Could Howard be gone before we vote?

March 28, 2004 Margo Kingston Leave a comment

A shorter version of this column was first published in the Sun Herald today.

Call me crazy, but I reckon there’s a chance John Howard could be gone before the election because of Iraq. I think that’s why Howard behaved so badly towards whistleblower Mick Keelty for daring to admit that invading Iraq made us a much bigger target for terrorism.

Defending himself against Mark Latham’s first parliamentary censure debate last Monday, Howard proclaimed, with feeling, that his decision to invade Iraq was one “I will never apologise for and never retreat from”.

That’s because he can’t, of course. Howard has said often enough that he took personal responsibility for the decision. If he admitted it compromised our national security and the security of the West, he’d have to resign.

So if most Australians conclude in the next few months that invading Iraq made the world, and Australia, a more dangerous place, not a safer one – as Howard’s many critics across the political divide warned before the war – he’d have to go to give the Coalition a chance of survival. And if national security then became the major election issue, Peter Costello would have to take over to minimise a rout.

The Madrid bombings, and the Spanish people’s decision to sack a government that lied to them about who did the deed, have focused the world’s attention again on the crucial question: what is the most effective way to minimise al-Qaeda terror?

As part of his assault on Keelty, the Federal Police Commissioner, Howard admitted “Iraq is really irrelevant to the intent and purposes of al-Qaeda”, except that the war gave al-Qaeda a propaganda victory! So why did he back George Bush to the hilt and revel in Bush’s description of him as a “man of steel”? Revelations from former senior Bush officials now pouring out of the US prove that Bush’s war had nothing to do with combating terror and everything to do with grabbing even more economic power.

Pentagon whistleblower and former USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski said the US invaded for three reasons of pure self-interest. Unless America took Iraq by force, sanctions would soon be lifted against Saddam Hussein and European companies, not US firms, would get lucrative contracts. The US wanted to reverse Saddam’s decision to trade his oil in euros not the $US (one of Bush’s first decisions after Saddam’s statue fell). And Bush wanted to move US Middle East military bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.

Even more damning, not only did Bush con his own people about the reasons for war, but he made Iraq a higher priority than the war on terror.

Bush’s former top counter-intelligence man Dick Clarke wrote in a book released last week that Bush was more interested in Iraq than al-Qaeda, even on September 12, 2001, and saw September 11 as cover to get away with invading Iraq.

Bush “launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide”, Clarke wrote. “Nothing America could have done would have provided al-Qaeda and its new generation of cloned groups [with] a better recruitment device than our unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich Arab country.”

Rand Beers, the bloke who replaced Clarke in the month before the invasion, resigned five days before it for the same reason: “The administration wasn’t matching its deeds to its words. They’re making us less secure, not more.”

Web diarist Phil Kendall wrote:

“The biggest ‘heist’ of all time via an illegal invasion, alienation of half the world’s oil from its rightful owners and the possibility of an everlasting jihad against us – thanks Mr Howard.”

Howard a man of steel? A man of jelly, more likely, with his knee-jerk “yes, sir” to a president who forgot he was supposed to represent the American people, not his big business oil and armaments mates. That’s the line Latham is beginning to run and if Australians feel forced to agree, they’ll want Howard and his compliant MPs out big- time. It would be too late for a leadership challenge, so Howard would need to plead illness or whatever and step down.

Fortunately for Howard, Latham gave him a rung to climb this week by saying he’d have our troops home by Christmas. Like many others, I opposed the war without United Nations approval but once we invade a country we have a legal and moral obligation to secure the peace. We need to try to convince the US to forgo its dream of war booty and transfer control of the transition to democracy to the UN.

This is what new Spanish leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is hoping to achieve by saying he’ll pull Spanish troops out unless the UN takes control.

Spain did not invade Iraq. We did. We can�t pretend Iraq has nothing to do with us after we helped invade it, and we can�t restore our national pride by following Howard�s capitulation to Bush with a cut and run betrayal of the Iraqi people. The last thing the world needs is for Bush�s lie to become reality by abandoning Iraq to the terrorists who�ve swarmed in since Bush�s war.

***

READER QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Darren Urquhart:�The Spanish threw their government out because (1) 90% were against the Iraq invasion in the first place, (2) the reasons for the invasion turned out to be lies and (3) they were now being attacked by terrorists with no Iraq connection. That is not capitulating to terrorists, it�s punishing an incompetent government. It’s also accepting that they did capitulate to the manipulations of that other dangerous gang, the Bush Administration.�

Could Howard be gone before we vote?

March 28, 2004 Margo Kingston Leave a comment

A shorter version of this column was first published in the Sun Herald today.

Even more damning, not only did Bush con his own people about the reasons for war, but he made Iraq a higher priority than the war on terror.

Web diarist Phil Kendall wrote:

This is what new Spanish leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is hoping to achieve by saying he’ll pull Spanish troops out unless the UN takes control.

***

READER QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Howard’s games with boys’ education

March 26, 2004 Carmen Lawrence Leave a comment

Carmen Lawrence is the MP for Freemantle, the ALP’s federal president and a Webdiarycolumnist. My report on Howard’s attempt to allow sex discrimination in teacher training is atHoward’s affirmative action for men. The Polly Bush analysis is at Teaching sex discrimination.

Federal Parliament was asked this week to debate a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act so that scholarships for teachers could be offered selectively to men. In rushing the Bill into the House, the government claimed their objective was to �redress gender imbalance in teaching�, a move they claimed would remedy the under-achievement of boys in school.

I found it hard to take the legislation seriously, not least because the Prime Minister clearly doesn�t, but also because it�s not actually about improving the performance of boys in schools. And it�s certainly not about increasing the number of male teachers in the school system. The only thing that�s certain is that it will achieve neither objective.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Nor is it about good public policy based on thorough and careful analysis of the problem and the interventions most likely to be effective.

It�s not that such analysis hasn�t been done. It has – at the request of the government and at considerable expense to the taxpayer.

At the instigation of the Minister for Education Brendan Nelson, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training (chaired at the time by Nelson himself), undertook a comprehensive inquiry into the education of boys. The Committee received 178 submissions, conducted numerous public hearings and submitted a unanimous report in October 2002.

In addition, generously funded conferences on the issue of boys� education have been held and research commissioned. A brief inspection of the Education Department’s web site turns up a veritable goldmine of relevant research, most of it focused on the policy responses needed to improve children�s performance at school.

And what that meticulous and extensive research shows is that the measure contained in the Bill, to overturn long established principles protecting citizens against discrimination, will do nothing to improve children�s learning. The government knows what strategies will work and has, so far, done little or nothing to implement them.

The legislation is not about crafting good policy for the betterment of Australian children; it is about crude partisan advantage. It�s a classic Howard tactic based on strategies that he�s been employing since the day he was elected.

The problem for the government is that they�ve employed such tactics so often and so transparently that people are awake to their cynical ploys, their partisan purpose. The tactics are familiar- and have inevitably bred contempt. Like everything else about this government they�re tired and predictable.

Australians know, after watching him as Prime Minister for nearly eight years, that John Howard is the quintessential politician, the sort of politician that gives politicians a bad name. His passion is with the game, in winning at all costs.

As Mungo MacCallum pointed out in a recent essay , with Howard, �It�s not a question of the end justifying the means; the means has in fact become the end�. Howard does not see politics as a way of creating a better world, but as a world in its own right. The only reason he appears to want political power is for political power itself.

Why else is he hanging on? He has no agenda and his government is doing very little that is worthwhile.

The legislation, like many of the Howard initiatives, is a calculated political tactic aimed at using a potentially divisive social issue to political advantage. It has already used such tactics on all the usual suspects � the people the Howard government has encouraged us to think of as �not one of us� – Indigenous Australians, refugees, single mothers, the unemployed, homosexuals.

Commentators have labelled such tactics �wedge politics� and treated the phenomenon as novel. It�s not; Menzies used such tactics to great advantage with his �reds under the beds� scares, tainting the entire labour movement with the communist influence and splitting off the conservative, Catholic wing.

As Shaun Wilson writes , wedge politics �involves a political party stirring up populist feeling about an issue or a minority group and then tagging its political opponent with support for the unpopular cause or group.�

The object of wedge politics is to divide your political opponent�s support base and split away identifiable groups of voters. The goal is to win political ascendancy and control the political agenda. Such political tactics are usually based on careful opinion polling to reveal the issues and groups which attract resentment or antipathy in the wider electorate. The strategists then work out the best way of creating resentment among a large group against a smaller one, preying on fear and prejudice.

Howard�s entire 1996 election campaign was based on depicting the Keating Government as a captive of minority interests. Howard caricatured Labor�s commitment to equality and reducing disadvantage as giving special, undeserved treatment to minority groups (about whom he knew resentment could be cultivated). The Coalition victory gave the green light to such resentment and bigotry.

That�s what this government up to again � although this time, the tactic has backfired. They�ve picked the wrong issue and the wrong target. I think the Government hoped they could set disaffected men who are feeling dislocated by the economic and social changes of the last twenty years against the �politically correct� feminists who, in the eyes of many conservatives, are the cause of the problems in the first place.

Women campaigning for equality have often been saddled with the responsibility for all the ills of contemporary society and specifically, for ruining men�s lives. They make easy scapegoats. If boys are not doing as well at school as they used to, then it must be the fault of some woman � single mothers, their female teachers, the women who campaigned for better educational opportunities for girls.

What better way then to get at the new Labor leader, a leader who has genuinely recognised the problems that many, particularly working class, men and boys are having in modern society and who, at the same time, leads a party which has pioneered measures to remove discrimination against women and improve their status.

The trouble for the government is that it�s all too obvious and the players aren�t playing.

The Catholic Education Office, in whose interest the Bill was allegedly crafted, doesn�t want the amendment; they�ve reached agreement with the Coalition appointed Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward, a friend of Howard’s who who co-wrote his biography. She, in turn, has taken umbrage at being saddled with the PC label which the Minister tried to attach to her.

Introducing the Bill with an air of urgency was presumably meant to engender a sense of alarm that men were being prevented from becoming teachers by the nasty feminist legislation. All it signalled was a government in panic about their declining political fortunes.

The Government�s sudden introduction of the Bill begs two questions: Why now? And why this measure?

The answer to the first question is obvious. But why this measure, when all the evidence shows that it will be totally useless?

Every teacher in the country knows that the reason there are fewer male than female teachers is not because of any discrimination against men. Indeed the disproportionate number of men in promotional positions suggests that it is women who suffer discrimination.

The difference exists because men choose not to enter the profession and women do; because most men and boys with the ability seek better paid work and in areas seen as more �masculine�. It is a symptom of the high degree of occupation segregation which still exists in Australia.

To make teaching a more attractive career option for men would actually require the government to get serious about pay and conditions which many women tolerate because they like working with children; because the structure of the working day and year makes it easier for them to balance their work and family commitments and because women still do most of the caring in our society.

The parliamentary committee on educating boys specifically recommended that government �urgently address the remuneration of teachers, with the payment of substantial additional allowances for skilled and experienced teachers as an inducement for them to remain in teaching and to attract new teachers by offering more attractive career paths�.

The government knows that amending the Sex Discrimination Act is not likely to increase the number of male teachers in classrooms.

In any case, it�s not clear that getting more male teachers, even if this were achieved, would necessarily improve boys� retention at school or their educational performance. It was not among the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee because there�s no strong evidence that having more male teachers actually improves boys� performance or behaviour at school.

In fact, one investigation found that male teachers are less likely to implement gender-inclusive strategies and are less attentive to the needs of �at risk� boys. Sound curriculum development and good teaching, which caters for a variety of learning styles, are much more likely to make a difference.

School achievement or underachievement depends on a range of factors including ability and learning style, peer influences, family practices and relationships, community attitudes to learning, the curriculum and assessment procedures and student-teacher interactions.

What happens outside the classroom may be just as important in promoting literacy as the organised curriculum. Boys are less likely than girls to read and take part in music and the arts. More of their time is spent in competitive sports and watching TV. And all too often, boys are only rewarded for how well they do at sport rather than for anything else they do.

It is sometimes claimed that boys in sole parent families are more likely to do poorly at school, but recent research suggests that children in sole parent families do as well as in two parent families and, indeed, boys may perform better with their mothers who are more likely to participate in homework and encourage reading.

And the problem may be miscast in the first place. There has been a lot written about sex differences in school retention and achievement, and the underachievement of males is real. But the differences pale into insignificance when compared to socio-economic differences. In fact one of the major longitudinal studies on tertiary entrance performance concludes, �gender differences in tertiary performance are small compared to differences according to socioeconomic background and school sector�.

While boys are less likely to stay on at school and to have a wider range of academic results than girls, the differences in performance are not as marked as the popular press would sometimes have us believe. Indeed, in some states there are no differences between the average university entrance scores of boys and girls and high achievers of both genders perform about equally well. The evidence is that some boys are failing to achieve the results of which they are capable. And these boys are more likely to be from working class families. As one boy, interviewed as part of a research project on boys� underachievement put it, �why bother studying? Older men are losing their jobs�.

Australian research shows that socioeconomic status – parents� income, occupation and educational level – makes a larger difference than gender to year 12 performance, even in English, where girls generally do better than boys.

Socioeconomic status is associated with the biggest differences in educational participation, particularly for boys. Poverty is the major indicator of low participation and performance for both girls and boys and these effects are even more marked for rural and remote areas and for indigenous students.

As I pointed out in A fair go education system: the advantages for all of us, there are bigger gaps now between the best and the worst performers in Australia than in other developed countries and it�s a family�s position on the SES scale which is most likely to predict a child�s performance.

We should all be concerned at the failure to close the socio-economic gap in performance and retention, especially for males. The gap may, indeed, be widening. And what is this government doing about this glaring inequality. Exactly nothing.

No � I�m wrong, they�re actually exacerbating the problem.

They�re placing a growing proportion of funds into already well funded schools, where the parents are increasingly drawn from higher income groups. In fact, recent ABS data show that, particularly in the secondary school sector, there is an increasing concentration of high income families in non-government schools and a decline in the proportion of those from low-income families. Conversely, government schools have greater proportions from low income families and fewer from high income backgrounds.

Howard has mounted the diversionary tactic on changing the Sex Discrimination Act and waffling on about �values� in schools, because neither he nor Nelson have been able to mount a convincing argument � because there isn�t one- for cutting government schools� share of Commonwealth funding or for dramatically increasing funds to non-government schools.

Neither can they defend the results of their policies – that according to the most conservative estimates, by 2005 spending on state school students will be $2000 a year per head less than for non-government school students. Howard knows that even the best spin merchants could not make it seem fair that the wealthiest, most exclusive schools now operate with 200% of the resources available to government schools look fair.

And the exclusive schools do exclude the costly and difficult students and send them off to the government system. These schools now receive massive taxpayer support, yet they exclude difficult or underachieving students or prevent them from sitting university entrance exams altogether if they think such students will pull down the average. Most of these students end up in the government school system which actually plans for an influx at the end of the first semester.

Too many �exclusive� schools keep up their �standards� by washing their hands of those who often really need help. And education support for severely disabled children is almost entirely the responsibility of the government system.

It doesn�t seem unreasonable to require all schools who receive taxpayers funds to be fully accountable for those funds; to provide programs for all students, no matter what their ability; to allow students to choose whether or not to sit university entrance exams, and to retain all students who are enrolled until the end of their schooling, developing appropriate programs as government schools do for managing those with severe social and emotional problems.

And funds should flow to schools on the basis of need. Then performance tables and comparisons might mean something.

I have no doubt that the Howard government�s polling is showing that people are starting to nominate education funding as one of the issues which are weighing on their minds and which might cause them to change their votes at the next election.

That�s why we�re having a phoney debate about scholarships for male teachers and values in schools.

The government knows that parents on modest incomes who send their children to government schools are starting to notice that their children are being treated unfairly in the carve up of resources. They know this will disadvantage their kids� employment prospects and income earning capacity.

Over the last 50 years, Australia has had a strong commitment to a high quality public education system. Under this government, that commitment is being undermined.

Now that�s a value we should talk about!

Is the government ethical? No comment

March 25, 2004 Margo Kingston Leave a comment

The government�s exclusive advertisement placement company has engaged in deeply unethical behaviour, which shames the government, corrupts our democracy and insults the people of Australia (Whatever it takes: the Howard Government’s cash for comment play).

The government�s response? Another insult to Australian voters: no comment. Perhaps I should have offered cash for a comment?

To recap, US multinational Universal McCann is the government�s exclusive contractor for placing advertisements. It works for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet�s �Government Communications Unit�.

A Universal McCann document to the government leaked to ALP communications spokesman Lindsay Tanner detailed a cash for comment deal with regional newspaper groups. If a newspaper published a �telecommunications feature� which ran Communications Department propaganda as an independent report, the government (ie the Australian people) would buy an extra one page advertisement as a �reward� for duping the Australian people.

After Tanner released the document in Question Time yesterday, the communications minister Daryl Williams said the deal �was not going ahead� and refused to answer any questions, including whether the decision was taken before or after the leak.

Today, he would only say, �it�s not going ahead because it�s not normal government practice�. Do you believe him? Why would anyone believe him, since he still won�t answer any other questions? Like:

 Who gave Universal McCann the authority to so compromise the government and betray the people?

 If the government had not authorised such scams, would the Universal McCann contract be reviewed or rescinded?

 Had the government ever done a cash-for-comment deal before?

 When was the decision taken to knock back the deal, and by whom?

These blokes have something to hide, yet again, and their tactic, as usual, is to say nothing and hope it goes away.

How disrespectful to voters can a government get?

Universal McCann did not call me back yesterday after I gave its investment director Lesley Marriot details of the matter and sought comment. So I rang her again today. She said I should speak to Chris Taylor of the �Government Communications Unit�.

So Universal McCann was not prepared to comment on its activities? The only person who could comment was Universal McCann�s managing director Nick Nicholls, she said. I�ve left a message with his personal assistant asking him to call.

You�ll never guess Chris Taylor�s response when I rang. �We�re not prepared to comment�.

Why not? �We don�t comment on government business.�

So why are you called the �Government Communications Unit? �Because we work for the government on their communications.�

I thanked him for his disrespect to Australian voters.

Dear Mr Howard, government is NOT a business, it�s a trustee relationship between the government and the Australian people who elected it to represent THEM, not you.

It is alien to any democratic idea of government that it use the people�s money to deliberately mislead it by disguising propaganda as news. That�s something corporations without ethics do.

There is a long pattern of conduct here. The Howard Government believing it has no obligation to the Australian people to be ethical and accountable in its dealings with the people whose interests it is supposed to represent.

This insidious behaviour has infected the Public Service to the extent that it sees itself as working only for the government of the day, discarding its higher duties to the public it used to serve by ensuring that government dealings are ethical, consistent, and fair.

The last time I encountered such stonewalling on a matter of clear public interest, where the public has a RIGHT to know what�s going on, was when the Australian Electoral Commission refused to say why it excused Tony Abbott from disclosing the donors to his �Honest Politics Trust� (see, for example, AEC claims secret political donations no business of voters.) It is still refusing to do so, although I hope an FOI request I submitted a while ago will provide an answer.

If you would like information as a voter on the government�s cash for comment strategies, contact Daryl Williams, Universal McCann or the Government Communications Unit. I hope you have better luck than I’ve had.

Whatever it takes: the Howard Government’s cash for comment play

March 24, 2004 Margo Kingston Leave a comment

Now we know why the federal government has done nothing to outlaw cash for comment in our media since the John Laws/Alan Jones scandals years ago. The government itself is into the same deceitful practice, using OUR money to con US!

Universal McCann is a US multinational with the exclusive contract to act as the federal government�s media placement agency. It does ALL the government�s advertising campaigns.

As part of a $5.5 million advertising campaign in June and July to spruik telecommunications in the regions to convince people to support the privatisation of Telstra, Universal McCann met regional newspaper groups to nut out a blatant cash for comment deal.

With lots of our money in the government�s pocket, it had lots of power to get what it wanted from newspaper owners with no ethics. Here�s what Universal McCann reported to the Government:

�Preliminary discussions with major regional newspaper networks have identified a commitment to implement a �telecommunications feature� in many of the publications. This could take the form of placing one full-page mono advertisement and receive one full page of editorial, supplied predominantly by DCITA (the Department of Communications). Newspapers who take up the incentive will be rewarded with a second full-page mono advertisement. Those who do not take up the feature only receive one full-page mono advertisement. We estimate that there will be a 50% take-up.�

So, the government is deliberately setting out to deceive voters by disguising advertising as news stories written by independent journalists. And at least one newspaper group � we don�t yet know which � is happy to prostitute its news pages and lie to its readers for cash.

This despicable practice, which mocks the role and duty of a free press in a democracy, should have been made illegal years ago, when we learned that John Laws� agent approached the banks to offer positive commentary for big bucks. In that case, Laws pretended his spruiks were �interviews� with bank spokespeople, with no disclosure to listeners of his financial interest and contractual obligations to the banks.

The explosive Universal McCann �media strategy� memo, leaked to Labor�s communications spokesman Lindsay Tanner, begs the question of whether cash-for-comment deals are now standard in this government�s advertising. And remember, Howard is Australia�s biggest media advertising spender.

A spokeswoman for the communications Minister Daryl Williams said: �That proposal came through, but it�s not going ahead�. The spokeswoman refused to say whether the decision to drop it was made before or after the release of the memo. She also had no answer to several other questions, and intimated that Williams would not provide �details� to the Australian people about what was going on. But she did take down my questions to see if Williams would deign to address them. He wouldn�t.

These were my additional questions:

1. By what and upon whose authority did Universal McCann negotiate the cash for comment deal on the government’s behalf?

2. Since McCann was the government�s exclusive advertising placement agency, was cash for comment standard government practice?

3. Had the media strategy been looked at by Howard�s �Ministerial Committee on Government Communications�, which approves all media campaigns?

4. If so, had the committee approved the cash for comment arrangement?

5. Did Williams know about it before today?

6. Why did the government drop it?

I phoned Universal McCann for comment and spoke to the company�s investment director Leslie Marriot. She took my number and said she�d get back to me. She didn’t.

There are two groups which qualify for the Universal McCann description �major regional newspaper networks� � APN and Rural Press.

The managing director of Rural Press, Brian McCarthy, would not comment on the specifics before reading the documents, but did say: �There�s no cash for comment in Rural Press newspapers.�

A spokesman for APN said:

�APN had been approached by McCann but were not aware of the client. APN was happy to look at a pre-printed advertorial feature which was totally separate to the news section and would be clearly marked �advertorial�. If the story was newsworthy it would go through the normal editorial process and there is no guarantee of editorial for advertising.�

Lindsay Tanner said:

�Having the government organising with newspapers to put in government advertising presented as newspaper articles is appalling. Under no circumstances would a Labor government engage in cash for comment. All advertising by a Labor government would be clearly marked as advertising. We will never use the leverage of government advertising to get positive coverage from media groups.�

That�s well and good, but what about the media proprietors? Their conduct is equally scandalous, and equally disrespectful of their readers. I suggest that an honest federal government � when we�re lucky enough to get one � legislate to outlaw the sale of news and feature stories. It�s corrupt behaviour, and debases the free press in our democracy.

The ABC Media Watch program recently exposed other newspaper cash for comment deals, this time by a Sydney suburban group called FPC Courier. It offered candidates for Saturday�s local government election an advertisement written by the candidate and disguised as a news story of the same size as a paid ad, with the implied threat that candidates who did not agree would get no coverage in the paper. (See Candidates pay, or else and The Courier “reviews”.)

FPC Courier’s slogan is ‘Committed to community”.

The newspaper industry waxes lyrical about its right to be free of government regulation to protect free speech. But newspapers have NO right to lie to their readers and pass off advertising as editorial news or comment. The practice is so deeply corrosive of the vital role of a free press in our democracy that it should be stamped out immediately in newspapers and on radio and TV. I�d make cash for comment deals a criminal offence.

If Mark Latham is really serious about cleaning up our democracy, then media corruption must be addressed.

The New York Times’ role in promoting war on Iraq

March 23, 2004 Antony Loewenstein Leave a comment

This is the first ‘Engineering consent’ column by Antony Loewenstein, to focus on the inside workings of big media.

�One of the most entrenched and disturbing features of American journalism [is] its pack mentality. Editors and journalists don�t like to diverge too sharply from what everyone else is writing.�Michael Massing, The New York Review of Books, February 26, 2004

�In April 2003, CNN aired footage of a marine in Baghdad who is confronted with a crowd of angry Iraqis. He shouts back in frustration, �We�re here for your fucking freedom!� George Packer, The New Yorker, November 24, 2003

The one-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion is upon us and Iraq is teetering on the brink of civil war. The main rationale of the war, as frequently stated by George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard, was Saddam�s supposed arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their threat to the Middle East region and the world. No weapons have ever been found.

When Howard addressed the Australian people on March 20, 2003 to announce Australia�s commitment to the invasion, he frequently mentioned Iraq�s links to terrorism and possession of WMD. Not once did he mention the human rights of the Iraqi people. This war wasn�t about liberation or freedom or democracy. Not in 2003 anyway. It was about unilateral US power and a country not wanting to be left behind in the new world order of might is right politics fashioned by the Bush administration’s Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz.

One year on, Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk said of the 2003 invasion:

�The impact of the cruise missiles can still be seen in the telecommunications tower across the Tigris. The Ministry of Defence still lies in ruins. Half the government ministries in Baghdad are still fire-stained, a necessary reminder of the cancer of arson that took hold of the people of this city in the first hours and days of their “liberation”.

“But the symbols of the war are not the scars of last year’s invasion. The real folly of our invasion can be seen in the fortresses that the occupiers are building, the ramparts of steel and concrete and armour with which the Americans have now surrounded themselves. Like Crusaders, they are building castles amid the people they came to “save”, to protect themselves from those who were supposed to have greeted them with flowers.�

So how much more do we know now than one year ago? An incalculable amount. We know that Iraq had (probably) no WMD; it posed no military threat to its neighbours, and much less to America, Britain or Australia. Al-Qaeda had no relationship with Saddam�s regime, but now has an unidentifiable presence in Iraq. Jihadists and Islamic fundamentalists couldn�t have been given a more beautiful gift in their war against the West. We must question those who claim Bin Laden and his ideologues are illogical or even insane. His numerous statements before and after September 11 suggest a philosophy based on short term and long term tactical goals. He has arguably achieved many of the former. Saudi Arabia will soon no longer house American troops, as they will move to Iraq and Qatar. A clash of civilizations is occurring between those fearful of US hegemony and those keen to embrace the ethics and morality of US unilateralism. The Islamic world is torn between condemning the brutality of al-Qaeda style terrorism and embracing the sheer audacity of taking on US world spectral dominance. The Madrid bombings, and the subsequent dumping of a pro-Bush leader (and the al-Qaeda statement saying its martyrdom operations would cease until Spain�s new leader outlined his new policy towards Iraq) prove that Bin Laden has definite (achievable) aims in his war against Western �decadence� and �imperialism�.

With Iraq in the headlines daily, it is tempting to claim we are receiving the full picture of Iraq�s political and social situation. Much of the Western media, including in Australia, have started questioning the pre-war claims of Bush, Blair and Howard in relation to WMDs and the West�s increased risk of terrorism after our involvement in the invasion.

But where were these inquisitive journalists before the war? How many questions were they asking to the skeptical intelligence officers before March 2003? Were they listening to Scott Ritter, former UN weapon inspector, who�d been claiming Iraq had been �fundamentally disarmed� years before the invasion?

Richard Overy, professor of modern history at King’s College, London helps clarify the real struggle against fundamentalism:

“Terrorism is the chief threat we face, and the war against terror must unite us all. This has little to do with Iraq. Attacks against the occupiers were provoked by war. Attacks in Israel are part of a different struggle for Palestinian liberation. The assault in Madrid is part of a longer confrontation between militant Islam and western cultural and economic imperialism. Lumping them all together as evidence that a war against terror is the primary object of our foreign policy is nonsense.�

There has been an explosion of mainstream media more than happy to lampoon Bush, Blair and Howard on their pre-war claims on WMD. Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair, is a perfect example as he wrote in August 2003 that �Iraq may well prove to be the biggest scandal in American politics in the last hundred years�. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Sydney Morning Herald and a host of other worldwide media titles have been equally critical of the glaring absence of WMD. But there has been little examination of pre-war reporting and supporting of government claims on WMD. The media has a short-term memory problem. Self-examination is not something to be considered.

The media was the filter through which skeptical publics were slowly convinced of the need to invade Iraq. And it was the channel through which intelligence reports on Iraq�s chemical, biological and nuclear programs were amplified and exaggerated. Too many journalists in the world�s most respected publications became unquestioning messengers of their government’s desired message. And Australia was far from immune.

***

The New York Times is arguably the most respected newspaper in the world. Its articles are reprinted in publications in numerous countries, including Australia�s Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

Judith Miller is one of the NYT’s most senior journalists. A Pulitzer Prize winning writer and regarded expert on Middle East issues and WMD, Miller has written extensively on Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network.

In the run-up to the Iraq War, Miller became a key reporter on that country�s supposedly documented WMDs. She wrote many articles relayed around the globe on the Bush administration�s doomsday reading of Saddam�s regime. She painted a terrifying picture of his arsenal with apparently sound intelligence sources to back her claims.

However, it emerged that the vast majority of her WMD claims came through Ahmed Chalabi, an indicted fraudster and one of the leading figures in the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the group keen to militarily overthrow Saddam. Miller relied on untested defectors� testimonies (usually provided by Chalabi) to write several front-page stories on this information. Michael Massing from Columbia Journalism Review suggestsher stories were �far too reliant on sources sympathetic to the (Bush) administration”.

“Those with dissenting views � and there were more than a few � were shut out.�

For example, the NYT reported in 2003 on Iraq�s supposed mobile weapons labs, after an announcement by Secretary of State Colin Powell on February 5, 2003 to the UN Security Council. Sourced by Chalabi, this information was given by a defector. It soon emerged that US investigators had not interrogated this person, yet it published in NYT as fact. (Some months later, experts agreed the labs were for civilian use). It is therefore unsurprising that an increasing number of American citizens came to see the war on Iraq as a necessary step on the US�s so-called �War on Terror�.

The Washington Post confirmed on March 5, 2004 that:

�U.S. officials are trying to get access to the Iraqi engineer to verify his story … particularly because intelligence officials have discovered that he is related to a senior official in Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, a group of Iraqi exiles who actively encouraged the United States to invade Iraq.�

And in an interview with London�s Telegraph in early February 2004, Chalabi claimed his pre-war intelligence�s accuracy was no longer relevant:

�We are heroes in error … As far as we’re concerned we’ve been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We’re ready to fall on our swords if he wants.”

How much of this explosive information was plastered across the front pages of the Australian media? The major source of American intelligence on Iraq�s supposed threat claims to be �heroes in error� and our media ignores the revelation.

When Bush, Blair or Howard released dossiers of supposed proof in 2002 and 2003 of Iraq�s WMD, the newspapers dutifully reported its contents and generally accepted its findings. As with so much propaganda, when information is spoken or channeled by establishment figures, our media takes it at face value. Dissenters or questioners of government power are never given the same treatment. This is because Western media generally likes to propagate the myth that Western governments are generally benign and out to do positive in the world, with any �mistakes� being rare aberrations. Our elected officials would never commit war crimes in our name, surely? (The New Yorker�s Seymour Hersh reported the battles between the Bush administration and intelligence officials in October 2003.)

An unnamed US State Department Official said in early February 2003, in relation to Chalabi�s claims in the run up to the Iraq War, that:

�What Chalabi told us we accepted in good faith. Now there is going to be a lot of question marks over his motives.�

Accepted in good faith. Trawling through the archives, I cannot find one journalist claiming that any of his or her intelligence sources were based on �good faith�. When writing about Iraq�s WMD arsenal, reporters from the major newspapers wrote with certainty and clarity. No equivocation. No hesitation.

Judith Miller, �embedded� during the war with the US Army’s 75th Mobile Exploitation Team searching for Iraq�s elusive WMD, reported in The Age on April 22, 2003 that “a scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq’s chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began.�

This �scientist� source was never mentioned again, and The Age has never printed a correction to this misinformation. Indeed, the NYT has never apologised for any of Miller�s stories.

Is there not a responsibility to acknowledge that one of your senior reporters got so many of her Iraq stories wrong? Apparently newspapers hope their readers have very short memories.

In a further indication of the corruption of the reporting on Iraq�s WMD, US based news service Knight Ridder reported in March 2004:

�The former Iraqi exile group that gave the Bush administration exaggerated and fabricated intelligence on Iraq also fed much of the same information to newspapers, news agencies and magazines in the United States, Britain and Australia … A June 26, 2002 letter from the Iraqi National Congress to the (US) Senate Appropriations Committee listed 108 articles based on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress�s information Collection Program, a US funded effort to collect intelligence in Iraq.�

How many of those 108 stories were republished in Australian newspapers, and how many of them contained misleading or outright untrue information? How many were corrected when the truthful information finally became available? And how did these false news stories contribute to the general public�s feelings about our involvement in the invasion?

***

Who is Judith Miller? According to a report in Editor and Publisher by William E. Jackson Jr., she is �not a neutral, nor an objective journalist�:

�This can be acceptable, if you’re a great reporter, �but she ain’t, and that’s why she’s a propagandist,� stated one old New York Times hand…�

Regarded as a neo-conservative with a deep sympathy for the Bush administration�s agenda and a vocal supporter of Saddam�s overthrow, Miller has close links with the pro-Israeli camp, some of whom have channelled Israeli intelligence through her work. (Many groups and individuals sharing the Sharon perspective have long championed taking out Saddam and fed US intelligence and journalists information leading to the conclusion that Saddam was a grave threat to the world and the Jewish state.)

Miller�s reporting on Iraq�s WMD was constantly flawed and yet her senior editors gave her carte blanche to continue being the main conduit through these serious issues were covered in the NYTimes. Indeed, her transgressions make the Jayson Blair fiasco seem relatively minor. (Blair was a young, black Times journalist exposed as a serial liar and plagiarist. He recently wrote a book of his experiences titled ‘Burning Down My Master�s House’.)

Senior editors at the NYT still claim that Miller delivered many world exclusives on Iraq�s WMD. The problem was most of them were incorrect, frequently sourced to unchecked defectors or suspect intelligence. William Jackson gives an example:

�The �Madam Smallpox� article of last Dec. 3 [2002], for example, turned out to be one of the worst cases. As Dafna Linzer of the Associated Press has written, the alleged 1990 transfer of the virus to Iraq never took place. The idea of an especially virulent strain of smallpox, to which Miller gave so much credibility, has been generally discounted in the scientific community. Talk to scientists in the field, as I have done recently, and they will tell you that Miller is inaccurate and that she doesn’t really understand the processes.�embedded� during the war with the US Army’s 75th Mobile Exploitation Team, searching for Iraq�s elusive WMD.

“Her smallpox article was a piece of structured propaganda from start to finish, based on a single source making allegations to the CIA. As one Times source told me: ‘There were more red flags on this story than in Moscow on May Day.’ In fact, the Times over time have ignored multiple warnings from senior staff (and colleagues such as Baghdad based John Burns) about Miller’s reporting.�

Then in May 2003, The Washington Post discovered an internal email between Burns and Miller (The Sydney Morning Herald ran this story in brief in May). Burns was incensed that Miller was writing a piece on Chalabi and hadn�t run the information past him. Miller acknowledged that the vast majority of her sources came from Chalabi:

�I’ve been covering Chalabi for about 10 years, and have done most of the stories about him for our paper, including the long takeout we recently did on him. He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper.�

While Miller was �embedded� with the US army searching for Iraq�s WMD, Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post reported on May 26, 2003:

�In an April 21 [2003] front-page story, she [Miller] reported that a leading Iraqi scientist claimed Iraq had destroyed chemical and biological weapons days before the war began, according to the Alpha team. She said the scientist had �pointed to several spots in the sand where he said chemical precursors and other weapons material were buried’.

�Behind that story was an interesting arrangement. Under the terms of her accreditation, Miller wrote, �this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials. Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted.�

�Since then, no evidence has surfaced to support these claims and the Alpha team is preparing to leave Iraq without having found weapons of mass destruction.�

Again, the Times have never printed an apology or correction of this story. How many newspapers around the world republished Miller�s articles as gospel? Andrew Rosenthal, assistant managing editor for foreign news at the Times, was quoted last May as �completely comfortable� with Miller�s reporting, because �all the information was attributed to MET Alpha [Miller�s �embedded� unit], not ‘senior U.S. officials’ or some other vague formulation.�

Rosenthal�s reasoning makes no sense. MET Alpha Unit was searching for Iraq�s WMD on information supplied by Chalabi�s Iraqi National Congress. MET Alpha and the US Government are hardly separate entities, but were guided by similarly misleading information. Heroes in error, indeed. (Slate has more on the motivations of Chalabi.)

In the March 8, 2004 edition of Newsweek, reporter Christopher Dickey explained the power of Chalabi in Iraq:

(He) is now head of the Governing Council’s economic and finance committee. As such he has overseen the appointment of the minister of oil, the minister of finance, the central bank governor, the trade minister, the head of the trade bank and the designated managing director of the largest commercial bank in the country.�

If Miller and the NYT were used by Chalabi to push his �certainties� on Iraq�s WMD, he has ended up a winner while the Times� reputation has taken a battering.

Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service offers an explanation for Miller’s and the Times� behaviour in February this year. And Derek Seidman wrote in Counterpunch in February this year that he’d seen Miller speak at a public forum in the US where she was quizzed over her reporting on WMD, reliance on Chalabi and ideological beliefs.

�Yes, she at last admitted, the US has supported repressive regimes, ‘and we did so in the context of a Cold War we had to win’. Foreign policy is not fun, she angrily informed us, and sometimes one needs to choose between two evils. If we didn’t do what we had done in the Middle East, it could now be “a whole region of Irans”, and how would we like that?”

Jack Shafer wrote in Slate last July that a thorough examination of Miller is required:

�The most important question to unravel about Judith Miller’s reporting is this: Has she grown too close to her sources to be trusted to get it right or to recant her findings when it’s proved that she got it wrong? Because the Times sets the news agenda for the press and the nation, Miller’s reporting had a great impact on the national debate over the wisdom of the Iraq invasion. If she was reliably wrong about Iraq’s WMD, she might have played a major role in encouraging the United States to attack a nation that posed it little threat.� (And see Shafer�s follow-up article.)

***

Small changes may be afoot. In late 2003, the NYT and The Washington Post outlined more stringent guidelines for anonymous sourcing (The Sydney Morning Herald is finalising similar guidelines.) But little appears to have changed in practice.

So what has Miller learnt from this episode, if anything? The Columbia Journalism Review reported:

�On May 20 [2003], Miller gave the commencement speech at Barnard College, her alma mater. She urged the graduates to be skeptical about the given reasons for the war on Iraq, and particularly of government claims about WMD. About embedding, she said that journalists �need to draw conclusions about whether journalistic objectivity was compromised . . . whether the country’s interests were best served by this arrangement.��

Coming from the woman (and the newspaper) that did more than most to bolster the Bush administration�s case against Saddam on the basis of his WMD, she seems oblivious to the ongoing problems. A mea culpa would be a wonderful start.

With journalists increasingly desperate for a scoop and the page one lead, government officials offering �exclusive� material would often be too hard to resist. Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, working under seven US Presidents. In an interview on June 26, 2003 McGovern revealed the way in which the Bush administration used the major media outlets to push their case for war:

. “They [the Bush administration] looked around after Labor Day [2002] and said, ‘OK, if we�re going to have this war, we really need to persuade Congress to vote for it. How are we going to do that? Well, let�s do the al Qaeda-Iraq connection. That�s the traumatic one. 9/11 is still a traumatic thing for most Americans. Let�s do that.’

“But then they said, ‘Oh damn, those folks at CIA don�t buy that, they say there�s no evidence, and we can�t bring them around. We�ve tried every which way and they won�t relent. That won�t work, because if we try that, Congress is going to have these CIA wimps come down, and the next day they�ll undercut us. How about these chemical and biological weapons? We know they don�t have any nuclear weapons, so how about the chemical and biological stuff? Well, damn. We have these other wimps at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and dammit, they won�t come around either. They say there�s no reliable evidence of that, so if we go up to Congress with that, the next day they�ll call the DIA folks in, and the DIA folks will undercut us.’

So they said, ‘What have we got? We�ve got those aluminum tubes!’ The aluminum tubes, you will remember, were something that came out in late September, the 24th of September. The British and we front-paged it [ed: Judith Miller wrote the Times story]. These were aluminum tubes that were said by Condoleeza Rice as soon as the report came out to be only suitable for use in a nuclear application. This is hardware that they had the dimensions of. So they got that report, and the British played it up, and we played it up. It was front page in the New York Times. Condoleeza Rice said, ‘Ah ha! These aluminum tubes are suitable only for uranium-enrichment centrifuges.’

(For more on the Bush administration�s appropriation of the media pre March 2003, see Maureen Farrell�s analysis.) Columbia Journalism Review�s Michael Massing asked Judith Miller why so much of her reports on WMD were incorrect and distorted:

�My job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers what the government thought of Iraq’s arsenal.�

Massing responded that �many journalists would disagree with this; instead they would consider offering an independent evaluation of official claims [as] one of their chief responsibilities�.

Massing noted that a number of smaller American news organizations such as Knight Ridder did investigate rumblings inside the intelligence communities of the Bush administration�s bellicose pronouncements on Saddam�s arsenal, but because these services didn�t have major outlets in Washington or New York, these stories were frequently ignored by the NYT and the Post.)

***

Russ Baker wrote in The Nation in June 2003 that Miller�s skills as a journalist are impressive:

�Each time Miller produces an article that could induce panic, she almost always mentions, some paragraphs down, that Al Qaeda’s capability to deploy or develop these types of weapons has been judged by the Bush Administration to be crude at best. But the effect remains the same. Miller gets a story with a whopper of a headline, the story gets picked up and it connects with the American zeitgeist in support of extreme measures by the Administration domestically (Patriot Act) and internationally (invade Iraq), with few reading down to where Miller deflates the balloon and thereby preserves her credibility, in the same way that politicians leak and spin while preserving their deniability.�

Baker argues that the American media star system allowed somebody like Miller to get away with wild accusations because she has become a source people trusted due to her high-level governmental connections and high profile:

�A Miller appearance with CNBC’s Brian Williams during the pre-invasion propaganda campaign shows how the game is played. Here’s the intro:

�Page one in this morning’s New York Times, a report by Judith Miller that Iraq has ordered a million doses of an anti-germ warfare antidote. The assumption here is that Iraq is preparing to use such weapons….

Williams: Iraq’s attempt to buy large quantities of the antidote in question was first reported by veteran New York Times correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller in this morning’s edition of the newspaper. She is also, by the way, author of the recent book on terrorism called Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War. And she is with us from the Times newsroom in New York tonight.�

***

A handful of Australian journalists questioned the rush to war pushed by Blair, Bush and Howard, including Richard Glover, Alan Ramsey, Brian Toohey and Marion Wilkinson. Far too many, however, accepted and pushed government propaganda on Saddam�s supposed arsenal of WMD. As Massing says, it takes a brave person to argue against the status quo and give prominence to dissenting voices.

Courageous reporters need to be supported by media organisations. Editors need to listen more intently to dissenting voices. Government sources need to be more thoroughly scrutinised.

Following the example set by UK based media watchdog medialens, I encourage readers to write to the NYT asking why Judith Miller�s stories have received little or no scrutiny. Ask why her long-held connections to Chalabi haven�t been acknowledged. Ask why the paper hasn�t examined their pre-war reporting on WMD and printed corrections for the litany of mistakes. Ask why unnamed government sources are continually allowed to plant unsubstantiated information in leading articles.

FURTHER READING:

* Former CIA agent, Ray McGovern, set up a group before the Iraq war called the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity aimed at debunking the Bush administration�s spin on WMD. It received little media coverage.

* The Guardian features a number of key players in the Iraq debate before and after the Iraq war, including Hans von Sponeck, ex-UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, Noam Chomsky and Iraqi doctors, journalists and citizens.

* Many Iraqi bloggers have sprung up since the fall of Saddam, including afamilyin baghdad and riverbendblog

* Christopher Allbritton, a former AP and New York Daily News reporter, decided to visit Iraq to report on the run-up to the war. He started his own blog and became �the world�s first fully reader funded journalist blogger�.

MEDIA BRIEFS

* Moveon.org is a US based grassroots organisations dedicated to democracy, human rights and the anti-war movement. It is now partly funded by George Soros. It’s current tV advertisement about Donald Rumsfeld is at censure.

* Rupert Murdoch held a major conference for his staff in Cancun, Mexico last weekend. Invited guests and speakers included the British Tory leader, Michael Howard and Condoleeza Rice. See The Guardian

***

aloewenstein@f2network.com.au

Putting meat on the bone of Latham’s ‘New Politics’

March 23, 2004 Margo Kingston Leave a comment

G�day. Amid Tony Abbott�s �Honest Politics Trust� scandal in September 2003, I wrote in We want convincing pollies � honest:

�I reckon Abbott’s invented the slogan for Labor at the next election, if Labor is brave enough to grasp the opportunity: “Honest Politics.” Every time we see Abbott and Howard, we know they don’t stand for that. Labor’s job is to convince the Australian people that it, at last, is for it, and will take significant policy action to work towards that goal.�

Since he became Labor leader in December, Latham has been building his credentials to run an honest politics, power-to-the-people election campaign against Howard. He started with style � speaking plainly and wandering around NSW in a bus addressing town meetings open to all comers. On policy, he�s announced a ban on tobacco company donations to Labor, floated the idea of appointing an independent Speaker to run proceedings in the House of Representatives and last week gave a speech outlining more honesty policy. His censure of Howard on the Keelty affair in Parliament yesterday was replete with references to the need for truth in politics.

Today in Parliament, Labor instigated debate on the government�s growing avoidance of disclosure of material under freedom of information laws to highlight Labor�s promise to strengthen the law, one of Liberal Prime Minister�s Malcolm Fraser�s greatest legacies to accountable government in Australia. The government�s counter attack pointed to the NSW Labor government�s equally appalling record on honesty, transparency and accountability. It�s a great point � one I discussed in The sneaky theft of people power – and Latham has to convince voters in NSW he is different from his bovver boy NSW colleagues and will not collude with them if he wins office.

Latham will also need to do more on the policy front, and he’s clearly listening to Carmen Lawrence � she set out a comprehensive plan to improve our Parliament in Ideas to save our withering democracy.

What would Latham�s standards of ministerial conduct be, and how would he ensure they don�t become the sick farce Howard�s have? I had some ideas in Crean’s new Labor: A chance to change:

�I’d like to see Crean (the then leader) set out a covenant with the Australian people. I’d like him to promise that, if elected Prime Minister, he would be honest with the Australian people and would always ask, in the words of HIH Royal Commissioner Neville Owen, “What is right?” when addressing policy issues. In other words, that he would see his role as leading Australia in the public interest, not as a mere dealmaker or mediator between competing interest groups. He’d promise to do what he believed was right to the limit of what was possible, and explain why in clear, non-partisan terms.

�John Howard’s ministerial code of conduct, a key promise in his 1996 election win, quickly collapsed, partly because most ministers didn’t read it, let alone take it seriously. Crean could learn that lesson by sending each shadow minister to ethics training from the St James Ethics Centre, where they could confidentially discuss their financial affairs, seek guidance on how to handle conflicts of interest, and get a grounding in the responsibilities and duties of a minister.

�Howard’s code also suffered from being too “black letter” in its formulation, opening the way for a vulture-like media to force its first resignation – that of assistant treasurer Jim Short – over a technical breach lacking any substance. Ethics are ideals to aspire to. Mistakes can and are made without bad intent. It is honourable to admit them quickly and move on. Crean could promise that in government, an independent person of honour and experience would be appointed to act as confidential adviser and mentor to ministers, ministerial staffers and backbenchers on ethical questions. He could even – if he was very, very brave – delegate to the independent person the power to decide whether or not a minister in breach of his ethical duties should resign, be counselled, apologise to the Australian people, or have a stint in the sin bin.

�Rebuilding ethics in government, business and the professions is fundamental to Australia’s future. Howard’s government has no credibility to demand ethical behaviour from business and the professions given its record. Australians believe virtually noone with power can be trusted with it.

�A radical ethical government policy would set the foundation for a Labor government to assert the moral authority to lift standards across the nation. And for a government, a little bit of community trust is a big help in getting acceptance for new policy and in creating energy in ordinary people to hop in and do their bit for their society.

�I’d like to see Crean experiment with portfolio titles and responsibilities in his reshuffle, to emphasise issues of trust and bottom-up government. For example, he could appoint a shadow minister for ethical government, with responsibility for putting together a comprehensive plan to nurture an ethical Labor government.�

And will Latham clean up our political donation disclosure laws so both parties don�t drive a truck through them as they�re doing now? We�ll see.

The sham of our disclosure laws were exposed during the Honest Politics Trust scandal, and this month the Senate set up an inquiry to examine the matter. Submissions close on April 8, so go for it � a letter or email is sufficient, and you can also offer to give oral evidence.

Here�s Latham�s speech.

***

The new politics

by Mark Latham

La Trobe Politics Society Annual Lecture, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 19 March 2004

Throughout my 10 years in Federal Parliament one thing has always puzzled me. Why don’t more MPs talk openly about the loss of public trust and confidence in the political system? It’s as if, having become part of the system, nobody is allowed to talk about it.

Yet this is the number one issue facing our democracy today. If the people do not trust their elected representatives then the governance of our society is much weaker. People do not respond as well to government initiatives, the public’s interest and participation in politics starts to hollow-out and, over time, respect for the Rule of Law is diminished. Society itself is likely to be more fragmented and fractious.

Unfortunately, this is how many Australians now see the democratic process. They talk about politics with a cool anger and sense of frustration. They have a feeling that the system is far from genuine � that it has become too plastic and too contrived. That politics is more about convenience that conviction, more about posturing than problem-solving. That the democratic process has somehow divorced itself from the public interest.

We need to be honest � brutally so � about the seriousness of the problem. Anyone who has campaigned for public office knows what I’m talking about. If that’s not enough, then listen to talkback radio or read the letter pages of our newspapers. Or stand in any suburban shopping centre and ask people what they think about politics.

This is not a question of Labor or Liberal, Democrat or Green. None of us are without fault or responsibility. It’s a matter of facing up to the failings of the system and trying to find new ways of restoring public trust and confidence in it.

The responsibility for fixing our broken politics rests with all politicians. But I believe that social democrats have a special responsibility.

More than any other political movement, we have a belief in the power of social reform by democratic means. Our belief in the capacity of human reason and progress to create a fairer society. Our conviction that parliamentary democracy is the most likely and effective means by which this goal can be achieved. If the public does not trust the political system then our task is made doubly difficult. We not only need to convince the electorate of the merit of our reforms but also, that the political process itself can make a difference. Without trust in public life, there can be no meaningful reform.

Our Tory opponents, of course, don’t believe in the potential of good government to improve society. They have no ambitions for Australia beyond the status quo. They don’t have a stake in repairing our broken politics � but Labor does.

Through self-sacrifice we must show people that service of the public is a life-building motivation. Through a new politics we must show the electorate that there are good reasons to believe in democracy and the social good it can produce.

This is why I regard democratic reform as a mainstream political issue. This is why I have placed it at the forefront of my Labor Party leadership. Many great things need to be done for Australia � rebuilding Medicare, creating educational opportunities, protecting the environment � but their potential will not be realised if the Parliament is weak and our democracy is shallow.

Today I want to outline the pathway to a new politics, a program of reform to give the Australian people greater access to the political system and good reason to trust in it. Our program of democratic renewal relies on four principles:

 More open government

 Higher ethical standards

 Greater public participation

 And comprehensive Parliamentary reform.

Open Government

Throughout my time in politics I’ve always believed in open government. My first campaign for public office was in 1987, seeking election to my local Council in south-west Sydney. I ran on a platform of open government � the introduction of precinct committees and freedom of information, based on the model pioneered by Ted Mack at North Sydney Council.

After the election I sat down with the senior Council staff to talk about the implementation of these policies. One of them said to me: “You want to bring the people out there into the workings of the Council. But we’re better off if we look after each other inside the Council and keep them out!”. I had to explain that I represented �them’ and had a mandate to open up the Council to greater scrutiny and public participation.

This taught me an early lesson in public life. Too often our institutions operate like a club � the insiders look after each other’s interests at the expense of those outside the club. This is how the political process can separate itself from the public interest. Real power and access are concentrated in the club, leaving the public on the outside � disenfranchised and disillusioned.

This process also defies one of the most important trends in our society. With massive improvements in information technology, most citizens now have better access to information and a strong understanding of public issues. They are hungry to find out more and hold our public institutions to account. They expect the Information Age to be just that: a new age of access and information about all aspects of society, including government.

Far from meeting this expectation, the public sector is going backwards. Just look at the record of the Howard Government. There is always a missing piece to the puzzle, something it doesn’t tell the Australian people. From the children overboard scandal to WMD in Iraq, to its abuse of the Parliament and gutting of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, it habitually controls and manipulates public information.

Consistent with this approach, the Howard Government has downgraded Australia’s freedom of information laws. The Attorney General, Mr Ruddock, has described the primary purpose of FOI as “ensuring people can get access to information concerning their own affairs”. Public information and the public interest have been sidelined. So too the Treasurer, Mr Costello, has used a technical provision of the FOI Act � a series of conclusive certificates � to deny The Australian newspaper access to basic data on the First Homeowners Grant and bracket creep.

Today I can announce that a Labor Government will reform the Freedom of Information Act to make it more open and democratic. We want the legislation to reflect a pro-disclosure culture � that all government information should be made available, unless its release would cause substantial public harm.

Accordingly, we will amend the objects clause of the Act to create a pro-disclosure regime.

We will also ensure that the public interest test is applied more thoroughly and consistently. The information collected and created by public officers should be regarded as a national resource. It’s a waste if this material, developed at great public expense, is not available for public use.

Ministers shouldn’t be allowed, without any reason or explanation, to declare certain documents �secret’. That’s why Labor will abolish the use of conclusive certificates � other than for matters of national security or Cabinet-in-confidence. Ministers will still be able to refuse a request for information but they will have to argue why, not simply hide behind a certificate.

There are some types of material that should be protected for individual privacy or security reasons, but refusing to make information public because it might embarrass a Minister is unacceptable. Labor will insert into the Act a clause ensuring that “embarrassment to the government” cannot be used as a reason for withholding information. As ever, the public has got the right to know.

Ethical Standards

One of the disturbing aspects of the recent debate about parliamentary superannuation was the suggestion from senior Liberals, including Mr Costello, that some people go into politics for the money. If that’s the case then I say: go set up a company, go into business to make money, not into public life.

We need to rekindle the high ideals of community service. Those of us elected to public office have been given a great honour and privilege, well beyond any material benefit. That is, the honour and satisfaction that comes from helping other people. I’ve always believed that the best life is one lived in the service of others.

This is why � notwithstanding the current cynicism about politics � we should be proud to call ourselves politicians. The task is not to change our vocation in life but to change the way in which we present our work to the public. A good starting point is austerity in office, bringing Parliamentary entitlements closer to community standards. In terms of personal finances and lifestyle, I believe that Members of Parliament should have a clear affinity with the constituency they represent. This is why I have foreshadowed action to:

 Close the parliamentary superannuation scheme to new members; and

 Cap the superannuation entitlements of existing senior office-holders in Parliament.

I’ve also given my commitment that, as Prime Minister, I will live in just one piece of public housing � The Lodge in Canberra � and Kirribilli House will be returned to public use.

Labor is also committed to greater transparency and accountability in public office. This is why we plan to:

 Establish an independent Auditor of Parliamentary Allowances and Entitlements to investigate breaches of the entitlement guidelines;

 Impose a 12 month ban on former Ministers taking up paid employment and consultancies with companies in areas relevant to their responsibilities as Ministers; and

 Require all government advertising to meet strict Auditor-General guidelines to ensure it is necessary for the purposes of government, rather than party political purposes.

Today I can also announce that in office Labor will legislate for the registration of lobbyists. The public deserves to know about the work of lobbyists and how, on behalf of certain corporations and interest groups, they try to influence the decisions of the Federal Parliament and Government. Transparency is important when people are paid to get the inside running in a democracy.

Registration will involve disclosure of the names of their clients, companies or associations and a regular update on the Federal public office holders who have been lobbied. Labor will also introduce a Code of Conduct governing the industry � with a provision for the deregistration of lobbyists who breach the code. All of this information will be publicly available on the Internet.

Public Participation

I mentioned earlier my hope that more MPs will focus on the need for democratic reform. One politician who has been tackling this issue is Carmen Lawrence, the directly elected National President of the ALP. I commend her speeches and papers on this subject to you.

When the Labor Party decided to directly elect its President, the usual sceptics said that it would not work. In fact, it has been a successful exercise in grassroots democracy � empowering our rank-and-file members to have a say in how the Party is run.

In our busy society � with the pressures of work, family and community � people are not likely to get involved in politics unless their participation is meaningful, unless they can directly influence public policy and the things happening around them. An information-rich society demands a participation-rich politics.

Democracy was founded on the idea that everyone should have a say in the decisions of government impacting on their lives. With the increased size of government, however, this system of direct democracy has been replaced by a corporatist state � where governments hear the views of sectional interest groups on a regular basis, often to the exclusion of the general public. This concentration of power has added to the public’s distrust of politics.

Interest groups, of course, deserve their say. But when they start to monopolise the time of government, the process has gone too far. I believe we need to open up the corporatist club and substantially increase the level of public participation in modern politics. For democracies to flourish, people need to be actively involved, and not just on polling day.

As Opposition Leader I have been holding community forums around Australia � a return to the traditional town hall-style meeting where citizens can come along and have their say. And people have responded. They know that political campaigning has become too stage managed, too choreographed for the benefit of the media, rather than open to genuine community participation.

In government, we will hold regular Community Cabinet meetings and forums � a chance for Ministers and senior bureaucrats to get out of Canberra and talk to people in the suburbs and regions face-to-face. It is remarkable how easily governments, seduced by interest group politics and the isolation of Parliament House, can get out-of-touch. The Community Cabinet process is an effective check against this problem.

In other areas, especially the great national decisions of Australian identity and independence, I want the people themselves to determine the outcome. I want to give power away, transferring political influence from the powerful to the people. Let me give two examples of what this would mean in practice, drawn from the experience of the 1999 referendums.

I see the issue of an Australian Republic as not just a question of constitutional independence, but as a way of broadening our democracy � the essence of republicanism itself. This is why Labor will hold a series of plebiscites: direct voting to involve the Australian people at every stage of the process. Do we want to become a Republic and if so, by which constitutional model? Only when the people have determined these matters would a formal referendum be held.

The second referendum in 1999 concerned Mr Howard’s attempt to draft a new constitutional preamble. Given the scale of social change in recent decades, many people are interested in the issue of national identity. They want to talk openly and constructively about what it now means to be an Australian.

These issues can only be sorted out satisfactorily by an exchange of views between Australians themselves. The last thing the nation needed was for its Prime Minister to pre-empt such a debate by writing his own preamble.

The Federal Government should have sponsored a national dialogue about the modern meaning of Australian identity. It should have given every Australian a chance to have a say.

Every classroom should have been asked to debate the values important to young Australians. Every newspaper should have been asked to invite submissions from its readers. Every local government area should have been asked to conduct public forums and opinion surveys. Every household and library connected to the Internet should have been asked to join the debate on-line. Only by asking the people could the nation have had confidence in a new constitutional preamble.

During a time of social change and uncertainty, governments need to do more than frame laws and make decisions. They need to get the public involved in the many social issues we share in common. How do we answer the new challenges of citizenship and identity? How do we build stronger relationships and communities? How do we work together to provide opportunity but also demand social responsibility?

That’s my approach: if in doubt, let’s have more democracy, more direct voting, more public participation. As ever, real power comes from giving power away.

Parliamentary Reform

Our Parliamentary institutions also need to be reformed. In a world where information flows at a faster rate and people exchange views more frequently, many of the procedures of the Parliament appear anachronistic.

Legislative debates lack spontaneity and significance, with the results predetermined along party lines.

Question Time in the Parliament suffers from the farce of Dorothy Dix questions and Ministers obsessed with point-scoring, rather than problem solving. Most people who watch Question Time are struck by its artificiality and lopsided rules. Far from being a showcase of the Parliament, it is widely regarded as a public embarrassment.

I’m committed to comprehensive Parliamentary reform, starting with the appointment of an independent Speaker. This is something that Mr Howard promised in 1996 but failed to act on. In practice, it is the key to improving the Parliament. Without impartiality and a sense of public interest from the Chair, the chamber will continue to be bogged down with procedural points and grievances.

A Labor Government will also make the following improvements to the rules of the House:

 Questions Without Notice will be limited to one minute in duration and answers limited to four minutes.

 The practice of allowing supplementary questions will be re-introduced and limited to one minute in duration with the answer also limited to one minute.

 The Speaker will be empowered under the Standing Orders to require Ministers to not only be relevant but also to actually answer the question in full.

 Questions asking about “alternative policy positions” will be out of order, along with answers based on personal point-scoring.

 Fewer Dorothy Dixers will be allowed and more opportunities will be created for genuine backbench questions.

 Points of order will not be allowed during Question Time itself. They will only be able to be raised at the end of Question Time, in line with the practice in the House of Commons.

 Ministers will be required to answer Questions on Notice within 30 days.

 Parliamentary Committees will be given increased powers, including the power to refer matters to themselves for inquiry.

 And, finally, the Independent Speaker will have a new power to make rulings on whether Ministers have misled the House.

These rulings will not be binding on the government but they will create pressure for higher Ministerial standards. We need to restore the fundamental principle of honesty in the House of Representatives.

Conclusion

This is a comprehensive program of democratic reform. I am confident that it will make our political system more responsive and open to the Australian people. Most of all, I hope it gives them new reasons to believe in public life and the possibilities of public progress.

Politics today is like a permanent campaign, with both sides jostling for public advantage on a daily basis. In this sort of environment, politicians are at risk of losing sight of the great problem-solving traditions of democracy � that issues are more important than image. That substance matters more than spin. That a positive contribution to the debate counts for more than negativity and partisanship.

In this election year, I want to ensure that we don’t lose sight of the need to reform politics itself. This is an agenda above and beyond party politics and the next campaign. It concerns the finest of all democratic ideals: a strong and trusting relationship between the people and the people’s representatives. One hundred years ago Australian was known internationally as a laboratory for democratic reform. I want us to regain this reputation � a world leader in open, participatory government. I want this to be the trademark of the next Labor Government.

Now, of course, there will be sceptics � commentators who will say that this is the sort of thing Oppositions always talk about. But they said the same thing about Parliamentary superannuation � that no party would move first to close the scheme.

In public life, it is always good to prove the sceptics wrong. And when it comes to democratic reform, that’s exactly what I’ll do. I got the mail through on Parliamentary super. And in government, I’ll be doing the same, the same dedication to reform, to give the Australian people a new politics.

Mark Latham goes for it on Iraq

March 22, 2004 Mark Latham Leave a comment

Mark Latham’s speech censoring John Howard for muzzling Mick Keelty last week.

I move:

That this House censures the Prime Minister for:

(1) political interference in the work of the Australian Federal Police, in an attempt to compromise the public standing and independence of its Commissioner;

(2) failing to rule out further political interference with the Australian Federal Police in the future; and

(3) jeopardising Australia�s national security by playing politics with the Australian Federal Police, rather than putting Australia�s national security first.

This is a desperate government led by a desperate Prime Minister who will say and do anything to get himself out of trouble, even muzzling and trying to humiliate the head of the Australian Federal Police. What happened to Mr Mick Keelty last week was an absolute national disgrace that compromised the role and independence of Australia�s chief law enforcement officer. Even worse, it compromised the integrity of those who purport to make Australia�s national security policy. It compromised the right of the Australian people to know the truth during these troubled these times and to know the truth about the threat to Australia and the foreign policy failings of the Howard government.

And what was Mick Keelty�s sin at the end of the day? His sin was nothing more than honesty. His sin, in the eyes of this Prime Minister, was nothing more than telling the truth.

What was it that drove the Prime Minister to reach for the phone and tell his chief of staff to get on the phone and harangue and complain to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police?

What was it that was so offensive to this Prime Minister that came from the mouth of Mick Keelty on that Sunday morning? This is what the Commissioner had to say on the Sunday program on 14 March. He said:

“The reality is, if this turns out to be Islamic extremists responsible for this bombing in Spain, it�s more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq.”

That is all: the simple, plain truth�simple, plain honesty in what the commissioner would have thought were the best interests of the Australian people.

And it is the truth that the Australian people themselves understand. If you went to any shopping centre in this country and read those words out, people would say, �That is a statement of the obvious.� If you went to any playgroup around Australia and read those words out, people would say, �Well, that�s fair enough. That is a totally unremarkable thing for someone like the Australian Federal Police Commissioner to say.� If you went to any workplace in the country, they would say, in Australian language, �Oh, Mick Keelty�s being fair dinkum. He�s being fair dinkum. He�s calling it as he sees it. He is doing nothing more than that.� Yet this was the thing that was so offensive to the Prime Minister.

The commissioner had not even left the green room � he had barely got his make-up off�before he received the haranguing, complaining call from the Prime Minister�s chief of staff.

And what was it that was so offensive to this government? Well, Commissioner Keelty said it himself in the same interview a few sentences later. He said:

… I think there�s a level of honesty that has to exist here in terms of what the problems are … not only in Australia but in our region.

That is the thing that this Prime Minister finds so offensive. That is what has driven him to harangue and try to publicly humiliate the Police Commissioner: a level of honesty he has not got himself and has not got in the attitudes and policies of this government.

The truth is that Mick Keelty has earned the right to speak publicly on these matters. He more than any other Australian has earned the right to speak honestly about these matters. He is a fine police officer respected right around the country. He played a magnificent role in the Bali investigation�a magnificent role in every respect. He is indeed one of our national champions, and he did not deserve to be treated this way by a government that did not like the truth, that did not like honesty, that wanted to put its own narrow political interests ahead of Australia�s national interested, and that wanted to play politics with Australia�s national security.

It is a level of honesty that has offended the Prime Minister, but, quite frankly, it is no great surprise in this place, because this is a Prime Minister who finds it hard to handle the truth. We know that from the kids overboard; we know that from the ethanol scandal; we know that from the ministerial scandals that have led to the junking of the code of conduct; and we know that from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It is a pattern of behaviour by this Prime Minister. With this Prime Minister there is always a missing piece to the puzzle; there is always something that he never tells the Australian people. He is always loose with the truth. That is the defining characteristic of his prime ministership and the way in which his government tries to run national security: always loose with the truth.

In this case, it was something that he did not want Commissioner Keelty to say to the Australian people � not something that was surprising the Australian people, not something that they would have regarded as out of the ordinary, but something that he did not want Commissioner Keelty to tell the Australian people � and that is that, while Australia was a target at the time of September 11, the government�s policy on Iraq has made things worse.

That is the thing that this Prime Minister did not want the Australian people to be told by the commissioner: that, while Australia was a target at the time of September 11, his government�s policy on Iraq has made things worse.

The Prime Minister did not want the truth out there publicly, so he attempted to muzzle and disparage the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. Within minutes of the commissioner being on the program, the Prime Minister reacts, his gut instinct: �Let�s cover up the truth. Let�s try and manipulate the situation, manipulate the information for narrow political advantage.�

It is the reflex action of someone who has been in politics too long, playing an old style of manipulating and trying to control the truth and the flow of information at any cost. So he is straight on the blower to his chief of staff and within moments the chief of staff calls, complains and harangues the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to try and make him retract, to try and make him toe the government line. He had not even left the green room.

And by Tuesday the commissioner had been forced into a so-called clarifying statement about which we are still trying to get answers. Was it urged and perhaps even written in the Prime Minister�s office? These are the questions the Prime Minister would not answer in question time today.

In fact, it is a funny thing: I read in Alan Ramsey�s column on Saturday in the Sydney Morning Herald a more revealing account of what happened straight out of the Prime Minister�s press office than what the Prime Minister gave the parliament today. What has happened to our democracy when there is a higher level of accountability in an Alan Ramsey column on a Saturday than from the Australian Prime Minister in question time in the House of Representatives? This is what Ramsay wrote:

“And when this column phoned Howard�s senior staff spokesman, Tony O�Leary, later that day, he confirmed Sinodinos had phoned Keelty about the Iraq remark – a “potential media problem”, he called it – and said Sinodinos had made the call only after a “conversation” with Howard.

There is greater accountability from Alan Ramsey in the Sydney Morning Herald on a Saturday morning tossed on your front lawn than from the Australian Prime Minister in question time in the House of Representatives.

This is political interference with an independent statutory officer. This is political interference of the worst kind with the top law enforcement officer in the land.

I have got to say this � and all Australians know it: politics has no place in the management of Australia�s national security. Politics has no place in trying to keep the Australian people safe and sound from the threat of terrorism. This should be about the national interest, not the narrow political interests of a Prime Minister who has been around too long and whose reflex action is to try and manipulate and control the information rather than have the truth out there available to the Australian people.

This is a government of control freaks that has gotten well and truly out of control.

Their first tactic, of course, was to disparage, to criticise and to try and run down the credibility of the Police Commissioner. On the Monday, the Prime Minister was out there implying that Mr Keelty did not know what he was talking about. This is what the Prime Minister said:

“There is a difference between the intelligence judgments that are brought to bear in relation to these organisations and the operational functions of police commissioners and police forces.”

He nods his head in agreement. Why then, Prime Minister, has the Attorney-General placed the following answer in the Hansard today? The Attorney-General has said in answer to a question from the member for Barton that Australian Federal Police officers seconded to the National Threat Assessment Centre will be:

“… fully integrated NTAC analysts and as such, will be directly responsible for the preparation of threat assessments.”

That appears in the Hansard today, which directly contradicts the Prime Minister�s statement last Monday when he said that the Police Commissioner and his organisation are not involved in intelligence judgments. No, they are involved in the preparation of threat assessment on the admission of the Attorney-General in the House Hansard today. After Bali and after the outstanding work of the Federal Police in Bali they received extra intelligence analysis that confirm the point that Mr Keelty was well-qualified and well capable of making these comments off his own bat; that he is well-qualified and well capable in the eyes of the Australian people in making these comments.

Then the campaign of criticism and disparagement of a good man, Mr Keelty, continued into the Tuesday. If you had to run a lottery, if you had to guess, about who was going to be the lowest of the low, of course, you would turn to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. When they need to go in for the low blow and when they need to go in for the lowest of all comments, they can always rely on the member for Mayo. This is what he said on Tuesday before the issue of the so-called clarification statement:

“I think he (Keelty)is just expressing … a view which reflects a lot of the propaganda we�re getting from al-Qaeda.

What a disgraceful thing to say about a good man. Here is Mick Keelty, a man who is dedicating his working life to stopping al-Qaeda, being compared by the foreign minister to al-Qaeda�s propaganda. And he is being compared by the foreign minister to their propaganda. You are a disgrace. You are a rotten lousy disgrace to say that about a good man � Mick Keelty. It is an absolutely shocking thing to do.

Mr Downer: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think, through previous precedents as well as commonsense, it is perfectly clear that for the Leader of the Opposition to descend to such a vile language as calling somebody a rotten lousy disgrace definitely demands a withdrawal. It is way over the top and is language that demeans this parliament.

The SPEAKER�The minister will resume his seat. If it is necessary for me to remove one of the people I have warned, including those on the frontbench on both sides, in order to get order I will do so. The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the reflection on the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr LATHAM�At your insistence, Mr Speaker, I will withdraw, but I do point out that I do regard it as a disgrace that the Minister for Foreign Affairs would compare Mick Keelty to the propaganda we are getting from al-Qaeda. That is a disgrace, and it should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. This is someone who has dedicated his working life to stopping al-Qaeda and he ends up being compared to their propaganda by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It is indicative of a government of control freaks�muzzling and disparaging comment that was all about a statement of the obvious. The only sin that has been committed by the Police Commissioner is the sin of truth in the eyes of the government. He got outside the Liberal Party line. He got outside the Liberal Party line and they are still at it. They have not learnt from the experience of last week.

There was the Attorney-General on the Meet the Press program yesterday being asked whether the public has a right to see the Police Commissioner as an independent figure, not just like any other public servant and to surely be able to hear from him direct. The Attorney-General says, no, the Australian Federal Police Commissioner has no right, no public role; he is just an adviser to the government with no independent role and he has spoken directly to the Australian people.

That is unlike every single Police Commissioner in this country. Independent statutory officers have the right to speak directly to the Australia people on matters of concern when it lies within their judgment.

The great irony in this is that it is all about the government�s decision to send Australia to war in Iraq, and they did that in the name of freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy was the justification this government gave for going to war in Iraq. Yet now the Commissioner, Mr Keelty, has not got the freedom to speak publicly in his own country. They have denied him the basic democratic freedom of speaking his mind directly and honestly to the Australian people. It is an absolute disgrace and it is being condemned by police commissioners and former commissioners around the country.

Why is it that this government has so much trouble facing up to the reality of its Iraq policy? Australia was a target on September 11, but the government�s decision-making in relation to Iraq has made the situation worse. We know that the situation has worsened.

The member for Warringah, the Minister for Health�the third ranking Liberal in the House of Representatives�said prior to the conflict: I have no doubt that there is a sense in which our actions have put us more clearly on the radar screen of terrorists.

Why is it so hard for the government to acknowledge that truth when it came from the mouth of the Minister for Health�the third ranking Liberal in the House of Representatives�prior to the conflict? Then just last Tuesday, Paul Wolfowitz, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense�wouldn�t you think he knew something about it?�and one of the architects of the war in Iraq said:

“So Spain has been a real standup country, and I suppose maybe that�s one of the reasons why they came under attack.”

So this is a truth that is acknowledged around the globe by people on the conservative side of politics, but it is not a truth that this Prime Minister will allow Commissioner Keelty to utter on national TV for the benefit and information of the Australian people.

It is a truth that has been repeated in this country by Ken Moroney, the New South Wales Police Commissioner.

So why cannot the government face up to reality? Why is it that they always need to put politics into our national security?

Our national security in fact needs to be based on the truth. It needs to be based on an honest assessment. The truth is that the government did not go to war with Iraq for regime change �the Prime Minister said as much at the National Press Club on 13 March last year; they went to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction that do not appear to exist. It is a failure of intelligence and a failure of policy.

This was the side of politics, the neoconservative side, that said that they had one big thing to offer in the war against terror � the doctrine of pre-emption. It is a policy failure now barely mentioned � hidden away in the attic like a mad uncle. The doctrine of pre-emption is barely mentioned by any of the neoconservatives. All the rhetoric about the axis of evil � was their big neoconservative contribution to the war against terror and now they cannot stomach the truth. They cannot stomach the truth of their policy failings.

Having committed Australia for a core purpose that was not realised � a core purpose that was not true in Iraq � they now cannot stomach the truth when it comes from the mouth of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner.

The real truth, Prime Minister, is this: the war against terror is primarily an intelligence war. It is not a war primarily against nation states. We have to target the terrorists. In fact, the conflict in Iraq diverted resources away from that process of targeting the terrorists � Al Qaeda and bin Laden. The capacity of intelligence to track them down and do something about them is the key to winning the war against terror. It is not the folly of Iraq; it is not the errors that this government made in committing Australia to that conflict.

Now the government should simply accept the truth of what Commissioner Keelty has been saying � the truth that, sure, Australia was a target at the time of September 11 but the conflict and policy making for Iraq has made the situation even worse.

This is the thing that we need to appreciate. This is the reason why the Prime Minister should be censured by the House.

You cannot trust the Howard government with Australia�s national security. It is always playing politics, instead of putting the national interest first.

The Prime Minister�s actions have disgraced the high office that he holds. He should not put narrow political interest ahead of the national interest�never. That is never in the best interests of our great country, and he should be censured by this parliament accordingly.

A rotten lousy disgrace

March 22, 2004 Margo Kingston Leave a comment

Webdiarist Robert Lawton noted in a recent email that Latham was acting like a governor general. Above politics. Measured. Relaxed. Straight. So it�s a matter of heightened significance when he first chooses to go for the throat, and on what topic.

Who�d have thought it � the topic was national security at a time when the topic was as hot as.

For the first time since he became leader, Latham asked all the opposition�s questions today. They were all on one matter � the dealings between Howard and Mick Keelty last week after Keelty opined that Spain�s backing of the war on Iraq was a possible reason for the Madrid bombings.

Latham asked eight low key requests for information:

1. What did Howard�s chief of staff Arthur Sinodinis say to Keelty when he rang him, on Howard�s instructions, within minutes of the Sunday interview with Jana Wendt? Confidential.

2. What did Howard tell Sinodinis to say to Keelty? No comment.

3. Why didn�t the public have the right to know what the PM�s man said to Keelty in relation to PUBLIC statements by our chief law officer on a matter of grave national importance? No answer.

4. What was the involvement of Howard, his staff or his department in Keelty�s �clarification� statement two days later claiming he�d been taken �out of context� (By whom? Howard?) �I don�t intend to go into it.�

5. Did Howard�s office see any drafts of the statement? �There were discussions.�

6. Why wouldn�t Howard tell the people of Australia whether Howard or his office saw any drafts? No comment.

7. Did Howard expect the people of Australia to believe that Keelty drafted the statement alone? Howard said the police commissioner said it was �his statement�.

8. Keelty had also said in the interview that honesty was required at this time. Why was Keelty rebuked for expressing his honest opinion, and what guarantees could Howard give that senior public officers would not be �rebuked and shamed for simply telling the truth”? Howard said all exchanges between the government and Keelty had been �entirely proper�.

Latham could not have hoped for a better springboard to his first censure motion against the Prime Minister. Howard knew what was coming and just before he sat down after not answering eight questions in a row he said, �Bring it on.�

Latham did just that, seeking to censure Howard for political interference in the AFP compromising the standing and independence of our first law officer, refusing to rule out further interference, and compromising national security.

�His sin was nothing more than telling the truth�, a truth that has since been reinforced by no lesser figure than one of the US neo-conservative Iraq war architects, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz. �That�s what Howard finds so offensive�, that Keelty had �a level of honesty he has not got himself�.

You can see how Latham will stress this theme in the lead-up to the election. He cited kids overboard, ethanol and the Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were. �It�s a pattern of behaviour.”

“With this Prime Minister there is always a missing piece to the puzzle… He�s always loose with the truth.�

Latham has been building �honest politics� as a core theme to win Labor office for some time now, but this was the first time he�d dared take the issue to the heart of Howard�s core strength � trustworthiness on national security.

And then, the statement so many Australians have been waiting so long to hear from a Labor leader: Howard snuffed out Keelty because he said the unsayable, that Howard’s “policy on Iraq has made things worse”.

Yes! It�s the debate we�ve very nearly had for so long but that Labor has never persisted with. Howard�s decision was disastrous because invading Iraq would NOT make the world safer, but would make it more dangerous, and make life in Australia more dangerous too.

Latham reminded us that Tony Abbott had warned that invading Iraq would make us a bigger target for terrorism in a speech before the war, and that Howard had also carpeted him for telling the Australian people the truth. The truth was that Howard had capitulated to the US neocons� doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, now “hidden away in the attic like a mad uncle” since Iraq. Howard’s government “cannot stomach the truth of their policy failings”. Simple as that.

Latham then made what will � like in the pending US presidential election � become the key difference between the parties on national security � while Howard wants to fight ground wars on the American nod, Latham, echoing Democrats presidential candidate John Kerry, believes that �the war against terror is primarily an intelligence war…the conflict in Iraq diverted resources away from that process of targeting the terrorists � Al Qaeda and bin Laden.�.

Howard�s problem in the Keelty scandal, Latham said, was that he, like the former Spanish government after the Madrid bombing, had put his narrow political interest ahead of the national interest. �Politics has no place in the management of our national security.�

Latham loosened his lips too, for an assault on Alexander Downer, who�d claimed last week that Keelty was sprouting Al Qaeda propaganda. Downer was �a rotten lousy disgrace�. The heat is on, at last.

You could tell when Howard spoke. I�ve never seen him so jumpy, and so intent on standing sideways to address not only the opposition but also his own backbenchers. As he castigated a �red faced� Latham for insulting Downer, I looked at the faces of all three. Only one face was red, and it was that of John Howard, as red as the face he wore when Bob Brown interjected on George Bush.

Invading Iraq was �a decision I will never apologise for and never retreat from,” he thundered.

The battle is joined. Howard�s behaviour last week has given Latham the opportunity to become a winner on national security, using the most effective weapon there is against Howard � his lack of candour. He�s now got proof most Australians accept that Howard also stops his top officials telling the truth, allowing Latham to bleed credibility from the entire administration.

National security takes centre stage. Could Howard be a victim of his own wedge?

One year on, don’t mention the war

March 21, 2004 Margo Kingston Leave a comment

This is an extended version of my Sun Herald column, published yesterday.

Late last year while having coffee with a few Liberal backbenchers in Canberra, I mentioned the latest twist in the Iraq war. �But it�s over, isn�t it?� one replied. We looked at each other for a moment, scandalised. Later, the politician whispered in my ear,�I�m worried too.�

Perception and reality. Politics and truth. My guess is that the politician�s first response was based on the fact that the war wasn�t registering as a big issue with voters at the time. Howard had claimed victory early, welcoming home our troops as victors while their US and British colleagues remained to face death and mayhem. Australians had moved on, he pronounced.

Not true. Australians, most of whom opposed our participation in the war without UN backing, were thankful no Australian soldiers died and hoped for the best, despite our strong misgivings. Webdiarist Christian Wesely wrote:

�I�m an Austrian who spends several weeks each year with average Australians. Last year we walked Namibia in August and September and although locals referred to the ‘criminals’ Bush and Blair the name Howard didn’t escape from Australian lips once, and these were ALP inclined people! The talk was football and everything political seemed embarrassing. Australians try to hide their participation in the Iraq-war similar to Austria�s denial of its role during WW2.�

Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies because Saddam ran a secular nation, not an Islamic one. Yet last week, just before the war entered its second year, US military commanders admitted that resistance in Iraq was now dominated by Islamic fundamentalists, not Saddam loyalists. Great. Thanks to Bush and our PM, Al Qaeda is taking on the Americans in a war WE started and don�t know how to end and winning new recruits and new power through Muslim resentment at Western occupation of a Muslim country after an illegal war. In the battle for �hearts and minds� we�ve stuffed up big time.

Howard took us to war against a powerless nation on a lie to appease the Americans, after the top British intelligence body, the Joint Intelligence Committee, warned that invading Iraq would INCREASE the risk of terrorism, as it has. No wonder Howard squashed Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty for daring to be honest last Sunday.

Yes, Spain�s hardline support for Bush�s war despite the opposition of more than 90 percent of the Spanish people could well be linked to the attack. Keelty said. �There’s a level of honesty that has to exist here� not only in Australia but in our region.� But John Howard can�t afford to be honest, because he�d lose office for being dishonest before the war. So he pretends he told us the truth when he said the war would reduce terrorism and not make us a greater target, belittled Keelty � our frontline policeman against terror – and let Alexander Downer tag him a dupe of Al Qaeda propaganda. The spectacle of Howard�s hand picked Defence force chief Cosgrove jumping to attention to back Howard�s spin and disagree with Keelty�s honesty makes us feel even less safe. Suddenly Howard is not the �man of steel� we need, but, well, scary.

The Spanish people sacked a government which lied to them after their terrible tragedy by blaming local group ETA to save its skin. Times of national crisis require leaders who inspire trust, not spinners who so confuse self-interest with the national interest that they lie over the bodies of their citizens.

The cover of last week�s Economist magazine tells the story of the changed climate since Spain elected a bloke who promised to focus on the war on terror, not on backing Bush�s imperial ambitions whatever the cost to ordinary people.

Remember the Yanks� pack of cards with faces of their most wanted Iraqis? The cover is four Aces – Blair (hearts), Howard (diamonds), Bush (spades) and former Spanish leader Aznar (clubs), whose face is crossed out. The headline: �One down, four to go?�

Webdiary sizzled with reader comment this week, pro and anti war, as the Madrid atrocity forced many to engage again and try to work out the best way forward for our nation.

Shaun O�Brien wrote: “This is a war between those who hate the US and those who support/have similar cultures as the US and nothing more.”

Michael Grimes replied: �How simplistic is that? If we simply assume away the root causes of terrorism, we are left with no option but to pursue a policy of all-out war, which has been spectacularly unsuccessful so far.�

If you want to get up to speed on what�s happening in Iraq, I recommend the website of Michigan history professor and Iraq expert Juan Cole at www.juancole.com. As Webdiarist Jenny Green wrote this week: �We haven�t got a chance of sorting out this mess unless we all make the effort to understand what�s going on before we rush to fight it. The military knows this � the concept of studying your enemy is as old as history.�

***

READER QUOTE OF THE WEEK

John Carson: �We must balance two important attitudes. One is the steadfastness and determination without which we will not succeed in any difficult endeavour. The other is the critical reflection which causes us to examine whether our current efforts are likely to succeed or whether a change of approach is needed. Too much single minded determination makes us stupid, unable to adapt and find alternatives to failed strategies. Too much reflection robs us of our determination.�

WebDiary Archive

Monthly Archives: March 2004

Could Howard be gone before we vote?

Could Howard be gone before we vote?

Howard’s games with boys’ education

Is the government ethical? No comment

Whatever it takes: the Howard Government’s cash for comment play

The New York Times’ role in promoting war on Iraq

Putting meat on the bone of Latham’s ‘New Politics’

Mark Latham goes for it on Iraq

A rotten lousy disgrace

One year on, don’t mention the war

Archive of Margo Kingston's WebDiary from the Sydney Morning Herald