G�day. I�ve just heard the news that Indonesia�s top appeal court has ruled the conviction of a Bali bomber unconstitutional because he was convicted under retrospective criminal laws in breach of Indonesia�s constitution. This could be another Howard scandal in the making.

 

How on earth did it happen that Australia endorsed retrospective criminal laws in Indonesia when it refused to do so itself so Hicks and Habib could be charged if returned to Australia from Guantanamo Bay? It�s a fundamental democratic principle that you can�t be convicted of a crime for conduct which was not a crime at the time. It�s likely Australia�s High Court would overrule such a conviction, even though the principle is not entrenched in our constitution.

Questions for Howard and co. What involvement did Australia have in encouraging or pressuring Indonesia to enact special terrorism laws after the event and charge the alleged Bali bombers under them rather than under existing murder andconspiracy laws? Why did it not strongly press Indonesia not to do so, to avoid the real risk of the tragedy dragging on for survivors and the families of the dead?

Was this yet another quick Howard fix in defiance of legal advice? Yet another “ends justify the means” play which yet again will end in tears? Let the Freedom of Information requests roll in.

Here�s what I wrote way back in August 2003 in The danger for Australians of approving death for Amrozi:

…Then there’s the question of our blatant double standards on due process. Neither Australia nor the United Kingdom passed retrospective new criminal laws against terrorist acts after September 11. The reason is simple – it is bedrock basic to a Western democracy that the country is ruled by laws, not men. In other words, if your liberty is at stake, as it is for a criminal offence, the law as it is laid down at the time you do something is the law that applies. Otherwise, the society is wide open to capricious ex-post-facto abuses of power by political leaders and the enforcement apparatus of the state.

Yet Indonesia did make its anti-terror retrospective, and charged Amrozi under that law. That law is in clear breach of a specific clause in the Indonesian Constitution banning retrospective criminal laws, the core fact Amrozi’s lawyer will argue on appeal. The Indonesians failed to also charge Amrozi with murder or offences under the law as it stood at the time of the Bali bombing, meaning that if appeal courts strike out his conviction as unconstitutional, he will walk free.

So how could Australia, through Howard and Crean, back a death penalty resulting from the degradation of the rule of law, a core standard the principle our nation says it’s fighting for in the war on terror? Did Australian authorities assist Indonesia in laying the charges against Amrozi as it did in investigating the bombing?

If Australia did not help ensure that the Indonesian judicial process was watertight and scrupulous, our government has failed us in a profound sense. The precautionary principle is crucial in handling the war on terror. It appears this principle has been ditched along with quite a few others in this trial.

A legal injustice – and this one is blatant – gives explosive ammunition to our enemies in the war on terror. How, for example, can we now credibly lobby other governments on behalf of our citizens caught up in overseas criminal proceedings on the basis that our citizens did not receive a fair trial? For the values we are fighting for to survive, we must consistently apply those values in practice.

Sounds so naive now, doesn’t it. But it’s still true.

Just days after Linda Ronstadt was escorted off the premises of a Les Vegas casino for daring to introduce �Desperado� with a recommendation to see Michael Moore�s new film, a group of NSW north coast artists announced a �Rage against Howard� gig in Lismore. This election will be like no other. Apathy rules? You�ve got to be kidding! WebdiaristAndy Gough sent me the details:

 

Musicians and performers from across the Northern Rivers region of NSW have clamoured to be on the bill for a unique �Rage against HoWARd� benefit gig at the Italo Australia Club, North Lismore, on Saturday, July 31. There will be non-stop entertainment from two stages upstairs; in the main auditorium and in the lounge bar.

“The response has been incredible � I wasn’t even promoting the gig yet, but everyone heard about ‘Rage Against HoWARd’ and immediately wanted to be involved,” said organiser, Mr Jimmy Willing. “My phone ran hot and the bill was full very quickly. That’s incredible considering it’s going to be a benefit for the Greens � nobody is even getting paid! If we let everyone play who wanted to, we could have had a week long festival on our hands.”

Confirmed bands include The Re-Mains, Red Eyed Frogs, Proem, teen heroes Brittle Fex, The Box Monsters, The Real Gone Hick-Ups, Willie McEllroy and special guest Tim Freedman of the Whitlams. Local comedians S Sorrensen and Mandy Nolan will share their side-splitting thoughts and feelings about the PM.

�We want everyone who is enraged by John Howard�s policies on refugees, the US Free Trade Agreement, health, education, the arts, the GST and especially his role involving Australia in the United States� unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq to come along and express themselves. While it�s a benefit for the local Greens party, supporters of all parties are welcome to attend. Page is now a marginal (National Party) seat� ‘Not happy, John’ is absolutely the feeling and sentiment driving this gig.” Jimmy said.

The gig will be smoke free and family friendly with great food available, a separate �kid�s space� and entertainment for all ages. Young people under 18 will be welcome in the company of an adult. “There will also be a kids program and supervision for sleepy children in a quiet space, to allow parents to come and enjoy the night.�

Lots of lawyers are taking a stand too. Barrister Neil Francey will stand as an independent against the appalling Tony Abbott in Warringah, and is hosting a screening of Michael Moore’s FAHRENHEIT 9/11 at the Hayden Orpheum Picture Palace, Cremorne, on Monday 26 July 2004 to launch his campaign. He�ll introduce the film at 6.45pm: for tickets call Neil�s Chambers on (02) 9232 4466.

New mystery Webdiarist �JR� recommends jibjab for a piss-take on the narrowness of American�s choices at the presidential election.

To end, Webdiarist Peter Funnell reckons I�ve done the right thing going independent (see On the road again) and Labor staffer Mark Hough reckons that me and everyone else who voted for Howard in 1996 deserve what we�ve got.

***

Peter Funnell in Farrer, ACT

Hi Margo. Change and risk is definitely stressful, but this life is no rehearsal. Webdiary is real good and this medium will become (as it has for so many) the preferred means of communication between people. It’s accessible, it is incredibly inclusive, people say what they think and engage with other ideas. That is so difficult to do today.

People need to talk more than ever and when we talk we understand, we get informed and we reach conclusions, form views and participate. People access this medium a home and at work. Webdiary has broken completely new ground over the last few years and it’s only the start in this medium. Good decision Margo.

I have just read the report �Internet under surveillance� by Reporters without Borders – fascinating! The thing that strikes me is how hard it will be to stop people communicating, and how hard it will be to conceal truth. The internet, exploited by a determination to inform and engage people is unstoppable – and as a number of countries are trying desperately to close it down or control it.

People are incredible – they find a way.

***

(July 30: Email by Mark Hough removed at his request)

The Fundamentalist Zionist lobby appears to have decided to ignore � and thus condone – human rights abuses by the political supporters of their cause. Colin Rubenstein, the head of the lobby�s most powerful group in Australia AIJAC, even endorsed the allegations of George Brandis last yearthat the Greens were today�s Nazis, explicitly contradicting the view of the Jewish community�s elected leadership. The Greens crime? To interrupt George Bush’s speech to Parliament to plead for the human rights of our citizens in Guantanamo Bay, in detention US Supreme Court since decided was illegal.

 

John Howard has led a government which has ignored or abused human rights through systematically humiliating genuine refugees and their children in detention centres, and by refusing to overturn the Northern Territory�s mandatory detention laws for children (targeted at Aboriginal kids) for a first stealing offence, even after this led to the suicide of an Aboriginal boy in jail. During the tumultuous 1997/98 Wik debate when Howard tried to wind back Aboriginal land rights – a cause championed by Jewish barrister Ron Castan QC – prominent Melbourne Zionist Joseph Gutnick said he would no longer donate to the Liberals because he knew what it was like to have land taken away from a people.

Several UN human rights bodies have condemned Howard’s actions and found his government in breach of many of our international human rights obligations. He�s followed this up by allowing Australia to be an accessory after the fact to the torture of Iraqi prisoners by the Americans in breach of the Geneva Conventions against torture of prisoners of war � and by refusing to demand basic human rights for two Australian citizens illegally detained without charge in Guantanamo Bay.

As the UN vote on the Sharon wall this week showed, Australia and America are even prepared to defy an international court ruling declaring illegal the Sharon wall � which is excluding Palestinians from their own land – to placate the Zionist lobby. Today’s Moir cartoon tells the story.

With the endorsement of Rubenstein�s crew, John Howard received a human rights award from the American Jewish Committee during his last visit to the U.S. Peter Jull sent me this piece on the award by Australian Jewish academic Geoffrey Brahm Levey, Coordinator of Jewish Studies at the University of New South Wales. It first appeared in Forward on June 25.

***

Honoring Australia for Misguided Policies

by Geoffrey Brahm Levey

Earlier this month, the American Jewish Committee bestowed on visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard its highest honor, the American Liberties Medallion. Previous recipients of the award include Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Vaclav Havel, Natan Sharansky and Elie Wiesel.

The citation for Howard’s award reads: “in recognition of [his] longstanding commitment, as a member of the Australian Parliament for more than 30 years, and as prime minister since 1996, to championing democracy and human rights, and his unequalled friendship toward the United States and support of Israel.”

On Howard’s support for the United States and Israel, there can be no question. The war on terrorism has been a major concern of Jewish organizations around the world since the September 11 attacks, and the Australian prime minister’s steadfast backing of Washington and Jerusalem no doubt factored into his being honored. But Howard’s record in and out of government stands against almost every significant domestic policy for which the AJCommittee stands.

On human rights, for example, the AJCommittee advocates “the investigation and prosecution of those indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes” and ratification of major human rights instruments, including the International Conventions on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

As federal opposition leader of the conservative Liberal Party of Australia in the late 1980s, Howard opposed the then-Labor government’s Nazi war criminal legislation. Last year, the Howard government sought to downgrade the work of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by abolishing the dedicated commissioner-level posts of no less than five departments: race discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, human rights, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice.

On immigration, the AJCommittee endorses the Jewish tradition in which “‘strangers’ are to be welcomed and valued.” It supports “generous immigration policies regarding refugees who are fleeing persecution” and “efforts to reduce the flow of illegal immigration within the context of established civil liberties protections.”

The AJCommittee expressly opposes mandatory detention, the “detention of aliens for an unspecified period of time” and “automatic bars to re-entry.” The Howard government incarcerates asylum seekers for unspecified periods of time, even though the overwhelming majority turn out to be bona fide refugees – and even to the point of redefining the borders of Australia to escape human rights obligations.

On public education, the AJCommittee “believes that there must be a re-dedication to public education on the national, state, community, and family levels, so that the public schools can fulfill their promise as democratic institutions and launching pads of opportunity for all children.”

In particular, the AJCommittee believes “that gaps in educational resources and opportunities between our nation’s disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students must be narrowed.” The Howard government has presided over an education policy that privileges already well-resourced private schools and that has exponentially increased the gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students in Australia.

Why, then, would the AJCommittee, a bastion of Jewish and American liberalism, be moved to honor a politician so antithetical to its own political principles? Enter the ustralia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, with which the AJCommittee entered into a partnership in 1997. By far the best resourced of Australian Jewish lobby groups, AIJAC is an independent body with no official status within the Australian Jewish community.

Though its spokesmen like to claim bipartisanship in Australian politics, this means only that AIJAC is perforce willing to work with, and on, any government of the day.

National Chairman Mark Leibler, a prominent Melbourne tax lawyer, and Executive Director Colin Rubenstein both have close links to either Howard or the Liberal Party. Leibler, a longtime Likud supporter and conservative activist on the local and world Jewish scenes, was among a select few who Howard invited to his private barbeque for visiting President Bush last year.

Rubenstein is a Liberal party activist and a member of the Howard government’s Council for Multicultural Australia. He also unsuccessfully sought Liberal Party preselection in 1990 to contest a seat in the Australian Parliament.

The American Liberties Medallion is not the first honor the AJCommittee has bestowed on John Howard. In January 2002, AIJAC had Howard receive the AJCommittee’s Distinguished Public Service Award at a ceremony in New York. “No one in Australia is more deserving of this honor than Prime Minister Howard,” Rubenstein told those assembled.

This, just weeks after the most controversial Australian federal election in recent times, in which Howard cynically played on Australians’ deep-seated fears of invasion by whipping up a frenzy against asylum seekers and falsely claiming that some had thrown their children overboard.

This, just months after Howard refused a Norwegian trading vessel, which had saved a boatload of desperate asylum seekers, entry to Australian waters because it would trigger Australia’s refugee and human rights obligations.

This, just a few years after Howard’s public service of encouraging the populist xenophobia of Pauline Hanson – Australia’s version of Jean-Marie Le Pen – despite the pleas of Jewish and other community leaders for him to denounce her tirades.

No doubt the AJCommittee had its own reasons for honoring the Australian prime minister. Yet working with AIJAC on issues of mutual concern, such as counterterrorism and support for Israel, is one thing. Showering tributes on a politician whose politics are so clearly anathema to one’s own is quite another.

Either the AJCommittee has decided in recent years to place support for Israel and the United States above its domestic social justice convictions, or someone on their Asia-Pacific desk failed to ask the standard questions of their Australian bedmate.

Geoffrey Brahm Levey, senior lecturer in politics and international relations at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, is co-editor of “Jews and Australian Politics” (Sussex Academic Press, 2004).

G�day. I�ve just made a big change in my life � from August 14 I�ll be self employed. Under a package negotiated with Fairfax, I�m contracted to run Webdiary for three years and am free to write for whoever I like bar News Limited (as if!). I�m also independent, and can speak to groups without permission from my former employer. I�ve now done my grieving at leaving the organisation I�ve been in love with for decades, and as a child of working class parents am working through my fears of being destitute. Once my accountant�s been through all the issues and I�ve worked out how to survive as a self-employed person, I�m bound to be a better writer, as until now I�ve always had the security of permanent employment. I�ll move back to Canberra next month and maintain my press gallery pass, so it�s a case of in, out and in again. I�m trusting Webdiarists to stop me getting too insider again, a complaint that has gradually died out since I�ve been in Sydney for the last three years.

 

My book Not Happy John is selling well � the first run of 10,000 has sold out and another 9,000 have been reprinted. The book�s website nothappyjohn is going great guns, with wild new ideas to help defend our democracy. For a doozy of an example, see HOT ‘DIGGER’S OATH’ IDEA TO DEFEAT HOWARD IN BENNELONG.

If you live in Sydney and feel like some grassroots politics this Saturday, I�ll be chatting with the former federal Liberal Party President turned anti-war activist John Valder in the Blue Mountains. The event is at the Springwood Civic Centre from 2pm, when John will announce how he plans to do his pre-election activism.

In the run up to the election, I�d like to focus on what citizens are doing rather than on the maneuvres of the pollies, and am looking for reader profiles of the seats they live in and what citizens are doing to make a difference.

Before your direct actions, there�s some great stuff going on to make the media accountable for their errors in the lead up to the Iraq war, and the false claims of some mainstream media that they�re working for you, the reader, rather than for their owner�s corporate agendas. Harry Heidelberg recommends Petition for initiation of complaint against Fox News Network for deceptive practices, where moveon has petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to take legal action against Murdoch�s Fox Network for deceptive advertising by promoting itself as the �fair and balanced� network. And see details of the moveon-inspired Outfoxed movie, which �provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public’s right to know�. The Not Happy John Website is pulling together a mailing list of readers who we hope will help the site morph into an Australian version of moveon to help defend our democracy.

Antony Loewenstein recommends the media matters announcement of how it’s going activist.

John Bennett recommends The lies of the press, where George Monbiot argues that newspapers too must also be held to account for the invasion of Iraq. The New York Times, after apologising for its false �reporting� of deeply compromised claims of Iraq�s WMDs by journalist Judith Miller (see Sleeping lies dogging the media over Iraq) has issued another mea culpa at ‘NY Times’ Admits ‘Mistakes’ in Iraq War Editorials.

The New York Times has proved itself a great newspaper with these actions: don�t expect to see anything like them, or anything at all in the way of accountability to readers from Murdoch�s war machine papers here.

Ian McPherson recommends “Be it resolved that…What has been accomplished? by Col. Dan Smith on the state of world democracy, which Ian reckons �sort of sums it up�.

Tony Kevin has written a great piece on his website arguing that “Labor’s decisions over the next 17 days will decide the election”, particularly on whether to pas the Free Trade Agreement with the US. The Yanks love it,which means we’ve been dudded, as usual. Tony writes:

“Mark Latham will win or lose the Prime Ministership of Australia on the basis of two decisions Labor will have to take � if it has not taken them already � between now and 6 August. This will be the end of what will probably be the first and last federal parliamentary sitting week, before Howard calls the election for – I will punt – Saturday 18 September, six weeks later.

The key decisions now confronting Latham and his Caucus are:

1. Whether the Australian Senate should pass laws agreeing to the US FTA as passed by John Howard and now the US Congress, or should call for a different policy: a break for consultations and rethinking, and then resuming talks with US after both countries have got their elections out of the way?.

2. Whether to use the release of the forthcoming Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee Report into the Bali bombings (FADC reference: Security Threats to Australians in South-east Asia) to put the responsibility for serious government negligence of our citizens� safety of life overseas where it properly belongs � with the Australian Foreign Minister and, in terms of command responsibility, with this Prime Minister…”

I’m launching Tony’s book A certain maritime incident – the sinking of SIEV-X at Gleebooks in Sydney at 6pm on August 6.

***

YOUR MOVES

Tim and Anna-Maria Stephens in Haberfield, Sydney

Hi Margo. Please see below our e-mail to Minister Downer today concerning Australia�s vote in the UN General Assembly on the West Bank wall. This one has really slipped under the radar. Why, we can all ask, was there no public debate about this? (July 27, Margo: I have removed my response to this question after extreme sloppiness in my use of language caused offence to many readers.)

*

Dear Minister,

AUSTRALIA�S VOTE IN THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE WEST BANK SECURITY BARRIER

We were shocked to hear that Australia voted against the UN General Assembly Resolution passed today calling upon Israel to comply with the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 9 July 2004 which declared the construction of a separation barrier in and around the West Bank to be illegal. Australia was one of only six nations to vote against the resolution (along with Israel, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau and the United States). The resolution was adopted with an overwhelming vote in favour (150 to six, with only ten abstentions).

As you will be aware, you have today authored a radical shift in Australian foreign policy. Although in the past Australia has supported Assembly and Security Council resolutions calling upon Israel to comply with international law, the Australian Government now appears to take the view that our vote in the political organs of the United Nations must always follow that of the United States regardless of the merits of the Resolution under consideration. In addition, when coupled with the unprecedented submission by Australia to the ICJ in relation to its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it appears that Australia no longer recognises the authority or legitimacy of the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

In its Advisory Opinion, the ICJ called upon all states �not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem� and �not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.� (Advisory Opinion, Paragraph 159). Australia has now acted clearly and deliberately in contravention of this duty. It has recognised the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall, and has assisted Israel in its continued breach of the laws and customs of war.

Like the ICJ, we support Israel�s right to security, but this right must be pursued in accordance with international law. As the ICJ Advisory Opinion made clear, there is nothing stopping Israel building the barrier, so long as it does not traverse occupied territories.

Your government�s foreign policy decision today is full of profound implications for Australia, yet it is one which has occurred without the benefit of any public or Parliamentary debate in Australia. We are writing to you to seek an explanation as to why Australia decided to exercise its vote in the Assembly today in this way and why it was done, in effect, secretly. We are tremendously disturbed that the Howard Government could make such a momentous, and potentially dangerous, foreign policy decision in this fashion.

***

James Graham in Canberra

Hi Margo. Here’s an email I just sent to my local federal member, Bob McMullan, Labor. I�m 30, a 6th generation Aussie of Anglo-Celtic descent and a tertiary educated IT worker.

***

Hi Bob

I�m one of your constituents in Belconnen and I�ve voted Liberal federally 3 times in a row. I will probably vote Labor at the next federal election. Why? Because I disagree with �our� association with the �pre-emptive� invasion of Iraq. I believe much harm has been caused it (both the act itself and the actions taken beforehand).

In my opinion the morality of an action depends on the motivation behind it. The reasons behind the invasion of Iraq were not moral in my opinion. I have been absorbing information and opinions on it for many, many months and believe I have arrived at my final stance.

Bob, I believe the Labor party has not done well in countering the Howard government�s line on this matter. I believe you could make very damaging arguments to counter theirs and yet I don�t see them. They are unquestionably defending an invasion on weak premises in my opinion. I believe extremism breeds extremism and invading Iraq has arguably made the moderate Muslim more likely to be a fanatic – and where there’s a will there’s a way.

At the end of the day I appreciate this is only one issue out of a myriad of them (taxes, welfare, health, etc) well it�s the one that�s probably turned my vote. There�s a vox pop for ya Bob, make of it what you will.

***

Greg Neill in Brisbane

Margo, a small sentence by Michael Riggall in Liars for Howard in relation to a lack of communication from his local ALP member Wayne Swan made me realise I am not alone. I have written about three times to my local ALP member, Kevin Rudd seeking information on contacts for the Brisbane Airport Consultative Committee and Mr Rudd�s submission on our behalf on the master plan, due December 2003. I advised him that his web site had not been updated in relation to matters on the airport since June 2002. I have not received a reply.

I wrote more recently complaining about the quality of service from his electoral office and asking that I receive a personally signed letter from Mr Rudd so that I could ensure that he was aware of my complaint. No reply or acknowledgment after 3 months. I recently sent an email to Mr Rudd at his Parliament House address with a copy to his leader, Mr Latham, expressing my concern at his lack of service to his constituents (his employers) hoping that the new leader might pull him into line. After 3 or more weeks not a word from either office.

This is not a democracy if the electors cannot communicate with their elected representatives.

I am hoping that we will have a choice of more than two candidates in Griffith electorate. Just about any candidate would better than our current options, a shame because I think that Mr Rudd would be a good Foreign Affairs Minister, but I need a representative that will respond to my concerns.

As Michael says in his closing sentence we need to keep the bastards on their toes. If that means voting completely out of the square of the current duopoly so be it.

***

Alice Booker

Thank you for providing such a forum as Webdiary. The quality content has left me feeling mentally stimulated and with heartfelt hope. Although once in my youth I handed out how to vote cards for the Liberals (oh the shame now) and I have voted for the Democrats and Greens in the past (I sound a political tart) I now desperately hope Mark Latham will win the coming election, because I feel so much disquiet at John Howard’s erosion of our values.

My kids, young tertiary educated adults, were until recent years, mostly apolitical. They and most of their friends returned from abroad loathing the John Howard government. Explanation: as young backpacking Australians, the warm welcome they were accustomed to as ‘Aussies’ had turned to having defend their nationality through John Howard’s alignment with the Bush government.

G’day. Maybe it’s because I’m still flu-affected or bolstered by positive energy from people who’ve read my book, but I’m letting the latest ins and outs of the political plays wash over me at the moment. Standard chess moves on the standard board reported in the standard way don’t interest me as much as what real people are doing to help take back Australia. Today, Webdiarists who’ve had a read of Not Happy John! relate their direct actions. We’ve got a direct action section on thenothappyjohn website now, so from now on please send your stands for democracy over there. (If you really want to participate in the dirt debate, have a look at Mungo’s column in the Byron Bay Echo at Time for a reciprocal look at Howard. The rules appear to have changed dramatically since Howard got to the top in politics. I wonder why.)

But first, how’s this for a great example of how closed our society is compared to America’s, which has a plethora of websites along the same lines as this new Australian effort, johnhowardlies. Here’s AAP’s report:

CANBERRA, July 15 AAP – The federal government has asked the Australian Electoral Commission to investigate a website called johnhowardlies.

Special Minister of State Eric Abetz called on the Labor Party to disassociate itself from the website which is run by an anonymous group.

The site has been publishing what it claims are lies told by Prime Minister John Howard and what it says are the facts about Mr Howard’s lies.

Senator Abetz said he had asked the electoral commission to investigate if the site breached a section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which requires electoral material to be authorised.

“If this website does breach the Act, the offender could face a fine of up to $5,000,” he said in a statement.

Senator Abetz expressed concern that a Labor Party email newsletter referred voters to the website.

He said Opposition Leader Mark Latham should ensure the ALP disassociated itself from the site.

“It is the height of hypocrisy for Mr Latham to sob about anonymous claims, and then give full official Labor Party support to a site which is dedicated to anonymous claims,” Senator Abetz said.

“Mr Latham should take immediate steps to prevent any further promotion or publication of this site pending a full investigation by the AEC.”

The conveners of johnhowardlies.com recently told AAP in an email that no-one involved in creating the site was a member of a political party.

Late this morning, a notice advised the website “is currently being revamped and is temporarily unavailable.” (Also see Labor under scrutiny for ‘lies’ website.)

***

Simon Jarman in Melbourne

You may recall I met you at your book launch in Melbourne (with my ‘destructo’ 3 year old) the other week, where I talked to you about my campaign concept “Liars for Howard”. Since then I’ve been doing some work on developing the liarsforhoward website, which is up (but still needs some work) and getting other people interested – organising a campaign committee etc.

What I envisage is that this should be a grass-roots media type campaign – the idea of which is to remind people that this is the most deceptive and unaccountable government in our history. We can turn up at events staged by the Liberals (or Labor for that matter), where we will have banners and chants such as ‘rich schools need more pools’, ‘Invading Iraq DID NOT increase our terrorist threat!’ etc. Our central message is that we support the Howard Government’s right to lie to the Australian people – after all, they know what is best for us! It’s in the good old Aussie tradition of taking the piss.

The thing about the campaign is that it will be open to anyone to join and create their own branch. The message is that if you’re a Greenie in Hobart, Labor in Launceston, a Democrat in Darwin, or unaligned in Adelaide and you too have had enough of the lies and lack of accountability of this government, the “Liars for Howard” campaign and website will enable you to start up your own branch.

The site will eventually have downloadable material and I envisage that we will be able to provide some centralised support for others to tip them off to where Liberal and Labor events are going to be staged. So, I’m hoping in the next few months, this thing will grow in an organic type of way and in the next week or so we intend to hold our campaign launch (perhaps a mock protest at Michael Moore’s new film Fahrenheit 9/11. I can see the banner now… “No Moore Truth!”)

Apart from a link on your website, what would be most valuable to me as organiser of this thing is to have someone in the media who could tip us off to where the Liberals and Labor will be holding events on any particular day. Failing that, how can we find out this information?

Last night we saw some greens go feral and get arrested protesting against John Howard down here in Federation Square. Our campaign won’t be agressive – it’s all about sending a message using humour – but how did they know where he was going to be, and how can I find this information? I hope you can help out in that regard. (Margo: Once the site is up and running, hopefully insiders and people on the ground will help out.)

This whole thing about the Howard Government being a bunch of pathological liars seems to be gaining a sort of momentum, as seen through a number of websites that are springing up. Our website will be an integral part of our campaign (as is the billionairesforbush campaign, on which ours is modelled).

I assure you that we are in no way associated with johnhowardlies. While I agree with what they say and their right to say it, it is gutless that they choose to remain anonymous. I don’t know who they are or where they are coming from. I’m upfront on our website that while I am a member of the Labor party, I’m doing this in my capacity as a citizen of this country and that this campaign is in no way associated with or affiliated to the Labor party and is open to anyone to join. I don’t see why I should be anything less than totally honest about that.

Margo: Robin Rothfield has also started a website, called defeathoward

***

Pete Rowe

It’s 4.45am and I’m crying like a baby. No trickle of a single tear slowly making it’s way over the (smile lines) creases of my cheek, not for this little black duck. I’m talking racking sobs that I find hard to stifle, tears streaming down my face.

The force of the emotion has caught me completely by surprise, no time to prepare, no warning, just bam, welcome to a brand new day.

I’ll explain my reasons for this outburst soon enough but in order to go forward, I first need to go back for a moment to set the scene. I’m 36 years old, I have a wife, a 3 year old son and 1 year old daughter. I live on a small property in a valley not far outside of Bellingen in NSW. It’s pure heaven, well, my version of it anyway.

I like to tell people I’m semi retired, although strictly speaking that’s not really the case, more like in between jobs. I contract to the mining industry which means that, to make up for the short periods of time that I have to be away, I get to spend the majority of my time at home with my family.

The upshot of all this is to explain that, in general, life’s good – for me and mine anyway.

My baby girl’s need for an early morning feed awoke me and, seeing as how that’s the sleep thing shot for now, I figured I might as well read.

Better to have gone back to bed perhaps? To have remained almost blissfully ignorant, for a while longer at any rate.

The words that leapt from the page and pierced me with such unexpected force are these:

“What do you do in that situation?’ Kylie said later. ‘Do you just stand there, or go and finish the grocery shopping before going home and falling apart?”

These words are in chapter ‘Not Happy, John!, and were spoken by Kylie Russell, wife and more recently, widow to Australian Special Air Service Sergeant Andrew Russell, killed while serving in Afghanistan.

Sergeant Russell never got to hold his new baby daughter, born just eleven days before he was killed.

Kylie had received a call from Western Australian based Labor MP Graham Edwards informing her that there was to be a wreath layed by George W Bush in memory of Sergeant Russell and all Australians who have died in service to our country. She was not invited.

I have watched with a certain degree of unease as, ever since the Sept 11 attacks of 2001, the world as I knew it, or at least thought I did, has changed dramatically and for ever.

With a growing sense of helplessness I’ve seen images of the invasion of Afghanistan, the detention of a large number of people in Guantanamo Bay and, more recently, the invasion of Iraq.

Add to this the unbelievable precedents set in our own country recently, namely the occupation of our own parliament by not one, but two foreign powers, and I know there’s definitely something rotten in the state of Texas. Pun intended.

In regards to the state of play in the world at large, I leave that up to each individual to view as they see fit. My concerns lie much closer to home. In fact, my concerns are about my home, that is, this country we all call home and the institutions and processes that govern it.

For the most part, I have been content to sit back and watch with quiet amusement and a cynical smile as our pollies, democratically elected one and all, have gone about the day to day task of governing our country.

They have done this I believe, with our best interests at heart. We may at times think that our elected representatives are slightly off the mark but at least they’re out there trying to do their part to make Australia a better place to live for all of us.

Up until now that is.

The actions taken, in a number of arenas, by our incumbent Prime Minister John Howard, are anything but for the good of the Australian people, as far as I can see. In fact, you could be forgiven for thinking that John Howard sees Australia as containing only two groups of people, those who are with me, and the ‘mob’

It is not for me to debate each instance at this time, certainly not under this forum, but if you doubt my words in this matter then please, re-read the statement made by Kylie Russell. Better yet, read Margo Kingston’s book.

For some time now I’ve been trying to put in to words the growing anger and frustration I have felt in regards to the events of recent times. I now have those words and, irony being what it is, they were given to me by the very actions of our current leader, the one who helped create this level of confusion in the first place. Those words – NO RESPECT! No respect for the tradition, function and value of the office he holds.

No respect for the wishes of a vast number of people crying out for their collective voice to be heard in regards to the actions taken on the world stage, in our name.

No respect for our parliament, either as an institution or as our political ‘home’.

And most damningly, no respect for the wife and child of Sergeant Russell and therefore, no respect for his death and what that means to the ordinary men, women and children of Australia, whether that be the man on the street or a member of our defence forces.

For nearly twenty years I have refused to vote. Call me a conscientious objector, lazy, apathetic, whatever. In times not too far gone I would have gladly owned up to any and all tags as being equally justified..

I saw nothing about the way our politicians conducted themselves on a daily basis that made me even vaguely interested in playing a part in the election process. I saw it as an exercise in futility to think that by voting I going to be ‘making a difference’ as the spin doctors would have us believe.

How wrong I’ve been.

I’m enrolled, I’m angry and I can’t wait to have my say.

I don’t wish to engage in an ongoing verbal stoush with whom ever may take offence in regards to the comments I’ve made so far and as such, you can be sure this will be my only communication in this forum.

The fact is I’m frightened, concerned, angry and above all, profoundly sad at the situation we find ourselves in as a nation at this point in time.

I refuse to accept that the conflicts of recent times that we have played such a strong role in are in the ‘best interests of our country’.

I refuse to accept that the actions taken on so many levels by our highest elected representative are in ‘the best interests of the Australian people’.

And I sure as sh..t know that the shameful way in which Kylie Russell and her daughter were treated are in no way, shape or form ‘in the best interests of all Australians’.

There is an election looming. I urge each and every person eligible to vote to do so. It is absolutely crucial. More so, I believe, for our younger generation. A lot of these actions are being taken in your names remember.

If the majority of eligible voters do just that, vote, and we still end up with our current leadership regime, then so be it. I will gladly stand by the will of the people. But it has to be just that, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. As many people as possible.

I only hope that my voice can go some way towards stirring debate on what is a crucial issue to the future of us as a nation and people, both at home and on the world stage.

I don’t ever want to have to read of the pain of another Kylie Russell being so unforgivably treated by the very people who sent her husband away in the first place.

NO JOHN, NOT IN MY BLOODY NAME!

***

Michael Riggall

Margo, congrats on the book – I picked it up on Sunday and finished it last night.

I tried earlier this year to get myself involved in our political culture by conducting an information gathering exercise with the various parties. What an exercise in frustration that turned out to be. All the party functionaries could do was to rattle off web site addresses. The collective lack of response discouraged me and I let the project drop. Then I read your book.

I am now determined not to go into that dark neo-conservative night quietly, but screaming with every democratic breath that I can draw.

Your Webdiary is now in my favourites and will be studied on a regular basis (I live in Brisbane, so all of our newspapers carry the Murdoch seal of approval).

I have already scribbled off a letter to my local ALP MP (Wayne Swan) asking him to give me three reasons why he should get my vote and commenting on his offices lack of response to my earlier requests in March.

My next step will be to become active in this upcoming election and assist one of the minor parties in the Senate (that will be me standing outside the church/school/community hall handing out how to vote cards).

If my remiss local member ever does reply I am getting my question sheet ready. Media ownership – what does his party think? Political funding and the Australian Electoral Commission – what does his party intend to do in regards to greater accountability and the AECs power to investigate and prosecute? And finally, I see the gross commercial exploitation of our children as one of the major threats to our society – does his party believe that we need to restrict the corporate world’s access to our children and let them spend more time being kids instead of consumers and targets of marketing analysis?

Please never lose heart and give up – we all need more people like yourself to do what you do so well, keeping the bastards on their toes.

 

***

Hannah Robert, lawyer and Greens Candidate for Kingsford Smith

I’ve just read an extract from your book, and I can’t wait to get my mitts on the whole thing to read it properly. I think you are spot on – politics is far to important to leave it to cynical PR crews and number-crunchers. And however naive it may be to think we can jump in and change it, we’ve tried apathy already (several times!) and it really isn’t getting us anywhere.

Hence, I’ve thrown my lot in with the one political party that does seem to have some concern for real democracy in more than just the “flag-pole on the lawn” sense – the Greens. And on the basic “in for a penny, in for a pound” principle, I’m running as a candidate in Kingsford-Smith against Peter Garrett.

Between me and Peter, surely we can thrash out a bit of a political debate! At least I hope so – I’d be sadly disappointed if he lets himself be gagged by the ALP media machine on his maiden voyage into politics.

On a similar note, I was appalled in a new and unusual way by Janet Albrectson’s attack on the new ACT bill of rights, and got het up enough to pen a response. I’ve sent it off to The Australian in the same way

I used to write letters to Santa when I was 13, with very little expectation of it being filed anywhere but “the bin”. So I thought I’d see if you felt like giving it a run on Webdiary:

As Janet Albrectson would have it, democracy and a bill of rights are completely opposed to one another, and every operation of judicial decision-making represents an erosion of Parliament’s omnipotent power (Wary of a world where new high priests hold sway The Australian, June 30, 2004).

This is a woefully inadequate picture of the way democracy works and fails to even address the core role which the separation of powers plays in a healthy democracy. Albrectson is wrong because democracy is far more than just brute majority rule. Democracy means that “the people shall govern” – and that means that everyone (not just those who form the majority) has a role to play in governing their society.

To confuse it with majority rule – where the majority could, if it wished, exterminate the minority, or exclude them from the vote – is to downgrade our concept of democracy.

A democratic government isn’t just about popularity – on that measure even Hitler’s Germany could arguably be viewed as a “democracy”. Rather, the strength of democracy is that it gives everyone a fair chance to participate in the way society is run, and that it determines the direction of government by taking account of every single voice.

A healthy democracy is built on a strong foundation of individual rights – to vote, to participate in government and elections, to be informed by a free media, and to have the basic education and health which enable you to participate as a citizen.

True democracy cannot tolerate the persecution of minorities, because every person who is persecuted or discriminated against is one less person who can be fully involved in the governance of their nation. Where the rights of minorities are attacked, the democracy of our entire society and government is diminished.

In the universality of the democratic ideal no one is “disposable”. Not everyone will be pleased by the decisions made by democratic governments, but everyone deserves a say in how they are made.

The daily reality of living in a democracy means that our rights are not just reflected in the way parliaments are elected, but also in the way our laws are applied and adjudicated in between elections. Democracy involves a finely tuned balance between three types of governmental power – the legislature makes the rules, the executive administers the rules and the judiciary adjudicates on the rules, and the human complications which the rules may not have contemplated.

By separating power into these three roles, we avoid concentrating too much power in the hands of any one arm of government, and prevent the corruption and abuse that can result.

Albrectson’s attack on the ACT Bill of Rights suggests a dangerously limited notion of democracy which concentrates power in the hands of our Parliamentarians at the expense of safeguarding basic human rights. When governments feel they can score populist points by targeting and scapegoating minorities, then the courts are often the last forum where individual rights can have a fair hearing.

Many Australians are rightfully proud that Australia is a signatory to key human rights treaties such as the UN convention on Civil and Political rights, the Convention for the Rights of the Child, and the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. But many would be equally surprised to realise that these rights don’t necessarily translate into Australian law, and that without a Bill of Rights, there is only very limited protection of our political rights under the constitution and no clear protection of our basic human rights.

If we want a future where the basic rights of all Australians are respected, and the mistakes and abuses of the past are not repeated, then we need a bill of rights.

***

Lynda and Carlos Medina

Open Letter to Australia (hi guys!)

We want to share a little of our perspective about Australia today and a change we have made of priorities in our lives.

Recently, we went on a trip to Cairns for holidays. During this trip we visited the Great Barrier Reef, the Daintree Rainforest and many other amazing areas. This highlighted something we already knew: that Australia is a truly amazing place that deserves our respect and care. We want to actively maintain our country, look after it and pass on to following generations.

During one of the many tours we went on, a guide a fellow from Campbelltown in NSW mentioned that a small group of environmental activists literally buried themselves in the ground to stop the Daintree from being cleared, while pursuing the World Heritage Listing of the area with the UN and fighting off the local government’s legal challenges in the High Court. The world and the UN recognised its significance, but the government didn’t.

These things are worth fighting for, even when the odds are stacked against you!!!!!!

That very same week, the local North Queensland newspapers reported Costello’s latest budget, which stopped funding to the two major Research Centres for both the Great Barrier Reef and the Daintree Rainforest.

How can you even explain or justify this decision? We are still learning so much about these areas, the climatic changes and the drought’s effects on Australia, and these areas are a major money spinner through science and tourism for the region. Yet we have enough money to pay for wars, for election advertising, for election bribes, to send refugees all the way to Nauru to be detained, and for millions in expenses for Kirribilli House since this PM has been there!

We are sick of his racism, lies and the bribes thrown at us, of being seen only as consumers that swallow government propaganda and bullshit! They must think we are a bunch of greedy idiots, who they can buy off at every election.

Anything and everything is up for sale: schools, Unis, our health, our environment, human rights, our laws and justice, our media, our democracy. NO!

We are not selling out, we are not selling our conscience, our Australia, our future. It is time for change, for payback and for a better future, while we still can, before it’s too late.

We are taking this personally: we hold John hoWARd responsible!

We are personally doing EVERYTHING we can to make sure we get rid of him at this election! We are supporting Andrew Wilkie in the Bennelong electorate to compete head to head against hoWARd. We have also joined The GREENS in the Parramatta area where we live. hoWARd will need to win this election twice: first just to keep his seat and then again for the Libs to win it!

If you feel unhappy about Australia and the way things are being done nowadays, you are not alone. Every one CAN make a difference. If you don’t know where to start just give us a call (0402 070787).

We can all achieve a lot even if we do disagree in many areas. We are not recruiting you to join a party or to preach at anyone. We want to know how we can make this country the Lucky Country again. Democracy works best when all views are heard and everyone has a voice.

We would love to hear your thoughts on how we can all make a better Australia. Let’s Advance Australia Fair!

Not a word of protest for years. The ignoring of his complaints of beatings. Acquiescence in an Australian citizen having no rights while American citizens captured with him are fully protected by the American constitution. And now, as Howard puts his foot to the floor for an election on the American Alliance, David Hicks is suddenly charged. Clever? You be the judge.

 

I bet the trial doesn’t start before the federal election, and that the charges will be dropped after it. Here’s today’s statement from the Law Council of Australia.

*

10 June 2004

Doubts Remain Over Fair Trial for Hicks

The Law Council of Australia is relieved that charges have finally been laid against David Hicks two and half years since he was first detained, but questions whether the Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee can ever receive justice under the military commission process.

President of the Law Council, Bob Gotterson QC said, �The charging of Mr Hicks� has taken far too long. It is appalling that Mr Hicks has been confined in non-reviewable detention for two and a half years and now faces trial in a system which has very serious shortcomings.�

Military commission trials leave detainees at the mercy of executive government, which has the power to keep them incarcerated even if they are acquitted or serve out their sentence. There are no independent judges � any appeal is subject to the US President only – and the rules of evidence do not apply.

Mr Gotterson said, �In our view the military commission process remains an unnecessary and inferior substitute to a normal court martial or a civilian court. However, it is clear that this is the manner in which US authorities intend to proceed.�

The US Defence Department announced yesterday that Mr Hicks had been charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, and aiding the enemy. Mr Hicks� military lawyer has indicated publicly that Mr Hicks will plead not guilty to the charges.

�We should keep in mind that there is a US Supreme Court decision due in a matter of weeks in a case brought by Mr Hicks and other detainees. That decision could open the way to challenge the legality of their detention before a military commission trial even proceeds.�

Intense. Emotional. Compelling. I saw a raw, in your face, ‘Please take me as I am’ press conference by Mark Latham to the Canberra press gallery this morning to “clear the air”. I’m a Latham supporter, though – here’s the transcript so you can judge for yourselves.

 

FEDERAL LABOR LEADER TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA MONDAY, 5 JULY 2004

Subjects: Political Priorities, FTA, Tax Policy, Education, Health

LATHAM: Thanks very much for coming along. I’ve called this press conference to clear the air. Sometime in the next couple of months we are going to have an election campaign and I believe it should be about the positive things we should be doing for Australias future rather than the old politics of fear and smear.

I believe that many great things need to be done for our country especially in opening up new opportunities in the education system and restoring the fairness of Medicare. I will run a very positive and constructive election campaign. I want to be out there talking directly to the Australian people about the things that matter, about the policy solutions that can make the good difference for Australias future.

I think one of the good things about our democracy is that that is what the Australian people want me to do, and all the party political leaders to be out there talking about the positives, the good things we can do for the future. So I will be talking about the future but I’ve also got to face up to the fact that in recent weeks the focus has been on my past. I’ve been subjected to more rumours and smears than you can poke a stick at. Normally in politics that’s a sign that you are a threat to someone someone’s got the power and you might possibly be about to take it off them.

I’ve got nothing to hide about my past. I’m here to answer your questions as best I can. But can I also say that in running to be Australia’s Prime Minister I expect the Australian people to judge me on my work and performance as Opposition Leader, primarily.

When I was right here on the 2nd of December, I made two promises to the Australian people. One was no more crudity and I’ve kept that. I believe I’ve communicated appropriately and as effectively as I can over the last seven months.

And the second promise, the most important promise I made, was to be positive, to try and set the agenda, put out good constructive ideas that would benefit the Australian people. I heard over the weekend Mr Howard saying that I was somehow policy deficient. He wasn’t saying that when he adopted our policy on parliamentary superannuation, and ATSIC, and the pneumococcal vaccine and the baby care payment and childhood obesity and the emphasis we have placed on child care places and literacy for our infant children. They are all issues where the Government has been forced to respond to Labor’s positive policy agenda.

And, as best I can, I’ve tried not to be a whinger. I could get out there on the doors every morning nah, nah, complaining about the Howard Government, complaining about everything under the sun. It’s not my style. By nature I’m not a whinger. I’m not a negative person. I said that on the 2nd of December. I try to be positive and that’s how I’ve tried to do this job to the best of my ability over the last seven months.

Let’s deal with these rumours; some of them have been around a long, long time. I’ve never complained about it in the past. At one level, Ive learned to live with it. I had a senior journalist in the press gallery ring me after the 1998 election and say the real reason you are not running for the front bench, the real reason you are going to the back bench, is because you’re on sexual harassment charges. That’s what he said to me and that was the rumour that was circulating at the time and the rumour that’s been repeated to me in recent times by another journalist. It’s not true. It wasn’t true then, not true now and never true at any stage.

The other rumour that is around, it’s in the papers today, it was in the paper’s yesterday, something about a video at a bucks night. Some people say the second marriage; I didnt have a bucks night the second time around. I had one the first time around; that was enough, quite frankly. It was organised by other people. I turned up and it was a tame enough affair. Nothing happened that would cause me any embarrassment today, looking back on it 13 years later, even if there was a video to look at, which I very much doubt. I mean, there’s nothing there that would cause me embarrassment or anything I did wrong by my own standards or those of the Australian people.

It seems to me these rumours come from three sources. It’s no surprise that one is the first wife; she was out in the media in December and she’s been backgrounding journalists ever since. Well, my standard is simply this: I refuse to relive a marriage break up publicly. It was hard enough the first time. I’m not going to go through it a second time in the public arena and I don’t believe the Australian people see it as my public duty to do that.

She has remarried with children and so have I. At the time it was hard; it was messy. I would’ve made mistakes. I mean, there were things that you just wouldn’t believe. It’s the toughest part of your life. If any one has had a perfect marriage break up, let me know about it – I don’t think anyone ever has.

The only request I make – and it’s a request I made in December – it might not have been noted at the time was that as these rumours are circulated from my first wife, and some people in the media repeat them; would you lay off my family? Things have been put to me about my sisters, my mother, my father that are not true and they don’t deserve it. Say whatever you like about me but leave them out of it please.

The second set of rumours comes from an interesting group of former councillors at Liverpool City Council. The background to this is that when I first ran for Liverpool Council in 1987, believe it or not there hadn’t been a Labor majority on that council for 25 years. The standing joke in Liverpool was that we had more ex-Labor councillors in the council chamber than official Labor councillors. The council for 25 years, was controlled by a group of ex-Labor councillors – sometimes known as Labor rats – independents and Liberals, and they’d run the council for a quarter of a century.

I ran to be the Labor mayor in 1991 and get control of the council back for the Labor Party and do the best I could to be a good mayor and achieve things that I thought were important in the place where I grew up: the City of Liverpool. I did that; I beat them in 1991. The whole list of people you’ve got on this letter here today were defeated in 1991 at that council election.

They’re fighting old battles and at one level I’m not surprised. I mean, it was a divisive period; I rubbed their noses into it. I suppose that was a mistake at the time. I could’ve run a more unified, harmonious council, but in the politics – the hotbed municipal politics of the day – it wasn’t like that.

And one thing I’ve learned from that period and probably from in the Parliament here – being, at times, too divisive a figure – is to get a better capacity for bringing people together.

Over the last seven months a small but I hope significant achievement is that the Labor Caucus under my leadership is more united and hopefully more harmonious than it was in the past, certainly through the course of 2003.

But these people who have circulated this letter haven’t been in the Labor Party for a long, long while. For four of them to list themselves as Labor is just untrue. Casey Conway was last in the Labor Party in 1989 when he ran against us in the State by-election as an independent. Joe Durant was last in the Labor Party 25 years ago. He was a Labor mayor of Liverpool in around 1972 and then got out of the Labor Party. I defeated him at the council election in East Ward in 1987. Noel Short, listed here as Labor, I defeated him the 1987 pre-selection and then he ran as an independent, I beat him again in the East Ward ballot, he then joined the Liberal Party. He was the Liberal candidate for the seat of Hughes in 1993. He is listed here as Labor. He was the Liberal candidate for the seat of Hughes in 1993. The joke was he needed to wait one more time and run in 96, the election where Dana Vale beat Robert Tickner in the seat of Hughes.

The other people listed here – Frank Heyhoe lost many pre-selection ballots in the 80s and left the Labor Party; Colin Harrington, listed here as independent, was actually elected to the council as a Labor alderman but then joined the independents to become mayor and I beat him to myself become mayor in 1991.

So I beat all of these people at the 1991 council election campaign. They’re still fighting the same old battle and the only one who has owned up in an honest way is Gary Lucas, who lists himself as Liberal. He has always been Liberal and he was the Liberal candidate for Liverpool Council in 1991.

So that’s the truth of these people and what they’ve had to say about the council finances. I have set out in the Parliament my response. No-one has disputed the key figures – not even Piers Ackerman, who just re-runs the Government’s research in this area. The debt servicing ratio went down, the working funds went up and I produced surplus budgets, most notably in 1994, and these things have been confirmed by John Walker, who belongs to the other side of politics, but was our general manager and has confirmed them as recently as yesterday.

The third area for these rumours appears to be the Government’s dirt machine. I’ve been used to Tony Abbott’s staff coming out digging dirt in Liverpool for the last eight years. I haven’t said much about it, but I still get regular reports from people who say that Abbott’s people are out there doing their worst.

There is a unit headed by Ian Hanke. We had a Government Minister last week wandering around the Press Gallery saying there is a campaign worker with a broken collarbone; doesn’t exist. Peter Costello telling journalists to go investigate the Liverpool Council. You all know the rumours and trash that gets walked around the Press Gallery on a regular basis.

I simply urge the Prime Minister to disband the dirt units. Disband the dirt units and actually turn these publicly funded staff to a positive purpose perhaps running the country a better way and doing some good things for the Australian people. So if this is about a character test, I’m expecting the Australian people, I hope the Australian people will judge me for who I am but most particularly the work that I’ve undertaken as Opposition Leader.

I’ve worked hard through my life, through school, through university, my time in public life. There is no secret or trick about that, you work hard, you do your best. You make mistakes along the way; you try and learn from them as best you can. I hope I’ve got the policies and ideas that can win the confidence of the Australian people and do a good job as their Prime Minister.

The one thing I will never apologise for; I’m not a single dimension person. I saw Glenn Milne today writing a piece (in The Australian)which basically said you can’t simultaneously have a few beers, write a few books, rip into Tony Abbott in the Parliament plus advocate the importance of reading books to our infant children.

Well, I say you can. I say you can; that’s a real life where you believe in many things and you do many things. I mean, that’s being a real person who leads a real life. It is not being complicated or erratic. If anyone is a single dimension person, I say try and broaden out; do many more things in your life than just one.

And that’s how I’ve tried to run my public life as best I can. That’s who I am. I really can’t add more than that other than saying I believe I’ve got the character and policies to be a good Prime Minister of this country. I’ll be advocating as best I can, doing the best I can for the Australian people in a positive way in the weeks and months leading up to the Federal election and it would be a vast privilege and honour to serve as their Prime Minister in the future.

Geof Parry (Network 7): Mr Latham, in this address you have choked a couple of times, where you talk about your family and that sort of stuff. Has this stuff hurt you, personally?

LATHAM: I’m pretty tough and have been through politics a fair while. I mentioned that hotbed environment in Liverpool where they threw everything at me and over the last seven months I’ve been getting around the country you know, you take the praise, and that’s nice, but there’s also a fair bit of scrutiny and coverage. People writing six books, lots of media interest in me. I don’t complain about any of that. I welcome the scrutiny. I am running to be the Prime Minister of the country, the scrutiny is deserved but on family, yes, it hurts. They’re not public figures.

Samantha Maiden, The Australian: Mr Latham, you raised the sexual harassment claims that have been circulated in the past, including by members of your own party. Is it completely baseless? You’ve raised it but was there ever a claim, did anyone ever raise any questions about that with you or any complaints with you personally. You said there was never a sexual harassment charge but was there any basis to it whatsoever?

LATHAM: Not in my opinion. There was no basis to it. Theres a big difference between rumour and fact and this has been for six years now a rumour and nothing more than that.

Samantha: Did anyone ever complain to your office or complain to Kim Beazley’s office about your behaviour towards women?

LATHAM: I can’t answer for other people; I received no complaint myself from any individual. I know there was nothing to complain about because there was no incident. Okay. What you’ve got is a rumour. This rumour has circulated for six years. I wouldn’t know the name of the person, the nature of the incident, any of that detail. I know it didn’t happen and no-one has ever been able to put to me anything other than the nature of the rumour. So how can I do all of that it is like trying to grab hold of a puff of smoke; it doesn’t exist. All I’ve got is a rumour that I know is not true. It was put to me in 1998, in that fashion, and it has circulated ever since. It was put to me just last Thursday by a journalist who is researching a so-called profile piece. Its not true. No name, no incident, no detail, no nothing. All I’ve got, and all I’ve ever heard about for six years, is a rumour and there is a world of difference between a rumour and fact.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, do you think you’ve had a fair go from the media?

LATHAM:. Yes, I do. I started this job and got a lot of encouragement and positive coverage and that was great. Of course, over time, you expect that that levels out and we are now at the period where hopefully the coverage will be fifty-fifty and we get on with the election campaign. I’ve got no complaints about the media. I’ve got complaints about the nature of these rumours and where they come from and I’m making my response to them here today.

Jim Middleton, ABC TV News: Mr Latham, you spoke of the Howard Governments dirt unit. The Hawke and Keating governments had the ANIMALS – will you give a commitment right here and now that if you are elected and become Prime Minister, a Latham Labor Government will have nothing of that kind under any guise whatsoever – that is, a monitoring unit, or individuals within the Government designed to monitor the activity of position or opponents, political opponents?

LATHAM: My understanding is that Mr Hanke and his unit does much more than monitoring. I urge the Prime Minister to disband that unit and of course we have got no intention of re-establishing it.

Jim: No intention of having anything of that kind?

LATHAM: We’ve got nothing planned to bring back ANIMALS, certainly not.

Jim: They are not conclusive words; they are weasel words.

LATHAM: Well, no – the answer to your question is no. I’ve had no discussions with anyone about any intention of ours, and I wouldn’t want to do it anyway, to being back such a unit in Government.

Jim: Nothing like the ANIMALS?

LATHAM: No.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, have you ever hit another person other than in self-defence?

LATHAM: On the football field there has been the odd incident. But what happens on the field stays on the field but like all footy players you would say that was in self-defence as well in the context of the footy field.

JOURNALIST: So no [inaudible] attacks off the footy field?

LATHAM: No, I haven’t, honestly. And what has happened is out there in the public arena, whatever incidents people want to point to. I’ve given my account and I know it to be the truth.

Michael Brissenden, 7.30 Report: Mr Latham, do you think all of this has hurt you politically?

LATHAM: I don’t know; that’s for the Australian people, and yourself included, to make your own judgment. I’m just here to advocate what I believe to be the truth and advocate through the election campaign the policies that I believe in for the country.

Jim Middleton: Why have you decided to address this now? Why now rather than when the rumours and innuendo, and reports, first emerged? Why now, after these events?

LATHAM: Jim, some of these rumours have been around for six years. At one level, I had learned to live with them but given the nature of them at the current time, and the intensity of it – I’ve heard things come back to me that have been whispered around the Press Gallery and this building that just sort of make you feel sick. So, given the intensity of it, and the focus on it I’m not scared of facing up to these things I thought the time was right to confront them head on. Six years is enough in my book six years is enough given the intensity and some of the garbage I’ve heard last week. It’s enough.

Michelle Grattan, The Age: But Mr Latham why do you think there has been that intensity going back so far because presumably the Liberals, if they’ve been digging out dirt more recently, were not particularly interested in you at that stage. How do you account for this? I don’t remember any former leader on either side of politics having to do what you’re doing today, even Bob Hawke with his colourful past.

LATHAM: You will have to ask them. Maybe it’s got something to do with election timing. You would have to ask the Government minister who reckons I’ve broken someone’s collarbone. You’d have to ask the people who come and talk to you. Ask them. Why not ask them?

Samantha: Mr Latham, there were some claims raised in the Sunday newspapers by so-called friends of your wife that you were unfaithful in your marriage. Do you think that is a relevant issue? Do you think voters need to know that? And do you think that you need to respond to that?

LATHAM: The claim was made from Gabrielle Gwyther herself in March; don’t know about friends, so-called friends. I mean, the claim was there in The Age newspaper in March, and that’s one of the points I make – none of these things are new. They’ve been out in the public arena for a long, long while.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, if they’re not new, what evidence do you have that they are being raised by a dirt unit within the Government?

LATHAM: You’ve got reportage in your paper of a Government Minister saying last week, you thought it was true enough to report, that I’ve broken someone’s collarbone. That this stuff on theSunday program was going to relate to a previous campaign incident where I’ve broken someone’s collarbone and its not true. That’s not true.

JOURNALIST: Peter Fraser supports Don Nelson’s version of events in relation to that stoush, what does he have to win by supporting that?

LATHAM: Peter Fraser supported the opposition campaign against me to be mayor in 1991. He is part of that group who opposed me back then and I assume still oppose me today. But it is just fantastic, isn’t it, to think you can king hit someone in the main street of Liverpool, as an elected representative, as a councillor, where every single thing was subject to scrutiny in the local media – everything was the subject of speculation and gossip at Liverpool Council – you can king hit someone in the main street of Liverpool, on a Saturday night, and no-one, not even your political opponents mention it for 15 years? I think it’s pretty obvious what has happened here; they’ve worked out, post the taxi driver, this is something they can go back to and have a bigger political impact than they could have 15 years ago or any time in the interim. That’s what’s happened.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, you’ve raised in the past the issue of Tony Abbott’s son, which is something that obviously happened a long time in the past, do you think the issue of your fidelity within your marriage is a public issue or do you think it is something that should be off limits?

LATHAM: I have read and seen things in the media – I don’t think there is any big secret about this but in relation to Mr Abbott he was spending a fair bit of his time in the Parliament talking about Labor families. Saying there was something wrong with Simon Crean’s dad, Kim Beazley’s dad and we just made a judgment that if he wants to talk about our families then we will talk about his. I’m not proud of it, not proud that it happened but in the politics of the time, it was something as a blocking measure to get him off what was a pretty unsavoury episode talking about people’s families in the House of Representatives. He has sort of lapsed back into in recent times, but we made the point at that time.

JOURNALIST: Do you think it was mistake that year where you were pretty rough on your opponents that its made it a lot more fair game now because you’ve said some pretty harsh things about your political opponents and other Labor MPs have said and now you are perhaps paying for that?

LATHAM: No, we’re all fair game. The moment you walk in here you are fair game but there are tactics and counter-measures that are taken in the normal tough nature of politics tough but fair in nature, hopefully and that episode was just part of that.

Michelle: You seemed a lot less tearful about all of this on Friday, when you were rather dismissive, flippant, on radio; why the change?

LATHAM: Michelle, if there is speculation in newspapers and the media that you are in some video, and we all know the nature of what we are talking about here, I mean it is a bit more serious than Don Nelson and his ridiculous claim from 15 years – which, quite frankly, for 15 years has been a bit of a joke, the nature of the incident. There is a big difference between media reporting rumours about this video and what it means to me and my family, and that’s pretty serious stuff. Just contemplate yourself what we’re talking about here and, if you had children, would you want them to grow up thinking and knowing about it, even at the level of a rumour? No, you wouldn’t. You’d take it pretty seriously.

JOURNALIST: Where do you believe those rumours have come from?

LATHAM: Possibly a combination of the first and third groups that I mentioned earlier on. All three actually most likely all three.

JOURNALIST: So your first wife, your political opponents in Liverpool and the Government?

LATHAM: You’re asking me my guess as to where, and I would say all three would be talking about it. Have you heard someone from the Government talk about it in recent times? I’m sure there is someone in this room that has heard the Government talk about that video in the past week, a Government member or staff – strike me down if I’m wrong.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, you’ve raised the video. Can you just clear it up for us.

LATHAM: There is no video it was a bucks night, which was tame enough. It was organised by other people. I turned up. I had a bucks night for the first marriage and, believe you me, I didn’t see the need for it the second time around. It was tame enough and there’s nothing there I would be embarrassed about, but theres no video.

Louise Dodson, Sydney Morning Herald: Mr Latham, you said that you’ve got the character to be Prime Minister; can you just describe what your character is to us?

LATHAM: I’m a hard-working person. I’m passionate about the things I believe in. I believe I’ve got certain skills to implement good policies for the benefit of the country. I’m not perfect. I just regard myself as a fair dinkum, honest person. What you see is what you get. There’s no big secret about me. I get stuck in and have a go on the things I believe in. I enjoy Australian larrikinism, as well, as a way of life you know, I think it is great to have mates and enjoy a joke the Australian way. That is a big part of my character. I’m proud of it. It’s one of the things that makes me proud to be an Australian. So that’s my best description of who I am.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, do you feel that you can deny these rumours til you are blue in the face, but do you worry that some voters might believe and think that where there is smoke there is fire?

LATHAM: Obviously, I hope not. But you know the nature of politics. These things have circulated for a long, long time. In the end, my greatest assurance and source of strength, if you like, is that the Australian people are much more interested in where the health and education systems are going to be 20 months from now than what happened in Liverpool 20 years ago. It is only natural. The Australian people are focused on the future. That’s why I’ve been trying to focus on the future. The Australian people have also had enough of the negativity in Australian politics. That’s why I’ve tried to be as positive as I can as Opposition Leader. That’s my judgment of the Australian people and I trust that’s their judgment of me.

Dennis: Are you closer to making a decision on the FTA with the USA?

LATHAM: No, we’ll see the process through that we’ve embarked on for the Senate report. It’s described as a living agreement that is subject to change and the need for more information and detail. We said that we would do that in a considered way; we wouldn’t be flying blind so we are going down that process, giving the Australian people their say about the FTA but, just as importantly, getting all the facts and detail before we make a judgment.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, in recasting your tax policy, will you be taking any notice of the Access Economics report today that suggests that the figures in the budget may not be as healthy as the Government would have us believe, or would you take the budget papers as the figures that you will base your tax policy on?

LATHAM: The advice in the election campaign, of course, comes from the Treasury but the Access Economics report confirms the Government has been on a spending spree, and we’ve been making that point that we are committed to our budget pledge, which is surplus budgets every year of the next Parliament, reducing net debt and also bringing down taxation and expenditures as proportions of GDP. So we’ve got our budget pledge and you can be guaranteed were sticking to that pledge, 100 per cent.

JOURNALIST: So if the Secretary of the Treasury comes to you, as Prime Minister after the election, and says there is not as much money there as the budget papers suggested, you will be committed to either increasing taxes or reducing spending to keep the budget in surplus?

LATHAM: We won’t be increasing taxes.

JOURNALIST: So that means you would [inaudible]

LATHAM: We would be tightening the budget cutting waste and mismanagement, which is what we’ve been doing in our policies and our work for the last couple of years. That’s the way in which we meet our financial commitments, our social investments. If we have to continue that in Government, we would.

Jim Middleton: Access suggests it might be a bit more serious than that, though, it might involve programs not just waste and mismanagement.

LATHAM: I’ve answered your question, Jim, we wont be raising taxes.

Samantha: Mr Latham, I have a health and education question. On universities, if you’re elected in October or November is that enough time to introduce legislation to allow universities to reverse 25 per cent HECS increases or will that not be possible until later in the year? When are you going to detail what the Labor Party plans to do to the 30 per cent health rebate?

LATHAM: That will be part of our policy announcements on health, but we’ve said that we’ve got no plan to get rid of it. We want to improve it and we’ll specify how. On the first matter hypothetical dates about the election, hypothetical dates about when the Parliament comes back in relation to universities, Jenny Macklin is talking all that through with the universities and I’m sure there will be no problem.

Samantha: But you’ve told students and voters that from 2005 those HECS increases wont go up.

LATHAM: But I don’t know the election date and I don’t know the feasibility, even when we’ve got the election date, of getting the Parliament back before Christmas so its hypothetical.

Samantha: So you dont know?

LATHAM: No, I don’t know the election date.

Samantha: But you’ve told students that these increases.

LATHAM: At the first available opportunity when we can legislate, obviously we are going to reverse the 25 per cent HECS. What election date there might be, and what happens with parliamentary sittings, that really is in the land of the hypothetical.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, are you going to leave the release of your tax policy until your campaign launch?

LATHAM: No.

JOURNALIST: Is it almost ready to be delivered? When can we see it?

LATHAM: You’ll see it when its released. We’ve announced a lot of policy in recent times. I know there is a very strong fascination with this particular policy but in the normal course of events the election schedule, the three years, runs out in November then we would have our tax and family policies out well in advance for the Australian people to have a good look at them and hopefully support them.

JOURNALIST: What about your list of savings; have you added to that recently?

LATHAM: The good thing about the list if you look down the back of all our policy announcements, there’s a list of how they are funded so that is the list. It was the list for the baby care payment. It was the lift for the Youth Guarantee. Its the list we have been producing for our social investment plans, fully costed and fully funded. Dennis Shanahan, The Australian: As a living document; has PBS been added to that?

LATHAM: When you identify that as a saving, that’s a budget decision we’ve made but it had not been there had been uncertainty about the PBS; would the Government bring it back in this round of budgeting? Once we established that, we were able to respond accordingly, mindful of our budget pledge to keep it in surplus when we are in Government and ensure that we’ve got downward pressure on interest rates. We had to make a tough decision there but as I’ve said we can’t fund everything. You just can’t fund every single service that has been abolished by the Howard Government. We can’t restore every single cut back. We are going to do a lot in health and education, in particular, and we’ve got a lot of those commitments out there but we’ll do it in a financially responsible way, consistent with our budget pledge.

Dennis: And tax cuts for every one under $52,000?

LATHAM: You’ll see the detail of our policy when its released.

Hiya. Today, a few of your comments on Not Happy John! A lot’s been happening for me this week and I haven’t been able to read all my emails, so please send or resend your comments on the book to nothappyjohn and the team will endeavour to get them up there.

 

But first, have a look at a great scoop by the Herald Sun�s Jason Frenkel, which the Murdoch Melbourne tabloid buried on page 17 today. Fellow Australians, John Howard has decided that WE will pay for sitting members� how to vote cards, for the first time ever. How�s that for an unfair, undemocratic process. No fair fights for John. And for fair dinkum vote-rigging, what can beat Jason�s report that MPs got their annual $125,000 printing allowance on July 1, so sitting members can spend the bloody lot to see off the competition. See Double dip for poll campaign. He added privately: “Abetz’s office says its an unwritten convention. But ask any of the senior campaign officials on either side and they have never heard of it… And Abetz’s office has confirmed to me that they are re-writing the member’s entitlements handbook right now – my guess is that a previously “unwritten convention” will now be codified and formalised in writing in the new edition handbook. It will pump an extra $20million or thereabouts into party coffers.”

June�s Webdiary statistics are:

1. Howard’s 2004 Tampa: director George Bush, June 9

2. Our beds are burning election, June 11

3. Not happy John!, June 20

4. Did our government lie to us to protect America?, June 2

5. A call to scream from Andrew Denton, by Andrew Denton, June 11

6. Tony Fitzgerald: Howard a “radical”, June 29

7. Howard drapes polluter’s package in green, June 15

8. Was Australia complicit in U.S. war crimes at Abu Ghraib?, June 2

9. Hill – defeated by Defence or just another pawn in the lie game?

10. Renewable energy crumb laced with poison, by Meg Lees, June 15

The top five referring websites were spleenville, roadtosurfdom, bushwatch,informationclearinghouse and iraqdaily

***

YOUR REACTION TO NOT HAPPY JOHN

Heather Jeffcoat, a staffer of Democrats Senator John Cherry: Congratulations on your new book. Check out familymovie, truthaboutwarmovie and refugeesmovie (audio required).

Grant Lee: I listened to your comments on Late Night Live on Wednesday night where you referred to Chinese Premier Hu Jintao as a “communist dictator”. A malign dictator he may be, a “Communist” in name and rhetoric he may be, but a communist in fact, he is not. Since the death of Mao Zedong, private enterprise has been enouraged to the point where less than half of the economy is now in public hands. This is especially significant in a country where more than 70% of the population is still involved in peasant agriculture (and therefore comprises far less than 70% of the economy). The political elite such as Hu and his family and cronies have become immensely rich as result of this privatisation by default. It is safe to say that Hu is, effectively, not a communist.

***

Trish Kench

I’ve always seen my right to vote as an obligation – a duty of citizenship; the “right thing” to do. In recent years I’ve watched the dishonest antics of the spoiled brat brigade; the woeful lack of principled leadership from representatives of both labour and the privileged; the tossing out of the ‘fair go’; the sacrifice of honesty for expediency, of independence for dollars; the growth of brand and spin, of the citizen-as-consumer and the replacement of ‘society’ with ‘the marketplace’.

We have no society if we don’t care about each other’s well being; if profit is more important than compassion and moral integrity; if our national identity rhetoric (fair go; mateship; dinkum) is co-opted as ‘brand’ by the cashed-up powerful who, straight faced, serve it back to us on its head and think we won’t notice – or care.

I do notice and I care a great deal. As did many others, I recorded my protest at the last election by voting Green – for the first time.

Listen up boys, or I will take away your toys: I want a good education for my neighbour’s children and I want his elderly parents warm, well fed and happy. I will help to pay for their teachers, their pharmaceuticals, and any hospitalisation they need. When he is etrenched because his skill set is outmoded I will help to pay to retrain him.

I want teachers and nurses paid commensurate with the importance of the hard and valuable work they do. I want the natural environment protected and sustained. I want an informative free press.

I am not an anarchist or one of a mob of terrorist-sympathisers and I want to say Sorry. I want something constructive done about the health and welfare of indigenous Australians. I want to treat ‘illegal’ refugees with compassion and child abusers sent to jail.

I want a clear demarcation between politics and the bureaucracy. I want democracy. Increase my taxes.

***

Penny Butler in Fairfield, Melbourne

Firstly – thank you for your amazing book. I read Tony Fitzgerald’s launch speech in The Age on Tuesday and immediately left the office to purchase your book. I am half way through it and although the points made are frightening, it is an excellent read and so far sums up many of the discussions my father and I have regarding the state of political play in this country. Further, although I am not there yet, I notice that you have actually included suggestions of ways we can bring about change. Bravo.

I regularly email the PM, Mark Latham, Amanda Vandstone etc asking questions and making points. Iraq, Hicks & Habib, Refugees – all these issues and more cause me much concern. However the greater concern is the failure of the News to inform the people and to even ignore key issues. I recently emailed the editor to the Age asking why this is so (we know why). I couldn’t believe, after the Abu Gharib situation, that our Government was misinformed yet again. In all my 33 years I have never known a govt. to be so misinformed about so many things. And all of these things will potentially impact Australia’s future in a major way. The newspapers are relatively quiet on it and Mark Latham has been near silent. Pathetic.

I was nearly ready to throw my hands in the air in disgust and give up – most people at work think I am a bit of a freak because I go on about the Government so much – but their lack of concern is another worry I carry with me. However, you have given me hope and upon finishing your book I will do what I can to effect some change about the place because you are right, Howard’s version of Australia is not the one I want to belong to and I will do whatever I can to help remove him.

Your book also introduced me to Webdiary – as an Age reader I hadn’t seen it before. There should be a link from The Age to it. It is a fantastic forum. Thank you.

At the end of the day – whether it be Liberal or Labor – they both have a duty to protect our democracy and they are failing. So I guess it’s up to us.

***

Jim Connolly in Paynesville, Victoria

You�ve opened up a can of worms with ‘Not Happy John!’ and it’s time somebody did. From the time the First Fleet arrived, Australians have feared invasion by a foreign power. Perhaps it is guilt for the dispossession of the Aborigines that we have, ever since, anticipated that we, in our turn, will be dispossessed by a foreign invader. We have reacted to perceived threats by the Aborigines themselves, the French, the Russians, the Germans, the “Yellow Peril” of the millions of poor in the Asian countries to our north, the Japanese in particular, Communists, the Domino theory, “Boat People” and, at the time of writing, Islamic terrorists.

Perhaps this is why politicians have perpetuated the myth that the US saved us from Japanese invasion during the war. The fact is that the Japanese attacked the US because America had cut off supplies of oil and rubber to Japan. Australia had no oil or rubber at that time and Japan had neither the will nor the capacity to occupy a country this size during the war in the Pacific. Churchill and Roosevelt knew this but, because they didn’t trust Curtin, whether Curtin was told is still in dispute.

Macarthur arrived here as an asylum seeker, unexpected and uninvited. If he arrived the same way today he would be locked up in a detention centre. It was the Australians who first stopped the Japanese on the Kokoda Track. We owe the US nothing and can expect nothing from them unless it is in their interest. Surely it is time we ended our sycophantic, subservient subjection to American political objectives.

The following questions should be discussed:

1. Who really runs Australia?

2. Will the forthcoming election be a de-facto referendum on Australia’s Sovereignty?

***

John Caldecott

Re Tony Fitzgerald�s speech at your Sydney launch, it is now easy to understand why public education is being put down by both major parties. Institutions of society have been taken over in the name of neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism. Their social, economic and political religion is based upon the Washington Consensus and their values are based upon corporate values.

Democracy is about who has the most private property and the modus operandi is whatever it takes and however long it takes. These are the corporatists, and they exist in the media, think tanks, political parties, governments and lobby groups. They are not game to stand as one political party – it is much easier to take over and control existing institutions so as not to alert the public that they are about to be deceived by a well engineered and manufactured crisis. Royal Commissions are almost never used, as they might uncover the truth and compromise the movement.

It is a movement that knows no borders and as we have seen with both the Liberal and Labor camps (federal and state), their values and ethics constantly change to suit the corporatist end game. Putting up PBS prices in readiness for the FTA. Putting up the cost of water in cities and towns in readiness for the planned water privatisation and the FTA. State governments, all Labor, are planning to convert the water entitlements (public property) of irrigators and farmers into permanent private property rights to enrich landowners and the banks. Obscene private education and private health funding, the recent baby bonus and no questions asked Family Payment (Grant) don’t make sense when at the same time public school and universities fees are being put up, public housing sold off and public hospitals are under immense strain. Welfare recipients are terrorised by CentreLink and the ATO whilst they pay back any overpayments caused by extra earnings – so much for incentive. Public infrastructure is starved of funds to justify Private Public Partnerships.

All these “reforms” are designed to gradually transform public property into private property, never mind whether effectiveness and the competitive position of the economy is compromised. Social policy is now regressive not progressive.

Put simply it is capitalism gone mad and as we have just witnessed with the corporatist latest and most audacious revolutionary reform yet, the “National Water Initiative” or should I say the “National Water Privatisation”. It is time to dump corportist political parties, expose their propaganda network and establish institutions that are truly in the public interest.

***

Grant Long in Newcastle

I heard you on LNL on Tuesday night. Speaking for myself, I greatly appreciate what you have achieved (so far!) with Webdiary.

A year or so ago, after yet another announcement from the government on detention centres, I started compiling a list of what I believed our country had lost since 1996 and also the things the government had done since that time that I found offensive. It was only a dot point list but it grew to some length.

It started with things like �mutual obligation� that only flowed in one direction. It included other things like SIEV-X and the Tampa. This lead to children, or even adults, in horrendous detention. Little did I know then that our country would commit to war in Iraq. On and on the list went. Needless to say it was a lowpoint in my life. Where was the country of my childhood and youth that I loved for its great contrasts, it inclusiveness, it positiveness and tolerance?

I know many other people of ages from 20 to 70 (no doubt beyond) also feel this way as I have a beer with them and chew the fat over politics. My father in law, who has always been a Liberal voter, now speaks about Bob Brown as a voice of reason in an increasingly self-serving parliament. Things change, evolution is relentless.

But what remained for me was a void, a participation void. I am glad to say that Webdiary has, in large part, filled that void and therefore also greatly reduced my increasing frustration. I could say it has kept me sane.

***

Vince O’Hara

What a pleasant surprise to hear you the other day on “Australia talks back” and then again, with that old Adams bastard. Like old times! And congratulations on the book: I’ve got a copy on order today.

Your insightful comment on political affairs is very much to my liking, though I don’t doubt that we would disagree on some things. But you seem to be able to clearly nail the average Australian thinking on some controversial subjects. Your “expose” on the usurpation of our Parliamentary protocol by Howard’s supine complicity during the Bush invasion should be much more widely appreciated, if only our citizens were awake to such bastardry.

***

Michael Strutt

Listening to your piece on Late Night Live I was struck by your continued commitment to participatory journalism. You even went so far as to say that you limited your Webdiary editorial discretion to articles which were libellous or abusive (in spite of the fact that you have admitted that you declined to post an article early last year because you thought its argument that there were *no* WMD in Iraq was just too far out).

I agree that it may just be possible to salvage journalism by encouraging broad participation. The examples of IndyMedia, bloggers and OhMyNews (in South Korea) certainly seem to offer an encouraging start.

But is Webdiary really the way forward? Or in being tied to Fairfax is it actually a retrograde step which will ultimately bind contributors just a tightly to the corporate inspired self censorship that has made Fairfax no more of an alternative to News Ltd than the ALP is to the Coalition (and for pretty much the same reasons)?

For the past few weeks I have not even been able to read Webdiary, thanks to registration policies that insist that I must become an open ended marketing resource if I wish to access Fairfax online content. Yes, I know that Fairfax has a ‘privacy policy’. But after 20 years in the IT industry I know just how hollow such promises of privacy protection are (as 92 million AOL subscribers recentlydiscovered.

It seems to me that if you are really committed to *indenpedent* participatory journalism there is an immediate symbolic gesture you could make to demonstrate it. You could demand that Fairfax online exempts Webdiary from registration requirements or, if that is technically problematic, demand the right to mirror its content as part of the nothappyjohn website.

I await your response with interest – but don’t bother doing so via Webdiary as I will be unable to read it.

***

Les Bursill in Engadine, Brisbane

Well done MK. I heard you on LNL and I must buy my own copy. Two things.

1. My access card AKA credit card and fund access card got crunched by the machine and no money or credit for me all weekend (no food no petrol no movies, nothing). How can banks get away with that? They have no emergency procedures in place. I went to the manager Monday at 9.30 (no early starts here) and she said ‘tough’. I told her banks need to become (ha ha) socially responsible and remember the billions they make from us sheep.

2. On Sutherland station on Friday last (25th June 3.45pm), the station crowded with school kids. Two sets of police with dogs (dressed like storm troopers [not the dogs]) came to the station and started searching any, every child the dogs showed interest in. The kids couldn’t have been more than 15 or so. No privacy, no appology just bailed them up, emptied their pockets and their bags on the concourse in full view, just tough for you. Don’t approach sir or you will be arrested for interfering. I just don’t feel that warm and comfy glow Johnny promised.

G�day. I�ll allow myself a Webdiary entry to publish your first take on my book, but from now on if you want to review it, correct it, comment or put up your ideas to defend our democracy, go to Penguin’s nothappyjohn website, which Webdiarists and book contributors Jack Robertson andAntony Loewenstein and I will maintain. It was fabulous to meet so many Webdiarists at the launches in Canberra, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Thanks for coming.

 

Will Howard call call the election on Sunday for August 7? My pick in the office sweep was August 7, and August has been my selection since I read that page 1 one story by Paul Kelly in The Australian in which Richard Armitage threatened to end the American alliance if Australians elected a Labor government (see Howard’s 2004 Tampa: director George Bush and Stage set for David and Goliath battle).

I hope I�m wrong about August 7, but Latham is so worried about the Sundayprogram�s pending profile he did a short-notice pre-emptive strike on John Laws’ radio show this morning. That means he’s prepared to guarantee the Sunday profile a big audience. The transcript follows. Tony Kevinwrites:

If Howard does decide to delay the election till, say, October, I think it will be for three reasons:

1. Wanting time to reconvene Senate and trap Labor into having to sign or reject the US Free Trade Agreement in the Senate. Howard would see Latham as facing a Hobson’s choice here – if he lets it pass, it will gag Labor from further criticism of FTA , ie it is neutralised as an election issue. If Latham blocks it, it becomes an alliance loyalty wedge issue from which Howard would hope to pick up a few Nervous Ned and Nellie votes. We really need a larger community debate NOW on the risks to our sovereignty and public welfare of this FTA. I am trying to help stimulate one (through the ‘Eureka Street’ July issue and my website). The FTA is really important for our sovereignty and welfare, yet hardly anyone now is saying or writing anything about it. It seems to be off limits! (Margo: see Subsuming us into America – the economic aspect.)

2. Howard hopes Iraq will stabilise militarily. That is anybody’s guess. If the US troops are locked up in barracks and Bush and Rumsfeld say nothing provocative maybe it might. But it is poised on a knife-edge.

3. The electoral money bribes – instalment 2 of the kids’ handout kicks in in September . How well timed.

***

INTERVIEW WITH JOHN LAWS, 2UE STUDIO, SYDNEY, FRIDAY, 2 JULY 2004

Subjects: Sunday Program

LAWS: It appears to be that some people are far more interested in Mark Latham�s past than they are in their own future. All sorts of stories about his past are doing the rounds ahead of what is called a major profile on the Sunday (program) this weekend. Mark Latham is in the studio. Good morning. Don�t hit me!

LATHAM: How are you going, John.

LAWS: I�m all right. What have you done in the past that is apparently � according to these people � so hideous?

LATHAM: The funny thing about all of this is that it�s billed as investigative journalism but it is actually ancient history � the Sunday program talking breathlessly about an incident 15 years ago that was reported in the Melbourne Age newspaper on 13 March.

This is something that has been reported before; it happened 15 years ago. From my point of view it is pretty straightforward; we were in our campaign rooms at the end of the Liverpool by-election voting day so it would have been a Saturday night in the main street of Liverpool. We were closing and a fellow called Don Nelson wandered in � he came across from the RSL, which had closed on the other side of the road � and he was mates with a bloke who was in the campaign room, Peter Fraser. Peter offered him a beer and was sitting having a chat and Don Nelson spied me as one of the local Liverpool councillors and started to complain that the other day he had backed his car into one of the big pot plants in the main street and wanted to make a big complaint to me as a councillor. Well, at 11 o�clock on a Saturday night, we�d had a long day with all the voting and the by-election activities, and I said, �Look, you know, that�s a bit of a worry; how about we talk about it Monday.� But he wanted to go on and on about it and I thought I would put a bit of humour in and said, �Don, listen, I�m a man of direct action, I believe in getting results done for the people of Liverpool. How about we go out on the street now and we�ll move the pot plant so you can�t smash you car into them again in the future.� And, at this point � and he had had a good night � he got a bit stroppy and sort of took half a swing at me. We grabbed him and got him out of the campaign rooms.

LAWS: Did you biff him?

LATHAM: No, no, I grabbed hold of him. He was � I mean, not in any state to do anyone real harm but we just got hold of him and got him out of the campaign rooms, a bit of crowd control and that was the end of that. But his mate, Peter Fraser � he�s been bagging me for 20 years out in Liverpool � I think, has tried to generate a bit of mischief. Peter put these claims down in The Agenewspaper in March. I responded to them.

You know this is an insignificant piece of trivia because I was a Liverpool councillor at the time. I was an elected representative. It never featured in the Liverpool papers. When I ran for Mayor in 1991; no coverage about it. I ran for the national Parliament at a by-election in 1994, no-one said boo about it. The fellow never made any complaints. Fifteen years later the only thing that has happened is I�m running for Prime Minister so this sort of trivia gets dragged out and apparently this is the big news the Sunday program has got � it was reported, what, four months ago with the Melbourne Age newspaper. It happened 15 years ago and it�s been either a big yawn or a big laugh ever since.

LAWS: Is there anything else that you think they might drop on you in the Sunday program?

LATHAM: Well, I saw this morning on the Today program that this fellow Frank Heyhoe who�s one of their, again, investigative journalism products. Frank gave what was billed as an exclusive interview with the Sun Herald [sic] newspaper on 8 February.

So, again, all of these things have been aired. People have had a grievance about me � I mean, I was involved in local politics and ballots and disputes and arguments, that�s the nature of local democracy. They had their lash when I became Leader of the Party seven months ago � or, in these two instances, in an article on the 8th February and then one on the 13th of March � so it is ancient history that is being recycled under the banner of investigative journalism. When I look back and think about it � something that couldn�t even get in the local Liverpool newspapers 15 years ago is spoken of in this way it�s so bizarre, it�s amusing.

LAWS: Are you a bit of a biffer?

LATHAM: No.

LAWS: Come on!

LATHAM: I�ve grown up in the western suburbs � every now and then you�ve got to hold your hands up to defend yourself. I�ve played footy. I wasn�t living in a convent out there. There is the odd occasion on the footy field or elsewhere you have had to defend yourself and that�s just been part of life. But I don�t go around biffing people, certainly not.

LAWS: It�s part of life in that kind of environment, with all respect to the western suburbs. In fact, it is kind of part of the charm of the western suburbs that it is fundamentally pretty tough living and you�ve got to learn to be a survivor and there are many different ways to be a survivor. Sometimes you�ve got to protect yourself. But have you ever aggressively taken up a fight to somebody else?

LATHAM: No, only to what you would call self-defence on the footy field or in this particular instance with this fellow in the campaign rooms. There was the instance with the taxi driver. I recovered my stolen property which I was entitled to do. But the other thing is people would report these things to the authorities and, with the thing they are talking about 15 years ago in the campaign rooms, nothing was ever reported to the authorities or in the newspapers and that just proves the insignificance of it.

LAWS: Okay. The terrible night with the cab driver; were you drunk?

LATHAM: I wouldn�t have thought I was drunk. I had had a few drinks. I was in cab; I was over the limit in terms of driving home but I wouldn�t have regarded myself as drunk. I had my wits about me to know that my property had been stolen and I needed to track him down and get it back, which I did.

LAWS: Have you anything to hide from people? Because the suggestion of this is that you have, because you wouldn�t cooperate with the program or something. But do you believe that you�ve got anything � I have! Is there anybody who hasn�t got something they would prefer not to be aired?

LATHAM: I�m not claiming to be 100 per cent perfect and that I�ve been a little angel all my life. I�m just claiming to have been a regular person who grew up in the Western suburbs of Sydney, wanted to serve the people of my district, which I did in local government and now in federal politics, and wanting to do good things for the country.

I�ve really got no secrets and when I got this job seven months ago there was a lot of scrutiny. A lot of people came out and said a lot of things about me and I handled that at the time so I don�t really feel there are any secrets. There is just now an attempt to recycle material that’s already been published and try and get some prominence for this program on Sunday.

There is also an attempt by the Liberal Party to stir these things up. The Australian newspaper on its website reports �One Government minister told the Australian the Liberal Party has been pursuing allegations that Mr Latham was involved in an incident during an earlier election that led to un unknown person breaking a collarbone�. The unknown person is unknown to me, as is the incident. People who want to spread rumours and create this sort of mischief – I don�t think they do the system any service.

I know one thing for sure: I know the Australian people are much more interested in where the education and health systems are going to be 20 months from now than what happened 20 years ago on the back streets of Liverpool. I mean, you can talk about the past until you are blue in the face but I try to focus on the future and being positive and I�m sure that’s where the Australian people want our public debate to go.

LAWS: That�s what I said at the beginning of the interview; it seems that a lot of people are far more interested in your past than they are in their own future because you are an integral part of their future, whether you win or lose the election at this time is totally immaterial, you are going to be Opposition Leader, you are around, you are a major figure in politics and they should be aware that you are, like it or dislike, going to be part of their future one way or another. But can you believe that there are suggestions � now, I found this quite extraordinary, that you had an active love life between marriages! Who wouldn�t?

LATHAM: Can I just give you the breaking news: I had an active love life before marriage! Now, imagine what the Liberal Party will do with that! I can hardly wait for Tony Abbott�s diatribe in the Australian Parliament � ooh, what a person!

LAWS: There you go.

LATHAM: I think the big news is if you didn�t � that would be the big news, wouldn�t it, as far as I�m concerned.

LAWS: Yes, if you didn�t. One of the brightest blokes in politics that I ever encountered, and you too I would imagine, and a larrikin of the first order in Bob Hawke. I still see Bob and I like him very much; I didn�t like a lot of his political ideas but I like him as a bloke very much. Now, he was smart; he got the biography out before and any time anybody � and that’s why I think it is very important now that you and I are talking you get it all out so that you can continue to say as Bob said, �Well, hang on, sure, I did. What, yes, I did that it�s in the book. Haven�t you read the book? It�s in the book.� and would simply dismiss all of this rubbish from the past.

LATHAM: I dismiss it but, in terms of it being out, it was out when I got this job in December and then follow up newspaper articles and profiles in February and March so I can honestly say I�ve got no secrets. I mean, I feel like I have been examined and the Liberal Party inventing things, as we read in the papers today, and they have had their go in Parliament and the like, but my focus remains on the future and being positive and talking about the things that actually matter to the Australian people. We don�t want to go down the American path with talk about the private � it�s the public things that actually matter to the Australian people.

LAWS: Okay. Let me say this to you: the reason I wanted to talk to you is because I have been down the road that you are now going down. There was a story recently where somebody wanted to say I didn�t give any money to the fire brigade, because I was flying their flag I should have given money to them. I gave them a fire engine and they write these ridiculous stories. I find it offensive. Whether you become Prime Minister or not, at this stage of my life, is totally immaterial to me. I happen to like you like I like John Howard. But I do subscribe to the theory of fairness. Why have they taken three months to dish the dirt on you? And that�s what they are saying; it�s taken three months investigating for the Sunday program to do what they are going to on Sunday.

LATHAM: They can run their own race at the Sunday program but they have taken three months to find a story that was reported in a major Melbourne newspaper four months ago. I think if they�re investigative journalists they should hand their badge and their cheque over to the people who wrote the article four months ago � Gay Alcorn, Malcolm Schmidt and Liz Minchin. It�s been reported; that’s the thing that makes me laugh about it. It�s just bizarre but the good thing about it is the Australian people are actually focused on the future. The election is going to be determined on who�s got the best policies for the country rather than some nonsense that runs around the media and the backrooms of the Liberal Party.

LAWS: Are you over-confident?

LATHAM: No, not at all. I don�t take anything for granted. I�m ready for the election when the Prime Minister calls it. Looking forward to the campaign which is again a chance to get out and be positive and tell more about our plans to the Australian people.

LAWS: Where is Simon Crean?

LATHAM: He is in Phillip Street (Sydney) today at one of our meetings, as we�re finalising our policies and getting ready.

LAWS: He has kind of vanished publicly; we don�t hear much about him.

LATHAM: Oh, no. He did our response to the budget and he�s out there arguing the case on his responsibilities for the Australian economy.

LAWS: Are you expecting John Howard to make a visit to the Governor-General, not his chosen Governor-General, but the Governor-General?

LATHAM: That�s up to the Prime Minister. He�s a tough campaigner. He doesn�t give me any clues or hints so we�ll just have to wait and see what happens there but we are going to have an election in this part of the year, the second half of the year, and I think that is something I am looking forward to very much so whenever the Prime Minister calls it. Let�s hope we have a positive campaign and both sides putting out good ideas for the future of the country.

LAWS: Thank you very much for coming in at such late notice.

LATHAM: A pleasure, John. Any other rumours you want to raise?

LAWS: Let me again say this has got nothing to do with politics; it�s only got to do with fairness and if John Howard were in the same situation I would like to have him in the studio to talk about it too. And you do understand that?

LATHAM: Yes, and I appreciate it.

LAWS: I just think fair is fair and sometimes they can go a little bit too far. John Lyons a mate of mine (Margo: John is the boss at Sunday and wrote Laws’ biography.)and a very good journalist, maybe you would like to ring me and tell what�s in that program that I don�t know about and it will be interesting to see. But after all this I imagine for the first time in a long time theSunday program will actually have a rating!

LATHAM: Maybe that�s what it�s all about. You live and learn.

This is the full text of Justice Tony Fitzgerald’s speech launching my book ‘Not happy John! Defending our democracy’, at Gleebooks in Sydney on June 22. Michelle Grattan reported on the speech today at Fitzgerald berates both sides of politics

 

In a speech last year, the author Norman Mailer described democracy as �a state of grace that is attained only by those countries which have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom but to undergo the heavy labor of maintaining it�. Not Happy John! is Margo Kingston�s admirable contribution to the �heavy labor� of maintaining democracy in Australia.

As the title hints, Margo has focused her analysis on the behaviour of the current Commonwealth government, especially the Prime Minister. In the words of the publisher: �Not Happy, John! is a gutsy, anecdotal book with a deadly serious purpose: to lay bare the insidious ways in which John Howard�s government has profoundly undermined our freedoms and our rights. She doesn�t care whether you vote Liberal or Labor, Greens or One Nation. She isn�t interested in the old, outworn left – right rhetoric. What she�s passionate about is the urgent need for us to reassert the core civic values of a humane, egalitarian, liberal democracy.�

You will observe the force of Margo�s argument when you read her book, as obviously you should. My brief remarks will be directed to the damage that mainstream politicians generally are doing to our democracy.

Australians generally accept that democracy is the best system of government, the market is the most efficient mechanism for economic activity and fair laws are the most powerful instrument for creating and maintaining a society that is free, rational and just. However, we are also collectively conscious that democracy is fragile, the market is amoral and law is an inadequate measure of responsibility. As former Chief Justice Warren of the United States Supreme Court explained: “Law �.. presupposes the existence of a broad area of human conduct controlled only by ethical norms.�

Similarly, democracy in our tradition assumes that a broad range of political activity is controlled only by conventions of proper conduct. Especially because individual rights are not constitutionally guaranteed in this country, justice, equality and other fundamental community values in Australia are constantly vulnerable to the disregard of those conventions.

Since the sacking of the Whitlam Government in 1975, the major political parties seem to have largely abandoned the ethics of government. A spiteful, divisive contest now dominates the national conversation, and democracy struggles incessantly with populism. Mainstream political parties routinely shirk their duty of maintaining democracy in Australia.

This is nowhere more obvious than in what passes for political debate, in which it is regarded as not only legitimate but clever to mislead. Although effective democracy depends on the participation of informed citizens, modern political discourse is corrupted by pervasive deception. It is a measure of the deep cynicism in our party political system that many of the political class deride those who support the evolution of Australia as a fair, tolerant, compassionate society and a good world citizen as an un-Australian, �bleeding-heart� elite, and that the current government inaccurately describes itself as conservative and liberal.

It is neither.

It exhibits a radical disdain for both liberal thought and fundamental institutions and conventions. No institution is beyond stacking and no convention restrains the blatant advancement of ideology. The tit-for-tat attitude each side adopts means that the position will probably change little when the opposition gains power at some future time. A decline in standards will continue if we permit it.

Without ethical leadership, those of us who are comfortably insulated from the harsh realities of violence, disability, poverty and discrimination seem to have experienced a collective failure of imagination. Relentless change and perceptions of external threat make conformity and order attractive and incremental erosions of freedom tolerable to those who benefit from the status quo and are apprehensive of others who are different and therefore easily misunderstood.

Mainstream Australians remain unreconciled with Indigenous Australians and largely ignore their just claims.

Without any coherent justification, we are participating in a war in a distant country in which more than half the population are children, some of whom, inevitably, are being killed. In our own country, many live in poverty, children are hungry and homeless and other severely traumatized children are in detention in flagrant breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child simply because they were brought here by their parents seeking a better life.

Politicians mesmerised by power seem to be unconcerned that, when leaders fail to set and follow ethical standards, public trust is damaged, community expectations diminish and social divisions expand. However, these matters are important to the rest of us. We are a community, not merely a collection of self-interested individuals. Justice, integrity and trust in fundamental institutions are essential social assets and social capital is as important as economic prosperity.

In order to perform our democratic function, we need, and are entitled to, the truth. Nothing is more important to the functioning of democracy than informed discussion and debate. Yet a universal aim of the power-hungry is to stifle dissent. Most of us are easily silenced, through a sense of futility if not personal concern.

Margo has the knowledge, energy and courage to stand up for her beliefs. Congratulations, Margo, for doing much more than your share of the �heavy labor� of maintaining Australia�s democracy. It is a privilege to launch �Not Happy John!�, to urge all to read it and to wish you and �Not Happy John!� every success.

***

POSTSCRIPT: in Tony’s written speech but not delivered at the launch

There are currently 162 children in immigration detention in mainland Australia and on Nauru and Christmas Island.

The recently published report by the HEREOC National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (A Last Resort, 2004) attests that “Australian laws that require the mandatory immigration detention of children and the way these laws are administered by the Commonwealth, have resulted in numerous and repeated breaches of the Convention on the Rights of the Child”.

Findings by the Inquiry confirm what those of us who have sustained contact with some of the children now released have known for some time, namely that “the traumatic nature of the detention experience has out-stripped any previous trauma that the children have had”. It observed that:

“Children in detention exhibited symptoms including bed-wetting, sleep walking and night terrors. At the severe end of the spectrum, some children became mute, refused to eat and drink, made suicide attempts and began to self-harm, such as by cutting themselves.”

With respect to some children the Inquiry found that:

“The Department of Immigration failed to implement the clear – and in some cases repeated – recommendations of State agencies and mental health experts that they be urgently transferred out of detention centres with their parents. This amounted to cruel,inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Detention of children places extreme stress on their parents. Those we have come to know have expressed this to us. They felt responsible and guilty for bringing their children to Australia ,where instead of finding freedom and the new home they had promised their children, they were being held in “a prison”.

As the Inquiry stated “being in detenion can severely undermine the ability of parents to care for their children”. Their normal roles in the family are taken away from them. Often too the parents are severely traumatized by the experience of detention, which reduces their ability to parent their children.

Children in detention have witnessed extreme forms of violence, riots, suicide attempts and self harm. Some have been tear gassed and struck by batons during riots. The Inquiry found that “the Commonwealth had breached the Convention on the Rights of the Child by failing to take all appropriate measures to protect children in detention from physical and mental violence”.

Other measures which I would describe as inhumane and dehumanizing include giving children ( and their parents) a number which they must wear at all times and by which they are known and called; not allowing parents to take any photos of their children…..so babies born in detention have no photos recording their growth and development, something most parents take for granted.

That a society which calls itself civilized continues to countenance the prolonged and indeterminate detention of children in conditions closely resembling those of a high security prison , shocks me profoundly. That this society is Australia, saddens and angers me more than I can say.