Alun Breward translated a sensational article in the German magazine Der Spiegel for Webdiary before we invaded Iraq. A think tank war: Why old Europe says no went around the world, and became Webdiary’s most read entry. This is his first piece for Webdiary.

 

Maybe Peter Costello doesn’t read newspapers. But if he read the Fairfax press at the end of June, he probably smirked. On 29 June The Age featured Tony Fitzgerald QC arguing that truth is essential to democracy and that the Coalition Government actively misinform us. But a few pages later came an article that showed democracy does not only depend on what politicians say. It was by a noted business journalist who flayed Costello for fibbing to us about the causes of the housing boom. A colleague echoed the attack on a later page.

But Costello was telling the truth when he said that tax policy was not a major driver of the boom in house prices. Here is why.

Both Fairfax commentators nominated capital gains tax changes in 1999 as a crucial trigger for the boom in demand for “investment property”. But as Australian Taxation Office data show, between 1994 and 2000 the number of taxpayers claiming losses on rental property was growing five times faster than the total number of taxpayers [1]. Reserve Bank figures show that between 1990 and 1999, loans to housing investors grew at double the rate of loans to people buying a home [2].

Long before Costello cut capital gains tax, Australians were falling over themselves to get into residential investment property. The absence of meaningful house price rises during much of the 1990s – which one of these two critics of Costello described in The Age of 8 April 1998 – did not dampen investor enthusiasm. That in turn squares with the findings of the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics study of residential property investors [3]. That showed that many owners of rental properties were not landlords for the tax benefits.

Property booms in the UK and NZ also prove that it is a furphy to claim that tax fuelled Australia’s boom. With zero capital gains tax to pay in the UK, and no deductions through negative gearing either, what the Poms call the “buy-to-let” market has kept their housing industry red hot for years now [4]. Across the Tasman, Capital Gains Tax is unknown and income tax rates are low compared to here, making negative gearing less attractive. Despite this the Kiwis are experiencing a housing boom which according to business magazine The Economist is particularly extreme [5].

However, one of these Fairfax commentators could not stop at just one weak explanation of the housing boom. Drawing a line between tax driven speculation and prudent spending on housing, he claimed the boom was well-grounded to the extent it reflected lower interest rates. Nowadays the line of reasoning that low interest rates bring high house prices is so familiar that it is practically folklore. Unfortunately it is simply an instance of one the great talents of economic rationalists – revisionism.

If economic rationalism has any credibility, it would seem reasonable to expect that it would have a consistent message. Maybe also it would show signs of being useful for predicting, broadly, some things about the future.

Returning to our correspondent’s writings in The Age of 8 April 1998, it’s plain that neither is the case. In 1998, mortgage interest rates had fallen to very close to where they are today. But was our commentator reporting or even anticipating a boom in house prices? No. He was arguing that the property boom of the 1980s had been a one-off, and that in the late 1990s strong price growth might occur only in pockets of our capital cities.

In holding this contradictory set of views on interest rates it must be said he has impeccable company. In late November 1995, when interest rates had fallen most of the way from their 1990 peak to the levels of today, Ian MacFarlane gave a speech. The then Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank said:

“In an environment in which inflation is low and stable…and interest rates are low, there will most likely be some gentle rise in house prices.” [6]

In October 1997, with MacFarlane now heading the RBA, and house price rises emerging in some areas, Deputy Governor Stevens of the RBA echoed his boss. He said:

“The answer to the first question – will house price inflation and asset price inflation generally be as high in future as it was in the 1980s or even the recent past? – is surely no.” [7]

So if tax policy and interest rates are not credible explanations of the housing boom, what is? It’s probably best described as the Skase effect – the decision of the banks in the early 1990s to increase lending for housing.

Cast your mind back. In the early 1990s the banks were in deep trouble. Westpac nearly failed. The State Banks of Victoria and of South Australia needed rescue. Banks’ loans to corporate Australia were stinking to high heaven. If anyone in business wanted to borrow from them, the banks ran a mile. As Reserve Bank Deputy Governor Stevens observed in the speech quoted earlier, banks had only one place to turn – lending for housing to householders.

The results were fantastic. By 31 October 1998 the Australian Financial Review was writing that the 1990s had seen the greatest real estate lending boom in the history of this country and had been “a golden era for big banks”.

And then, the housing sector got seriously hot.

It remains so to this day; whatever the Reserve Bank Governor and numerous other economic rationalist pundits may say.

Now I do not intend to get into conjecture about why two noted business commentators might ignore the evidence that the housing boom was created by the banks. Why journalists might give an airing to furphies is not the issue. Blind Freddie could probably work out the reasons for their actions anyway.

The point is that if Tony Fitzgerald QC was correct about the importance of truth to democracy, it’s not just politicians who owe us the truth. Journalists do too.

Footnotes

[1] The Age 23 Sept 2002

[2] rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/index.html. See Table D5.

[3] Household Investors in Rental Dwellings – ABS Catalogue Number 8711.0

[4] news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2222759.stm,

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3829435.stm

[5] See The Economist of 5 June 2004

[6] See rba.gov.au/Speeches/1995/index.html

[7] See rba.gov.au/Speeches/1997/index.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Simon Jarman in Melbourne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Pete Rowe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Up until now that is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How wrong I’ve been.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO JOHN, NOT IN MY BLOODY NAME!

***

Michael Riggall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

***

Hannah Robert, lawyer and Greens Candidate for Kingsford Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Lynda and Carlos Medina

Open Letter to Australia (hi guys!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

*

10 June 2004

Doubts Remain Over Fair Trial for Hicks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julian Ninio’s first piece published on Webdiary was Ignorance, hypocrisy, obedience: symptoms of a sick America, based on his recent book. This article was first pubished in The Age and is repubished with Julian’s permission. For more on defending our democracy see nothappyjohn.

 

I became an Australian citizen a month ago. In the US, I will vote for Kerry holding my nose, knowing that Kerry won’t fix the deep problems of which George Bush is a symptom, such as the trailer parks where America’s social policies force one family in thirteen. In Australia, I will vote knowing that a single election can produce change.

Australian citizens share at least one problem with American citizens. This problem afflicts many democracies. Citizens feel that governments do not obey them. In Australia, John Howard didn’t ask the people if they wanted to invade Iraq. John Howard didn’t ask Australians if they wanted to raise the price of university education by 25 per cent. John Howard didn’t ask Australians if they wanted to ban gay marriages. John Howard didn’t ask Australians if they wanted a tax cut instead of social services.

But compared with US citizens, Australians are in a far better position to change their society. First, more Australians are aware that their democracy doesn’t truly work. (It helps that Australia, unlike the US, does not see itself as the cradle of democracy.) One cannot fix a problem unless one knows about it. By and large, Australians know there’s a problem.

Second, Australian citizens have powerful democratic tools on their side, tools US citizens lack. Think of democracy as having two aspects: government ‘by the people’ and ‘for the people’.

Australia’s special tools do not lie on the ‘for the people’ side of democracy. ‘For the people’ means that people can force government to serve the public interest. This piece of democracy is broken nearly everywhere.

Australia’s democratic strength lies on the ‘by the people’ side of democracy. ‘By the people’ means that people choose who represents them. Australia has mandatory voting; in the US, half of the people vote and they vote in proportion to income and education. Australia has proportional representation; in the US, if ten per cent of people vote for the Greens, their vote gets thrown out. Australia has preferential voting; in the US, if five per cent of people vote for Ralph Nader, that’s fewer votes for Al Gore or John Kerry, and George Bush gets elected.

If Australians re-elect John Howard, at least they will know they voted for him. Australia has these tools: mandatory voting, preferential voting, proportional representation. This means that if Australians produce a critical mass of concerned citizens before an election, they can change society.

For instance, look at the Iraq War. Many people feel that last year’s massive protests were useless, that they changed nothing — yet things are changing. The Sydney suburb of Leichhardt (where I live) just had local elections, and now has four Green councillors. Australians have tools to express their anger at the ruling parties. And if Australians organise again, they can actually solve the war problem, make sure it never happens again.

Let�s call this a democracy problem. The problem: Most Australians opposed the war, Howard went to war anyway. Clue: The constitution sets no process for the country to declare war. The problem has at least one obvious solution. Australians need a law that forbids government from committing troops to a war of aggression without the approval of parliament, or of citizens. By the way, make that approval by a ‘super majority’ – a majority by two-thirds or three-quarters.

So the message before the election should not just be ‘We want troops out’. It should also be: ‘We want laws to restrict the power to go to war’. The Democrats introduced such a bill last year, but without major party support, parliament has not discussed it.

If hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets with that message in the weeks before the election, it will work. Labor will have to pick it up. These are the mass dynamics that worked in Spain’s last election.

The Iraq War is one of many ‘democracy problems’. Australians could solve many other problems in one go. Today, Australian citizens have no power to initiate a referendum. Suppose Australians changed that. Suppose Australians changed the Referendum Act so the signatures of 300 000 voters could force an issue on the ballot.

That’s the scale of last year’s No War protests. People wouldn’t feel disillusioned about protests if they knew that protests could force government to submit important questions to a popular vote. People would protest more. And government would take greater care not to upset the popular will, if they knew that citizens could organise and reverse their policies.

If citizens could initiate a referendum, they would be far closer to having government ‘for people’. People would have the power to force reforms that seem doomed today, in all areas: the environment, work, education, health, trade, and more.

True, a people’s referendum would need careful design to ensure people do not have to vote every week, and that they vote on meaningful questions, not blind tosses between bitter and acid. Those disgruntled with the 1999 referendum can help discuss how to design a process that works.

Australian democracy almost works. This may sound like a harsh assessment, but it’s more than one can say about most societies that also call themselves democratic. It would take little to make Australian democracy truly work.

In the weeks before the next election, we should ask for ‘Troops Out’. But we should also ask for a People’s War Control Act. And, I argue, we should ask for a People’s Referendum Act.

As we spend energy treating symptoms such as the Iraq War, we might as well treat the causes too. Let’s start making these banners now. By next year, we may be on our way to becoming the lucky citizens of a fully functional democracy.

Julian Ninio is the author of The Empire of Ignorance, Hypocrisy and Obedience (2004) .

Polly Bush** is a Webdiary columnist.

 

A new contestant has emerged in the lead-up to this year’s federal poll, with the launching of a political party prepared to take on the Howard Government’s gay wedge issue – or at least, take the issue up to a higher level.

The Keeping-It-Queer (KIQ) Party, launched today, has been formed as a direct response to the Government’s recent policy announcements to legislate against marriage and overseas adoption rights for gay and lesbian Australians.

While the new Party opposes the Government’s policies, Party President Les Beyan said the Coalition’s “regrettable” position left it no other option but to work with the Government in further creating a segregated society.

“If John Howard wants to create an Us-and-Them Society, the KIQ Party will ensure we roll out these reforms to all spheres of Australian life,” the new Party President said.

“We will help create clearer divisions between straight and gay Australians, so to preserve the sanctity of both groups.”

Heading up the KIQ Party’s agenda is the issuing of pink triangles to all gay and lesbian Australians, which will bolster John Howard’s canvassed introduction of a national ID card system following the next election.

“By helping John Howard fight the war on terrorism, the pink triangles will also help the Government’s war on diversity,” Les Beyan said.

The triangles will also help identify lesbian and gays at polling booths, complementing the KIQ Party�s proposal of limiting their voting choices to gay and lesbian candidates.

This policy will also be put in reverse, meaning heterosexuals will be banned from voting for candidates such as the Greens Bob Brown, the Democrats Brian Greig, and Labor Senator Penny Wong. Les Beyan warned it could also affect several others.

“While the Labor Party has promised an audit of all discriminatory federal legislation, we will conduct an audit of all closeted members of parliament and out them,” Beyan said.

The pink triangles will also identify gay and lesbian Australians as consumers, permitting them to buy products like Robert Dessaix and Patrick White books, Peter Allen records, and attend festivals run by Robyn Archer, which will now be prohibited for all heterosexuals.

Geographical zones declared �Pink Triangle Areas� will also be set up, and will only be accessible for gay and lesbian Australians.

Oxford Street in Sydney and Brunswick and Chapel Streets in Melbourne are already considering the Pink Zoned Areas, fearing these bustling inner city trendy retail strips will be reduced to ghost towns if they reject the move.

Gays and lesbians living in Yarraville in Melbourne’s inner-west are considering a ban on allowing their Federal member Nicola Roxon from visiting the suburb, following her comments in support of the Government�s marriage ban.

Suburbs of Highgate Hill and New Farm in Brisbane, Prahran and South Yarra in Melbourne (part of Treasurer Peter Costello�s federal seat), and several inner-city Sydney suburbs are considering blanket pink zones. Northcote in Melbourne has already agreed to revert to the suburb’s friendly local term of Dykecote.

Similarly, Cairns and Noosa in Queensland, and Daylesford in Victoria are also weighing up the pink dollar in their areas.

But it’s predicted the pink designated areas will face stiff straight opposition, with heterosexuals living in and around such areas threatening to set up heterosexual rights lobbies in response.

“I pay my taxes, I’m law abiding and I have a right to shop in Oxford Street if I bloody well like,” one angry heterosexual Sydney resident said upon hearing the KIQ announcement.

Workplaces would also be allocated straight and queer workstation areas, and where possible, gays would be siphoned off.

Such a move would force gay athletes in the Australian Olympics team out of the Athens squad and into the Gay Games.

Swimming’s governing body is shocked by the move, saying it would potentially wipe out almost the entire Australian squad from competing in this year’s Olympic Games.

Other measures announced include the banning of frocks worn by straight men, a move that Channel Nine is reportedly appealing, given that footy shows are high ratings programs for the Network. The Churches are also said to be incredibly confused by this particular move.

Justice Michael Kirby will only be allowed to hear High Court cases relating to gay and lesbian Australians, a proposal that has sent panic waves through the Attorney-General’s Department, Bill Heffernan’s office, and the shoebox of the Australian newspaper’s Janet Albrechtsen.

Hugh Jackman will be banned from performing any more musicals, while Adam Elliot will be forced to hand back his Oscar.

Kylie Minogue is set to be devastated by KIQ’s formation and goals, and is considering canceling her greatest hits tour fearing she won’t be able to fill seats if she has to rely on heterosexual ticket purchases.

Network Ten’s Queer Eye for a Straight Guy will be relaunched as �Straight Eye for a Straight Guy� with Warrick Capper being touted as a potential host, despite an insider from the Network fearing “nobody will watch it”.

Play School will be re-marketed as Gay School, so as not to offend or confuse any Howard Government members, or the Leader of the Opposition who are all regular viewers.

The KIQ Party also wants to ensure the Howard Government�s marriage act and adoption rights proposals are rolled out in full to include Howard�s ‘survival of the species’ sentiments, and will introduce a new series of amendments if elected.

“Married couples who can�t have children will have their marriage annulled with the introduction of compulsory fertility testing at marriage registries,” Les Beyan said.

The Opposition said while they supported the Government’s recent amendment of the marriage act, they really and truly care about the rights of gay and lesbian Australians.

The Prime Minister and the Government refused to comment on the Party’s launch and proposals.

**Polly Bush is a pink triangle adorned lesbian who sought full permission from KIQ President Les Beyan to report this story.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim: No intention of having anything of that kind?

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

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

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

Jim: Nothing like the ANIMALS?

LATHAM: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LATHAM: We won’t be increasing taxes.

JOURNALIST: So that means you would [inaudible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samantha: So you dont know?

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

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

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

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

LATHAM: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

June�s Webdiary statistics are:

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

2. Our beds are burning election, June 11

3. Not happy John!, June 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

YOUR REACTION TO NOT HAPPY JOHN

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

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

***

Trish Kench

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Penny Butler in Fairfield, Melbourne

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

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

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

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

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

***

Jim Connolly in Paynesville, Victoria

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

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

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

The following questions should be discussed:

1. Who really runs Australia?

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

***

John Caldecott

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

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

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

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

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

***

Grant Long in Newcastle

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

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

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

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

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

***

Vince O’Hara

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

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

***

Michael Strutt

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Les Bursill in Engadine, Brisbane

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Subjects: Sunday Program

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

LATHAM: How are you going, John.

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

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

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

LAWS: Did you biff him?

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

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

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

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

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

LAWS: Are you a bit of a biffer?

LATHAM: No.

LAWS: Come on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAWS: There you go.

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

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

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

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

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

LAWS: Are you over-confident?

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

LAWS: Where is Simon Crean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LATHAM: Yes, and I appreciate it.

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

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