I never saw a shadow of a man until I saw Robert Hill deliver his “ministerial statement” on the Defence Force cover-up – according to Defence – of its total inability to take seriously our reputation for strictly upholding the Geneva Conventions. Or even to see that torture of Iraqis by Americans was inimical to our stated desire to “liberate” Iraq and should be reported to Hill and Howard. That’s the way Defence explains not telling ministers, if they didn’t, of course. Who knows when Hill won’t answer any of the questions arising from the scandal so far?

 

What we do know after Hill’s abject cop out is that the Defence Force is no longer accountable to the Australian people through its Parliament. That’s a scary development.

I’m still thinking about what Hill’s cop-out means – tactics to bury the story or the ultimate rebuke to the Defence Force. Tonight, the “statement”. In the next entry, Faulkner’s reply. Any thoughts?

***

ROBERT HILL, 3.40PM, Wednesday, June 16, The Senate Chamber of the elected representatives of the people of Australia.

Mr President, I would like to provide some further information in relation to questions I was asked on May 11 in relation to prisoner abuse in Iraq.

In doing so I will provide the Senate with 3 detailed tables compiled on the basis of information available to Defence on these issues. They provide:

* A list by rank of all ADF personnel embedded in Coalition forces in the Middle East Area of Operations, the positions they held and the dates of their deployment;

* A list of visits to detention facilities by ADF personnel and the reasons for those visits; and

* A chronological summary of Situation Reports compiled by ADF Legal Officers embedded in the Coalition Provisional Authority Office of General Counsel where reference was made to detention concerns.

I would note that much of this information has already been placed on the public record at the recent Estimates hearings.

In addition I can advise the Senate that Defence will today provide the answers to more than 60 questions which were taken on notice at those hearings.

Mr President, having put this level of detail on the public record, I still note there are some who are determined to implicate Australia in the abuses that took place in the Abu Ghraib prison regardless of the facts.

There has been a deliberate attempt to raise the spectre of some kind of �guilt by association� in relation to these abuses. That can be evidenced by the deliberately loose language of the Shadow spokesman who referred on radio to “the involvement of Australian legal officers in the abuse scandal.”

Mr President, on May 11 I gave the Senate, as best I could, an assurance that no Australians were involved in the abuses we have seen portrayed in these horrific photos. I said:

“What I am concerned about is that there is an implication within the Labor Party questions that, in some way, the ADF are at fault in this matter. The ADF did not manage the prisons, the ADF did not interrogate the prisoners.”

Mr President, Defence has thoroughly reviewed the information available to it and has confirmed the key facts in this issue: Australia did not interrogate prisoners. Australia was not involved in guarding prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison or any other Iraqi prison.

Australia was in no way involved in perpetrating the acts of abuse against Iraqi prisoners we have seen in photos published in the media.

Mr President, I can confirm that Australian forces assisted in the capture of around 120 Iraqis during the combat phase of the war but in each case the United States was the detaining authority.

To put that 120 in context, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that prior to the war the Iraqi armed forces numbered 389,000.

The captures were effected in March and early April � some 4 months before Abu Ghraib prison was re-opened by the US. I would also note that the Red Cross February Report in its reference to its October visits to Abu Ghraib notes that the detainees had been captured mainly in early October.

I have been asked previously when did the Government become aware of the issue of alleged abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and I have said that from the time of the January media release by the US military and the subsequent CNN report the Government would have been aware of allegations of abuse and that these allegations were being investigated – that is of course when the world at large learned of it.

I have also stated that it was only with the release of the horrific photos in late April of this year that I became aware that abuses had occurred and the extent of those abuses.

I told the Senate on May 11: “The abuses I saw in the media about a fortnight ago, I saw for the first time.”

I stand by that statement.

I have stated that Defence became aware of the existence of the February Report of the Red Cross relating to detention practices in Iraq in February through ADF legal officers working for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.

It has subsequently emerged that, some time after November 12, an ADF legal officer, Major O�Kane, working with Coalition Force Headquarters in Baghdad had access to working papers from Red Cross inspections of two prisons in October. The officer had not been present during the inspections.

Defence has confirmed that there is no record of those working papers being passed up through the chain of command back to Australia.

It is important to note that the Red Cross did not deliver either its February Report or the earlier October working papers to Australia.

The Red Cross handed its report to those who were responsible for the running of the prisons � the US and the UK. The working papers were provided to the Coalition Force Headquarters.

I would note that despite all of the recent inferences of Australian involvement and claims of a cover up by Australian officials, the Red Cross still declines to make those reports officially available to Australia.

In their view, it was a matter for the detaining authorities, the US and the UK, and remains so.

Mr President, in contrast to the atmosphere of suspicion generated by the Opposition�s questions, the facts of this issue reveal that Australia has made a positive contribution to improved detention and judicial practices in Iraq.

An Australian officer posted to the Office of General Counsel in the Coalition Provisional Authority in April of last year played an important role in streamlining detention practices and improving detention conditions. This included helping to facilitate the work of the Red Cross.

This officer, who visited Abu Ghraib on a number of occasions, expressed concerns about over-crowding in prisons and his efforts helped the Coalition to implement better processes.

I would note that Australian legal officers in both the CPA headquarters and the Coalition Forces headquarters worked cooperatively with the Red Cross to facilitate visits to prisons and access to Coalition officials.

Mr President, as noted previously, the work of the Red Cross saw it visit the Abu Ghraib prison twice and the special detention facility at Baghdad International Airport once during October of last year.

As a result of these visits, two working papers were delivered to the Coalition Forces Headquarters where Major O�Kane was tasked to assist in responding.

Officials in Australia were not informed of those working papers at the time.

Until recently, Defence believed it did not have access to those working papers.

I have expressed that belief publicly, as has the Prime Minister.

It subsequently emerged that while Defence was not officially provided with those papers, Major O�Kane had brought copies of them back in February of this year among other papers from his time in Iraq. Those papers were provided to the International Policy Division in Defence on May 11 but were not recognised as what was subsequently referred to as the “October Report”.

I regret that incorrect information was provided to me and, through me, to the Prime Minister.

Defence officials had previously understood the working papers as dealing generally with concerns about detainee conditions and treatment.

This advice was passed to the Prime Minister who used it in good faith in response to a question in the Parliament on May 27.

When the documents were discovered and examined it was clear that they included allegations we would characterise more seriously in that they referred to allegations of ill-treatment.

I would note, however, that the October working paper on the inspections of the Abu Ghraib prison does not contain evidence or allegations of the type of serious abuses which have subsequently come to light from the publication of the photos.

There was no reference to naked prisoners being dragged along the ground by a dog leash as we have seen in the photos.

There was no reference to the hooding of prisoners as we have seen in the photos.

There was no reference to prisoners undergoing mock electrocutions, again that we have seen in the photos.

There was no reference to naked prisoners being forced to lie on top of each other.

There was no reference to the pyramid of naked prisoners.

There was no reference to the use of guard dogs to terrify prisoners.

There was no reference to prisoners being sexually abused by guards.

There was no reference to prisoners being made to pose in simulations of sexual acts.

Surprisingly, there is no mention at all of detainees being photographed.

It is a matter of record that these abuses all happened. We have seen the photos that prove it. But to suggest that Australia had knowledge of the extent of the abuses at Abu Ghraib through the October working papers is a nonsense.

The October Red Cross working paper on Abu Ghraib asked the Coalition authorities to clarify and improve the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees under interrogation.

Major O�Kane was tasked to ensure this report was taken seriously and given a proper response.

Mr President, Major O�Kane visited Abu Ghraib prison on December 4 of last year, as detailed at the recent Estimates hearings, to discuss the findings of the Red Cross October working paper.

Defence advised me on May 26 that: “The response was taken seriously by the SJA Office and included Major O�Kane visiting Abu Ghraib and obtaining comments from the responsible officers (MP and Military Intelligence Lieutenant Colonels) about the concerns raised in the 2003 ICRC inspection. The responsible officers denied the specific allegations and were adamant that there was no abuse or mistreatment of internees.”

Subsequent to the Estimates hearings, Major O�Kane has again been interviewed about this visit and has confirmed that the Red Cross report was being taken seriously by Coalition authorities.

He has also confirmed that he raised the contents of the report “paragraph by paragraph” with the appropriate military officials and that the allegations were denied.

As part of his on-going involvement with the Red Cross, Major O�Kane facilitated the next ICRC visit to Abu Ghraib in January of this year. All the evidence indicates that Major O�Kane continued to work in a constructive manner with the Red Cross on detention issues and in no small way ensured that difficulties encountered by the Red Cross in its October visits were not repeated.

Mr President, as I have previously mentioned other embedded ADF legal officers had contact with the Red Cross February report. They also helped facilitate meetings between the Red Cross and the CPA. While they reported the existence of the February report to officials in Australia I would note again that the report itself was not delivered to Australia as we were not responsible for detention issues.

As stated at the Estimates hearings, the existence of the report was not passed to Ministers at the time as it was considered that detention matters were not an issue for which Australia had responsibility and it was also clear that these issues were being dealt with seriously by the relevant detaining authorities.

Mr President, Defence has faithfully tried to establish and report the facts as it sees them but I would note that it is not as simple as pressing a button or logging on to a database.

More than 3,000 Australians have served in different roles under the banner of Operation FALCONER and Operation CATALYST. When they return to Australia they are not all based in the one location nor do they necessarily return to the same job.

Mr President, in providing full and detailed advice on this issue Defence has faced difficulties but has always provided advice in good faith and based on the best knowledge to hand.

Subsequent to the Estimates hearings Defence completed a review of all the information available to it. The level of detail in the tables provided is evidence of the effort that has been applied. The information is the most complete picture Defence can provide on its knowledge to date of this issue.

In closing I would like to quote from the advice provided to me by the head of the Defence Legal Service on May 28 which stated:

stralian Defence Force personnel, whether dealing with prisoners or detainees, acted at all times consistently with their international obligations, including under the Geneva Convention.” Mr President, the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have done an outstanding job in Iraq, serving with honour and distinction. They have our government�s full support. They certainly deserve better than the smear tactics and claims of cover-ups from the Opposition.

John Howard delivered this election campaign opener for the National Press Club at Parliament’s Great Hall today.

 

Securing Australia’s energy future

Australia is a strong country, an optimistic country, a country respected around the world. The characteristics and values that have made us strong � hard work, extraordinary adaptability, a fair go, pulling together when things get tough � have stood the test of time.

In recent years, Australia has outperformed most economies in the world. We�re getting the big things right. Last week, Australia�s unemployment rate fell to a 23 year low. This Government�s economic management has delivered a sustained improvement in our labour market not matched in more than two generations. You have to go back to before the doubling of Australia�s unemployment rate under the Whitlam Government to see anything comparable. And then our economy was much more protected.

This economic performance is no fluke. It is the result of clear priorities, careful policy development, a willingness to take hard decisions and the experience that comes from knowing what could knock us off course.

Looking over the horizon

The job now is to build on our solid foundations � to unlock new reserves of Australian energy and optimism for the challenges ahead.

I believe that Australians want a government that delivers a strong economy with good jobs, high wages and low interest rates. I think they support our determined approach to national security in the face of the new threats of the twenty-first century. Australian families welcome what we�ve done to help with the costs of raising children.

Australians don�t want us to take risks with their future. They don�t want us to take our eye off the ball. But they do want us to look over the horizon.

To renew our commitment to making Australia even better � to set a course so Australians can plan for progress in their daily lives over the next decade and beyond.

Throughout this year, the Government has released a series of initiatives to lock-in Australia�s future economic prosperity � including detailed policy statements on demographic change, on science and innovation and on upgrading our land transport infrastructure.

Today, I want to outline what the Government is doing to secure Australia�s energy future well into the twenty-first century. And to do this while meeting our obligation to pass on this vast land to future generations in good condition.

This White Paper � entitled Securing Australia�s Energy Future � will deliver sustainability, prosperity and security to the energy sector for the benefit of all Australians.

It recognises that Australia cannot afford to put at risk our existing energy advantage � to put at risk industries that directly employ 120,000 Australians and which earn more than $24 billion a year in export income. It recognises that further development of Australia�s energy resources is vital to our future prosperity.

It also modernises Australia�s fuel excise system, takes steps to improve energy efficiency, and strengthens Australia�s energy security position.

Of course, the production and use of energy comes with a major environmental challenge. The Government is determined to meet this challenge � domestically and internationally � with leading-edge, clean energy technology.

We are taking action to address greenhouse emissions and climate change, but we are determined to do it the smart way � a way that does not threaten our energy advantage and national prosperity.

This White Paper includes steps designed to make Australia a world leader in low emissions technologies. A centerpiece of this strategy is the establishment of a Low Emission Technology Fund. The Government will provide $500 million to this fund which in turn will leverage at least $1 billion in private sector investment to develop and demonstrate low emission technologies.

The Government will also invest $75 million in Solar Cities trials � a far-sighted effort to demonstrate a new energy scenario. Beyond the Low Emission Technology Fund and the Solar Cities trials, we will commit a further $134 million to support the commercial development of renewable energy technologies.

Australia can secure its energy needs, extend its economic prosperity, and meet our environmental obligations � as long as we have the right policy framework.

Maintaining Australia’s Energy Advantage

Underpinning this framework is the assumption that Australia can, and should, continue to play a major role in supplying the domestic and world economies with low-cost energy.

Developing Australia�s abundant energy resources is a key to our future prosperity. Australia is the world�s fourth largest producer, and largest exporter, of coal. We supply 8 per cent of world trade in liquefied natural gas. Our known oil reserves are significant, but are projected to decline in the absence of new discoveries. Our wind and solar resources are plentiful.

The energy advantage provided by our resources is something Australia must not throw away. It is not in Australia�s national interest to lock up and leave undeveloped our natural resources. As an efficient global supplier, we need to be positioned to meet growing demand for energy while also moving to a low emissions future.

Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power will play a part in meeting growing energy demands. But for the foreseeable future, coal, oil and gas will meet the bulk of Australia�s energy needs. It is for this reason that we must look at more environmentally responsible ways of developing all our natural resources.

The choice is between low and high emissions outcomes � not between renewables and other energy sources. We can have both of them.

Australia spends more than $50 billion on energy each year. Demand for electricity in Australia is expected to increase by 50 per cent between now and 2020. And demand for transport fuels is expected to grow by a similar amount in that time. Substantial investment will be required over this period to meet Australia�s energy needs with industry putting a figure of $37 billion on the future investment task.

World demand for energy is expected be about two thirds above current levels by 2030. Developing countries, mostly in Asia, will account for 60 per cent of that growth. Demand for natural gas will rise faster than for any other fuel, doubling by 2030.

Trade in liquefied natural gas is likely to grow very strongly. In two decades time, the United States � the largest natural gas market in the world � is expected to source around a quarter of its demand from LNG imports.

Already the world�s second largest energy consumer, China will continue to grow in importance on world energy markets. Chinese demand for gas is expected to double in the next decade. China�s continuing need to source oil and gas will make it a strategic buyer on world markets.

This Government has devoted unprecedented time and attention to Australia�s resources diplomacy. And we�ve had some big wins � most notably in August 2002 with the $25 billion deal to sell LNG to Guangdong province in China, the biggest single trade deal in Australia�s history.

Just as Australia�s resources sector helped fuel industrial growth in Japan and South Korea over several decades, we are now developing a strategic resources partnership with China. China is now our second largest customer for mineral and energy commodities, after Japan.

New markets in the United States would complement our large and growing markets in North Asia. A little over a week ago, I met with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to lobby on behalf of the Australian LNG industry. I also had very encouraging discussions with President Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on the strategic fit between Australia � as a cost-effective energy supplier � and the United States with its large future energy demands.

From the top down, the Government has worked closely with industry to ensure Australia�s energy advantage is well understood. But we know that ultimately it is the economic fundamentals that count.

Developing major gas fields � such as the North West Shelf and the Gorgon and Sunrise fields � requires substantial foreign investment and joint venture arrangements between many companies. Competition for this investment is fierce, as is competition for markets.

Australia must have a policy framework that provides certainty for investors � certainty of title, certainty over the rules that will apply, and certainty that commercial decisions � not government fiat � will determine when and how investments proceed. Requiring developments to quarantine resources for domestic use, or imposing strict �use it or lose it� provisions do Australia�s cause no good.

Australia also needs to maintain a tax system that supports further development of energy resources. The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax plays a key role in allowing investors to earn good returns, while ensuring the Australian people are compensated for the use of public resources.

In this year�s budget, the Government moved to further increase the attractiveness of exploration in frontier areas by increasing the value of exploration deductions in designated areas from 100 per cent to 150 per cent.

Continued energy market reform is a vital part of securing Australia�s energy future. Under the Australian Government�s leadership, major reforms have now been agreed under the Council of Australian Governments process. On 1 July, a single energy regulator � the Australian Energy Regulator – and a single rule-making and market development body � the Australian Energy Market Commission � will be established.

Australians enjoy a high level of energy security. Our abundant energy resources, access to imports (in the case of oil) and high quality infrastructure have ensured the reliable delivery of our energy needs. Maintaining Australia�s excellent record in this area is a high priority for the Government.

While Australia�s enormous reserves of coal and gas are sufficient to meet our needs for a long time into the future, a disruption like the Moomba gas fire is an important reminder that effective gas interconnections between state jurisdictions can minimise the impact of disruptions.

This year�s budget earmarked $4 million for protecting Australia�s energy infrastructure from disruption and this White Paper outlines additional measures to strengthen our energy security.

Kyoto and beyond

Human induced climate change is one of the major challenges confronting the world this century. The potential for climate change is real and addressing it will require changes to the way the world produces and uses energy.

Australia accounts for only 1.6 per cent of emissions and cannot change the course of climate change alone. We are, however, making significant progress in separating economic growth from emission growth. Between 1990 and 2002, the Australian economy grew by 47 per cent, while greenhouse emissions grew by only 1.3 per cent. We can and will continue the drive towards a better emissions performance.

The Australian Government has already invested nearly $1 billion to fund a range of climate change measures across the energy, transport and agriculture sectors.

We have played a positive role in seeking a global solution to climate change. Currently Australia is one of the few nations on track to meet its target under the Kyoto agreement. We will achieve this with a strong and growing economy.

The Government�s position on Kyoto is well known. We will not ratify something that does not encompass the world�s largest emitters. Neither does the Kyoto protocol address the issue of investment and emissions moving from one nation to another with no overall global greenhouse benefit.

To give an example, Australia is in a strong position to meet Asia�s burgeoning LNG demand. But we face stiff competition from a number of countries such as Indonesia that do not face Kyoto constraints and that have gas resources with high levels of carbon dioxide.

If Australia is forced to impose a discriminatory impost on carbon emissions, it is likely that new LNG investments will go elsewhere � costing Australia economic growth, jobs and export income.

The global environment would be no better � indeed it would be worse � and Australia will have lost out.

The Australian Government is looking beyond the Kyoto Protocol towards a more effective long term response to climate change. We will work actively in the international community to develop such a response.

In the meantime, Australia accepts that substantial further effort is needed to prepare the economy for future emission constraints. Future reductions in emissions will become much tougher � both as the world economy grows and as the easy options are taken up. We have therefore developed a plan to lower the cost of a broader range of low emission options for the future.

This will ensure that Australia can move more quickly to lower greenhouse emissions as part of an effective long-term global response. To make this happen, the Government will drive investment of at least $1.5 billion in break-through low emission technologies with significant long-term greenhouse gas abatement potential. The Government will provide $500 million to a Low Emission Technology Fund so as to leverage at least $1 billion in private sector investment.

The Fund will support low emission technologies, including renewable energy technologies, that are able to reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 2 per cent at realistic rates of long-term take up.

The Fund will support all technologies that have the potential to significantly lower Australian energy emissions in the longer term. It will have particular focus on electricity generation technologies, and an eye to technologies that could underpin the future value of our substantial energy resources.

Solar cities

The Government will also provide $75 million for trials to test a visionary new energy scenario � where solar power, energy efficiency and market reforms combine to provide a sustainable energy future.

These Solar Cities trials will, for the first time, place a proper market value on the role solar energy can play in meeting peak demand and reducing the need for transmission and distribution investments.

This is about doing things smarter with solar panels, better insulation, energy efficient appliances and smart meters that allow households to sell excess electricity back into the grid at peak times.

The trials will be held in two or three urban centres. They will require support from industry, state and local governments. Centres in Adelaide and Sydney would be prime locations for trials. The Australian Government encourages governments and industry to develop proposals to host the trials so that the best locations can be chosen.

Support for renewables

Renewable energy plays an important role in delivering low emission electricity. Solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass all show great potential as sources of electricity. But the high cost of renewable electricity options remains a barrier to their wider use.

As well as being eligible for the Low Emission Fund, renewable energy sources will receive support of a further $100 million for research, development, demonstration and commercialisation. The Government will also spend $34 million to improve wind forecasting and develop options to store electricity � targeting impediments to the uptake of solar and wind-based electricity.

Together, these measures represent a strong further commitment to the development of renewable energy as a source of low emission energy for the future.

Mandatory Renewable Energy Target

The Government will retain and improve the existing Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) scheme. MRET will continue to play a significant role in supporting the renewable sector, and will underpin $2 billion in renewable energy investment in the period to 2010.

Expanding MRET would impose substantial new costs on the economy and would benefit too few technologies. A better path is to directly promote the development and demonstration of a broader range of low emission technologies and tackle the impediments to the uptake of renewable energy.

The Government�s $500 million Low Emission Technology Fund, plus over $200 million in funding for renewable energy technologies, will prepare Australia to respond to potential long-term emissions constraints. They maintain the nation’s economic prosperity and place Australia at the cutting edge of low emission technologies.

Fuel excise reform

This White Paper overhauls the fuel excise system. The Government’s reforms will save business and households more than $1.5 billion between now and 2012-2013. These reforms build on the alternative fuels excise arrangements announced last year and on the AusLink White Paper launched last week.

Tens of thousands of businesses and households will be better off. Local and state governments will be big winners and I call on those governments to pass the benefits through via lower rates and state charges. Industry compliance costs of the current regime will be greatly reduced with firms able to claim excise credits using their existing Business Activity Statement.

Regional Australia will be a major beneficiary with all business use of fuels on farms eligible for a full excise refund when the changes come in fully.

Mining, construction and quarrying will all have access to full excise refunds for fuels used off road. The generous transition periods for bringing in excise on biofuels will provide time for the sector to establish its commercial credentials.

All fuel used by businesses off-road will become excise free on 1 July 2012.

No longer will firms have to make detailed calculations between eligible and non-eligible activities. No longer will some businesses miss out, while others benefit from excise credits.

A half credit will be provided for all new activities starting on 1 July 2008 as a down-payment on the reforms.

Excise on fuels used in power generation will be lifted on 1 July 2006. This will bring the treatment of diesel used in remote areas in line with the treatment of power generation in cities. This should mean lower power prices for those living in regional Australia.

The Government will also remove excise on burner fuels from 1 July 2006. This will benefit as many as 90,000 Australian households.

From 1 July 2006 the excise paid on fuels used in heavy vehicles will be converted to a road user charge. Existing urban and regional boundaries will be removed from that date. And the excise relief provided through the road user charge will apply to all fuels, including petrol � benefiting the owners of as many as 54,000 heavy vehicles.

At the same time, the government is acting to improve urban air quality and the emission performance of the transport sector.

Urban air quality is a serious health issue, and greenhouse emissions from transport account for 14 per cent of Australia�s total emissions.

We have created an environment in which the use of alternative transport fuels can grow. However recognising that petrol and diesel will continue to be the dominant transport fuels we will introduce stronger standards for fuels and vehicles to significantly improve environmental outcomes.

Incentives are being provided to ensure the early introduction of cleaner diesel and petrol � well in advance of the mandated dates.

New vehicles standards are being introduced to substantially improve the emissions performance of vehicles and a new agreement has been struck with car manufacturers to improve the fuel consumption of vehicles being sold into the Australian market. These new standards will facilitate the introduction of far more fuel efficient and cleaner vehicles in Australia.

Requiring Business to Do its Part

About 250 businesses in Australia use more than 0.5 petajoules of energy per year (enough to power 10,000 homes). These businesses account for more than 60 per cent of total business energy use and should play their part in ensuring Australian energy is used wisely.

To ensure this happens, the Government will require that Australia�s largest energy users undertake regular energy efficiency assessments. Firms using more than 0.5 petajoules a year will be required to undertake mandatory energy efficiency assessments every five years and report publicly. In this way, companies can demonstrate to investors and the community that they are using energy wisely.

The Government will introduce a requirement that heavy vehicles meet one of five tests to show they are not a high polluter before they gain access to excise relief through the road user charge. And firms receiving more than $3 million in excise credits will be required to manage their emissions through compulsory membership of the Greenhouse Challenge Programme.

Conclusion

My government does not take Australia�s economic prosperity for granted. We have worked hard to get the economy in the shape it is in today.

Australia is blessed with a wonderful resource base and reliable supplies of low cost energy. The Government recognises that we have a responsibility to develop Australia’s resources in an environmentally sustainable way.

The initiatives I have announced today position Australia to deliver better global outcomes by showing leadership with technological innovation in emission reduction. We are on track to achieve our Kyoto target. The Government is now looking beyond 2012 and acting to lower the cost of meeting future greenhouse constraints.

We understand that achieving the right balance in energy policy means pursuing economic growth and energy security while at the same time taking care of our environment. This White Paper strikes that balance and secures our energy future for the benefit of all Australians.

his is what I reckon is the first joust between Howard and media of the 2004 election campaign. He’s doing a big deal speech on defence Friday night, and this sort of momentum isn’t generated unless it’s on. The journos names and my comments are in bold. Howard’s peech is at Howard drops diesel price to cut consumption! The White Paper is here.

 

15 June 2004

Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon John Howard MP, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SPEECH, QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION, GREAT HALL, PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Subjects: Australia/United States alliance; Iraq; energy announcement

Michael Brissenden, 7.30 Report: What�s the difference between our relationship with the US and that of the Germans and the French? Why is it that after the G8 meeting last week George Bush could say that while world leaders don�t agree on every issue we can still have very good relations, yet the suggestion coming very strongly from your Government and from the Bush Administration is that Mark Latham�s position would somehow damage our alliance. Is there a qualitative difference in our relationship compared to that of the Germans and French? In short, how can Gerhard Schroeder get away with it and Mark Latham can�t?

HOWARD: Well I wouldn�t put that interpretation, I think there is a qualitative difference, I think the level of trust and the level of reciprocal dependability between Australia and the United States is superior than between the United States, France and or Germany. The reason why I take the position I do in relation to Iraq is that I believe it�s in Australia�s national interest. I think there is a very crucial opportunity available at the moment, attested to overnight by none other I think the Secretary General of the Arab League when he said that, as reported on the ABC Radio National this morning, that the opportunity that Iraq presented for a breakthrough in democracy in the Arab world was one that should not be lost. And I think anything that we can contribute in relation to that is plainly in our national interest, there is only one democracy in the Middle East at the present time and that is the state of Israel. Quite obviously if you were an original coalition partner, the withdrawal of our participation at the present time would resonate more negatively than perhaps the withdrawal of some who�d contributed after the combat phase of the operation against Iraq.

(Margo: He’s not sure which way Australians will go on this, so he’s hedging his bets.)

Chris Hammer. SBS TV news Prime Minister: On Iraq, last week you indicated that a future democracy in that country may differ from the type of democracy that we have in Australia. I wonder if you could expand on that and tell us how a future Iraqi democracy may be different than western democracy and the reason behind that, why would that be necessary?

PRIME MINISTER: No, I�m not going to do that, it�s presumptuous of me to start doing that because then that�s interpreted as Howard saying what kind of democracy should operate in Iraq. I�m acknowledging the fact that different countries express their democratic principles in different ways. I did float with along with others the idea that there was some merit in having a federal structure in Iraq because of the Shiite and the Sunni and the Kurds and I think that�s something that�s obviously in their thinking but for me to get into the business of saying well this is how I think it ought to be organised is quite wrong and it doesn�t respect the independence and the sovereignty that the Iraqi people are entitled to have after the 30th of June.

(Margo: He doesn’t want to admit that real democracy is not what Bush, and therefore Howard, has in mind. Bush wants a government friendly to it much, much more than he wants democracy. He wouldn’t mind the veneer of democracy, if possible.)

Louise Dodson, Sydney Morning Herald: I was just wondering, I notice this statement introduces a green guide for new vehicles to allow consumers to see how environmentally sound their cars are. But why didn�t the Government introduce the eco test which is used in Europe and I understand is the world�s best practice in this sort of thing?

PRIME MINISTER: Well we don�t slavish follow everything that�s done in Europe or indeed the United States or anywhere else and I wouldn�t rule out some further movements in that direction.

(Margo: Certainly not Europe! His green play exposed as fake, he fudges.)

Andrew Fraser, Canberra Times: Do you have any concerns about the policy positions of John Kerry, the US Presidential candidate, either in the energy sector or on other portfolios, and if so do you intend to alert American voters to them?

PRIME MINISTER: I�m having a bit of a difficulty in actually knowing precisely what his positions are, that reminds me of somebody too.

(Margo: Yep, he sure does so intend. Bush and Howard are tied at the hip. And so is Blair, who Bush is also protecting by pressuring his conservative opponent Michael Howard to shut up about American incompetence in Iraq – see Howard’s 2004 Tampa: director George Bush).

Paul Bongiorno, Channel 10 News: Prime Minister, you trumpet the fact that we will achieve our greenhouse target or Kyoto target ahead of other nations and yet we continue to refuse to sign up and if we do achieve this target isn�t it a fact that we won�t benefit from the carbon trading credits, hundreds of millions of dollars worth that we otherwise would have? And do you think any future government will have the courage, greater courage maybe, to take away from the fossil fuels of the 19th century towards the more environment friendly fuels of the 21st century?

PRIME MINISTER: Well Mr Bongiorno, I don�t regard it as courageous to abandon something where you have a natural advantage and a natural advantage which is the envy of the world, I heard another national political figure on, I think it may have been on your programme, extolling the virtues of what Japan has done. I can�t think of two countries and I have, as you know, enormous respect for the Japanese people and for that nation, it�s a very important trading partner of Australia�s and we have very close and enduring links with Japanese society. But I can�t think of two countries that are less alike when it comes to energy needs and resources than Australia and Japan. Of course Japan has to do things that we don�t have to do because Japan is energy starved where as we are energy plentiful. So, and as far as the Kyoto Protocol is concerned the point I made in my speech and I stress it again is that the target we were set by Kyoto we�re going to meet. In other words, we�re doing our bit, playing our part, making our contribution, but we�re not going to sign something that�s unfair to Australia and my guide for this is the Australian national interest and I don�t see any wisdom in signing up to something that could result in a net exports of jobs and investment and industries to major emitter countries that are not subject to the targets, the greenhouse emission targets that would be obliged on Australia if we were a party to the protocol and that�s the reason. If that changes you get all of the major emitters in and you get a change in the rules and we have a more level playing field, well our attitude could well be different. It�s not a question of courage it�s a question of backing the national interest and it just doesn�t make sense in terms of Australia�s national interest for us to sign the Kyoto protocol on present conditions when you have major polluters and emitters countries such as China and Brazil and Indonesia. But it wouldn�t be subject to the constraints we would be subject to and they would get our investment, the world would not have fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we will have lost the jobs and would have lost the investment. I think that is a lose-lose for Australia and very much against our national interest.

(Margo: In Question Time after the Q and A, Howard went for it on jobs. Latham equals job cuts because he supports Kyoto. Expect much, much more on this. It’s short termism at its most grotesque, because moving quickly on alternative energy will create long term jobs.)

Dennis Atkins, The Courier Mail: Prime Minister, you were in Washington recently urging the US congress to support the Free Trade Agreement and Mr Vaile at the weekend was urging the Australian Parliament to do the same. Do you believe� would you like to see the Australian Parliament vote on the Free Trade Agreement legislation before the next election?

PRIME MINISTER: Oh, very definitely. I think this is an important issue. The last thing that should happen is that, you know, people should be unwilling to declare themselves. I mean, we had a question about courage a moment ago, well I would like to know where the Labor Party stands on the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and I would hope that the Parliament does have an opportunity to vote on this legislation well before the next election. Now that�s the hope I express. I don�t know when the election is going to be and it�s one of those slightly tricky questions, tables like yours occasionally dream up, but don�t think my answer in any way has responded to that trickiness. But I would like the Free Trade Agreement to be endorsed by the US Congress. I would like the necessary legislation to be passed by the Australian Parliament and I hope that everybody has an opportunity to express a view on this issue so that the Australian people can factor that in when they in their great wisdom make their decision at some time in the future.

(Margo: Shadow boxing.)

Jim Middleton, ABC News: Your top ups in family payments in the budget are going out to voters this week, to families this week, and thank you very much, and the tax cuts will be flown through in a fortnight or so. Do you think that the gratitude of the voters for your largesse, for your generosity, will extend through until October or November or do you think that, as with so much else in the modern age, the attention span of voters on things such as tax cuts is much shorter than it once was.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, Jim, can I turn you into a one man focus group and perhaps you could give us an indication whether you think that�s what the attitude will be. Look, there are a lot of things people take into account and I think in the end people balance their personal needs and interests with their assessment of the national interest. I don�t regard the Australian people as always taking a personally selfish view. I think they do think of the benefit of the nation. I think many people in 1998 voted for the Coalition even though they, you know, worried as to what the impact of tax reform might be on their own personal circumstances. I think those worries have disappeared since tax reform came about. I think there�ll be a whole combination of factors that they�ll take into account and as for the timing of the election, I don�t know when it�ll be Jim.

(Margo: Lies. He thinks it’s ALL about self interest. That’s what the big con of neo-liberal economics is all about. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, there is no such thing as society…)

Jason Frenkel, Herald Sun: I�m one of those people that�s earning under $52,000 Prime Minister so I�ll move back on to environmental issues, if I could.

PRIME MINISTER: Who am I hearing from?

“Jason Frenkel at the Herald Sun. Would you be able to tell us what�s being done to conserve water and electricity and other resources at Kirribilli House and the Lodge?”

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I have given instructions that any of the local water consumption protocols and rules that have been laid down by the ACT Government and the New South Wales are strictly observed. And when they came out I made a particular point of asking my department to send a memorandum to staff in relation to the water restrictions and if there�s any breaching of them, well that would be against my expressed request and instructions.

(How come he needed to tell his staff to obey the law???)

Michelle Grattan, The Age: Mr Howard, going back to the alliance in Iraq. Can you be explicit about whether you think a pull out of Australian troops would be a substantial damaging of the alliance? And if you think it would, doesn�t that mean that the independence of any Australian Government is necessarily limited under that alliance?

PRIME MINISTER: Well the answer to the question is no, I don�t think that for a moment. The point that I�m making is that an alliance is an expression at a national level, an international level of a friendship between nations and just as friendships between people are most valuable when there are some stresses and difficulties in relation to one of the partners to that friendship so it is the case in relation to a friendship and an alliance between nations. Of course, the American Government will deal with any future Australian Government and, of course, any future Australian Prime Minister irrespective of his or her political complexion will be welcomed in the White House just as any current or future American President is welcome in the Elysses Palace in France. That is not the point, of course we�ll continue to have good, close, friendly, diplomatic relations. But there�s no doubt in my view, given the great significance of Iraq in the international diplomatic firmament at the present time and the obvious challenge of Iraq to the United States that if a nation such as Australia which had been there at the beginning were to withdraw its troops clearly before the job had been completed, not only would that represent a real reduction in the coalition effort but it would be seen as a less than friendly act. Now that essentially is what I have understood people to be saying. I saw, I heard what President Bush said in response to Mr Lewis�s question. He criticised the Opposition Leader�s policy. He didn�t lapse into any personal abuse of the Opposition Leader. I watched the interview with both Armitage and Powell and I thought both of them, if you watch the entire interviews, were presentations of a commonsense attitude. What I think, with respect, people don�t understand or refuse to understand about this issue is that if it�s okay for Australia to pull out � and the official Labor policy is that effectively we should, you know, feel free to go after the 30th of June, that�s effectively what their policy is, not December, December�s the practical date because we�re against pulling out, they�re in favour and they can�t pull out before December � but if it�s alright for us to go on the 30th of June, why isn�t it alright for any other country to go on the 30th of June? Why isn�t it alright for the United States and the British to go on the 30th of June? And if that were to happen we would be delivering the most enormous psychological and real victory to the terrorists and the insurgents and all the other descriptions you want to use imaginable. And if anybody thinks for a moment that that is in Australia�s national interest, if anybody thinks for a moment that would give other than enormous comfort to Jemaah Islamiah with all its reach in Asian Pacific region, which is much closer to home, people talk about things being close to home, I mean, of course it would and I� we can�t cherry pick, we can�t say oh well by implication it�s perfectly okay for us to pull out because the Yanks and the Brits will still be there. I mean, that is implied in everything that is said by those who argue that we should. That�s my answer.

(Margo: The people I consider friends tell me when they think I’m making a mistake. That’s what friends are for. If the polls show voters have bought the American Alliance scare tactic, he’ll ratchet this issue up no end.)

Malcolm Farr, the Daily Telegraph: Going to the excise changes you�ve announced today, how is making fossil fuel cheaper for more people part of an overall programme to ween us off dirty fuel sources?

PRIME MINISTER: I�m not – what the essential argument of this paper, and I hope of my remarks Malcolm, is that whatever may be the merits of renewables, the reality is that the older fuels of which we have large supplies are going to contribute the bulk of our energy needs and what we have to do is to make them cleaner. I mean, the purpose of this is to make them cleaner because you won�t in the short term be able to wean people off them and what you will be able to do is if you make them cleaner to have less concern about their youth. As I said in my speech, the choice is not between renewables and other sources of energy. We can have both of them, but the choice is between high-emission and low-emission energy production and the whole purpose of the technology fund, which incidentally is available not only to the traditional fuels but also to renewables, the whole purpose of that is to fast track the development of technologies that are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the dirty fuels, in other words to make them cleaner fuels and I think that is a more intelligent, realistic approach and one that also plays to our long term natural advantage. I mean, why would we throw away this enormous natural advantage we have? I mean, we are envied around the world for the enormous reserves that we have of gas and other fuels. So surely the smart commonsense thing to do in Australia�s national interest is to try and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the use of these fuels and this is what the paper is designed to do.

(Margo: See Howard drapes polluter’s package in green)

Lenore Taylor, the Australian Financial Review: Can I just clarify what you just said then, do you think clean coal technologies and geosequestration, those sorts of things as the long term solution to greenhouse emissions in Australia? Or are they a stop gap measure while other technologies are developed?

PRIME MINISTER: No, I think they are part of the solution, Lenore, I don�t think you can speak with such certainty about any of these things to say that this is the one and only or the most long term solution. I think what you can say is that if your starting point is that we have huge reserves and at present they are cheaper to use than others and cost is a factor in industry and it�s also a fact of the consumers, we still have, I know it�s hard to believe at the moment, remarkably cheap petrol by world standards, but if you start with that and you start with the fact that we are a major supplier of growing world energy needs, it seems to me to be a matter of commonsense that you try and make those energy uses cleaner and things like geosequestration are part of that and how great a contribution it will make in the years ahead, I can�t tell you at the moment, I don�t know enough about it.

Lenore: But presumably in deciding that the mandatory renewable energy target was too expensive an option you made cost comparisons between various options for reducing greenhouse emissions. Can you explain the basis of those?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I can tell you for example that the current MRET cost is $2 billion to GDP. The Tambling recommendations were $5.1 billion. The ALP recommendations are $11 billion according to the extrapolations from the modelling in Tambling and those of the Australian Greens, ten per cent is $23 billion. Now our view is that that is a very high additional cost, I mean they�re the alternatives and that the advantages to be derived by trying to achieve breakthroughs in other technologies, plus of course the other incentives that we�re providing for renewable uses as distinct from mandating them, that that produces a better outcome.

(Margo: His energy statement is a con, and he knows it.)

As leader of the Democrats, Senator Meg Lees negotiated the passage of the GST legislation with John Howard in 1999. She is standing for re-election in South Australia at the election for the ‘Progressive Alliance”.

 

This energy announcement and the diesel measures within bring us back to 1999 negotiations on the New Tax Package.

Then we were able to reduce the planned diesel bonus by $714 million and to include an environment package worth $376 million that covered fuel emission standards, gas conversions, renewable energies grants, green power, greenhouse gas emissions abatement, incentives for rail and gas vehicles.

At that time regional Australian relied heavily on diesel fired trucks for transport and for remote power generation. There were virtually no subsidies for any other fuels but diesel.

The aim of the negotiations with the government in 1999 was to encourage a shift to non fossil fuels to clean up diesel and petrol. The key aim of the abolition of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme and its replacement with the Energy Credit scheme was to encourage use of other fuels � not just diesel.

Issues such as support for remote power generation were addressed through support for gas and/or solar and/or wind energy.

These reforms gave birth to lots of small renewable energy firms, particularly across regional Australia. They now provide the energy infrastructure for remote areas. It is an industry that has grown up since 1999 and has the potential for much more growth.

The 1999 changes to the Governments energy priorities were designed to take us into the 21st century. The new vision was for a smarter, and more innovative Australia through promoting clean renewable energy as an alternative to fossil fuels.

In today�s energy package the government claims that it is providing a balance between clean and dirty energies. Between the old and the new. That is plain rubbish. The scales are tipped significantly in favour of fossil fuel. The government has given the cake to the fossil fuel industry and the crumbs to the renewable energy industry. And even those crumbs are at risk.

Not only is the �clean� package far from adequate, with an increase in the MRET missing, we find vastly increased support for diesel and petrol use.

The government proposes to extend an off-road excise rebate for diesel to those industries which were previously denied it, including forestry, manufacturing and construction. Primary producers will receive a benefit for their off road business use of petrol in their utility vehicles and 4 wheel motorcycles.

There is little point in providing support for research and development into renewable energies if these renewable options are priced out of use by the availability of cheap fossil fuels.

So while parts of the package that support the development of solar energy and support research into the storage of renewable energies are positive, the diesel part of the package undermines these measures.

The changes to the fuel excise system will have far reaching ramifications for Australia�s renewable energy industry if they are implemented � particularly the growing remote power generation industry � the traditional market for solar energy in Australia.

Making polluting fossil fuels excise free for stationary energy applications in regional Australia such as heating, electricity, generation and industrial applications reduces the cost of it by around 40 percent and works to make clean renewable energy systems uncompetitive.

Australia was generally recognised as a world leader in PV a number of years ago, largely driven by the extensive rollout of solar energy in remote area power supply � reliably meeting the power needs of our regional and remote communities. This has been Australia�s traditional market for solar energy.

Mr. Howard�s energy statement now undermines this industry sector, and this sector will face collapse if these measures are implemented. This puts at risk the livelihoods of around 300 renewable energy businesses and their families that are active in this market.

This not only results in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions but also reduces investment in regional and rural communities � the same communities who face the brunt of climate change.

The tragedy in this announcement is that Australia�s remote power generation sector has been a world leader with a number of businesses actively supplying renewable energy systems to developing countries. This is now jeopardised.

This is another example of the Howard government failing the renewable energy industry and small emerging businesses.

It is the gaping hole in their environment record.

Crikey John Howard has a bloody hide!

 

He says human induced climate change is �one of the major challenges confronting the world this century�. He says fuel emissions account for the bulk of global warming and that �the potential for climate change is real and addressing it will require changes to the way the world produces and uses energy.� His �Securing Australia�s energy future� White Paper boldly states:

�Emissions of greenhouse gases have the potential to raise global temperatures, resulting in deleterious effects to people and the natural world, its land and seascapes, its flora and fauna. Substantial reductions in global greenhouse emissions will be needed to avoid these effects� ENERGY SECTOR EMISSIONS MUST BE REDUCED AS PART OF ANY EFFECTIVE GLOBAL CHANGE RESPONSE.�

So what does Howard do?

He slashes fuel taxes or abolishes them for business and farmers at a cost of $1.5 billion, and promises to spend a third of that to promote cleaner, greener energy!

Howard’s Spin City has spun so completely out of control that he�s proclaimed a policy aim directly contradicted by the policy itself. I did economics at university a long time ago, but the basics haven�t changed. To promote less use or a shift to alternatives, you raise the price. To encourage more use, you drop the price. What the hell is this about?

Easy. Pure politics at its most debased � devastatingly bad policy for our environment and our energy security, but impossible for Labor to oppose on the eve of an election. Yet another Howard bribe, and yet another emptying of the bank account to stop Latham announcing any big new policy. And what, we might ask, will Peter Garrett think of the almost inevitable decision by Labor to let the cuts through?

Howard is repeating his Beazley trap of 2001, when he abolished the indexation of fuel excise and robbed a potential Labor government of billions over time with which we could have repaired our rivers and brought our universities back to life. Beazley had no political choice but to back Howard, and was left with nothing in the kitty to fund his planned higher education vision. (For a refresher see Petrol pump politics, March 1, 2001.)

Remember the negotiations with the Democrats to get Howard�s GST through after the 1998 election? Howard wanted a big slash of diesel fuel taxes to business and farmers. In a meeting with Treasurer Costello, Dems leader Meg Lees pointed out that encouraging people to stay with diesel and use more fuel would add to global warming. Costello�s mouth fell open � he hadn�t even considered the issue!

The rail industry camped in Meg�s office for days, and she finally scored a bit of an incentive for rail freight. Five years later, Howard and Costello still don�t give a damn about global warming, but now they�ve put cuts in fuel prices for business and farmers in an energy statement touting the need for alternative energies to take over from oil. And it�s not only global warming that�s urgent, but the world�s supply of oil is running out (see Oils ain’t just oils, they’re to die for and Deputy PM confirms oil crisis).

Howard has now made heavy freight trucks shoot way ahead of rail, yet Deputy PM Anderson trumpets the scam, baldly proclaiming that the policy would make �Australia�s road transport sector even more efficient and competitive�. What a way to reduce emissions.

The question of the day was from the Daily Telegraph�s Malcolm Farr: �How is making fossil fuel cheaper for more people part of an overall programme to wean us off dirty fuel sources?�

Howard: �I�m not� what the essential argument of this paper, and I hope of my remarks Malcolm, is that whatever may be the merits of renewables, the reality is that the older fuels of which we have large supplies are going to contribute the bulk of our energy needs and what we have to do is to make them cleaner…”

How about making them cleaner AND minimising their use? Can�t get your head around the old carrot and stick approach, John?

After the oil shock in the 1970s Australia�s government changed tax policy to make LPG much cheaper than petrol, a much dirtier fuel. Taxi companies converted their fleets to LPG, and the trend to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars began. Now, the differential in price is almost gone, and so is the incentive to convert to LPG. John, the world�s oil is running out and oil is destroying the world we live in, environmentally and in the Middle East. We need to REDUCE its use, not increase it.

Yet he�s �clever�, yet again. Bankrupt on the national interest, yet again. Whatever it takes, yet again.

This �package� makes absolutely no sense except in terms of debased politics in pure form. One little example. Howard said he�d spend $75 million on a trial of subsidised solar power in two or three communities. He mentioned Sydney and Adelaide as desired venues. Huh? Surely Brisbane, Darwin, Townsville, Cairns or Perth � with lots of sun and lots of air conditioning costs � would be the best places to start?

Where are the marginal seats Howard fears losing? Why, in Adelaide and Sydney, of course. Sickening but true. The only way to excuse this bloke is to assume that he�s got so imperial that he truly believes that his personal interest IS the national interest. Of course the means justify the ends if John Howard is the great leader we need now. Of course.

PS: Does Howard really care about global warming? The Herald Sun�s Jason Frenkel asked: �Would you be able to tell us what�s being done to conserve water and electricity and other resources at Kirribilli House and the Lodge?�

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I have given instructions that any of the local water consumption protocols and rules that have been laid down by the ACT Government and the New South Wales are strictly observed. And when they came out I made a particular point of asking my department to send a memorandum to staff in relation to the water restrictions and if there�s any breaching of them, well that would be against my expressed request and instructions.

Yes siree, deep green Howard insisted that the current law be obeyed. What a guy.

This piece was first published in the Sun Herald yesterday.

 

OK, it’s Howard and Bush v Latham at the federal election. Howard’s 2004 replica of his fear-and-anxiety 2001 Tampa victory is “Vote for me or the Yanks will abandon us”.

Venus crossing the sun last Tuesday – an event the world’s people watched in awe and that no one has seen since 1882 – heralded the confirmation of Howard’s and Latham’s war plans, and boy oh boy did their visions of who we are and what we stand for clash. Peter Garrett and the Bush boys bounced off each other to define the election battleground. It’s David v Goliath folks, and Latham must be praying we’ll live up to our reputation for backing the underdog.

Abstract thinkers have taken to calling Europe Venus and the US Mars. Which planet – which view of maximising the chances of peace and happiness – will we Aussies choose to hang our hats on in 2004?

Anti-war, anti-nuclear weapons campaigner Peter Garrett is a mainstream conservationist who brought greenies and farmers together to try to save our land and preserve our water, and who sang songs which made many of us feel proud to be Australian. Now Latham punches him into a safe seat. Latham really does want to smash the corrupt NSW Labor machine and, through sheer audacity, regenerate the Labor Party for the 21st century.

At the same time, the Bush dump on Latham beside a smugly smiling Howard in Washington was shown to be the launch of brutally explicit threats by the Bush administration to abandon the American alliance if we elect Latham. That is, Bush and Howard have agreed to do whatever it takes to get each other re-elected this year, whatever the cost.

Howard is confident he can scare us into voting for him again out of deliberately, cynically engineered fear. Then again, the transparency of the fear politics and its disregard for the national interest of either Australia or America might make some voters think a vote for Howard is a vote for Bush. Some might even think that a vote for Latham would encourage the American people to chuck Bush out and elect a sane, competent and decent administration that would increase the odds of peace and promote enduring Western values throughout the world.

The election campaign has begun, and I reckon Howard will make us vote in August to capitalise on the momentum he and his Bush mates are building before we work out their self-serving spin. Here’s what Web diarists think:

Rod Smith in Sydney: “This is risky and flamboyant politics by both Latham and Garrett and I love it. I’d vote for Garrett because he has always been true to what he believes in. I want Garrett to keep singing the songs of the Oils in his political life and inspire free thought and policy in Australian politics.”

Nick W: “As a committed Howard lover I am over the moon about Peter Garrett joining Labor. It’s just another nail in Labor’s coffin – now we have two outspoken anti-American MPs in the Labor Party. Australia will reject Labor – if they rejected a Hawkish pro-American Beazley then they’re not going to risk our alliance on Latham.”

Shannon Roy: “The bleating about the US alliance being on the table in this election is idiotic. It’s a strong alliance because Australia and the US need each other. We need our ‘great and powerful’ friend and they need their large, immobile aircraft carrier (we call it Australia) in the middle of the Pacific/Indian oceans – and a politically stable place to handle the information nexus of this hemisphere (Pine Gap et al). Don’t make the mistake of taking George W(MD) Bush at his word. That would simply compound the foolishness of having done it twice already.”

Chris Murphy: “Bush and his mates are clearly mad. Not content with severing friendship with long-serving European allies, they now threaten to turn their backs on one of their closest allies if its people employ their basic democratic rights. At least now we can be sure what ‘friendship’ really means.”

John Richardson in Sydney: “In asserting that torture is justified by ‘necessity and self-defence’, the Bush Administration has embraced the doctrine that the ends justify the means and that the law of the jungle should override the rule of law. Unless the morally bankrupt administrations of Bush, Blair and Howard are removed, we will all have become terrorists.”

Get the picture? This election will be wild, maybe the wildest since 1975. It’s the most important election in my lifetime. Are we prepared to insist on our independence and demand to be treated by America as a friend, not a slave? Does always saying yes to the United States mean that we can never say no?

Fasten your seatbelts for the “Never-say-no-to-the-Yanks-or-else” election.

***

READER QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Greg Carroll

“We can only hope that Latham sticks with the politics of hope and continues to assert Australia’s independence and national pride. It’s crash or crash through time for Latham, but I wouldn’t be too pessimistic. I reckon people know when a government is pissing all over them. Howard looks increasingly desperate, and running to Big Brother George for help won’t have much impact on how people vote. Maintain the rage!”

Wondering why the Prime Minister said that his favourite Midnight Oil song was ‘Beds are Burning’ (from ‘Diesel & Dust’)?

 

Webdiarist Mark Hayes in Brisbane does:

Remember back in August 2000, when the Olympics were on after hundreds of thousands of Australians showed their support for Aboriginal Reconciliation though the famous bridge walks and seas of hands? The Prime Minister had, and has, refused to apologise and say ‘Sorry’ to the Aboriginal people.

At the closing ceremony of the Games – that huge stadium party and concert broadcast live around the world to an audience of over one billion people – Midnight Oil, dressed in black track suits with the word ‘Sorry’ stencilled on them, ripped into ‘Beds are Burning’ before an ecstatic crowd.

Yothu Yindi followed up with ‘Treaty’.

The crowd at Olympic Stadium went berserk in screaming support, knowing exactly what was being done to shame the Government over Reconciliation.

Sitting in the audience with nowhere to run or hide, and no ‘I am advised’ to scuttle behind, Prime Minister Howard had no choice but to squirm and receive the huge, public, ‘F… You’ delivered loudly, proudly, and strongly by the Oils and Yothu Yindi.

He never forgets any slight delivered upon him, and exacts revenge whenever and wherever possible. This was a massive public rebuke at his meanness. And he won’t ever forget it.

That’s why his favourite Oils song is ‘Beds are Burning’, and he won’t sleep while his bed is burning for revenge against Labor for publicly embracing Peter Garrett, who delivered that most public of attacks on John Howard at what should have been one of his triumphant moments.”

Don�t those days seem too long ago. The last gasp of the old Australia before Howard�s makeover was complete, perhaps? Here�s what I wrote after at the time, in Cathy: the rights and wronged:

Cathy ”Freeman”, get it? Tonight, one of Australia’s most apolitical citizens climaxed the Olympics we had to have with an exclamation mark. As an Aboriginal Australian she won easily after coming from behind. When she’d done it and celebrated draped in the white and the black flag, she set us free to be us.

While buying champagne to celebrate her victory, I found myself in intense conversation with the checkout bloke and the next customer about the race. Everyone was ”stoked”, I think the Olympics cliche is.

To some political junkies, her victory was ”necessary”, an important symbol in the ongoing cultural wars over what we did, who we are and what we aspire to be. But what if she’d lost? If we really wanted her to win, how could we have asked her to light the flame, given that she had the biggest race of her life to run a few days later?

After the opening ceremony image of ”Freeman”, who could contemplate defeat? What would a loss do to our national pride after the spectacular sight of her, us, in the circle of fire? Didn’t she have every right to lose under the weight of all our hopes?

Perhaps she won because she cares only for the job she has chosen to do and is the best in the world at achieving that state of mind. But the way she won! We’d heard for days that ”Freeman” does only enough to win and no more. Last night, behind on the turn, she won by miles.

Last week, many letters to the editors of newspapers critiqued Cathy’s selection to light the flame. She hadn’t proved herself, some said. The choice was some sort of politically correct (ergo horrible) act by the elites. After all, she’d told a British newspaper recently that she strongly opposed John Howard’s refusal to apologise on behalf of the nation for the treatment its colonists had meted out to the original Australians, so that we could look at each other as equals.

That’s why she won by miles.

G�day. There�s an interesting vibe in Australian politics post the Venus phenomenon, eh? Webdiary�s Queens Birthday entry as we ponder our past and consider our future, is on the clash of Garrett and the Bush boys, by Webdiarists.

 

Harry Heidelberg suggests this Oils song as Labor’s election theme, from the album �Blue Sky Mining�.

ONE COUNTRY

Who’d like to change the world, who wants to shoot the curl

Who gets to work for bread, who wants to get ahead

Who hands out equal rights, who starts and ends that fight

And not not rant and rave, or end up a slave

Who can make hard won gains, fall like the summer rain

Now every man must be, what his life can be

So don’t call, me, the tune, I will walk away

*

Who want’s to please everyone, who says it all can be done

Still sit up on that fence, no-one I’ve heard of yet

Don’t call me baby, don’t talk in maybes

Don’t talk like has-beens, sing it like it should be

Who laughs at the nagging doubt, lying on a neon shroud

Just gotta touch someone, I want to be

So don’t…

*

(One country one, country one country)

*

Who wants to sit around, turn it up turn it down

Only a man can be, what his life can be

One vision, one people, one landmass, we are defenceless, we have a lifeline

One ocean, one policy, seabed lies, one passion, one movement, one instant

One difference, one lifetime, one understanding

Transgression, redemption, one island, our placemat, one firmament

One element, one moment, one fusion, yes and one time

***

Webdiarist Peter Best in Sydney is gloomy – heh Peter, play the song! Peter wrote:

In my darker hours I fear that Australians have dumbly accepted the replacement of old-fashioned values like honesty and kindness with the more thrusting business virtues of aggression, greed and mendacity. After all, the money-changers have swarmed into the Temple, thrown out the priests, sold off the icons and erased most of the Commandments while our Prime Minister beams approval.

Can he really regard himself as a Christian? It seems so, but these days the Christians in Washington and Canberra don’t seem to be reading the New Testament. Rather, the old testament looks like their text, with its vengeful God, its tribal bloodbaths and its focus on the Israelites.

I was bemoaning the flight from conscience to a friend when he raised a worrying point. Could it be that Howard hasn’t brought out the worst in us, but merely let our nature assert itself once more after an uncharacteristic period of compassion and tolerance that lasted from Whitlam’s election until Keating’s defeat? Perhaps we’re mostly greedy, brutal racists, relieved to again be allowed to behave as we wish with nobody – no Governor-general, no Prime Minister, no sporting hero – to reproach us or set an example.

Depressing, eh? But if the people can be swayed from empathy and social compassion to greedy self-interestedness by the exhortations and example of their community leaders surely there’s hope yet?

Mark Latham isn’t another Gough Whitlam, but he’s not another John Howard either. Howard has presided over administrations unrivalled in their corruption of parliament and of the national discourse; ministerial accountability has vanished, Jesuitical weasel-words like “core” and “non-core” have been thrust at us with a straight face, journalists buy every dummy pass that’s thrown and have no idea where the ball is any more.

I think – I fervently hope – that Australians can tell the difference between someone who “wasn’t told” and someone who lied, between a promise and a betrayal, between a threat to the nation and a threat to the coalition’s electoral prospects.

A few years ago we learned that there’s only so much destruction of our society the Australian people will tolerate. Remember Jeff Kennett?

***

RECOMMENDATIONS

JR: The Bush misleader website, �a daily chronicle of bush administration distortion.

Scott Burchill: Going to War Not Worth It, More Voters Say for the latest Americans� mood on Iraq, and ZNET for Chomsky�s �Doctrines And Visions: Who Is To Run The World, And How?� (search under Noam Chomsky):

�There is a curious performance under way right now among Western commentators, who are solemnly debating whether the Bush administration downgraded the “war on terror” in favour of its ambitions in Iraq. The only surprising aspect of the revelations of former Bush administration officials that provoked the debate is that anyone finds them surprising – particularly right now, when it is so clear that by invading Iraq the administration did just that: knowingly increased the threat of terror to achieve their goals in Iraq.

Jozef Imrich: Is US like Germany of the ’30s?: �Has the combination of the World Trade Center attack and a president who believes his instructions come from God unleashed the dark side of the American heritage?�

Carl Cranstone: Bush’s Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

Ian Read: For you and your readers’ information, the Pentagon Torture Memo that Ashcroft refuses to release can be downloaded at what really happened

Adam Fenderson in Melbourne: Thank you for helping bring the issue of oil depletion to a wider audience (Oils ain’t just oils, they’re to die for and Deputy PM confirms oil crisis). Readers in Melbourne are invited to the screening of The END of SUBURBIA, a film about Peak Oil, on June 29.

Darren Urquhart: Have a look at Coup D’etat: The Real Reason Tenet and Pavitt Resigned from the CIA on June 3rd and 4th, Bush, Cheney Indictments in Plame Case Looming, by Michael C. Ruppert. It seemed pretty way-out until I read the 5 preceding articles he refers to in paragraph 5. He has been on the money for some time.

Mark Kelly, Townsville: A few tenacious souls on the ground in Iraq have been working to record local civilian injuries and fatalities during the ‘clean’ war. It is depressing. I just hope humanity in the UK, US and here exercises a collective democratic statement during 2004 and sweeps out the ‘hear no evil, see no evil’ monkeys that are presently ‘governing’ us.

A federal public servant: For those who haven�t read it, please read Al Gore�s on May 26. I have taken a lot of heart from the speech – it really is one of the great commentaries about the Bush’s administration handling of the Iraq conflict. It was run in full on Bruce Springsteen’s website.

***

THE BUSH/HOWARD, LATHAM/GARRETT SHOW

Peter Woodforde in Canberra: “Having finished with Mark Latham, will the Bush White House now turn its guns on Play School? I mean, poor old John Anderson can’t be expected to do the War on Lesbians by himself, can he?”

Mike Lyvers in Queensland: “Mark Latham praised Peter Garrett for his “passion” and “commitment” to politics. Then it turns out Garrett hasn’t even voted in 10 years! Such “passion,” such “commitment” indeed! I had a good laugh out of this incident, however sad for the Labor party.”

Michelle Wright: Re Peter Garrett, I think every election has its own special twist. If a person who has not bothered to vote for 10 years is now motivated enough to run for parliament, and if people like me are motivated enough to actively agitate for change, then maybe this is the “twist” and “energy” of election 2004.

Nick Porecki: Did Peter vote or didn’t he? Who are we to believe – poor little whingeing John or Peter Garrett? Who has a track record of lying through his teeth at every opportunity? It’s your word against Peters word John – why should I believe you?

Steve: You suggested in Howard’s 2004 Tampa: director George Bush that the election could be as early as 7th August. My neighbour studies political science and history and told me about two weeks ago that the Libs have already booked their standard election night haunt in Sydney for August 7.

***

Shannon Roy

As I was (until recently) an enrolled elector in P Garrett’s “safe seat”, a friend recently asked me if I’d vote for him. I would vote for him for two reasons:

1. The Labor party needs talent. I have seen Garrett (in my former life as an employee at his music company) run a fractious band and actually achieve consensus among a large group (Oils were a BIG band) of musicians and label drones, people generally noted for their individuality and strong dislike for authority or “toeing the line”. He has leadership and consensus building skills that are top-class, a sharp mind, and a clear voice. His weakness would be that people perceive him as a screamer; actually he’s a principled compromiser and that’s the soul of a good politician. It’s the unprincipled compromisers that get us into trouble.

2. I long ago resigned myself to voting for the party that was “most likely to be the party I would feel happy about voting for” – therefore I would vote for whomever Labor selected in that seat. I have MANY bones to pick with Labor policies past and present, but they are FAR more likely to do things I want than the other side.

So let’s talk about the “other side”. Unlike many I think John Howard is a phenomenal leader who has led Australia extremely well. I never voted for him, or his party, and I know we all secretly want to follow our parties like football teams and scream from the stands for the blood of the other side whatever the evidence, but let’s just consider the evidence for a moment.

1. We shouldn’t have gone to Iraq for reasons that should be clear to all but the screaming supporters of the other football team, but now that we’ve participated in bombing it to hell, destroying its infrastructure and dropping it into massive danger of erupting into all out chaos, pulling the troops out and saying “f� you” to the Iraqis is morally bankrupt. We erred, as a country. So we must put it right. Otherwise we’re not worth spit.

2. Remember, John Howard is gun laws (after the NSW experience Labor would never have done the same thing); John Howard is East Timor (after Keating’s comprehensive rimming of Suharto they never would have gone); John Howard is fiscal austerity in the good times which means Australia survived the Asian crisis which would have left a Labor government with a mountain of debt and no way out.

3. BUT John is also asylum seekers, which although a poison chalice which kills everyone who sips it, does need to be handled ethically. Remember Crean’s position was also mandatory detention. Remember that similar regimes exist all around the world and compared to many others ours is humane and generous. But it’s still wrong, and this is one area I think Labor could have done better, and hopefully will do better. And Howard’s other negative things, too, some fairly on his shoulders, and some, like uni fees, just a small step away from what Labor introduced in their long run (I marched against HECS, for example, which blind Freddy could see would lead to full fees).

Australians know all these things, which is why John keeps being elected, football mentality of the general voter or no. He is the most powerful Australian politician of our times. He has managed to make phenomenal positive changes in our economic life (for a small over governed economy like ours, the GST was the right move and Keating knew it). That and a massive lack of talent in Labor ranks have made it hard voting in Australia. We’ve two centre parties, and only one has had any real mandate in the “conservative capitalist” backlash that was the 90s.

Now we’re in a new era, the “terror” era, maybe Labor should have a go again.

One last thing: the idiotic bleating that’s going on at the moment about the US Alliance being on the table in this election is just that, idiotic. It’s a strong alliance because Australia and the US need each other. We need our “great and powerful”. They need their large, immobile aircraft carrier (we call it Australia) in the middle of the Pacific/Indian oceans and a politically stable place to handle the information nexus of this hemisphere (Pine Gap et al). There’s no way those two things are going away.

Don’t make the mistake of taking George W(MD) Bush at his word. That would simply compound the foolishness of having done it twice already.

*

P. Doyle

I have too much time on my hands, so I’m familiar with some of your writings. I can’t remember agreeing with a single word, but there is something strangely appealing about reading your nonsense.

I suppose it�s not so much the nonsense itself, but rather the place at which the nonsense resides. That is, how long will Fairfax allow such desperately silly and biased writings to continue and or increase? Is the Sydney Morning Herald immune to embarrassment?

Let me be more specific, starting with Stage set for David and Goliath battle. I think most readers immediately identify and scoff at such gratuitous lunges for underdog status, I know I did. I think most regard such lunges for underdog status, at least in relation to a political contest, as a byword. (Oh, and by the way, David was a conservative.)

I skipped passed your first, second and third paragraphs quite quickly. Although I did laugh at the usage of inverted comma’s girding your own thoughts. And I was delightfully baffled as you managed to make the astronomically significant Venus crossing sound so jingoistic. “Abstract thinkers” was also noted with a grin. (In 4000 odd years of “peace and happiness” have the Europeans ever gone a decade without an armed conflict? If history is any guide, I’ll hang my hat on Mars).

But the first real little Margo surprise came soon after, when you called the NSW Labor “machine”, corrupt! The mind boggles, as would their’s, as should your editors. What a hide you have. Not an eyebrow raised I bet, as you slipped in another monumentally cheap slur.

You describe Bush as having dumped on Latham, with “brutally explicit threats”. Again would you not be better served, by being less ridiculous (or deceitful)? Have a second look. How would you describe these comments made by Bush “It would be a disastrous decision for the leader of a great country like Australia to say that we’re pulling out”; “It would dispirit those who love freedom in Iraq.� Margo, could any fair, reasonable, or dare I say, sane individual, describe such comments as being “brutally explicit threats”? (Margo: I was referring to the threats by Armitage post Bush.)

Having already consumed more rubbish then any SMH reader should ever have to stomach, I lamentably continued. So please help me now Margo. What should I do next? I’ve just read “Howard is confident he can scare us into voting for him again out of deliberately, cynically engineered fear.”

Of course, I’ve encountered irony and hypocrisy before. But not to such an extent. I’m perplexed. Do I laugh, weep, or waste a few more minutes typing.

Actually, perhaps neither. I think I’ll wait until the election is one and lost, before weeping with laughter and finishing this e-mail.

*

Brad Spence in Newcastle

While I read your column every chance I get, I am reluctant to write to you as my thoughts can not be expressed with the same effectiveness of your other writers. However I have followed the comments of the US administration over recent weeks with some alarm.

Below is a copy of the thoughts I emailed to The Australian on the subject after reading a Paul Kelly story. I am not a gifted writer but I can not sit by and watch what happening to the media without trying to express my concern.

“Over the years The Australian finally lifted itself from the self-serving muck that saw it run the Labor Government out of office in the 1970s and hence became the balanced national newspaper we needed. Now when we need you the most, you have reverted to type.

�Whether or not Labor�s Iraqi policy is correct, America cannot treat the alliance, our economy and independence with such arrogance and manipulations. Is the alliance and the FTA (the worth of which is already under serious question) reliant on our 800 odd troops staying in Iraqi and not electing a Labor government?

When did we stop being an ally and become a subservient guest in the presence of the almighty? Why are you not asking these questions? Why not challenge both Armitage and Howard?

How could you claim that removing 800 troops 6 months after the handover of power would recruit more people to the terrorist cause than what America has been doing to the population! That is folly at best and a misrepresentation of the truth at worst.

We need the Australian to expose the truth for the benefit of Australia, not aimlessly follow the line of an overseas power to appease the boss.

***

Guido Tresoldi, an ALP member in Melbourne

Howard has tried to find a new ‘Tampa’ for some time now. But in my opinion unlike Tampa, what Howard with the help of the USA administration is doing is a double edged sword for him.

I don’t think any Australians would like anyone to threaten or blackmail them with threats of �behave or else�. While we resent powerful friends telling us what to do. we tend to run to them when we feel threatened. The only way Howards’ strategy will work is if we feel scared enough to want protection. This situation reminded me of when I was a child in Italy.

In Italy the late 70s early 80s were called ‘anni di piombo’, years of lead, where the red brigades and neo-fascist groups used violence to unbalance the state. In those years it was not uncommon for conspiracy theories to abound. One of the main ones was when in the 70s the Communist Party was on the verge of victory. This would have had huge geopolitical implications in the Cold War, considering Italy was a very important member of NATO.

Before the election campaign there was a spate of terrorist attacks, which were attributed to ‘communist terrorists’ although the red brigades did not claim to be responsible for them. The conspiracy theory was that the terrorism was sponsored by the USA in order to scare the populace to vote for the Christian Democrats (something that did happen).

This set me thinking about what George Bush said about Latham’s policies. It is interesting to note how Australia, a country that really the USA has not much interest in, has become a very important symbolic partner in Iraq.

If Australia withdrew its troops, it would have a really small impact on the ground, but it would have a major impact psychologically.

Now, if Howard is really looking down the gurgler, what would swing votes back to him (I’m not suggesting he would ever contemplate this). A little explosion somewhere in Australia? It would not need to hurt anyone. Anywhere in Canberra on a weekend could not hurt anyone even if it tried, considering the flight out of the place on a Friday night. (I’m not suggesting he would ever contemplate this).

This, helped by the pro-Howard commentariat emphasising that Latham would be too risky in such a dangerous time, would do the trick. What a Tampa opportunity, and the American neo-con administration would still have their man of steel.

***

Sacha Blumen in Sydney

I often enjoy reading your articles, and Howard’s 2004 Tampa: director George Bush was no exception. I’m glad at least one person in the media believes that truth and reality should be the basis for governments’ actions, and that they should be truthful with the population.

Unfortunately these self-evident notions seem to be foreign to Howard et al and it seems that he and his mates are prepared, as you state, to win at all costs – that seems to be all they care about. Stuff telling the Australian people the truth of their actions, inactions or the motives behind them, let alone attempt to have the best possible policies.

I was distraught at the idea, before the 2001 federal election, that Howard could win that election by running a campaign based on fear and people’s underlying prejudices and hatreds. I thought (and still think) that it was shocking that they should run such a campaign – and to my mind it was enough to morally disqualify them from running the country. Kim Beazley was correct when he called them “a gang of thugs” after the election. A shame he wasn’t so blunt beforehand.

Often I wonder what I can do to help get rid of this dreadful mob. I really don’t know. At the moment I’m trying to finish my PhD thesis, which is challenging enough, and I don’t have much time. I gain some satisfaction from writing e-mails to federal ministers demanding reasons for their latest appalling statment, but the responses, if any, are usually unsatisfactory.

Sometimes I despair – why can’t we at least have people with good hearts in politics – that would be a massive improvement on the current federal government. I don’t usually agree with conservative politicians, but it would be much better if conservatives with good intentions and good hearts went into the conservative parties so there could be proper debates about ideas and policies – not these so-called debates often apparently spurred by the desire to appeal to prejudice and fear.

I believe that political life would be grately improved if the ideas floating around it were informed by imagination and open minds. Do you think that’s possible? (Margo: Yes, if we make it so.)

*

Steve Turbit, ALP member

It is pretty obvious what Howard is up to here. He is trying to use the Americans to help get him reelected, and as usual he will stop at NOTHING! He’s even got the Governor-General in on the act.

However, I think this one may backfire on him. If you look at the ninemsn poll, 67% of the respondents think that the United States is getting too heavily involved in our domestic politics. Australians don’t like anyone, but particularly the Yanks, butting in and telling us what to do an how to run our affairs. This is a big gamble by Howard – it may pay off but I really don’t think so.

I think Howard’s tactic is to set up a number of fronts and hope that one or more will pay off. You have the disgraceful Medicare propaganda ads paid for by us, the huge budget bribes, the gay marriage bill, the Auslink bribe, and the Iraq tactics that he’s getting help with from the Americans just to name a few. I think Howard is running out of ideas, and I think he’s WORRIED – seriously. He’s starting to look a little more than desperate, and that is a good sign. The shoulder twitch is back. There is still a long way to go and anything could happen, but I think we might be starting to see the beginning of the end. The important thing at this point is not to drop the guard and underestimate him.

One of my friends commented a couple of weeks ago that he can see some comparisons with the current Howard Government and the dying days of the Keating Government. I can see his point. All the messages that the Government is trying to send to the electorate are being drowned out by Ministerial scandals and stuff-ups along with more bad news from Iraq.

Also, like Howard in 1996, Latham is showing incredible tenacity. He won’t back down, and actually I think he’s starting to prevail on Iraq. Once he makes his mind up on something he sticks to it through thick and thin. This makes him look strong and decisive. And he refuses to lose his cool.

And for those who choose to remember, the economy wasn’t in trouble in 1996 either. It had recovered and was putting along quite sweetly. Keating and Hawke survived bad economy elections, and I actually think that people feel better about ejecting a government at a time of economic certainty rather than uncertainty. So don’t think a strong economy will keep the Government alive.

I hope I am proven to be right. What do you think? (Margo: I think Labor will always lose an election campaign on race or the American Alliance, unless the leader is brave enough to do something seriously special, and damn the risk.)

*

Sasha Marker in Sydney

I am concerned and alarmed at the suspicious lack of response in the media regarding the impending increase of US military personnel and equipment on Australian shores. Coupled with the story in the SMH about the massive US troop withdrawal from South Korea, it might be possible to put two and two together and conclude that the US military mean to set up shop permanently in Australia, whether we want them to or not. And, I have to wonder if our government signed and sealed this bargain when it prostituted itself to the US for their war on terror.

I first heard about American military designs for a greater military presence in Australia in 1997. My ex-spouse was a lowly NCO (with a security clearance) and it seemed to be a fairly common topic of conversation among the Marines that northern Australia was the preferred location for another US military installation.

The Marines think of Australia quite fondly and Waltzing Matilda is played every morning in Camp Pendleton, San Diego at 7:30am as it is the official hymn for the 1st Marine Corp division stationed there. They would love to come. I remember laughing and telling my ex that no Australian government would be stupid enough to allow it. Alas, we have finally descended to the necessary levels of stupidity.

After living in East Asia (Korea and Japan), I’ve seen and heard first hand some of the problems associated with having a permanent US military presence (outside of spy bases) in a foreign country and I am appalled that the Australia government would even consider it. No amount of profit will ever be worth it. With the Australian press turning the other cheek to this, I was just wondering if there is any sense of collective outrage somewhere or is it just me?

Andrew Denton made this speech on June 6 at the world premiere of ‘Helen’s War’, a documentary on the life and times of Australian anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott.

 

A few months ago I read the obituary of a Russian public servant called Valerie Mitrokhin, a file clerk in the KGB at the height of the Soviet Empire. He was a trusted man, one of the faceless bureaucrats so central to Stalin’s totalitarian dream who served his country faithfully for many years.

But as he served, Valerie began to think about the horror of the tyrannical regime whose daily excesses were stored so neatly in the sea of files it was his job to keep orderly. So Valerie decided to do something about it. Every night, this quiet, anonymous man, would take one file from the KGB’s filing cabinets, put it under his greatcoat, and smuggle it out of the office, past the guards, to be hidden at his home. If he’d been found out, of course, he would have been shot.

Every night he did this. For 20 years. So that, when he did eventually flee to the West, where he ended up living under an assumed identity in London until his death earlier this year, he brought with him such a wealth of material that many KGB operations were stopped dead in their tracks and countless lives were saved.

And it reminded me that, no matter how huge and fearful a machine may be, there is always a weak link, a gap in the fence, and always someone determined and motivated enough to go through it. Always.

Which brings us to Helen Caldicott.

Or should I say, the hateful, ungrateful, harmful, hysterical, irrelevant, shrill, fossilised crackpot and left-wing twit, Helen Caldicott – just some of the free character appraisals she has received in various arms of the media lately.

Or should I say, instead, Dr Helen Caldicott. For Dr. she is – a paediatrician – and never let us forget it. Nor should she.

Because there is something about the appellation “Dr” that immediately has you marked out as a beacon of wisdom and humanity. How else can one explain the fact that Dr. Henry Kissinger has not yet been strung up by his heels and used as a human pi�ata by the good citizens of the Third World? Or that Dr. Geoffrey Edelsten was ever seriously considered as a doctor? Or that Dr. John Hewson was ever seriously considered? Period.

No, Helen has got the Dr. thing all worked out. She’s smart enough to know that it makes people think that she’s smart – and that she cares about them. Lucky for them, she is and she does.

Like many an impressionable early-twentysomething, I was galvanised in the early ’80s by the likes of Dr. Helen Caldicott to do something about the state of Mutually Assured Destruction to which the world had been consigned. I marched in rallies. I handed out How-To-Vote cards for Peter Garrett. I attended Palm Sunday gatherings in the hope of a nuclear free world and also, maybe, of finding someone who would have sex with me. How little I knew. And I did something even more radical and committed. I wrote poetry. Here is a sample:

Undertakers Overture

We’re overpaid and overfed, we’re oversexed (I’ve heard it said) We overact and over-reach, we over-use our soap and bleach We overspend and over-drink … then vomit over kitchen sinks And now I find – the bitterest pill – we’re under threats of overkill From overseas, just overnight (in what might be an oversight), A squadron flying overhead can nuke us til we’re overdead.

It was powerful stuff and I waited for it to take effect on the military-industrial complex. Nothing happened. I couldn’t believe it. This was some of my best verse. Disillusioned, knowing I had given it my all, I left nuclear disarmament to others, safe in the knowledge that it was only a matter of time.

Skip forward 20 years to June of last year and Helen Caldicott – Dr. Helen Caldicott – appeared as a guest on Enough Rope.

There was a fair argument against talking to Helen. She was from another time. The Cold War was long since over. She was a lost soul spruiking a won cause. In many ways, a trivia-question-in-waiting. Or so it seemed.

How little I knew. Her appearance on the show electrified our studio audience. We got a mountain of viewing mail as well. And all because of radical statements like these:

“We’re all capable of denying evil. We’ve got to get in touch with our humanity and not follow orders if the orders are going to kill people. We’ve got to stop killing people or we’ll blow up the earth.”

It was amazing. Not that somebody was saying such stuff, but that saying it should be considered so amazing. Who would have thought that advocating a world where we don’t all have to die an agonizing death of melted eyeballs and seared flesh is considered radical?

Not everyone loved Helen, of course. Some thought that she was a mad, screeching prophet of doom. And there’s a little bit in that. One of the most revealing scenes in the film you’re about to see is a good old fashioned barney between the film-maker, Anna, and her subject, Helen, after Anna suggests that Helen’s shrillness is a real turn-off. It doesn’t quite reach Jerry Springer proportions, but it’s a willing exchange.

And there is something about Helen’s zealotry which doesn’t always wash. As she tried to persuade me on Enough Rope last year that the White House and Pentagon are full of cold-eyed, money-making ideologues who care nothing for the future of their children, I remember thinking, “too dramatic”. The cold-eyed, money-making ideologue bit I buy. But not caring for the future of your children? Flawed they may be, but these are humans we’re talking about here, not robots. It’s not as if Terminator is an official of the United States Govt, I though to myself. How little I knew.

There is also something about Helen’s optimism which borders sometimes on naivety. In the film, you’ll see Helen sending an email to the Pope with the words, “Off it goes to the Pope and he can save the world.” I’m sorry Helen, but if there’s one thing that won’t ever save this world it’s organised religion and the all-too-human leaders who claim to interpret God’s word for our betterment.

But it’s this faith in human nature that ultimately redeems Helen’s excesses. And in that, she reminds me of another great humanist, Spike Milligan, a man whose love and despair for the human race fought equally for control of his brain, and who, like Helen, was easily dismissed by those whom he offended with his clear-eyed honesty as “mad”. Spike once brilliantly said, “Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light.”

Indeed so. Not that I think, for one second, that Helen is mad. She just makes other people feel that way. But if, at times, she does appear to be over-the-top, I don’t think it’s because she’s unhinged. I think that so few voices are prepared to join hers in protest that she has to shout more and more loudly to be heard over the din of apathy. That she has the energy to keep doing so is an inspiration in itself.

And that’s why I’m here today. Because it is too easy to dismiss the Helen Caldicott’s of this world as mad. I can hear them now – the Piers Ackerman’s and Miranda Devines and Andrew Bolts – all sharpening their Mont Blancs.

And they’ll throw up a thousand justifications and case studies and facts, And most will be well-intentioned. And many will be right. Yes they will. But the thing is: They can be right a thousand times. Helen only needs to be right once and we’re all going to pay a terrible price.

So ask yourself this: What are the chances of Helen being right? To which the answer is: 100% and, to prove it, I will invoke a discovery I have made called the Ackerman Principle, which states that “Piers Ackerman’s argument that a nuclear disaster will never happen because we can trust human beings is negated by the fact that Piers Ackerman is a human being”.

In other words: Any system whose weakest link is human fallibility is doomed to failure.

Now the usual pack of right-wing bullyboys and girls can write Helen off as mad – in that strange way they have of writing off anyone as mad who thinks peace might be nice – but she shouldn’t have to stand alone while they, with their vast numerical superiority, ridicule her out of existence.

So I am happy to stand here beside her and declare:

Any woman who dedicates her life to saying “We can end nuclear war in 5 years. I know how to do it” will always have my support because think that’s a damned good idea.

And if you want to call me mad, too, I don’t mind because I am. And if you are, too, I’d like you to stick your head out of your window tonight and yell: “I’m mad as Helen and I’m not going to take it any more!”

To finish, let us go to another mad person, who lived on the fringes yet drove straight to the heart, the poet, Walt Whitman, who once said: “Behold, I do not give lectures or a little charity. When I give I give myself.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Helen Caldicott and ‘Helen’s War’.

Page one of the Sydney Morning Herald today said it all. It�s gunna be the beds are burning election, alright. There�s Garrett glaring at the camera, strong, passionate and angry, nailing his colours to the �Anyone But Howard� mast. And beside him, the Bush administration�s latest, most extreme threat to dump the American Alliance if Australians dare elect Mark Latham: “Think about life without the US, says Bush�s man.” (and see Armitage on Lateline last night).

 

Howard knows he�s got his 2004 Tampa: director George Bush and Latham knows it too. In 2001 the fear politics was headlined �WE will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come�. In 2004, it is �We will do everything the Republican Americans tell us to because we hope that if we do they�ll look after us in the course of their endless empire wars.� This time, it�s Latham who might defiantly assert: �WE will decide when we go to war and the circumstances in which we go and leave.�

To save their careers, Howard and Bush have made a Faustian pact to change Australia into the 51st state � without voting rights � after making Australians too frightened to freely exercise their democratic vote. Bush led the campaign, then Richard Armitage turned the screws in serial interviews with Australian media. Today, a convenient charging of David Hicks, whose incarceration without charge or trial in Guantanamo Bay for more than two years was getting excruciating for Howard. And on Sunday, Colin Powell will join the pack through an interview with the ABC Insider�s program. There�ll be more, much more, as Howard presses more firmly on his red button before, if his scheme goes well, calling an early �Say yes to the Yanks or else� election.

Garrett�s recruitment to Labor symbolises Latham’s determination to call Bush�s bluff in Tampa Mark II. Wild politics, folks. Seriously wild.

Howard and Bush -v- Latham looks like the sort of David and Goliath battle Australians might enjoy. Will they be consumed with fear of America deserting us and put back Howard? Or will they realise that this extraordinarily brutal Bush administration bullying is all about helping Bush and Howard win their respective elections. A vote for Howard is a vote for Bush. A vote for Latham is a statement that we�d like the American presidency to return to sane, competent and decent leadership.

John Howard knows how high he�s raised the stakes with his devil�s deal to put the Alliance on the table to save his career. Yesterday, Perth ABC’ radio�s Liam Bartlett asked Howard to reveal his favourite Peter Garrett song:

PRIME MINISTER: Oh, I quite like Beds are Burning.

BARTLETT: Do you? What about US Forces?

PRIME MINISTER: Pass!

So here it is, Australia�s John Howard�s election theme for the most important election in my lifetime. Funny it�s about Land Rights. A fair Go. A statement of who Australians are and what we believe in to which Howard does not subscribe. Maybe he liked it because it reminded him what he hated about Australia. Then, �US Forces�, the Oils anthem Howard passed on.

Midnight Oil – Beds are Burning

Out where the river broke

The bloodwood and the desert oak

Holden wrecks and boiling diesels

Steam in forty five degrees

*

The time has come

To say fair’s fair

To pay the rent

To pay our share

The time has come

A fact’s a fact

It belongs to them

Let’s give it back

*

How can we dance when our earth is turning

How do we sleep while our beds are burning

*

Four wheels scare the cockatoos

From Kintore East to Yuendemu

The western desert lives and breathes

In forty five degrees

***

Midnight Oil – U.S. FORCES

US forces give the nod

it’s a setback for your country

bombs and trenches all in rows

bombs and threats still ask for more

*

divided world the CIA

who controls the issue

you leave us with no time to talk

you can write your own assessment

*

sing me songs of no denying

seems to me too many trying

waiting for the next big thing

*

will you know it when you see it?

high risk children dogs of war

now market movements call the shots

business deals in parking lots

waiting for the meat of tomorrow

*

everyone is too stoned to start emission

people too scared to go to prison

we’re unable to make decisions

political party line don’t cross that floor

L. Ron Hubbard can’t save your life

superboy takes a plutonium wife

in the shadows of ban the bomb we live.