On Tuesday there was a funny little "debate" in Sydney between the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, and his shadow, Senator Joe Ludwig. Debate might be too strong a word. It was more like a couple of arthritic wombats having a gentle head butt or, as the British Labour chancellor Denis Healey said of Geoffrey Howe, his shadow, "being attacked by [Howe] was like being savaged by a dead sheep".

Ruddock looks about 150 years old and is standing for his umpteenth election. He brought all the energy and animation for which he is justly famous to the proceedings. Ludwig came with his slow Queensland drawl and the swivel-eyed caution born of a long family line of factional warriors.

The Queensland senator started strongly. "Before you stands the Attorney-General who oversaw the farce of the Mohamed Haneef case. Before you stands the Attorney-General who let David Hicks rot in jail for five years. Before you stands the security chief who did nothing to protect the safety of the community at our airports, until a customs officer blew the whistle."

Actually the Attorney-General was sitting down during this savaging and when it was his turn he said he didn't much like Ludwig's negative attitude.

Ruddock was all about building a brave new tomorrow, such as the "harmonisation" of our laws. In particular, he said, he was passionate about harmonising the various statutes dealing with personal property security, electronic conveyancing, evidence, statutory declarations and powers of attorney.

Importantly, he had a "vision" about reducing red tape. Wow. It can't get much more exciting than that, surely.

But there were issues up for some slo-mo jousting that do go to the heart of real character-shaping opportunities for Australia: the "culture of secrecy" that pervades the Government, the bullying and manipulation of public servants, and the low levels of ministerial accountability.

All of which made the release the day before of the "independent" audit into the state of free speech in Australia quite timely. It found a quiet and steady whittling back of openness to information and the freedom of expression.

It was independent to the extent that the nation's big media companies and organisations, under the baton of John Hartigan from News Ltd, paid for it and so, as Mandy Rice Davies would put it, "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

That is not to say it was not an excellent survey of the obstructions that make the extraction of information from governments and the courts much more difficult for the media.

[Accessed Sydney Morning Herald Website]

NSW may ban smoking in cars

THE Premier, Morris Iemma, says the Government may ban parents in cars smoking in front of their children.

Mr Iemma said the NSW cabinet office had been "considering this in the light of both South Australia and Tasmania [having] passed rules in this area".

In South Australia, laws banning people smoking in cars where children under 16 are present were introduced in May.

Since then, 41 drivers in South Australia have been issued with $75 on-the-spot fines by police and 15 have been cautioned.

Tasmanian legislation comes into effect from January 1 that will introduce fines of up to $2000 for people smoking in cars when children were present.

Mr Iemma said it was a "possibility" such a law might be introduced in NSW.

"What we're doing at the moment is examining the experience in Tasmania and South Australia," he said.

"We want to see what impact that has had and how it's gone, so it's timely we have another look.

"Having been someone who sat in the passenger seat of a car while my father was driving and puffing away, I found it a disgusting habit."

Mr Iemma was speaking at the launch of a graphic new $1.4 million anti-smoking television advertising campaign aimed at reducing lung cancer.

Smoking rates in NSW have reduced since the introduction of graphic pictures on cigarette packets put into place by the Federal Government and the introduction of an indoor ban on smoking in pubs and clubs. But the NSW Government has been criticised for not being tough enough on the rules concerning outdoor smoking areas at pubs and for dropping a proposal to ban tobacco point-of-sale displays at supermarkets and shops.

• In this article we can see that the author has used monetary and numeral statistics to help provide solid features for their argument.
• The author also used a Political leader to validate their claim, by providing a quote strengthens the point.