fatvegan

Mr Howard said part of the problem was that the federal government had no say in the chairman's appointment.

"It's a bit rich. We fund (the ACCC but) we don't have a vote," he said.

There's a quote from John Howard in the paper, about appointment of the new chairman of the ACCC. He isn't supposed to have any real say in the decision, but I get the sense that everyone is meant to vote for the person he points at anyway. This time the trade union sorts haven't listened to him and have refusen to take his side. John's quite upset, wondering what the world coming to, when scungy state level leaders get to vote for the chairman of a federally-funded commission. Surely whoever pays for something should have control over that something. Sweat-shop labour is a good example. Why should this be any different?

"I think it's a pretty poor thing that the federal government funds but we have no effective say in the choice of a chairman."

Surely he can see how silly this sounds. By their very nature, stable democracies need to have pies that the government doesn't have any fingers in. Does he believe that the federal government should have a say in the outcome of judicial cases. You could equally say "We fund the judicial system, why shouldn't we decide who gets off."