“Perhaps the real task is to create a radical edge, to combine our enthusiasm for new Labor thinking with outsider values. If old and new Labor are to be reconciled, this is the best way forward.” Mark Latham

We’ve discussed Australian values for a long time in Webdiary, and the values of politics, and the fate of the left, where to go when left/right labels don’t work anymore, and the way ahead for our nation.

For example, see:

Defining your politics, webdiary

Decency, our way, webdiary

Acts of conscience, webdiary

Redrawing maps of home, webdiary

Of racism and globalisation, webdiary

It’s been a traumatic time, the last twelve months, for those of progressive bent. Whatever you think of Mark Latham, at least he’s thinking, and thinking hard. His 2002 Menzies lecture is meaty and, as usual, strains hard to create a new blueprint for Labor.

The Culture War

The 2002 Menzies Lecture, Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, King’s College London, 17 September 2002

It is not often I quote John Howard but today I can. In an interview to mark his 63rd birthday two months ago, Howard said that, “Bob Menzies was in power for 16 years but people in the labour movement hated him the whole 16 years.” (1)

I grew up in one of those families. My earliest political memory is of my grandparents praising Jack Lang, while giving Menzies a fair serve of Australian slang. You will excuse me, therefore, if I skip over the usual practice of paying tribute to Menzies the man. My grandparents would turn in their graves. Rather, I want to talk about the importance of values and culture in public life and draw some lessons from the Menzies era.

Most politicians think of society in terms of material items: the distribution of income, the accumulation of assets, the payment of welfare monies. While no one can dispute the importance of these issues, they tend to overshadow the other great driver of electoral behaviour: political culture.

Society is not just a set of economic relationships. It is also a dense network of personal relationships, the human emotions and connections that give us a sense of social identity. When people share these experiences collectively, they also start to build a shared set of values and norms. This process often crosses economic and class boundaries.

Menzies was the first Australian politician to understand the importance of this social dimension and to harness it for electoral success. In the 1950s and 60s, he mirrored large parts of our public culture, sharing the values and identity of a democratic majority. In today’s language, it would be called wedge politics.

Menzies used the communist bogey to convey his values to the Australian electorate. In the face of a totalitarian threat, he was for individual freedom – democratic, religious and economic freedom. In practice, this issue split the Labor Party for a generation. It divided our working class constituencies in two: Catholics against socialists.

This was more than just an economic or ideological question. It went to the heart of how Australians felt about themselves and the state of society around them. Menzies gave his supporters a sense of belonging and a sense of security. During a time of great uncertainty, he looked at issues through the prism of popular values.

The parallels with Australian politics today are striking. John Howard won last year’s election campaigning on values: border protection, national security and social order. His refugee policy divided the Labor constituency, setting inner-city activists against the suburban working class. More campaigns of this kind are certain to follow. As one of our leading political commentators, Paul Kelly, wrote last month:

Howard is about proving that the Left’s social policies – from refugees and work-family to Aboriginal affairs – don’t work and aren’t wanted by the national majority. He is going to focus on social policy this term and set out to smash the post-Whitlam political alliance between the working class and the tertiary-educated Left that defines modern Labor. The refugee issue severed this alliance at the 2001 poll and Howard will follow up with new campaigns. He senses that the 30-year-old alliance of the Australian Left is collapsing. (2)

This is the political equivalent of a declaration of war, a culture war against the ALP. The last election was not a one-off. It was merely the first round in a new form of partisan debate. Australia has entered an era of post-material politics where increasingly, the electoral contest will be determined by social values.

This matches the experience of Left-of-Centre parties around the world. The Right’s ascendancy in continental Europe and North America has been based on social and cultural issues, such as illegal migration and street crime. In many respects, this is the blindside of globalisation.

For the past decade, the Left has been debating globalisation as an economic event when, in fact, its main political impact has been cultural. Issues such as the mass movement of people, the internationalisation of crime and the free flow of information and cultural products challenge our sense of social stability and belonging. In a world without borders and often without order, people are struggling to maintain the anchors of everyday life – family support, community pride and national identity.

This is the defining feature of a post-traditional society, where people lose control and certainty over their lives. It reflects the paradox of modernity: how society has become more prosperous yet people feel more powerless. Record rates of GDP have been matched by record rates of mental illness, youth suicide and social stress. The US Democrat, Tip O’Neill, famously declared that all politics is local. Increasingly, I get the feeling that all politics is cultural.

For parties of the Left, this is unfamiliar territory. Our political outlook reflects the legacy of class analysis, positioning all issues and debates on a spectrum of Left to Right. Questions of identity and culture are external to this framework. As a result, Left-of-Centre politics has focussed on the economic relationship between the state and society, rather than the social relationships between people.

With the end of the Cold War, the effectiveness of this approach has expired. In the new economy, the boundaries between capital and labour have blurred, especially with the rise of highly skilled knowledge workers. In Australia, for instance, there are now more shareowners (54 percent of the adult population) than full-time workers (43 percent). The politics of class struggle, the historic clash between capitalism and socialism, has been replaced by the politics of public culture.

For a century or more, Labor parties won the votes of working people on the basis of economic issues. Now we are losing them in the values debate. This is not because our values are wrong. Far from it, the ideals of a more cooperative and cohesive society have never been more relevant. Rather, we are applying our values to the wrong issues.

Left-of-Centre politics is yet to engage in the language and issues of the culture war. Whether it is May Day protestors trashing a McDonalds outlet or politicians complaining about the tax-transfer system, we are missing the main game. It’s social values, stupid.

Not surprisingly, parties of the Right, with their culture of conformity and punishment, have filled this gap. They are winning elections, not because their values are the right ones for society, but because they are more comfortable and experienced in this sort of debate. During a time of social anxiety, the conservative call for order has a certain appeal, at least for the short term. While it can never solve society’s problems, it offers people respite from the consequences of disorder.

The challenge for Labor Parties internationally is to engage in the values debate. If we are to win elections, we must be competitive in the culture war. In the remainder of this lecture, I want to draw on the Australian experience as a way of contributing to this process. We have some important lessons to offer, from both the Menzies and Howard periods.

Insiders and Outsiders

A starting point is to rethink the political spectrum, to move beyond notions of Left and Right. Social values are not organised along ideological lines. Rather, they relate to shared lifestyle experiences: our interaction with other people, the way in which we process information, our proximity to power and influence in society.

By this test, it is possible to identify two distinctive political cultures in Australia. The powerful centre of our society, concentrated in the international heart of the major cities, talks a different language to suburban communities. In lifestyle and political values, they are poles apart.

At the social centre, people tend to take a tourist’s view of the world. They travel extensively, eat-out and buy-in domestic help. The cultural challenges of globalisation are seen as an opportunity, a chance to develop further one’s identity and information skills.

This abstract lifestyle has produced an abstract style of politics. Symbolic and ideological campaigns are given top priority. This involves a particular methodology: adopting a predetermined position on issues and then looking for evidence to support this position.

In the suburbs, the value set is more pragmatic. People do not readily accept the need for cultural change or the demands of identity politics. They lack the power and resources to distance themselves from neighbourhood problems. This has given them a resident’s view of society. Questions of social responsibility and service delivery are all-important.

This is a world without symbolism and dogma. Its priorities are immediate, without the luxury of waiting for social theories to sort themselves out over time. People want to know what governments can do for them in a tangible and constructive way. They look at the evidence first and then make a judgement about the solution. What matters is what works.

I would argue that the political spectrum is best understood as a struggle between insiders and outsiders – the abstract values of the powerful centre versus the pragmatic beliefs of those who feel disenfranchised by social change. This is a different framework to class-based politics. Rather than drawing their identity from the economic system, people see their place in society as a reflection of their access to information and public influence.

The insiders/outsiders divide has become a reliable guide to electoral behaviour. In recent Australian elections, politicians who are perceived as insiders, such as Jeff Kennett, have been defeated. Leaders who campaign against ‘the system’, such as Peter Beattie, have been surprisingly successful.

These changes are recasting the electoral map. The key seats are now located well beyond the CBD, on the urban fringe and regional hinterland. In the 1999 Republic referendum, for instance, the further one moved away from the centre of the capital cities, the higher the proportion of No votes. The outsiders were unwilling to support an ‘insiders’ Republic, one in which the politicians would have elected the President.

The political skill of the Howard Government lies in its ability to appeal to outsiders, even though the government itself is part of the ruling elite. At first glance, of course, this is the politics of paradox. How can an insider win the support of outsiders? The answer is quite simple. Howard’s strategy is to demonise and campaign against a different group of political insiders, those associated with the rise of progressive politics over the past 30 years. This is how he won the 1996 and 2001 elections.

This is an important point to understand. In modern politics, the insiders are not a homogenous group. For most of last century, the political establishment was associated with the conservative side – the old money interests, Right-wing think tanks, Tory MPs and their allies in the commercial media.

In the 1970s, however, a new group of influential people emerged in society. The policy advances of the Left – such as the expansion of higher education, public broadcasting and other cultural programs – produced a new generation of insiders. This was the progressive establishment, led by academics, artists and other cultural producers. (3)

Herein lay the origins of the culture war. Not surprisingly, the old establishment resented the emergence of a new insiders group, one that challenged its political power. The two groups have been fighting ever since. While they comprise different personnel and subscribe to different ideologies, their methods are remarkably similar.

Each group uses a series of labels and symbolic debates to undermine the other’s legitimacy. The new establishment is demonised as the chattering classes, chardonnay socialists and latte Left. The old establishment is disparaged as the big end of town, greedy capitalists and more recently, economic rationalists.

Both sides also practice a form of political correctness, aimed at restricting their opponent’s agenda. The progressive establishment is critical of people who openly discuss questions of race, culture and identity politics. The conservative establishment is hostile to anyone who questions the ethics and credibility of its members. (4) The combined impact is to foster conformity and predictability in the public debate.

Due to its dominance in the commercial media, the old establishment has been more successful in stereotyping its opponents. The chattering classes are now widely regarded as out-of-touch, more interested in political symbols than substance. It is important to recognise, however, that the conservatives also practice a form of transit-lounge politics. Their attachment to issues is abstract and dogmatic.

For instance, Australia’s leading conservative think tank is the Centre for Independent Studies. Even though its members have no first-hand experience with poverty or welfare recipients, it aggressively pursues a radical program of welfare reform. Several years ago the CIS organised a mini-bus tour of the public housing estates in my electorate. This is the Tory view of the world: poverty tourism from a bus window.

Likewise, none of the Howard Government’s Cabinet Ministers represent struggling suburban areas. Two years ago, when one of them visited the estates in my electorate, he said, “I didn’t know places like this existed”. This is a defining characteristic of the conservative establishment. For the purposes of the culture war, it purports to hold suburban values. Yet its members are unwilling to live or work in the suburbs themselves. It is another abstract ideology in search of substance.

This is why the Tories practice a negative brand of politics: defining themselves, not by the ideas they support, but by the people they oppose. This usually involves erecting straw men, solely for the purpose of knocking them down. If the Howard Government did not have the United Nations, NGOs, civil libertarians and various artists and academics to campaign against, its political life would be empty. It has made a virtue of demonising its weakest opponents, the so-called progressive elites.

I am reminded of the story of the Spanish town of El Borge. The local Council devised a plebiscite in which the voters had just two choices. The townsfolk were asked to declare a preference for ‘neo-liberalism’ or ‘humanity’. Not surprisingly, the latter won. (5)

So too, the Howard Government has reduced Australian elections to two choices: are people for or against the progressive establishment. Within this limited framework, the Tories cannot lose. They are able to appeal to the outsiders by provoking conflict and debates against a group of political insiders. Howard uses issues such as refugees and reconciliation as a proxy for his side of the culture war.

The challenge for the ALP is to create a third choice in Australian politics, to move beyond the struggle between political insiders: the old establishment versus the new. Traditionally, the Labor movement has defined itself as a group of economic outsiders, defending the interests of workers against the tyranny of capital. With the blurring boundaries of the new economy, however, this approach has lost its potency. In many cases, the workers have become the owners of capital.

As a political movement, our values and instincts are still sound: defending the underdog, fighting for unfashionable causes, protecting the less privileged. The challenge is to project these values beyond the economic debate and into the sphere of public culture. In short, we need to be a party of outsiders, opposed to establishment politics in all its forms.

Wherever power and privilege are concentrated in society – whether in the boardrooms of big business, the pretensions of big media, the political manipulation of big churches or the arrogance of big bureaucracies – we need to be anti-establishment. The outsiders want us to shake the tree, to take on the system on their behalf. They want us to break down the powerful centre of society and disperse influence and opportunity as widely as possible.

This is the logical consequence of a better educated and informed electorate. People want a bigger say in the decision-making process, to take control of lifestyle issues. They are not prepared to be left on the outside, as the change agents of globalisation swirl around them. Across society, institutions that tell people what to do are losing support. This is true of all forms of hierarchy, whether expressed through government agencies, political parties or media elites. We have entered an era of institutional rebellion.

Notionally this trend should suit parties of the Left, with their reputation for protest and reform. History tells us, however, that this is not always the case. In an early analysis of Australian Labor (written in 1923) Vere Gordon Childe chronicled the way in which our members of parliament were duchessed and compromised by the political establishment. (6) Goodness knows what he would have thought of the corporatist excesses of the 1980s. Old parties need to guard against this tendency, their socialisation into the power-elite.

Today, at a time when Labor’s identity and legitimacy are being questioned, the quality of our personnel is not a problem. Our MPs are the products of public housing estates, country towns and working class families. We entered politics for the right reasons: growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, determined to fight the system. Our task is to turn these instincts into a political program suited to the culture war. When people ask what Labor stands for, I believe the answer is straightforward: we are anti-establishment, Australia’s natural party of outsiders.

In recent times, social democracy has tried to create a new radical centre – a third way beyond Left and Right. While this project has delivered some significant policy gains, it has also alienated a number of traditional Labor supporters. Perhaps the real task is to create a radical edge, to combine our enthusiasm for new Labor thinking with outsider values. If old and new Labor are to be reconciled, this is the best way forward.

New Solutions

A change in political technique is also required. Last century, parties of the Left embraced the politics of bigness. It was thought that large, centralised institutions were needed to stand between the public and the prospect of market failure. Our side of politics became synonymous with big government departments, big trade unions and big protest groups. In Australia we even called our policies ‘the big picture’.

The culture war, however, is being fought on a more modest scale. We live in an era of public cynicism about organised politics, a time when many voters have given up on the problem-solving capacity of government. The big picture issues simply wash over people, lost in the public’s distrust of politicians. In this environment of low expectations, the electorate is looking for a sense of shared values: that our leaders feel the same way as we do, that they share our concerns and aspirations. In short, that they share our culture.

Social democratic ideas and values still matter. But to shift public opinion they must impact on people’s lives. They must be evidence-based and pragmatic, forged on the anvil of personal experience. For the outsiders, bite-sized changes are more desirable (and certainly more believable) than big-bang social theories.

Most people do not live their lives in neat ideological boxes. They leave that to the insiders. This is why the Left needs to personalise its politics. Being more compassionate and tolerant than the Tories does not necessarily win us support. We need to show how these ideals can lead to tangible improvements for people. Our commitment should not be defined in terms of ideology or dogma. It should be to good schools, to good health care and to the other elements of a good society.

This is an important part of the culture war. The struggle between political insiders is self-serving and superficial. It ignores the interests of the great majority of Australians who feel marginalised by both the conservative establishment and the progressive establishment. Suburban Australia has nothing to gain from this debate. While the politically correct and incorrect berate each other in the media, the bread and butter issues are overlooked. Political symbolism can never improve the basic services or cohesiveness of our community.

The outsiders are hungry for new solutions, the small nuggets of social progress. They have lost faith, however, in the ability of government to deliver them. This is particularly true of the problems of social insecurity: poverty, crime and disorder. As they have given up on the state, the working class has turned inwards, too often towards the other side of politics. In part, this explains the rise of the ultra-nationalist movement.

If Left-of-Centre parties are to succeed electorally, we must confront this problem. We need to show people that politics still matters, that governments can still find solutions. An anti-establishment stance, while essential, is not enough. We need to rebuild the public’s belief in the problem-solving power of the state.

This is where the values debate is crucial. Without the right kind of values, the electorate will simply ignore our policy positions. Social values are the key to gaining a political audience. In the time left to me, I want to talk about these beliefs, the value-laden arguments Labor needs to advance in the culture war. I put them under four headings: responsibility, opportunity, community and democracy.

1.Responsibility

In Australian politics we have an interesting tradition. When a party wins an election against the weight of media expectations, the commentators subsequently correct themselves and portray that party as invincible. After the 1993 election, for instance, it was widely assumed that Australia had become a nation of Keatingites. So too, after the 2001 election, the conventional wisdom is that suburban Australia had been recast in the image of John Howard.

The truth, of course, is more complex. Howard does not have an open mandate “to smash the post-Whitlam political alliance”. In most respects, the progressive consensus in Australia is holding up remarkably well. Whether people live in the inner-city or the outer suburbs, they want greater social investment in education and health. Likewise, they want a more sustainable urban environment, with less congestion and pollution. On social policy, even Tony Abbott has conceded there is little public support for winding back Australia’s abortion and divorce laws or reversing the many progressive gains achieved by women.

If Howard is to break the progressive consensus, he will target questions of race and responsibility. When they came together 12 months ago on the Tampa, they divided the nation. Since the election, the Government has used every opportunity to keep the asylum seeker issue alive. I would expect further campaigns on race and responsibility in the lead up to the next election, most notably on multiculturalism and Aboriginal welfare. This is where the culture war is most potent.

The challenge for Labor is to develop a progressive response, to apply our values and traditions to these policy debates. Clearly the ALP will not alter its stance on racial tolerance. This would be unconscionable. The key question, therefore, is one of social responsibility. Far from backing away from this issue, we should reclaim the responsibility agenda. It’s a great Labor tradition.

Our early leaders, such as Curtin and Chifley, had no time for indecency or irresponsibility. They knew that a strong society relies on a high level of solidarity and cohesion. They recognised that one of the pillars of social justice is the shared expectation that people are responsible for their own behaviour. (7) At a time of popular concern about issues such as terrorism, illegal migration and crime, these views remain valid today.

Too often, the political debate offers a false choice between order and freedom. In practice, a good society needs both. Creativity in the education system, for instance, requires an element of control in the classroom. Equally, entrepreneurship in the economy relies heavily on stable trading arrangements and property rights.

The conservative establishment is always preaching social order. The progressive establishment is obsessed with social freedom. Labor’s position is to advocate both: a society in which order and freedom can co-exist, bound together by the benefits of mutual responsibility.

In particular, the responsibility agenda needs to be extended to the corporate sector. As capital has gone global, people are increasingly concerned about its obligations to local jobs and local communities. If government is to demand responsibility from the weak, the same demand must also apply to the powerful. Unlike the Tories, Labor does not believe in means-testing responsibility. Rich people, poor people and everybody in between are obliged to assist each other and put something back into the community.

2. Opportunity

When the founding fathers drew up the Australian Constitution, they gave the conservative parties a significant advantage in national politics. The Australian Parliament has no specific constitutional power for education, health or the environment, the issues on which the electorate is most likely to trust the ALP. This is why State Labor has always been more successful than the Federal Party. Good policies for schools, hospitals and national parks, combined with a tough stance on law and order – this has become a winning formula for Labor in every State and Territory Parliament.

The challenge Federally is to turn education, health and the environment into national issues. This was the genius of Gough Whitlam’s program in the 1970s. He found new ways of campaigning on Labor’s strengths – creating new opportunities for people in higher education, schools funding, health insurance and urban policy. This approach moved the national agenda beyond the wedge politics of the Menzies era. It gave the true believers something to believe in, beyond the divisiveness of the Cold War.

This remains a vital lesson for the ALP. A political movement cannot afford to stand still. It needs to mobilise its base, plus attract new supporters. It needs new campaigns and new ideas. Just as Whitlam turned education, health and cities into issues of national significance, we need to do the same today. Nothing beats a Labor campaign for opportunity, developing the services and skills of a good society. I am confident this will be achieved in the current review of Federal policy.

3. Community

We also need to recognise the growing importance of localism. During a time of constant change and uncertainty, most people glaze over at the thought of complex macro-politics. Their primary interests are at a neighbourhood level: the tangible things they can touch and influence, such as improving local schools, parks and public safety.

In the era of globalisation, the politics of community matters more, not less. It is in this local realm that people first learn the habits of trust and co-operation. Globalisation is calling on each of us to trust in strangers, to understand the needs of people we have never met and are never likely to meet. This is why the inner core of society is so important. Australians are not likely to trust in strangers, such as asylum seekers and the Third World poor, if they don’t even know the names of their next door neighbours.

A solution lies in communitarianism: governments facilitating the rules of community engagement, acting as brokers in the relationships and connections between people. This is a key strategy for combating individualism and rebuilding social solidarity. Ultimately, the choice between government bureaucracies and market forces is flawed. It neglects the space in the middle where people come together in voluntary action. It ignores the mutual interests and associations that make up civil society.

The new role for government is to create the space and opportunities within which neighbourhood politics can thrive. Communities should not be campaigning for better services. They should be running them. When we talk about the public sector we should talk about community schools, civic education, local housing associations and community banks, not just government departments.

Answers are available for Left-of-Centre politics. If we are to create a better society, it must come from the inside out. It must be based on a solid, inner core of social capital. The objective is to create a new kind of solidarity, one that crosses economic and class boundaries, one that goes beyond personal identities and prejudices. Etzioni calls it a “community of communities”. (8)

This is also an effective strategy for dispersing political power. Without strong communities and grassroots action, it is relatively easy for a small number of people to control and manipulate our system of government. For democracy to succeed it must be deep and dispersed. Community action is the natural ally of the outsiders.

4. Democracy

It is not possible for the ALP to be anti-establishment if power is heavily concentrated and entrenched within our own ranks. To be a party of outsiders we must, first and foremost, be a party of democracy, encouraging a broad base of participation. Organisational reform is usually thought of as an internal process. Its main political impact, however, is external. It is one of the basic tests voters use to assess our credentials for government.

This is why the current process of Labor modernisation is so significant. It is 35 years since the Party last reformed its rules and structure. In that time, power has moved upwards, concentrated in the hands of the few, not the many. The factions have become more rigid and influential. Our conferences have become more stage managed and predictable. The purpose of modernisation is to flatten the pyramid of power and re-enfranchise our members.

It is not possible to broaden our base without making ALP membership more attractive. People are not interested in going to political meetings unless they have a direct say in the decision-making process. This is what it means to empower the outsiders, to take control and influence away from the centre and move it towards the fringe. An information-rich society demands a participation-rich politics.

In this respect, we can learn from our trade union colleagues. Recently a number of unions have recognised the need for a new organisational model, based on grassroots activism. Across the Labor movement – political and industrial – the decentralisation of power is no longer an optional extra. It is necessary for our survival.

Conclusion

Three centuries ago Frederick the Great said that, “it is pardonable to be defeated, but never to be surprised.” This adage, coined on the battlefields of Europe, is just as relevant to the political battle today. In the mid-1950s, Menzies surprised the Labor movement with his exploitation of the communist bogey. Last year we were surprised again, this time by Howard’s manipulation of the refugee issue. To be competitive in the culture war, we need to take away the element of surprise. We need to anticipate these issues and put our values and views upfront.

Generally, Left-of-Centre parties have been reluctant to revise and strengthen their foundations. Policies such as welfare, migration and multiculturalism belong to our side. We need to constantly update and explain our position, addressing points of public confusion and unease. Otherwise, the Tories will exploit these issues for political gain. For Labor, silence is never a solution.

We also need to apply our values to the other side’s issues. We need to cross-over and solve the problems of crime, people trafficking and national security. In large part, this explains Tony Blair’s success. He is that rare breed in public life: a social democrat comfortable with the values debate. Someone who is willing to share the language and emotion of the electorate and tackle issues not normally associated with our side of politics.

As a movement, our values are strong: responsibility from all, opportunity for all, community with all, democracy by all. These are the values of a just society in a globalised world. We should never be afraid to advance them, no matter the issues involved. Last century, when we applied them to the economic debate, we created the welfare state – the great civilising achievement of Western government.

The challenge this century is to apply our values to cultural issues: to the relationship between people, to questions of identity and security, to the blindside of globalisation. The culture war is there to be won. It is just waiting for the Labor movement to mobilise.

Notes

1. Interview with Paul Kelly in The Weekend Australian, 27 July 2002, page 22.

2. Paul Kelly, “The road less fellow travelled”, The Australian, 7 August 2002, page 11.

3. Guy Rundle has provided a detailed definition and analysis of this group in “The mysterious left”, The Adelaide Review, June 2002, page 8.

4. See Mark Latham, “The new political correctness”, The Age, 29 August 2002, page 13.

5. See Mario Vargas Llosa, “Global Village or Global Pillage? Why we must create a universal culture of liberty”, Reason, July 2001; also “Village Voice”, Financial Times, 15 November 1996.

6. Vere Gordon Childe, How Labour Governs, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1923. Childe (1892-1957) served as Private Secretary to the NSW Labor Leader, John Storey (1919-1921). Disillusioned with the Labor movement, he left Australia to become one of the world’s leading archaeologists. In the renovated Reading Room of the British Museum he is listed among the Notable Holders of Readers’ Tickets, alongside other notables such as Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Orwell, Russell, Disraeli, Darwin, Dickens, Tennyson and Oscar Wilde.

7. See David Day’s biographies: John Curtin a Life, Harper Collins, Sydney, 1999 and Chifley, Harper Collins, Sydney, 2001.

8. Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule, Basic Books, New York, 1996.

*BLOWN MEASURE*——————————-

=

Australia! Australia! so fair to behold

While the blue sky is arching above;

The stranger should never have need to be told,

That the Wattle-bloom means that her heart is of gold,

And the Waratah red blood of love

The Prime Minister suggests that Australians wear a sprig of wattle and plant wattle seeds on Sunday. “As a simple unifying tribute could I encourage the wearing of a piece of wattle during the day and also where possible the planting of wattle seeds as a quiet personal gesture of remembrance and reflection.” (The text of his statement is at pm.)

Victorian Liberal backbencher Greg Hunt had the idea, telling Parliament yesterday: “Australians are looking for a symbol. They are seeking to share their collective pain by making a collective gesture. Can I gently suggest a wattle tribute, the wearing of a sprig of wattle, or even a yellow ribbon to symbolise the wattle, over the heart. Communities, families and individuals could plant wattle trees as a sign of renewal and as a symbol of Australia.”

After this week’s webdiarists’ discussion of an appropriate national symbol of unity in grief, I think John Howard’s suggestion is perfect. There is a problem. Because of the drought, Sydney’s wattles stopped flowering early, although some are still in flower in the Blue Mountains, where it is cooler. Australians who wish to wear wattle may have to think laterally. Any ideas? Perhaps people could wear waratah or kangaroo paw instead – they are plentiful now.

A spokeswoman for the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney said today that “even though it is nearing the end of the wattle season, there may still be very very small amounts of wattle flowering in a few areas of western New South Wales”.

“Otherwise, wattle seeds can easily be planted and are readily available from most nurseries and even the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney Shop. Wattle seeds, before planting, should be very gently rubbed with sandpaper or soaked well in boiling water.

“There are many different varieties of wattle – in fact, there is one to suit most soils, so readers should check with their nursery for the best variety for their garden.

“The wattle depicted on the Australian coat of arms is Acacia pycnantha or Golden Wattle. It generally grows well in NSW and prefers a well-drained, sunny position with ample watering. It is also frost hardy. Check for the best variety to suit your garden on the Australian Botanic Gardens website anbg.”

***

The wattle is embedded in our history and culture. Two wattle poems by Henry Lawson, “the people’s poet”, are published below. You can read more of his poetry at ozemail, and more about him at acn.

***

The history of Wattle Day is set out in farrer:

“On September 20, 1889 William Sowden, later to be knighted, an Adelaide journalist and Vice President of the Australian Natives Association in South Australia suggested the formation of a Wattle Blossom League. Its aims, set down in 1890, were to “promote a national patriotic sentiment among the woman of Australia”. One way of doing this was to wear sprigs of wattle on all official occasions. After an enthusiastic start the group folded. However, their presence inspired the formation of a Wattle Club in Melbourne. During the 1890s parties were led into the country on September 1 each year to view the wattles.

“The concept of Wattle Day grew stronger and spread to NSW where the Director of the Botanic Gardens, J H Maiden called a public meeting on August 20, 1909 with the aim of forming a Wattle Day League. As a result of this meeting the first Wattle day was held on September 1, 1910 in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. On that day the Adelaide committee sent sprigs of Acacia pycnantha to the Governor and other notables in Adelaide. It was this wattle that become accepted as the official floral emblem.”

“Celebration of Wattle Day reached its height during World War 1. The day was used to raise funds for the war effort and many trees were denuded in order to supply the many sprigs of wattle sold on that day. Boxes of wattle were sent to soldiers in hospitals overseas and it become a custom to enclose a sprig of wattle with each letter to remind our soldiers of home…”

***

On the day of the first Wattle Day celebration in 1910, the Sydney Morning Herald wrote: “Let the wattle henceforth be a sacred charge to every Australian.”

***

On September 1, 1988, Governor General Sir Ninian Stephen proclaimed Acacia pycnantha – the Golden Wattle – Australia’s national floral emblem.

***

In August 1999, Governor-General Sir William Deane stood in Switzerland’s Saxeten River Gorge with the families and friends of the Australians who died there in a canyoning expedition and tossed 14 sprigs of wattle into the waters. He had collected them from the gardens of Government House in Canberra.

“Somehow, we felt that was bringing a little of Australia to [the victims],” he said. “It was also, in a symbolic way, helping to bring them home to our country. That is not to suggest that their spirit and their memory will not live forever, here in Switzerland, at the place where they died. Rather, it is to suggest that a little part of Switzerland has become, and will always be, to some extent, part of Australia.”

“It is still winter at home. But the golden wattles are coming into bloom. Just as these young men and women were in the flower of their youth. And when we are back in Australia we will remember how the flowers and perfume and the pollen of their, and our, homeland was carried down the river where they died to Lake Brienz in this beautiful country on the far side of the world. May they all rest with God.”

***

Waratah and Wattle

Henry Lawson, 1905

Though poor and in trouble I wander alone,

With a rebel cockade in my hat;

Though friends may desert me, and kindred disown,

My country will never do that!

You may sing of the Shamrock, the Thistle, and Rose,

Or the three in a bunch if you will;

But I know of a country that gathered all those,

And I love the great land where the Waratah grows,

And the Wattle bough blooms on the hill.

Australia! Australia! so fair to behold

While the blue sky is arching above;

The stranger should never have need to be told,

That the Wattle-bloom means that her heart is of gold,

And the Waratah red blood of love.

Australia! Australia! most beautiful name,

Most kindly and bountiful land;

I would die every death that might save her from shame,

If a black cloud should rise on the strand;

But whatever the quarrel, whoever her foes,

Let them come! Let them come when they will!

Though the struggle be grim, ’tis Australia that knows,

That her children shall fight while the Waratah grows,

And the Wattle blooms out on the hill.

***

Freedom on the Wallaby

by Henry Lawson, 1891, during the great Shearer’s Strike of 1891 which led to the formation of the ALP under the tree of knowledge in Barcaldine

Australia’s a big country

An’ Freedom’s humping bluey,

An’ Freedom’s on the wallaby

Oh! don’t you hear ‘er cooey?

She’s just begun to boomerang,

She’ll knock the tyrants silly,

She’s goin’ to light another fire

And boil another billy.

Our fathers toiled for bitter bread

While loafers thrived beside ’em,

But food to eat and clothes to wear,

Their native land denied ’em.

An’ so they left their native land

In spite of their devotion,

An’ so they came, or if they stole,

Were sent across the ocean.

Then Freedom couldn’t stand the glare

O’ Royalty’s regalia,

She left the loafers where they were,

An’ came out to Australia.

But now across the mighty main

The chains have come ter bind her

She little thought to see again

The wrongs she left behind her.

Our parents toil’d to make a home

Hard grubbin ’twas an’ clearin’

They wasn’t crowded much with lords

When they was pioneering.

But now that we have made the land

A garden full of promise,

Old Greed must crook ‘is dirty hand

And come ter take it from us.

So we must fly a rebel flag,

As others did before us,

And we must sing a rebel song

And join in rebel chorus.

We’ll make the tyrants feel the sting

O’ those that they would throttle;

They needn’t say the fault is ours

If blood should stain the wattle!

Tam Long has done the SIEV-X debate a big favour. At last, a debate on the merits!

There are three main aspects of the navy’s behaviour which raise concerns. First, that Operation Relex Chief Admiral Geoffrey Smith swore falsely that the navy knew nothing about SIEV-X until after it sank. Second, that no investigation of any sort took place after the tragedy to see if something went wrong in surveillance, intelligence or co-ordination between navy, coastwatch and the rescue body – as indeed it did according to the evidence – raising concerns that it did not care about all those people dying, could have been infected by the government’s demonisation of boat people, and did not do all it could to fulfil its duty to save lives at sea. Third, that the government stopped a key witness, Admiral Raydon Gates, from giving evidence. There is also the mystery of why Howard said at the time that SIEV-X sunk in Indonesian waters, contrary to contemporaneous reports from intelligence, and refuses point blank to reveal the source of his claim. In other words, if there is nothing to hide, why is so much hiding going on?

The great bulk of commentators who say SIEV-X is a non-story heap personal abuse on those who think otherwise, imply or assert that noone has the right to raise any questions and leave it at that. Only Mike Carlton sought to address the issue of Smith’s evidence, suggesting, after talks with Smith, that he denied prior knowledge of SIEV-X because he thought the intelligence reports on it were secret.(See smh.)

All we’ve got from members of the navy, defence department and political hierarchy is outraged general protestations which are often downright misleading, just like they were on children overboard before and after the election. (See for example Exchange of correspondence at webdiary). Straw man stuff.

But when whistleblower Tony Kevin stated his case in SIEV-X: mystery unsolved ( webdiary) Tam Long wrote a considered response in SIEV-X: Right of reply (webdiary). The women behind the SIEV-X website archive sievx, led by Marg Hutton, entered the debate in SIEV-X: The case for concern (webdiary)

Tam Long has been through several drafts of his reply, and admits he wishes he could get the subject out of his head. I know what he means, but I’m glad he hasn’t.

For other views on SIEV-X, Sarah Stephen has written extensively on the issue in Green Left Weekly. Her latest piece is at greenleft. Linda Tenenbaum wrote a four part SIEV-X series for the World Socialist Website (wsws)

***

SIEV X: The Truth Is Out There But Not Where Some Are Looking

By Tam Long

As a general rule it is best not to respond to praise or criticism, as both are usually unwarranted in extent. However the importance of the people smuggling issue (including Tampa and SIEV-X) and the tendency for some people to misjudge participants in the debate prods me forward again quite reluctantly.

Like most Australians I was horrified at the sinking of SIEV-X. Any chance that such a tragic loss of life could be repeated must be prevented. I think where many people part company with each other is in their perception of what to do next.

Surely the best way to prevent further such tragedies is to look forward and stop the people smuggling and its callous exploitation of both genuine and bogus asylum claimants. The UNHCR is to be congratulated for its current firm steps along this path in order to protect the core integrity of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Some people, however, seem to choose to look backwards by appearing more interested in apportioning blame for SIEV-X rather than preventing future tragedies or placing SIEV X in its wider context as part of the worldwide people smuggling and “asylum shopping” crises. In too many cases the search for blame over SIEV-X appears to be focused in the wrong areas and is therefore unlikely to prevent further tragedies.

In some cases the process of seeking someone to blame has even become an end in itself and seems to lead some people even further astray. This is particularly so when such blameseekers assume a self-righteousness cloak as the only true seekers of a quasi holy grail – “proof” that Australia is wholly to blame for SIEV-X.

Such misguided “crusaders for truth” are also becoming increasingly impatient and intolerant concerning any criticism of the threadbare credibility of their hypotheses. They seem to believe that anyone who dares to argue with them is necessarily evil or ignorant (of their “facts”). This is the slippery path to bigotry.

Morally, such an incapacity for objectivity cruelly cheapens the tragedy underlying their misguided zeal the deaths of 353 people on SIEV-X. Forgetting the need to forestall repetitions of this tragedy because of such misguided zeal demeans those who died. Slandering those wrongly and/or recklessly accused of responsibility is also immoral, as is ignoring those probably or really guilty.

We need to find out what happened with SIEV-X but am I alone in being increasingly troubled by the tendency to just assume that only Australia is or could be at fault? I also object to the silly tendency to attribute blame (or suspicious motives) to Australian authorities to an extent that is not applied to other countries, even when it flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to blame Australia only.

Preventing future tragedies like SIEV-X surely means focusing analysis on all those countries and international organisations at fault or focusing on none of them. An exclusive focus on Australia simply undermines the credibility of any such analysis.

Tony Kevin (perhaps less so than some of his followers), seems to believe that the Australian government and its subordinate authorities (including Coastwatch, Immigration and the armed forces) simply stood by and let 353 people drown when they could have literally sailed by and saved them. Tony Kevin also appears to believe, and certainly his more paranoid supporters are convinced, that Australia went even further and deliberately sank SIEV-X and murdered 353 people as a warning to the people smugglers and the unfortunate people they exploit.

Call me naive if you like, but I find such claims counter-intuitive to commonsense, and Australia’s way of life. They are also a sad reflection on how bad history teaching in our schools has become. There is almost a complete absence of verifiable evidence or reasonable argument to support such sweeping claims.

Few of the supposed arguments pursue a logical line forward from robust factual analysis. Most seem to instead assume Australian guilt and only search backwards to select and analyse evidence in light of that predetermined guilt only.

Much of what attempts to pass for argument relies on tortuous chains of consecutively, dependent and often unlikely or disputed links, where one break in the chain would demolish the whole proposition.

Genuine bureaucratic confusion, knowledge gaps, or admissions by Australian authorities that something is not known, are treated automatically as “proof” of some complex Australian conspiracy or coverup. In this way, proponents of alleged Australian skulduggery bizarrely use the very lack of evidence for such skulduggery as their “evidence” for it and its supporting “conspiracy”.

This is just silly, especially when you remember that Australia’s open and democratic society just does not produce or nurture the numbers of callous thugs and ethically crippled officials needed to authorise, plan and mount a vile conspiracy on such a scale.

I would happily throw the book at any Australian who can be proved guilty of criminal responsibility or criminal negligence for the sinking of SIEV-X. But I would be a lot more comfortable if more of those interested in the SIEV-X issue were willing to pursue guilty parties in Indonesia, and elsewhere, with the same ferocity that allows them to blame Australian authorities using what is often only flimsily constructed supposition.

Too many correspondents obsessed with SIEV-X and Tampa seem to always give Indonesia the benefit of the doubt (even in difficult or fairly incriminating circumstances) but are unwilling to accord the same courtesy to their own country at all. A degree of marked naivete and wallowing in conspiracy paranoia, for example, appears to afflict many contributors to the SIEV-X website run by Margaret Hutton.

There are too many claims apparently based on the false principle that everything from an Australian official source is automatically suspect or an outright lie (as part of some massive and complex coverup), yet every foreign source or journalistic “scoop” is automatically believable.

This is simply not an objective way to investigate any problem, especially a major tragedy such as the sinking of SIEV-X, where a balanced sense of perspective is essential. Some “SIEV-X conspiracy groupies” seem even willing to build their own grassy knoll out of rubbish in order to reach the limelight (or more moonshine). This lack of objectivity and critical judgement is resulting in what should be an informed public debate sinking into a slanging match.

The great bulk of public opinion is simply repelled from enquiring into SIEV-X through natural scepticism, disgust or boredom at the sweeping claims of the more extreme protagonists.

It also often seems that many of the conspiracy theorists cannot see past or through their blind hatred or blanket suspicion of the Howard government.

Conveniently for such conspiracy theorists (especially the apparent “Howardophobes”) however, many of them also often seem to have a cultural myopia that allows them to overlook the appalling human rights record of the Indonesian authorities (no matter who is in government there). No doubt they also missed the recent forced repatriation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Malaysia, the numerous associated deaths in custody from brutality and starvation, and the ensuing attempted coverup. After all, to such a way of thinking real foreign outrages and conspiracies dont count but imaginations can be loosed to run riot where Australia is concerned.

All other things being equal, and until there is any actual and significant evidence to the contrary, surely a tragedy such as the sinking of SIEV-X is more likely to have been caused by Indonesian than Australian skulduggery. I do not exclude the possibility of some Australian involvement (by omission or perhaps even commission) in the sinking of SIEV-X, but I also try and keep an open mind about other, often far more plausible, possibilities or probabilities. This is where I seem to part company with Tony Kevin and his followers.

Why are so many people prepared to only blame Australia? Even when SIEV-X survivor accounts mention seeing grey boats shining searchlights on them in the water without helping, some people still cannot bring themselves to apportion any suspicion or blame to Indonesia?

This moral equivalence of Australia to Indonesia, given the appalling human rights record of the latter and the pretty good one of the former, is just ridiculous. How can people so readily forget, for example, the recent butchery and destruction in East Timor by “militias” organised, armed and directed by Indonesian government officials, apparently sanctioned from the highest levels of the Indonesian government and still widely defended as “legitimate” and “patriotic” in Indonesian ruling circles.

My (hopefully informed) scepticism is also greatly increased by Tony’s marked reluctance, or inability, to concede the centrality of the broader people smuggling issue to any worthwhile analysis of single incidents such as Tampa and SIEV-X. Even the UNHCR recognises that (in its words), “secondary movement of asylum seekers using people smugglers to shift from countries of first asylum such as Pakistan, Iran and Jordan to wealthy Western democracies threatens the collapse of the 1951 Refugee Convention”. If the UNHCR can see the wood as well as the trees why cannot Tony Kevin and his followers do so?

Many of the people who have objected to my brief critique of the paper by Tony Kevin published in Webdiary appear to have missed the key point involved. It does not matter what Tony has printed or said elsewhere or indeed whether he is right or wrong. The key issue is that the truth can only come out if our inquiries are objective, thorough and unclouded by emotion or bias (such as suspicion or hatred of the Howard government on one side or absolute confidence that they could never make a mistake on the other).

Many defenders of Tony seem to have also missed that my critique was of Tony’s paper in Webdiary not his speech to the “Tampa One Year On Conference” and the associated questions and answers (although it was little better).

Some of Tony’s defenders have claimed that his conference address was not as emotional. Some have also claimed that Tony has spoken out against people smuggling elsewhere. The record indicates this charitable interpretation is partly true. Why then, cannot Tony Kevin construct and provide a comprehensive and balanced argument incorporating all these essential aspects?

The intellectual crux of the matter is that if Tony Kevin is right in what he believes, he can and should convince people of this with facts and reasoned argument, using passion as seasoning not to provide the only chewy bits. Tony Kevin’s paper is not up to scratch in terms of objectivity and reasoning for what purports to be a serious paper on a serious issue. Such a flawed and emotive paper could never convince reasonable people of his contention by passion and allegation alone. It is more likely to brown off any informed readers by its flawed aim, use of unduly emotional language, selective or scanty facts, exaggeration, narrow focus, subjective analysis and the numerous obvious holes in its reasoning.

The moral crux of the matter is that it is very wrong, and counter productive to Tony Kevin’s professed aim, to simply accuse the Australian government and our armed forces of callously letting 353 people drown with so little evidence or objective argument to support the proposition. It is even more immoral to make such claims when they are used, by the more extreme obsessives, to then allege that Australia somehow sabotaged people smuggling boats in a deliberate attempt to kill those aboard and the people smuggling trade that feasts off their desperation.

***

Now, if I may be allowed, a brief rebuttal of the specific attacks on my critique of Tony Kevin’s paper that was contributed by Margaret Hutton, Mary Davies, Kay Kan and Marilyn Sheppard.

I am sorry that Hutton et al feel my critiques brought comfort to “average readers” whoever they may be. As another average Australian I hope they can again condescend to consider how I might presume to disagree with them.

Contrary to their assumption, I do not regard Tony Kevin, or any other Australian, as an “insignificant individual”. Perhaps this is due to my natural rural regard for my neighbours. I can understand how this might not be easily grasped by those non-average Australians who congregate around conspiracy websites.

I think where we are never going to agree is in the importance of critical judgement in weighing the comparative value of evidence. Hutton et al, for example, seem to have an unqualified belief in the uncorroborated boasting of a paid police informant from a criminal background. Such trust has traditionally not been shared by most juries.

It is an unfortunate but necessary fact that the only informants that can usually be cultivated in the criminal milieu are themselves criminals or of dubious repute. Their information and utility must consequently always be weighed carefully against a range of moral, legal and operational criteria, and pitfalls, and the use of such informants sometimes backfires. Criminal informants are also often inaccurately boastful to their police handlers (and to journalists where they have no fear of retribution from other criminals). Journalists also often appear to display gullibility concerning the claims of such informants, no matter how wild, uncorroborated, self-seeking or mercenary (sell their “story”, etc).

In the specific citing of the AFP informant Enniss by Hutton et al, even if what he said is partly or wholly true, even he claims that none of his alleged sabotage activities involved danger to or loss of life. Or is Enniss not to be believed in this regard but believed in regard to everything else? It is not logical to have it both ways, especially as Enniss denies any involvement with SIEV-X and it departed from Sumatra where he apparently never lived or operated or had any local influence.

Hutton et al accuse me of “ignorance” and “no research” in my critique of Tony Kevin’s paper yet the narrow frame of reference, selective evidence and often shallow reasoning of Tony’s paper is somehow OK. I would hope I have just tried to view the evidence from the Senate Committee Inquiry and elsewhere with more applied scepticism and against a wider background. Perhaps the main difference between the approach of the conspiracy theorists and my approach is that I am prepared to believe that I could be wrong (and can be convinced accordingly by proper argument).

This aside, and most importantly, my critique of Tony Kevin’s paper deliberately confined itself to the same facts as he cited in his paper (this is why it was not necessary to cite his references again). In this way I tried to analyse the key issues wherever possible using an agreed basis in fact. There are disadvantages to this approach (as we have seen by the consequent name calling), but I thought it best to concentrate on Tony’s core message rather than on him as the author or on other issues which he had not really covered.

Hutton et al raise six points in which they beg to differ with my analysis of Tony Kevin’s paper. Several of them are “straw person” defences and all involve selective quotation and/or confused argument. Interestingly they do not defend any of the numerous other holes exposed in Tony Kevin’s arguments by his critics.

Evidence of Sabotage

Despite Enniss’s uncorroborated boasts about sabotaging SIEVs departing from West Timor, and despite what might or might not have been done to stationary and often empty SIEVs safely inside transit harbours (not at sea) in the 1970s, where is the evidence (rather than supposition) that SIEV-X was sabotaged by Australia before its departure from Sumatra?

Hutton et al agree that the passengers were “forced on to the boat at gunpoint” and that the SIEV was therefore “grossly overloaded” with its passengers “crammed like sardines”. They also concur that the boat “had a large crack in the hull” and was “leaking, rotting and too deep in the water to go safely to sea”.

Hutton et al then posit that, “given all this it is not a huge leap to suggest that we can rule out sabotage completely”. I agree given its terrible physical condition it is obviously far more likely that the boat sank because of these matters than sabotage. Inductive reasoning also points to a similar conclusion. In the hypothetical and very unlikely scenario that Australia was willing to risk the lives of those aboard, and even if Australia had the capacity or opportunity to sabotage SIEV-X (and even Hutton et al seem to concede Australian intelligence authorities had virtually no information on its prior circumstances and eventual departure), why would you bother “sabotaging” a vessel that was going to sink anyway.

Even more importantly, the counter people smuggling action taken by Australia is apparently focused on getting the Indonesian authorities to legally prevent departures. I would therefore support the general proposition by Hutton et al that it is suspicious that SIEV-X is the only boat where (it is known) that the passengers were forcibly loaded, but my suspicions apparently lie elsewhere than theirs The act of forcible loading surely indicates no Australian involvement rather than the reverse as Hutton et al apparently believe. There are other distinct possibilities, including:

* Bribed Indonesian security officials were behind the forcible loading (hardly that unlikely given the widespread corruption in Indonesia) and regarded it as a “once off” or their final job with no repeat business likely, and therefore no need to cultivate a passenger friendly reputation.

* The overloading and/or sinking was either an accidental or deliberate result of a feud between rival people smuggling gangs and/or their corrupt backers among the Indonesian authorities.

* With or without the sanction of their government, Indonesian officials deliberately chose to ruthlessly let a boat sink because they wished to send the people smugglers (and perhaps more their customers) an unequivocal message.

Any of these scenarios are supported by the interesting probability that the boat did not appear to turn back towards Java when sinking. This would indicate either the crew’s marked degree of fear of the consequences of returning to Indonesia (even to another port), or that the boat was expected to sink by its crew anyway. In the apparent absence of any surviving senior crew (itself perhaps suspicious) we are unlikely to be able to determine the truth of these scenarios one way or the other.

Location of the Sinking

My comments as to the unknown location correctly referred to the precise location of the sinking not the general area. Rather than dwell on finding the precise location of SIEV-X’s sinking I think we need to keep looking at the big picture – the general area involved. This is generally agreed as being about 50 nautical miles south of the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, under about one fifth of the distance from the strait to Christmas Island (280 nautical miles) and not far outside Indonesian territorial waters (the 24 nautical mile limit).

Unlike Hutton et al, I put no great weight on the confused statements in Australia as to where the boat sank except to note that the confusion is most likely caused by Australian authorities genuinely not knowing where it sank (then and subsequently) rather than deliberate obfuscation or evil on their part.

More importantly, Hutton et al choose to describe the probable location as “right in the heart of the Operation Relex zone”. Even excluding the fact the suspected location was in the very northern part of the zone rather than its heart, this is very subjective emphasis and terminology. It appears designed to avoid acknowledging a key contradiction in the conspiracy theorists’ version. How is it that they can so blithely ignore that the sinking was actually well inside Indonesias Search and Rescue Region (SRR) and far closer to Indonesia than the nearest speck of Australian territory (with mainland Australia over 1135 nautical miles (over 2000 kilometres) away?

There are five other important related points to the sinking location that Hutton et al ignore or misunderstand.

They thoroughly misunderstand the term “international waters” as somehow exonerating Indonesia of any responsibility at all. Whereas the sinking actually occurred well within Indonesias internationally designated region of maritime and air search and rescue responsibility. They selectively use the term “international waters” (meaning domestic Indonesian law does not apply although the sinking was well within Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone and Indonesia’s search and rescue region) completely out of context, and wrongly apply it to infer that Indonesia has no responsibilities at all in this area (or that Australia has international search and rescue responsibilities).

They ignore that the area south of Java is often peppered with fishing boats virtually identical with SIEV, and is by no means an expanse of ocean where a suspected SIEV necessarily stands out, either when floating or sinking. This greatly complicates the surveillance problem in general and the search for any one boat in particular.

They appear not to know that aerial surveillance is not continuous or ubiquitous and is quite weather and time of day dependent.

They appear not to realise that the “Operation Reflex surveillance zone” does not mean that there was an area continuously under a form of surveillance coverage or monitoring. The boundaries of such zones are simply used as a planning tool to focus the planning of individual aerial surveillance flights within the area, not as a means of portraying or guaranteeing coverage of all events that are occurring, or might occur, within the zone enclosed by the boundaries.

They conveniently ignore that the published records clearly show that there was bad weather in the area when the SIEV sank. This no doubt greatly contributed to the sinking, and would mean that the vessel would have not been readily noticeable to aerial surveillance flights even where the weather allowed such flights.

Indonesian Search and Rescue Responsibility

If it were not for the apparent predilection of Hutton et al to ignore Indonesia, I would be puzzled by their startling claim that it is somehow “false” to note Indonesia’s SRR and consequent obligations. Of course they also continually overlook other Indonesian responsibilities such as the eradication of people smuggling, the arrest of the corrupt officials involved in it, and stopping the departure to sea of grossly overloaded and manifestly unseaworthy vessels which illegally leave harbours. I am, however, still puzzled by the subsequent weird contention of Hutton et al that:

“While it is true to say that SIEV X sank within Indonesias international zone of search and rescue responsibility, it is also quite misleading because the Indonesian search and rescue zone encompasses virtually all the waters in the gap between Christmas Island and Indonesia”.

The Indonesian SRR actually includes Christmas Island and all the waters between it an Java so it is hard to see how anyone who looks at the chart could be misled. Hutton et al then go on to claim that I imply that any SIEVs foundering between Indonesia and Christmas Island can be ignored because it is not Australia’s responsibility. This is not true but, in their defence, is probably due to their pronounced moral, legal and procedural confusion on the SRR issue.

If Australia has the means in the area and we thereby learn of a vessel foundering then we should obviously help Indonesia with its responsibilities in this regard, as occurred when Australia notified Indonesia of the Palapas distress and advised the nearest vessel, the Tampa, of the situation. However, despite Australia mounting some general surveillance flights in the international waters between Java and Christmas Island (as part of a domestic law enforcement operation within Australian territorial waters around the latter), the international responsibility to monitor this area for search and rescue purposes, and to react accordingly (including notifications and rescues), legally and morally remains with Indonesia. This is especially so for Indonesian owned and crewed vessels leaving Indonesian ports (and is not affected by whether or not this is part of an Indonesian sponsored criminal act). Australia cannot legally subsume Indonesian responsibilities under international law in this regard.

At great cost and difficulty, Australia rescues round the world yachties in distress thousands of nautical miles from Australia because much of the southern ocean is in Australia’s SRR despite some of it being closer to other country’s territory. Why then cannot Indonesia be expected to rescue Indonesian vessels in distress only 50 or so nautical miles south of its main island, well within its SRR and closer to Indonesia than anywhere else? The whole point of the international agreement on search and rescue is to share the burden and Indonesia has responsibilities in this regard it cannot morally and legally ignore.

Tony Kevin

Hutton et al erect a complete “straw person” in falsely claiming that I described Tony Kevin as an “insignificant individual who has no capacity to challenge the official government line”. This is neither true nor fair. My only concern with Tony Kevin as an individual is when, in his writing on this subject, he moves outside his area of career expertise or is wrongly assumed by others to have such expertise. Based on his own comments, errors and misjudgements for example, Tony Kevin obviously lacks expertise on Indonesia, the international law of the sea, search and rescue responsibilities and procedures, intelligence processes, international police liaison, and military matters generally.

As to the “middle-ranking diplomat” description, Tony Kevin would no doubt admit the truth of this. It was included to provide perspective to the assessments he offered (as it would, for example, had he been a headmaster or a bank manager). Hutton et al also do not appear to realise that “ambassador” is an appointment not a rank and that many of our ambassadors to smaller countries are quite middle level public service grades (roughly analogous to the manager of your local Centrelink office).

Standards of Objectivity

This is another “straw person” defence by Hutton et al. SIEV-X is a serious matter of public debate. Even if Tony Kevin’s speech to a conference was only 25 minutes in length this is no excuse for this not to be backed up by a serious and considered supporting paper. Such a paper must be of credible (academic) standard, cover all the key issues and objectively discuss major alternative viewpoints, possibilities and probabilities before drawing thorough and balanced conclusions. It is quite wrong to accuse Australia (and the navy, etc) of grossly improper behaviour, or worse, without undertaking serious effort to mount a proper public case.

SIEV X Survivor Accounts

Again Hutton et al resort to a “straw person” defence, but additionally make the incorrect claim that Tony Kevin’s paper covered the survivor accounts mentioning that “unknown boats shone searchlights on them in the water and sailed away”. Tony’s sole and peripheral mention of the survivor accounts in his paper was “Orion flight 2 made contact at 1930 with and the (widely reported by survivors) observing boats”. He did not mention the “grey boats”, “searchlights” and apparent abandonment, nor did he go into any detail as to the SIEV X survivor accounts and their implications. This seriously undermines the credibility of his research and motivations, for if these accounts are true how can they be explained.

Even Tony Kevin concedes that the nearest Australian vessel (HMAS Arunta) was 100-150 nautical miles away. We are therefore left with the clear and unpleasant alternative that if the survivor accounts are true, these other boats would have to have been Indonesian. This would surely put a very different complexion on the whole SIEV-X incident. It may even be a more likely explanation than those put forward by the conspiracy theorists to explain Australian official reluctance to release some details. These details may be being withheld for fear of seriously embarrassing Indonesia when we need their cooperation in eradicating the people smuggling trade.

Summary

Finally, apparently unlike Hutton et al, I think there is a difference between “false evidence” to a Senate Inquiry and mistaken evidence given honestly, or conflicting evidence from multiple sources. While I too am troubled by some senior officials not being allowed to give evidence, on balance there appear to be several more plausible explanations for this than the ones Hutton et al apparently seem so wedded to.

I note that Hutton at al do not attempt to address any of the six points I posed to Tony Kevin at the close of my critique, nor do they try to defend the numerous other gaps exposed in his arguments by his many critics. This inability or reluctance to do so surely typifies their narrow and seemingly obsessive focus.

Where Hutton et al and most Australians thankfully agree is that SIEV-X was a tragedy. Where Hutton et al and I appear to disagree is on four points:

* I put a high priority on preventing a repeat.

* I see no evidence or logical reasoning that the sinking of SIEV-X was solely Australia’s fault or was at Australian instigation.

* I see little or no evidence or sound argument that Australia was a major contributor to the tragedy, although hindsight has given us several lessons to help prevent a repeat on our part.

* I do see Indonesian fingerprints all over the incident and I remain deeply puzzled why such obvious evidence, motives and modus operandi are so readily ignored by the “Australian conspiracy” theorists.

In a parting shot to their little defensive piece Hutton et al write, somewhat ironically, that “Tam Long should take the time to acquaint himself [sic] with the evidence before he [sic] shoots the messenger”. Well I certainly do not seek to shoot any messengers. I regret that they hold me responsible for some of the collateral damage to Tony Kevin’s credibility as his arguments and “facts” increasingly splinter under objective fire from his critics. Better arguments on his part might have provided him with a better shield.

The sinking of SIEV-X is a very serious matter. It is part of a broader very serious problem – people smuggling and the consequent severe damage this causes to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Analysis of the SIEV X and wider problems necessarily require a balanced perspective and objectivity in argument. They do not need, and are harmed by, a marked and/or subjective reluctance to consider any facts or argument that do not hold Australia to fault, or which are primarily motivated by suspicion and hatred of Australia’s current government, other national institutions or the commonsense of the Australian people.

***

Ron Jones

Oh Dearie me — how absolutely twee ,

Mary, Marg, Kay – ‘n’ Marilee.

They “finger wag” in chorus

We’re holier than tho’us

“The Tony Kevin Ladies Auxiliary”

Upon what basis do these ladies arrive at the view that they are such wonderfully moral people – when, on the slightest pretext they are prepared to condemn others (e.g. our servicemen and women ) as malicious evil-doers. There is something very “black” in their own mindset.

I can only hope that Tony Kevin squirmed with embarrassment upon reading their final priggish lines : “The 353 believed in Australia but Australia did not believe in them -they were denied in death as they were in life ….. Tony Kevin was the sole advocate of the people of SIEV-Xand he has risked everything to seek the truth”.

Hallelujah! The next Messiah has arrived.

The Webdiaries of September 12 and 13 last year follow.

TRAGEDY

Wednesday, Sept 12

I am still in the shock phase of grief. Fear isn’t allowed in yet. Some people in Australia have hit out and are threatening fellow Australians. Others have used the tragedy to bolster their case against allowing any Muslims into Australia, including the Tampa boat people. A few of these people have written to the Webdiary. Some others have written making judgements about the United States and suggesting it is responsible for last night’s events. I’ve chosen not to publish any of these emails at this time. Many Australians are still waiting for news on family and friends in the United States.

Keith Conley wrote to me today: “In light of what happened last night, please put a halt to the Webdiary. It can serve no purpose now. Any argument over refugees will be inflamed by the raw tidal wave of emotion that is about to be unleashed. This is not the time.”

I’d already decided the same thing, but have changed my mind. Today, I publish contributions from John Avery, Brian Bahnisch, Andrew Cave, Polly Bush, Colin White, Marc Pengryffn, Merrill Pye and Beris de Vanharasz.

***

John Avery in Adelaide

It is a reasonable guess that the perpetrators of today’s terrorism in the US are an extreme faction identified with Islam and probably connected to the Taliban. Having said that, it is vital that the actual culprits are identified and punished with narrow particularity, not just for sake of justice but to defeat the purposes of these outrages.

President Bush has said no distinction will be drawn between terrorists and the regimes who support them. But that is the exactly the response these shocking deeds seem calculated to elicit. A key object of extremist factions, such as those competing with more moderate groups among the Taliban, is to prevent moderate groups defecting, to shut the escape hatches.

We have seen this tactic in Afghanistan with the desecration of the Buddhist monuments, the arrest of aid workers for (allegedly) preaching Christianity and the outrageous repression of women in that country. The terrorists believe that more extreme and outrageous the actions, the more reliably will their targets extend revenge to anyone tainted by association with them.

Under common attack, more moderate factions are forced to commit to the extreme hard line, whether they like it or not.

If this is correct, the US response should be to drive a wedge between the perpetrators and to their close supporters, rebarbative as they definitely will turn out to be. This course is unlikely to be followed because the extremity of the terrorists’ outrage is designed to amplify their victims’ hostility and harden their feelings of revenge.

Thus the huge scale of losses inflicted on the US are calculated to induce feelings of revenge that will not be satisfied with the punishment of a mere handful of scruffy tribesmen, even if Bin Laden were among them (should his group turn out to be culpable).

The vividness and power of these events, underscored by presumed religiously inspired suicides, make it emotionally difficult for the Americans to resist the terrorists’ overt message that they are primarily engaged in war with the USA or the west.

The war with the diabolical west may turn out to be their platform, but the real purpose of their attacks and their extreme high stake tactics seem to be fame, self-preservation and advancement within a specific regional politics marked by labile factional and ideological commitments to forms of Islam ostensibly opposed to modernity with a western face.

The world will pay a high price if America succumbs to these forceful temptations. President Bush, contrary to what he has declared so far in the heat of the moment, should lend support to the more moderate factions to isolate the extremists, contrary to the extremists’ desire to draw a savage response from the USA, but this is unlikely to happen.

It seems a small point to make now, but the prospect that the world might have developed better ways of dealing with the increasing flow of refugees from Afghanistan and nearby countries seems to have evaporated.

I had hoped that, in that context, Australia would be able to review its responsibilities to take refugees on a more compassionate and responsive basis. That would have changed things for the better. At present, it seems that we can only hope things do not get far, far worse.

***

Brian Bahnisch in Brisbane

When I was young there was a fellow called Gandhi. I admired his pacifist philosophy but could not bring myself to adopt it entirely. I would always be ready to kill if it meant saving my sister’s life. But Gandhi made you think. We do have to be careful about extending the cycle of violence.

Later when doing a course on ethics I read that every society on earth has legitimated killing in some form in some circumstances. Exceptions are possible but they are rare. Last year I met a Kiwi, a Moriori, who told me that the Moriori were so gentle they would rather die than fight the invading Maori. There are not many Moriori about these days.

Last night was a bad night. After Lateline finished I checked out the end of the Channel 10 news. There was a World Trade Centre tower burning. By the time I got out of the shower it was clear that bad things were happening. I watched in fascination, as it became clear that the world had changed forever.

This morning we told my 14-year-old about what had happened. His response? Bad things are going to happen. You know how the Americans are when some of their people are killed.

There was lots of comment on the radio. American voices, experts in terrorism and defense, saying that Bush should be careful about overreacting. One pointed out that the terrorists were just toying with the US. There was no payload of anthrax and they could have taken out the White House.

They spoke about how hard it was to defend against such an attack. Weapons could be taken on board and put together later. I realised that the terrorists would not have needed any weapons at all if there were enough of them and they were skilled in unarmed combat. In fact the woman who phoned her husband from one of the planes mentioned only knives and cardboard cutters.

It was an elegant plan. Use the power of the products of capitalism against itself. I wondered about what violence had preceded these unspeakable acts and what violence would follow. After all the Brits and the Yanks have been bombing Iraq for the last 10 years.

Then came Beazley. He expressed concern for the victims and their families and then talked about retribution. Is this what I want my leader to be saying? Shouldn’t he be calming things down? And I thought, give up Kim. People will never vote to change the government now with the strong man in control.

Then came Howard. He had compassionate words too and then spoke of a lethal strike. I called into the newsagent and picked up The Bulletin. I had been sweating on The Bulletin Morgan poll. The last one had been taken just after the Minister, who could not remember where he had been or what he knew, had given out five different stories to cover himself. (Margo: Junior minister Ian Macfarlane was implicated in Liberal Party rorting of the GST. He is now in Cabinet.) Labor was then 57 to 43 ahead. This one was taken on 12 September. The gap had narrowed 10 points in two weeks. Howard was in the hunt. Now he would surely romp it in.

Then came talkback on the ABC. I expected it and it came. We must keep these Muslims out! They want to destroy our Christian society. Then a guy came on and said the notable thing about this attack was that it came from inside the US. And here in Australia we have one man (Justice North) subverting the will of our elected leaders. (Margo: Justice North had just declared the government’s detention of asylum seekers on the Tampa unlawful.)

So is this the end of what Fukuyama claimed was the end of history, namely liberal democracy and free market capitalism? Perhaps not, but it must be getting closer. Eric Hobsbawm says borders are becoming more porous, crime is globalising and the technology of violence is increasing to the point where it is hard for the nation state to exert control within its borders and make the place safe for global capitalism. He thinks the nation state reached its zenith about 40 years ago.

And what do we do? Throw up our hands in despair? Well no, we keep pushing the rock up the hill like Sisyphus even if it is destined to keep rolling down again.

***

Andrew Cave in Kuraby, Queensland

My wife went to the local supermarket about half an hour ago. When she came back she told me of overhearing conversations. Two young men talking to a checkout operator saying “All Arabs are crazy”. Another checkout operator saying “Now you know why we turned those boat people away.” A beautiful young Arab woman working on checkout defending herself against three other checkout operators who were evidently focussing on her as a representative of Islam and so having some responsibility for the terrible crime in New York overnight.

This sort of reaction is commonplace now as the message to fear the Islamic people of the world becomes internalised, part of the very moral and decision making framework of our lives. Unquestioned like the notion that man is the most evolved creature on the planet.

It is this sort of fear that attacking the boat people works on. Those who pander to it may think, isolated in their sane and well-educated suburbs, that this can be used for political advantage and that it can be contained like a controlled burn-off. But like a fire that gets to the tree crowns, it will run away from their control.

Watching the American news coverage, I have been struck by how considered and calm their commentary has been. There has been overt efforts to ensure that it is not assumed that it was Islamic terrorists and that a distinction is drawn between the people who did it and the people who may have unwittingly shared a country.

I can only hope that our media will do the same – even the shock-jocks. And I sincerely hope that the first politician to try and make political mileage by linking New York with the Afghan refugees is so vilified by the press that he (or she) never participates in public life again.

***

Polly Bush in Melbourne

Madness. Complete and utter madness. Excuse my age (24) but this is the biggest thing I have ever seen. This is the scariest feeling I have ever had. This is beyond comprehension.

Work was a joke today. I couldn’t do anything except mindlessly click the refresh button on any news site I could find. People walked around, mouths open, eyes vacant, silent, stunned.

And this is just Australia. Crowds gathered around the office TVs, but still, silence, stunned faces.

A male colleague of mine told me on one of many unproductive smoko breaks today, “I don’t want to be called up for war”. I never thought I would hear that from someone my age and seriously contemplate it.

Idiot callers on talkback radio likened boat people to terrorists, without making the connection this is what boat people might be fleeing from. Emails went wild. I got sent this Nostradamus quote: “In the city of God there will be a great thunder, two brothers torn apart by chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb. The third big war will begin when the big city is burning.” Ta for that, whoever.

Dubbya quoted the bible. Terrific. I recalled his father’s speech during the Gulf and the emphasis on the sons and daughters of the USA. I felt sick. I rang my Mum interstate for some vague reassurance that life is OK. She asked me to come home, so we can go bush and build a bunker. That didn’t help.

In light of the Tampa, I didn’t think news could get anymore depressing. It has. Unfortunately I think this will just enrage the racists in this country and around the world.

We live in dangerous times. I fear the future.

***

Colin White in Highgate, Western Australia

If reports are to be believed, this evil is the work of Islam. Why does Islam insist on hiding from the world the beauty inspired by Allah, presenting only the evil inspired by Satan?

I hope the American people have the fortitude to rebuild those beautifully elegant towers to their original design, as a living, working monument to all who perished there yesterday. A design in which, ironically, I have always seen the influence of Islamic architecture.

***

Marc Pengryffyn in Katoomba, NSW

Arbitrary slaughter of innocent people is the norm over most of the world, not the exception. The murder of thousands of Americans is a horrible tragedy. So were the deaths of the thousands in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Chile, Chechnya, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Palestine, the former Yugoslavia, China, Burma, etc, etc. There is no defence against terror, except to create a world without the depth of inequality and injustice that currently exists.

It disturbs me that the first thing I heard President Bush say was to promise revenge. Not justice. Revenge. This suggests that even more innocent civilians will be killed to ‘send a message’ to the terrorists. Why do the bodies of the innocent always have to be the medium of the message?

Likewise, the Australian government has been speaking in terms of retribution, rather than justice. Predictably, the noisy, hard-of-thinking bigots who patronise talk-back are threatening violent retribution against the Australian Muslim community. More innocent victims.

Tit-for-tat atrocities is not the way to end terror. Look at Palestine or Northern Ireland. The terrorists need to be brought to justice, and the conditions that foster fanaticism and terror need to be addressed at the roots. We need justice, not vengeance.

But few will listen. Few will even bother to think. They will only react, and the cycle of violence will continue. Sometimes it’s hard to be an optimist.

***

Merrill Pye in Sydney

My worries for reverberations continue, but down the bottom of Pandora’s Box was hope. Just maybe some sort of common feeling might come out of this. New York and Washington DC now maybe can feel like Belgrade and Baghdad did. Those pretty pictures, like movies or computer games, missile-cam and night-vision, now connect with reality, with pain, grief, loss and destruction.

***

Beris de Vanharasz

I feel desperate for the world and all the decent people of all races and beliefs.

***

FEAR

Thursday, Sept 13, first edition

I can’t stop crying. I know – we all know – that we at at the beginning of a journey which could destroy our hopes for a better world and plunge us into a religious war. I don’t believe in God, but I’m praying that the world’s leaders – including the leaders of the Muslim world – will find a way to avoid world catastrophe.

In the first edition of Webdiary today, letters from Americans to us, and from us to them and each other. I end the edition with proposals for solutions from a dual citizen.

Today’s contributors are:

Rich Wagner in Massachusetts, thanking Australians for their support.

Liz McEachern-Hall, an Australian in Boston, in defence of America.

Dave Hoefer in Florida, who is considering sending his Australian wife and children to Australia for their safety.

Varia Cartledge, an Australian in Boston, who feels she has no right to argue with Americans at this time

Tricia Phillips in Indiana, hoping her country’s response does not mean war

McKenzie Wark, an Australian in New York, connecting his media theory with living the reality

Gemma Dalgleish in Sydney, on the feeling of fear

A Iman in Greystanes, Sydney an Australian with a Muslim perspective

Betsy Emmons in solidarity with the United States

David Palmer in Adelaide, a dual citizen of the United States and Australia, with suggestions on strategy and policy.

***

Rich Wagner in Hadley, Massachusetts, 200 miles north-west of New York City

These attacks have been psychologically overwhelming to many individuals here in the US for many reasons. Even for those of us, such as myself, who (thankfully) suffered no injuries or loss of life to family or friends, it is very hard, for too many reasons to enumerate.

I grew up across the Hudson River from Manhattan, and remember the pride I felt at seeing those towers, often miles and miles away from hills in New Jersey. Now they are just *gone*.

A man I worked closely with for a year was on the 38th floor of one of the Towers when the first plane struck. Thank God he evacuated in time. Even all-too-close calls can be damaging, psychologically, as I’m learning.

But one of the most significant reasons we feel overwhelmed has to do with the shock of reality, of our own naivety. I must confess that the Gulf War, with its displays of our technological capabilities for warfare, made me (and I’m sure many Americans) feel invincible. But what weaponry brought this about ? Knives, our own aircraft, and demonic human beings possessed by hatred. No more; no less.

A high price for humility, lacking though it was …

Having been in Australia for a month, over a decade ago, I know some about the justified resentments towards the superior attitudes many Americans carry abroad. I like to think I set a better example then than most.

I loved your country. So in this time, for me, it’s been truly helpful to read about, and to hear through distant Australian friends in Internet “chat” rooms, the sincere and complete support, and sympathies, expressed by you, our friends and allies.

It’s especially welcome given the vulnerabilities we are now at least a little less blind to.

Different things help different people here, now. For me and my love of your country and folk, your flags at half mast help. Even if no one else I know sees that, know that *this* American sees that and feels embraced. *This* American sees your flowers, and feels the symbolic mutual shedding-of-blood from all those donating blood, whether it is actually used here or not.

This American has heard the words of Mr. Howard and other Australians, and they make me feel strong again, but now because I see global strength and unity in this battle.

This American is thankful for his distant friends.

***

Liz McEachern-Hall, an Australian in Boston

I have thought about responding to some of the comments in this Webdiary from SMH readers and after reading some of the reactions to the carnage in the US I feel compelled to act.

I currently live in Boston with my American husband and the impact of the last few days has certainly been felt in this area. It is hard not to feel vulnerable or afraid. As I write there has been an evacuation of a section of the downtown area in Boston with FBI and police on the scene searching for alleged suspects in the attacks. There are SWAT team members surrounding the area and much confusion on the streets.

I appreciate some of the comments that have come from SMH readers concerning the welfare of the victims and extending thoughts and prayers. In addition some of the sensible responses have shown how great my country is and how great an understanding it has of world issues.

However for those few who have suggested that the US deserves what it has been through I have this to say. You have no concept of what it must be like for people living here and particularly for those in New York City. At one point I had lost a friend down there, but thankfully he is OK.

I may not be an American citizen, but I certainly don’t stand around and think, “Well, they deserve this”. No one does. Just because you live far away doesn’t give you the right to judge my husband, my friends or anyone else.

I am a patriotic Aussie through and through and miss home terribly, especially at a time like this. However, this is my location and situation right now and I see this tragedy as an opportunity for the world community to come together and look beyond nationality, race or religion to help others.

If you want to do something constructive try donating some blood to help the victims, rather than donating your words.

***

Dave Hoefer, American in Orlando Florida, married to an Australian

It has been 30 or so hours since the first news broke of the tragedy in New York and I am still in a daze. The whole thing seems surreal to some degree, as if somehow I am going to find this was all a bad dream, but I know it’s not. Despite what most people read from around the world, the US up until Tuesday was a safe, wonderful place to be from and to live in. Not Hollywood type visions of the US – the real US.

I travelled to Oz 17 yrs ago with two other Americans. I was the “moderate” of the group. That ended yesterday. I have always tried to “turn the other cheek” so to speak. I thought a large arsenal was enough, that large numbers of bullets and weapons would act as a deterrent. Apparently I was wrong. You have to be willing to use them.

I do know that Tuesday’s terrorist attack was not just an attack on America and it’s freedoms, it was an attack on all free people. Americans will rise up together, yes together, for the first time in years. We do not want martyrdom for the villains, but if that’s what occurs, so be it.

We want justice. We want revenge. We are angry. We are saddened. There will not be an act of retaliation, there will be an act of self defence. I hope that others will join with us. Freedom has a price and it now must be paid. Initial restraint is called for, a kneejerk reaction serves no real purpose, but when the time comes to respond which side of the smoking gun do you want to be on?

I married an Australian woman, and when she got home from work yesterday, I asked her to get hers and our children’s passports in order. I do not know what the short term future will hold and the thought that I would have to send my family elsewhere to be safe scares and angers me to no end.

I have often made the statement to my wife and her family that on a world stage, the US is damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. Well it has now reached another platitude: “You are either for us or against us”. Which will it be?

***

Varia Cartledge, an Australian in Boston

The two planes that hit the WTC towers yesterday flew out of Boston. We’re all in horror and grief. New York City is a big place. Most people I know spent yesterday scrambling to find out the whereabouts of friends and relatives by email and phone.

I have to be careful who I talk to today. We’re all hurting, sad and horrified, but they have more right to their feelings because this is their country, and mine only by adoption. I don’t want to hurt anyone any further by arguing with them.

The one person I have spoken to this morning advocates bombing the hell out of whatever country we find harbours the terrorists. I fear that the majority will feel this way. She said it didn’t matter if more innocent people died if the US bombed overseas – they already killed civilians here, so why not? She said it didn’t matter that it’s not the right thing to do, it would make 80% of Americans feel better.

I do not see how killing civilians during US reprisals against the terrorists would make anything better. The people who were killed yesterday leave behind them a mass of grieving family and friends. To cause the same grief in the name of revenge would only leave another huge emotional wound on humanity.

I believe that justice can be done without leaving more people empty and grieving. Violence begets violence. I believe it is up to the leaders of the United States to find a way to bring justice against the perpetrators of this crime too big for words, without harming any more innocents.

But I won’t be able to say any of that. Because I also believe that to argue right now with people who are hurting would do no good. We must attempt to heal the wound with the tools that we have, and I’m feeling incredibly inadequate to do my part right now.

***

Tricia Phillips, American

I live in Indiana in the United States. The terrorist attack has been tragic and devastating. There are positive and negative aspects to this crazy act. I do fear what will happen when it is found out who committed this act – military action probably will follow.

This act is just unprecedented – how should we react? What should be done? I just don’t know, the world is a crazy place. It didn’t just affect the US though, it was felt all over the world, the whole world is affected.

Americans are not the only one who are dead and missing; Australians, Britons, and other countries had their citizens and compatriots among the victims. I also include them in my prayers, thoughts, and in my heart.

I am grateful and want to say thank you to all the people in all the countries who are sending us their prayers and thoughts. This act has brought us closer as Americans, but I also feel in some ways the world was brought together. People all over the world were putting thoughts and flowers at our embassies. It made me feel good inside that people care.

We are all human beings, there are good and bad in all religious groups, nationalities, race, and every distinction between people that anyone cares to make. The Muslim people as a whole are not responsible. They only people responsible are those that involved in the plan to commit this act.

I truly hope no military response is needed. I hope and pray that enough evidence is found that we can bring these terrorists to Justice. I hope that no country will fund or give safe haven to the groups. I hope that all countries will unite against terrorism so we can get intelligence on these groups and keep something like this from happening again.

I hope that the people of the US keep our sense of unity and solidarity and that we keep showing kindness to each other. I hope nothing like this ever again. I wish that terrorism didn’t exist anywhere, especially in the Middle East, where so much violence occurs everyday. Someday the world will be a better place when we can learn from our mistakes and from history.

***

McKenzie Wark, Australian academic in New York

Words fail the very event with which they tangle. It is in the nature of disaster to defy representation. The abstract grazes the concrete and vaporises on contact.

What we are witnessing, on our TV screens, our computer screens, is a weird global media event. Like all such events, it appeared as if it came out of nowhere. It took the media by surprise. The networks were reporting live on an event before they even knew what the envelope of the event was.

As I write, we still don’t know. There is no reliable information as to how this event started, or how it will end. And still the networks keep pumping out the information. As with all such events, the desire for information far outstrips the ability to provide it. People cluster around screens and newsfeeds, anxious for details that are not forthcoming. Endless repetitions of the same video clips and endless speculation from supposed experts fill the yawning gap between fact and appearance. CNN just goes live without commentary. Images and sounds in search of a story.

The saturation of the media space and time spills over from broadcast media into personal communication. The phone lines jam as people try to contact loved ones. People use their internet communities to share words, mostly heartfelt but futile, as a way of working through the surplus of emotions that spills over from this weird global media event.

Weird global media event: It is an event because it is far outside the routine of newsmaking. In news, the story always precedes the facts, and the facts fit the story with the predictable tang of redundancy.

It is a media event because it instantly connects any and every vector of communication together in a vast, irrational stew. Everything from financial data to erotic emails twist toward the unfolding shape of the event. It is a global media event because the vectors that snap into place create their own world. (We are that world). Events of this kind are no respecters of scale or boundaries.

And it is a weird global media event because it is a pure singularity. It does not quite fit any template. It is its own precedent. It defies meaning. The truth of the event lies in what can’t be said.

This is not an irony: I wrote about weird global media events in Virtual Geography: Living With Global Media Events (Indiana University Press, 1994). The examples in that book were Tiananmen square, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Gulf War and the ‘Black Monday’ stock market crash. I thought when I wrote about these events that they would not be the last. I never expected to be touched by a weird global media event personally.

New York is my home town. Like everyone connected to this most global city, I spent the day trying to confirm that friends and family are safe. And they are. But there are many people whose friends and family are not safe.

My proximity to loss makes me feel their genuine loss, in the very marrow of what I cannot say for them or about them. Words lose their glamour. But silence is not much of an option.

***

Gemma Dalgleish in Turramurra, Sydney

Yesterday I felt something that was a new emotion, a new feeling that was foreign, something that I had never felt before. I tried to find words to describe this feeling – was it sadness, shock, despair or fear?

It was no use trying to find a name for it, I only had to look around at the people coming off the train in the city and the people walking to work. Everyone was walking a little slower, it was like they were all carrying something on their backs that was weighing them down.

I realised it was my heart that was heavier than it had ever been before. Something has struck at our innocence and at our sense of freedom. It has made us realise that we are vulnerable, it has exposed our ignorance and our naivety.

While the anger, hurt, shock and frustration will be evident in us all, we must at the same time think first with the head and then with the heart. We must be rational and fair and not point blame without first having the knowledge and the truth.

Go home tonight and tell your mother, your father, your sibling, your partner or your children that you love them.

***

A Iman in Greystanes, Sydney

A tragedy took in the US on the 11th of September. What many may be unaware of however is that this incident has two perspectives, which need to be considered.

Many Muslims and Arabs on a global scale identify that innocent lives of individuals have been targeted and destroyed. Islam teaches practicing Muslims to struggle for the sake of Allah (Jihad). When individuals or groups fight against Islam we are obliged to fight back in various forms. (eg Palestine).

However Islam through the teachings of the Prophet argued against the killing of innocent people, in particular women and children.

You don’t have to be Muslim nor an Arab to identify the role America has played in destroying lives in many countless Arab and Muslim nations in the past, on a day to day basis, whether through direct military attack or sanctions and policies. Violence will always breed violence. This is why people who lose children daily in places such as Iraq and Palestine >rejoiced at the fact that such had taken place in America. Not as a justification of such actions but as a symbol of their ongoing ignored suffering.

Islam does not teach us to justify wrong with wrong, yet countless suffering which has been imposed and continues to take place resulted in this rejoice. Muslims die in horrific ways all over the world daily and it is but a STATISTIC to the western world. When we are victims, which is often the case, this is ignored and a great majority of cases are not always shown on the western news nor given attention as our lives to the western world seem to be worthless, even the lives of our children!

But when America is subject to such violence, which it contributes to the Arab World, they are victims and viewed also as innocent people! Shouldn’t this work both ways and both perspectives be taken into account?

Since this attack on America has taken place we as Muslims in Australia have been subject to vast quantities of racism and hatred, and the American news has illustrated that such is evident in the US currently also. When a minority have committed such a horrific act it seems appropriate for the general public to swear at us and our beliefs (which are wrongly portrayed and understood) and spit, or stare at us with hatred as we walk past minding our own business.

We feel for these innocent people as we are innocent sufferers and victims ourselves in many contexts. We do condemn such acts as we condemn American or other negative involvement towards us. It works both ways. We feel their pain and their position more than the western world seems to know.

Now an attack or retaliation is being planned. I can imagine the outcome of this yet again on our people due to our minority. I somehow believe that rather than targeting simply those who are responsible that we as a whole will be targeted yet again. What disappoints me more so is the agreement of the Australian population to take part in such actions, and the extent those western governments seem to be willing to go to not simply only to target Terrorism as a whole but the Arabs and other Muslims yet again!

It also disappoints and saddens me to see that we may be identified as ignorant yet we feel for sufferers and we take all perspectives into account as true Muslims and humans. Why is it acceptable for Americans to strive and fight for freedom, yet such only be an impossible dream when Muslims are involved?

We are humans, with morals, and beliefs which many seem to misinterpret. I hope that all humans on a global scale can identify these perspectives. We know your all mourning and hurting as we do also and have been for many many years. We need to accept each other and allow each other to have equal rights, not enforce some selectively and treat all people as being superior to Muslims or Arabs who don’t seem to matter.

We need to stop signifying such acts and misleading the general public by providing wrong information about what Muslims believe and what we regard as morally right or wrong, as happened with the rape incident recently (which Islam condemns in every aspect) and what is happening now.

And to the anonymous person who spoke wrongfully and targeted us yet again and didn’t even have the courage to sign a name: True believers following the rightful way of Islam are not “evil mutant species”. we DO love, we DO tolerate, and we DO have joy! You state, “What god could possibly recruit these bastards?” Islam teaches us that every individual is accountable for >his or her actions before Allah (god) on judgement day. You want immigration to be stopped immediately, yet you want the women such as myself to be brought in so that those of us who cover ourselves, our bodies, which none has the right to see but our husbands, to be exposed so that we may be in a sense happy and accepted.

I am 19 years old, I am Muslim, I have an Arab background, and I am Australian. NOBODY forced me to cover up. It is prescribed for us in our religion to protect ourselves from the evil of man’s eyes. I have no intention to ever remove such and I believe that we do not have to be exposed to be beautiful!

You argue that “this planet is too small for them; I certainly don’t want them to be my neighbours”. This is the sort of ignorance which I was referring to. It’s amazing how we are a multi-cultural nation yet we don’t accept very many cultures or religions! You judge Islam by the behaviour of a minority of Muslims. You associated rape with us yet again.

So I conclude with this. Before targeting Muslims go to our sources (Quran and Sunnah) and see how true Muslims must behave. Before selectively regarding some as victims and others as nothing go back to history and events in Palestine, Iraq, Cambodia and Vietnam to name but a few and realise the reasons why this world has become the place which it is today.

***

Betsy Emmons

I have been reading your Webdiary and am saddened and ashamed for this country. This “getting what America had coming” attitude is horribly selfish and short-sighted. What Australians forget is that America is in a no-win situation: either isolate themselves and be involved in no world affairs, which may economically devastate some countries and certainly hinder many others, as well as allow many human atrocities to continue unabated, or America can assist as the largest democracy in the world, and therefore make enemies with those who disagree with its policies.

Who wins? America does not make sound foreign policy choices at all times about who to side with, but AT LEAST THEY TRY – they have accepted the role as the largest democracy and assist countries and people. Which is more than I can say for fellow countrymen, who are eagerly turning away refugees for purely isolationist and anti-humanitarian reasons.

What I am interested to see is what Australians would do if America does become horribly economically crippled and retreats into domesticity. Will we be blaming them for becoming aloof and arrogant to not assist the poor and needy in the world?

You forget the billions of American dollars that are constantly sent worldwide in efforts to assist developing nations, the military presence to keep civilians safe in the Serb attacks, in many wars, right or wrong. It disgusts me that we sit in our cocoon in the south Pacific and throw stones at their government. I know without blinking an eye that if we were in trouble, they would come to our immediate assistance.

Instead of whining, go donate blood, say prayers, remember the dead.

***

David Palmer in Adelaide

I wrote the following in my capacity as an educator (university lecturer), and as a dual citizen of the United States and Australia. Australia is now – and for some time has been – my home. I plan to use the following policy outline on the current US crisis as part of my presentation to a forthcoming university-wide forum we’re planning at Flinders University. I’ve also sent the paper to various political leaders and representatives. Some of what I’ve written may be irrelevant in a few days, but here it is anyway.

The current American crisis – some suggestions on strategy and policy

In the present crisis, the United States government needs to pursue strategy and policy that simultaneously encompasses military, diplomatic, and social solutions. It is a crisis that goes far beyond the recent tragic attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the terrible loss of life that resulted.

1) The United States government must move toward a multilateral international policy to address the crisis. There are two aspects of this strategic policy that need to be implemented.

First, move toward eliminating the terrorist network, including those running state regimes where this network (or networks) is based. It should be done systematically to get at that source. There is little point in virtual war (high altitude bombing without engagement) or economic embargoes, both inadequate and inhumane strategies the US has used in the past.

Instead, the following might be better:

* Establish an international military force comparable to that used in Kosovo by NATO. Russia must be included in such a force, however, as should China if possible.

* Provide all necessary assistance in whatever form to indigenous resistance forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, both states that appear to be state supports of the network.

* Locate, capture and prosecute those in the terrorist networks.

* With the international military force, in concert with indigenous resistance forces, remove the Taliban from Afghanistan. (It should be noted that the Taliban is an international organization, not a national Afghan formation, and that a majority of Afghanistans Taliban rulers are of Pakistani background, not Afghan.)

Second, differentiate in policy terms between moderate Islamic forces and those connected to dictatorial, extreme fundamentalist orientations. This means immediately addressing the Palestinian issue in the Middle East though the following:

* Halt US military support for Israel until the Sharon government withdraws troops from Palestinian territories.

* Send in an international police force to Israel and the Palestinian territories in order to deal with violence on both sides and secure peace there.

* Immediately commence peace negotiations with the aim of implementing the Mitchell peace accords.

* Address other concerns of moderate Muslims and Muslim countries in other parts of the world.

Unless the second aspect of strategy is implemented – the diplomatic and peacekeeping initiative for Israel and Palestine – the first aspect of strategy, which is a military response, will fail in the long-term. Without solving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the United States will simply be assisting fundamentalist extremists in recruiting young people for their Jihad.

2) Establish both better security in the US and elsewhere, but also guarantee civil liberties and oppose any form of racial or religious vilification. President Bush, Prime Minister Howard, and other world leaders need to actively encourage public tolerance, dialogue, and understanding, even as an activist policy against the terrorist network is pursued.

3) Convene an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations to address the international refugee problem, especially those people now fleeing Afghanistan. Move toward establishing some degree of uniform policies, processing, and sharing of resources to assist these people.

***

More September 11 Webdiaries

September 13

The end of multiculturalism? webdiary

Reith has made the link between the Tampa boat people and the catastrophe in the United States. Being one of the ludicrously out of touch minority I realise I now am, I had thought the atrocity may have softened our attitude to the boat people – they are, after all, fleeing terror. But no, now they’re terrorists trying to infiltrate our country.

September 17

Can the face of hatred be excused? wd

A Webdiary debate is unfolding on the causes of the catastrophe, and whether the United States must take some responsibility for it.

The watchword is security not compassion, wd

This has got to be the worst time in the world to be a boat person. Since last Tuesday, the zeitgeist is security, not compassion.

Hot words, cool heads, and poetry, wd

Wonderful pieces today, as discussion deepens on the why of it and how to respond.

Clamour of discordant voices, wd

This is an entry of discordant voices. Israeli, Palestinian and American perspectives, pleas against massive retaliation and for a more just distribution of world resources, a critique of Muslims everywhere, a plea for a return monculturalism in Australia, an American’s suggestion to express hope. And finally, a poem for the dead in New York.

September 18

Terror unlike movies, wd

I devote this entry to a long piece by a regular Webdiary contributor John Wojdylo on the war ahead. He’s a brilliant thinker and writer, and I thank him for contributing to this forum.

Labor falls into line, wd

It’s official. Labor has abandoned boat people, and a new, hard line consensus on boat people refugees is in place.

Are we heading to a point of no return?, wd

Mike Woods:

Tall trees blooming

bright & terrible

Flowers falling

Grief the only harvest

September 19

The boatpeople and the war, wd

The boat people. The war. The threads between the two grow more tangled.

Poll praise, wd

I begin with Roy Morgan’s summary of his stunning poll taken on September 15 and 16, after the New York bombing. He headed his statement THE BIG SWING.

Wojdylo adds perspective, wd

Your responses to John Wojdylo’s piece in Terror unlike movies.

Bush’s rhetoric gets more disturbing each day wd

I’d just lifted my head out of my hands after hearing the leader of the free world announce he was leading his allies into “a crusade” – the Christian term for a holy war – when I received an email from an army bloke I’d locked horns with many years ago during the debate on gays in the defence force.

September 20

What happens next, wd

Contributors continue to explore the ramifications – military, economic and cultural – of the new York bombing. I begin with Christopher Selth, who believes that the financial markets are beginning to realise that it signals the end of naive global capitalism.

September 21

More on war fever, wd

Brigadier (Retired) Adrian D’Hage in Kangaloon sends Webdiary another missive.

Warmongering, wd

I’ve just watched George Bush’s address to the nation. Frightening, yes. But also inclusive and measured. It was the speech to mark the official beginning of war by America

September 24

Why is Howard not addressing us? wd

America now has its story. So does Pakistan. And so does bin Laden, as I learned on reading a Robert Fisk piece based on his interviews with the man.

More war stories, wd, Taking on terrorism: The paths ahead, wd

Readers on the war.

***

For more war Webdiary, go to webdiaryarchive

Ethics, huh? Great topic, great responses. Over to you.

1. Ethical moments: Rosie Young and Harry Heidelberg

2. Impossible odds: Daniel Boase-Jelinek and Jozef Imrich

3. What are ethics?: Karl Zegers, Nick Jans, Tony Kevin, Chris Kuan, Peter Woodforde, Helen Lawson-Williams

4. The sunshine test: Allison Newman

5. Ethics in international politics: Meagan Phillipson

***

Recommendations

Martin Canny recommends John Ralston Saul’s latest, On Equilibrium, for examples of ethical dilemmas.

James Woodcock suggests Ross Gittins’ article “Yes you can legislate for morality”, especially:

“The funny thing is that, in their double standards towards blue-collar and executive crime, the pollies have got it pretty much the wrong way round. They profess to believe (along with the shock jocks and the untutored masses) that more police on the beat and tougher sentences are the obvious solution to all manner of sexual and property crimes.

“But where people act in the heat of the moment, or under the grip of some overpowering emotional kink in their makeup, or to feed a drug habit, the likelihood of their being deterred by the size of the penalty or even their chances of getting caught would seem to be small.

“In the case of corporate crime, however, where emotion plays a secondary role to calculated greed – where they’re just doing it for the money – you’d expect the size of the penalty and the chances of apprehension to have a big effect on people’s behaviour.”

***

1. Ethical moments

Rosie Young

On Friday my 23 year old daughter, a gardener, had her first vehicle accident – the tray of her ute sideswiped a brand new stationary Peugot. In all her distress she immediately wrote a note with her details and left it on the car.

Subsequently several people tried to convince her she had done the wrong thing and told her to go and remove the note. She began to query her actions, but fortunately did not take their advice. I believe that as soon as the accident occurred she had a spontaneous attack of ethics!

Perhaps ethics are a bit like the “quality” which cannot be defined, as written about in Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance – we recognise quality but cannot define it, and we recognise ethics but cannot define them.

It seems we have a little meter inside us which always give a true indication of how things are or how we should behave, but as soon as we try and rationalise the situation we get lost in a complex mass of pros and cons.

PS: My daughter has to pay $800 excess and we have sent some household items off to auction to cover the cost – nevertheless, ETHICS rule OK? !!!

***

Harry Heidelberg (nom de plume to avoid damage to the writer)

For me, ethics are something deeply internal and individual. I think they are something quite fundamental, formed at a very young age, and best imparted by parents and older role models.

For some, even those who are taught well, the ethical compass goes haywire later in life. Greed and self interest are the biggest enemies of ethics. It’s mainly for money but it can also be for sex or power.

Failure to act ethically is at once a betrayal of another person or of a system/institution. Ultimately I believe it is even a type of self-betrayal of the individual who behaves unethically.

In one way or another, those who act that way will pay an individual price. The price may be one of emotional turmoil created by a complicated life or something as simple as the stress of being afraid of discovery. Nothing in this life comes for free. Except the truly priceless, good things (like happiness, love and trust)!

I’ve faced several ethical dilemmas in my working life. In one I was involved in the audit of a government bank in a developing country. It was clear to me that the financial statements of the bank were the proverbial croc of shit. I made this known to all involved and suggested massive asset write downs.

I became hated. I recall in one instance when we tried to value a bank asset of a resort in a hopeless location where nobody ever stayed. I was deeply suspicious. I said to a mate who had lived in the country for years, “How much do you think that hotel is worth”?. His answer was “How much is a big house worth in that area?… It’s worthless as a hotel”. I came to this conclusion about many assets – all basically worthless or certainly worth a fraction of their book value. Millions of dollars were involved. Lots of vested interests. Lots of big fish in a small pond.

How did I process the above? I convinced my boss in the developing country that we had no choice but to convince the bank to agree to massive asset writedowns or refuse to sign the audit. To cut a long story short, he agreed but was later overruled by the developed country headquarters of our firm. I resigned but “came back” on the condition that I would not sign anything associated with that audit. The end result was that relationships were poisoned by my failure to tow the line of Big City, Developed Country, Big Accounting Firm. My career in that firm was never the same again. It’s hardly a Hollywood ending but I’m still glad I did that. My reward was internal. I could live with myself.

I later learned that everyone in that country’s administration was corrupt and later the bank collapsed. I did my job, or at least tried to. What a pity others didn’t. I suppose I could and should have done more. I made my personal protest, but I admit that by not going public, I weaken my superficially pure stance. This is a good reason why we need sound whistle blowing systems. A whistle blower should not have their life destroyed. A career setback is one thing, but not a destruction. Veiled threats aren’t a good thing either.

In the case above, the situation was dire and people were involved in covering up bad financial news. I now know some were criminals. This is the classic scenario.

In another case, I was working for a foreign multinational. We had a particularly good year. We had way past what we needed for all senior management to get their bonuses. I was asked to cover up GOOD financial news. The idea was that we should report all we needed as revenue and profits in one year to get to the bonus level and then give the following year a kick start by shunting the part we “didn’t need” into the following year. I had some of the worst professional arguments I have ever had over that one.

I can be pragmatic as anyone but I would never have done what they wanted me to. In effect I would have been telling the headquarters (and for that matter the Australian authorities – tax and ASIC) that our revenue and profits were MUCH lower than they actually were. It was millions, again. All around me they were saying it was harmless because we were only “delaying” good news into the next year. It was just a timing thing.

Bullshit. Accounting is all about timing and if you can’t get the timing right you may as well give up. In effect we really had to say that inventory which was SOLD was still in our warehouse. They dressed it up in fancy language but that was the substance of it. My boss said that we had to do as we were told. I said no we don’t and I won’t. He asked whether I would resign if they went ahead with this plan and I said I would. I was under IMMENSE pressure. Not sleeping, filthy looks in the corridors etc etc.

That’s the part that stinks. Why should I resign for doing my job?

How did I process that one? I had a contact in headquarters I trusted. I told him about it and he said to do the right thing. Much to the fury of local people, I DID do the right thing. In the process I lost my most valuable staff member. He resigned in the midst of it because he too was ethical and couldn’t bear it anymore. I tried so hard to convince him to stick with me and that I would fix it.

In the end I got my way, I fixed it and the right results were reported. Again, relationships were poisoned. This story has a happy ending. Well, sort of. The headquarters contact arranged for a promotion and transfer for me to the headquarters. He was later screwed over in a merger by dirty politics and both of us have since left the company.

Oh joy.

The new company I work for has an inspirational CEO. I know, I hear you moaning already. The days of inspirational CEOs are over. Not really. The right CEO for today is an ethical one. Long term interests of all companies and organisations are to behave ethically. Really.

The CEO of the company I now work for has established an “ethics ombudsman” in the headquarters. I suspect this move is a reaction to recent corporate scandals and a realisation that an internal process is required. Internal audit is hardly enough. We saw in Enron that internal audit questioned the practices but it did not help. Something more is needed. Something at a very high and very independent level. My current CEO should be commended. She is totally committed to ethics.

The idea of an internal “ethics ombudsman” is a great initiative but Margo I think your idea is a great addition. You can have an “internally independent” process but ultimately you need something which can be totally pure in the sense of giving more than just the appearance of independence.

It has to be pure independence in fact, not just appearance. An internal process will always be seen as something which is more easily compromised. I am not trashing internal processes. They are the first line and the most important defence. That said though, something more would be really nice.

Why not? All of us in the corporate world need to pause and reflect. Mere tinkering is not enough. A revolution is required and startling initiatives are urgently needed. I want to be startled. I want to be energised by something totally new. Faith and confidence in the system is key. That can’t be regained without substantial, far reaching changes.

Training is needed. Some have forgotten and need to be retrained in the ways of ethics. Some of it is indeed nuanced. That is why a discussion is helpful. We can never have enough discussion about this. It will never go away. I’m no saint and I’m all ears.

And don’t believe existing bodies when they say they have it covered. I belong to one which has a members ethical counselling service. A mate of mine went to them in dire need of advice earlier this year and they were hopeless. They offered no help at all. The whole thing is window dressing crap. When you really need them, they won’t be there for you.

This mate of mine had to resign from his job to get out of his ethical dilemma and endure three months of frightening unemployment. Some people may treat this lightly but I think it is outrageous that a well known professional body has a so-called ethical counselling service that failed so abysmally. Sure, it may be an isolated case but it should never happen. In the case of my mate it was serious stuff. His employer was on the verge of bankruptcy and hadn’t paid “group tax” (ie the pay as you earn tax deducted from employees) in nearly a year. No one cared for him. He’s a good guy and no one cared or listened. He could only trash himself to survive and sleep at night.

I have become somewhat jaded, but live in hope.

Finally, I say show no mercy to those who act unethically. Absolutely none. A bit of carrot is nice but I reckon only a lot of potential stick will be the thing that will get some people acting ethically. Sydney’s full of crooks.

More people like Fels in this life would be good. A man with a mission. Less of the eastern suburbs set would be even better.

We urgently need a long, open and detailed debate on ethics. We did NOT learn the lessons of the 1980s. Are we to learn the lessons of the late nineties and early 21st century?

We have to or the system will not recover

PS: An open discussion on nuanced issues would also be nice.

***

2. Impossible odds

Daniel Boase-Jelinek

I suggest that the problem with encouraging ethical behaviour is not that people don’t know what it (ethics) is, but that they don’t know how to respond without losing their jobs.

You might wish to look up the work of Sharon Beder in researching your talk on ethics. Dr Sharon Beder is Professor of Science, Technology and Society at the University of Wollongong (uow).

A couple of years ago I was invited to run a workshop for Environmental Engineering students at the University of WA. Environmental Engineers face ethical dilemmas all the time because their employers generally are companies that wish to promote projects that inevitably cause environmental destruction, and the environmental engineers are being used to justify this destruction and put a public relations gloss on it.

I used Sharon’s research in working through a whole lot of issues with these idealistic students, searching with them to find a balance between protecting their integrity while keeping their jobs.

The outcome that they arrived at was that people working alone as whistle-blowers rarely survive (see Brian Martin’s work on whistle-blowers at uow), and rarely succeed in getting their message out.

The students realised that the only alternative to becoming cynical was to work very hard to develop a community of support within and outside the organisation and to search collaboratively for ways to protect their integrity.

***

Jozef Imrich

Ghandi warned us of the dangers of living in an age characterised by:

Politics without principle

Wealth without work

Commerce without morality

Pleasure without conscience

Education without character

Science without humanity

Workship without sacrifice

Margo: Jozef is the 4th Webdiarist to start a weblog. It’s at http://amediadragon.blogs=pot.com/mediadrago=n.

***

3. What are ethics?

Karel Zegers

Too many confuse ethics with ideological opinion. Some want us to believe that anyone not agreeing with their particular ‘ethics’ (read dogmas) is un-ethical. Which in reality is taking away the freedom of speech and opinion under threat of being discredited and labelled.

***

Nick Jans

Like you, I’d like to think that I would have exposed the truth in the children-overboard affair. But few can be confident that they would actually follow through with their convictions.

I want to mention a cartoon on ethics I once saw in the New Yorker around Watergate time. Sleek business executive presses a button on his desk, barks into the intercom: Miss Jones, send me in a man who can tell the difference between right and wrong.

Seemed funny at the time, but I think I was (probably still am) naive.

***

Tony Kevin in Canberra

To me (and these are not original thoughts but distillations of thoughts of others) ethics and ethical behaviour relate directly to respect for the dignity and worth of every other human being or, if one wants to extend the point this far as Peter Singer does, to sentient pain-feeling animals.

Ethics is thus almost entirely about conduct in society – how one deals with other human beings. It would have little if any meaning to a person who was living in total isolation from others – Robinson Crusoe before Friday turned up – and therefore has no meaning to a psychopath who cannot empathise with others outside himself.

On this definition, ethics comes into everything – whether it would be how to define a “just war” against Iraq (an attack in which huge numbers of Iraqi civilians would die), the ethics of company honesty towards shareholders and employees, the ethics of border protection, sexual relationships, friendships – it is all about respecting other people and being aware of it when one’s actions hurt other people.

Ethics on this basis can be based either in religion (“we are all of equal value in the sight of God”) or on secular principles ( “we all share our common humanity”). The result in terms of conduct is the same (Raymond Gaita).

I don’t think ethics is all that complicated to think about. But living it is a lot harder.

***

Chris Kuan

When I was going through an idealistic phase a few years back, I grabbed some information from the St. James Ethics Centre. I noted a distinction being made between ethics and morals: ethics is concerned with one’s conduct towards others, whereas morals is (are?) concerned more with inward-looking behaviour.

So morals might relate to issues of right and good (e.g. justice *being* done) while ethics might relate to issues of accountability and transparency (e.g. justice being *seen* to be done)

PS: You mis-typed “etymology”. “Entomology” is concerned with insects. And while I’m quite prepared to believe that epithet is oft-applied to journos, I think we can keep this discussion on a more civil level 🙂

***

Peter Woodforde in Canberra

You ask: What are ethics and what is ethical behaviour? I was gonna say “Geez, where do I start?” But the real question is: where do you finish?

Few of us face, very often, the ethical dilemma of, say, a Catholic priest who follows the party line on abortion, but is morally, intellectually and emotionally opposed to the view that you should tell hundreds of millions of poorly educated, desperately poor, often superstitious women that they will burn in hell for eternity should they employ contraception. He knows it isn’t nice.

So where does that bloke end up? His Church is an instrument of some good, after all. Hopefully, he will end up comforting the afflicted and maybe, just maybe, afflicting the comfortable somewhere. His ethics might take him outside the church, and he might even end up with dependents or a partner rather than a flock.

It doesn’t matter that he is no longer selling his soul to the devil, or setting out each day trowelling together a pastiche of ad hoc personal misery.

What does matter is the notion of a conscientious step forward, rather than sideways or backwards, or even the moral marching on the spot currently so fashionable. A conscious feeling of personal moral progress, not merely a sort of ritual cleaning of personal defilement.

One of the weird things about ethics is that there does not seem to be any way of punishing another person for “a beach of ethics”, which has the air of getting inside Winston Smith’s head.

Thank Christ for good ol’ law, which saves us the trouble, even if it gives us the sternal stiflement of too much order.

***

Helen Lawson Williams in Sydney

I recently completed my PhD thesis in this area, looking at personal value systems and how they influence people’s responses to ethical dilemmas they witness at work. Apart from amassing miscellaneous quotes from terribly credible people (see below), here are some random thoughts on what business ethics might be, and what that might mean for businesses.

1. From any cursory look at the business ethics literature, I’d argue that no objective formulation of what is ethical and what is unethical can be derived (despite the conceptual tools offered by the teleological, deontological, stakeholder and “folk” approaches). As Aristotle himself argued, ethics can’t be an exact science.

Ultimately, the decision about whether a given action is ethical or not will rely on a value judgement, a decision as much based on internal, personal values as on external, objective rules for what is important or right. That is, it’s impossible to exclude the subjective from any study of ethics, and so our understanding of it has to focus on how such subjective evaluations are made – according to personal value systems, which tend to be fairly consistent within defined social groups.

2. However, the philosophical literature offers several very useful points, the most important of which (I believe), is that nearly all discussions of ethics share the common theme of priorities. No teleologist ever denied the right of a decision-maker to benefit herself or her company, as long as the decision brings no greater harm to others; no duty-bound deontologist would fault her for doing the same, as long as she can do so within the bounds of her duty to others.

In other words, no approach to ethics would deny the right or necessity of businesses to make a profit. It’s only when that profit comes at the expense of great harm to others, or to the detriment of duty, that it’s termed unethical. And in fact the empirical research I did backed this up – it’s the issue of fairness, of having got the priorities wrong, which most often made people angry enough to confront a supervisor who they felt had made an unethical decision, or leave an organisation where they felt unethical decisions were the norm.

3. But the big question is, why should organisations go to the trouble of trying to act ethically? The answer offered repeatedly, though not always explicitly, by business leaders in their discussions of business ethics is that “[a]s corporations, we live at the sufferance of the public” (Butler, 1997). That is, organisations operate in many ways as any other entity within a social group, and thus may be considered subject to similar rules of conduct.

Indeed, at least one definition of morality concerns the rules or sanctions used to classify behaviours which are considered right or wrong within a particular social group, and the understanding that these are applicable to all who regard themselves as members of that group or society (Reber, 1985).

The argument, in other words, is that for a business to survive in the social world, it must play by the rules. Which is really all ethics is about, for me – it’s setting the ground rules for how we need to behave in order to live together as a society, and ensuring that those who choose to play by other rules are firmly but gently reminded of how interdependent we all are.

Some quotes:

Aristotle: Our account of [ethics] will be adequate if it achieves such clarity as the subject-matter allows; for the same degree of precision is not to be expected in all discussions; it is the mark of the trained mind never to expect more precision in the treatment of any subject than the nature of that subject permits; for demanding logical demonstrations from a teacher of rhetoric is clearly about as reasonable as accepting mere plausibility from a mathematician.

G.E. Moore: Ethics is the general enquiry into what is good.

Arnold Schopenhauer: Compassion is the basis of morality.

Bertrand Russell: Without civic morality communities perish; without personal morality their survival has no value.

Thomas Jefferson: It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.

***

4. The sunshine test

Allison Newman

Aahhhh! Ethics is such a tricky concept! Or is it?

It needs to be said that there is no such thing as universal ethics. This distinction is important, because ethics are something that must be assessed in a societal conflict.

As Margo’s Ethics piece suggests, it is impossible to legislate for ethical behaviour, and any attempt to do so would be counter-productive. This is directly related to ethics being tied to societal values. Societal values are malleable, they change with time. No legislative framework could hope to keep up with such malleable values.

Fortunately there is another option Margo alludes to. In discussing ethics there is one overall “test” to determine whether behaviour is ethical or not. It is known as the Sunshine Test, and the idea is that you ask yourself if you would be happy for your friends and peers to know what you are doing. If the answer is no, then it’s a fair bet that what you are doing is unethical. The beauty of the test is that it implicitly takes into account society’s values (as expressed by your friends/peers).

In a practical sense, this Sunshine Test can be taken out of the realms of thought experiment, and enacted in real life. This is the type of thing Margo’s proposed body to investigate unethical behaviour would achieve. Because the hearings would be public, public censure would result if any unethical behaviour was uncovered. The threat of having a spotlight turned upon your internal affairs would certainly be something to give many a CEO pause for thought, as they considered applying the letter but not the spirit of the law.

Of course there are problems with the system. The reporting would have to be handled to ensure that the finally published results were equitable (if only one side of a story is presented in the media for example, then someone might suffer public censure without ever receiving a “right of reply”). And of course, with the cynicism of the modern age, public censure has lost some of it’s bite. Look at the last election. The Howard Government was caught out LYING to the public about children overboard mere days before the election, and they still got comfortably elected.

In fact, probably the only censure of any meaning is that CEOs might find it a bit more difficult to acquire lines of credit from banks, or to achieve trust in their business dealings. Then again, they might not, because in reality, the only thing that interests other commercial interests is your ability to generate money. In the society of a CEO’s peers, the overwhelming importance of money over all other things would have a major impact. Someone would be censured far more for losing money than for behaving unethically as society at large might see it (as opposed to how a board of peers would see it).

So both the hardline (legislative) approach, and the softly softly (public hearings approach) have substantial problems. This is probably one of those situations where a feedback mechanism (punishment for behaving unethically, reward for behaving ethically) is not going to work.

In engineering terms, an open loop system might work better. This basically means that you drum into children what ethical values are so that they will live by them in future life, with no need for enforcement (compliance is automatic, they can’t even consider not behaving that way). In years gone by this is precisely what the Church used to do. Nowadays there is no institution providing such a service, and the result is a proliferation of Jodee Rich’s.

We do still do this to a certain extent. For example, Australian society teaches its young that it is unacceptable to just throw rubbish on the ground. To a large extent this approach is successful, to the extent that Australians are shocked on visiting places like London to see people just dropping their rubbish on the ground. Australians find it nearly unthinkable to do the same thing. When they do litter, it is done so furtively, away from scrutiny.

In Australia, the Sunshine Test would be an effective way of controlling litter because of the lessons taught to us as children. In London, the same test would completely fail to change people’s behaviour, because it has become socially acceptable to litter.

You now get to have the fun of deciding just what values you are going to choose to teach the young. It could make for some interesting Civics classes!

***

5. Ethics and international affairs

Meagan Phillipson

It’s easy to give a descriptive of ethics/morality and how you personally relate to a system of it in your own, life but quite a different matter to attempt to understand its application in a social or political context. In a society, who decides what is ethical and what’s not? Just look at the ethical problems arising from the Israel/Palestinian conflict. One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist.

Because it is such a subjective issue, it’s more fascinating to look at the juncture between personal morality and collective morality rather than an individuals view on how they relate it to their life.

I have included an essay I wrote this year on whether morality and justice can mix. Although it’s a little formal in places, it is my view on morality/ethics and its possible place in society. Hope it helps.

Collective morality

By Meagan Phillipson

When approaching whether morality and justice can relate meaningfully to international politics, it is important to firstly clarify the approach to be taken in analysis. Without clarification, the elevation of the personal can be negative, as too much faith can make the analyser blind to flaws. Conversely, too much cynicism can make them blind to potential.

A possible solution to this problem may be to call for a balance between the two extremes, yet it would be more appropriate to remove the presence of faith in this particular question. For within the context of international politics, faith is redundant as it calls for assumptive reasoning in a landscape of constant change and hidden agendas.

That said, the absence of faith does not necessarily mean that the perceptual viewpoint falls completely into the realm of cynicism. Rather, it would be better to replace faith with hope, as the latter does not assume the future will be a certain way but rather merely allows for the possibility that the future can be a certain way.

In such a framework, cynicism can be tempered with enough hope to sidestep assumptions while opening perceptions to potentials for positive change in the future.

On an individual level, moral judgment is an aid to determining one’s position in relation to an objective situation or abstract concept. In this sense, morality is a subjective construct influenced by the external world view an individual is immersed in, with each individual shaped by their own interpretation and adoption of what they perceive to be right and wrong.

Because of the subjective nature of morality, it holds true that the morality of a situation is dependent upon the viewpoint through which it is being perceived and can therefore never truly be universal. That said though, it could be argued that morality can be shared collectively on a domestic level if the issue is polarizing a state against an outside force, such as is the case in war.

Yet even then, the result is not universal but rather majority led, as seen in America’s War on Terror, which is supported in moral principle by a majority yet not universally supported by all American citizens.

Above the individual level, the state acts with the agential power it has been imbued with by the people and so is a concentration of the collective will of the majority into one instrument. Therefore, the power of the state to act is much stronger than that of an individual but, in order to maintain power, the state actors should behave roughly in accordance to the moral appropriateness of the collective. Even in undemocratic cases of power being held by force there is a need, however more slight, that the moral will of the people be reflected for fear of power been swept away by revolution.

Yet attempts by state actors to behave in accordance with the perceived collective morality of the domestic constituency highlights the problematic inherent in the individualistic nature of morality. Namely, whether in the binary of citizen/state or state/international system, the application of reflected morality by the state is at best a guessing game and, at worst, open to some degree of partisan ends-orientated exploitation.

The failure of moral universality on the domestic level is transposable to international politics, as not all states hold the same set of morals just as not all individuals do within the overarching structure of a state. Nevertheless, morality in all its awkward diversity still has a role to play in International politics because it holds the possibility of bringing order to the system by helping to define generally accepted boundaries of behaviour.

If these boundaries of moral behaviour are not followed, there is a crucial need to act against individual state offenders – otherwise there would be little deterrence for other states not to act similarly. Because of this, justice is closely connected to morality and the desire to create and maintain order within international politics, as it creates consequences for moral aberrations.

Justice can be narrowly defined in international politics as morality in action through legislative, militaristic and economic means. More broadly, justice also encompasses the attempted realization of abstract morality into the lives of all global citizens and not just a select few. The moral key to such ambition is equality – between genders, races, north and south – as well as fairer distributive justice in relation to the world’s resources.

Applying morality in an objective way within international politics is near impossible because individual actors work within their own frameworks of vested interest and ends-orientation. The subjective nature of morality and its application within international politics is highlighted in the battle over the world’s resources being fought by civil society, governments and corporations alike.

Further complicating the issue is that moral benchmarks are been flouted by stronger state/non-state actors with virtually no ramifications because of the high level of interdependency within international politics. A weaker state dependent on a stronger state for growth would find it politically difficult to call the stronger state on a moral issue because there may be a threat to personal interests and continued relations. As an extension of the problems raised by inequitable power relations and the subjective nature of morality, the application of it through justice is flawed because even the most objective of laws are still interpreted and applied by subjective individuals.

Note also that moral responsibility and commitment to justice is not necessarily bound to international legal obligations. The adoption of moral judgment and a commitment to justice norms by an individual state is voluntary, yet usually adopted in order to gain legitimacy and recognition amongst like-minded peers on the international stage. As a result, there is a danger that issues of morality and justice will be supported in theory by the state for gain yet, in practice, barely adhered to for fear of loss.

Thus, a commitment to certain modalities of morality and justice have the potential to become little more than a mask individual states assume in order to garner legitimisation and form strategic alliances. Because of this, the acceptance of moral codes out of a desire for acceptance amongst peers should not be considered as a viable alternative to legal obligations as the non-binding nature means that the inherent potential is merely complimentary rather than successional.

In summary, morality and justice within the context of international politics is like mixing oil with water because of the complicity of self-interest and the subjective nature of the two concepts. Yet, for the sake of humanity, universal agreement and adoption of minimum standards in morality and justice must be striven towards. Whether this will ever be fully achieved or whether instruments of morality and justice within international politics will progress beyond current points of influence is an issue of great interest and perhaps even hope.

Ethics in business: Bad for your career

 

by Harry Heidelberg

For me, ethics are something deeply internal and individual. I think they are something quite fundamental, formed at a very young age, and best imparted by parents and older role models.

For some, even those who are taught well, the ethical compass goes haywire later in life. Greed and self interest are the biggest enemies of ethics. It’s mainly for money but it can also be for sex or power.

Failure to act ethically is at once a betrayal of another person or of a system/institution. Ultimately I believe it is even a type of self-betrayal of the individual who behaves unethically.

In one way or another, those who act that way will pay an individual price. The price may be one of emotional turmoil created by a complicated life or something as simple as the stress of being afraid of discovery. Nothing in this life comes for free. Except the truly priceless, good things (like happiness, love and trust)!

I’ve faced several ethical dilemmas in my working life. In one I was involved in the audit of a government bank in a developing country. It was clear to me that the financial statements of the bank were the proverbial croc of shit. I made this known to all involved and suggested massive asset write downs.

I became hated. I recall in one instance when we tried to value a bank asset of a resort in a hopeless location where nobody ever stayed. I was deeply suspicious. I said to a mate who had lived in the country for years, “How much do you think that hotel is worth”?. His answer was “How much is a big house worth in that area?… It’s worthless as a hotel”. I came to this conclusion about many assets – all basically worthless or certainly worth a fraction of their book value. Millions of dollars were involved. Lots of vested interests. Lots of big fish in a small pond.

How did I process the above? I convinced my boss in the developing country that we had no choice but to convince the bank to agree to massive asset writedowns or refuse to sign the audit. To cut a long story short, he agreed but was later overruled by the developed country headquarters of our firm. I resigned but “came back” on the condition that I would not sign anything associated with that audit. The end result was that relationships were poisoned by my failure to tow the line of Big City, Developed Country, Big Accounting Firm. My career in that firm was never the same again. It’s hardly a Hollywood ending but I’m still glad I did that. My reward was internal. I could live with myself.

I later learned that everyone in that country’s administration was corrupt and later the bank collapsed. I did my job, or at least tried to. What a pity others didn’t. I suppose I could and should have done more. I made my personal protest, but I admit that by not going public, I weaken my superficially pure stance. This is a good reason why we need sound whistle blowing systems. A whistle blower should not have their life destroyed. A career setback is one thing, but not a destruction. Veiled threats aren’t a good thing either.

In the case above, the situation was dire and people were involved in covering up bad financial news. I now know some were criminals. This is the classic scenario.

In another case, I was working for a foreign multinational. We had a particularly good year. We had way past what we needed for all senior management to get their bonuses. I was asked to cover up GOOD financial news. The idea was that we should report all we needed as revenue and profits in one year to get to the bonus level and then give the following year a kick start by shunting the part we “didn’t need” into the following year. I had some of the worst professional arguments I have ever had over that one.

I can be pragmatic as anyone but I would never have done what they wanted me to. In effect I would have been telling the headquarters (and for that matter the Australian authorities – tax and ASIC) that our revenue and profits were MUCH lower than they actually were. It was millions, again. All around me they were saying it was harmless because we were only “delaying” good news into the next year. It was just a timing thing.

Bullshit. Accounting is all about timing and if you can’t get the timing right you may as well give up. In effect we really had to say that inventory which was SOLD was still in our warehouse. They dressed it up in fancy language but that was the substance of it. My boss said that we had to do as we were told. I said no we don’t and I won’t. He asked whether I would resign if they went ahead with this plan and I said I would. I was under IMMENSE pressure. Not sleeping, filthy looks in the corridors etc etc.

That’s the part that stinks. Why should I resign for doing my job?

How did I process that one? I had a contact in headquarters I trusted. I told him about it and he said to do the right thing. Much to the fury of local people, I DID do the right thing. In the process I lost my most valuable staff member. He resigned in the midst of it because he too was ethical and couldn’t bear it anymore. I tried so hard to convince him to stick with me and that I would fix it.

In the end I got my way, I fixed it and the right results were reported. Again, relationships were poisoned. This story has a happy ending. Well, sort of. The headquarters contact arranged for a promotion and transfer for me to the headquarters. He was later screwed over in a merger by dirty politics and both of us have since left the company.

Oh joy.

The new company I work for has an inspirational CEO. I know, I hear you moaning already. The days of inspirational CEOs are over. Not really. The right CEO for today is an ethical one. Long term interests of all companies and organisations are to behave ethically. Really.

The CEO of the company I now work for has established an “ethics ombudsman” in the headquarters. I suspect this move is a reaction to recent corporate scandals and a realisation that an internal process is required. Internal audit is hardly enough. We saw in Enron that internal audit questioned the practices but it did not help. Something more is needed. Something at a very high and very independent level. My current CEO should be commended. She is totally committed to ethics.

The idea of an internal “ethics ombudsman” is a great initiative but Margo I think your idea is a great addition. You can have an “internally independent” process but ultimately you need something which can be totally pure in the sense of giving more than just the appearance of independence.

It has to be pure independence in fact, not just appearance. An internal process will always be seen as something which is more easily compromised. I am not trashing internal processes. They are the first line and the most important defence. That said though, something more would be really nice.

Why not? All of us in the corporate world need to pause and reflect. Mere tinkering is not enough. A revolution is required and startling initiatives are urgently needed. I want to be startled. I want to be energised by something totally new. Faith and confidence in the system is key. That can’t be regained without substantial, far reaching changes.

Training is needed. Some have forgotten and need to be retrained in the ways of ethics. Some of it is indeed nuanced. That is why a discussion is helpful. We can never have enough discussion about this. It will never go away. I’m no saint and I’m all ears.

And don’t believe existing bodies when they say they have it covered. I belong to one which has a members ethical counselling service. A mate of mine went to them in dire need of advice earlier this year and they were hopeless. They offered no help at all. The whole thing is window dressing crap. When you really need them, they won’t be there for you.

This mate of mine had to resign from his job to get out of his ethical dilemma and endure three months of frightening unemployment. Some people may treat this lightly but I think it is outrageous that a well known professional body has a so-called ethical counselling service that failed so abysmally. Sure, it may be an isolated case but it should never happen. In the case of my mate it was serious stuff. His employer was on the verge of bankruptcy and hadn’t paid “group tax” (ie the pay as you earn tax deducted from employees) in nearly a year. No one cared for him. He’s a good guy and no one cared or listened. He could only trash himself to survive and sleep at night.

I have become somewhat jaded, but live in hope.

Finally, I say show no mercy to those who act unethically. Absolutely none. A bit of carrot is nice but I reckon only a lot of potential stick will be the thing that will get some people acting ethically. Sydney’s full of crooks.

More people like Fels in this life would be good. A man with a mission. Less of the eastern suburbs set would be even better.

We urgently need a long, open and detailed debate on ethics. We did NOT learn the lessons of the 1980s. Are we to learn the lessons of the late nineties and early 21st century?

We have to or the system will not recover

PS: An open discussion on nuanced issues would also be nice.

This article was first published in ‘Your ethics’, webdiarySept10

What are ethics and what is ethical behaviour?

I’m giving a speech to a conference called Ethics overboard: No apologies put on by the Corruption Prevention Network in Sydney on Thursday, and it would be great to get your ideas on what this thing called ethics means to and for you. I’m particularly interested in examples of when you felt you had an ethical dilemma, what it was, and how you processed it – what factors you took into account and how you resolved the matter. If you feel you need to use a nom de plume, could you explain,if possible, why this is necessary?

The need for ethical conduct has suddenly burst back onto the finance and sport pages after a long absence. It seems that ethics might pay! But do we have a common ethical framework any more? Why is it that ethical behaviour usually has no monetary value and, indeed, very often involves financial detriment? Yet if you pay people for being ethical, are you attempting to commodify something which, in essence, defies such analysis? If you financially reward “ethical behaviour” aren’t you just mutating it into the usual self interest motive we’ve all had to accept as core since neo-liberal ideology swept all before it?

And how do you enforce ethical behaviour? How about a body to hear and determine allegations of unethical behaviour by chief executives or others in a company, and to give advisory opinions to executives who seek their help? It could be a group of peers, but it would not be self-regulation, and it would be held in public. A person found to have behaved unethically would not be punished otherwise than by publicity, because the concept would be to explore the issues, not blackball the person concerned. Some of these matters are highly nuanced, and all of us have felt guilt about something we’ve done that we haven’t been comfortable with or felt diminished by. This way, public discussion of what ethics are and what they mean would become commonplace, and ethical considerations would be in the forefront of people’s minds. The same ground rules would apply to the legal, accounting and medical professions.

The definition of ethical behaviour I like, which works for individuals and institutions, was suggested by a friend: “Integrity in the moment of choice”. Here’s the entymology and meanings of the key terms.

ethos: New Latin, from Greek Ethos custom, character

Date: 1851: the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution. (synonym ethic)

ethic

Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos

Date: 14th century

1: plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a: a set of moral principles or values, b: a theory or system of moral values, c: plural but singular or plural in construction: the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group, d: a guiding philosophy

ethical

Etymology: Middle English etik, from Latin ethicus, from Greek Ethikos, from Ethos character.

Date: 1607

1: of or relating to ethics

2: involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval

3: conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct

synonym see MORAL

moral

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom

Date: 14th century

1a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL

b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior

c : conforming to a standard of right behavior

d: sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment

e: capable of right and wrong action

synonyms

MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong . ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity . VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character . RIGHTEOUS stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious . NOBLE implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character .

integrity

Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrite, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire

Date: 14th century

1: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY

2: an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS

3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS

synonym see HONESTY

honesty

Date: 14th century

2 a: fairness and straightforwardness of conduct

b: adherence to the facts: SINCERITY

synonyms

HONESTY, HONOR, INTEGRITY, …PROBITY mean uprightness of character or action. HONESTY implies a refusal to lie, steal, or deceive in any way. HONOR suggests an active or anxious regard for the standards of one’s profession, calling, or position. INTEGRITY implies trustworthiness and incorruptibility to a degree that one is incapable of being false to a trust, responsibility, or pledge. PROBITY implies tried and proven honesty or integrity.

***

After the early revelations at the children overboard inquiry, I tried to put myself in the position of a media officer in the defence department who knew that the photos put out by Peter Reith to prove the children were thrown overboard were fake, that despite advice to that effect, Reith continued to perpetrate the falsehood to the Australian people.

In that position, I am certain I would would have put out a statement telling the truth. So am I ethical and the people in that position who didn’t do that unethical? For a start, my personality is such that I wouldn’t be able to accept saying nothing – it would do me more harm than good as a person to keep quiet. I have no dependents, so I wouldn’t have to consider the consequences of speaking out. I would almost certainly lose my job, and be blackballed from the PR industry, so if I relied on my income to fulfil my duties to my family, I would be choosing to risk their welfare by speaking out. On the other hand, if I was wealthy, I could “afford” to blow the whistle.

And is it really the duty of a minor cog in a big wheel to take a stand and risk the consequences. The PR officers did their duty in that the information passed up the line and was communicated to the minister’s office. Surely this is a responsibiloity of the defence department’s “leaders”. And what about your loyalty to the organisation you work for, and to your colleagues?

There’s a more subtle form of unethical behaviour too – of avoiding an ethical issue. You get the constant impression in the children overboard evidence that people who came into contact with the scandal were mighty careful to get out quick. No-one in authority WANTED to know, less still act on their knowledge. The risks to career were too great.

The Australian’s Michael West in a story in last weekend’s paper wrote about the Macquarie Bank tapes, which, if correct, exemplifies blind-eye “ethical” culture in the private sector.

I can’t link to it, but it’s about a long-running dispute between two former employees and the bank. One had taped a conversation with a senior executive, Andrew Downe, five years ago.

Here’s an extract:

Bell: “You made the comment to me that Allan (Moss, Macquarie chief executive) would have a fit if he knew what positions you were running in South Africa . Or something along those lines. But that’s what I don’t understand because you have limits there and you trade within the limits…

A short time later, Browne allegedly said: “I have no problem with information flowing through to him (Moss) being selective. He does the same thing to the Board. I’m sure he doesn’t tell the board every bloody thing he does, right? Umm, so morally, I feel quite happy with Allan, with Allan getting information on a, sort of, on a needs-to-know basis.”

West reports that former Macquarie employee Mark Ford gave evidence that the Macquarie culture was “economic Darwinism”.

“The renumeration structure is non-judgmental. It is based on the employee’s ability to law claim to a title on an income stream.”

“Everyone works for themselves and that sometimes conspires against the larger interests of the bank.”

Is the core ethic of our society to maximise personal wealth? Is nothing else left? And if so, what happens when that ethic threatens to destroy the system within which we pursue that ethic?

The whole idea of reducing ethics to black letter law – detailed, technical rules designed to avoid common forms of corporate dishonesty and unethical behaviour, is counterproductive, because it is reductive.

Much better to state the ideal in general terms, and ask individuals and organisations to comply. But then you get deep into the debate of a society’s “core values”. And that’s scary. You’ll get ideological, philosophical and religious splits, for a start.

Anyway, I’d appreciate your thoughts. The corruption prevention network’s site is corruption. A good site for research and surveys on ethics is the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption site at icac. Seeicac for a survey of community perceptions about corruption, and icac for research on ethical cultures in organisations.

***

Stephen Mayne and I did a Lateline “outsiders” forum on Friday, mainly about Iraq. It’s at lateline

Tam Long reignited the SIEV-X debate with his rebuttal of Tony Kevin’s analysis. Today, Marg Hutton, who runs the sievx website sievx, and friends Mary Dagmar Davies, Kay Kan and Marilyn Shepherd, reply to Tam Long. Marg has set up a memorial section at sievx. You’ll find all the published material on SIEV-X on her site.

The debate so far

Tony Kevin: SIEV-X: mystery unsolved, smh

Tam Long: SIEV-X: Right of reply, smh

Long comes up short on SIEV-X

By Marg Hutton, Mary Dagmar Davies, Kay Kan and Marilyn Shepherd

Tam Long’s article brings comfort to the average reader. Most people who have heard of the SIEV-X affair are horrified at the ‘conspiracy theory’ put forward by Tony Kevin and others that suggests that Australian authorities contributed to the drowning of 353 people. No-one wants to believe that our government and its agencies could be in some way complicit in such a crime.

Tam Long’s article provides reassurance that we don’t need to worry about it – Tony Kevin is just an over-emotional, insignificant individual who mistakes a cock-up for a conspiracy.

Unfortunately, Tam Long is entirely mistaken. Tragically, readers should be concerned about the role of Australian authorities in these deaths – especially since the revelations broadcast on the Sunday program last weekend that a paid AFP informant has publicly admitted to reporters that he sabotaged the boats of asylum seekers in order to prevent them coming to Australia.

Tam Long’s criticism of Tony Kevin’s theory is based entirely on a misreading of his conference paper to ‘The Tampa: One Year On’ conference last month. He appears to have done no research whatsoever and to be completely ignorant of the vast body of evidence from the Senate inquiry, Dateline and Sunday.

His reassurances about the innocence of Australian authorities are based on a series of false assumptions:

1. That there is no evidence for Tony Kevin’s claim that SIEV-X could have been sabotaged.

FALSE – because it is now on the public record that Kevin John Enniss, a paid informant of the Australian Federal Police, boasted to reporters from the Channel Nine Sunday program that he has personally sabotaged and sunk nearly half a dozen asylum seeker vessels.

And for those who find it hard to believe that Australia would use such methods to halt the flow of asylum seeker vessels, the Sunday program included a quote from Greg Humphries, a former Australian Immigration Officer involved in the sabotage of Vietnamese asylum seeker vessels in the 1970s:

“We took a pretty broad interpretation of the terms of reference to stop these boats. We did because we had some very capable fellows with the screwdrivers and brace and bit. And we bored holes in the bottom of the ships and the boats and they sunk overnight.”

We know that the passengers who boarded SIEV-X were forced on to the boat at gunpoint, that the boat was grossly overloaded, that people were crammed like sardines on to the vessel (the deckspace for each passenger has been estimated at 40cm X 40cm), that the vessel had a large crack in the hull and was leaking, rotting and too deep in the water to go safely to sea from the beginning of the voyage. Given all this, it is not a huge leap to suggest that we can rule out sabotage completely.

It is worth noting that in the recent history of asylum seeker vessels that have attempted the voyage to Australia this is the only one where we know people were loaded onto a boat, instead of being encouraged to get off!

2. That the location of the sinking is unknown and unknowable.

FALSE – because there has been lengthy discussion on the sinking location of SIEV-X and the co-ordinates of where the survivors were rescued are known – 07 40 00S, 105 09 00E, 51.5 nautical miles from the coast of Java – right in the heart of the Operation Relex zone.

The Prime Minister’s own People Smuggling Taskforce was informed on 23 October that the “vessel[was] likely to have been in international waters south of Java” when it sank. Also, Australian authorities knew about SIEV-X before and after it sank, and that it might need rescue at sea.

Although the actual location of the sinking is unknown, we have been informed by a Search and Rescue expert that the position of a sinking can be calculated, provided the position of rescue and time of sinking (GMT) are known. The exact time that the survivors were rescued is not known, but there is enough data available for sophisticated computer software to determine the broad area in which SIEV-X foundered. This would finally put to rest the mistruth peddled by Howard and Hill that the boat sank in Indonesian territorial waters in the vicinity of the Sunda Strait.

3. That the sinking occurred in an area where Indonesia had full responsibility for SOLAS and Australia had none.

FALSE – while it is true to say that SIEV-X sank within Indonesia’s international zone of search and rescue responsibility, it is also quite misleading because the Indonesian search and rescue zone encompasses virtually all the waters in the gap between Christmas Island and Indonesia.

What Long is therefore implying is that if a SIEV should founder anywhere on the high seas between Indonesia and Australian territorial waters off Christmas Island then we should let it sink as it is not our responsibility. This is very much a political view and totally ignores the fact that at the time that SIEV-X sank, Australia had in place “the most comprehensive surveillance” in the waters between Java and Christmas Island in at least thirty years (Admiral Bonser, CMI 1638).

When we chose to mount an intensive aerial and maritime surveillance operation in the Indonesian Search and Rescue zone we also took on SOLAS (Safety of life at sea) responsibilities.

4. That Tony Kevin is an insignificant individual who has no capacity to challenge the official government line.

FALSE – because former Ambassador Anthony Kevin was chosen to lead Australia’s diplomatic mission in some of the most sensitive of all diplomatic postings. Such postings do not go to the ‘middle rank’. That a person with Tony Kevin’s background is prepared to put his credibility on the line in order to get to the truth about SIEV-X suggests that there is a case to answer.

5. That Tony Kevin’s paper fails to present a convincing argument because it doesn’t meet academic standards.

FALSE – because the conference paper was written to fit the constraints of the 25 minute time span allocated to each speaker and not intended as an academic piece. Kevin doesn’t attempt to present all the evidence in this paper. Instead he refers readers to an archives of evidence at sievx.com – Tam Long would be well advised to follow his own advice and do some research before writing.

Tam Long criticises Tony Kevin’s conference speech while choosing to ignore detail of testimony to the Senate Inquiry, painstaking research, published articles, two Senate submissions and evidence from Mr Kevin himself. Tam Long appears to prefer to discredit rather than debate and to condemn those who simply are looking for the truth.

6. That Tony Kevin failed to mention the survivor accounts that unknown boats ‘shone searchlights on them in the water but then sailed away’

FALSE – This was mentioned (see Section headed What did Operation Relex and Norcom do, para 4) and Tam Long has obviously not read Kevin’s paper very carefully.

In closing, Tam Long would do well to reflect on these question: “If the Government story about SIEV-X is kosher why have witnesses given false evidence under oath to the Senate Inquiry about Australia’s knowledge of the boat, why has Robert Hill continually hindered and obstructed the

Inquiry, refusing to allow important witnesses to be called, and why has the Government’s own internal review of Intelligence related to SIE-VX misrepresented key documents?

SIEV-X is a tragedy – 353 died people trying to reach a great country they thought would welcome them and give them freedom. The 353 believed in Australia but Australian did not believe in them – they were denied in death as they were in life.

In this entire country only one man cared enough to speak for them. Tony Kevin was the sole advocate for the people of SIEV-X and he has risked everything to seek the truth.

Tam Long should take the time to acquaint himself with the evidence before he shoots the messenger.

A reminder that Webdiary is meant to be a place for engagement, not personal abuse. Call me New Age, but there’s plenty of sites specialising in that style and Webdiary isn’t one of them.

Still, it’s a funny how publishing Greens Senator Kerry Nettle’s maiden speech has developed into all-out war on the effect of plutonium on human beings. Today, Dr Aaron Oakley replies to John Wojdylo’s attack inDirty Bombs and you. Could this please be the last word on the subject?

But to begin, a favourite Webdiarist, David Eastwood, on what he wants in a new political party and the acerbic Jim West describes Webdiary’s mix of characters. To which group do you belong, Jim?

***

The secret party of us

By David Eastwood, Sydney

Margo, given your increasingly broad portfolio and presence you must resent Felsy being called a media tart! 😉 But seriously…

The party of us is the party of Karvan and the Party of Fels.

Claudia Karvan’s brief but compelling speech at a magazine sponsored womens’ forum (at smh) was a superb capturing of modern liberal humanist values – compassion, reasonableness, maturity, a considered view argued engagingly.

Allan Fels has developed the ACCC into a truly modern regulator, a countervailing force managing and limiting the rationalist economics of big business within a robust (but far from perfect) legal framework. He has used the modern media tools and techniques of big business, recognising that public opinion now matters in this arena (as do Virgin Blue – why else run ads in the popular press in their dispute with Macquarie?) recognising, empowering and promoting public engagement in a win for democracy.

Meanwhile, he has done a fair job of recognising economic reality and the necessity to avoid imposing artificial constraints on economic progress. Fels’ commission represents a glimmer of proof that a third way can work, and how indeed it might.

Combine Felsy and Claude and there’s a secret party of us just waiting to get out! Meg?

***

Jim West

I believe that over the last week or so, Webdiary has shown signs of recovery. Finally, a return to the old formula of arrogant turds indulging in slanging matches, tragicomic calls by old hippy chicks for a return to the barricades, to fight anew the good fight, miscellaneous lefties making excuses for the bad behaviour and irresponsibility of every form of delinquent, criminal and sleazebag in the world as long as they aren’t white and male, all leavened by some truly world class nitpicking and the odd gruff rightist interjecting something along the lines of , “Leave it alone, or it won’t grow”.

I especially enjoyed John Wojdylo’s “rebuttal” of Aaron Oakley’s piece on the great Plutonium Thought Experiment, which so inspired me that I would like to make official my bid to enter the arrogant-turds-indulging-in-slanging-matches section.

Whilst I must agree that Oakley’s original claim that “not only would this amount of plutonium not give anyone lung cancer” was either really dumb, or a typo (I suspect he meant “everyone”, not “anyone”), the assumptions made by Wojdylo in his pseudo calculations (especially extending the non-expulsion of the Plutonium from the alveoli to mean that the same grain of Plutonium would remain adjacent to the same strands of DNA within the alveoli over a period of weeks or years) are exactly the sort of intellectually dishonest crap that Oakley was originally complaining about.

Wojdylo’s impressively sophisticated and believable misuse of numbers was especially refreshing, taken against the more customary amusingly innumerate standards of the average modern lefty (not many budding Klaus Fuchs amongst the bolshies these days, mainly Margaret Meads).

I also loved Oakley’s point in his later follow up, that the greenies claims have been shown to be false by the lack of (non-smoking related) lung cancer epidemics followed the release of several tonnes of plutonium into the atmosphere during all the atomic tests of the 40s, 50s, and 60’s. What a spoil sport, wrecking a perfectly good scare campaign about the possible horrifying consequences of a theoretical future scenario by pointing out that a vastly worse scenario has already been played out, we’ve had half a century to mull over the consequences, and by and large they have been relatively under whelming. Arrogant, right wing bastard!

An interesting possibility arising out of this debate is that some enterprising young science/law grad might be able to make a lucrative living out of combining the facts and theories of both protagonists, and providing expert testimony to defend tobacco companies. How? As follows:

1) Fact: Tonnes of Plutonium have been released into the atmosphere (Oakley).

2) Theory: Minute quantities of plutonium held fixed in place against the same strands of DNA cause lung cancer with a certainty of 99.9%. (Wojdylo).

3) Fact: Cigarettes fill lungs with sticky gunk.

4) Theory (and defence): Cigarettes thus do not cause lung cancer; only provide the means to hold the plutonium in place against the same strand of DNA for years. Thus it is the Atomic Bomb boys who are ultimately responsible for the correlation between smoking and lung cancer, therefore the outrageous compensation claims currently being awarded against innocent tobacco companies must cease immediately.

5) Fact: Time for me to leave it alone, that it might grow. (West)

A final note. I, like Richard Moss, am grateful that Tam Long found time to write such an extensive and well argued answer to Tony Kevin’s conspiracy drivel. Unfortunately, Mr Moss will be probably disappointed in his hope that the drivel will end. The SIEV-X debate is not one where facts and reasoned argument have the ability to persuade the opposite side of the error of their beliefs. It has more in common with the usual between evolutionists Vs. creationists “debate”. The other side really, truly believes that the dinosaurs are in the lower stratigraphic layers because they were slow and sluggish and thus didn’t get far up the hills when Noah’s Flood arrived.

Is such a belief supportable in the face of facts and logic? No. Do otherwise apparently sane people really believe in such nonsense? Absolutely. Can you change their mind through gathering even more and better evidence? NEVER.

***

Aaron Oakley

Watch out everyone! With all the ferocity of a doberman, John Wojdylo attacks me for apparently misrepresenting the science of plutonium.

To get the ball rolling, Wojdylo engaged in an ad hominum attack.

“If all the world’s dickheads had wings, the sky would be black. This line from Raul Ruiz’s marvellous film, “Three Crowns of a Sailor”, comes to mind when reading Aaron Oakley’s remarks on plutonium and cancer in Puffing the Greens.”

Such erudition, John! You’ve obviously been studying at the Paul Keating school of invective.

John then chucks a full blown wobbly:

“He can regain a measure of credibility in my eyes by showing good thinking, rather than his trademark poor thinking, and this is the challenge I lay before him. He doesn’t have to be an infallible expert; but he really ought to display a higher level of competence. I will then return his title in my references to him.”

Oh, boo-hoo. Get over your temper tantrum. Luckily, John doesn’t have the power to summarily strip me of my academic title. With this attitude, I think John would have been right at home in Stalin’s Russia, where academics with “incorrect” views had their lives as well as their academic titles stripped from them.

John continues his temper tantrum with this:

“Meanwhile, arrogantly asserted ignorance a la Rationalism makes people like Oakley look like some wet-behind-the-ears boffin who’s just read the latest issue of Redneck Skeptics Daily during his lunchtime break and then regurgitated a few lines for the pleasure of the sycophants in his guffawing redneck collective.”

Redneck Skeptics? Go back on your prozac, John, before you blow a fuse! At least I don’t get my physics off the back of a cereal carton!

John then segues into a discussion on Chernobyl:

“Apart from the death of workers exposed to extremely high levels of radiation, Chernobyl didn’t really cause much harm at all, these skeptics say. Indeed, it had “numerous health benefits”. Naturally, certain groups have an obvious vested interest in vocally promoting the view that low-level radiation is harmless, and, indeed, beneficial to human health. But people should have no doubt that even a tiny grain of radioactive substances can kill – and under easily realisable circumstances, it probably will. “

How did Chernobyl get into this? Anyone with any scientific training would know that Chernobyl totally irrelevant to what I wrote. But perhaps John doesn’t have the necessary scientific background that would have made this obvious.

After 657 words of blather, John finally gets onto plutonium:

“Oakley categorically rejects the possibility that this amount of plutonium can cause lung cancer. He is wrong.”

As Homer Simpson would say: D’oh! I never categorically rejected the possibility that plutonium CANNOT cause cancer. Where did I say otherwise? What I rejected was the absurd possibility of half a kilo of plutonium causing cancer in everybody on the planet in the manner prescribed by Giz Watson.

John says:

“The thought experiment alluded to by Greens MP Giz Watson involves taking half a kilo of plutonium and dividing it up evenly into as many pieces as there are people in the world.”

Maybe John needs remedial classes in basic English. May I recommend “Dick and Dora”? It worked a treat for me when I was in grade 1. Now what Watson ACTUALLY SAID, if you go back and read my original post, as you should have done in the first place, was that plutonium is so deadly that 1/2 a kilo, if SPREAD EVENLY AROUND THE WORLD, is enough to induce lung cancer in everyone on earth. She did NOT say “dividing it up evenly into as many pieces as there are people in the world”. Thus, misrepresenting what Watson actually asserted, Wojdylo misrepresents my rebuttal. All I can say is that if John is incapable of reading the original claim with comprehension, then he has no business getting involved in this debate. How he drew that idea from Giz Watson’s original assertion is beyond me. Maybe they share a psychic bond.

Watson’s original assertion probably derives from a comment by US environmentalist Ralph Nader in a debate with radiation pioneer Ralph Lapp. Nader said that “a pound of plutonium could kill every human being on Earth.” Lapp replied “So could a pound of fresh air, Ralph.”

What were they getting at? Nader’s comment actually contains a nanoscopic grain of truth. In order to give everyone on the planet cancer with one pound of plutonium, you would need to line up every person on Earth (they will need a lot of port-a-loos to service that queue), and a doctor would have to inject a fine aerosol mist containing one five-billionth of a pound of plutonium into the lungs of each person.

We would then have to wait several decades (protecting everyone from other life-threatening influences such as malnutrition, disease, drowning, car accidents, cancers resulting from other causes, and green propaganda), until they died of lung cancer.

Lapp’s statement also contains a similar grain of truth. In order to kill everyone on earth with a pound of air you would need to line everyone up (again) and have our murderous doctor inject a tiny bubble of air in the correct place in their chest such that a fatal embolism would develop.

In effect both statements are true, but completely hypothetical and utterly ridiculous. In real life, not a single death has occurred from plutonium poisoning, despite scores of workers during the last several decades having been exposed to its dust.

Lets go back to Wojdylo’s first claim about me:

“Oakley categorically rejects the possibility that this amount of plutonium can cause lung cancer. He is wrong.”

Since Wojdylo has misrepresented my original claim it is he who is wrong, not I. I never rejected the possibility that ” this amount of plutonium can cause lung cancer”. If you read my above (and previous) statements, you will see that I do acknowledge the possibility that a speck of plutonium could cause lung cancer-over a life-time.

John continues with an irrelevant digression on Chernobyl. Finally he gets back to Plutonium, and discusses the possibility of a speck of plutonium lodged in the lung. Once again, he indulges in a load of irrelevant blather. Let’s cut to the chase. Wojdylo says, finally that:

“In summary, Oakley categorically denies that 40 million alpha particle – and 100,000 gamma photon – hits each week, every week over a lifetime, to a fixed piece of soft tissue in the lung can cause cancer. He truly has great faith in the defence mechanism of the human body – a faith that is both irrational and absurd. It is no different to faith in a god; and resembles the supernaturalistic pseudoscience practised by many medical doctors. “

Of course, since I never made the claim that plutonium injected DIRECTLY INTO THE LUNG CANNOT cause cancer, John owes me an public apology, retraction of statements he falsely attributes to me, and a retraction of his various smears and libels he applied to me with wild abandon. I won’t hold my breath.

While a small amount of plutonium lodged directly in the lung could possibly increase the risk of lung cancer over a lifetime (once again, I emphatically DO NOT, and have never denied this), it is worth examining real world experiences of workers exposed to plutonium. Medical observation of hundreds workers at American atomic weapons facilities who were exposed to plutonium dust, has shown that, as one report concluded “no plutonium-based tumour has been unequivocally identified in a human”. Indeed these workers enjoy, on average, better health that the general community. Perhaps back-of-my-cereal-carton-radiation-health-expert John Wojdylo could explain why this is so. Perhaps he might even find an expert to explain it to him.

The bulk of John’s anti-plutonium rant is based on the discredited “hot particle” theory, whereby one single particle of plutonium was expected to eventually cause a cancerous lesion. It is worth mentioning that prior to 1963, SEVERAL TONNES of plutonium were distributed in the atmosphere due to above-ground nuclear tests. Needless to say, life expectancies have not crumbled to the ground since then. Nor will they.

The toxicity of plutonium is, in reality quite unimpressive. One man, Prof. Bernard L. Cohen, went so far as to volunteer to eat as much plutonium as aforementioned anti-nuclear activist Ralph Nader would caffeine in an attempt to demonstrate the folly of severe toxicity claims. Nader did not take Cohen up on his challenge. As far as dangerous radionuclides go, Plutonium-239 (the isotope John and I focus on) is not even in the top ten most dangerous. The naturally occurring isotope actinium-227 is the most dangerous. In fourth place is thorium-232. This is a very common isotope found naturally in beach sands. In the Handbook of Toxicology of Metals, plutonium-239 rates only a passing mention in connection with Uranium.

If John is really afraid of radiation, I suggest he stop eating food. Food contains natural radioisotopes such as potassium-40, carbon-14, etc, which are obviously in intimate contact with the body once eaten.

Finally let us go back to Giz Watson’s actual claim, and I quote verbatim: “plutonium is so deadly that 1/2 a kilo, if SPREAD EVENLY AROUND THE WORLD, is enough to induce lung cancer in everyone on earth.”

Can you read that, John? It says EVENLY AROUND THE WORLD, not “dividing it up evenly into as many pieces as there are people in the world and injected straight into their lungs”. Would you like me to translate it into stupidese for you, John?

It is interesting that Wojdylo mentions Chernobyl, because this accident has been the subject of more green fallacies (or should I say lies) than any other environmental accident. Let me take this opportunity to expose yet another green lie.

In the pages of Australia at the Nuclear Crossroads published in February 1999 by the Australian Conservation Foundation, it was claimed that “250,000 people have died as a result of the Chernobyl tragedy”. Apparently ACF honchos can’t even get the story straight amongst themselves, because in The Age in April, 2001, ACF president Peter Garrett attributed 30,000 deaths to the Chernobyl accident. Obviously, ACF people come from the think-of-a-number-and-double-it school of numerical accuracy.

The most authoritative report on Chernobyl comes from UNSCEAR (The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). UNSCEAR reported in June 2000 that apart from 1800 cases of thyroid cancer in children exposed at the time of the accident (which themselves would have been prevented had the soviets dispensed iodine tablets to those affected), there is no evidence of increased overall cancer incidence or mortality fourteen years later. As it stands, most if the children who contracted thyroid cancer were cured. About 10 children have died from thyroid cancers, bringing the total death toll to about 40. So once again we see that the greens have distorted the truth in order to terrify people.

Perhaps Mr Wojdylo could explain where UNSCEAR has erred. I wonder if his next analysis will include terms such as “redneck” and “dickhead”.

Allan Fels is all class. What a way to retire: do an Australian Story drawing out the joys and pain of your family life and your work philosophy and modus operandi, and then, once the context is fully drawn, tell the camera you won’t seek another term as head of the competition and consumer commission.

As the face of the commission since 1995, he’s educated us all on our rights as consumers and stuck up for us when the big and not-so-big boys tried to con us. He’s forced business to obey the rules. Unions too – he said he and his family had lost Bill Kelty as a long-time friend when Fels threatened action against the unions during the wharfies dispute. A hard decision, he said, but the rules are the rules.

Throughout the program he reinforced the impression that he stands aside from the corruption of power and that he plays by no rules but the ones he’s been given in law. I knew someone like him years ago, Decree O’Connor, who headed the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and took Alan Bond on over his $400,000 payout to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Until O’Connor no head had interpreted the law as it was written – winks and nods were the game. After she gave the Broadcasting Act teeth, the Labor government – Kim Beazley in fact – gutted the tribunal, turning it into a largely closed-door, powerless shadow. “Light touch regulation,” Beazley called it. In fact, it simply stripped the public of any power to hold TV stations accountable.

Fels has protected the commission from that fate, so far, partly because he is a star media performer – ever-present, considered, tough, a true believer in competition policy and in public service. As someone said on the show, he became “a brand”, sometimes more powerful that the big-time politicians because unlike them, he had the trust of the people, and unlike them, was unafraid to stick it up big business when necessary.

I reckon he was doing much more than a unique retirement statement last night. With just under two years to run in his term, he’s setting himself up to have influence in the choice of his successor. He’ll now groom his preferred successor, in an attempt to stop the government putting in someone who’d say yes to big business more often. If his preferred successor is working for the commission, I’d expect him or her to take over some of Fels’ media duties over time. An endorsement by Fels would be hard for the government to resist. Damned hard. And an Allan Fels ensconced in academia would be a powerful critic if the new head locked his doors, did his deals in secret, or hung back on consumer protection.

When Fels said he wanted to write on his experiences as commission head to impart what he’d learned “to future leaders in the public service”, he looked up to the camera ironically, as if he wondered whether there’d be any left sometime soon.

Whether you hated his zeal for competition policy or not, Fels oozed integrity. He said last night: “I don’t see myself as a hero, just someone determined to do the right thing.” And, I should add, without earning a super-huge paypacket. I hope his last big play to preserve the commission’s culture and his legacy will be successful. The Commission is one of our last bulwarks against big business running the country on their own terms.

***

Today’s issue:

1. Darren Spain, Noel Hadjimichael and Max Phillips on whether we really need a new political party and Darrell Rigby on why the Greens are the go by default.

2. Elizabeth Wertheim asks us baby boomers to become activists again.

3. James Woodcock and Ron Jones on John Crockett’s decision to stop reading the Herald.

4. Richard Moss, Polly Bush, Claude Mostowik and Elen Seymour on Tam Long’s critique of Tony Kevin’s SIEV-X analysis.

5. Dr Aaron Oakley responds to his critics on radiation and global warming.

1.NEW PARTY NEEDED?

Darren Spain in London

I’m a regular Webdiary reader. I left Australia in January 1994 and have since lived and worked both here and in New York City, USA. I’ll be 36 years old next month and expect to return to live in Sydney soon.

I’m approaching my eighteenth anniversary of working in the financial markets, the past nine of them out of the country. During that time the Australian political landscape has shifted, nay convulsed; Labor has lost power and later direction, we’ve witnessed the rise and fall of One Nation, the rise of the Greens and, it seems, the start of the demise of the Democrats. The policies that the Coalition Parties and Labor now hold also seem to have shifted such that I’m not too sure who their core voters are anymore.

Like many others I have no idea who represents my values now.

Over the past few years I’ve become more and more politically minded and willing to “Take A Stand” on some of the big issues that currently confront the country of my birth. I’ve never been a member of any political party, yet now that I’m financially secure I find myself considering joining and working for one, or perhaps becoming a political lobbyist on my return to Sydney in the not too distant future. The problem is I see no party or special interest group with a platform that represents my views and values.

Last Federal election I broke with my pattern of the previous seven elections of voting Democrat with a Labor preference, and became, in equal parts, both a reluctant Green and Democrat voter. (In the UK I tend to vote Liberal Democrat with a Labour preference).

This year your Webdiaries of March and mid-December 2001 have continually come back into my consciousness. There were a couple of days back then where we all played “Identity Politics” trying to define where we stood in the post-left/right world. Peter Parker’s piece which divided the landscape into Social Liberals, Social Conservatives, Economic Liberals and Economic Conservatives and attributed these characteristics to prominent people has stayed with me the most.

Using those labels I am best described as a Social Liberal and Economic Conservative. Mr Parker used this label to describe both Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam.

Where are the rest of you and is there a party of us?

Margo: I pulled together Webdiarist’s attempts to to work out new political categories in Defining your politics, at webdiary2001. There’s also a great exchange of views between One Nation Webdiarist Greg Weilo inRetrospective Hansonism at webdiary2001 and Christopher Selth in Left, right … how politics will march forwards at webdiary2001

***

Noel Hadjimichael in Camden, Western Sydney

Your analysis of the potential for a “party of five” Senators to emerge from the Democrats’ self-destruction (The Leeway Party) is challenging. Many voters in regional and rural localities would argue that there is space in the market for some “liberal-progressive” opinion in the Parliament.

Whilst the majors continue to be the main game – and people like me choose Liberal over today’s Labor – the desire for choice is strong. The German Liberals have generally played a coalition partnership role to the conservatives (in the main) or the social democrats (before the greens) on the basis of articulated policy demands, progressive social policy and pure support for marginalised constituencies (small farm holdings, professionals and anti-left civil servants). There are working precedents.

You have received many serious contenders for the name of the new party – I will throw in my commentator’s choice: Progressive Federals.

The tag “independent” has been seriously damaged by either shonky local government candidates or outcasts from the majors (read members sacked or pushed out for personal conduct).

The term “progressive” appears to be well received by the Webdiary contributors and would likely make the link to liberal values.

The term “federal” may appear reactionary – but this is not so.

Australia is and is likely to continue to demand a federal compact – national government with significant powers; state governments with both jurisdictional power and service delivery responsibility; and local governments able to innovate. Also, a strong feature of conservative voter support, especially outside the Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne triangle of power and privilege, is an acceptance and approval of effective federalism.

I am not saying to the “party of five” that they should become a party. However, the conditions appear to be favourable for such a development. If they became another carping critic of “everything” the Howard government stands for, a faction of the pre-1990s Left, then they would fail from the outset.

The political spectrum is not just left and right – ala the cold war – but complex and interesting.

On the social policy questions, we have seen the government take broadly described conservative directions. But the stem cell research debate has also opened up true distinctions between fundamentalist and practical liberal viewpoints.

On economic issues, you are correct to discern a conservative government that is more likely to protect economic assets from foreign interests than a Labor leadership committed to globalised capital. (But, hey, don’t even consider a McDonalds or Starbucks for the inner city strip frequented on Saturday…unless the Party machine gets a really good incentive).

There is no mandatory dogma for this potential new party – beyond maybe a commitment to liberal values, environmental stewardship and human rights. There is no demand that it espouse fashionable rhetoric for just publicity’s sake.

You can be a promoter of landcare, a small town conservative voter opposed to many of the results from privatisation, an opponent of the big-city Republic push and a cynic when it comes to the poor outcomes achieved by many aboriginal corporations and still remain a thinking liberal.

***

Max Phillips

So the Independent Progressives are to be born out of Lees’ treachery, Murray’s hissy fit and Ridgeway’s rejection. The ‘gang of five’ steal party status from the Democrats and assume the balance of power in the Senate. Meanwhile they establish a party front – structured so they retain absolute power and enrolling a bunch of powerless members to look legitimate. Why does this all sound like the script to a third world coup?

What kind of mandate does this new party have?

The representatives have all been elected by voters, but 95% of those votes were above-the-line for their former party. So they could possibly claim a mandate of 5% of the total Democrats vote.

They could claim their mandate stems from the “small l” Democrat voters and members. But this claim can not be quantified or easily identified (until the next election), and therefore can only have the same credibility as Sadam Hussein claiming to represent the Iraqi people or Stalin’s claim to represent “the workers”.

They could recognise that as the new party does not have a mandate. This choice would leave them with four options for action:

1) Resign from the Senate (allowing the Democrats to appoint new representatives for their seats) and run as their new party at the next election.

2) Exist as a separate entity, but vote with the Democrats in order to respect the mandate granted by voters at the last election.

3) Abstain from all votes.

4) Ignore any need for a mandate.

Options 1 and 2 respect democratic principles. Option 3 dis-enfranchises Democrat voters, but is a compromise that does not affect the balance of power. Option 4 is a blatant abuse of democratic principles.

Their decision will be a big test of their “small d” democratic credentials, (something most “small l” liberals consider important). If Lees’ and Murray’s delusion of grandeur continues and they decide to wield power devoid of a mandate, then they are as low as all those corporate fraudsters who’ve destroyed their company (party) while stealing money (votes/power) from their employees and stockholders (members and voters).

***

Darrell Rigby in Kiama, NSW

I have had the uneasy feeling since the Howard government’s ascension that we have lived a period of lost opportunities, of fear mongering ignorance promoted by an administration which has no serious grip on current Australian life. On things that give ordinary Australian’s lives meaning.

With Keating we had the vision of a united Australia , free and independent. By 2001 we’d have been a republic in control of our own destiny. We may well have achieved reconciliation , and may I suggest we would not have had the craziness of the Pacific solution and all the lies that has been born out of it.

Our country today is leaderless, and on both sides of politics there appears to be no-one with conviction and foresight who can grab the reins. I have been a long term supporter of the Democrats, but I’m afraid they have fatally injured themselves. So now we have the situation where a vote for labor is irrelevant, a vote for Howards libs is a giant step backwards and there is no Democrat party left to vote for.

My vision has settled amongst the smoke and ruins upon one person who has a firm and consistent view in step with the social attitudes of a majority of Australians. It’s Bob Brown. He’s the last one left standing.

2. CALL TO ACTION

Elizabeth Wertheim

Dear Baby-boomers and all those who were politically active in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, I feel the time has come to remind you all of your radical student years and youth. To ask you once again to stand up and speak out and support and encourage the youth of today in the crucial need for social and political voice and activism.

You the youth of the 60s, 70s and 80s know what change your voice and activism brought. Many of you who are now politicians, journalists, high profile artists, academics, government officials and social commentators began your careers in the universities. You believed in your right to speak and demanded you were heard. It is time to tell your stories to the youth of today and help to activate their energy and passion.

For this generation beneath their enforced silence have insights, ideas, passion and energy that will benefit us all. Their lives are far harder in many ways than yours. They will walk out of universities with HEC debt, low paid jobs, with substandard education and far less social welfare fall backs than your generation did.

Once their energy, passion and voice begins to heard you the may find that your generation’s loss of passion and commitment to justice, equality social and political engagement may be reinvigorated and you can once again stand tall and reclaim your lost right to the name of the Radical Generation.

Funnily enough I think a good reminder may come from one of the artist heroes of your time, Bob Dylan. I believe his words are most relevant but they, at this time also contain an ironic twist. For you are now the mothers and fathers, the congress men (politicians) who might well be “standing in the doorway and blocking up the hall”. Once again ” the times are a changin” but unfortunately in very different direction to the one that occurred in the 60s, 70s and to some degree in the 80s. I fear we will all “sink like stones.” for there is most definitely “a battle outside” and “the order is rapidly fading”. It is time for us all to “start ragin”.

3. STAY IN THE GAME, JOHN

James Woodcock

John Crockett’s comments on the SMH in The Leeway Party are not fair, as Fairfax has actually provided very balanced coverage on the whole asylum seeker issue. And it is not the SMH’s fault that “right wing intellectual” is an oxymoron in this country. With the possible exception of Mr Henderson, the other writers do more than rehash the shrill that they hear around some white trash front bar without even checking details or adding anything new to the debate.

Miranda Devine’s recent hysteria on gays destroying “the family” is a fabulous example. I do not blame the SMH for publishing such stuff as 1) it is really funny and 2) it is not the SMH’s fault that there are no Australian conservative commentators with any brains

PS: Thanks for publishing my rant on the ALP and the children overboard inquiry. Channel 9’s Sunday program on Australia’s “disruption” of asylum seeker boats in Indonesia has stirred up Faulkner again, although the bleeding obvious response to his call for a judicial enquiry is, “Why don’t you get the Senate to try harder???”

***

Ron Jones

Talk about puffery! Poor old Padriac, Imre et al dare express an opinion contrary to the pious views of of John Crockett and he promptly appoints himself a member of the “intelligentsia” and decides to take his bat and ball and go home and play with himself (ie boycott the S.M.H.)

Don’t worry Margo, there are plenty of us dumb-wits out here who, despite your moralistic finger wagging, will stay and play the game. I wouldn’t miss it for quids.

4. TAM LONG ON SIEV-X – REACTION

Richard Moss

I can’t recall enjoying anything in Webdiary so much before as Tam Long’s utter demolition of the disgraceful conspiracy theories about SIEV X, flimsily constructed from negligible evidentiary material on a foundation of bias and malice, and peddled by Tony Kevin and you, Margo. He leaves no more to be said on the subject, except to ask whether there is any possibility of you now dropping the subject, preferably in the nearest rubbish receptical.

His last lines also eloquently express a concern held by others, including myself, about the one-dimensional direction of Webdiary, which offered so much at the outset as a forum for a genuine cross-section of views.

**

Polly Bush in Melbourne

I’m trying to swallow this critique on Kevin in SIEV-X: Right of reply, and already I’ve hit a stumbling block. What is this “would-be-asylum-seekers” definition on about? Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the term asylum seeker meant someone who was applying for refugee status? Is Long arguing they wouldn’t be applying for refugee status? (were they going on a fucking cruise?)

Surely it is acceptable to assume they were heading to Australia to apply for refugee status which would make them asylum seekers. Bugger this “would-be” or “passenger” crap. Angry. Confused. Thank christ for Peter Mares: “The failure to distinguish between asylum seekers, refugees and unauthorised migrants means that all are brushed with the same tar of distrust and illegitimacy and ultimately results in patently nonsensical constructions such as “illegal asylum seekers” and even “illegal refugees”, terms that have appeared with surprising frequency in recent media reports.”

***

[Father] Claude Mostowik in Erskinville, Sydney

Tam Long seems to be way off the mark when s/he critiques Tony Kevin’s article on SIEV-X in SIEV-X: mystery unsolved. This article was originally a talk given at the Tampa One Conference at the University of Technology August 24-25. I was one of the conference organisers. I heard him give the talk in a very tempered manner. Tony was never at any time emotive.

Tony has been researching this issue for some time and thank goodness for his tenacity and perseverance in keeping this issue alive. 353 people are dead who wants to know why? I am sure that the Government and it seems even the Opposition would like this issue to die.

Tam Long criticises Tony Kevin for not taking on the people smugglers. I know that Tony Kevin is very critical of them but his intention was to get to the truth of why the people on the SIEV-X seems to have been abandoned. This is the point – and this is what we need to establish.

Tam Long seems to be emotive and needs to devalue and depreciate Tony Kevin as person to make a point rather than look at the facts and how we as Australians might be complicit in a criminal act. If we do not want to find out what happened and why it happened then we are complicit.

***

Elen Seymour in Sydney

Tam Long ends an interesting piece with the following quote: “Margo, may I close by suggesting that the credibility of your online column depends on broadening the contributors you publish and keeping them to accepted standards of objective scholarship. Reinforcing the prejudices of a sectional interest is surely not professional journalism or in keeping with the AJA code of ethics.”

Oh Margo! No no no no. Not accepted standards of objective scholarship! I will defend with my last breath the right for anyone to be an elitist wanker, I’m one myself. But please this is a forum for discussion, observation and occasional wit.

Objectivity, scholarly or otherwise, is of course welcome, but I don’t want would-be contributors to feel intimidated into not contributing. One of the things I love is the sheer volatility of the mix of scholar and non-scholar, wanker and pragmatist, right and left.

Please don’t close this down. If I want scholarly debate I’ll walk across the road to the University. If I want opinions from a wide range of people with a wide range of experiences and a wide range of viewpoints I’ll log in here.

***

5. AARON OAKLEY FIGHTBACK

Dr Aaron Oakley

Max Phillips in his rejoinder to me (see Puffing the Greens, The Leeway Party) displays the kind of dishonesty I complained about in my original post. Firstly he misrepresents the original Watson claim: She talked about spreading Plutonium evenly around the world, not lining up everybody and injecting plutonium straight into their lungs. Secondly, his hypothetical is patently absurd.

Lets look at what he has said: “A couple of micrograms of Plutonium inhaled is sufficient to cause lung cancer. There are half a million micrograms in half a kilogram of Plutonium. 500,000,000 divided by 2 is 250,000,000. Therefore half a kilogram of Plutonium is sufficient to kill only a quarter of a billion people or only 1/24th of the Earth’s total human population (twelve times Australia’s population).”

Lets assume for a moment that the initial statement about plutonium toxicity is correct (it is not). In order to deliver the kind of dose Mr Phillips is talking about, we would literally have to line everyone up (that’s one hell of a queue) and inject just the right amount of plutonium into their lungs. Based on this level of reasoning, we could say that one sledgehammer is enough to kill everyone on earth! Just line ’em up and whack ’em on the noggin. Mr Phillips is treating a ridiculous hypothetical situation as though it was real (this is one of many dishonest green tactics I have encountered).

Mr Phillips claim about the actual toxicity of plutonium is untrue. The idea about cancer resulting from a microgram of plutonium comes from the discredited “hot particle” theory, where a single speck of the substance was eventually supposed to cause a cancerous lesion. This claim is shown to be false from the observation that following the 1963 Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, there was no epidemic of cancer. (Prior to the treaty, several tonnes of plutonium were dispersed in the atmosphere. Needless to say, we’re still here).

Since 1963, we have witnessed one of the most dramatic increases in longevity in human history. Furthermore, followup studies of plutonium workers has shown that they enjoy better health that the general population!

Damian Shaw-Williams provides further examples of green dishonesty. He tries to tie global warming sceptics to the fossil fuel industry. This use of the “guilt by association” tactic says nothing about the truth or otherwise of global warming. Scientific truth is determined by evidence, not by political allegiance. For evidence, well-controlled ground stations and weather balloon radiosonde measurements show no warming since about 1940.

Mr Shaw-Williams says: “When the field is dominated by two such morally bankrupt players it seems a bit rich to level this accusation at the only party with a clear statement of purpose.” That purpose apparently being to decimate living standards.”

“On nuclear power, unless I missed a meeting there has not as yet been discovered a satisfactory method of storage of waste, let alone reducing decommissioning costs to the point where nuclear power is economically viable and the inherent risk associated with such facilities.”

Since when did the greens care about “economic viability”, Mr Shaw-Williams? Wind and solar energy are definitely not economically viable alternatives to conventional energy generation. Yet these methods are exactly the ones that the greens are pushing. For the record, I would say that there ARE low-risk methods for dealing with nuclear waste, it’s just that the Greens will never accept them.