of getting back to the Federal ALP. Howard seems to use any connection, being a union official or a state, however tenous to criticise Labor.

This also seems to show a shift in the politics of Australia. My memory of the 1970′s and 1980′s was that the Federal Government would take on the states at its peril. Any perception of taking over states’ rights would have created a big backlash, even from premiers of the same political party.

But again with the Murray Darling and now this, it seems that takeovers of Federal Government of States responsibilites (and remember that Tony Abbot proposed to take over health as well?)are normal. And this from a party that traditionally was the defender of States’ rights unlike ‘centralist’ Labor.

The common belief is that are states which are most remote from Canberra where the anti-Federal interference feeling is strongest.

It will be intersting how this issue will play in states like Western Australia. Alan Carpernter has alreay stated his opinions about it.

Indeed, in the Hurley matter the defence made a no-case submission on a voir dire (in the absence of the jury), but it was rejected by Justice Dutney. The core of a no-case submission is that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, would be unable to find the accused guilty.

When a jury finds the accused ‘not guilty’, it means that the Crown has been unable to discharge the burden of proof to the requisite standard (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in a criminal trial). As the matter has already been brought to trial, it is not for the jury to make findings beyond those of either ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’.

The first the night before last in response to Labor’s full bipartisanship response; “I find Labor’s response puzzling.”

The second came last night in his ludicrous speech trying to compare the supposed disaster of the NT Aboriginal communities as being a slow Cyclone Katrina without the hand of God, thus requiring a similar emergency response from the government. Howard stated on Labor’s bipartisan unqualified support (except for accountability and quantifiability) “Labor can’t have it both ways.”

Sorry about that.

…a mainstay of Australian bogdom.

I’m not all that certain Quiggan would appreciate that one.

There was no such finding. Instead, there was a finding that he was not guilty, which is quite a different thing.