{"id":13882,"date":"2014-05-16T13:09:30","date_gmt":"2014-05-16T03:09:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=13882"},"modified":"2014-05-21T17:53:00","modified_gmt":"2014-05-21T07:53:00","slug":"use-it-before-you-lose-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/use-it-before-you-lose-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Use it before you lose it"},"content":{"rendered":"
In early March on The Strategist<\/i> I wrote<\/a> (in response to Andrew Zammit<\/a>) that the government should be required to provide a public response to the recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) within six months of receiving them. Barely a peep had been heard from either major party on the INSLM since its establishment in 2010, so imagine my surprise when the government raised it in Parliament only two weeks later. Unfortunately, while the government announced that it was going to address the recommendations, it also introduced a Bill to abolish the INSLM.<\/p>\n The Bill was part of the government\u2019s first \u2018Repeal Day\u2019, an effort to \u2018reduce bureaucracy and streamline government\u2019<\/a> (PDF). Ineffective legislation should be repealed, but that ineffectiveness needs to be established, which it hasn\u2019t in this case. And I don\u2019t mean that the government hasn\u2019t proven its case, but that it hasn\u2019t even made one.<\/p>\n