history is repeating itself! The army were used in the NT because they had the equipment, the medico's, the tents, the AT vehicles. They didn't actually 'occupy' anything! They were there to logistically assist health and welfare professionals to investigate the horrors of child abuse. The Intervention was passed by both houses. ant : 16 Feb 2010 9:31:49am Blah, blah, blah, itmatters. It was a coup, coup, coup. Just because they didn't use guns and there was no blood doesn't mean it wasn't a coup. And what possible relevance can it have who appointed Fraser? The fact is he had an elected government sacked. Unprecedented, and a forerunner of what's going on with the Senate now. The senate is a house of review, not a house of obstruction. Nor is it the right of any political party or coalition of parties to strong arm the governor general into sacking an elected government. Of course everything's a rant if you don't agree with it. The NT intervention was an election year stunt. I don't claim it's not doing some good, I only claim that John Howard used it and the army for electoral purposes. Do you really imagine I don't know all about the loans affair? That's not the point. The point is any party that has a majority in the senate could, if they followed the Liberals example, block supply and sack an elected government. My point is that this was a radical, not a conservative course of action and