For masochists who found the Great Debate between Howard and Latham to be rivetting television, and who have an interest in matters legal, you may wish to view the webcast of the Great Legal Debate between Coalition cadaver and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and his Labor counterpart Nicola Roxon. It was an event conducted by the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law a couple of days ago in Sydney. The debate was chaired by the Centre’s Director George Williams (who I’m reliably informed isn’t Clive Hamilton under a pseudonym) and the contestants were quizzed (not very aggressively or even entertainingly) by a panel. I confess I didn’t find it especially exciting, but others conceivably might.
Recent Comments
- Nicholas Gruen on Minority government would be no bad thing
- John on Nuclear power – nirvana or nonsense?
- David Walker on Big infrastructure, big uncertainty
- John on Nuclear power – nirvana or nonsense?
- Geoff Edwards on Nuclear power – nirvana or nonsense?
- John Quiggin on Returning to blogging at Troppo
- Not Trampis on Nuclear power – nirvana or nonsense?
- Ken Parish on Nuclear power – nirvana or nonsense?
- John on Nuclear power – nirvana or nonsense?
- John on Nuclear power – nirvana or nonsense?
- Nicholas Gruen on Returning to blogging at Troppo
- Ken Parish on Returning to blogging at Troppo
- Ken Parish on Returning to blogging at Troppo
- Ken Parish on Anyone know a good web designer?
- Geoff Edwards on Anyone know a good web designer?
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Categories
-
Authors
Archives
Author login and feeds
Academic
Alternative media (Australian)
Alternative media (international)
Arts
Business
Centrist
Economics and public policy
Left-leaning
Legal
Online media digests
Psephology/elections
Right-leaning
Well, you did warn us. It was not very interesting and only a little more so than a reading of their policy papers. Ruddock was bland and Roxon quite smug. And not much of a debate either. I had mostly forgotten what they said as soon as the next question came up. There should have been a segment where they could throw questions at each other or at least follow up on their other answers (eg. when Ruddock wanted to interject about the Hicks issue near the end.) I don’t expect a “And Justice for All” moment, but something to think about.
Would I want these people to be my lawyer or on my side? Not really from the contents of this “debate.” An online debate would be good, with a chance for more extended answers.
And what was she talking about on the third question about the appointment/advertising of senior positions in the judiciary when she mentioned her “Mexican credentials”?
I presume she meant Victorian i.e. south of the border. Queenslanders refer to settlers from anywhere “down south” (including NSW and Victoria) as “Mexicans”.
Which would make Queenslanders Texan. Okay.