It seems readers don’t want to stop talking about the failings of journos, so this is the last day for outpourings, OK? The pollies lead the journos in the most trustworthy poll 430 to 409. Not wanting to admit defeat, I adopt the interpretation of HENK VERHOEVEN of Sydney: “Journos versus pollies: surely, that somewhat bloated pollies score can be due only to the latter having voted for themselves.”

 

JESTER

 

This Jack Robertson (the man who began the debate, Webdiary November 3) speaks so much sense it is scary. I mean this guy is right on the money about everything.

 

Imagine a married journalist covering the Clinton sex scandal when that journo is himself having an affair. That is where Jack is heading. I mean, Stan Grant’s credibility was just crucial at the front of a tabloid TV current affairs show, and then he dumps his wife and three kids for a younger woman.

 

A politician can get floored for taking drugs, yet how many of the journos who cover the story use or have used drugs, and I don’t mean alcohol? Let he without sin throw the first stone.

 

You don’t put Dracula in charge of the blood bank. Love this debate. Keep up the good work – old Jacky boy is making you earn your keep….Go Girl!

 

 

MARGO: You’ll find that press gallery journalists don’t go near drugs and sex stories about pollies unless there’s a clear and indisputable contradiction between his or her public statements and private behaviour: when hypocrisy is the story, not consensual sexual adventures or drugs experimentation.

Because of this convention, the news breaks in these areas are by journos outside the gallery, for example the Cheryl Kernot affair with the school captain and the pictures of former Senator Bob Woods arguing with his wife in their backyard. To our head office bosses, we seem squeamish. To us, one very good reason for staying clear – and if we can’t, not judging harshly – is the glass house argument.

In January, I flew around Australia with the acting Prime Minister John Anderson. He told a public meeting that sexual propriety in marriage was vital because if your family couldn’t trust you, why should the people? I reported this diabolically dangerous statement, and if you read the media clips you’ll find that political journalists tagged his statement sheer folly, pointing out that he’d literally invited journalists to dig up dirt on colleagues and give him with the evidence, ie HE’D made private lives a matter of public importance. Talkback public opinion backed Ando all the way.

 

GREG ABBOTT, in London, puts the privacy line, but mistook the views of contributor CON VAITSAS (Ink v Inc , Webdiary Nov 6), for mine.

 

I normally enjoy reading your columns on the Internet from London, where I’m living, however I’m shocked and appalled at the following piece of writing:

 

“I also want the media to report on a politician’s morals. Yes, I want to know which pollie has been unfaithful, is watching porn videos, visiting brothels, and is homosexual, and not necessarily all at the same time.

“The reason we need to know is that politicians regularly inflict policies or statements about morals on the rest of the public expecting us to abide by them while they have been indulging in the supposed immoral behaviour.”

 

Sorry, back up there Margo. How can you loosely lumber “is homosexual” in with being unfaithful, watching porn videos and visiting brothels. Even though you may not be homophobic, for gay people reading your column the unnecessary association can be hurtful. Replace “is homosexual” with “is Asian” and you can see the extent of your (perhaps blissfully ignorant) bigotry.

 

You are tacitly legitimising people who argue homosexuality is immoral by making this association. A person can quite validly argue that going to a brothel (ie. a voluntary human action) is immoral without being prejudiced, but this is not the case if that person is arguing that being homosexual renders a person inherently less moral – that’s blatant bigotry.

 

I think I can see what you might have intended to say that those politicians who condemn brothels while frequenting them should be exposed, that those politicians who block attempts to allow gay people certain basic rights enjoyed by everyone else, and who themselves are gay, should also be exposed etc. In that context only, perhaps a politician’s private sexuality is relevant to the public.

 

If this is indeed what you were meaning to say perhaps you could have said it a little more clearly. Instead, you seem to suggest that all gay politicians should be “outed” (a hideous term) just because there are bigots out there who say bigoted things about the supposed immorality of being homosexual.

 

In summary, I’ve waffled on because I’m a bit fired up at your loose language. Sometimes the SMH displays basic bigotry by not taking some things for granted about people who are homosexual eg. it has news polls with questions like (and I’m paraphrasing) “do you agree with Michael Kirby (when he said that gay people are no different to anyone else)” and “do you think Fred Nile is right when he says that filthy homosexuals should be excluded from the opening ceremony)” etc etc.

Once again, despite the fact that there are still idiots out there who hold racist, sexist, homophobic views, you take certain things for granted and don’t run polls like “Do you think Aborigines should be able to get married?”, “Do you agree with Joe Bloggs when he says that women should never have been given the vote?” “Do you agree with John Howard for apologising to the Asian community over his late 1980s racism?”.

 

There’s still a long way to go. Why isn’t your newspaper picking up the issue of gay rights. In some ways, gay people are the most discriminated against of all now. The fact that you and I pay our taxes, live as law abiding citizens, but that you can get married and I can’t (assuming you’re heterosexual) is appalling. Its dark ages stuff. Its renders me a second class citizen and reinforces to me, to gay teenagers, to schoolyard bullies, to psychotic murderers, that a gay person’s sexuality is second class, unnatural and unfortunate.

 

MARGO: Having been outed recently in the Australian’s media section, on the grounds that my sexuality was somehow relevant to my professional life, I can only say I agree with you whole heartedly.

 

 

ANDREW FRAZER

 

I guess that both politicians and journos, collectively, have credibility problems. However expressing the problem in such simple terms (who do you trust more, politicians or journalists), masks the wide discrepancies that I as a voter and reader feel about individuals within these professions, which is why I never vote in such polls (except on election day).

 

It’s an unfortunate consequence that the actions of Reith et al drag down the reputations of all politicians, whether they deserve it or not. And there are politicians (and journalists) for whom I have a great deal of respect, in all of the major parties (though P Reith has never been one of them).

 

The point is that the good and the positive things that politicians do are never reported on. Instead the stuff ups, the rorts and controversies are given an overwhelming and disproportionate coverage. Of course the press has a responsibility to report on these matters, but too often it seems to me to simply dissolve into an endless recycling of easy stories, where nothing new is ever reported. This feeds a cynicism and negativity in the community about both politicians and journalists as the creators and bearers of bad news.

 

Criticism of the political system is a vital and important part of a democracy, and the media is more than willing to play this role. However perhaps sustaining faith in the democracy is also important, and while this is fundamentally the responsibility of politicians, surely the media also has a part to play here, and perhaps the odd positive word might encourage all those pollies who don’t abuse their privileges and do actually do a good job. It might even help journos, by breaking the accepted stereotype of what constitutes political reporting :).

 

Hope this hasn’t been too pompous.

 

ANDREW STEWART

 

As I read the debate thus far I am faced with the catch 22 (ie. to vote either way would leave me with the feeling of unfair betrayal of the other side) which thus far was only really raised by Jack in his original comments. This is fundamentally a result of the fact the vote is one of generalisation.

 

If the question was do you trust ALL politicians or do you trust ALL journalists, then I am sure the overwhelming answer would be negative. This raises two interesting aspects of the debate:

 

1. Unlike our choice when trowelling through journalistic offerings (we can change the channel or flip to the sport section), we voters are faced with the unenviable position of not, for the most part, being able to select (or cull for that matter) individuals pollies who are part of the preferred team.

 

I agree wholehearted with Jack when he expressed his disgust at John Howard for claiming “the mandate” for every individual policy stance or portfolio selection (Jack’s second piece, Webdiary Ink – Inc, November 6) when even though I believe in the superior abilities of the government in economic issues, the performance on social policy issues has been appalling.

 

I am sick of being labelled an apologist for the government’s social policy performance by my family members every time I try and defend an economic policy initiative. But unfortunately given the 2 party system we can’t have it both ways.

 

Let me put it this way. Would I trust John Howard and the Coalition to take the initiative with respect to reconciliation? No way, but neither would I trust Kim Beazley to maintain fiscal constraint with respect to the budget surplus and revised taxation structure. So for me, like all swinging voters, I am faced with the choice of backing the social misfits who are good with the calculator until I can’t stand the smell of their social policy or Labor,when their financial management is not in order.

 

I suppose that’s what stands we voters apart from media moguls. There will come a time when the electorate puts the bite on the government for social policy disarray, whereas you can rest assured the media moguls will vote with their wallet every time.

 

2. In many cases (certainly with television) the journalist controls the line of questioning, and therefore, it could be argued, the responses. Now Margo, I can hear you already, arguing that controlling the line of questioning is just a journalistic tool, and it is how it is used that requires the trust.

 

I agree, however in many cases this is where the greatest abuses of trust are made by journalists. Who can forget Bob Hawke and Dicky Carleton’s famous stoush? (Where Carleton – then at the ABC – asked Hawke, just after he’d staged a coup against Bill Hayden’s leadership in 1983, how it felt to have blood on his hands.) Realistically, would you trust 60 Minutes to cast an unbiased light on anyone?

 

Just as Jack challenged you to put your salary up for everyone to see (by the way where do I get a bit of this six and a half weeks leave from – that’s a perk if ever I’ve seen it) what I believe would be far more interesting is if we allowed the pollies a chance to interview a couple of journalists on their journalistic efforts (it would make great television too).

 

Just for starters maybe we could have Jeff Kennett interviewing someone from The Age on their coverage of his government, or anyone, just anyone (I’m thinking Peter Reith would be particularly good) interviewing Dicky Carleton about his journalistic (?) contribution to fine food and wine in East Timor ? Then they could re-cut the scenes (edit out all the bits they didn’t like) and have Reithy staring poignantly over a pair of Dicky’s Maggie Tabbera eye glasses a precisely the wrong moment !!

 

Now if you, like me, would be horrified to give this power for manipulation and betrayal to people like Reithy and Jeff (elected officials who have faced and won popular vote and had their credibility questioned and tested over and over) why then should we not be similarly sceptical about how this power is exercised by journalists or media proprietors with agendas of their own?.

 

MARGO: Re the six week holidays, this is in compensation for the fact that journos get no public holidays. Re the pollie interviews journalist idea, I love it. I’ll see if any pollie would interview me, and write a piece for Inside Out, uncensored.

 

BRENDON

 

 

It’s always a pleasure to read your work, but on journalists or politicians? I’ve been watching both for twenty years and on every issue upon which I’ve had a detailed knowledge or seen from the inside, the journalists have got it wrong in major ways.

 

I don’t think many journalists really understand the issues, people, institutions or events they are reporting or commenting on. Most don’t write very well, which simply means they can’t think very well. They do horrible things to people who attract their attention, they are not accountable, they don’t have to be accurate, and they control the medium through which one might seek redress. They have a habit of abandoning their mistakes and moving on to the next issue.

 

With the political journalists, the fun in reading them is trying to work out which politician, apparatchik or bureaucrat they’ve been speaking to. Of course there are exceptions, but… At least with politicians you know where they stand, you can call them to account, you can go and see them and they can’t hide.

 

MARGO: You really know where politicians stand? In my experience, they NEVER tell you why the real reason they’re doing something. As for our lack of inside knowledge, that’s usually because the people who know won’t talk to us. Partly that’s because they don’t trust us, but more often, in my experience, because they’re too scared to talk because their masters would take revenge.

 

 

ODILLE ESMONDE-MORGAN, Downer, ACT

 

 

I do think Jack makes some good points. Those who live in glass houses etc. Some of his questions were a bit cheeky, and I applaud you for revealing your income. But it’s beside the point. So is whether or not we trust journalists more than politicians or vice versa.

 

Trust them to do what? Give us the unvarnished truth, with no opinions? Never happen. There is no way you can be completely objective when reporting a story. You always have biases, even if you don’t realise it. They come from your upbringing, education and life experiences. We ALL have them. (Just for the record, I have a BA in Journalism, but have only ever done some freelance feature work.)

 

What are we trusting politicians to do when we elect them. Hopefully, to represent the voters of their constituency fairly, and to be honest and straightforward. That’s what I expect, anyway. Can’t ask for the moon. Some individuals will always turn out easily corrupted, in any sphere.

 

So I think Jack’s a bit too ‘pie-in-the-sky’, although in a perfect world . . . Keep up the good debate, it’s very healthy.

 

ANDREW WRIGHT

 

It is difficult to decide who is more trustworthy between journalists and politicians, since neither group has covered themselves in glory during the Reith Telecard affair and the proximate Trish Crossin affair.

 

The Liberals dissembled from the outset about the whole Telecard affair while Labor were relentless in their pursuit, which would have been fair enough except for their feeble response to the Senator Crossin affair. They quickly closed ranks and little more has been heard about this apart from today’s article in The Sydney Morning Herald.

 

The journalists are guilty of the same thing as the Labor politicians: gross inconsistency. While I was happy to see Mr Reith pursued, I feel that Senator Crossin should similarly have been asked to account for her actions.

 

MARGO: The Trish Crossin affair is fascinating. Just the slightest ripple of fightback by the Libs, then nothing. I hear that the government car of a Coalition MP was written off in similar circumstances, which if true would explain the dead bat. I’ve put questions to our beloved Special minister of State, Senator Ellison, but have no answer so far. His first response was to say that the cars were leased from DASFLEET, once a government body, now private, and that therefore the issue was one for them. Pardon? So how does the government find out if MPs breach their entitlements regarding the car, for example allowing unauthorised people to drive it? Senator Ellison is getting back to me.

 

JULIAN

 

I have written to you before but assume that the message did not penetrate the SMH maze. Since you have made a lot of the running over the Reith affair can I ask a rhetorical question? What is the difference between Reith and his acknowledged rorts and a Prime Minister who hands a very expensive car parking space to his daughter in the Sydney CBD so she can park close to her work in a legal firm? The amounts are similar, the intent is similar but the outcome is wildly different. Are there so many politicians personally embarrassed over this (due to their own arrangements) that it is not raised, though very widely known? How about an article on hypocrisy to stir the possum? Always enjoy your work.

 

MARGO: My Herald colleague Mike Seccombe broke this story a year ago. In a recent column on the Reith Telecard, he opined that Howard’s “So what?” reaction to Reith wanting the taxpayer to pick up the tab for his son’s private calls was in accord with Howard’s “family values”, like allowing his daughter to park at taxpayers expense in the CBD. Howard replied in a letter to the editor that there was nothing improper in this, and that he’d given his daughter the park on security advice. Mike has an FOI in asking for the alleged security advice, details of any similar arrangements for Howard’s other children, and whether any previous Prime Minister had done the same thing.

In the two years since the annihilation of One Nation at the 1998 election campaign, despite attracting more than one million first preference votes, the effects of the Hanson phenomenon have intensified. I believe its impact on Australian politics and society will not be understood for at least ten years.But it is high time that we in the media think through what is happening in our society from the perspective of the forces unleashed by Hansonism, and respond better than we have to date in exploring and interpreting their impact.

In my view, the cargo cult of Pauline Hanson triggered the rusting-off of rural and regional Australians voting traditions. Through Hanson, they saw the raw power of their vote, and have put it on the block for sale to the highest bidder, not only for cash but for reassurance that their experience and concept of being Australian is incorporated into our emerging national identity.

Five months after the federal election, the New South Wales election saw the National Party lose its safest seat, centred on Dubbo, to the independent, Labor-leaning Dubbo mayor. New South Wales now boasts three rural independentsall respected local identities, none of them rednecks. They represent three large, proud regional cities: Dubbo, Tamworth and Armidale. Their needs are being well catered for by the New South Wales Labor government, because if the rural independents hold their seats, Labor has a buffer against losing government. Meanwhile, New South Wales Labor has established Country Labor, with its own spokespeople and policies.

Who can forget the extraordinary climax of election day in Victoria, the home of small ‘l’ liberalism, in September 1999? Victorian regional and rural voters had given the thumbs down to Hanson. But then they did something no one who ruled or reported on Australia dreamed of: they put their traditional enemy, the Labor Party, into office. Victorian premier Steve Bracks worked hard for that result, but even he was shocked by the extent of his success. Jeff Kennett is still in shock, the Victorian National Party has split from the Coalition in opposition, and the rural seat of its former leader has fallen to Labor in a by-election.

On the federal level, the Victorian election loss has seen the Coalition fall over itself to cash up the bush. Daily press releases announce rural specific programs on everything from domestic violence to rural transaction centres. The Adelaide to Darwin railway is on the agenda, yet again. The Coalition and Labor believe that if they win over the bush (and the blue collar workers also attracted to Hansonism) they will win government, and any useful political analysis will filter all major political plays until the next election through that lens.

John Howard and Kim Beazley are still as one on the core issues of globalisation. Beazley differentiates himself only on Telstra, where he is playing to the bush’s conviction that a privatised Telstra will mean fewer services. Howard’s differentiation play is insidious, potentially disastrous for the nation, and means the trashing of the small ‘l’ liberal tradition of the party he leads. He is deliberately pushing the bush’s socially conservative buttons, and has rolled-gold credibility with the bush on these matters because he too is unashamedly socially conservative.

Howards downgrading of our commitment to United Nations human rights treaties feeds off the widespread feeling in the bush that one-world-government is the ruin of us all. It is intellectually dishonest and destructive of our established identity as a tolerant nation and a world leader on promoting international human rights standards. It works because Howard is blatantly appealing to prejudice and not doing his duty in informing the public of the facts. He is abusing country Australians, not helping them. And he knows it.

In reality, the civilising of the forces of economic globalisation – in which there is already a strong one-world regulation through groups such as the World Trade Organisation (strongly supported by Howard) – will only occur with the parallel development of world human rights standards. Human rights mean rights for country people too, such as the right to a decent education and accessible medical services. In addition, the fight for protection of the environment, child labour, and the wish of many countries to preserve unique economic/social traditions will only come through engagement with global economic forces, and again, this can only come through the mechanism of the United Nations.

Yet Howard does not chose intelligent, engaged debate. He does not respect the citizens he is appealing to, he exploits them. He chooses social populism, and refuses to argue his case on the merits to equally informed citizens. He has rejected rational debate and opted out of conversation with the informed, which in my view is the most dangerous game any political leader can play.

By the end of the 1998 election, I hoped that the two nations of Australia would begin a conversation. I saw rural and regional Australians as a minority in their country, like many ethnic groups are. I thought what they were really demanding were special benefits just like other minorities, and not equal rights for all Australians as they claimed. I thought they deserved special treatment. But the opportunity for conversation and consensus was not taken. Instead, Hansonite social concerns have become central to Australian political debate.

When Labor leader Kim Beazley ended Labor’s commitment to Aboriginal land rights by backing the Queensland Labor government’s modification of the right to negotiate for purely political reasons (that One Nation vote again) and then ran dead on the United Nations human rights debate, I felt that the worm had turned. Now the politically correct Australians, those who saw tolerance and acceptance of difference as central to Australia’s identity, are the new oppressed minority. Neither major party represents us any more. We have been forced to the Democrats and the Greens. So much for engagement. Instead of talking and working together after the Hanson shock wave, the political establishment has just replaced the hegemony of one group with another.

I want to go back to the beginning.

In launching my book on Pauline Hanson’s 1998 election campaign last year, Jana Wendt noted that the general havoc the Hanson phenomenon caused in the community was more than matched by the specific chaos she caused in the media.

 

“How to deal with her? Should she be laughed off the stage or was she a serious political force? Should she be reported in the same way that John Howard and the rest are, or was she a subversive who had to be flushed out of the works for fear that she might undermine a civilised polity? Back in 1996, many media outlets opted at first to ignore her in the fervent hope that she would implode or more conveniently just fade away. The others, who found her simply irresistible, felt the need to justify their fascination with her by crash-tackling Hanson at every turn. Few dared to authentically engage with her. Fewer still were prepared to write anything other than what their left liberal journalistic peers expected of them.”

 

However, once we’d acted out our instincts on Hanson, we realised that our input only intensified her support; that the very fact that she was under attack by the media became an essential element in her appeal.

That shocking realisation triggered a rare self- consciousness in the media. In some media, news judgement was replaced with political judgment – would running a story help or hinder Hanson? If the editor judged it would help her, it was run small or not run at all; if it would hurt, it was featured, sometimes without the usual checking. This attitude, not only anti-democratic but also self-defeating (the public really aren’t that dumb and wed better get used to it) led to an extraordinary judgment by Brisbane’s daily, The Courier-Mail, in the last week of the federal election campaign. An unprecedented attempt by One Nation to have police arrest the media was run in a single column on page eleven. While most media outlets believed the incident would help One Nation, itself a startling acknowledgement of the odour in which the media is held, the TV news led with it and the Herald and the Age ran the story on page one. Laurie Oakes, in accord with conventional wisdom, said in his report that the media had played into One Nations hands.

The Courier-Mail, after burying the story, then grotesquely ran a comment piece predicting that because of the medias behaviour One Nation would win six to eight Lower House seats. In other words, the paper openly admitted the importance of the story it buried, and chose to lecture the media on how it should have made a political judgment not to demand access to the costings document it was promised. As it happened the Courier-Mail’s judgment was wrong, and Hanson’s support remained stable. But then, the media so often gets it wrong in picking public reaction, don’t we? Weve become specialists at it.

I don’t want to single out The Courier-Mail for criticism here – my paper was as guilty as any other of being caught out on Hanson. When Hanson made her maiden speech in September 1996, I was chief of staff at the Herald Canberra bureau, and unsuccessfully argued that her speech should not be reported at all. I also had a personal policy of refusing to speak to Hansons then adviser, John Pasquerelli, and not to write news stories about Hanson or her party. I even quietly cheered when watching violent protests at formation meetings of One Nation.

I was wrong. Most of us were wrong. The shock waves of the Hanson phenomenon had lessons not only for the political establishment but also the media. The media’s roller-coaster ride with Pauline Hanson was a perfect starting point for our industry to engage in a most unusual exercise – self-reflection. It could, if we so chose, be used to focus the vague, cloudy certainty of all of us that the media isnt quite doing its job, that our readers, listeners and viewers arent happy with what theyre getting from us, and that we are losing relevance as a result.

Dick Morris, former spin-doctor to president Clinton, said in his book The New Prince: Machiavelli for the 21st Century that the media play the key role in bringing the private pains and needs of real people to public attention. This role, along with its corollary, to scrutinise the powerful to ensure they are telling the people the truth, is the reason we have a privileged role in a democracy. The Hanson phenomenon exposed it as unfulfilled.

Why did the media and the politicians get such a shock at the appeal of Hansons populism? And even after the bombshell she threw at us, why was the media again caught embarrassingly short at the recent Victorian election, when the country moved so strongly to Labor?

The incident that first pricked my conscience on this point was a letter from a listener to Late Night Live, Ms Susan Leembruggen. She was responding to my passionate advocacy of an independent Fairfax on the ABC program Late Night Live.

My advocacy focused on the need for diversity of news and views, and for the freedom of some parts of the press from ownership by big businessmen with their own barrows to push. Ms Leembruggen attacked my argument on the basis that none in the press – independent or otherwise – were doing their real job anyway.

I quote from my book:

 

“You have lamented the so-called Pauline Hanson phenomenon, saying that Queenslanders are mostly good, tolerant peopleamongst other such patronising comments. Both you and Phillip expressed your contempt and dismay over the consequent rising tide of social discontentinter alia racism and its perceived concomitant, unemployment. On Monday night you spoke with passion and conviction about media ownership and the importance of maintaining the Fairfax newspaper as the last chance for some kind of impartial freedom of speech.”

 

Yet what was the point of a free press, she asked, when the media had not addressed the real issues of the day – anxiety about unemployment and the disenfranchisement of large sectors of society through diminution of standards of living?

‘This media neglect is a significant factor in the rise of Hansonism, she wrote. Instead of academic arguments about Aussie tolerance and fair play (remember tolerance really means apathy, not acceptance) and the sense of abhorrence which goes with racism, you could more productively question the status quo in this country that gives rise to division and bigotry.”

In short, Hansonism was partly the medias’ fault for failing to act as the interface between the people and the powerful, and for turning our backs on the public to become just another part of a complacent establishment.

I was sufficiently disturbed to reply to Ms Leembruggen, and I wish I’d kept a copy so I could remember what rationalisation I used. But what finally pushed me into focusing on Hansonism was the Newspoll halfway through the 1998 Queensland election campaign, which showed that Maryborough, my hometown, could fall to One Nation. Had I really lost touch with my roots to such an extent that I could not understand, let alone empathise with, the mood of Maryborough? Studied avoidance of Hansonism became an obsession to work it out.

After a unique experience covering Pauline Hansons campaign, my views on journalism and its future will never be the same. In the 1996 campaign, I was depressed at its studied stage management – it was an exclusive pantomime in which only the politicians and the media could play. On Hanson’s campaign in 1998, the media became chasers and had to fight for its right to be present, as all the rules of etiquette and self-interest were thrown out the window, and the people – God forbid – took centre stage.

I describe in the book the media pressures and split second judgments – some wrong in retrospect – which resulted. A major reason I wrote the book was to describe what happened when the rules that have imprisoned us were disregarded, and thus hopefully open up debate on a possible third way between all rules and no rules.

Coming out of the campaign, I was convinced that the health minister, Michael Wooldridge, was correct in his essay on the rise of Hansonism in the 1998 book Two Nations when he wrote:

 

“Why this malaise in the relationship between power and people? This is an Australia of two cultures, which have little in common and find it hard to understand or appreciate each others views and attitudes. The policy culture sees the community culture as uneducated, ignorant, backward and occasionally comic in its primitive beliefs. The community culture sees the policy culture as arrogant and divorced from reality. The policy culture often sees the community culture as a barrier to the better future it is trying to build, and views with suspicion and contempt political leaders who pander to the concerns of the backward mass. The community culture sees the policy culture as responsible for the mess were in, and sees political leaders as captives of the narrow elites, governing for the noisy few and ignoring the real people.”

To the community culture, the quality media seems part of the elite, and is treated accordingly. Some elements of the tabloid media simply exploit fears and distrust and feed off them. It seems to me that the media groups which wish to serve their elite readership should be striving to report and understand the community culture, because if the two cultures continue to drift apart, the elites will suffer in the end. Thats the self-interested motive to examine our role and how we are fulfilling it. The idealistic motive is to help restore a coherence and common purpose among Australians, so the media deserves its place as an institution central to democracy.

Wooldridg’s analysis seems to rely heavily on Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul. His definition of the elite in The Doubters Companion should, I believe, be required bedtime reading for all our elites, including the media, because in the end, it can only be the elites who are to blame for Hansonism. Ralston Saul wrote:

 

“Every society has an elite. No society has ever been without one. The thing elites most easily forget is that they make no sense as a group unless they have a healthy and productive relationship with the rest of the citizenry. Questions of nationalism, ideology, and the filling of pockets aside, the principal function of an elite is to serve the interests of the whole. They may prosper far more than the average citizen in the process. They may have all sorts of advantages. These perks wont matter so long as the greater interests are also served. From their point of view, this is not a bad bargain. So it really is curious just how easily they forget and set about serving only themselves, even if it means that they or the society will self-destruct.

“There is no reason to believe that large parts of any population wish to reject learning or those who are learned. People want the best for society and themselves. The extent to which a populace falls back on superstition or violence can be traced to the ignorance in which their elites have managed to keep them, the ill-treatment they have suffered and the despair into which a combination of ignorance and suffering have driven them.”

 

As I said in the book:

 

“Now easy-going, egalitarian Australia had its own unique brand of far right populism feeding off disgust with our elites. In our version we had a female leader and an amateur at politics, which had made her both easier to pull apart and much harder, since Pauline’s People, despite everything, admired her refusal to abide by the rules and her dogged insistence on coming back for more. Surely it was the duty of the elites to solve the causes of Hansonism, because Hanson was only the symptom, not the disease. After all the anger and pain of Hansonism, that was the lesson I felt I’d learned from her campaign. Pauline’s People felt they no longer understood their society and what it was for, and many of them felt they were being told they no longer belonged to it. They couldn’t make head or tail of the political discourse, and no one could explain it to them or even wanted to, let alone help them join the brave new world their elites insisted was inevitable.”

So what could the media do to assist in restoring a real national conversation, and to heal the misunderstandings and resentments in our society? We all expect our politicians to adjust, but what about us?

Lets start with election campaigns. What on earth do we think were doing thinking we’ve covered a campaign if we follow around the leaders and try and find a gaffe in their manipulative image making? That process not only locks out voters, it is more and more irrelevant to them.

Nicolas Rothwell’s reports in the Australian during the 1998 campaign show the way ahead. He travelled the country talking to all sorts of people, and tried to distill themes and moods from those grassroots contacts. The standard gambit of going to an electorate for a day or two and reporting it is now drab and meaningless, and as formulaic, as most other election coverage. We really do have to connect with reality, and that takes time and effort.

I’d like to see the Herald send a reporter to two marginal seats – one in the city and one in the country – for the whole campaign. They would live there, get the daily direct mail, get to know the candidates and the electorate, and file daily reports. The reporters would thus be actually experiencing the campaign on the ground, and their position would also make them ideally placed to see what both parties actually saw as the main issues on the ground. Readers would get to know the main grassroots players quite intimately, as well as the lives of their voters. Reporters would also, like the voters, be on the outside looking in when the leaders road shows visited, and be able to judge far more accurately their impact where it countson the ground.

Between elections, I’d like to see specialist reporters in the press gallery spend at least three months a year observing how their specialties play out on the ground. Immigration specialists could visit immigration centres for example, education reporters schools and universities, health reporters public and private hospitals. Now, we have a separation of abstract policy and the politics of it in Canberra, from the working realities covered by others, often without the big picture policy expertise. We need to connect policy and practice much more directly.

More radically, I think there’s place for reporters to live for extended periods away from their middle-class lives. After the election, my editor gave me permission to live in Bourke for three months. The idea was to observe and report black-white relations and the difficulties and challenges of life in the country first-hand, I backed out of the plan when One Nation started a regular smear campaign against me on their website, for fear that I might be targeted for abuse, but I hope to try such an experiment sometime. One of the common complaints of political reporters, including myself, is that many grassroots groups cant give us a useable quote quickly, but seek time to discuss the matter between themselves. I am starting to think that instead of constantly demanding that real people meet our demands, it might be time for us to reach out and adjust to the way they operate.

There is also an urgent need for the media to make itself accountable. We spend so much time enforcing accountability on other establishment institutions; it is becoming increasingly untenable that our own house is in total disorder. Heaven forbid that the State regulate our behaviour, but really, surely we have an obligation to do so ourselves, if only to begin to restore our credibility with readers.

The Herald is now finalising a code of ethics, written by a committee of journalists, which will be published in the paper. The method of reader complaint is still under discussion, but I would like to see us appoint an ombudsman modelled on that position in the Washington Post, with regular columns from him or her responding to complaints and suggestions.

I also believe that the days when editors could refuse to report the media, its excesses, and the publics concerns with its behaviour on the basis that all this is just navel gazing are nearing an end. The public is well aware that the media is not an impartial observer, but a major player. They want to know how the game works, and to critique it. To me, there is no excuse for the Herald not to have its version of Media Watch, and I am amazed that the Australians media magazine has not taken the plunge. I would like to see the Herald solicit readers queries, and complaints about media behaviour, and reply to them in print. This step alone would help force us to examine ourselves, as well as help convince readers that we exist for them. If the public have faith in us, they will support us when our freedoms face erosion. If they dont, the State will find it much easier to constrain us.

At the press council, a complainant usually faces a newspaper executive with no knowledge of the story in dispute, who fudges and prevaricates in arrogant fashion. This only adds to the public perception that the media is a faceless octopus. I would like to see the reporter front instead, and engage with the reader. Having done this myself late last year, I found that the public members of the council had little or no idea of the pressures or constraints faced by a journalist, or the politicians codes it is the political reporters job to deconstruct. Although the complainant lost his case, we shook hands at the end of it, and he was satisfied both that he had a fair hearing, and that the reporter was a human being who wanted to communicate with him.

In its review of my book, The Courier-Mail said it should not have been written. According to the paper, the book showed that I had lost objectivity, whatever that is, and had become too close to my subjectas if the purpose of political journalism was not to get as close as the politician will allow. Is telling the truth about how journalism was practised on the campaign so frightening that it should be censored? Aren’t Australians allowed to look each other in the eye any more?

There is much in my behavior in the campaign to be critiqued, and many journalists will profoundly disagree with my approach. But surely, if the book does create a debate on how journalism should be practised, that can only be a good thing. The time has come for journalists to abandon their raincoats of self-protection – the myth of objectivity for example – which serve only to stop debate in its tracks without engagement with the realities of journalism. Only if we are honest with ourselves and our readers can we adjust to the demands of the new millennium.

But has there been a real debate since the 1998 federal election? I believe that most mainstream media is still not listening, either to its chattering classes or its redneck readerships. Both groups now, on several fronts, have the same concerns, but the media is not seeing the significance of this, let alone reporting it.

There are two recent examples. This year, the Coalition and Labor did a cosy little deal to pass a law giving the prime minister the power to call out the troops to any State or Territory, without their request or even permission. No cause for such action was stated, so industrial disputes and civilian protests were included. Troops were given the right to search and seize, block off streets, and even shoot to kill.

The issue created not a ripple in the Canberra press gallery. My attention was drawn to the story when I began receiving emails from readers of my Herald online column setting out the proposed law and asking how this could possibly be true?

Herald reporter Toni OLoughlin was interested, and began reporting the story. We were the only major newspaper to do so. Lo and behold, our readers were outraged, and the mail flooded in. John Laws asked Greens senator Bob Brown – who was running a sophisticated one-person campaign to amend the laws – onto his program for the first time. It was incredible, the John and Bob show. Laws even invited Brown back soon after, and publicly endorsed Brown’s stand. Lo and behold, the sole One Nation senator, Len Harris, backed Brown all the way. The far Left and far Right were as one, and a whole lot of people in the middle agreed with them.

Grassroots feeling drove this story and deeply embarrassed the Labor Party, which was forced (partly due to union pressure) to reverse its public support for the bill and seek amendments.

The second example concerns the Melbourne protests outside the World Economic Forum. The unions were scared they would be implicated in violence and lose public support, but marched anyway. Peter Reith predicted union violence in the streets. There was none. What will the Hansonites make of thisthe horrible unionists as core supporters of civilising economic globalisation? Who will the Hansoiites relate to in this battle for the streets of Melbourne? My guess is the protesters.

Who organised these protests? Young people with all sorts of wild and woolly causes, operating outside the mainstream media. And what did the baby-boomer writers of the major papers do? Screamed cheap abuse at their successors, who have emulated the protest culture of the 1960s in a much less classist way. Sure, the only thing that unites the protesters is an emotional antipathy to the effects of economic globalisation. Just like the Hansonites. But that emotion is powerful, and is forcing the rich-list in world capital to listen, and to adjust. We must report this matter without malice or condension to remain relevant.

Two years on from Hansons defeat, the media has got much better at reporting issues of importance to country people, but is still just as blind to some of the needs and concerns of its readers. The identity of our nation is being reshaped as we speak, and write. Our job is to understand and report these changes. Lets start doing it.

“The Governor General of Australia Mike Jeffery might have had the controversy over the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize recipient in mind when he observed to the Melbourne Institute last week that unless debate in Australia becomes more civilized, a drift towards a destructive polarization of views is inevitable.” Professor Stuart Rees

Professor Stuart Rees is director of the Sydney Peace Foundation. The Australian newspaper refused to publish this piece on the Ashrawi debate.

 

The Governor General of Australia Mike Jeffery might have had the controversy over the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize recipient in mind when he observed to the Melbourne Institute recently that unless debate in Australia becomes more civilized, a drift towards a destructive polarization of views is inevitable.

If anything is to be learned from the controversy surrounding Dr. Ashrawi, polarized ways of thinking should be identified, beginning with the views of those whose identity is tied up with leadership of a specific religious or ethnically based group.

The leader of such a group is in a difficult position. Even the slightest deviation in commitment to a cause could be perceived as betraying followers, but questions need to be asked. Does loyalty to a cause prevent the adoption of roles other than those of victim or accuser? When is it possible for extreme opponents to comprehend one another let alone work together?

Another disempowering way of thinking can be observed among politicians, newspaper columnists and letter writers whose stock in trade is point scoring via the use of derisory adjectives. I have been referred to as an anti-semitic misogynist from the feral left, actress Judy Davis � despite her conservative background – is dismissed as a lefty activist and Dr. Ashrawi – despite her dignified address in the State Parliament of NSW – was described by someone who was not there has having used �weasel words�.

At regular intervals a gentleman from Bondi writes the same letter to The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald in which he claims that I play a race card and am only interested in �the peace of the grave�. Argument by insult demeans humanity and intellect.

Reliance on stereotypes about enemies or about peace is also unproductive. In peace negotiations a first step involves unmasking stereotypes so that a realistic and dignified way of communicating can proceed. No matter how many times Hanan Ashrawi rejected violence and condemned suicide bombers her critics said she had not done so or that her condemnation had been insufficient. Once people are locked into their good versus bad perspectives, the prospect of a so called bad person being not as bad as you thought threatens the comfort of a familiar world view.

The labelling of the Peace Prize as being concerned with the achievement of peace rather than with contributions to peace with justice is another illustration of arguments persisting despite evidence and statements to the contrary.

Hanan Ashrawi, in common with previous recipients of the Prize, was recognized for her decades of work for peace with justice within her own community: for civil liberties, for human rights, in particular the rights of women and for contributions to democratic governance. The case for rewarding decades of efforts to promote civil liberties and civility must be heard. Without those efforts, an eventual peace treaty would not materialize and would not hold.

Finally there is that way of thinking which seems reluctant to find that crucial capacity for tolerance, for touches of magnanimity and even forgiveness. It is as though the debate in Australia should be conducted along the same lines as violence in the Middle East. One side must win, the other must not only lose but must be taught a lesson from which they may never recover.

The horrific numbers of dead and injured on both sides of this conflict are testimony to that dead-end way of thinking. Yet without the qualities of humanness – of compassion and generosity – including a willingness to occasionally leap into the mind of the other, personal relations are almost impossible to conduct and a civil society cannot be built.

In common with business organisations and peace coalitions, Palestinian and Jewish communities are not monolithic. Many Jewish groups have expressed shame at a debate conducted with such vehemence. Certain leaders � Stephen Rothman of the Jewish Board of Deputies and Vic Aladeff the Editor of Jewish News – have been constructive in their efforts to avoid acrimony and to realize the potential for rapprochement and reconciliation. My colleagues within the Peace Foundation are happy to do the same.

The business of conducting an argument or writing a newspaper column with a view to winning or humiliating can be replaced by communication which promotes dialogue and contributes to understanding. Following the visionary examples of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, we might even make friends with enemies.

 

Australian dream, by Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

“The Israel Palestine debate can engender rationality, fairness and balance, despite appearances. Hanan Ashrawi’s recent visit caused an outpouring of responses from Jews, Zionists, non-Jews and Muslims, with many determined to have their say on this most important matter. No longer simply about the Sydney Peace Prize, thoughts have shifted to more fundamental questions.” Antony Loewenstein, guest editor of your latest reactions.

Margo note: Webdiary will be largely on hold for a while as I get stuck into my book. Please keep in touch – I’m reading all my emails and will continue writing a Sun Herald column each Sunday which will include some of them. The column can also be read in the opinion section of smh.com.au. I’m working on the Abbott slush fund at the moment, so any tips or info would be much appreciated.

 

The Israel Palestine debate can engender rationality, fairness and balance, despite appearances. Hanan Ashrawi�s recent visit caused an outpouring of responses from Jews, Zionists, non-Jews and Muslims, with many determined to have their say on this most important matter. No longer simply about the Sydney Peace Prize, thoughts have shifted to more fundamental questions:

* What is the likely future of the Israel/Palestine question?

* What will come of the much-discussed Road Map to Peace?

* What is the influence, power and coercive powers of the Jewish lobby in Australia?

* What kind of debate is continuing within the Jewish community about the fallout of the Ashrawi affair? Moreover, how are Jews viewed in the general community?

* Is the Palestinian narrative rarely heard in the mainstream press?

* What constitutes racist material against Jews or Muslims?

* Why is there so much coverage of the Israel/Palestine in our newspapers, and from which perspectives?

* How do we achieve greater understanding between Jews and Palestinians?

An indication of the bigotry in this debate struck home last week when I received a call from a man who identified himself as �David�. After initial pleasantries, he said, �You would have been gassed with the rest of us.� He went on to suggest that there could never be a Palestinian state �because that would be the end of Israel� and that my views as a Jew were a �disgrace�.

That�s the mentality I hope all sides will try to avoid. It may well be a minority opinion, but it suggests that absolutist policies will never solve the problem. Mutual respect, understanding, compassion, dialogue and compromise are the only way forward.

Over to your comments on Battle for minds, Ashrawi and Brandis: the great debate, Real Sydney people meet Hanan Ashrawi and Ashrawi leaves behind a fresh air debate on the Israel Palestine question.

***

Kerri Sinclair

Antony Loewenstein has misconstrued the intentions of those opposed to the peace prize being awarded to Hanan Ashrawi when he claims:

“The Jewish lobby doesn’t want people like her in the public sphere talking about Palestinian aspirations, hopes, fears, angers or dreams.”

If he is correct, then why is it that there was no campaign against her appearing at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas in 1999 where she was the keynote speaker? On that visit she also met with representatives of the Jewish community.

The criticism on this occasion was not intended to “intimidate and silence her” as claimed by Rawan Abdul-Nabi but to show why she is not a suitable recipient for the peace prize.

***

Jeff T

This comment by Margo needs analysis:

“I have no problem with people strongly opposing the decision by the Sydney Peace Foundation to award the prize to Ashrawi. I take strong objection to attempts to force the withdrawal of the award and the putting of financial and political pressure on people to withdraw their support for the prize. This level of intimidation could lead to a surge in anti-Semitism, the very thing no-one sensible wants to happen.”

She implicitly acknowledges that in a democracy interest groups have a right to lobby on issues important to them. However she draws a line in the sand as to what is acceptable and this needs looking at, particularly as she asserts Jewish groups have crossed this line to an extent that could result in a “surge in anti-Semitism”. All this on the basis of her insinuations that certain things have a place, which she makes without providing any supporting evidence.

Surely people who strongly oppose a decision, and lobby against it, wish to convince others of the correctness of their view. The outcome they would be hoping for is a reversal of the decision, so why else lobby? How do you distinguish between people “strongly opposing the decision” (and obviously seeking the outcome of its reversal) and people “attempting to force the withdrawal of the award”? On what basis does she characterise the actions of sections of the Jewish community as “attempting to force the withdrawal of the award” which she finds unacceptable rather than the acceptable “strongly opposing” the decision?

Anyone strongly opposing a decision is attempting to have it reversed, but of course this distinction she makes turns on the word “force”. Force means that a metaphorical gun of some kind has been put to someone’s head, so rather than attempting to convince with the power of their arguments they have gone “Do it – or else!”

Please tell us who within the Jewish community has done this to whom, what was the nature of the threat made etc? I have read no reports to support her insinuations of “force”, all I have seen is evidence of strong lobbying by Jewish interest groups, “strongly opposing” the decision, eminently defensible by her own account.

Margo: For evidence see Alan Ramsey’s columns on the matter, the comments of Kathryn Greiner and the sudden, dictatorial reversal of policy by Sydney mayor Lucy Turnbull. To me, pressuring people to withdraw their support for the award is challenging the good faith of the body which chose the winner. There is a big difference between opposing the merits of an award and trying to destroy the body which awarded it. That smacks of closing down free speech to me, not exercising the right to it. It suggests that to certain lobbyists it is simply unacceptable to have views contrary to theirs. It’s the Voltaire point – I may disagree with everything you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

***

Andrew Byrne

Sorry to jump in late on the Ashrawi discussions. May I say that the response to Dr. Ashrawi receiving the piece prize has been astounding.

What I’m about to say may come across as harsh and the fact that I must explain myself before hand is an example of the difficulties of the issue I’m writing about. I find it a disgrace the way the Jewish faith and western guilt over the horrors of the Holocaust are used by some elements as a shield from behind which they can safely throw stones at their “enemies”. They use this shield just as a person would hold up an antique vase against an attack, essentially preventing their enemies from throwing stones back lest the vase be broken to the horror and disgust of all assembled.

I’m tired of hearing any criticism levelled at Israel or Jewish military/economic/territorial interest being venomously classified as anti-Semitic. Simply rebutting that an accusation of anything Jewish or Israeli is anti-Semitic is a cop-out of the least gracious and most disgraceful order. If anything, anyone using the anti-Semitic card as a regular defence is actually behaving in dishonour of the very historical/cultural elements they’re using as that defence.

So to those who so viciously attack Dr. Ashrawi or Margo Kingston or anyone who has ever said the Palestinians are also victims in this war of mutual legitimisation with Israel, I say stop behaving like a victim. Stop being childish. Stop behaving like this. It’s a disgrace to any concept of fairness, an insult to a horrible past, encouragement to a disgraceful present and in the long run it damages everyone.

***

Bren Carlill, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Antony Loewenstein is very good at confusing the issue. When the ‘Jewish Lobby’ in Australia condemns Hanan Ashrawi’s record of implicit support for Hamas and explicit support for attacking Israeli civilians in the territories, he seemingly purposefully misinterprets that as being a blanket condemnation of all Palestinians.

Surely Loewenstein realises that the ‘Jewish Lobby’ is not one voice, and not of one opinion, just as he lambasts it for – according to him – not recognising that the Palestinians are not all bloody-thirsty savages crying out for Jewish blood (regardless of what is still propagated on official Palestinian TV).

Some of Israel’s policies do not promote peace between themselves and the Palestinians. Some are even wrong. But just because he believes that, does Loewenstein have to overlook the crimes of the other side?

If an Israeli politician or public figure appealed for purposeful attacks against Palestinian civilians, I am sure Loewenstein would be publicly upset. Is it therefore hypocritical that he isn’t when a well-known member of the other side does the same?

***

Steve J. Spears

Edward Baral said:

“I am shocked and appalled and somewhat frightened by the Webdiary posted on smh.com.au today (Battle for minds).

Ignoring factual inaccuracies and one sided viewpoints presented (which were copious) and looking only at the language of vilification I counted:

– 8 references to “The Jewish Lobby”

– 3 references the “The Zionist Lobby” (and 1 “Zionist ploy”)

– 3 references that compare Jews to Nazis (ie “jackboot” and “militaristic mindset”)��

Yada, yada yada.

Then Mr Baral said:

“I ask that you withdraw this article, publish an apology and advise what steps you will take to ensure that vilifying material such as this are not published in the future.”

I say: Mr Baral, Jews do actually lobby. Zionists do actually lobby. There is a good case to be made that the Israelis are using jackboot techniques. For Margo to withdraw the article would make as much sense as her refusing to publish your letter of indignation. And who the hell are you to be Margo’s media manager? I ask that you get over this love affair with censorship, pull your head in and advise me what steps you will take to keep said head pulled in in future.

Shalom.

***

Robert Green

I refer to Webdiary, edited by ultra left wing journalist Margo Kingston. Why is there no range of views on the award of the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi? Why is it only fellow left-wingers Ian Cohen andAntony Loewenstein?

I thought the Herald was about presenting both sides on significant issues.

***

Steve Brook and Randa Abdel-Fattah

Australians have heard a lot recently from people presuming to speak for the whole Australian Jewish community about Hanan Ashrawi’s suitability for the Sydney Peace Prize. Much harder to hear have been the voices of those Australians – Arab and Jewish, Palestinian and Israeli – who do actually speak to one another in tones other than those of abuse and recrimination.

Dr Ashrawi has been accused of being “the matriarch of PLO terror”, of only ever condemning terrorism on pragmatic grounds and of being unworthy of the honour that NSW Premier Bob Carr bestowed upon her in the state parliament.

Many of these charges are distortions. Dr Ashrawi is quoted as saying that violence is the only language Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon understands, and this remark is used to show she advocates violence. Yet Israeli journalists regularly make the same assessment without any such slur being attached to them. The claim that she has only ever rejected terror on pragmatic grounds is disproved by an article she wrote on December 11, 2001 for the Palestinian website MIFTAH, in which she asks:

“Why and when did we allow a few from our midst to interpret Israeli military attacks on innocent Palestinian lives as licence to do the same to their civilians? Where are those voices and forces that should have stood up for the sanctity of innocent lives (ours and theirs), instead of allowing the horror of our own suffering to silence us?”

More recently, in an interview with Jane Hutcheon on September 16, 2003, the “matriarch of terror” had this to say about Hamas and Islamic Jihad:

“They have to understand that there are requirements for democracy and if you want to be a player in the political arena then you have to become political and not violent and you have to abide by the law.”

Those of us who, as Jews and Arabs, Palestinians and Israelis, believe the only way forward out of the madness of conflict is to recognise and honour the humanity and diversity of others, also believe that one of the worst aspects of war is its creation of false dualities: either you are a true believer or an infidel, with us or against us.

Dr Ashrawi is a critic of Oslo, of the Road map, of Israelis and Palestinians. In this, she mirrors the reality that produced her. But are these above criticism? Those who would deny her the Sydney Peace Prize would find it easy to deny any Palestinian such an honour.

When Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer tell us that former Palestinian premier Mahmoud Abbas would be a better choice, they show how little they understand these moves to demonise any Palestinian voice. Were Mr Abbas – a far less articulate advocate of peace than Dr Ashrawi – to be chosen, the same groups which have attacked her would reach into their archives to condemn the man Ariel Sharon and George Bush shook hands with at Aqaba as a Holocaust denier – indeed, they have already done so.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been given to a number of Israeli politicians and to one Palestinian. Yet nowhere can one find in Dr Ashrawi’s past an affirmation of violence to compare with then Israeli defence minister Yitzhak Rabin’s instruction, to troops facing stone-throwing children, to employ “force, might and beatings”. Neither has Dr Ashrawi ever expressed an utter rejection of the two-state solution in the manner of Nobel laureate Menachem Begin:

“The partition of Palestine is illegal�Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.”

We need not remind anyone that Yasser Arafat was no pacifist in the years before Oslo.

Would those who have questioned the choice of Dr Ashrawi have questioned the choice of Mr Begin or Mr Rabin? Dr Ashrawi is a politician and an academic – not once in all the wild accusations levelled at her in recent weeks has she been accused of any violent crime. Yet Mr Begin led a terrorist group that bombed a Jerusalem hotel, killing Jews, Arabs and others. A group that kidnapped British soldiers as hostages and then executed them.

Those of us in the Jewish and Arab communities who believe in dialogue understand that it begins with an effort to walk in another man’s or woman’s shoes. Those who cannot distinguish between the shoes of Dr Ashrawi and the shoes of a terrorist – those for whom every Palestinian is irretrievably on the ‘other’ side – are, we believe, not interested in any kind of talking at all.

***

Rateb Chalak

I feel I have to say sorry first when I am asked where do you come from. I fear where this country is going. Anything against Israel is considered to be against all Jews.

Small man with big pockets push and bully in the name of being true Jews and they are called true Australians.

I say, please sir, I don’t share your ideas, and I get called a fanatic Jew hater.

They say we have the right to kill anyone that might be thinking of defending their land and our Australian leaders say they have to live in peace so they have to kill to have security.

I say, please sir, can I have a little freedom and I get called fanatic.

The true fanatics call me a non-believer and I should be killed as a matter of priority. At this moment we are getting a fair deal in this country but I fear the small man in Melbourne with big pockets would like to see all Arabs locked up and anyone that doesn’t share what he believes in should be locked up with us. Where are we going with all this madness?

God save us all from all hate loving people that think money can buy respect.

***

Tim Gillan

The directive from “President Merkin Muffley”, alias Peter Sellers, to two battling underlings in Kubrick’s “Dr Strangelove” seem oddly appropriate for the Sydney “Peace” Prize brouhaha. “You can’t fight in here, this is the War Room!”

One Nation’s Queensland parliamentary leader Bill Flynn discussing the wheels and deals behind “Australians for Honest Politics” has pointed out:

“One eager contributor to Australians for Honest Politics was former Kerry Packer executive and Rene Rivkin business associate Trevor Kennedy who, it has been revealed, put profits from a Sydney business deal into a Swiss bank account…”

This suggests a suitable method for compensating Hanson for her hard time. Along with Rio Tinto, it was Kerry Packer’s PBL who helped put the money up for the recent Sydney Peace Prize. So maybe the easy way out is simply to get Hanson awarded the prize next year. This shouldn’t be a problem. After all, the previously unknown Sydney Peace Prize is now no stranger to controversy. And all the really glitzy peace prizes go to gaol birds anyhow.

***

Mike Lyvers � �very proudly non-Jewish, non-Christian and non-Muslim�

Margo, I have no problem whatsoever with your posting the views of people (Jews or otherwise, that’s irrelevant) who support the prize. I was just expressing my personal disappointment with your endorsement of the prize. For the record I support a two-state “solution” but I don’t think the violence will end even with a prosperous Palestinian state established. More than half of Palestine is currently “occupied” by Jordan but you don’t see suicide bombers attacking civilians there. The problem is really one of religion – the fact that certain Islamist elements don’t want an “infidel state” in the Middle East.

Antony Loewenstein cites PLO propaganda-meister Hanan Ashrawi as referring to the part of historic Palestine occupied by Israel (but curiously not the part occupied by Jordan) as “being on the receiving end of the last remaining colonial situation in the world [Dr Ashrawi pointed out that the US Occupation of Iraq can now be added to this grim reality].”

The racism on display above is breathtaking. What about Tibet? Or does “colonial situation” to Ashrawi only apply to situations where Arabs are the ones claiming to be colonized? And does Ashrawi really regard the temporary US occupation of Iraq as “grim” compared to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? Too bad the meeting with Ashrawi was (apparently) just a love-fest where no one called her reams of bullshit on her.

By the way, Margo, thanks for posting a diversity of views on Webdiary about the “peace prize” controversy. Webdiary is at its best when all sides of an issue are expressed there.

***

David Moses

I think just enough has been said about giving this woman the “Peace” prize, but I cannot let her words pass without comment.

No matter how eloquently she may speak, we should not be fooled and allow her to equate suicide bombers with Apache helicopters – her direct words. One targets the MAXIMUM murder of innocent people in order to create terror, the other are precise attacks on military targets, designed in every way to MINIMISE, if not eliminate, civilian casualties. Not only are they unequal, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

***

Simon Grant

It’s embarrassing that there even needs to be a response to such a ludicrous fool as George Brandis (Nazi Greens an enemy of democracy, government decrees). If debate stoops so low as to entertain his position then the battle is already lost.

This and the general Middle East question are forever hijacked by reactionary, simplistic nonsense that does nothing to further humanity or realistic solutions.

Many have seized the way Ashrawi avoided responding to direct questions because her ‘true’ beliefs would be exposed. Nonsense! She judiciously avoids the sort of simplistic and sensational questions seeking to lay blame or demonise. She should be applauded for seeking to use her own words to express her beliefs rather than be subjected to the prejudicial contexts of others pushing their own agenda.

First we have journalists and politicians taking Hanson’s views seriously and now we have the dills debating Brandis!

PS: Congratulations to Prof Rees for having the strength of his convictions while all around turned to Turnbulls.

***

David Roffey

Reading the ongoing debate on peace and Israel on your Webdiary continues to be a mix of relief that there are some sane voices in the world and despair at those who think that name-calling is debate and violence is the only route to peace.

I don’t know if you saw this Guardian article in September translated from an original Hebrew article in ‘Yediot Aharonot’ by Avraham Burg, until recently speaker of the Knesset – and therefore difficult to decry as anti-Jew. He presents a series of stark choices for Israel:

Do you want the greater land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let’s institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.

Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse – or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements – all of them – and draw an internationally recognised border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish law of return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.

Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box.

The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements, or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire and suicide bombers, or a recognised international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.

***

Lloyd McDonald

Hanan Ashrawi’s visit has surely made us realise one thing – we need an Arab perspective more than anything else. To listen to Howard and Downer parrot stock Israeli responses as if the Palestinians were irrelevant has added to the numbness one feels being an “Australian” in this current political climate. To watch this sad travesty that is ‘Tampa rerun’ over 14 boat people really makes you question your values as a human being. Are we really going to swallow this again? How sad would it be if we did!

***

Daniel Greengarten

It is quite obvious having observed Mr Loewenstein’s recent works that he has in the past faced ridicule from inside the Jewish community for his endeavours to report on the Palestinian aspect of the conflict.

Whatever sympathy he may have elicited has evaporated through his obvious attempt at retribution against the entire Jewish community by his constant referral to ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jewish’ lobbies as if they represent a conspiratorial entity. His reference to these aforementioned ‘Lobby Groups’ is clearly Mr Loewenstein’s attempt to strike back at those in his community who have criticised his reporting in the past.

They (the Jewish Community), like you Antony, have the right to articulate their concerns, however unlike you Antony, you have access to the medium to express your views on a far-reaching scale. If you believe it is your responsibility as a journalist to convey your perceptions, then be prepared for criticism.

You have lowered yourself below your critics by collectively punishing the Jewish community with your references to the ‘Zionist/Jewish’ lobby, knowing that you gain favour amongst those readers who believe such an organization actually exists. To be for Palestinian self-determination is not anti-Semitic – however to portray the entire Jewish community as members of the ‘Zionist/Jewish’ conspiratorial lobby is to promote a widely held anti-Semitic belief. You have failed in your responsibility, Mr Loewenstein!

***

Nick Smith

The Israel /Palestine issue always seemed to me too far away, too foreign, so unAustralian in its seeming senseless unremitting violence. It was too easy around the BBQ to dismiss it all as “the whole lot are just animals or mad”.

Then came 9/11, a western experience of apparent Arab terrorism. Then Bali, more terrorism closer to home. The BBQ was a little more subdued when it was mentioned. Then an immediate threat of WMD from more Arabs meant our soldiers actually were sent to this violent region and were directly involved in war by invading to protect us from this imminent threat.

What is next? Will some local Arab Australians appear responsible for some huge violence that cancel all BBQs for weeks? When will everyone who can think take a break in their busy lives and have a long think about it all? The terrible escalating violence encapsulated in spin that bears no scrutiny, and the increasing suffering of the many – soon to be us too – and only benefiting a ruthless few has to stop. The one thing these events all lack is scrutiny at a public level. The destiny of sheep is slaughter, for BBQs.

***

Rawan Abdul-Nabi

I wanted to respond briefly to some remarks made by Dan Meijer in She’s got it! who responded to a comment made by Dr Hanan Ashrawi at a public forum on Saturday November 8.

The UN Partition plan (Resolution 181) on Palestine was not equal as he says. For Palestinian Arabs who represented just about 70% of the population and had been living and cultivating on their land for centuries and centuries, the partition plan gave them 47% of the land.

The Jews, who developed a new collective identity (even though before the immigration, Palestinian Arabs compromised of Jews, Christians and Muslims), had rapidly being streaming in from Europe since the 1890s, and were given 53% of historic Palestine although they contributed to about 30% of the population.

Anyone faced with such a drastic measurement would have protested such inequality. Further, Israel declared itself a state very quickly – knowing that the Arab states were trying to work out another feasible solution with the UN. They were proposing one state for all people, not a division which would bring further conflict and war.

The only people expelled were about 750,000 Palestinians (over half the total of the Palestinian population at the time), a process that began in 1947, increased in May 1948 and continued until 1949. This created the longest standing refugee question in the world today, and is yet to be solved.

Every year the UN General Assembly sit and passes its resolutions on the Question of Palestine and any prospect of peace. That resolution lies in compensating those refugees or their descendants or granting them their right to return.

Further, Ashrawi was not referring to the partition plan as Dan asserts. She was referring to the creation of Israel itself – which divided and usurped Palestinian society. This is the history that has been ignored, washed away and kept silenced.

 

Martin Davies image. www.daviesart.com

“In my wanderings around the corridors of Parliament House, I met with Mr Bill Heffernan, a member of the Howard government, who explained the government strategy starkly and simply. Having been a local councillor and being a lifetime farmer, he described to me the moral dilemma that confronts you during a major bushfire. You have to build a firebreak. You have to choose someone’s property as the firebreak. Destroying their property, you will save the neighbourhood. Bill said, “It’s not pretty. These are hard moral decisions. But you have to do it.” Father Frank Brennan

The Melville Island scandal is hurtling towards a Tampa-style confrontation between the government and the courts. As I write the High Court in Sydney is hearing an urgent application for orders that Vanstone bring the Kurds back and process them according to law. The High Court in Canberra is hearing a crucial human rights case about whether the government can throw away the key on some detained asylum seekers, the government hasn’t got away with another children overboard lie, and Indonesia is sticking the boot in. Things are moving so fast it’s hard to catch your breath!

 

Last Wednesday, on November 5, Father Frank Brennan, associate director of Uniya, the Jesuit Social Justice centre, launched his book “Tampering with asylum’ at the National Press Club in Canberra. That morning the media reported that the government had excised Melville Island from Australia overnight to retrospectively deny the Kurds their right to claim asylum.

Here is Frank’s speech, to bring back the memories and put the current scandal in context. He noted, when forwarding it to me:

“You will appreciate that the main need for the excision of the islands is to ensure that asylum seekers do not have access to the courts in the same way that Pauline did. We would thus not have judges overruling the decisions of faceless public servants. As for the new minister’s pledge that the 14 Turks can now apply in Indonesia, in three years, we have taken only 39 asylum seekers from Indonesia. This has been a deliberate policy because we have agreed with Indonesia that it would be undesirable to set up a honey pot effect with asylum seekers reaching Indonesia with some hope of resettlement in Australia.”

***

Tampering with Asylum

by Frank Brennan

In 2001, I was directing the Jesuit Refugee Service in East Timor which was assisting with the return of tens of thousands of East Timorese from the squalid camps on the Indonesian side of the border.

On Monday morning 27 August 2001, I awoke in Dili to the sound of the BBC World Service News. A Norwegian, Captain Arne Rinnan was telling the unlikely tale that Australian authorities had asked him to pick up a boatload of persons in distress on the high seas and that the Australian authorities were now denying him permission to land his human cargo in Australia. They were even denying him permission to enter Australian territorial waters. At my regular round of meetings in Dili that day, United Nations workers from every country on earth were asking me what my country was up to. Australia had such a fine reputation for its humanitarian intervention in East Timor, driving the pace for UN peacekeeping and making up the shortfall in the interim with the leadership of INTERFET. Here now was the same government, the same nation refusing humanitarian aid to a boatload of asylum seekers.

Then came word around the streets of Dili that Australia was sounding out the interim administration of East Timor about taking the Tampa refugees for detention and processing in East Timor. I could not believe that my own government – which well knew the devastation and lack of infrastructure in East Timor just one year after the conflagration – would seek such a return favour from its newest most mendicant neighbouring nation state. The UN was still in control and the late Sergio de Mello had the courage and integrity to tell Australia where to get off.

How could we so jeopardise our international humanitarian reputation by exploiting the vulnerability and indebtedness of the recently liberated East Timorese? At the time, I thought – and I still think – that there are some problems that a country like Australia should solve at home inside its own borders. We should be neighbourly and we should carry our weight.

Soon after my return to Australia in January 2002, I made my first visit to the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, six hours drive from Adelaide, on the outskirts of the small town owned and run by the Defence Department. Afghan asylum seekers had sewn their lips in protest at the government’s decision to suspend the processing of their asylum claims, despite their ongoing detention in the middle of the desert, in light of the changing political situation in Afghanistan.

From there I came here to Canberra. In my wanderings around the corridors of Parliament House, I met with Mr Bill Heffernan, a member of the Howard government, who explained the government strategy starkly and simply. Having been a local councillor and being a lifetime farmer, he described to me the moral dilemma that confronts you during a major bushfire. You have to build a firebreak. You have to choose someone’s property as the firebreak. Destroying their property, you will save the neighbourhood.

Bill said, “It’s not pretty. These are hard moral decisions. But you have to do it.”

The government’s boast two years later is that the firebreak has worked, at least for the moment. The boats have stopped coming. The borders are secure and Australia can choose those refugees to whom it wishes to offer places under its generous offshore refugee selection program.

For these last two years I have I visited centres such as Woomera, Port Hedland and Baxter every month. Every two months I have come to Parliament House Canberra and met with the political architects of this policy, thinking there must be a better way than rhetorical stand-offs in the media. The politicians remain as convinced of their decency in implementing the policy as I am in decrying it. Now I have published a book entitled ‘Tampering with Asylum’.

My concern about the detention of boat people was heightened when I was conducting a worship service in the Woomera detention centre on Good Friday in 2002. At the end of the service, a riot broke out and demonstrators together with detainees managed to breach the security fence.

I was allowed back into the centre on the Tuesday after Easter. There I met for the first time Nasrin Hosseini, who is in the audience here today. Nasrin arrived in Australia with her six year old son in April 2001. They spent more than three years in detention before being released on their temporary protection visa last month.

Spare a thought for another woman with two children who won her case in the Full Federal Court with Nasrin on 13 June 2003. Having already been in detention for 3.5 years, they may have to wait in detention and in suspense for another year while the government seeks to appeal their 3-nil win to the High Court.

On Easter Tuesday last year, Nasrin described to me the assault on her son by an ACM guard which had taken place on Good Friday night. Her son had been struck by a baton as well as being hit with tear gas. I observed bruises on her boy’s left knee and right ankle. The ACM Centre Manager told me that it was unfortunate that children had been hit by tear gas “because the wind happened to be blowing the wrong way”. I immediately wrote to Minister Ruddock explaining all that I had seen and heard, concluding:

“My three hours in the detention centre on the evening of Good Friday convinced me that it was time to put the message to you very plainly despite its public unpopularity and despite your government’s immunity to moral outrage: “Minister, this is no place for kids.” When children end up in the sterile zone against the razor wire with tear gas and batons around them in Australia, it is time for all parties including the Commonwealth government to stop blaming others and to effect policy changes so that it can never happen again.”

After a two week silence from government, I then spoke publicly about this assault. On the very day that the newspapers carried my remarks, DIMIA was able at 2.41pm to place on its website a denial of any injury to children, stating:

“If Father Brennan has information or evidence of mistreatment of detainees he should report it to the appropriate authorities for investigation.”

As far as I knew, Minister Ruddock was the appropriate authority. I realised that enthusiastic idealism of some public servants in handling the troublesome public was getting a little beyond the pale. The Children Overboard mindset had taken root in the Public Affairs section of DIMIA. This is very unfortunate, especially given the dedication of many of the DIMIA officers in the detention centres – those who actually meet the traumatised, incarcerated asylum seekers face to face.

Even if the detention of children is a vote winner and even if it is effective in deterring unauthorised arrivals (which I do not concede and which government does not claim), every political party and every citizen has an interest in ensuring that the human rights of these children are not further undermined by actions of the state or of its private contractors. Now that only two boats have made it close to Australia in the last 18 months, it is time to review the firebreak and to assess the permanent measures that are now in place.

The firebreak has consisted of five key elements:

� Payments to Indonesian authorities to engage in upstream disruption activities that would never be reported to the parliament of either country

� Instructions to our navy to engage in brinskmanship on the high seas requiring non-intervention until persons including children have ended up in the sea abandoning unseaworthy vessels

� Long term detention of asylum seekers in remote desert locations

� Detention and processing of asylum seekers in Pacific locations out of the reach of Australian courts, lawyers and those of us now affectionately known as the do gooder cappuccino set

� Three year temporary protection visas denying the right to travel and return to Australia (in breach of the Convention on Refugees), denying the right of family reunion and denying access to permanent protection and residence if the person transited a country such as Malaysia for seven days where they could be deemed to have had the opportunity to seek protection. This deeming exercise is very artificial when you consider that Malaysian minister Dr Rais Yatim explained last week why Malaysia would not sign the Refugee Convention:

“We have had a series of understandings with (other countries), that once their people come here and claim asylum, we automatically tell them to return. Our policy is very simple, those who have no valid documents will not be allowed to stay in our country.”

We Australians have always enjoyed the benefits and suffered from the disadvantage of acute geographic isolation. Since World War II we have been a strong net migration country. Though generous to refugees, we have always demanded the right to determine who comes to Australia. That clarion call was not invented by Pauline Hanson. Nor was John Howard the first Prime Minister to repeat it. Sir Tasman Heyes who headed our immigration department from 1946 to 1961 informed the diplomatic community back in 1948:

If it is intended to mean that any person or body of persons who may suffer persecution in a particular country shall have the right to enter another country irrespective of their suitability as settlers in the second country this would not be acceptable to Australia as it would be tantamount to the abandonment of the right which every sovereign state possesses to determine the composition of its own population, and who shall be admitted to its territories.

The wave of nine thousand boat people principally from Afghanistan and Iraq, lasting from 1999 until the interception of the Tampa, was the fourth wave of boat people arriving on our shores since the end of the Vietnam War.

The second wave, including boat arrivals from Cambodia, came during the prime ministership of Bob Hawke. In June 1990, Hawke told Jana Wendt:

We have an orderly migration program. We’re not going to allow people just to jump that queue by saying we’ll jump into a boat, here we are, bugger the people who’ve been around the world.

Who will ever forget his declaration:

Do not let any people, or any group of people in the world think that because Australia has that proud record, that all they’ve got to do is to break the rules, jump the queue, lob here and Bob’s your uncle. Bob is not your uncle on this issue, other than in accordance with the appropriate rules. We will continue to be one of the most humanitarian countries in the world. But it is not an open door policy.

It was a Labor government that first instituted a policy of universal mandatory detention for unauthorised arrivals. What was the rationale for this policy? At first, government had two reasons. First, detention was considered a deterrent to future unauthorised arrivals.

Government had to formally abandon that rationale once the High Court said that detention without judicial order would be unconstitutional if it was designed to be punitive or a deterrent. That is why Mr Ruddock took to explaining: “Detention is not arbitrary. It is humane and is not designed to be punitive.” Executive government spared parliamentary, judicial and media scrutiny can make words mean what they like.

Government’s second rationale back in 1990 had nothing to do with our immigration policy. Gareth Evans was justly proud of his peace plan for Cambodia. A central plank of the plan was the return of 300,000 Khmer from the Thai border. They were no longer classed as refugees. Their return was deemed to be safe thought the civil war smouldered until 1998. The peace plan could have come unstuck if Australia had made a prompt determination that the Cambodians arriving on our shores were refugees. These boat people had to be kept away from the lawyers. So the first immigration reception and processing centre was set up at Port Hedland.

By 1994, there was bipartisan support in our Parliament for universal mandatory detention. Our politicians admitted that there was some inconvenience and cost in putting people at remote Port Hedland but thought there were benefits in “placing detainees in a centre which is in reasonable proximity to where most of the boat arrivals first land, and where the remoteness of the location provides a disincentive to abscond from the centre”.

We had completely lost track of this rationale by the time a boatload of Vietnamese turned up at Port Hedland in July this year. They were transported to Christmas Island for processing even though there were plenty of spaces and trained personnel at Port Hedland. Now the talk is of sending signals, though without mentioning the constitutionally embargoed word “deterrent”.

Especially since September 11, no one quibbles with the entitlement of government to detain unauthorised arrivals who come without documents while their identity, health and security status are established. Equally, there can be no problem with the detention of persons justifiably awaiting removal from Australia, especially if they be a flight risk. However there is a problem with detaining people to coerce them into “voluntary return” when it is not safe for them to return.

What is the rationale for keeping people, including children, in protracted detention during the processing of their claims?

Let’s remember that 90% of those in the fourth wave of boat people and held in detention were proved to be refugees. Many of those refugees have stories like the young Hazara Sha Hussain Hassani, who is here with us today. Sha had been on the run in the mountains for months when his father came one night with food and a message. He was to leave with smugglers that very night. His father had sold enough goods to employ a smuggler so that Sha, the eldest son, might leave immediately, he being the one most at risk. Sha’s father hoped to be able to afford to have all his family leave Afghanistan eventually. “There was no place to go and no one to trust any more. It was too dangerous to wait. I had to go immediately.”

Sha has heard nothing from his family since that night. He does not know whether they are still in Afghanistan. He does not even know if they are still alive.

Government has suggested only two other rationales for detaining people like Sha when they arrive here: ease and efficiency of processing, and ensuring that people are available for removal once they are rejected as refugees. These rationales are also flawed.

With the fourth wave of boat people, it has now been shown that those in detention were six times more likely to succeed in their appeals to the Refugee Review Tribunal than those asylum seekers living lawfully in the community. So much for ease of processing. Most migration agents, lawyers, public servants and tribunal members could do their work better if they were able to meet asylum seekers face to face in their offices.

If government’s chief concern was an increase in the number of unlawful overstayers in the community, the savings from holding unlawful arrivals in protracted detention during the processing stage could be devoted to increased surveillance of all overstayers in the community. This would facilitate their orderly departure from Australia regardless of their racial, national or religious identity.

We have 60,000 overstayers a year. On average there have been 222 boat people a year removed from Australia over the last three years. Each year there are 10 – 14,000 other removals. The others are persons permitted to live in the community, including failed asylum seekers who came having made incomplete disclosures in their applications for business, student or tourist visas.

Would it really have mattered if those extra 222 boat people each year had been in the community rather than in detention at taxpayer expense?

There is no coherent rationale for keeping all unauthorised asylum seekers in detention during the second stage of their processing. Despite ten years of such detention, there is no proof that it operates as a deterrent. No Australian deterrent will ever match the horror of Saddam Hussein or the Taliban who caused these people to flee in the first place. It is not good enough for us Australians to say they can flee anywhere but here. If we insist on securing our borders and making them impregnable, why shouldn’t other countries be allowed to do the same?

We Australians have allowed ourselves to be easily spooked. Having just returned from the United Kingdom and the United States, I know that even the most rampant Republicans and Conservatives would find it laughable that the nation work itself into a lather over a boatload of 56 Vietnamese off Port Hedland or 14 Turks off Melville island.

The boats have stopped coming, in large measure because the Indonesians have come to the table with the Bali conference on people smuggling and they are no longer under threat that we will embarrass their generals with calls for war crimes arising from their activities in East Timor. Also the sinking of SIEV X with large scale loss of life sent a clear signal.

So is there any justification for resurrecting Operation Relex with the requirement that Australian navy personnel await direction from Canberra while boat people, including children, are forced to jump into the sea?

Why can’t Australia support Norway’s proposal to the International Maritime Organisation “ensuring ship masters that they will be permitted and able to deliver persons rescued to a place of safety in some suitable State in all cases and circumstances”?

We have now started excising Aboriginal communities from our migration zone (see Eddie Mabo proclaims great southern rainbow republic). If only our indigenous communities had been able to avail themselves of such legal artifices two centuries ago. Most of us could be deemed never to have arrived.

We Australians enjoy many advantages including our geographic isolation. We are an island nation continent. We have set up a virtual offshore border with our computerised visa system. Just last month, I was present at a US Congressional Committee hearing where our electronic travel authority was being espoused to the US legislators. We live in a neighbourhood which rarely produces refugees.

And we do not have a constitutional bill of rights, so our governments are much more free to interfere with the human rights of asylum seekers in the name of national interest and security, immune from judicial supervision.

Instead of going it alone, we Australians should put the firebreak behind us and co-operate with other countries seeking international solutions to these problems. It is shameful that we have exploited the desperation of Nauru, paying them to set up isolated detention facilities such that ordinary visitors from Australia have to be excluded.

In August this year, I was to visit Nauru as a guest of the local Catholic Church. My visa was duly issued. The day before travel, the Government of Nauru cancelled the visa with this advice:

“Noting that Fr Brennan’s request to enter Nauru is not for the purpose of conducting parish or pastoral work with the Catholic mission, I wish to inform you that his application is denied at this stage.”

Nauru is more closed to Australians such as myself than was East Timor a year after the Dili massacre in 1991.

For the moment, the boats have stopped coming. Make no mistake. At some time in the future, there will be a fifth wave of boat people regardless of our laws and policies. When a country like Iraq or Afghanistan implodes in future, people will justifiably flee to the four corners of the globe seeking security and protection for themselves and their families. Some people will even turn up in Australia.

The effect is the same as throwing a stone into a pond. Water and ripples emanate even to the remotest corners of the pond. A simple thought experiment highlights the immorality and inequity in world burden sharing resulting from our firebreak. Imagine that every country signed the Refugee Convention and then adopted the Australian policy. No refugee would be able to flee from their country of persecution without first joining the mythical queue to apply for a protection visa. If anyone dared to flee persecution, they would immediately be held in detention awaiting a determination of their claim. All refugees in the world would be condemned to remain subject to persecution or to proceed straight to open-ended, judicially unreviewable detention. The purpose of the Refugee Convention would be completely thwarted. After the 2002 Christmas fires in the gulag of Australian detention centres, one detainee who offered to assist police with their inquiries was given a guarantee by senior immigration officials in Canberra. He would not have to return to a detention centre. He was moved to a motel for nine days and provided information to the police. The guarantee from Canberra was then withdrawn. He had no legal remedy and no political leverage. I thought the treatment he received was unAustralian. But on reflection, I concluded in the wake of Tampa that the treatment was very Australian. Asylum seekers who have arrived in Australia without visas have been used by government as a means to an end. Their detention has been used to transmit a double signal warning other asylum seekers to take a detour to any other country but ours and luring those voters who appreciate a government prepared to take a tough stand against the one who is “other”. It is time for the nation once again to respect the dignity and basic rights of those who come to our shores seeking asylum. We should abandon our funding of unaccountable upstream disruption. We should spare our navy life-threatening actions in peace time. We should detain persons, including children, without court orders, only if there is a coherent rationale for such detention. We should abolish the Pacific solution and look after our own asylum seekers on shore. We should permit proven refugees to remain in Australia if they are still proved to be refugees after an initial period of up to three years temporary protection. We should not force people home to places like Afghanistan and Iraq unless satisfied that the cause of persecution has been removed and “that security and access to justice in areas of return is of an acceptable level”. We should stop tampering with asylum.

 

Martin Davies image. www.daviesart.com

“Here’s the logic: “unattractive” behaviour by some Jews can legimitise antipathy to all Jewish people, unwarranted as that may be. What it’s really saying is that Jews are not free to engage in the full range of behaviour that is allowed from other groups (although Muslims would feel a kinship here) because if they act in a way other people find unacceptable, then it legitimises an illegitimate view of all Jews.” Michael Visontay

G’Day. All sides agree that resolution of the Israel/Palestine dispute is central to ending the ‘war on terror’ and to reconciliation between Muslims and Judeo-Christians. The Ashrawi debate drew Australia briefly into world debate on the matter.

 

On the eve of Bush’s thank you visit to Blair in Britain, Sidney Blumenthal, a senior adviser to President Clinton, wrote an explosive piece in The Guardian alleging that, under pressure from Sharon’s backers in the United States, Bush broke an agreement with Blair to sponsor the middle east roadmap for peace (Bush and Blair – the betrayal. America’s first loyalty was to Ariel Sharon, not the prime minister). He wrote:

Flynt Leverett, a former CIA analyst, revealed to me that the text of the road map was ready to be made public before the end of 2002:

“We had made commitments to key European and Arab allies. The White House lost its nerve. It took Blair to get Bush to put it out.”

This man knows what he’s talking about. In addition to his CIA role, Leverett is a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the national security council, an author of the road map, and a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

“We needed to work this issue hard,” he says, “but because we didn’t want to make life difficult with Sharon, we undercut our credibility.”

… The key to the road map’s success was US support for the Palestinian prime minister, Abu Mazen, indispensable as a partner for peace, but regarded as a threat by both Sharon and Arafat. At the June summit on the road map, Bush told Abu Mazen:

“God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them; then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did; and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act.”

Abu Mazen was scheduled to come to Washington to meet Bush a month later. For his political survival, he desperately required US pressure on the Sharon government to make concessions on building settlements on the West Bank. Abu Mazen sent a secret emissary to the White House: Khalil Shikaki. I met Shikaki in Ramallah, where he gave his account of this urgent trip. He met Elliot Abrams and laid out what support was needed from Bush if Abu Mazen – and therefore the road map – were to survive.

Abrams told him, he says, that Bush “could not agree to anything” due to domestic political considerations: Bush’s reliance on the religious right, his refusal to offend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the demands of the upcoming election. Shikaki pleaded that Abu Mazen presented “a window of opportunity” and could not go on without US help. “He has to show he’s capable of doing it himself,” Abrams answered dismissively.

Inside the NSC, those in favour of the road map – CIA analysts Flynt Leverett and Ben Miller among others – were forced out. On September 6, Abu Mazen resigned, and the road map collapsed.

***

 

In my view, the Ashrawi controversy has liberated Jewish Australians who do not support Sharon and his policies – and believe that his approach is inimical to peace – to express their views to the wider public.

 

There is NOT a united pro-Sharon position among Jewish Australians, but those who do back him and what he stands for seem to have the power, money and clout to dominate public debate and wield enormous political and financial power behind the scenes.

The Ashrawi debacle has exposed this secret power and liberated Jewish Australians who disagree with the big boys to assert their right to have a say outside the Jewish community.

Hungarian Jew George Soros, a billionaire US investor, recently blamed the policies of Sharon and Bush for the rise of anti-semitism in Europe.

“There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that,” Soros said. “It�s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti- Semitism as well. I�m critical of those policies.”

“If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish,” he said. “I can�t see how one could confront it directly.”

Soon after, he declared that he would donate millions to the progressive website Moveon which is backing Democrat liberal Howard Dean for US president:

Mr Soros says a “supremacist ideology” guides the White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary: “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans.”

It conjured up memories of the Nazi slogan, “Der Feind hoert mit” (The enemy is listening): “My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitised me,” he said.

Soros’s Open Society website has just published a piece about corruption:

Corruption has no easy definition�behavior tolerated as normal, or at least necessary, in one place may be seen as deviant and punishable by fines and jail time in another. Yet all forms of corruption, even the seemingly trivial, erode the bonds of society. Corruption must be recognized for what it is: a looming global crisis.

The Summer-Fall 2003 issue of Open Society News reveals the variety of forms corruption can take and how its impact can be felt from Angola to Kazakhstan to Washington, D.C. It describes the pressure and intimidation that potential whistleblowers face from friends, colleagues, and authorities who extract benefits from corruption as it seeps through society. It focuses on the undisclosed deals between multinational corporations and governments.

Meanwhile back in Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald spectrum editor, Michael Visontay, in a deeply felt and honest piece, argued in the SMH today that several commentators, including myself, were legitimising anti-semetism:

Here’s the logic: “unattractive” behaviour by some Jews can legimitise antipathy to all Jewish people, unwarranted as that may be. What it’s really saying is that Jews are not free to engage in the full range of behaviour that is allowed from other groups (although Muslims would feel a kinship here) because if they act in a way other people find unacceptable, then it legitimises an illegitimate view of all Jews.

As I’m at home NOT writing my book I responded by email:

Hi Michael

Very thought provoking piece this morning. A question that arose from it for me was: What’s the ethics of exercising your right to free speech when it involves threats of seriously adverse consequences to others if they exercise the right to theirs? The Voltaire question.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that anything I wrote implied a legitimation of anti-semitism. The opposite is true. I fear what might happen if what seems to me to be political correctness gone mad doesn’t loosen up. We know what happened in 1996 and beyond re Aborigines and refugees. This fear is shared by several Jewish Australians of my acquaintance, who believe extreme elements of the community have hijacked the entire voice of Jewish people in Australia, to the extent of trying to silence Jewish voices to do not agree with their position.

Regards,

Margo

Ashrawi and Brandis: the great debate has provoked lots of emails, and Antony Loewenstein has agreed to guest edit a discussion Webdiary entry on the issues raised. Many readers, Jewish and non-Jewish, are relishing the opportunity to discuss this extremely sensitive and fraught issue in an open, safe way.

Have a good weekend.

Several readers want to read what Hanson said on her release. She gave a doorstop when she walked out of jail, then an exclusive live cross to the news with Channel Seven. Today she’s done Alan Jones on 2GB and a quick doorstop at the gate of her property outside Ipswich around midday. I haven’t got a transcript of that last one yet, but will try to track it down.

Here are the first three transcripts, in chronological order.

The transcript of my debate with David Oldfield on Lateline last night is at http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s984063.htm.

1. Immediately on her release, an all-in door stop at the jail. Transcript by SMH assistant Ebony Bennett, from a tape recording of Channel Seven and ABC videotapes. Thanks to Tim Hunt, Seven press gallery cameraman and Simon, ABC chief of staff.

Pauline: Can I catch my breath?

It’s very important in my period of time I’ve been here I’ve had thousands of letters from the public that have supported me, not only in Australia , but as far away as Poland, Russia, New Zealand, England, America and Canada. I’ve learnt from this experience and I do think I’m a little bit wiser for it.

Journalist: What do you think you’ll do tonight?

Pauline: With family and friends.I’m going to hug my kids because I chose not to give them the hugs because of the strip searches, but that was my choice. And it was hard for my father last Thursday – not being able to give him a hug and that’s where I’m off to now, to see my very special man in my life, my father.

The message that I’d like to say is – I got caught up in the system that I saw fail me and I just, I am so concerned now for the other women behind the bars here – and men – that have also seen the system fail them and that’s my biggest concern. And I – my love and wishes to the girls that I’ve shared the last eleven weeks with and I’d like to say a big thank you to the prison staff who’ve done an excellent job and I would like to send an extra special thank you to Alan Jones and to Bronwyn Bishop for their support and not giving up on me, especially the people of Australia.

Journalist: Did you get a hard time in jail?

…

Pauline: The system let me down like it’s let a lot of people down. And there are other girls in there that the system has let down. And it’s only because of money, power and position that stops them from getting their freedom.

Journalist: Does this change your views about jail?

Pauline: Yes.

Journalist: In what way?

Pauline: I’ll leave it at that. I just want to say I’ve learnt from it and I’ll never get over the support that I’ve received from the Australian people and it’s just astounded me. And I’m so happy. Now please – I just want to go and see my father.

(She gets in the car, then notices Ettridge is out too. She gets out of the car and they embrace)

Ettridge: How are you? How skinny are you?

Pauline: We knew it didn’t we?

Ettridge: Yep. Isn’t it unbelievable?

Pauline: The truth. I said the truth will set us free.

Ettridge: The truth did set us free. Good on you. Look how skinny you are.

Pauline: I am not –

Ettridge: Obviously, you ate less food than I did. Good on you. Now I want somebody if you can to give me a ride to the airport so I can escape from Queensland please. (A journo offers him a ride)

Journalist: What’s it like to see Pauline again?

Ettridge: Lovely, on the outside, it’s wonderful. (To Pauline) We’ll talk soon.

Journalist: How would you some up your last eleven weeks in jail?

Ettridge: It’s been an interesting experience. I think I’m enriched as a result of having been in prison. I’ve seen another part of life that people talk about, but never experience. People who now want to give opinions on putting people in prison and how severe their sentences must be, have no idea of the effect that it has on a prisoner, their family , their friends, their assets their whole life. I’ve met people in here who are doing fourteen years, twenty years, fifteen years, it is incomprehensible to think what effect that has on a person.

Journalist: Where are you flying out to tonight?

Ettridge: I’m heading back to Sydney.

Journalist: To be with your family?

Ettridge: To be with my dog and with my family.

Journalist: Will you be seeking compensation?

Ettridge: Apparently there is no compensation possible under this system. Other prisoners are entitled apparently to something like $1200 a day for incarceration. I’m not entitled to anything. At this stage I’m just happy to be out.

***

2. Exclusive interview at the jail after the all-in with Network Seven, live cross to the news. Replayed on this morning’s Sunrise program. Transcript by Rehame.

PROGRAM: Sunrise

DATE: 7 November 2003

TIME: 7.41am

PRODUCER: Phil Sylvester

SUMMARY: Discussion on Pauline Hanson’s release from prison. Interview with Pauline Hanson, Former One Nation Leader.

MELISSA DOYLE – PRESENTER: Well, when Pauline Hanson walked free from jail last night she was keen to thank her supporters, thousands of Australians who’d been campaigning for her release.

DAVID KOCH – PRESENTER: And before heading off to be reunited with her family she got that message out by choosing Seven’s Peter Doherty to talk to. Here’s that interview.

PAULINE HANSON – FORMER ONE NATION LEADER: The support that I’ve received from the Australian who never gave up believing in me and trusting in me and that’s really what kept me going. I’ve received nearly four thousand letters and I think also I must give a special thank you to Alan Jones and Bronwyn Bishop because they really put themselves on the line for me (indistinct) believing.

REPORTER: What’s (indistinct) or how (indistinct)?

HANSON: It was fine. I was just one of the girls in there and that’s the way I wanted it. I didn’t expect to be treated any differently and I still had my day on the dishes (laughs) once a week and so everything was fine.

REPORTER: [inaudible question]

HANSON: Yes they did and a great big thank you to the prison staff and I’ve made some friends in there, some mates, and I’ll be keeping in touch with them. Hi (laughs). So, anyway, that’s to a special mate that’s in there.

REPORTER: What’s this done to your confidence in the legal system?

HANSON: I’ve seen a system that has failed me and my concern is how many other innocent women and (indistinct) men that are actually behind bars that shouldn’t be there. And I’m thinking seriously about this that I’d like to put out a call to retired solicitors, judges, legal people to give up their time to work with me to speak to these people who have been wrongly imprisoned because it’s got to a stage, it’s either you’ve got the money to pay for your freedom – because there’s a lot of girls in there that don’t have the legal help and I’ve tried to help as many as I could.

REPORTER: They’ve obviously touched you deeply.

HANSON: The whole thing has. I’ve learnt a lot from it. I was a person that had my opinion and, yes, I thought I knew everything as a member of parliament to go and look through the prisons. You know nothing and these politicians and bureaucrats that make the legislation have no idea. And yes it’s been a very daunting distressing time. I could never explain what it’s done to me but in so many ways I’ve learnt so much from it and I need just to learn from it.

REPORTER: You’ve taken this one day at a time. Thinking ahead, I know you’re not going to (indistinct) question, are you going to run again? What are you going to do?

HANSON: (Laughs) Look, at the moment that’s the furtherest [sic] thing from my mind and I’m actually keen to get my dad, if you’re there, I’m coming and I love you. And I love my sons, my daughter and my sister Judy who’s been out there. And I used to tell you all that I was the quiet one of the family and I think after you’ve seen my sister out there and a couple of the others you’ll know what I’ve been talking about. But it’s because of their devotion and the love for me and just that bonding and family ties that we have that, you know, they’ve gone on fighting for me and I’ve been so fortunate.

And to all the people of Australia and just everyone, thank you. I know it just doesn’t seem much to say but thanks.

REPORTER: What a day, eh?

HANSON: Yeah.

REPORTER: Thank you Pauline.

DOYLE: What a day, certainly. Pauline Hanson there talking to Seven’s Peter Doherty. Now, drop us an email on your opinion, what you think about what she’s been saying, seven.com.au/sunrise.

***

3. Interview with Alan Jones on Sydney Radio 2GB this morning. Transcript by Rehame.

STATION: Sydney 2GB

PROGRAM: Alan Jones

DATE: 7 November 2003

TIME: 7.16am

PRODUCER: Justin Kelly

SUMMARY: Discussion on Pauline Hanson’s time in prison and her the Queensland Court of Appeal ruling overturning the electoral fraud charges. Interviews with Pauline Hanson, former One Nation Leader; David Ettridge, One Nation Party.

ALAN JONES – PRESENTER: Pauline Hanson is on the line. Pauline, good morning.

PAULINE HANSON – FORMER ONE NATION LEADER: Good morning Alan.

JONES: Have you had a good night’s sleep?

HANSON: (Laughs) Well, I got to bed about three thirty your time.

JONES: (Laughs) Yes.

HANSON: I’ve been up for nearly the past hour or so. I haven’t had a lot of sleep and –

JONES: How’s your dad?

HANSON: Oh, he was very emotional and he’s great. It was good to see him. He needed to see me and I needed to see him and so it was wonderful.

JONES: I’ve got to tell you, your family were absolutely fantastic. Those boys and your daughter they’re class people the way they handled themselves through it all. I guess we’ might just give you a bit of music to settle you down for the morning. You’ve heard Adam. This is I Can’t Believe. I mean, he’s a musician and a singer and he wrote this. This is Pauline’s son.

[musical interlude – I Can’t Believe, Adam Hanson.]

JONES: And, of course, he says justice will be seen. Now what to say, innocence will convey you’re not guilty. The omens here were very clear. What is it she’s done. Innocence is now. Waiting to be cleared. When will you be home again? Well, all of that, of course, was answered fairly swiftly yesterday afternoon in about three minutes, wasn’t it?

HANSON: (Laughs) Yeah. It’s just I haven’t seen Adam yet. Adam flew down to –

JONES: Yeah, to the fundraiser here.

HANSON: Yes, and I spoke to Adam on the phone. He was very emotional and he’s very close.

JONES: Yeah, they’re good boys.

HANSON: He’s very, very close to me.

JONES: Yeah, he and Tony, they’re good boys.

HANSON: It hit Adam very, very hard and he’s going through a very hard time and his school is going through a hard time and he didn’t have that contact with me just to give me a phone call and just get mum’s advice and just get mum’s hug and it’s been so hard. I think it was the hardest part, seeing my kids go through it.

JONES: Sure. Once that verdict you were having lunch and they said get back to court because they’re going to hand down the judgment. So you’ve gone into the court room on that day and you heard what that woman Patsy Wolfe had to say, what was going through your mind?

HANSON: I was absolutely stunned. We were having lunch and we were so confident that the case we just put across such a great case. The prosecution just had no evidence, I couldn’t understand the whole lot.

JONES: Well, just for the benefit of my listeners again, Pauline, I’ll just say again that Mr Justice de Jersey said what everybody who knew anything about it said. Mr Justice de Jersey said yesterday the preponderance of the available evidence points to the conclusion that the applicants for membership became members of the political party Pauline Hanson’s One Nation or more probably of both that political party and the support movement.

The Crown cannot on this evidence safely sustain the position upon which the convictions depend. That is that the list comprises the names of persons who are not members of the political party but were members of the support movement only. It would be unsafe to allow the convictions to stand in these sentences. He could see that they were one in the same thing. These people knew they were joining Pauline Hanson’s party.

HANSON: They did Alan and in 1997 from October 1997 we passed that no one would be able to join the support movement any more. We were winding it up, it was started in late 1996 by Bruce Whiteside on the Gold Coast, so we were just appointed as president. And I was appointed president, David as the vice president of the organisation just as basically figureheads but we had we didn’t even run it. We didn’t even process memberships –

JONES: Quite.

HANSON: – at the office.

JONES: Don’t worry about that. Everyone knows that. Don’t worry about it. What do you say though today, because that day when you were sentenced the judge Patsy Wolfe said to you the crimes you committed affect the confidence of people in the electoral process. Called you a criminal from the dock.

HANSON: That hurt because I’ve always [becomes emotional] I’m sorry.

JONES: No, no, not at all, of course, it hurts. Of course it hurts. So where do you think now the system of justice stands? What do you do? You met people in jail –

HANSON: Alan –

JONES: – who are victims like you were.

HANSON: Alan, there’s a lady in there, she’s fifty-two. Her name’s Anne. Anyway I got to meet her three weeks ago. She came in there and she’s been given a life sentence for murder and she wasn’t even she wasn’t there at the murder scene and it’s been proven. But they’ve tried to tie her in that she’s actually saying that she had something to do with the organising. This lady attempted to take her life because she couldn’t handle the fact of given this charge [sic]. Anyway I’ve helped her to get legal help because she’s going through Legal Aid and the day before her she was given her legal representative, another one, two days before her appeal, and the day before I sat down with her for hours going through her submission to give her QC as much information as we possibly could and so now she’s waiting for a decision from that.

This lady shouldn’t be there and another nineteen year old girl, because there’s no funding, there’s no money and I got her to see Chris yesterday and I’ve (indistinct) her just to speak to Chris to get her out on bail. Because she hasn’t even been to a committal till May next year and she won’t go to trial till the year after that. And this is what I’m saying, there’s so many people in there that need help that shouldn’t be there. And I was the fortunate one to have your support, to have the public’s support because I was known. But there’s so many people that once they’re in there the door slams. The legal system, the Legal Aid, it’s useless.

JONES: Now, what about the just coming back to your you’re dead right, and that’s a battle for another day. But they also then told you that the five hundred thousand dollars in electoral funding you had to pay back because you’d fraudulently registered a party. What’s going to happen to that five hundred thousand dollars now? Someone owes your political party five hundred thousand dollars.

HANSON: Well, it wasn’t the political party that paid it Alan. It’s through the –

JONES: No, but I’m just saying the political party itself is owed the five hundred thousand it was paid back.

HANSON: That’s right, yes.

JONES: Then, of course, what our listeners need to understand is that you were charged also with dishonesty and inappropriately using seventeen thousand dollars for a fighting fund. That occupied the headlines all the way up to your trial. They then find you guilty and slap you in jail and suddenly and coincidentally the DPP withdraw those charges because they didn’t have any evidence.

HANSON: That’s correct. They knew that all the time.

JONES: Knew that all the time.

HANSON: And we were actually trying to get them to drop those before the trial.

JONES: But they allowed the headlines to run.

HANSON: And they wouldn’t do it and then since I was convicted and sentenced to jail on Wednesday, the following Monday well, it was another day or two after that, they told us they were going to drop the charges the following Monday.

JONES: Yet it was highly prejudicial to everything you were trying to do in Queensland. The allegations were aired throughout Queensland. The headlines were in the media and running every other day.

JONES: Pauline, the other thing is you then heard this thing read out, no parole, handcuffed, strip searched. You chose not to see your children face to face because that would have involved you in the humiliation of being strip searched.

HANSON: I went through it a couple of times to see my kids and I had to go through the strip search and it just it was just me, Alan. You know, the other girls put themselves through it. I just couldn’t. And I did it a couple of times and I said to my family I said I can’t do it, I just can’t do it. And they said mum, we understand. You do what makes you feel happy.

JONES: That’s it.

HANSON: So then I went through the con non-contact visits which was through a glass panel, four glass walls, enclosed, and just a glass panel that you look at –

JONES: Yes, that’s right.

HANSON: – look through.

JONES: Yes.

HANSON: And –

JONES: What’s the prevailing sentiment today because it’s hard, it’ll take you a while to work things out, is it relief or is it anger? And what about people who constantly tried to foster the argument that you were some awful woman guilty of frauding [sic] the system? You must feel angry that those people were constructively seeking to put you behind bars. They got you there.

HANSON: It’s been going on for years and I’ve got you know, there’s a big question mark over all this, everyone’s part in all this.

JONES: It’s not over yet, is it?

HANSON: Yeah, the people of Australia need to ask the questions. It’s not on just my behalf but for themselves. Because if you get and you question the major political parties, if you get up to have a different voice in this country you’re slammed and you’re shut down. And that was the whole that’s what they attempted to do right from the very beginning, Tony Abbott with his slush fund. And that’s why the litigation, for years I’ve been faced with charges the party has one time we had I had thirteen different legal battles on my hands and it was just draining the party’s finances but it kept me out of –

JONES: Just before just because you threatened the major political parties.

HANSON: And it took me out of, you know, politics and I just couldn’t concentrate on anything. People say I was naive and I was and I –

JONES: Just hang on and have a breather and I’ll come back to you because David Ettridge has just come onto the line. Just hang on, Pauline, and we’ll come back to you. David, good morning.

DAVID ETTRIDGE – FORMER ONE NATION MEMBER: Good morning, Alan.

JONES: How – you’ve got the plane out of Queensland.

ETTRIDGE: Yes, I did, got the last flight out last night.

JONES: And you won’t be going back.

ETTRIDGE: (Laughs) Only for a holiday one day in the future, I’m sure.

JONES: Your wife has done it very, very tough, hasn’t she?

ETTRIDGE: She has. This is the tragedy of anybody who gets sentenced to prison that your family, your children, your or everybody who knows you, even your pets, all suffer.

JONES: Mmm. You have been found by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and in particularly the Chief Justice of Queensland, to be comprehensively innocent, indeed to the extent it would be unsafe to allow these convictions to stand. Are there politicians out there today who should be concerned about your innocence?

ETTRIDGE: I think they should be and for the role that they played in bringing this situation about. They’re all hiding under beds around Australia, they know who they are and the roles they played.

JONES: And what will you be doing?

ETTRIDGE: What can we do, Alan? We rely on people like you to let the public know that this was an injustice and it was politically motivated. It was abuse of power.

JONES: Mr Justice de Jersey said that the DPP was so badly resourced and lacked appropriate legal expertise which if that hadn’t applied, this matter would never have even gone to trial.

ETTRIDGE: I don’t believe that. I think that the DPP relished in this conviction.

JONES: Yeah.

ETTRIDGE: They didn’t the day before the decision was handed down we knew that they believed they had lost as we believed they had lost. And they couldn’t believe their luck and neither could Patsy Wolfe believe her luck when they heard the jury say guilty and –

JONES: And yet Justice de Jersey suggested that Patsy Wolfe had misdirected the jury.

ETTRIDGE: Yes, that’s exactly what she did and I think she just couldn’t believe she’d been handed this guilty verdict. And between her and Brendan Campbell they just couldn’t wait, like sharks circling, to put us in prison for a term that was had no relationship whatsoever to the charges.

JONES: If you ran with Pauline politically, and I’ll come back to her and ask her the same question, Pauline’s listening, the public would want to speak in the only way that’s available to them, that’s in a political sense. They feel there’s nothing they can do other than to put their hands up and tick and vote. Would you consider re-entering the political environment to try to redress some of these wrongs?

ETTRIDGE: Well, I feel that there are a lot of wrongs taking place, and I wonder if there is any other way to bring them to account, except to let them know that the public of Australia aren’t stupid and they won’t fall for (indistinct)

JONES: They sure as hell aren’t. They sure as hell aren’t.

ETTRIDGE: And (indistinct)

JONES: Good luck to you and your wife.

ETTRIDGE: Good on you Pauline, too.

JONES: Yeah. She’s there somewhere.

ETTRIDGE: Yes.

HANSON: (Laughs)

JONES: Good on you, Pauline. So, he’s had a sleep, and you’ve had a sleep. Pauline, I’ve got you both there.

HANSON: Yeah?

JONES: Politically – I know it’s a silly question to ask a day later, but would you consider running for political office, giving the public perhaps the only opportunity that’s available to them to register their support for the fight against the kind of things you’re seeking to do battle against?

HANSON: It is a hard question, Alan. I just don’t know any more. It’s, like, I had another go at running for the seat in New South Wales, and every time I have run, I’ve just been pipped on the post with preferences. And when you had I had one woman that raised something to me in (indistinct) the shopping centre down in Miranda (indistinct), and she says, ‘Pauline, Pauline’ – she’s pushing a pram with a baby – twenty-eight. And she says, ‘Look, I didn’t vote for you, but I want to you know, hang in there’, she said, ‘and keep you know, doing a good job’, and I just looked at her, and I just shook my head.

JONES: Yeah.

HANSON: I didn’t vote for you, but keep going. And I thought –

JONES: Well, there are battlers. And you’re the principal (indistinct)

HANSON: – so what do I do?

JONES: Yeah. Well, you’ve handled yourself brilliantly. There’s a lot of battlers. Look, gather your breath and have a good rest and keep your chin up because the Court of Criminal Appeal have really done you proud.

HANSON: Alan, I just wanted to say personally to you to thank you very, very much –

JONES: Mmm.

HANSON: – for not giving up on myself or David.

JONES: Well, I believed you, Pauline.

HANSON: Yeah.

JONES: It’s as simple as that. You’re a good lady.

HANSON: And –

JONES: And you’ve got a good family, too, and so does David Ettridge.

HANSON: Mm hm.

JONES: You deserve better than this.

HANSON: Mm hm. And it’s so important to thank of thousands of kids that wrote to me.

JONES: Yeah.

HANSON: I never can thank their letters, their wishes, their love, their prayers –

JONES: No. They don’t want thanks.

HANSON: Kept me going.

JONES: They knew a wrong had been done, and it was the only way they could manifest their concern about it. You have a good weekend, and we’ll talk soon.

HANSON: Thanks, Alan. Bye.

JONES: And David, to you and your wife, all the best.

ETTRIDGE: Thank you Alan.

JONES: I hope the immediate future is better than the recent past.

ETTRIDGE: Thank you very much.

JONES: David Ettridge and Pauline Hanson.

 

Pauline Hanson after her release. Photo: Andy Zakeli

The legal system has fought back big time via the Hanson judgement, slamming Howard, Carr and others for cynicism and disregard for the rule of law. Before the extract from Justice McMurdo’s judgment, Pauline Hanson gave a short, emotional, and extremely interesting press conference just televised on the 7.30 Report.

“I’ve learnt from this experience and I’m a little bit wiser for it.”

The system had failed her, she said, and it had also failed “the women behind the bars there”.

Did she get a hard time in jail? “No.”

“The system’s let me down like it’s let a lot of people down… because of money, power and position.”

Had the experience changed her opinion about jails? “Yes.”

How? “I just want to say that I’ve learnt from it.”

***

EXTRACT FROM JUSTICE MARGARET McMURDO

The appellants were convicted and sentenced on 20 August this year. It is common knowledge that convictions and sentences are subject to a lawful appeal process. The appellant Hanson appealed against her conviction on 26 August 2003 and applied for leave to appeal against her sentence on 27 August 2003; the appellant Ettridge filed his notice of appeal against conviction and his application for leave to appeal against sentence on 1 September 2003. The appellants’ conviction and sentence attracted a deal of media attention and public interest. Senior members of the legislature, many of whom were trained lawyers, were reported in the media as making inappropriate comments about this case.

The Prime Minister is quoted as saying: “on the face of it, it does seem a very long, unconditional sentence for what she is alleged to have done” (Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August 2003; The Age, 26 August 2003; The Australian, 26 August 2003).

Former Federal Minister and now senior backbencher, Ms Bronwyn Bishop, was reported as likening the prosecution of this matter to something one would expect in Zimbabwe under the regime of the tyrant, Robert Mugabe:

“It’s gone beyond just political argy-bargy of political opponents I’ve been very critical of her and her party, but this is something that is above and beyond that political argument – this is someone who has been sent to jail because she spoke her views and that is not acceptable in this country. Very simply, for the first time in Australia, we now have a political prisoner and I find that totally unacceptable in a country where freedom of speech and freedom to act as a political individual is sacrosanct.” (The Courier-Mail, 26 August 2003; Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August 2003; The Australian, 26 August 2003.)

The New South Wales Premier was reported as saying that the sentence seemed excessive because it was “almost a crime without a victim” (The Australian, 22 August 2003).

Western Australian One Nation MP, Frank Hough, was reported as saying that Hanson had been “hounded into prison. All she’s guilty of is naivety and inexperience.” (The Courier-Mail, 21 August 2003.)

The Queensland One Nation leader, Bill Flynn, was reported as saying that he believed there had been “considerable political pressures” behind the case (The Courier-Mail, 21 August 2003).

As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no retraction of any of these comments. If these observations were accurately reported, they are concerning. They demonstrate, at the least, a lack of understanding of the Rule of Law, the principle that every person and organisation is subject to the same laws and punishment and not to the arbitrary wishes of individuals or the passing whim of the day. Such statements from legislators could reasonably be seen as an attempt to influence the judicial appellate process and to interfere with the independence of the judiciary for cynical political motives.

Fortunately, many legislators asked to comment on the case responded with appropriate restraint. For example, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, pointed out that Hanson’s sentence “was a legal decision, not politically driven” (The Courier-Mail, 22 August 2003, p 5; The Australian, 22 August 2003, p 2) and the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Treasurer noted that “the matter was one for the courts”. (The Age, 23 August 2003; Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August 2003.)

A failure by legislators to act with similar restraint in the future, whether out of carelessness or for cynical short-term political gain, will only undermine confidence in the judiciary and consequentially the democratic government of this State and nation.

Soon after I published the views of two Jewish Australians, Ian Cohen and Antony Loewenstein – Ian on the Brandis accusation that the Greens were Nazis, Antony on Hanan Ashrawi – a reader rang my editor to demand the Webdiary entry be taken down immediately. What’s going on here?

Tonight, varied reaction from Jewish and non-Jewish Australians to the Loewenstein piece, and more reaction to the Brandis smear. Dr Ashrawi’s speech last night is at Peace not a question of legitimacy, but of humanity.

Brandis told me over coffee last week that after the furore over his speech he called Colin Rubenstein, who agreed with it. Brandis suggested on Lateline last Friday night that Rubenstein called him:

I was contacted by a very large number of leaders of the Jewish community who told me that they fully supported what I had said, in particular the leader of the other peak Jewish community in this country, Colin Rubenstein, the executive director of the Australia Israel Council told me not only was he not critical of the speech but he supported it and he was pleased that it had been given.

In my view, Colin Rubenstein does not represent the majority view of Jewish Australians on this matter. To Brandis, it did. And talk about vilification! To Rubenstein, it’s fine to call the Greens Nazis but intolerable for Jewish people to critique the activities of a powerful, minority Jewish lobby with lots of money and power. I informed George that my Jewish friends were appalled at his remarks. One friend requested me to stop referring to “Jews” when discussing the Ashrawi controversy and to distinguish between Zionist Jews who supported Sharon and the majority of Jews, who do not.

I have no problem with people strongly opposing the decision by the Sydney Peace Foundation to award the prize to Ashrawi. I take strong objection to attempts to force the withdrawal of the award and the putting of financial and political pressure on people to withdraw their support for the prize. This level of intimidation could lead to a surge in anti-Semitism, the very thing no-one sensible wants to happen.

Here’s an award you can have a say in. Peter and Mariann McNamara write:

The national trust is calling for nominations to be added to the 100 living Australian national treasures. (some 11 new nominations will be added to the list to replace those who are now deceased). We are keen to add Greg Mackie for his vision and leadership in the arts and society, support of the arts and ongoing civic contributions in South Australia and australia generally. There are many more deserving Australians who make a difference to our lives and our community. If you are interested to add your nomination(s) please email treasures@nsw.nationaltrust.org.au indicating the field they have excelled in.

I nominate refugee campaigner Julian Burnside QC and Senate Clerk Harry Evans.

***

ASHRAWI

Ron Grunstein

I am not sure what you meant about the Kerry O’Brien interview of Hanan Ashrawi as being “sensational”. Her avoidance of Kerry’s questions about her views on Hamas were telling. Why doesn’t she condemn Hamas and their ilk? There are other Palestinians trying to create a peaceful dialogue in the Middle East – often away from the microphones of CNN. They would have been more deserving recipients of a peace prize.

***

Sari Kassis, Palestine Human Rights Campaign

Antony actually earned his ticket to the Saturday forum with Ashrawi not because Fisk quoted him or because he wrote that great analysis piece. He earned it MONTHS ago (July 3, 2003) when he wrote Defiant Israel blind to what it has become. So he earned his stripes a while back. His VIP pass to the Ashrawi event was delivered because of his consistent high standards and integrity. A rare commodity when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

***

Alison Daams

I am not part of the “Jewish Lobby” being a Presbyterian Scot, but I am appalled by Margo Kingston’s inclusion of the Norman Finkelstein cartoon in her Webdiary. “Specious victimhood”? The holocaust as an indispensible idological weapon? (Margo: The link was in Antony’s piece – are you sugesting I censor him?)

***

Edward Baral

I am shocked and appalled and somewhat frightened by the Webdiary posted on SMH.com.au today. Ignoring factual inaccuracies and onesided viewpoints presented (which were copious) and looking only at the language of vilification I counted:

– 8 references to “The Jewish Lobby”

– 3 references the “The Zionist Lobby” (and 1 “Zionist ploy”)

– 3 references that compare Jews to Nazis (ie “jackboot” and “milaristic mindset”)

Not to mention numerous references that suggest Jewish skullduggery and a worldwide Jewish plot for “Jewish supremacy” whilst “cannily maintaining the victim tag”. And this is before we even review the links to a number of offensive and racist websites.

Frankly I am shocked at the Sydney Morning Herald for publishing this. This is not about Israeli/Palestinian balance but a direct attack on the Jewish people.

I ask that you withdraw this article, publish an apology and advise what steps you will take to ensure that vilifying material such as this is not published in the future.

I replied: Hi. The two pieces published were by Australian jews.

Edward replied:

Irrespective of who wrote this material, it is offensive and racist. If a black person were to write that all black people are ugly and stupid would this not be offensive to black people? Would the Sydney Morning Heraldpublish it?

Just because this offensive material was written by Jews does not make it right, does not make it any less offensive and does not abrogate the Sydney Morning Herald’s responsibilities. I await your considered response.

***

Duane Kelly

Excellent work publishing the Antony Lowenstein piece. It was the first time I had seen any media space given to the Palestinian point of view and it does not surprise me one bit that it had to have come from a member of the Jewish community. After all, if anyone else had said it, they would have immediately been labelled anti-semitic and dismissed.

***

Mike Lyvers in Queensland

Margo, I’m very disappointed that you endorse the “peace prize” awarded to PLO propagandist Ashrawi. (Perhaps before I continue I should add that I’M NOT JEWISH as a response to the standard knee-jerk characterization of all who rightly object to this “peace prize” as Jewish or Zionist – of which I’m most definitely neither.)

I’ve been watching interviews with Ashrawi for decades, as she has frequently appeared on the American Public Broadcasting Service Newshour (shown here weekdays on SBS). She is a classic propagandist who very smoothly avoids answering direct questions from an interviewer, as she did so very smoothly again last night with a fawning Kerry O’Brien.

Ashrawi’s record shows that she has consistently been an advocate of war, not peace. To award her a “peace prize” is as absurd as awarding the same prize to Ariel Sharon.

Margo, you’ve disappointed me greatly. (I might even switch sides and start following Tim Blair’s website because of this!)

I replied: It’s a divisive one, this one, isn’t it? Yes, I do endorse the prize, but I haven’t written about it. All I’ve done is publish the views of two Jews who support the prize. I can’t see anything wrong with that. Hope you enjoy Tim.

Mike replied:

With all due respect, Margo, I think you and many other well-meaning supporters of Ashrawi have been duped by a superficially charming, smooth-talking psychopath. She’s an absolutely classic case of that.

***

‘Zionism’ not a dirty word

by Josh Mehlman

Antony Lowenstein treads a fine line in his piece “Hanan Ashrawi and the Price of Dissent”. While I endorse his sentiment, I think he’s guilty of making excuses for unnecessarily vitriolic and racist hyperbole: his contemptuous use of the word “Zionist” as if it’s some sort of swear word, and his tacit – at best – support of a racist set of arguments against Israel.

Even if you trot out the tired accusation that “anyone who criticises Israel is called an anti-Semite by the Jewish community”, it does not automatically follow that criticism of Israel is never anti-Semitic. There are obvious anti-Jewish motives behind much of the anti-Israel invective currently in the debate. At the core is a troublesome issue: it is not a question of “Do we have the right to criticise the Israeli Government?” – of course we do – but does Israel as a country have a right to exist?

I realise in some lefty circles “Zionism” really is a dirty word, but it has been abused and over-generalised. When the left deplores “Zionism”, it refers to the ultra-right nationalist extreme of Israeli politics, which currently holds power in Israel, and with which a large proportion of Israelis and Jews worldwide do not agree. It paints all Zionists (and often all Jews) as extremist racists.

But “Zionism” – divorced from its reactionary right-wing usage – simply refers to the right of Jewish people to self-determination. I have yet to hear a rational explanation of why Jewish people should be denied the right to their own country.

Denying Israel’s right to exist is, simply and unquestionably, anti-Jewish, there’s just no way to get around it. It’s one thing to criticise nationalism as a concept, but it’s exceptionally hypocritical and racist to claim that Palestinian aspirations to nationhood are legitimate but Jewish ones are not.

While there are no reasonable grounds for denying Israel’s right to exist, there are plenty of unreasonable ones. There’s a line of thought – used by both extremes of politics – that tries to undermine Israel’s existence by claiming that Jews have exaggerated and manipulated the Holocaust for political gain – and that Israel continues to do so even today. The claim is that Israel was only created as a payback for world guilt over the Holocaust – brushing aside 3000-odd years of pre-WWII history – and has no other legitimate reasons for existence. Norman Finkelstein’s argument – which Lowenstein endorses – that Israel perpetually wears some sort of “victim: get out of moral obligations free” card clearly follows this reasoning.

No wonder the Jewish community is uncomfortable when “anti-Zionist” rhetoric of this kind enters mainstream Australian political discourse. It has has every appearance of being a racist denial of Jews’ right to a homeland. Is this simply a misunderstanding of terms? Is it overly generous to think that when people slag off Zionism this is merely a shortcut for “right-wing expansionist Zionism”, but that most people would support Israel’s right to exist? Or has the Australian left yet to come to grips with its own racist demons?

***

Jenny Green

Can you please pass on congratulations to Anthony Loewenstein – his article is fantastic, and must have cost him some pangs. I don’t know what it’s like for him, but I certainly feel under pressure to toe the community line on these issues. That ends in a really unhappy balance for me – to my father and other Jews I always argue the Palestinian side, but to non-Jews, even close friends, I feel protective, and don’t want to wash dirty laundry in public. Either way, I always feel guilty and dishonourable. My politics are usually left-of-left, and it sits really uneasily with me that my feelings are a nasty mix of hard left and hard right about Israel/Palestine.

I believe in and support the establishment of a Palestinian state, I believe that Israel must absolutely end the occupation of the territories, must disband the settlements, must pump resources into the that state, and believe in a unified Jerusalem under Jewish administration. I am very proud of my Jewish heritage. And I don’t support awarding the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi. I was horrified also that the Nobel went to Rabin and Arafat.

I wholeheartedly support awarding this prize to a Palestinian, partly because it is forging new ties of support away from America’s baleful influence. I didn’t know much about Ashrawi before this bunfight blew up – except that she had been a PLO spokesperson during Oslo. I have since read the transcripts of as many of her speeches and interviews as I can find, and what she is NOT is a peacemaker. Seeking to lose as little as possible for your side in the process towards a peace is not the same as promoting peace for its own sake.

I note that Desmond Tutu and Mary Robinson are associated with a certain neutrality of stance. There are many alternatives for leaders such as these, and keeping silent if there is no personal need to fight is one. Love for your people is not the same as trying to reconcile warring parties for the sake of humanity in general. Australians can’t seem to decide which makes them more uncomfortable – accepting that for some, ties of tribe matter more than anything else, and conversely, that prizing the absolute neutrality of peace means applying a rigid standard of values and sacrifice. Perhaps the only way a peace can come about is if people from opposing sides fight honourably for their party for as long as they can without sacrifice.

As an Australian, I know that I am under-informed about the Palestinian political process. From the little that I do know, I would have welcomed awarding the prize to Abu Mazen – he had a thankless, unglamorous task, one which saw him condemned by his own people, as well as by the other side, and he tried transparently with dignity to fulfil it. And when it was clear that he could no longer be of use, he retired to let a new person have a go. He did not have the glamour of the freedom fighter to sustain and support him, and did not increase the esteem in which he was held by taking the position, and gained nothing for it, especially in terms of being celebrated by the world and his people. He has my utmost respect.

One issue that has been coming more and more to the surface these past two months, and which has irritated and alarmed me more and more is the growing use of words and phrases such as Jew, Jewish lobby group and Zionist lobby, not to mention increasing mentions and comparisons with the Nazi party. The Jewish community is paranoid – understandably so in light of history, as well as things such as the recent comments of Dr Mahatir and the recent European poll showing ingrained anti-Semitism in the area (see Israel outraged as EU poll names it a threat to peace).

And not to mention the article in today’s SMH concerning the German general chastised for supporting an Anti-Semitic politician. No good will come of making paranoid people more paranoid. And please, the Jewish community is NOT the same thing as the Zionist lobby group.

***

Paul Walter in Adelaide

A couple of impressions on the Sydney Peace Prize and the refreshing and dignified response of more thinking elements within Jewish community to the antics of the neo-con types within and without.

Dr. Ashrawi. A STRONG woman. No buckling under pressure from this quarter. A glimpse of that cold, horrible, arrogant, later-day Obersturmbannfuhrer Turnbull and his despicable wife on the telly news. The strange thing is, the Jewish community is being scapegoated in high medieval style in the media for the detestable antics of North Shore High Tories.

It’s not the “Jewish community” issuing complaints about Ashrawi, so much as certain morally-bankrupt scum in the Liberal party, yet the Jewish community are the ones held as being the main bigots. It’s a real shame, especially when you see dignified Jewish people like the woman caught on TV attending Dr Ashrawi’s speech out of solidarity, while others who should have attended skulked in the shadows.

***

Antony Loewenstein

The debate surrounding the Sydney Peace Prize and Hanan Ashrawi strikes at the heart of the Australian Jewish community. Rational voices are drowned out and extremists are all too willing to hijack the debate. Reaction to Webdiary’s publication yesterday of my ZNet article Hanan Ashrawi and the Price of Dissent has similarly exposed the intolerance within the community.

Robert Fisk’s mentioning and quoting of my Znet piece in his November 4 column for The Independent triggered a worldwide response. I’ve been left slightly bewildered and humbled, yet passionately resolved to continue the fight for Palestinian rights and Israeli security in an Australian media environment that unquestionably favours the Zionist narrative. Indeed, Western lives are frequently given prominence against ‘non’ persons throughout most of the Western world. Pilger refers to them as ‘nonpeople’ and encourages us to demand responsibility behind power:

“It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers, without understanding the hidden agendas of the myths and messages that surround it.”

Since the publication of my ZNet article on Hanan Ashrawi in late October, I have received numerous emails from across the world, primarily positive in tone. The overall theme is relief that Palestinian voices are finally being heard, the ‘other’ perspective is respected and the Zionist lobby is being questioned. I was emailed today a letter that appeared in The Independent on November 5 after the publication of Robert Fisk’s November 4 column. It perfectly encapsulates the sentiments of many Jews and non-Jews alike whose voices are rarely heard and constantly vilified as anti-Semites:

“”They will destroy you…” “Rob Stuart in trouble …” “Danny Gilbert warned off…” “The business world will close ranks…” “They will say we are only supporting the Palestinians.” The COMMONWEALTH BANK?

It is not difficult to see how much of the international community distances itself, silently, from the Arab-Israeli question. What is inconvenient or difficult or controversial is cast aside. The 50-year-old conflict has not been resolved because “THEY” object.

We are in a sad time when someone who promotes peace is vilified because “THEY” don’t like her. The threat that “THEY will destroy you” is extortive, and we have seen this in the careers of US Congresspersons who opposed or criticized THEM. Who is the THEY and the THEM?

Aha! Doing a little research, we find that the powerful Jewish lobby of Australia that was very worried about the award has thanked Lucy Turnbull for her efforts in disassociating the City of Sydney from the prize.

There seems in the US and abroad an absolute “terror” by Zionist and Israeli supporters that any erudite Arab be recognized or applauded, or honoured. Is this, too, a security issue?

I was delighted to read Dr Ashrawi’s acceptance speech. It is a legitimate and honestly earned Peace Prize, and I respect those who held to their avowed principles – but not those who pander to political and economic forces whose objectivity must be called into question.

Bravo, Professor Stuart Rees. Shame, Sydney University, Lucy Turnbull, the Commonwealth Bank and the rest of those who have not the courage to support the Peace Prize Award to Dr Ashrawi or to speak of the Palestinian situation – and who would silence those who do.

Some resent my use of the term ‘Zionist lobby’. Some have suggested I believe a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Some have suggested that, because of my Jewishness, I must be a self-hating Jew. Some have even suggested that I must support Yasser Arafat and suicide bombing. Some have suggested the tag ‘Zionist lobby’ is discriminatory and should be avoided.

To all these people I would say the following: I believe in the state of Israel. I believe Israeli deserves security and secure borders. I believe much criticism of Israel throughout the world is indeed anti-Semitic, and is an unfortunate continuation of a thousand year old tradition. I believe that Israel must cease to be a religious, Zionist state if it is to continue for generations to come. I believe in post-Zionism. Claims of a democratic country are ludicrous when one is fully aware of the actions of the IDF in the Occupied Territories and discriminatory laws against Israeli Arabs. A Jewish right of return is seemingly acceptable, but outrage occurs when Palestinians demand likewise.

A Jewish friend of mine wrote to me yesterday after reading the Fisk quote and the ZNet article:

“I have known of, and watched, Fisk for a number of years. He’s a bit of an extremist – congratulating the Islamic thugs that beat him up in Afghanistan. I heard Ed Said speak and he advocated a single state solution which, inherently (if not directly), calls for an end to a Jewish state. We get back to the final point, do the Jews have a right to their own state in the land of Israel? I must have heard Ashrawi interviewed 30+ times in the last 10 years…maybe twice that many, and she is always blaming Israel without recognising the pain being perpetrated on the Israeli people and the need to have sympathy on both sides.”

It made me think. Do Jews have the right to be in the land of Israel? The answer is mostly irrelevant in 2004. A two-state solution is the only answer. A shared Jerusalem is inevitable. A relinquishing of the West Bank and Gaza is inevitable. A real peace deal is needed, not the sham of Oslo, giving Palestinians numerous ‘Bantustans’, but little autonomy to natural resources or security.

Zionism is a dead-end ideology, a philosophy that lays biblical claims over a piece of land. An occupation that exacts collective punishment, continually expanding settlements, building of a Berlin Wall, constant confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land. Who wouldn’t resist this kind of dehumanising activity?

The vilification of Ashrawi has virtually nothing to do with her previous comments or actions. It has virtually nothing to do with her previous standing in the PLO. It has all to do with her status of a Palestinian. It is all to do with standing up and speaking her mind. It has all to do with giving public voice to the Palestinian story, history and struggle.

The outrage that has flowed from Webdiary’s publication of my Ashrawi piece shows a contemptible desire to shut down debate. Why can’t Jews from all persuasions have their say? Why can’t Jews like myself and Ian Cohen express their desire for peace in the Middle East without being labelled extremists or radicals? Must the Zionist narrative be centre-stage all the time?

In this incredibly uneven issue, both sides have caused incredible suffering. Blame can truly be spread around. Voices of reason exist, of which I have received numerous from around the world in the last weeks. I am a Jew, proud of my peoples’ history of dissent and fight. And I won’t be silenced by a bunch of hysterical, bigoted individuals.

***

Sol Salbe

Here is a contribution from an Israeli-born Jewish Australian journalist who has been on the case for the past fortnight. I find the attitude of Jewish officialdom positively offensive. I don’t think Hanan Ashrawi would have received the Israeli peace prize, but she would get that one well before any contribution from some of the community leadership in Australia. Above all I find their attitude so different than the mainstream thinking in Israel. It’s also very unlikely that the mudslinging would have been as extensive had the controversy erupted in Israel, because too many people there have access to the facts. No-one could have got away with suggesting that Dr Ashrawi supported the invasion of Kuwait when many copies of the statement she published on the subject are on file in various places. This is for Diaspora consumption only. This is also the reason why my challenges to produce the evidence have gone answered in the Jewish community.

*

Ashrawi – what if she were Irish?

An outspoken woman who has earned the ire of western governments, who has been critical of the war against terrorism, who has been accused of giving comfort to dictators, evildoers and ethnic cleansers was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. Guess what? It wasn’t a controversial choice at all. The decision was acclaimed throughout the country with no community or ethnic group protesting about the decision.

That was in 2002 and the woman was, of course, Mary Robinson. Like Hanan Ashrawi in 2003, Robinson – the former President of Ireland, and more recently the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights – was awarded her prize for her human rights record. Like Ashrawi, her work had very little to do with actual participation or framing or carrying out agreements such as the Good Friday accords.

So why was Robinson’s nomination warmly received while Ashrawi is regarded as unsuitable and not a good candidate?

Robinson was better at picking her place of birth. By being born a Palestinian, Dr Ashrawi has placed herself in a position where she had to be much better than any other candidate in order to be considered an equal. For some of Israel’s supporters, no Palestinian who stands up for her (or his) people’s rights is acceptable. The fact that less than a century ago Jews suffered as a result of similar attitudes doesn’t seem to have registered with these people.

These supporters of Israel, especially the right-wing independent think tank the Australia Israeli Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) have been the driving force behind the campaign. Most of the accusations levelled against Ashrawi by sections of the Jewish community and non-Jewish commentators can be traced back to the AIJAC website and a couple of similar ones at the same end of the spectrum of the pro-Israeli forces.

Accusations

A lot of mud has been thrown at Dr Ashrawi. Amazingly, many of the accusations are not backed up by references. When a quote from Dr Ashrawi is provided, the interpretation is often tenuous.

Piers Ackerman, for example, says she supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. No evidence was provided. Having checked several hundred key listings in Hebrew and English on the subject, I can honestly say that I have not seen any evidence. On the contrary her biography ‘This side of Peace’ is quite explicit. At the start of chapter 4 she recounts a phone conversation with the head of Arafat’s office in Tunis, Sami Musallam:

Ashrawi: You must come up with a statement; we must take a public position against the occupation.

Musallam: The situation is too complex; there are many unknowns.

Ashrawi: What is there to know? Morally and politically, we as Palestinians must be the first to condemn occupation. Find Abu Ammar [Arafat] and ask him to issue an official release.

Musallam: There are political ramifications, and I’m sure he’ll study the situation carefully before taking any steps.

Ashrawi: Forget the political fine print and deal with principles. The whole moral foundation of our case, particularly of the Intifada, will be destroyed. We have to be consistent. We must take a position of integrity against occupation anywhere and whatever the reasons…

Ashrawi goes on to describe a number of statements which were issued independently by her and other Palestinians in Jerusalem, one of which they issued unchanged despite instructions from Tunis (with the late Faisal al-Husseini agreeing to take any flak that resulted).

Again without any corroborating evidence, Ackerman and AIJAC make the allegation that she also backed the attempted military coup against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. It appears that the original source is the ‘Washington Report on the Middle East’. The relevant quote:

The [Washington] Post reported that Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent West Bank spokeswoman, welcomed the coup in the hope it would lead to a more balanced Middle East peace conference.

Pity AIJAC and Ackerman didn’t read the next paragraph.

But the Washington Jewish Week had this to say about Ashrawi’s reaction: She expressed regret over the regression from democracy in the Soviet Union.

Yes, we have all heard that Ashrawi only criticises suicide bombing on pragmatic grounds. It doesn’t take much work to check her own website, MIFTAH, where she says:

Why and when did we allow a few from our midst to interpret Israeli military attacks on innocent Palestinian lives as licence to do the same to their civilians? Where are those voices and forces that should have stood up for the sanctity of innocent lives (ours and theirs), instead of allowing the horror of our own suffering to silence us?

Does this sound pragmatic?

These are but three examples of the false charges against Ashrawi. My question is simple: where is your evidence?

Jewish and Israeli support

Reversing the process, here is a typical quote used by AIJAC:

The only language Sharon understands is the language of violence.” (Voice of Palestine, September 9, 2001).

Note: Her message to Palestinians is that they have to use violence against Israel led by Sharon. Yet Israeli journalists regularly make the same assessment of Sharon’s penchant for violence (it’s not without foundation) without any such slur being attached to them.

Israeli politicians have also made harsher criticisms of Israeli government policies than many of the quotes attributed to Dr Ashrawi. The former Education Minister Shulamit Aloni regularly refers to Israeli war crimes.

The similarity between Ashrawi’s commitment to a just peace and that of many in Israel and the Australian Jewish community is behind some of the support that Dr Ashrawi has received from Jews and Israelis. By the same token, Ashrawi’s detractors have only been able to gain support from the Israeli extreme right, such as Professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University. Not a single member of the opposition Labour Party has lent his or her name to the campaign. (If they have, it certainly has not received any coverage.)

Hanan Ashrawi has been facing an unprecedented vilification campaign the like of which none of the previous prize laureates had to face. It doesn’t matter that Xanana Gusmao had blood on his hands. It does not matter that Mary Robinson has been far more strident in her criticism of the war against terrorism. Ashrawi has just been unacceptable for a section of the Jewish community.

Fortunately the campaign has been countered by comments from Israeli MK Yael Dayan, Israeli Professor Baruch Kimmerling, three separate Israeli peace organisations including the major womens group Bat Shalom, as well t as the Melbourne-based Australian Jewish Democratic Society and the Sydney-based Jews Against the Occupation.

But it’s not over yet.

Margo: Scott Burchill sent a copy of Professor Kimmerling’s note to Bob Carr:

To Premier Bob Carr, Sydney, Australia

Dear Sir,

I wish to congratulate your countrymen and women who decided to award the Palestinian leader and peace activist Dr. Hannan Michail Ashrawi the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize. There are few international figures in the present who deserve a Peace prize more than the outstanding Palestinian leader, intellectual and peace activist – Dr. Hanan Ashrawi.

As an Israeli, as a Jew and as a academic I am deeply sorry and ashamed that Israelis and members of the Australian Jewish community are acting against this rightful nomination. While doing so they are using and abusing their Jewish identity and heritage. There is and there can be no association whatsoever between Dr. Ashrawi and her courageous and longstanding leadership in the best service of her people and of peace for both peoples in this troubled land – and between any racist or anti-peace activity that could deny her this or any other Peace award.

On the contrary – granting Dr. Ashrawi a peace award is an important symbolic act that can send a powerful message to strengthen people like myself in Palestine and Israel, who have been struggling and thriving for Just Peace in this region, and for whom Dr. Ashrawi and her relentless peace activism have always been an enormous source of inspiration and encouragement.

I wish to strengthen your decision to resist any undue pressure exerted on you to withdraw from granting the Peace award to Dr. Ashrawi.

With all due respect, Baruch Kimmerling, George S. Wise Professor of Sociology, The Hebrew University of Jeusalem, Israel.

***

Peter Funnell in Canberra

What on earth is going on in this country? The rabid vilification and denunciation of Dr Ashrawi’s award of the Sydney Peace Prize is the least peaceful act by citizens of this nation in a long time. Dr Ashrawi is an eminent Palestinian, a person of significance and yes, at her core a person of peace for her peoples.

She may not have been the choice of most of those that feel a deep and compelling support for Israel. That does not invalidate her selection for the peace award.

The desire for peace does not rest with Israelis alone. Nor does the killing. The one single thing Palestinians and Israelis have in common is a desire to live peacefully and prosper. The other is war. Both kill each other with a ferocity that is truly beyond our comprehension here in Australia.

Dr Ashrawi does not seem to take a backward step and frankly, why would anyone expect her to fold under the malicious carping that has preceded her visit? You would think she has seen a lot worse than this, but by her own admission, she has declared that she has only on one other occasion (in Colorado in September) met ill feeling and a willful disregard for the truth, as she has encountered here and now in Australia.

This is no badge of honour. It is petty, malicious, utterly pointless and misdirected venom that does not serve the cause for peace in the Middle East – criticism generated by people who, while they feel a deep commitment for the land occupied by both Israelis and Palestinians, do not live in that place. Our single obligation is to serve the cause of peace, not fan the horror people Dr Ashwari are attempting to bring to an end. We haven’t helped anyone one bit.

If the peace prize helps, we have done a good thing for all concerned. Better than mindless hate, rage, ignorance and bullying of each other here in Australia. This country is changing and not for the good.

***

BRANDIS – his speech and my analysis

Graeme Richardson: Not only is George Brandis a Benito Mussolini look-alike he is starting to sound like El Duce.

***

Peter Staudenmaier

I’ve enjoyed your coverage of the recent hullabaloo over the book on ecofascism that I co-authored and its misuse by Senator Brandis. If you’d like, you are welcome to use this email or portions of it on your Webdiary if you think that would interest readers. I have read through the Senate exchange and it looks to me like Brandis’s remarks are a clear misreading of my work, albeit a fairly common one. While it probably exceeds my competence as a historian to tell others what lessons they ought to draw from the events and movements I study, in this case I feel compelled to point out that my scholarship, as it stands, offers little support for the conclusions Brandis reached. Similar conclusions have been drawn before by other conservative readers of my work on ecofascism, who like to use my research as a cheap way to impugn virtually all varieties of political environmentalism. In my opinion, this is not a serious way to approach important historical questions – we still have a lot to learn from the history of political shortsightedness.

***

Llessur Yevod

On reflection, the amusingly stupid speech by Mr Brandis is not so worrying. If the Libs are so desperate to destroy the credibility of the Greens that they will resort to calling them Nazis they must be really scared. I would take this as a sign that the Greens are winning the battle for Australia’s hearts and minds, and that the Liberals are truly worried that their share of the vote will suffer as a result.

I also think this tactic will backfire strongly. How many Australians, when they hear that some Liberal has called Bob Brown a Nazi, won’t just start laughing?

Maybe they’re being cleverer than that, though. Before I learned better, I thought that the Greens were ridiculous and not worth my time – “fairies at the bottom of the garden”. Could Howard be carefully trying to steer people’s thoughts that way again? I wouldn’t be surprised.

***

John Crockett

A fascinating spray from Jane Duolman. I had not made the connection between the fascist’s love of beautiful bodies and Howard’s association with elite athletes and sporting events. I think this association is valid.

Howard is certainly playing the role of Father of the Nation – guiding, sympathising, consoling and re-assuring the nation in troubled times (and chastising the recalcitrants). It does suggest a very strange psycho-sexual compact with the Australian public though, particularly if you deny homosexual couples the same superannuation status as hetrosexual couples. Brandis should do some more reading.

As for political imagery, I think the the poster of Howard standing at the lectern, the head tilted and the fists clenched rivals Mussolini’s strutting jaw. Who needs a flag if you have Mussolini’s jaw or Howard at the lectern?

***

Peter Gellatly in Canada

I am about to get myself into hot water. Here goes. It seems to me there are three aspects to Senator Brandis’ speech.

(1) Brandis is a member of the present governing Coalition, a Coalition which – some individual competent policies aside – in its overall ethos and general approach evokes in me a visceral disgust. I am therefore not well disposed to accept its members’ stringent criticisms of others.

(2) Brandis’ lumping together of worldwide extreme Green-identified methods with the recent particular antics of Senators Brown and Nettle is entirely inappropriate. The Senators’ behaviour, though not much to my liking, was nevertheless entirely par for the course in Australian politics. By no means, with reference to our longstanding norms, could this behaviour be considered either extreme or antidemocratic. And its focus had nothing whatsoever to do with Green issues. No doubt more than a few Liberal, National, Labor and independent members secretly concurred with merits of the interjection.

(3) However, as to Brandis’ larger putdown of the worldwide Green movement, I am compelled to echo: “Fair comment!”. The point is, ALL intellectual movements harbour extremist cohorts: indeed it is commonly the extremists who actally get things done (for good or ill!). At the opposing fascist and communist ends of the political spectrum strategy and tactics meld, and oppression of dissent predominates.

To me the seeds of this authoritarianism are blatently evident within the Green movement. (I say this, even though I share many of the Greens’ environmental and globalisation concerns.) In particular, dissent is quashed, earnest objective analysts personally pilloried, proffered solutions subjected to exclusive and unyielding ideological merit tests.

Civil disobedience is stretched to include vandalism and potential personal injury (eg the deliberate spiking of trees in British Columbia, in the full knowledge that millworkers might consequently be killed). Democratic processes are subverted to achieve unstated personal-gain outcomes via high-profile touting of spurious “green” issues. These latter – personal injury and democratic subversion – tactics comprise the warning signal for incipient Green-authoritarianism. They also justify comparisons – of style, if not yet of degree – with fascism.

For, just like the fascists, Green extremists are dismissive of general community values. They believe Joe Public simply isn’t sufficiently educated or engaged, moreover the goal is pure and time is pressing, so strong measures are justified. In short, the end justifies the means. As with other virulent ideologies past, Green extremism bears all the hallmarks of a religion: wisdom comes from on high, medieval submission is demanded.

The world has myriad legitimate environmental problems crying out for resolution. Too many of these have been subverted as cover for a Green-extremism-sponsored ideological crusade. As a result, though I hold graduate qualifications in environment toxicology, I have – for nearly twenty years – generally avoided working in the environmental field. I simply couldn’t stomach what to me was oft-times religion dressed up as science, or outright fraudulent misrepresentation of an environmental concern in order to win an economic development dispute. To my mind, even legitimate cases won by such tactics contribute to a larger wrong.

Senator Brandis’ attempt to link wider Green extremism to his complaint about Senators Brown and Nettles is laughable, especially given his own party’s recent stellar record. Smacking of pot and kettle, Brandis’ disparagement list simply mirrors the many Webdiary submissions lucidly warning of fascist tendencies by our very own beloved Coalition! But dedicated Greens – and in the generic sense I consider myself one – should reflect on how and why so much anti-Green ammunition fell readily to Brandis’ hand.

*

Keir Dickson

My first reaction when I read George Brandis’ rant (and Andrew Bolt’s) was to simply shake my head. But the more I thought about it, the more I figured they might be onto something.

George and Andrew’s line is that Greens are Nazis simply because they share similar ideas on environmental matters, right? Well if we take their thinking to its logical conclusion, we make quite an amazing discovery: we are all Nazis!

There is strong evidence to prove Adolf Hitler was a devout Catholic. He prayed daily and had the full support and friendship of the Vatican, right up to the Pope himself. They congratulated him on what he was doing persecuting Jews (before he really embarrassed them by killing Jews in huge numbers, but even then they didn’t condemn him outright). Clearly they shared many of the same religious and social ideals, in much the same way the Greens share Nazi environmental attitudes. Clearly, then, all Catholics are Nazis.

But then what about Joseph Stalin and his commie pals? They certainly weren’t Christian – but prior to Hitler invading the USSR, the two of them were great mates. They found they shared the same ideas on social and economic matters. That must mean that all communists (whatever their shade) are Nazis too.

And of course, we can’t forget that other insecure short bloke in a grey suit: Benito Mussolini. As a previous writer to your diary has noted, Benito once said: “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power.” Well, fascism and nazism went hand in hand and there’s no denying fascists were Nazis. It’s pretty clear then that when our PM says competitive free enterprise is the foundation of our democracy, then our government is just a bunch of Nazis without the swastika. Not necessarily without the jackboots, though.

***

Simon Neldner in Kapunda, South Australia

I watched Senator George Brandis debate Bob Brown on Lateline, and if that’s the best that he can throw at The Greens then they have nothing to worry about. Did you notice how Brandis – by refusing to say who he’s been talking to – basically admitted that the Liberals have hatched a plan to attack The Greens? By saying he hadn’t talked to the PM – specifically – he then opened the door to the next question (who else have you been talking to) and the cat was out of the bag. It’s like Bush saying he hadn’t committed a felony before 1974, then finding himself cornered with the follow-up question. Good one George!

Back to the Liberal’s “get Bob” strategy. There are a number of reasons why this plan is not only ill-concieved, but has every chance of blowing-up in their faces. Bob Brown will welcome the opportunity to widen the debate, as by acknowledging them as a serious threat (perhaps some disturbing internal polling?) and therefore a contender or de-facto opposition, it can only strengthen Green support by giving the party both added credibility and free air-time on shows like Lateline. Howard’s attempts to demonise the Greens via his proxies won’t be nearly as successful as taking One Nation’s policies and squashing the Hanson insurgency. I think the Liberal strategy will fail for a number of reasons:

(1) The Greens are well organised, well established and are now a unified national party. It may be chaotic, but it’s organised chaos. Obviously, policy differences are going to emerge, and perhaps some hair brained schemes along the way, but the public can be very progressive (and shouldn’t be under-estimated) in thinking through the issues. In addition, the Greens aren’t actually trying to win Government, which means a coalition electoral strategy of blunting Green support cannot – by definition – be successful. If they get 8-10% of the primary vote, that’s enough of an electoral spanner in the works for John to choke on his weeties, even though by expending a lot of time and capital he might only shave a few percent off their overall support. Accomplishing what exactly? The flip-side, and this is the real killer, is that they might actually increase Green support.

(2) In the aftermath of the Brandis speech, attacking Bob Brown – the individual – gets them nowhere. In a past life, Brown was helping to save the Franklin River, but what the hell was Howard doing? Thinking-up a new tax? Planning-out his career as a professional politician? Please! In the integrity stakes, Howard should pick on someone his own size.

(3) Unlike Hansonism, The Greens aren’t a natural constituency for Howard’s brand of one-size fits all conservatism – far from it. Instead, any frontal assault on The Greens is going to both energise and motivate their base of support, who will be more determined to stick it to the Coalition at the ballot box. Second, they can’t be bought or placated by some sham environment policies or pork barreling (like the Democrats past indulgences in policy horse-trading, GST anyone?). The Greens are playing a different game, as what they are on about is an ideological/eco-structural shift as opposed to shuffling the fiscal deck chairs to make the current system more palatable.

As Brandis demonstrated on Lateline, the Coalition has no idea what the Greens actually stand for – this much is obvious. This is what happens when you turn you own party into an organisation that has little dissent and no real discussion on policy direction (Senator Brandis talking about having a “policy debate” was a real hoot, as I almost thought he was serious for a moment).

(4) With the Democrats imploding, the protest vote will be Green in 2004. Incumbency might have its benefits, but when you are going for election win number four, nothing is guaranteed.

(5) Howard might have gone to the well of political opportunism once too often, and wrapping yourself in the flag and pushing some patriotic buttons just doesn’t have the same electoral punch as in 2001. Given all that has happened – kids overboard, the war in iraq – Howard will need more than a credibility transplant by the time he decides to call an election (when even the economy might be heading south on a few interest rate rises and the aftershocks of a consumer debt binge come home to roost).

All of this underlines where the Coalition is at its most vulnerable – on its political flanks. On the progressive left, the Greens have the field to themselves and will undoubtedly exploit this advantage. On the regional right, we haven’t factored into the equation what might happen to the Nationals, particularly if Telstra is on the chopping block and there are no funds for stressed out rural communities or repairing a degraded infrastructure. Tony Windsor and Bob Katter are only the tip of the iceberg in rural discontent and disenchantment. Pauline Hanson proved that these votes can be secured, and it will only take a half decent, moderately organised and credible contender or independent voice to send the Nationals packing. Even if it’s death by a thousand cuts, the outcome is never in doubt. There is considerable rural unrest about changes to single-desk marketing arrangements, and a host of other policies and funding priorities where regional Australia feels they are being screwed, and a poorly negotiated US free trade deal could be enough to light the fuse. I would suggest a score of regional seats would be vulnerable to a grass-roots insurgency of this type, particularly if a double-dissolution election is called and a host of unpalatable legislation is your reward for voting the Coalition back for another term.

Finally, the real guest list for the Bush barbecue! You’ll recall that on the day, the press gallery had to drag a list out of the Prime Minister’s office, and that it was finally faxed to interested media as just a list of names – no titles, no positions. My report of the struggle and the consequences is at Howard’s elite – the official list. As it happened, only Webdiary has published the full list of guests, however flawed.

During hearings of the Senate’s finance and public administration committee yesterday, Labor Senate leader John Faulkner quizzed John Howard’s department, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), on the Bush and Hu visits. PM&C organised the Bush non-state visit on behalf of Howard. Faulkner managed – after the usual struggle – to get public release of the department’s actual official list of guests, grouped with titles and all.

I freaked out when I first read the list. When I was trying to work out who was who before I published the list last week, I rang Howard spin doctor David Luff, who said ‘Paul Ramsay’ was the head of Ramsay Health Care. On the basis of the titles of the guests I published in Webdiary, the Sydney Morning Herald’s political correspondent Mark Riley – a former New York correspondent for the SMH – checked Australian Electoral Commission records of political donations and found that the business guests Howard invited had between them donated $1 million to the Liberal Party. His story was published on page 13 of the SMH last Saturday, and is republished after the official guest list.

But on the official PM&C list, Paul Ramsay was listed under ‘Academics’ as Mr Paul Ramsay AO, Vice Chancellor University of Sydney.

As I informed Mark of the terrible error – and wondered aloud why Howard’s office had not corrected the public record – the Herald’s higher education reporter Aban Contractor interposed that to her knowledge there was no vice chancellor in Australia called Paul Ramsay. She looked up the official lists of such things and confirmed her understanding that Professor Gavin Brown was still vice chancellor of Sydney Uni. Inquiries by theHerald’s Mike Seccombe of the Prime Minster’s office confirmed that Paul Ramsay was indeed the Ramsay Health Care bloke, donor of $223,000 to the Liberal Party.

Crazy, huh, how hard it is to get an accurate public record of such a basic thing as a guest list? Please advise if you find any other mistakes in the list.

Thanks to the Herald Canberra Bureau’s journalist assistant Ebony Bennett for typing the list into the system. The Prime Minister’s office did not supply the list electronically.

Here it is, in all its glory, as printed. The list I last published I grouped myself – all Howard’s office sent was an alphabetical list. This one has many interesting aspects, including the headings, the order and the job descriptions.

***

Luncheon in honour of the Honourable George Bush

President of the United States of America

and Mrs Bush

Host

The Honourable John Howard MP, Prime Minister

Mrs Janette Howard

Guest of Honour

The Honourable George Bush, President of the United States of America

Mrs Bush

Official Party

Dr Condoleeza Rice, National Security Adviser

Mr Andrew Card, Chief of Staff

Mr James Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State

Mr James Moriarty, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs

Ms Andrea Ball, Chief of Staff to the First Lady

Diplomatic Corps

His Excellency Mr J Thomas Schieffer Jr, Ambassador of the United States of America

Mrs Susanne Schieffer

Ministry

The Honourable John Anderson MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Mrs Julia Anderson

The Honourable Peter Costello MP, Treasurer

Mrs Tanya Costello

The Honourable Mark Vaile MP, Minister for Trade

Mrs Wendy Vaile

Senator the Honourable Robert Hill, Minister for Defence and Leader of Government in the Senate

Mrs Diana Hill

The Honourable Alexander Downer MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs

Mrs Nicky Downer

Defence Chiefs;

General Peter Cosgrove AC MC, Chief of the Defence Force, Department of Defence

Mrs Lynne Cosgrove

Departmental Secretaries

Dr Peter Shergold AM, Secretary Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Ms Carol Green

Australian Ambassador

Ambassador Michael Thawley, Ambassador Australian Embassy, Washington

Business

Mr Rob Gerard AO, Chairman and Managing Director Gerard Industries Ltd

Mrs Fay Gerard

Mr Mark Leibler AO, Senior Partner Arnold Bloch Leibler, Solicitors and Consultants

Mrs Rosanna Leibler

Mr Kerry Packer AC, Chairman Consolidated Press Holdings

Mrs Ros Packer

Mr Donald McDonald AO, Chairman Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Mrs Janet McDonald

Mr Harry Triguboff AO, Chairman and Managing Director Meriton Properties Pty Ltd

Mrs Rhonda Triguboff

Mr Terry Campbell, Chairman JB Were

Mrs Christine Campbell

Mr Leon Davis, Chairman Westpac Banking Corporation

Mrs Annette Davis

Mr Kerry Stokes AO, Executive Chairman Seven Network Limited

Ms Christine Simpson

Academics

Professor Susan Cory AC, Professor of Medical Research University of Melbourne

Professor Jerry Adams

Mr Paul Ramsay AO, Vice Chancellor University of Sydney (INCORRECT)

Professor Geoffrey Blainey AO, Author and Historian

Mrs Ann Blainey

Sporting Bodies

Mr John Eales AM, Former Captain of the Australian Rugby Union Team

Mrs Lara Eales

Mr Lleyton Hewitt, Australian Tennis Player

Mr Mark Taylor, Former Captain Australia Cricket Team

Mrs Judy Taylor

Former Ambassador

The Honourable Andrew Peacock AC, President Boeing Australia Limited

Prime Minster’s Office

Mr Arthur Sinodinos, Chief of Staff

Mr Tony Nutt, Principal Private Secretary

Mr Peter Varghese, Senior Adviser International

Mr Tony O’Leary, Press Secretary

Others

Mr Richard Howard, Prime Minister’s relatives

Mr Timothy Howard, Prime Minister’s relatives

Mr Steve Irwin, The Crocodile Man

Mrs Terri Irwin

Mr Rowan McDonald, Prime Minister’s relatives

Mrs Melanie McDonald

Brigadier Maurie McNarn AO, Director General Personnel, Army

Mrs Richenda McNarn

Professor Fiona Stanley, Australian of the Year, Founding Director

TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health Research

Professor Geoff Shellam

Dr Jackie Huggins, Board member Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies

Media

Mr Alan Jones AM, Radio Broadcaster Radio 2UE Sydney (INCORRECT – HE’S NOW AT 2GB)

Mr Malcolm Farr, President Parliamentary Press Gallery

Mr Neil Mitchell, Radio and Television Current Affairs Commentator

Security

President’s security

*

Ceremonial and Hospitality

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

23 October, 2003

***

Party donors gain a hot ticket

by Mark Riley, Political Correspondent

01/11/2003, Sydney Morning Herald, page 13

How do you swing an invitation to a barbecue at the Lodge with the leader of the free world? You could win the US Tennis Open and become young Australian of the Year, like Lleyton Hewitt. Or you could captain the Wallabies to a World Cup victory, like John Eales.

Failing that, you could always wrestle a crocodile while yelling “Crikey!” on your own top-rating US television show, like Steve Irwin.

Or you could cut out the middle man and simply buy yourself a television network, like Kerry Packer and Kerry Stokes.

Being an opposition leader is no way to get an invitation. Ask Simon Crean.

But it seems the most popular way of getting on last week’s prime ministerial guest list for the Lodge cook-out with George Bush was to be a major donor to the Liberal Party.

All six of the business leaders invited by Mr Howard to the small gathering represented companies that kicked in considerable sums to the Liberals’ 2001 re-election campaign.

A trawl through the Australian Electoral Commission’s official returns reveals that, between them, the six corporates represented about $1 million in party donations.

Heading the list was property king Harry Triguboff, whose Meriton group donated $275,000 to the Liberal Party in 2001.

Next came Reserve Bank board member Rob Gerard, whose Gerard Industries gave the party $244,806, and then Paul Ramsay, whose Ramsay Health Care donated $223,000.

The other invitees were Terry Campbell, chairman of JB Were, which donated $163,000 to the Liberal Party; Leon Davis, chairman of Westpac, which gave $142,000; and Mark Leibler, prominent member of the Jewish lobby and director of Coles Myer, which donated $132,000.

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said the people invited were a cross-section of the Australian community who had each made a contribution to Australia in different ways, and that the Prime Minister made no apology for inviting any of them.

Opposition Leader Simon Crean’s office declined to comment. Most corporate invitees also donated large, if lesser, amounts to Labor at the last election.

The presence of major party donors would not have been a surprise to George Bush. The US has a system of declaring the contributions of corporate leaders seeking “face time” with the President. A certain amount buys a plate at a White House dinner, a higher amount a sleep-over in the Lincoln Room. The system is less formal in Australia but money can still buy access 20 corporates paid $4000 a head for dinner with Mr Howard at a fund-raiser for Employment Services Minister Mal Brough at Brisbane’s Treasury Casino on October 2.