The Leader leading the party flock. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

David Makinson became a Webdiary contributor in the Iraq war debate and proved a lyrical advocate for not going to war (see, for example, In defence of America). I asked him to guest edit a Webdiary on Iraq a couple of weeks ago, and it’s driven him crazy! David believes the top priority for debate should be how to give the Iraqi people a better tomorrow, and invites your comments. Send you emails to me and I’ll pass them on. David’s done a great job chewing over the themes in the postwar debate – thanks David.

I was going to write about the politics of Carmen standing for ALP president today, but got swamped by capital punishment. Her mega-manifesto on the meaning of democracy is at Ideas to save our withering democracy. It’s a brave piece, not least because she has a big go at the media. Highly recommended. It’s been a big week and I’m way behind on your emails. If you’ve sent a ripper that hasn’t got a run, please resend. Have a good weekend.

***

David Makinson, Webdiary guest editor

I’ll kick off with a topic that perplexes me. For large segments of the media and for many commentators across the political spectrum, the continuing absence of weapons of mass destruction is the key issue of the day.

Those in the pro-war camp vacillate between saying that weapons will be found to asserting that the existence of the WMD does not matter because an evil dictator has been toppled. On the other hand, many in the anti-war camp seem almost triumphant. No weapons, no case for war, seems to be the logic.

But there is little logic in this line of reasoning. In the lead up to the conflict I wrote several pieces for Webdiary arguing that the case for war had not been made. The foundation stone of my position was (and is) that Iraq posed no threat to us or to any of our allies. Because of this, the war could not be seen as a just war, and would set a terrible precedent for the future conduct of international affairs.

It is scant comfort now, but I believe my position was correct at the time and remains correct today. On the other hand, I was completely wrong about one thing.

I believed in the WMD. I accepted as a given that the WMD existed. My argument was always that even with the WMD, Iraq was not a threat.

Naturally, I’m all in favour of the eradication of WMD, but I could not accept that the mere possession of WMD is of itself a threat sufficient to justify a war. If I were to accept this line of reasoning, it would seem pretty clear where the real danger lies.

So yes, of course WMD must be found and destroyed. Hell, I even know where they are. If only more of us were as attuned to the risks of WMD as the people of Anniston, Alabama:

We Found the Weapons

* Liters of anthrax stockpiled by Iraq, according to President Bush’s State of the Union Address: 25,000

* Supposed liters of botulinum toxin Bush claimed Iraq possessed: 38,000

* Supposed tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent: 500

* Supposed number of munitions capable of delivering chemical agents: 30,000

Percent of “top weapons sites” that have been inspected by U.S. forces: 90

Number of chemical agents and weapons that have been found: 0

Pounds of banned chemical weapons currently housed in an Army depot in Anniston, Alabama: 46,830,000 (facingsouth)

The St Petersburg (Florida) Times gives some hints as to what it might be like to live with such a stockpile of death. (There’s some inconsistency on the numbers between the two sources, but you’ll get the general drift).

If the double standards and hypocrisy are hard enough for us as allies of America to stomach, God alone knows what their enemies must think.

Since WMD were not a crucial element of my anti-war position I find it difficult to get too excited that they do not seem to exist. Put another way, even if WMD had been found immediately after President Bush’s declaration of victory my opposition to the war would have been unaffected.

In this sense, the hawks who claim the non-existence of weapons does not matter are in fact partly right, albeit for entirely the wrong reasons. Perversely, I find myself in agreement with Paul Wolfowitz, who said in a recent interview: “I am not concerned about weapons of mass destruction. I am concerned about getting Iraq on its feet.”

The fact that the WMD were not found immediately does prove one thing quite categorically, however: Our leaders did not have sufficient evidence at the time they chose to go to war. Sorry boys, but stumbling on them at some later point just won’t cut it.

Of course, some in the pro-war lobby still want to argue the toss. Look at this recent little gem, WMD doubts are ludicrous from “the most influential foreign affairs analyst in Australian journalism” (well, that’s whatThe Australian calls Greg Sheridan). Note the juxtaposition of the headline and the very first sentence: “THE US has material in its possession in Iraq which, if it checks out, will be conclusive evidence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs”.

If it checks out. Ay, there’s the rub. Nothing whatsoever has checked out so far in this sad saga, but hey – hope springs eternal. Let’s not even mention the sneaky insertion of the word “programs”. And let’s be kind to Greg and assume that someone else puts the headlines on his columns. Ludicrous? Indeed.

So, even though doubts about WMD are entirely rational and perfectly understandable, I have a fear, now that the war is in an occupation/resistance phase, that the noise from the anti-war lobby about absent weapons and phantom deals with Niger is potentially distracting us from what should be the main game. Yes, our leaders lied to us, yes we must get angry, and yes, they must be held to account. This is necessary if we are to put our own houses in order, and I’ll have more on this later. But what about the Iraqi house that we have torn down? The real challenge is surely to focus on the giving the people of Iraq a better tomorrow. Move on. Focus on the future.

I think the most frightening prospect of all is an American withdrawal any time soon. Having gone in, they must stay to finish the job. Anything other than a long term commitment would be disastrous. If called upon, Australia must support them in this task. When I see calls like this in the American press from one Professor Hubert G. Locke, I begin to get very, very nervous for the people of Iraq:

“We should get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Why not admit that we’ve accomplished little of what was our announced intent – we haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is more likely alive than dead and “democracy” in Iraq is likely to cause as many headaches for the United States as Saddam ostensibly did. Let’s cut our losses, really support our troops and bring them home from the quagmire in Iraq.” (nwsource)

I don’t know Professor Locke and I don’t know what his politics are. But I am reasonably certain that to abandon Iraq now would be one of history’s greatest ever acts of betrayal. I pray that Locke’s views are not, and do not become, mainstream.

In that spirit of focussing on the future for Iraq, my original intention was to use my guest editing spot to highlight the thinking of some who are indeed worrying about the future for Iraq. Having spent quite some time now searching on the web, I’m very concerned that genuine forward looking Iraq analysis is terribly thin on the ground.

Does the Bush administration have any real clue how it is going to fulfil its promise of freedom and democracy? If so, it needs to do a far better PR job both within Iraq and outside, because nobody seems to have much confidence that they know what they’re doing.

We certainly cannot look to the traditional Right for answers. They are too busy spin doctoring uncomfortable truths. Many on the traditional Left are gleefully pointing out the shortcomings of the official position and giving the distinct impression that they are well pleased by the descent into guerilla warfare. This is an utterly contemptible response.

Sadly, when it comes to proposing some workable solutions, the Left continues its impressive track record of profound uselessness.

Perhaps it’s just a failing of my research, and I’d be very grateful to be re-educated on this, but the apparent absence of a sensible – and meaningful – debate on what’s next for Iraq is deeply worrying. I think Webdiary is an ideal place to start to address this, and I’d like to invite Webdiary readers to send in their own thoughts or provide references to source material.

So, having failed pretty much completely in my initial objective, I’ve decided to present a few bits and pieces which address what I think are the key themes of the war and its aftermath. I think that most of these issues should be secondary to the basic rebuilding of Iraq, but these seem to be the issues that make up most of the public debate at the moment.

1. Saddam is Gone

First and foremost, let’s all celebrate the silver lining on this particular cloud. Saddam Hussein is gone, and hopefully for good. The demise of his sons will surely boost the confidence of the Iraqi people that a brighter day is possible, and on the day that Saddam joins them on the mortuary slab, surely the world will be a better place. Whatever your view on the various arguments that surround the war, we can all recognise that this is a huge win for most Iraqis.

But before the pro-war camp gets too self-congratulatory, it’s important to remember that Australia did not go to war to topple Hussein. I can’t help but wonder how the people of Australia would have reacted to a well argued case that we needed to go to war, not because of concocted threats and tenuously imagined links, but in the simple humanitarian cause of removing an appalling dictator.

But we were not asked this question. Instead it was explicitly ruled out by Prime Minister Howard:

“Well I would have to accept that if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, I couldn’t justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I’ve never advocated that. Much in all as I despise the regime”.

I’ve never advocated that. Couldn’t be much clearer. And I think Mr Howard was entirely correct. Here’s Paul Wolfowitz in a similar vein:

“The third one (that is, rescuing the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein) by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.”

That’s twice I’ve agreed with Paul Wolfowitz. I’d better stop that. My thanks to a recent piece by Tim Dunlop at roadtosurfdom for reminding me of these quotes.

2. Accountability

So – Iraq was no threat. Iraq had no proven connection with September 11. Iraq had no meaningful links with Al Qaeda. And we did not even know whether Iraq had the weapons we so feared. Our leaders took us to war, a war that it seems is not over yet, despite protestations to the contrary.

At the next electoral opportunities, President Bush, and Prime Ministers Blair and Howard must be made to face their accountability for taking us to war on false pretences. Blair is under enormous pressure right now, and seems to be the most vulnerable of the leaders. He may not even last long enough to be sacked at the next election. There have been calls for President Bush to be impeached. One of the comparisons being made is that of Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about his sex life, which does not seem quite as important as a war. (Though going by some sections of the media, this is obviously a value judgement which is far from cut and dried). Professor Marjorie Cohn:

“An independent commission headed by a special prosecutor should be convened immediately to get to the bottom of this. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex. If it is determined that Bush misled American soldiers into war, the House of Representatives should initiate impeachment proceedings against him. There is no higher crime or misdemeanor”. (counterpunch)

It’s hard to see President Bush being held to account for all this. But it seems increasingly likely that he’ll need a high profile fall guy – or gal. Higher profile than an intelligence head, anyway. I’d say Condoleezza Rice is probably not sleeping too well these nights. And maybe even Vice President Cheney will be looking over his shoulder. In a recent open memorandum to the President, veteran intelligence professionals wrote:

“We recommend that you call an abrupt halt to attempts to prove Vice President Cheney ‘not guilty’. His role has been so transparent that such attempts will only erode further your own credibility. Equally pernicious, from our perspective, is the likelihood that intelligence analysts will conclude that the way to success is to acquiesce in the cooking of their judgments, since those above them will not be held accountable. We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney’s immediate resignation.” (commondreams)

Who knows, perhaps Harry Heidelberg is right in Will Howard beat Bush? and Howard Dean will emerge as a genuine election chance. Certainly it’s a prospect that is gathering some substance. Fingers crossed.

As has been well documented, John Howard floats above the scandal. He acted on advice. He relied on intelligence. Of course, with no Australian troops remaining in harm’s way, Howard does not have to worry about an electorate whose distress grows with every day’s new body bag.

Miranda Devine thinks the PM owes his ongoing immunity to his political enemies, and she may be right – stranger things have happened. Certainly Osama Bin Laden would understand her thinking. Geoff Kitney has a different view on Howard’s immunity: It’s the economy, stupid. I suspect Geoff is a few steps closer to the truth than Miranda, but whatever the reasons, clearly our PM is accountable for nothing.

Of course, Howard’s apparent immunity infuriates the Left, as recent Webdiary pieces by Carmen Lawrence (It matters!) and Jack Robertson (Fisking John) show. I know Carmen and Jack have the very best of intentions, but they are preaching to the converted. Two thirds of Australians need no convincing that they were misled.

Sometimes it helps to see ourselves as others see us: This from American weblog Whiskey Bar:

“SYDNEY (AFP) – Two in every three Australians believe Prime Minister John Howard misled them over participation in the US-led war in Iraq, but support for his leadership remains as strong as ever, a new poll showed.

The latest Newspoll showed more than a third of respondents believed they had been lied to, while just under a third felt they had been “unknowingly misled”. Just 25 percent of respondents said they did not feel they had been misled. But Howard still held a 40 point lead over his opponent …

Reminds me of those Foster’s learn-to-speak Australian ads they were running here in the states a few years ago — particularly the one where the “locksmith” smashes the door down with his head.

Voter: the Australian word for stupid.”

Ouch. Truly, we get the government we deserve. An earlier American President, Truman, said in his farewell address: “The President – whoever he is – has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.” He had a sign on his desk saying “The Buck Stops Here”. He must have taken it with him when he left.

Here’s Antonia Zerbisias in the Toronto Star discussing the deceptions of George W Bush:

“Asked about those infamous 16 words in his State of the Union Address about Iraq shopping in Niger for yellowcake uranium, the leader of the free world replied: “The larger point is and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power …”

So yes kids! We were all hallucinating when we watched news footage of reporters chasing U.N. weapons inspectors around Iraq last winter. Those were but voices in our collective head when we heard pleas from the likes of Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former weapons inspector Scott Ritter to allow the digging around to continue. And we must have all swallowed a giant tab of yellowcake when we read the news of U.N. weapons inspectors scrambling to beat a path out of Baghdad on the eve of the Shock & Awe bombing campaign.

So ask yourself: How come the commander-in-chief shoots from the lip once again and nobody is talking about it?” (commondreams)

Having re-read the last few paragraphs, I wonder if I’m just too idealistic. After all, a sudden attack of honesty from our overlords would buck the trend of history in a big way, wouldn’t it? Phillip Adams gave some great examples of history’s liars in a recent article for The Australian. One quote in particular strikes a chord today:

“I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war, no matter whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not. When starting and waging war it is not right that matters but victory.” – Adolf Hitler

Interesting parallel, but there are some differences today. The power of the internet means that the victors are most certainly being asked whether or not they told the truth.

I guess one of two things might happen from here – either politicians will in fact become more honest – gradually – and more accountable, or they will find ways to control the internet. Your guess is as good as mine on which way it will go, but they are going to find controlling the internet extremely difficult. Or will they? See commondreams.

3. Guerilla Warfare

Well, is it or isn’t it? This has been a hot topic in the global media, although I’m not entirely sure why it matters. It’s just a label after all. I suspect this is only a big topic of debate because Donald Rumsfeld said so confidently that it wasn’t a guerrilla war and has since been repudiated by just about anyone with any kind of military credentials. Here’s an excellent summary, courtesy of Whiskey Bar once again:

GUERRILLAS IN THE MIST REVISITED

It’s very small groups – one or two people – in isolated attacks against our soldiers. (Maj. Gen. Buford Blount III, remarks to reporters May 27, 2003)

I believe these are local attacks. I don’t see it on a national level. (Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, news conference June 4, 2003)

We do not see signs of central command and control direction . . . these are groups that are organized, but they’re small; they may be five or six men conducting isolated attacks against our soldiers. (L. Paul Bremer, teleconference with reporters June 12, 2003)

This is not guerrilla warfare; it is not close to guerrilla warfare because it’s not coordinated, it’s not organized, and it’s not led. (Major General Ray Odierno, teleconference with Pentagon reporters June 18, 2003)

There’s a guerrilla war there but we can win it. (Paul Wolfowitz, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, June 18, 2003)

Dangerous pockets of the old regime remain loyal to it and they, along with their terrorist allies, are behind deadly attacks designed to kill and intimidate coalition forces and innocent Iraqis. (George W. Bush, radio address, June 21, 2003)

It’s just weird. It’s totally unconventional. It’s guerrilla warfare. (Capt. Burris Wollsieffer, press interview June 23, 2003)

I think it is worth emphasizing that these guys lack the two classical ingredients of a victory in a so-called guerrilla war if that’s what you want to say they’re conducting. They lack the sympathy of the population and they lack any serious source of external support. (Paul Wolfowitz, Washington Post interview June 26, 2003)

Q: We’ve gone from a traditional, if you will, set of circumstances, rules of engagement, to more of a guerrilla war. Isn’t that accurate?

Rumsfeld: I don’t know that I would use the word. (Donald Rumsfeld, press interview June 27, 2003)

America has to understand that we’ve gone from a conventional war that ended May 1 to an unconventional war. (Centcom spokesman Capt. Jeff Fitzgibbons, Washington Post interview June 29, 2003)

I guess the reason I don’t use the phrase “guerrilla war” is because there isn’t one, and it would be a misunderstanding and a miscommunication to you and to the people of the country and the world. (Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing June 30, 2003)

Q: Are we now into a guerrilla war, do you think?

Sen. McCain: I think we’re in a phase of the reconstruction of Iraq, the installation of the principles and functions of a democratic society, which is incredibly difficult. (Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., CBS Face the Nation June 29, 2003)

We have not been able to detect any sort of coordinated, synchronized, regional or national-level operations that have been conducted against us. (Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, USA Today interview July 2, 2003)

Q: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says this is not a guerrilla war. How would the President describe it?

Fleischer: The President describes this as people who are loyal to the former regime still fighting American forces who are there, and in the process, they are becoming enemies of the Iraqi people. (Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing July 2, 2003)

“Guerrilla and insurgency operations are supported by the people, and I’ve demonstrated to my own satisfaction that the people of Iraq do not support the violence that we’re seeing right now.” (Gen. Tommy Franks, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee July 10, 2003)

Q: How organized is the resistance?

Rumsfeld: There’s a lot of debate in the intelligence community on that, and I guess the short answer is I don’t know. I think it’s very clear that it’s coordinated in regions and areas, cities, in the north particularly. To what extent is it organized throughout the country, I think there isn’t any conviction about that yet. (Donald Rumsfeld, NBC Meet the Press July 13, 2003)

People can call it what they want. I characterize it the way I just did, which is what’s actually going on. I don’t know that that’s necessarily the correct definition of organized resistance or guerrilla war, but it doesn’t make a lot of difference to me. (Donald Rumsfeld, ABC This Week July 13, 2003

I believe there’s mid-level Ba’athist, Iraqi intelligence service people, Special Security Organization people, Special Republican Guard people that have organized at the regional level in cellular structure and are conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us. (Gen. John Abizaid, Centcom Commander, Pentagon Press Conference July 16, 2003)

And so on. I tend to think it doesn’t matter. The debate serves little purpose other than to further embarrass Donald Rumsfeld. He really doesn’t need any help in this regard.

4. Freedom/Democracy for Iraq

This is another aspect of the situation which has me stumped, and I’d like to know what other Webdiarists think.

Forget for the moment all the deceits surrounding the war. One of our key promises to the people of Iraq was liberation and the creation of a democratic society. A fundamental problem here seems to be that any democratic society in Iraq would surely be dominated by the Shiite majority. A Shiite government will surely be an Islamic government (far more so than Hussein’s ever was). And surely Iraqi Shiite government would forge closer links with their counterparts in Iran?

An Islamic state, aligned with Iran? Will America ever permit this?

Here’s Robert Fisk:

“And so there has begun to grow the faint but sinister shadow of a different kind of “democracy” for Iraq, one in which a new ruler will have to use a paternalistic rule – moderation mixed with autocracy, a la Ataturk – to govern Iraq and allow the Americans to go home. Inevitably, it has been one of the American commentators from the same failed lunatic right as Wolfowitz – Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum think tank, which promotes American interests in the region – to express this in its most chilling form. He now argues that “democratic-minded autocrats can guide [Iraq] to full democracy better than snap elections”. What Iraq needs, he says, is “a democratically-minded [sic] strongman who has real authority”, who would be “politically moderate” but “operationally tough” (sic again).” (Zmag)

See commondreams for an analysis of the likelihood that the Iraqis will resist any US-imposed democracy.

Big questions. Few answers. How will the rights of minority groups be protected, if at all? How can democracy really work under the umbrella of Islam? Will Iraq continue to exist as a nation, or will it have to be carved up? Will this work take anything less than decades?

6. Yankee Go Home

Americans seem to be dying on an almost daily basis. Obviously this has impacted morale and will continue to do so. Quite apart from the message being sent clearly by some segments of the Iraqi population, it’s the US soldiers themselves who are saying send us home. See, for example, commondreams.

I have been following a blog maintained by an American soldier on the ground in Iraq. It’s an eloquent personal journal that conveys a strange mix of despair and determination. Check it out and leave a comment in support at turningtables. An extract:

“i hope iraq stands firmly on it’s feet and we are allowed to go home…i hope that iraq is allowed to make up for all the time it has lost…i hope everyone is able to see eye to eye and there will be some bit of peace in this world…because i don’t want my children back over here…and i would really like to make it through a generation with out a war…”

Sorry, soldier. You can’t go home yet.

And, finally:

7. What about the fight against global terrorism?

As we read about the latest attack in Jakarta, we have to wonder what our governments are doing which actually reduces the risk of terror attacks. It seems that whatever it is, it isn’t working. Simon Tisdall in The Guardian:

“The larger question is why, after Afghanistan and Iraq and everything else that has been said and done by western leaders since 9/11, this threat apparently remains so omnipresent – and so scary…

In Afghanistan, nebulous al-Qaida networks posed a complex and subtle challenge. Bush’s solution? Invade the country and overthrow its rulers. The Taliban may have had it coming; but that is hardly the point. This was the old-style “overwhelming force” approach long favoured by US presidents, Daddy Bush included …

The Iraq campaign was conducted, for whatever reason (and many were given), on much the same principle: kick the door down, then charge in – and to hell with the wider consequences. While such behaviour brings quick, short-term results and may be superficially gratifying, innovative or imaginative it definitely is not.

These tactics bear little relation to an effective defence against terrorism in the round, let alone to tackling its root causes. Many al-Qaida in Afghanistan were merely dispersed; now they are returning. As for Iraq, they were never there in the first place.

Deputy Pentagon chief Paul Wolfowitz still insists that “Iraq is the central battle in the war on terror”. In reality, he is now trying disingenuously to redefine all Iraqi opponents of US occupation as “terrorists” – as somehow one and the same as the people who blew up Manhattan. It won’t wash”.

Tisdall is right, of course. But being right is not enough. Pointing out the flaws in another’s position is only one step. Putting forward some practical solutions is something else again. I set myself a goal some months ago of trying to set down some workable way forward on this, but having given it my best shot, I have to concede the task is beyond me.

Ideas, anyone?

This is the speech Tania Major, 22, will deliver on Wednesday at a meeting between John Howard Howard and Cape York leaders. Tania has a degree in criminology and is a trainee manager at her home community of Kowanyama on Cape York and an ATSIC Regional Councillor.

***

Here I am

by Tania Major

Here I am: a young Cape York woman addressing the Prime Minister of Australia directly. The fact that you are here today, Mr Howard, is largely due to the hard work and vision of our leaders.

We are proud of their efforts. Especially I want to mention Noel Pearson. He has been my mentor and contributed to paying for my education. We are also proud of the efforts of our elders who have struggled to keep our culture alive.

I thank you for coming here today and acknowledge that your visit might signify the start of a new era in Cape York Peninsulas Aboriginal governance. I say ‘might’ because there is a huge job in front of us and if we are going to succeed we need your commitment as well as our own. I hope this is truly the start of a new relationship between Government and Cape York Peninsula people.

In less then 60 years the people of my tribe have gone from being an independent nation to cultural prisoners to welfare recipients. Is it any wonder that there are so many problems facing indigenous Australians today? Prime Minister, I want you to gain a brief picture of the life of young people in our communities.

When I was growing up in Kowanyama there were 15 people in my class. Today I am the only one that has gone to University, let alone finished secondary education. I’m also the only girl in my class who did not have a child at 15. Of the boys in my class seven have been incarcerated, two for murder, rape and assault. Of the 15 there are only three of us who are not alcoholics. And, Prime Minister, one of the saddest things I must report to you is that four of my class mates have already committed suicide.

Now if this paints a grim picture of community life for you, it should. Life as a young Aboriginal person is not easy, in any setting. Life for a young Aboriginal woman is even harder. We have to fight for respect from every one.

The story of my fellow students is a lesson in the magnitude of the problems that young Indigenous people in Cape York face. The two issues that, in my opinion, are central to changing this story are education and health. And your Government’s policies affect these things.

Two months ago I told the Queensland Principals conference that the levels of literacy and numeracy are very low in Aboriginal communities. I told them that when I went to school in Brisbane it was as if I had missed out on my primary education.

There is a huge gap between what we get in communities and what other kids get in cities. I got straight As at Kowanyama but when I got to Brisbane I was getting Cs and Ds. It really goes to show that there was something seriously wrong with the education system in our communities.

One of the problems facing education in remote Indigenous schools is that teachers tend to be just out of training and generally stay for only a year or two. There was not one teacher who stayed for the whole of my nine years at school, even the principals. On top of the racism that Aboriginal people face every day of our lives this seeming lack of commitment by teachers makes you feel they don’t care.

Prime Minister we need to review the curriculum in these communities because it’s pitched at a very low level. I have had to draw the conclusion that Governments and educationalists see us as less than white people.

It was really sad to go to school in my community because the attitude in the whole community was that white kids are much smarter than me. How can the education being offered to our young people be justified?

Education should be uplifting not serve to reinforce lack of self-esteem and the heart wrenching low expectations that my mob suffer from. If we cannot get education right then we are doomed.

We need a massive re-assessment of education policies and an equally massive investment in education. Government let down most of my classmates. Noel Pearson helped me to an education, but most young people won’t be assisted by a sponsor.

I got a chance in my life, worked hard with support from family and friends and today I stand before you as a qualified criminologist. All across Cape York I see and meet young Murris; smart, brave, compassionate, talented and beautiful. What is missing from their lives is an education that promotes self-confidence and drive.

With these qualities, hundreds of Cape York Peninsula Murris could be the next group of doctors, lawyers, painters, mechanics, criminologists or engineers. We have spent so long listening to some whitefellas telling us we are stupid, lazy no-hopers that the majority of my people actually believe it.

The relationship between poor education and poor health is clear. People whose self-esteem and pride have been decimated by a sub-standard education system and a social system that creates an addiction to passive welfare have little reason to live healthy lives.

Prime Minister, our health is getting worse not better. The policies that determine the delivery of health services are deeply flawed by a bureaucracy that does not want to let go and hear our voices. Health services are too often confined to the clinic. It’s a patch em up and spit em out kind of health regime.

In Kowanyama we had the only doctor based in a Cape York Aboriginal community. She left two weeks ago because the Queensland Health bureaucracy did not support her. Her practice epitomised the sort of health system we need. She understood the relationship between physical, mental and spiritual health. She took health out of the clinic and into the lives and homes of community people. She took her responsibilities to serve the community seriously and now she’s gone. Another blow to my community’s already low morale.

Prime Minister, it’s problems and challenges such as the ones I’ve described to you already that led me to stand in last October’s ATSIC election. I decided to run because I believe ATSIC provides a great opportunity to advocate for my people; to have a say in distributing funding through out Cape York Peninsula and influence State and Federal Government policy decisions that affect me and my people.

It is great privilege for me to represent my community and I hope that with experience I will be an effective ATSIC Councillor.

I know that in the coming months your Government will decide the future of ATSIC and I hope that you will understand that ATSIC is more than the Board of Commissioners and the Canberra bureaucracy. ATSIC is also people like myself and my Chairperson Eddie Woodley. People who are from community and work hard for community.

Prime Minister, we recognise that Governments cannot solve our problems for us. As young people we are trying to take responsibility for our future. We are working with our Elders to address the terrible problems of grog, illicit drugs and violence. We are working hard to create economic, training and employment opportunities for ourselves. We are supporting our fellow young people to achieve their potential.

Mr Howard, I ask not that you fix these problems for us but that you and your Government see us as equal partners in the huge task of rebuilding our families, communities and Cape York Peninsula.

You have demonstrated your commitment by engaging your government at the recent family and domestic violence summit and, for what it’s worth Prime Minister, my own view is that the level of domestic violence and child abuse sums up all that has been wrong with Aboriginal affairs policy.

We need a new relationship to address this frightening reality in our lives. Aboriginal people are reluctant to admit that young girls and women are being raped by their own people because of the blanket of shame. I am asking you to help lift that blanket.

The fact that you are here today is a good start in the process of change and I urge you, as a fair minded man, not just as Prime Minister, to become part of the solution. I stand up here as a proud Aboriginal woman, a Kokoberra woman as well as a criminologist and I thank you for your time and attention.

***

In the depths of the gut-wrenching and brutal debate in 2001 about the rape allegations against Geoff Clark and the exposure they triggered of the nightmare lives of many women and children in Aboriginal communities, I wrote about the need for a changing of the guard in Aboriginal leadership. At the time, I tried to get some young leaders to speak out but they refused, citing the tradition of respect for elders. Geoff Clark’s determination to hold on, and on, to power appears to have hastened the necessary guard-change. I’ve republished below a Herald piece I wrote during the rape debate calling for the abolition of ATSIC, and a piece I wrote for the Herald in January 2000 on welfare dependence and the failure of progressives on indigenous policy. Webdiary’s discussion of the rape allegations and subsequent revelations is at Rape and racism, Us and them, The sound of values clashing, Sex, race, violence, politics, media, law – where to for reconciliation?, Time for action, It’s make or break time, Ray and Terry, Ending the cover-up, Easing black men’s rage: many rivers to cross and Geoff, where do you get off?

***

Abolish ATSIC

by Margo Kingston, SMH June 27, 2001

It’s time to stop messing around. ATSIC must be overhauled, the cover-up must end and a fresh, new Aboriginal body put in place to lead the fight for the safety of Aboriginal women and children.

When Evelyn Scott wrote last week that violence against Aboriginal women had become “a part of our tradition and culture and cannot be spoken about” and that “many women and children are cowed into helplessness by their menfolk” the end was nigh for ATSIC in its current form.

When senior Aboriginal women backed her dreadful confession and Australians learned that ATSIC was part of the conspiracy of silence and inaction, the end had come.

Now claims of sexual misconduct swirl around three senior Aboriginal male leaders, all members of the ATSIC hierarchy.

Now Reconciliation Australia, the replacement body for the Council of Aboriginal Reconciliation, urges an end to the talk and the beginning of concentrated, concerted action to save Aboriginal women and children from endemic physical and sexual violence.

ATSIC should have led this debate for years. It should have been its top priority to expose the crisis and to shame white governments into financing solutions. Imagine a world where there is no safe house, nowhere to go if a mother or her child has been raped or bashed. As Labor’s spokeswoman on the status of women, Carmen Lawrence, told the Herald: “There’s no refuges, there’s no support from the legal system, and women are often exposed to the same players. These are the key reasons why indigenous women often shut up about it.”

Yet rather than protect its children, ATSIC was largely silent. It has not denied a devastating claim by former minister John Herron that when he raised the issue five years ago the ATSIC board denied its existence, and that in 1999 deputy chairman Ray Robinson told him ATSIC would allocate a mere $200,000.

Yet in 1995 ATSIC agreed to pay Robinson $45,000 to pursue a private legal action against the Queensland Government for wrongful arrest, after he had been convicted of rape in 1989 (his second rape conviction) then acquitted at a retrial in 1992.

What business was it for ATSIC to underwrite this action, as well as top up his legal expenses?

Robinson said last week on behalf of the ATSIC board that unanimously backed Geoff Clark that ATSIC “will support him in whatever legal course of action he should pursue in seeking remedy against the newspaper”.

Maybe it is time for Aboriginal leaders who cut their teeth winning equal rights for Aboriginal people decades ago to step down in favour of young Aboriginal leaders with fresh ideas and a fresh commitment to further the interests of their people.

One thing is certain: this discredited ATSIC, which cannot see that the safety of Aboriginal children is its top priority, has lost its authority to speak to the Australian people on behalf of the Aboriginal people of Australia.

***

Labor’s silence can only harm Aborigines (published January 17, 2000)

It’s time to the Opposition to stop tiptoeing around the problem of welfare-dependence among indigenous people, writes Margo Kingston.

DURING the last Federal election campaign, Pauline Hanson faced claims by a Queensland One Nation MP that indigenous Australians were better off when they lived and worked on pastoral leases “for a bit of meat”. Hanson responded that it was a much “happier time for the Aborigines and the pastoralists”. The next year, Noel Pearson began his crusade to end “the poison of welfare”, and came close to concurring:

“The dilemma facing policymakers at the time the equal wage case was being debated [in 1965] was this. On the one hand, Aboriginal stockworkers were being discriminated against in relation to their wages and conditions and this could not continue,” Pearson said. “On the other hand, it was clear to everyone that the institution of equal wages would result in the …removal of Aboriginal people from cattle station work to social security on the settlements.”

The tragic consequences of taking the latter option were cultural (Aborigines removed from traditional lands to settlements), social (work to no work) and an end to coexistence, however flawed.

Equal rights for Aborigines are an essential ingredient of a civilised society and a bedrock precursor to reconciliation, but Pearson believes the Government should have used Aborigines’ social security entitlements “to subsidise continued work in the cattle industry” and improve living conditions on the stations. Ironically, this would have meant agreements between government, pastoralists and Aborigines, something taking place only now since the Wik decision.

Labor’s Aboriginal affairs spokesman, Bob McMullan, notes that Pearson’s honesty about the horrors of welfare dependency in Aboriginal communities and his radical solutions like giving social security entitlements to Aboriginal communities rather than individuals are fraught with danger, including One Nation-type dangers of winding back rights.

But Labor has succumbed to this fear for too long. It has not yet engaged in serious public discourse on Aboriginal welfare, leaving itself open to Pearson’s charge that “the left side of politics is strong and correct on rights and the conservative side is strong and correct on responsibilities”.

Another reason for Labor’s silence is its lack of fresh ideas after establishing ATSIC, the embodiment of its self-determination ideal. That vacuum saw Paul Keating renege on the third prong of his promised response to the High Court’s Ameba decision a comprehensive plan to ensure social justice for Aborigines.

As the revolutionary ATSIC endured teething problems, money disappeared before it reached those on the ground. In 1994, an evaluation of Labor’s $250 million Aboriginal health strategy found “little evidence” that it ever existed, “a lack of political will” to get the job done and “a confusing and dysfunctional array of political responses” standing between problem and solution.

The then minister, Robert Tickner, said the Government needed “vision and purpose” to break through, and warned of the pending political mood shift which would fan Hanson’s flame. “The climate of public and government opinion is changing… Now is the time to act,” Tickner said then.

Most Australians are eager for new solutions which benefit from old failures, and would agree with Pearson that it is no longer enough “to just hold on to our ideals as a matter of philosophy and intellectual debate [while] the real society and economy unravels in front of our eyes”.

Keating’s Labor took responsibility for health away from ATSIC and gave it to the health minister. The Coalition’s Michael Wooldridge, deeply committed to Aboriginal advancement, has begun moving some decision-making and responsibility for Aboriginal community health to communities on the ground.

This attachment of rights and responsibilities in a constructive way is what Pearson is talking about.

Last year Peter Reith made an impact with a pilot employment program where private sector employers get a $4,000 subsidy to place an indigenous Australian in paid work for 26 weeks.

Reith’s response to the “special treatment” brigade was the simple, effective statement that Aboriginal unemployment was higher than the average and his job was to ensure equality for all Australians.

It is senseless for progressives committed to the survival of Aboriginal people and their culture to tiptoe around Aboriginal welfare dependence because they fear that engagement would fuel racist flames.

Everyone sees the problem, and without a progressive philosophy to tackle it, the solutions may end up promoting a largely unstated goal of many on the Right assimilation.

Reconciliation is about each culture learning from and adjusting to the other. It should enrich the lives of all Australians. I don’t fear what will happen if progressives publicly debate the future of Aboriginal welfare. I do fear what will happen if they don’t.

Dear Colleagues The ABC had argued in its recent Triennial Funding Submission to Government that we would not be able to maintain our current level of activity without an increase in funding for content. Having failed to secure that additional funding in the May budget, I foreshadowed the impact this would have on ABC services and programs. You will be aware I had previously announced the closure of our digital multichannel services as a result of funding pressures. As you will understand, the Corporation must live within its budget funds as appropriated by Parliament. Our primary objective in examining how to achieve this has been to retain programs wherever possible. No decisions were easy. Every effort was made to determine fairly which programs and services are to be affected, bearing in mind our Charter obligations and my determination to minimise impact on our staff and audience. The five overarching objectives which underlined managements budget strategy were: – minimise impact on staff – minimise impact on audience – maximise achievement of ABCs Charter obligations – balance the ABCs long terms strategic priorities and its current 3 year funding arrangement with Government, and – balance the ABCs recurrent activity levels with recurrent sources of funding. On Thursday of last week the Board approved a budget strategy for the 2003/04 financial year which I believe enables us to achieve the above objectives. Faced with the task of having to bridge a recurrent funding gap of some $26m, management had made proposals for reductions to programming and non-programming budgets. In brief those reductions covering a full financial year and which include the previous decision in respect of the multichannels, are: Corporate Support and other non-program functions: $5.04m Television: $7.11m Digital multichannels $7.27m News and Current Affairs: $5.43m Radio: $0.20m New Media: $0.05m Development $1.00m Although we will endeavour to redeploy as many staff as possible, unfortunately it is anticipated that some twenty to twenty five jobs will be made redundant as a result of our budget pressures. This impact is subject to the agreed consultation process. Those staff that may be impacted directly by the budget outcome have been separately advised by management. Details of the program and service reductions are provided in the below media release to be issued shortly. Staff may very well question the need for program and service reduction when the Government has maintained our funding in real terms. As I have endeavoured to explain publicly on a number of occasions this problem we find ourselves having to confront has generally been brought about as a result of: – The costs of broadcasting and television program acquisition costs increasing at a higher rate than the increase in our funding base, – The requirement for closed captioning of certain television programs for which the ABC has never received funding for, and – The investment by the ABC in the operation of digital multichannels again for which we have received no ongoing funding from Government. Staff will also be aware of expansion in other areas over recent years including Online and NewsRadio, again for which we received no additional funding. As difficult as any decision is to reduce programs and services, the ABC has no option other than to operate within the level of funds provided by the Parliament. While the resources of the ABC are diminished, its responsibilities are not. I am confident that we have made the best arrangements to meet those responsibilities – both to our staff, and to our audiences whilst we continue to grow our audiences and discharge our obligations as Australias National Broadcaster. It has been recently suggested in the media that the ABCs funding difficulties could be overcome if the ABC were to modify its News and Current Affairs programs, or modify its response to Government complaints. That in return, the ABC may be favoured with additional funding. Doing that would not protect the ABC, but bring about its demise. ABC journalism is not for sale and I am confident staff understand that. Furthermore, I think the Australian people understand it, and generations of Australians have placed their trust in the ABC’s independence from political and commercial influence. We must not betray that trust. If continued funding difficulty is the price of proper editorial independence, then the ABC must be prepared to pay it. Although it has been an extremely difficult period for ABC staff, both leading up to the announcement of the Federal Budget in May and the period since, I am confident that the professionalism, dedication and resilience of ABC staff will prevail and the Corporation will continue to deliver quality programs to our audiences. As we progress this matter I will keep staff informed. Consultation with staff has now commenced and consultation with the Unions will commence shortly. Russell Balding Managing Director 4 August 2003

G’Day. The themes we explored in July – Howard’s anti-democratic agenda, spin, lies, the suppression of free speech, unholy alliances – are rolling right into into August. I’ve inducted ABC managing director Russell Balding into Webdiary’s Taking a stand honour roll for his fiery commitment to editorial independence no matter what Alston and co throw at him or how much they try to starve the ABC to death (ABC slashes shows but defies Alston). Get this: “If continued funding difficulty is the price of proper editorial independence, then the ABC must be prepared to pay it,” he said in a memo to staff. It’s digging in time, folks.

This week education minister Brendan Nelson, the bloke who threatened to cross the floor to preserve a free media when Howard wanted Packer to take over Fairfax in 1997 but says nothing at all on Howard’s current desire to see Packer buy Fairfax and Murdoch buy a TV network, has been exposed gutting a report on the state of higher education (Ugly details cut from uni policy report). This story was a Sydney Morning Heraldscoop, perhaps one of those stories you won’t hear about if Howard’s cross media plan gets through the Senate next time.

Nelson’s media minder is none other than Ross Hampton, the bloke who did the spin and suppress work for Peter Reith during the children overboard cover-up, refused to give evidence to the Senate inquiry and, of course, kept his Liberal Party job.

While Nelson censors, Howard misleads, again. He’s been exposed misleading Parliament, one of those little things that used to trigger a ministerial resignation (PM misled Parliament on ethanol talks, says Crean).

On cross media, Packer has taken a stake in the top-rating online jobs search site Seek (Farewell Monster, hello Seek.) There’s now three major competitors – Packer, Fairfax and Murdoch. Wouldn’t it be great if Packer took over Fairfax? Down to two players, and that equals duopoly and that equals monopoly profits. The government’s cross media agenda is beyond scary – it would transform this nation’s democracy, politics, business world and sports world into playthings for the big two.

July’s top five referring sites (except for news.google) were whatreallyhappened, bushwatch, thesquiz, bunyipblogspot and sievx.

The ten most read Webdiaries in July were:

1. Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power, July 8

2. Howard’s roads to absolute power, June 30

3. The new global mosaic, July 29

4. It Matters!, July 22

5. Webdiary’s ethics, July 23

6. Howard worries liberals, too July 3

7. Good one John, but why stop at the ABC?, July 25

8. Once bitten, twice bitten?, July 17

9. Anger as an energy, July 22

10. Australian crimes against humanity, July 8

This Webdiary is about democracy and how citizens might help save it, so I thought you’d be interested in re-reading John Howard’s preamble to the constitution which he put to the people at the same time as the republic question. It’s empty words, of course – Howard hates the idea of a citizen’s bill of rights because that would limit his power to trample them.

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good. We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution

* proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;

* never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;

* upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;

* honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;

* recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;

* mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;

* supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;

* and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.

Daniel Moye’s ‘Understanding boundaries’ in Why conservatives fear John Howard has got me thinking. Daniel, who describes himself as a conservative, set out four issues of concern in Howard’s way – an unnecessary reduction in civil rights, misleading conduct on selling the war on Iraq, actively suppressing dissent, and lessening government accountability and transparency.

Harry Heidelberg, a small ‘l’ Liberal, concurs with Daniel’s four points, as do I, a novice Greens voter. I wonder – what say Daniel, Harry, greenie Jack Robertson and ALP member Guido Tresoldi got together to nut out the issues they all agreed were both crucial to democracy and under threat from John Howard. They could come back with their list and the rationale behind it for publication on Webdiary. The parameters of the discussion could perhaps be set by a question Daniel poses in a piece published below: “What is at the heart of democracy that makes it so sustainable, valuable and worth fighting for?”

They could, if they wished, imagine it this way. You all live in a community in Australia. Naturally you disagree on many things. Are there issues of concern to all of you that you could imagine working together on in your community to keep your local, state and federal politicians honest and let your community know what’s going on?

A fantasy: ‘Save our democracy’ groups develop all around Australia to work together on the ground. There’d be local websites, local input and questions to political representatives.

I first discussed the gradual emergence of ‘unholy alliances’ in Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power, a piece republished in part in a new bi-monthly local magazine in the Tweed called The Mindreader. It was set up by local dissidents to expose the developer backed and funded “Balance’ team which controls Council. The Four Corners transcript of the dire state of play in the Tweed is at Ocean views. I’ve seen one issue ofThe Mindreader, in which opposition councillors – Liberal, Labor, National and Green – got together to advertise their common goals, namely a level playing field for residents and transparency in decision making. Imagine independent local community papers run by local citizens all over the place – now wouldn’t that be good for democracy!

Today Harry Heidelberg’s response to Daniel Moye’s ‘Understanding boundaries’, a piece by Daniel on why media diversity and a strong Senate are vital to our democracy, and a response to ‘Understanding boundaries’ by Webdiarist Philip Hewett.

But first, here’s a nice exchange between Harry and Bill Condie, who liked Harry’s Will Howard beat Bush?

Bill: As an old hack who never compliments anyone, can you pass on to Harry Heidelberg my view that his piece was fabulous. Really one of the most intelligent things I’ve read in months. There always has been an uneasy tension in America between people who have read and understood Voltaire and the freaks on the Mayflower. It’s just so very hard to see when Kingaroy seems to win so much more than Surry Hills (an inner city Sydney suburb).

Harry: I am not so sure that Kingaroy wins more than Surry Hills. There’s a Surry Hills revolution taking place in America and George Bush can’t control it no matter how hard he tries. The coasts are going to take back the hard centre! Anyway, I can’t wait to get to Florida, the land of the dangling and dimpled chads, the land where Al Gore was robbed. Without 9-11, there would be an ongoing debate right now about the legitimacy of this president. As it is Bush still may have to face up to that one

***

Harry to Daniel:

Daniel is right. There are certain boundaries, and while as an individual I don’t like to be bound, I quite like it when the powerful are bound. Then there’s the individualism he speaks of. It’s also very Aussie. I shiver when I see people cow-towing to authority.

Those in power need to remember they are duty bound. This lapses after a long period in office and it’s the reason why democracy and the constant urge for change and reinvention is so healthy. People are always insisting they don’t like change – but when they decide it is needed they decide in DROVES.

I’m with Daniel on all his issues:

1. Civil rights. I concur with his slippery slope argument, and don’t have much tolerance for diminution of our rights. Near to zero tolerance actually. The rights are our essence and that’s how we define ourselves. Chuck that out and you’ve lost everything. Simplistic? Not really – check out other places that quickly changed. History proves it can happen when you least expect it.

2. Misleading re Iraq. I am deeply dissatisfied with where we stand on this right now. We need an investigation. The argument is not about whether or not Saddam should be in power. He’s gone and that is good. I need to know what my government stands for. We are at first base on this. The point is what happens next time? This is my own private Vietnam. – I trusted them before but now I’m not sure.

3. Actively seeking to stifle dissent. Of course the ABC is biased. There is nothing new in that. All of the media are biased in one way or another. I don’t trust Alan Jones and I don’t trust the ABC. Sadly – or happily, if you think about it – there remains diversity, and I am happy for the ABC to present an alternative. I don’t get hassled by it at all. Dream on, Government, if you ever, ever believe the ABC will be friendly. This debate is tired and old. Let them do what they like – as long as we have diversity this is fine. Let Australian media be like the rich and deep London newspapers, let the people pick and choose from the smorgasbord knowing the agendas. The scary part is that we are VERY close to imploding on diversity and losing the whole lot. If nothing else, the ABC represents diversity and a refusal to be bullied by business or government. That’s pretty powerful.

4. Reducing government accountability and transparency. This is where I get mad with John Howard. I like the bloody system and he is least qualified to change it. During the Republic debate he said the system has served us well, yet now he wants to trash it by destroying the Senate. He can’t have his cake and eat it – either he likes the Constitution or he doesn’t.

I also find the Senate INFURIATING at times, but I am just that little bit capable of seeing beyond one electoral cycle. It’s also insulting to the people to say it is “wrong”, because PEOPLE VOTE THAT WAY FOR A REASON. Personally I wouldn’t, but others do and it is their RIGHT, which he messes with at his peril!! Leave the Senate alone and leave the States alone. We have an excellent federal system and it is to the shame of John Howard that he seeks to meddle with it.

Imagine that you have to be scared of a so called conservative Liberal trashing the Senate! Times have sure changed, but there’s Buckley’s chance of that one getting up. Aaaah, how ironic – the conservatism of the electorate teaches the “most conservative leader of the Liberal party” a lesson in conservatism. I’m almost of the mind to say “Bring it on” – bring on this stupid referendum and watch it DIE. That would be funny!!

Finally, Daniel worries about a doomsday scenario for the conservatives, as in the UK. The missing ingredient is Tony Blair. Simon Crean is no Tony Blair and noone else in the ALP is within cooee of him. Australian Labor has become pitiful and it is to the detriment of our country that there is no viable opposition.

PS: I’ll always call myself a liberal. In my mind there should be no confusion about that word.

***

What is at the heart of democracy that makes it so sustainable, valuable and worth fighting for?

by Daniel Moye

Two principles lie at the heart of democracy – government of the people, by the people, for the people and one person, one vote. Sovereignty is defined exclusively by the citizen’s will in our democracy.

When the federation of Australia was founded it required that the majority of citizens in a majority of states support the founding of our haven of freedom. We decided that we would inherit the bi-cameral Westminister system of government as well as the common law as the two pillars by which our democracy would stand and fall.

Many of the checks and balances that are heralded today as a principal strength of our and other democracies were put in place to restrain ‘the Crown’ or State, as well as the will of the mob or people.

Plato, John Stuart Mill and the founding fathers of U.S. democracy repeatedly stressed that one of the main problems of democracy was that ‘mob rule’ and its appetites might not necessarily guide society down the right path. Thus, representatives of the people’s will have traditional as well as legal boundaries by which they can enforce our appetites, whether it be our need for security, our pursuit of happiness or control over our destiny.

It may be a quirk of history, but the Fourth Estate – the Press – flourished across Western democracies. Newspapers then and now focussed on high society gossip, the rise and fall of governments, war and peace – all with differing viewpoints. Governments have sought to control this powerful platform to the people’s ear from the start of the first journal. Why they did not succeed totally was as much to do with the suspicion that one day they might face the prospect that their opponents controlled the media, as with sustained resistance by proprietors and journalists alike. While this war has not ended, until quite recently a reasonable truce prevailed.

How is the functioning of our democracy and media diversity connected?

Readers – like media proprietors and journalists – have differing opinions. For the last hundred years or so in Australia different political viewpoints have been expressed in different newspapers. A dockside worker in Sydney might have read a politically conservative Mirror or Telegraph , or if more radically inclined a Daily Worker. A small ‘l’ liberal may have consumed a Sydney Morning Herald or a Sun. Many voices were heard.

A consequence of the diverse media landscape was that governments were able to connect with people on a daily or weekly basis. Citizens felt that they knew what the government was doing or not doing. This has become a critical element to the sustainability of our democracy because it maintains the enfranchisement of the people on an ongoing basis between elections.

What happens if few voices are heard in our democracy? What happens is nothing short of the disenfranchisement of the people.

A stretch, you might say. It is true that citizens will still be able to vote for or against our representatives, but what happens in between times? How do the citizens know what the government is doing and what the consequences will be? What checks are there to the representatives of the people’s will indulging in the worst appetites of the people’s will, even if for the best reasons? These questions do not even encompass the power and push of special interests of media proprietors or of political parties.

It is true that in a democracy the majority rules. But in our continual reaffirming of this noble truism we hide an equally important strength – that minorities have voices and influence too. It is not enough for democracies to let the majority reign supreme – the perils of not representing minority voices goes to the heart of its sustainability. History is littered with discontented minority groups hijacking governments, resorting to violent terrorism or demanding the dismantling of the state.

Media diversity underpins the sustainability of our democratic heritage, and the Senate also performs that function. It goes to the heart of our founding fathers’ vision of federation that all voices in all states of Australia be represented and have influence in Australian society. It is the blackest of betrayals to believe that only the majority of the House of Representatives have control over the Australian destiny.

The vision of our founding fathers is manifest in Brian Harradine gaining funding for Tasmanian issues or Democrats Senators helping the plight of South Australians. Our founding fathers’ visionary compromises have enabled Australia’s society and economy to function in a cohesive way, free from the former them-v-us, NSW-v-Victoria mentality.

Reforming the Senate will not necessarily mean revisiting past interstate battlegrounds but it will provide a slippery slope to new antagonisms. If Tasmanians, for example, believe that they are not getting a fair minority influence on the Australian political scene a ‘Tasmania first’ political party is not impossible. John Howard is obviously not a student of history – if he was he would have recognised how fragile our federation has been in its brief history. Western Australia has sought to leave the Commonwealth on more than one occasion and this, alongside the precarious federation referendums, should temper anyone’s enthusiasm for disenfranchising minority States.

The Senate also underpins the sustainability of the Australian democracy on an individual level. A sizeable proportion if not a majority of Australians are in safe seats. Within that safe seat a significant minority exists which does not want the preeminent party in that seat to represent them. It is through the Senate that this minority is heard and has influence. Some Australians also vote for different parties in the two houses. Thus it is through the Senate that all of us are enfranchised at the same time as the majority’s appetites are checked and balanced.

It may be uncomfortable for all concerned with the future of media diversity and the future of the Senate to form uneasy alliances across the political spectrum, but it is of paramount importance that these battles be won.

As a supporter of the Coalition of the Willing, fighting for democracy abroad and maintaining Australia’s territorial sovereignty, I sit uncomfortably against John Howard. But stand against him I must.

***

Philip Hewett in East Gosford, NSW

Whilst Daniel Moye makes a valid point in relation to Howard’s abuse of the concept of ‘national interest’, he unquestioningly and loosely uses loaded phrases like the ‘War on Terror’ as if they are accepted terms. He speaks of confronting rogue states, which is just more garbage speak to deflect debate from the role of US foreign policy disasters (now also Australia’s own disasters) and the greed of western corporations.

He talks of a post 9/11 world (another mindless catch-phrase) when the September attacks were no more than the trigger for the ultra-conservative (oil executive-dominated) push in Washington who wanted the Iraq scalp. These power greedy men profited and continue to profit from the WTO attacks, and as long as they do so the rest of the world will see only aggressive US self-interest writ large.

If Daniel had spoken of Howard’s’ subservience to US Foreign and Trade policy he would have hit at least one the nail on the head for me – but he didn’t. He presented lies as givens – for example describing the invasion of Iraq as ‘a war’. It was never a war – it was an invasion of a sovereign state, no more, no less – despite the propaganda he has swallowed.

How can an intelligent man believe he can see excellent management of the economy? The economy sits within ‘the national estate’ and it is in free-fall collapse – greenhouse is wildly uncontrolled, our environment is in an uncontrolled downward spiral and species extinction is travelling at the speed of light. Daniel, the economy comes to us at the expense of our national estate, and is Howard’s short-term expediency at work. The rest is smoke and mirrors and Daniel has been beguiled by the lot.

Daniel refers to an undefined long term goal of what the Iraq ‘war’ was trying to achieve. If he can detail that goal he should let us all know, including Howard. And why the euphemism of ‘spin-doctors’ for what are plain and simple propagandists – the former term has none of the ‘tending toward fascism’ baggage, I suppose.

Daniel Moyes would have more credibility in your column if he was less partisan. Cheers from a non-aligned person – I support good governance without the crap our parties wrap themselves in. Fat chance?

 

Can Howard beat Bush? Image by Sydney Morning Herald online news editor Richard Woolveridge.

Related:  Will Howard beat Bush?

Two Webdiarists sent me pieces of the highest quality over the weekend. Harry Heidelberg offers his take on the extraordinary rise and rise of anti-war US Democrats candidate Howard Dean – courtesy of internet activism. Daniel Moye explores the reasons why genuine conservatives fear John Howard.

Harry’s piece is Will Howard beat Bush? Daniel’s piece, ‘Understanding boundaries’, is published below.

What I love about these pieces is that the writers come across as clear eyed, engaged and intellectually rigorous. Harry, a small ‘l’ Liberal, and Dan, a conservative who votes Liberal, supported the war on Iraq. The aftermath of victory has helped crystalise Dan’s concerns about John Howard’s agenda, and his piece is a call to action by conservatives to reassert a central place for conservative principles in Liberal Party governance of the nation. Harry hasn’t yet revealed his stance on the war in hindsight: his essay is about the strengths of democracy United States’ style as evidenced by the Howard Dean phenomenon.

Dan has agreed to become a Webdiary columnist. I hope his archive will be ready to publish this week. Thank you, Dan.

***

Understanding boundaries

by Daniel Moye

Disclosure: I’m one of those over-represented, much maligned minority groups – conservative white male. Love my footy (any and all footy), cricket, beer, bourbon and horse racing. My left-over brain cells from years of party hard in Sydney’s pubs and clubs have been used to work over-time (without union representation) and to consume history, philosophy and espionage books. I’ve worked in dodgy $2 shops and as a disability support staffer, a failed pool hustler, a battered and bruised bubble stockbroker and a resident jack of all trades in an industrial technology company in the United States. Pet hates – bad jockeys and self-servicing politicians. Ambitions – to write a decent novel one day and to own a Melbourne Cup winner. (Daniel lives in the blue ribbon Sydney north shore seat of Bradfield.)

At a time when John Howard stands supreme upon the Australian political stage it is perhaps ironic that I believe conservative Australians need to reflect upon whether or not the Howard Government is upholding our traditions. By outlining what I think it means to be a conservative Australian and contrasting conservative principles with the recent Howard agenda, I hope to underline the threat that his government poses to our traditional values.

Having been educated in the Humanities, I have come across and flirted with many political ideologies. I settled upon a conservative democratic position because of my belief in two guiding Conservative Principles:

* Conservative philosophy defends the institutions, ideas and freedoms that have served us so well now because conservatives believe that the best traditions of our democracy need to be preserved whenever change is needed to meet new challenges.

2. Conservative philosophy seeks to create a balance between the national interest and that of the individual citizen because it is important that government does not overly intrude upon the aspirations, expectations, energy and enthusiasm of individuals to prosper in our democracy. Conservatives believe that we need a strong government limited to areas where there is a compelling national interest to be served.

Understanding the boundaries between government and the individual, government and the national interest, government and civil society, the national interest and the rights of individual and the national interest and a prosperous economy are at the heart of all meaningful debates in conservative circles.

When assessing these competing interests, conservatives tend to the view that the boundaries need to be skewed towards individual rather than collective responsibility, except where there is a compelling national interest at stake. The areas that encompass ‘national interest’ define not only the debate in conservative circles but also more generally the broad political debate in Australia.

For many conservative Australians, including myself, it is difficult to encapsulate our objections to the Howard Government. I supported the downsizing of government and the further deregulation of the Australian economy and I acknowledge excellent management of that economy, so it is not as if the Howard Government has overwhelmingly got it wrong.

Similarly, presented with the daunting challenges of controlling illegal migration and the threat and reality of War and Terror, John Howard has shown strong leadership.

It is the blurring of the boundary in this government’s mind between ‘the national interest’ and that of the Liberal party that the heart of my objection lies.

Boundary blur one – unnecessary diminution of civil rights

In confronting the domestic challenges of the War on Terror the Howard Government has unnecessarily sacrificed the rights of the individual over the national interest in defending our citizens from terrorist attacks. The ASIO legislation has strengthened already strong powers of surveillance and interrogation and in so doing has removed critical rights of Australians.

It is necessary for government to more actively know more about hostile and potentially violent political terrorists in our post 9/11 world, but are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater by allowing our authorities to hold suspects without charge or representation for an extended period of time? This big government approach, however well meaning, provides an unnecessary slippery slope that less benign future Australian governments could exploit.

The domestic political landscape of the War on Terror sees competing interests jostle – a compelling national interest and the sovereign rights of individual citizens. It is at the boundary between the two that Howard has got it wrong. Whether he got it wrong due to his political or his personal need to do more, or a combination of both, John Howard has unnecessarily further diminished the institutions and ideas that conservatives have strongly defended and that thousands of Australians have died to defend.

Boundary blur two – misleading citizens on the reasons for Australia invading Iraq

The Howard Government quite rightly argued that an active interventionist approach to confront rogue states is the only way to meet the challenges of WMD proliferation and terrorism. But by arguing for intervention in Iraq the way he did he blurred the boundary between ‘the national interest’ and the political interest of the Liberal Party.

By pursuing a political saleable WMD approach to the War on Iraq Howard has put in jeopardy the long-term goal that that war is trying to achieve. Whilst not wholly his fault, Howard has provided unnecessary ammunition to opponents of his approach to the War on Terror and of our crucial relationship with the United States.

Boundary blur three – Actively seeking to stifle dissent

The Howard government has pursued an unrelenting attack on his opponents, including indigenous rights groups, the ABC and non-government organisations with alternative viewpoints. I don’t necessarily support the views such groups profess, but by continuing this war of attrition the Howard Government is encroaching over the boundary between government and civil society.

Just as I do not want large government welfare, I also do not want large government imposing its views on civil society. The health of our democratic tradition depends on breathing space for alternative viewpoints on government policy. This approach is not in the conservative tradition of limiting governmental power and influence.

Boundary blur four – Reducing government accountability and transparency

Whilst not originating with the Howard Government, the continued decline of accountability and transparency under its stewardship threatens the institutions that conservatives have defended for so long. The coterie of spin doctors protecting ministers, the de-toothing of Senatorial inquiries and the attacks upon the functioning of the Senate have all contributed to the cynical attitude of the Australian people to our parliamentary system.

The mandate of the Liberal party does not extend to both Houses of Parliament, and this is not a quirk of the system but a judgement of the Australian citizenry. Any democratic government should never confuse the interest of itself as the governing party with that of ‘the national interest’. This is the most dangerous boundary for a government to cross.

I could extend my argument into other domestic areas like cross media and the narrowing influence of economic rationalism, but I will refrain.

I don’t know whether my concerns will be heard by other conservative voters or by conservative backbenchers, but if they are, I ask conservative voters and politicians to assess mu view that it is not only the destruction of conservative institutions and ideas that are at stake here, but also the long term relevance of conservative politics.

The Liberal Party under John Howard has progressively alienated many conservatives and at the same time widened the gap between himself and the traditional centre of Australian politics. Sooner or later the tide will turn. We conservatives need to consider the current political position of the British Tory party and that of the Conservatives in Canada – do we really want the centre of Australian political life to be dominated by Social Democrats?

Conservatives should understand the boundaries we are creating for Australia and ourselves under Howard. You may support Howard in varying degrees on particular issues, as I do, but let’s not confuse the trees for the forest.

 

The silent and the free. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

The government’s hand-picked charity reform inquiry has blown Peter Costello’s cover on his attempt to censor charities, saying that it recommended AGAINST such action.

Committee member Robert Fitzgerald, the NSW community services commissioner, last night called on the Government to amend its charities legislation, saying “the three people on the inquiry all concluded that there was no public good, no public benefit to be served by trying to exclude this particular behaviour (advocacy for policy changes by government)”:

“Australia has an exceptionally strong civil society and exceptionally strong volunteer not-for-profit sector. Part of it is encapsulated in two things that Australians hold dear. The first thing is to have a go and the second is to have a say. And charities by and large get in there and have a go and try to make a difference. But the other thing Australians value is the right to have a say when legislation isn’t appropriate and I think that’s what the recommendations of the inquiry were about about trying to come up with a contemporary framework for charities that recognise that trying to make policy changes is a legitimate part of the activities.”(Lateline interview)

Fitzgerald is a former head of ACOSS and now chairs a round table of non-profit organisations. The charities inquiry was chaired by former NSW Supreme Court Justice Sheppard, with businessman David Gonski and Fitzgerald the other members. They recommended AGAINST disqualifying a charity from tax free status if it promoted a political cause or sought to change government policy. (See inquiryreport. For clarification by the Australian Tax Office of the tax status of charities published in the wake of media reporting of the controversy, go to ato. My analysis of the legislation is at Charitable free speech on endangered list! and my examination of Costello’s form on free speech is at Costello’s free speech record.)

Here is the inquiry’s UNANIMOUS conclusion:

The Committee recommends that charities should be permitted to engage in advocacy on behalf of those they benefit. Conduct of this kind should not deny them charitable status even if it involves advocating for a change in law or policy. Submissions from both charities and governments have demonstrated that charities are increasingly asked to represent to governments the interests of those they seek to benefit and to contribute to the development and administration of government policies. The Committee considers that the definition of a charity should not prevent these developments as they represent an effective means of delivering outcomes for individuals, charities and governments.

However, we also consider it important to maintain the independent status of charities. Their independence from government or any particular political grouping is an important feature of their ability to serve their beneficiaries and to contribute more broadly to the public good. Independence allows charities to identify groups needing support and to make decisions about the best way to provide assistance to them ‘without fear or favour’. The independence of the charitable sector is also an important factor in their gaining the confidence and trust of the wider community.

Supporting political parties or candidates for political office risks compromising charities’ independence. The Committee supports the need for a distinction to be drawn between such party-political activities and other types of lobbying activity. The Committee recommends that charities be prohibited from having purposes or undertaking activities that advance a political party or a candidate for political office. This would include direct support of or opposition to political parties or candidates for political office or encouraging members of the public to support or oppose particular parties or candidates for political office. Such support could include donations as well as undertaking research on behalf of political parties or candidates or making other resources of the entity available to a political party or candidate, for example staff or office supplies and equipment. If a charity engages in this type of activity its charitable status should be lost.

Non party-political purposes or activities such as advocating on behalf of their causes or needs, contributing to the development or implementation of public policy, entering into the public debate, or seeking to change a particular law or public policy, should be assessed against the same principles as other purposes and activities. The principles recommended by the Committee are that to be a charity an entity’s dominant purposes must be charitable and any other purposes must further, or be in aid of, the charitable purposes or be incidental or ancillary to them. In line with these principles it is the Committee’s view that if an entity has a non-party political purpose that purpose must further, or be in aid of, the dominant charitable purpose or be incidental or ancillary to the dominant charitable purpose. Any non party-political activities of a charity should not affect its charitable status provided it acts in good faith and its activities are not illegal or against public policy.

Recommendation 17

That charities be permitted neither to have purposes that promote a political party or a candidate for political office, nor to undertake activities that promote a political party or a candidate for political office. (SeeChapter26.)

So why did Costello ignore that advice? As well as disqualifying groups as charities for supporting a particular party or candidate for political office, Costello also banned advocacy of ‘a political cause”, and “attempting to change the law or government policy”. WHY???

My suspicion is that Costello and co were trying to slip through a sting without publicity – to strip proactive groups like Greenpeace of charitable status as well as add to the government’s tactical weapons in trying to keep inconvenient charities quiet on controversial issues.

This story took off after the Australian Financial Review’s political correspondent Laura Tingle read the detail of the legislation. So often in politics the devil is in the detail, but far too few political reporters take the time to read that detail, let alone analyse it. Laura is a rare breed – a political journalist who takes her democratic role – to keep the public informed and the government honest – seriously.

Costello is now exposed as one of the Howard government team working on a deliberate, long term agenda to reduce free political speech and informed public debate in Australia. Without charity advocacy – in health, medical research, education, welfare, the environment and human rights – voices opposed to the government’s ideology and the interests of big money in the big media would be further silenced. The rich and the the powerful – Howard’s winners – would further dominate mainstream debate. The advantages for the government are obvious. Its contempt for the health of our democracy is equally so.

But it’s worse for Costello. He’s trying to distinguish himself from Howard, albeit very cautiously. So we got a recent speech called Building social capital, where he urged Australians to volunteer and extolled the virtues of community involvement. He said:

Recognising the importance of the non-government sector and the positive values arising from it, what are the lessons for policy? The first thing is the very important maxim for government, any government, on any issue: “Do no harm.” These social networks are neither established by, nor controlled by government. They are voluntary. That is their strength. So while the Government cannot establish these associations and should not force engagement it should be careful to do no harm. Secondly if Government has a choice between delivering services in a way that enhances engagement and one that does not, then, all other things being equal it should prefer the former. Thirdly Government should be alert to deal with any threats that arise to the voluntary sector.

So what’s he really saying? Join up, help the community on the ground, and shut up about the political and policy issues which impact down there? C’mon Peter, you’re wearing no clothes.

Fitzgerald played a sophisticated game in his Lateline interview, congratulating Costello on the bill generally and giving him room to back down gracefully. His warnings, however, were stark. Some highlights:

* There is absolutely no public good by trying to exclude organisations from being involved in advocacy by trying to promote change to public policy or government legislation. It’s absolutely appropriate that organisations that promote political parties or political candidates or act in their legal way should not be charities. But it is going too far then to add this extra bit which actually says at some point, when you do too much, your charitable status is at risk. That means all organisations now look over their shoulder to determine whether or not they’re at risk.“

* Tony Jones: Also it appears the point where you lose your status or are in danger of losing it is quite vague. It says you can(not) be disqualified if the lobbying activity is more ancillary or incidental.What does that mean?

At the end of the day this is the other danger. Once you start to go down this track the question is not only what the threshold but who actually determines it. At the end of the day, it will fall to the tax office, public sector officials, to determine when somebody has or hasn’t gone over that line.

* Jones: Why do you think it’s been inserted? Indeed, is this part of the Government’s wider agenda for social and cultural change? In other words you can see there’s a deeper point here – why should taxpayers be funding lobby groups that are arguing against Government policies.

There are 40,000 charities. Many of those charities have engaged to greater or lesser degrees in trying to lobby governments of all persuasions about policies and about legislation. We can take any area – the health care area, you know the campaigns about trying to reduce cancer through tobacco smoking have all been geared to changing government policy and legislative changes. The huge reduction we’ve seen in the reduction in aged care poverty has been as a result of organisation lobbying to get change over 20 years. Now nobody in the Australian community would say that’s a terrible thing. Nobody would say those organisations should not be regarded as danger. But you start to cherry pick who you like and who you don’t. If you agree with them, that’s OK but if you don’t agree, then that’s a problem.

* Jones: The Government was quite happy – when you were head of ACOSS – to use one of these organisations to effectively lobby in the community for a major change to public policy, that is bringing in a GST. That’s a bit ironic when potentially ACOSS could be in danger now.

Well I think that’s true. And I think we’ve got to go back and say, look, Australia has an exceptionally strong civil society and exceptionally strong volunteer not-for-profit sector. Part of it is encapsulated in two things that Australians hold dear. the first thing is to have a go and the second is to have a say. And charities by and large get in there and have a go and try to make a difference. But the other thing Australians value is the right to have a say when legislation isn’t appropriate and I think that’s what the recommendations of the inquiry were about about trying to come up with a contemporary framework for charities that recognise that trying to make policy changes is a legitimate part of the activities.

* Jones What do you think Mr Costello is getting at here? Is he basically saying these are political organisations publicly funded by another name?

There are some organisations and some thinking that in fact non-government organisations who receive government grants or government support shouldn’t have a right to speak out. We’ve seen that at State level and at Commonwealth over time. If we go down that track in any way shape or form, we do a number of things. We will actually damage the very thing that Australia is good at – engaging civil society in a very robust way. The second thing we will actually damage the democratic process and I don’t think anybody wants to do that.

***

YOUR SAY

Philip Gomes in Redfern, Sydney

What a wedge! I’m torn between applauding Peter Costello’s initiative on charities and deploring it. I’m sure many Australians would feel the same. You have an axe to grind about public policy – go for it – not at the expense of the humble taxpayer, but…

As a former Catholic and avowed Atheist I would love to see all religious bodies pay the ultimate price and join the community as a fully paying participant, but for one thing. The fundamentalist economic and cultural policies pursued by this Government has resulted in our commonwealth being sold from under us by hook or by crook, so there has to be institutions that redress this loss of social capital (your words Peter) between the Government and the people it is supposed to serve.

Peter, you have now shifted the burden from what is your elected duty and responsibility on to us! This burden is shouldered by groups that exist on the smell of an oily rag, be they religious or otherwise. Shouldered by well meaning and caring citizens who show more spirit and community than that exhibited by your so called leadership.

Many of these groups would die without this meagre morsel, but of course you know that. Instead you pursue charitable corporate welfare in the guise of tax breaks and massive taxpayer funded transfers of cash to non-government institutions like private schools and health funds that are supposedly free market operators. Why are they incapable of paying their own way? And don’t they lobby you for changes to policy and endless handouts to save their corporate arses!

But of course there is another more sinister agenda. The Government seeks to kill two birds with one stone. This is to slowly break down the last remnants of the social glue holding us together in pursuit of the holy grail of a fully Americanised version of Australia – an every man for himself ideology. The individual as the supreme representation of Australian society and to hell with our traditional egalitarianism.

They wish to divide us so that we are powerless to challenge their agenda. And in doing so they deny Australians another of the rapidly closing avenues for expressions of dissent. Totalitarianism comes in several ways, sometimes with a hammer, or in increments, the treasurer and his ilk seek to incrementalise us into a mano-a-mano struggle for survival in our own personal gulags.

But of course we shouldn’t expect anything less from a Government that wedges it’s way through Australian society. They seek to attack on so many fronts that we are left reeling from the blows and incapable of response.

***

Peter Woodforde in Melba, ACT

What happens to all those good old Mick nuns who aid and comfort (and harbour) junkies and all sorts of “criminals”? The whole idea of church sanctuary for refugees also comes to mind. The good sisters never do jug, unless my recall is faulty, but I bet the Bishops would go funny if there was any chance that Tax were waiting in the wings with a big stick.

Another hypothetical – does this mean that looming is closer examination of those churches which conduct vast, lucrative non-taxed businesses “more than ancillary or incidental to the other purposes of the entity concerned”?

Peter Costello will have to eat a lot of Weetbix if he wants to grow the political muscle to try that one out. Face it Pete – you’re weak and silly and without a future and you’ve just proved it again. You haven’t got a cracker of John Howard’s political guile.

PS: A question for Peter Costello – will the Tax Office shut down free speech for the Salvos if they keep spending money sticking their heads up John Howard’s fundament, or will they get a special by-law?

***

Darren J Godwell, Chief Executive of LUMBU Indigenous Community Foundation, Lumbu

Thanks for the story on the draft Charities Bill 2003. There are some serious concerns for Indigenous charities too. The draft bill could lock indigenous peoples into disadvantage and preclude any advocacy for legislative and/or policy change whatsoever. Here are my detailed comments:

Some potential implications for Indigenous Australians

1. Recognition of intervention as a legitimate form of charitable activity

Indigenous Australians remain the most socio-economically disadvantaged in Australia. The Federal Government, to date, has failed to halt this decline. The band-aid approach of ‘relief of disadvantage’ as derived from the historical definition is inadequate. The definition must be changed to better reflect the times and circumstances of the twenty-first century. In this century charitable purposes must be expanded to include work that goes to the sources of disadvantage. Our work will only ever have sustainable impact if intervention strategies are recognised as legitimate activities i.e. capacity building, community development, youth empowerment, training etc.

2. Public awareness and advocacy are instrumental to sustainable change

Without the capacity to research, build public awareness and lobby political change then LUMBU’s work in Indigenous affairs is consigned to the patch-up work of eighteenth century blankets and soup kitchens. Indigenous interests are not well served by the existing social policy and infrastructure – hence the continued disadvantage. Structures and policies must change for improvements to be made and sustained.

LUMBU must be free to advocate this change otherwise there is no hope, no hope whatsoever to break the cycles of disadvantage and poverty. Who will generate the new approaches? Where will the new ideas be generated from? Who will invest in the propagation of these ideas and approaches? There is no commercial imperative so the private sector would not justify its presence. The vested interests and organisational culture of the public sector inhibits innovation and precludes risk taking. This is why there is a need for the third sector, the community controlled organisations such as charities and not-for-profits. We need to enshrine the right of charitable organisations to explore and then advocate new ideas, including lobbying the requisite reform of public policy and amendments to legislation.

G’Day. Free speech is under pressure in Australia, as the charity censorship controversy this week illustrated. Last week the ABC was under the gun, after Howard floated appointing his own panel to judge complaints of ABC bias. In Good one John, but why stop at the ABC? I tried to broaden the debate to suggest greater accountability for the government and the commercial media, too.

Sydney University journalism student Lachlan Brown helped me process your emails on the matter, which include some interesting explorations on the role of the ABC in our democracy.

Contributors are John Hanna, Ian North, Dennis Pratt, John Carson, John Devlin, Stuart Skeleton, Chris Munson, Craig Martin, Luke Mason, Shaun Cronin, Moira Smith, Peter Woodforde, Gary Fallon, Michael Cooperand Peter Funnell.

***

John Hanna: Can I suggest an independent enquiry into what the hell Alston has achieved in his time as a Minister? This could be followed by another on the small matter of the corporate ‘loan’ of a high definition plasma TV from Telstra.

Ian North visiting Research Fellow (History), University of Adelaide: I’ve looked at Senator Alston’s complaint and the ABC panel’s findings. Senator Alston should resign. He clearly fails to understand or respect the idea of a politically independent, publicly funded broadcaster.

Dennis Pratt in Willow Vale, NSW: Alston has already cost the ABC time and money rebutting his trivial concerns. Who is going to pay for his next round of paranoia? Is the cost of his tribunal to be taken from the ABC budget, or is he going to ask the taxpayers to pay for his idiocy by setting up a separately funded body? My suggestion is that it be taken from his parliamentary allowance.

***

John Carson in Copacabana, NSW

I applaud your article on Howard’s push for an independent body to review charges of ABC bias. Howard’s hypocrisy in advocating for the ABC what he opposes in almost every other context is breath-taking.

The really worrying thing is that Howard and Alston expect the public to view their complaints about the ABC as credible. They seem blissfully unaware of their own partisan position, believing instead that their opinions (no matter how poorly grounded in the facts) define the centre of rational debate.

A reading of the ABC report into Alston’s allegations shows that Alston has been sloppy and ill-informed in his complaints. One might even accuse him of bias. It is curious that someone who demands such high standards of others should demand so little of himself. Instead of retreating with his tail between his legs, as any decent person would when so thoroughly exposed, Alston just ploughs ahead regardless.

When politicians cease to regard themselves as partisan figures and instead confuse their own interests with those of the community as a whole, we are in deep trouble. We are in even deeper trouble if people take their claims seriously.

***

John Devlin

Dear Margo Freakshow,

You write: How about extending the “independent panel” model to assess complaints of bias or owner interference in news against the commercial TV and radio media? A bit of balance on the commercial talkback radio networks, perhaps? A requirement that Alan Jones correct himself on air after he makes a false claim?

Commercial outlets can say what they like . . . they pay their way.

If the chattering classes want to fund the ABC, they also can say anything they like on their anti-government station. The point you so obviously glide over is that we the taxpayers fund the ABC wankers.

Margo: Not so. I made it clear that because the ABC is publicly funded it must be accountable to the people, as it is, through comprehensive complaints procedures.

The point you glide over is that our media has an essential democratic role separate from making money. Sure the commercial media pays its way, but does that mean it should NOT be accountable at all to the people? Lawyers pay their own way, but they also have ethical duties to the Courts and the integrity of the legal system. Auditors pay their own way, but they also have legislated responsibilities to tell investors the truth about a company’s accounts. Why shouldn’t the commercial media have ethical responsibilities to their readers, listeners and viewers? After all, it’s more powerful than the ABC in many ways, and plays a crucial role in public discourse.

***

Stuart Skeleton in Germany

Imagine my horror at actually agreeing with you on an issue. (Margo: Stuart had a big go at me in Unholy alliances.) You are right, an independent panel should be formed, and not stop just at the ABC. Although I suspect your article might be rather tongue in cheek, you have, either consciously or not, made a palpable hit.

The absolutely laughable reportage about Murray Green and his complaints department upholding only two of the 68 points raised is beyond comical. The gross negligence displayed by ABC journalists in reporting the Iraq war is absolutely scandalous. Errors of omission, factual mistakes, and the worst type of “opining” imaginable.

Then follows the ‘Internal Review’. Of course the ABC rejected the claim of bias! What choice does it have? The same people who come out in support of the ABC’s internal investigation are those who claim constantly that all OTHER enterprises (all NON governmental, of course!) should be subjected to external independent review. But let the hallowed halls of the ABC be included in such independent reviews? Perish the thought!

Yet again we see the transparent bias of the media and Intelligentsia Left; ‘Let everyone undergo independent external review . . . Except for us!’

Of course, if the ABC are really smart, they should own up to mistakes and bad reporting, but lay the blame on ‘sexed up’ intelligence, no doubt received from that paragon of journalistic and editorial virtue, The New York Times!

Smell the coffee. The ABC is ALWAYS anti-Government, no matter who the government is! It was anti-Hawke, anti-Keating, and now anti-Howard. The ABC appears to believe that its sole purpose to criticise the Government, whatever its politics. Strange tactic, relying totally on biting the only hand that feeds it!

Margo: A strange tactic, perhaps, but also a noble one requiring considerable courage given that – unlike the BBC – the ABC has no guaranteed funding base and can thus be brutally punished for not toeing the government line. The ABC’s role is to be skeptical and to put governments to proof. It’s one of the accountability mechanisms which help keep governments, of whatever persuasion, honest. And that’s what the people want, isn’t it?

***

Chris Munson

John Howard’s quote about the ABC was interesting. “I guess it’s inevitable if you have an internal review assessment, there’s always a tendency to declare yourself not guilty.”

I have been involved in local community organisations for nearly thirty years now (I’ve got two handicapped sons). My involvement has nearly always been at a board level. My experience is that your quote from John Howard comes only from people who are corrupt of moral values. In all my years on these boards, I have only come across one or two people who would have tried to influence outcomes against absolute honesty and truth – no matter what the decision. The outlook we always had was ‘a complaint is always an opportunity to learn and improve’.

I’d say that Johnny was not speaking as an Australian, but as a politician, and that he was probably being profoundly honest, providing an insight into the inner John. Since becoming a politician, he probably has forgotten that the mums and dads in the community still teach their kids not to tell lies and to be good honest citizens. I assume this was the thinking behind the investigations into “Kids overboard…” etc…

***

Craig Martin in Perth

When I first heard that Alston was making complaints regarding the ABC’s coverage of the war in Iraq, I didn’t expect much. I never expect much of our political classes at the best of times, but when they are mounting a challenge to the bias of the ABC, I invariably smell a rat. In the good Senator’s case, the timespan between recognising that a rat might be in the room, and smelling him, is invariably a short one.

Having read the Minister’s complaints and the ABC’s reply to them, I believe the Minister’s own methodology in making the complaints should be of much more concern to us. As expected, the complaints have nothing to do with the quality and professionalism of ABC journalism or reportage, and much to do with the government’s own agenda to subvert the remaining quality news outlets to its own world view.

This process needs to be challenged. If the commercial networks were ever involved in a serious attempt to inform the public they have long since abandoned it. I rely on the ABC and SBS to provide the only decent news and current affairs programming on free-to-air TV. I’m sure I am not alone in this view.

I sent an email to the minister informing him that I expect to hear of his resignation in coming days. I fear he will not bow to my pressure but I live in hope.

I never cease to be amazed at the manner in which our political classes carry themselves. Is it a flaw in our system of government, in the manner in which political candidates are selected or a combination of both? The only sense of commonality I have ever felt with the Hansonite rabble was that our current political classes are failing us.

I have only recently come across your Webdiary, and enjoy it. Thanks for your contribution to the great leftist media conspiracy which so oppresses conservative governments around the world.

***

Luke Mason

Alston’s complaints were apparently about “bias and anti-Americanism”. I didn’t know anti-Americanism was illegal now. Damn.

The problem with bias is that it is impossible to escape. Your own bias colours your perceptions. To someone who is pro-pro-Americanism, neutral-Americanism would sound like anti-Americanism. Not blindly accepting the Pentagon press-releases, or the output of embedded reporters could be considered anti-Americanism by pro-pro people.

Our current ‘conservative’ leaders (can we have a referendum to force them to change their party name?) have clearly sided with America, and could be considered pro pro pro (pro to the power of 3!). How would a neutral comment sound to them?

***

Shaun Cronin

Public Service Announcement

The Australian Government has announced the formation of the Committee of Un-Australian Activities to combat anti-government bias in Australia. The task of the committee is to investigate and punish any Australian who does not accept without question the Australian government’s pronouncements regarding the War against Iraq, the subsequent war on terror, asylum seekers, the sale of Telstra or any other issue where the government is right and the ABC and their listeners are wrong.

The House of Un-Australian activities, to counter the obvious leftish bias in the media, will consist of right wing journalists to ensure lack of bias and integrity. Senator Richard Alston will head the hearings and root out those fifth (or op-ed) columnists that dare to criticise the wonderful Australian government. All hearings will take place behind closed doors as to eliminate any unwarranted interference from the media and those brought before the committee will be denied any legal counsel as this will just get in the way of justice and may mean sitting beyond lunch therefore missing a good table at Otto’s. As this is a government hearing it in the good of public interest, and they’re all nice blokes so you know that they can be trusted.

The first agenda item will be to examine bias at the ABC. During Gulf War II it was evident that the ABC had the temerity to question the veracity of some reports regarding progress of the war emanating from the US and Australian governments. Indeed since the war has ended, the ABC has been at the forefront of scurrilous reports that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found in Iraq. As if WMDs had anything to do with the war and liberation of the Iraqi oil and the Iraqi people. Some people have taken far too seriously the remarks prior to the war that Iraq’s WMDs posed a threat to world peace. It is obvious, now that the war is over, that WMDs were never a threat and such remarks by Prime Minister Howard and members of his government to justify the war by referring to WMDs were never made. If they were made, they were taken out of context.

In light of the impending free trade agreement with the USA there are also concerns that the ABC has been programming local content at the expense of American content. It has been noted that radio station JJJ, will often play Australian artists when that 4 minutes could have easily been occupied by a hard working American artist (Dixie Chicks excepted). ABC TV shows obvious bias by running the 7:30 Report, whose time slot could better be occupied by a fine example of American artistic and cultural ascension such as Everybody Loves Raymond.

Once the committee has finished with the ABC and imported the directors of Fox News to create an impartial national broadcaster in line with the mandate John Howard received from the Australian people, the following people can expect an all expenses paid trip to Woomera to live in luxury as did those illegal immigrants who didn’t drown before arriving in immigration exclusion zones just before we bombed their countries:

*Any who has voted for The Greens

*Anyone who has not voted Liberal

*Chardonnay drinkers

* Latte drinkers

* Those that do not drink Chardonnay or Latte but have had secretly thought about doing so

* Sydney Morning Herald subscribers

* Anyone living in Sydney’s inner west.

To save time, anyone in the above group please turn up at your local ‘Committee For Un-Australian Activities’ center where you will be speedily processed and re-educated. Thank you.

***

Moira A Smith in Kambah, ACT

My first reaction to Alston’s criticisms of the ABC was that they were ridiculous. This opinion was only confirmed by the findings of the review. The considered and sourced rebuttals of Alston’s flights of fancy make him look very silly indeed.

It reminds one of the spectacle of Heffernan leaping down a flight of steps in Parliament House yelling “yoo hoo” when reporters attempted to question him about his attack on Chief Justice Kirby.

Howard appears to have unleashed his most ridiculous henchmen to make fools of themselves. But we should beware of not taking their attacks on the judiciary and the media seriously.

I recall being told that in the lead up to WWII there was an opinion in Britain that Hitler was a ridiculous little man. [????]

***

Peter Woodforde in Melba, ACT.

The ABC’s Max Uechtritz got it a little bit wrong when he said: “We now know for certain that only three things in life are certain – death, taxes and the fact the military are lying bastards.”

It was four things – he forgot “but all Howard Government Ministers, without exception, are weak, venal, unctuous, vacuous, vituperative lying bastards.” Particularly that perfumed, swishing, laughably incompetent lap-dog, Alston.

Perhaps Max was trying to be “balanced”.

***

Gary Fallon

Howard/Alston want the ABC to mirror the Murdoch Press and uncritically provide support to them. The tenor and actions of this government are daily reflecting those of an unelected right wing dictatorship with no concern for democracy. As a result an independent ABC is a significant threat to them.

It is imperative that ethical journalists such as yourself continue to question the actions of this government in its attempts to remove itself from any accountability to the public. As someone who became eligible to vote the year that Howard was elected to Parliament, I have seen this extremist politician express his contempt for democracy since his election. It is therefore important that his duplicity and neo-fascist views (NOT neo-conservative – that is an oxymoron!) are brought to the public’s attention.

***

Michael Cooper

I heard you last week on Richard Glover’s Sydney ABC radio show and agree 100% with you on the crypto-facist tendencies of the Howard government and the dangers it poses to society. The concentration of media owners only makes it easier for them to control the message and spin to the hapless punters. The ABC is one of the few sources of quality information left in the country, hence Alston’s desire to muzzle and control it. I must say I also find myself agreeing with Wil Anderson’s pithy assessment of the Senator.

What a comprehensive wally Richard Alston is. Just as well we don’t have ‘lemon laws’ for politicians because senator wally would be a guaranteed candidate for ‘recall’. I note they have these kind of laws in California and are hoping to ‘recall’ their governor because he is a lemon.

Since the lemon swore his ministerial oath he has managed to comprehensively stuff up communications policy in digital TV, datacasting, telephony competition and cross media ownership laws. Four out of four failures. Kick him out of class.

***

Peter Funnell in Farrer, ACT.

The Howard Government has the ABC firmly in it’s sights and they appear determined to subjugate it to their will. There has not been one moment of peace for the ABC since Howard came to Government. The PM sure knows how to hate hard! This is not working for the good for our democracy or the standard of public broadcasting.

The government has ravaged the ABC with a procession of administrative interventions and Ministerial sniping. Running parallel to this campaign of organisational disorientation is the Howard government’s old favourite – progressively reduced funding without reduction in responsibilities.

It is a credit to the staff, management, Board and Chairman that the ABC continues to deliver a high quality of service to our community, local and national. With few exceptions, the commercial radio stations don’t come close.

I recall my family and everyone else in our neighbourhood monitoring the local ABC during the ACT bushfires to get vital information that might save our lives and property. It was a truthful and reliable means of communication in our community, a lifeline. When it came to the crunch, no other means of communication with the people could be trusted to do the job.

The Government has a different view. Senator Alston launched another attempt to subjugate the ABC by lodging a raft of complaints about one program and alleging systemic failure, a thinly disguised political attack that was too much for the Howard appointed Chairman, who to his everlasting credit has stood his ground and rebutted the allegations. It was a setup and the ABC was on a hiding to nothing if, as commonsense demanded, the complaints were substantially rejected. And they were.

Without missing a beat, the Senator proposed an new independent authority to handle complaints. This is no act of petulant fancy. But independent from whom, and who said the ABC complaints body was wrong in it’s judgement against the Senator’s scribblings? Only the Senator! And what is the Senator doing to ensure that commercial stations presented a fair portrayal of the Government’s actions in relation to the Iraq War, or is the Government only satisfied with favourable and supportive comment.

The Prime Minister and Senator can huff and puff for all their worth, but the ABC is a first rate service to all in our nation. Reliable, to be relied upon and ,yes Minister, by a good margin truthful, fair and informative. This vendetta is too silly for words and must stop, instead of joining so many other things the Howard Government is spinning at the moment which end in farce and damage.

 

Wretched liberty. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

A Lateline interview with Robert Baer, a former CIA operative in Iraq, got me thinking about the fallout from the exposure of bad faith by the Anglo alliance in persuading their people to support war on Iraq.

We usually find out that our government misled us on war thirty years later. This time the deception has unravelled almost immediately, raising grave questions about the future of vibrant democracies in the Anglo nations and the strength of the democratic institutions meant to protect and uphold our democratic values.

For if there are no consequences from this scandal for the three leaders concerned, where are we then? We’re already seeing one answer – the need for the Americans to show reporters the bodies of Saddam’s sons before the world will believe the Americans are telling the truth. We’re yet to get an answer to the paramount question – will the leaders suffer the normal, expected consequences of such deceit and resign or be sacked? If they don’t, won’t that mean that the requirement for truth in public office is no more? If so, what does that mean for the relationship between the people and their leaders?

The political response has been to pressure the segment of the media committed to the role of sceptical observer searching for truth behind spin to desist, and either become a part of the government’s propaganda apparatus or shut up about and not investigate sensitive matters. The government doesn’t want its media to search for the truth, it wants it to report what it says the truth is.

Baer discusses the spin within spin of modern politics, the use Bush made of the quality media to prove his case for war, and the quality media’s failure to stop itself being used – either because reporters could not penetrate the spin or simply failed to check claims made by the US administration president and instead presented them as fact.

Critics of Bush’s preemptive strike, unilateral foreign policy are beginning to suggest they got it right. They warned that invading Iraq would make the world less safe. Our regional neighbours were very strongly of this view, and this week’s attempted coup in the Philippines seems to suggest they were right. The quagmire in Iraq is also solidifying the critics’ case, as is the resumption of the WMD arms race by North Korea and Iran.

The Anglo alliance is desperate to silence such views. And what better way than to trash the BBC and the ABC, which for all their faults set the standards on accuracy for the entire media. Without them – and the accountability they face – truth might no longer be grounded in our media, and we, the public, may lose all trust in it.

Tony Jones introduced Baer as a CIA agent for 21 years. “For much of that time he was a field agent in the Middle East and worked with Iraqi dissidents against the Iraqi regime. He’s also the author of several books including ‘See No Evil’ – his personal account of the decline of the CIA.”

Here’s some highlights:

TONY JONES: Do you maintain that the American President actually lied to his people about the reasons for this war, or was he himself misled?

ROBERT BAER: I think what happened was that this group in the White House decided to go to war. They went to the intelligence agencies and asked for talking points for the press. The intelligence agencies, as they well do, will give them everything and put all the caveats they like, but the White House decided, for whatever reason, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and needed to make the best possible case.

JONES: So what do you think then, was the biggest flaw in the pre-war intelligence that we were given here in Australia from the United States and also in Britain?

BAER: There was no intelligence. I mean, it’s apparent now that since the UN inspectors left in 1998, that they weren’t collecting information. You look at the national intelligence estimate line by line, it’s all weak and it proved to be wrong.

It came from the Iraqi Opposition. The Iraqi Opposition had a tendency to exaggerate this intelligence, but we knew – when I was in the CIA, we got the information (but) we never disseminated and put no credence in it. Suddenly in 2000 we started taking their information and spreading it as if it were the truth. So did the American press, by the way… Most of the stuff on the nuclear program came from the dissident groups, from public relations groups. The Washington Post and the New York Times picked up the same stuff and ran it. There was this drum beat for war that sucked in all this bad intelligence.

JONES: So what then was the role of the traditional intelligence services like the CIA in all of this because you know from working in the organisation for many years, that is not the way they collect intelligence?

BAER: There was a clandestine revolt. They went to the Inspector-General and complained, but it never made its way out of the CIA. And the CIA does a good job. If the CIA doesn’t know something, is perfectly happy to tell the President we don’t know, we can’t tell you for sure. But when the President says I don’t care whether you’re certain or not, just put it in paper, the CIA does it. It works for the executive branch.

JONES: Are you aware of the specific evidence given by Mr Hadari who claimed to be an engineer who helped build bunkers in which secret chemical and biological weapons facilities were supposed to have been?

BAER: Yes, he was, as I understand it, he was working with Chalabi in the north to create some sort of fake database that there was a nuclear program going on, an active one.

JONES: And how significant was he? Obviously this broadcaster has a particular interest in him since he broadcast the exclusive interview with him late last year?

BAER: Well, my understanding is that his information was also given to the New York Times in Bangkok who ran a front page above the fold article describing the nuclear program, which convinced a lot of Americans that the President was right.

***

If Baer is right here, the quality media allowed itself to be used by Iraqi dissidents to bolster the case for war. Here’s where it’s vital that sources are checked and not reported as fact until checks have been made. This basic journalistic duty seems to have almost disappeared in some quarters, and at times is not even being fulfilled in the quality media.

The media has been TOO TRUSTING, not too skeptical. In Australia, we now know that we should not have trusted the government’s word on children overboard. We should not have reported the claim as fact, and we should have focused from the very beginning on the lack of supporting evidence for it.

But the government wants us to trust its word and not look around for the truth, particularly now that it’s proven it has no qualms about lying or about suppressing the truth when it discovers it has unintentionally misled.

Today, more from you on the many aspects of spin in play during the Iraq war saga and the implications of its exposure to the light of day. The Webdiary spin conversation keeps getting better – contributors today areStacey Fox, Darren Urquhart, Daniel Moye, Terry O’Kane and Colin McKerlie.

***

Stacey Fox in Perth, Western Australia

I’ve been giving some thought to the question of anger (Spin, anger, ethics: Your say) and concluded that there is a certain sort of productive anger, which pushes you past that feeling of impotent rage, which banishes complacency and gives you a sense of personal responsibility for the issue at hand.

I had been meaning to write to my local MP and WA Senators about my concern regarding the cross media bill and it wasn’t until I read Jack Robertson’s discussion of anger that I actually sat down to do it. Today I got my first response, from West Australian Labour Senator Ruth Webber, who said that “I strongly believe that the fabric of Australia’s social political and civic life will be irreparably torn if ownership – and editorial control – of the media is allowed to concentrate in the hands of a few powerful moguls” and affirmed that she was committed to the ideal of independent and diverse scrutiny of the actions of this country’s political leaders.

This emphasised for me the importance of anger which results in action (non-violent of course) and the necessity of making connections and alliances – particularly with members of parliament. So thanks Jack for spurring me to action, for insisting on being pedantic, and for your willingness to deconstruct Howard’s obscuring drivel.

***

Darren Urquhart

In his parliamentary speech Laurie Brereton suggests that the attack on Iraq is not a part of the War on Terrorism (Shroud over Guernica). Many have suggested the same, usually then moving to the point that what it is really about is oil control.

But maybe the occupation of Iraq IS part of the War on Terrorism, maybe even a central pillar. Sure there’s oil-control at stake and ridding Saddam of WMD is important, but the major consideration is facing off with the real enemy – radical Islam.

US forces in Iraqi cities will be honey for the bees. Maybe that’s the point.

An Iraqi invasion and occupation is a seizing of the initiative. We will fight you but not on your terms. We will fight you in Baghdad, not New York. Arab civilians will suffer, not Americans. The world’s most fearsome war machine will engage you at close quarters and destroy you. The showdown at noon. The OK Corral.

In today’s Sydney Morning Herald we get this from Wolfowitz:

The United States Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, has put new emphasis on the fighting in Iraq, calling it the central battle in the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism. Asked about the increasing casualties among US soldiers in Iraq, Mr Wolfowitz told US television: “It is a sacrifice that is going to make our children and our grandchildren safer because the battle to win the peace in Iraq now is the central battle in the war on terrorism.”

And this:

The commander of US ground forces, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, said the sophistication of the raids had increased over the past 30 days. “This is what I would call a terrorist magnet where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity, if you will.” (Iraq put at core of US war on terrorism)

There is little doubt that the strategies the leaders of the US, UK and Australia are publicly selling are not the real strategies they are implementing. Wolfowitz himself said that the WMD issue was chosen as the issue everyone could agree on for a reason to invade Iraq. What are the reasons that were not unanimously agreed upon?

There are radical right-wingers in the US who publicly call for a war with Islam. Just how far right are the likes of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney? And just how far will the Howard Government go in supporting them?

Webdiary contributors pushing the “Anglofacism” line put a compelling case, but it is miles away from the thinking of mainstream Australia – the true holders of power here. To many Howard is a strong father-figure, not some emerging WASP facist. And no amount of rudeness, anger or preaching will turn the minds of these Australians.

Calm, well thought analysis is slower and requires much more patience but is more likely to appeal to our sense of social justice. Howard has brought out the worst in us, made us ugly. No one will be thanked for shoving a mirror in front of this nation. Our reflection will be revealed slowly and painfully. Attempts to hurry the process will not help.

The issues to focus on are the strategic options this Government is pursuing. It is not clear-cut. Frankly, a well intentioned intervention in the Solomons does not sit well with the “Howard as the Devil” caricature. Howards critics have been pretty silent on this one.

Of course the problem with understanding his strategy is that he does not publicly discuss it and as Jack Robertson has pointed out he is very good at avoiding the hard questions (see Fisking John). The onus is on the media and the people to try and dissect the governments actions and build a picture of the strategy.

To just assume that Howard is a sort of Dr. Evil character bent on total domination is a cop out. It over-simplifies a complex situation and, worse, just will not fly with his voters. Most people believe Howard is well intentioned and many believe he is the right man for the times. The challenge then is to explain how and why the strategy options being chosen are the wrong ones.

***

Daniel Moye in Roseville, Sydney

Among all its bile, there is some merit in Jack Robertson’s passionate calling to account of John Howard’s War on Iraq policy (in Countering spin: An attempt). While I do not agree with the tactic of personal abuse nor with most of his conclusions Jack’s article and the response by Liberal MP Alan Cadman do hint at the underlying problems that have led to the foreign policy quagmire Australia now faces.

The central issues facing Australia Foreign Policy are:

1. Spin Doctors

If we take the conservative politicians who have not directly led the debate on the reason for war on Iraq at their word, we find a distinct gap between their views and those that their leaders choose to emphasise in their case for war.

In Spin, anger, ethics: Your say, I described how conservative congressman Christopher Shay placed great emphasis on how a tolerable position had become intolerable,m as did Alan Cadman in his response to Jack.

Readers may ultimately choose not to take Alan Cadman at his word and believe he is ducking the question, but if you look at his long email to Jack it is clear that the failure of the UN to enforce its restrictions on Iraq over a sustained period of time presented a clear and present danger to the region and the world particularly viewed through the prism of 9/11. These are clearly the main reasons these ‘backbenchers’ supported war on Iraq.

But the leaders of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ instead focussed on more media friendly or popularly understandable arguments of a ticking WMD bomb. The campaign to sell the War on Iraq looks more and more like an election campaign: ‘Let’s just say whatever we need to say to win the argument and deal with the backlash afterwards.’

This tactic is infamous in Western democracies but is more associated with backing down on tax cuts or on hidden problems rising to the surface than with debates about going to war. The hands of spin doctors appear to be guiding the politicians in their presentation of foreign policy and Australians could pay a heavy price for this.

2. Informed Debate

There are significant drawbacks to emphasising the short-term and immediate reasons for any foreign policy decision. By focusing on the minutiae rather than emphasising the big picture arguments for war, the Coalition of the willing’s leaders left the arguments for the War on Terror dangerously dependent on the WMD controversy.

Without clearly outlining the framework for Australian foreign policy in the 21st century, the Howard government has left itself open to charges of political opportunism, outright deception and being an American lackey, however spurious the claims. I understand what John Howard is trying to achieve in Australian foreign policy but am deeply concerned that he is not carrying enough of the nation with him. I suggest he addresses the nation on the following issues:

* the historical ties with the U.S. and why that relationship has such a central place in Australian foreign policy. Is it purely for defensive and strategic reasons, or are we allies of conviction? What are the shared values and what is different?

* What are the principles that guide Australian foreign policy in the Asia/Pacific? How does Australia’s approach to the region differ to the US? What are the principles governing our approach to the UN?

These questions could also be posed to all major Australian political parties. The commonalities could be used as a basis for re-forming some consensus again to Australian foreign policy.

3. The Media

Clearly the Murdoch press are cheerleaders for the Coalition of the willing globally, and my expectations for them are low. Other newsagencies should put a greater effort in contextualising our current foreign policy debate and examine where each side is coming from. It is important to follow the details, but it is equally important that in informing the public a balanced framework for Australian foreign policy is provided.

4. Parliamentary Accountability

The Senate should have the power to fully examine the foreign policy decisions of the government. Rather than view Senate committees as there to apportion blame or score political points, the Howard government should recognise that Senate inquiries help not only to exemplify democratic accountability but also allow mistakes to be openly examined and policy solutions or remedies found. Spin doctors should be required to front the Senate if requested.

Perhaps through these measures conservative policy makers will be able to remove the shackles of urban myths like American Lacky, Deputy Sheriff and big bad suited white boys.

***

Terry O’Kane

Why spin the information when all you need do is simply leave out the details? Here’s The Age online report on Monday about the raid on a house in Baghdad which Saddam was suspected to be in:

“Reuters correspondent Miral Fahmy said a road in the Mansur district had been sealed off and the area was swarming with troops. Soldiers on the scene refused to comment and military spokesmen said they had no immediate information on the raid. Officials at a city hospital said five bodies had been brought from the scene of the raid.”

Here’s Robert Fisk’s on the spot report in The Independent on 28th July:

“Obsessed with capturing Saddam Hussein, American soldiers turned a botched raid on a house in the Mansur district of Baghdad yesterday into a bloodbath, opening fire on scores of Iraqi civilians in a crowded street and killing up to 11, including two children, their mother and crippled father. At least one civilian car caught fire, cremating its occupants.

The vehicle carrying the two children and their mother and father was riddled by bullets as it approached a razor-wired checkpoint outside the house.

Amid the fury generated among the largely middle-class residents of Mansur – by ghastly coincidence, the killings were scarcely 40 metres from the houses in which 16 civilians died when the Americans tried to kill Saddam towards the end of the war in April – whatever political advantages were gained by the killing of Saddam’s sons have been squandered.”

At the scene of the killings, there was pandemonium. While US troops were loading the bullet-shattered cars on trucks – and trying to stop cameramen filming the carnage – crowds screamed abuse at them. One American soldier a few feet from me climbed into the seat of his Humvee, threw his helmet on the floor of the vehicle and shouted: ‘Shit! Shit!’

Fisk is a well known and renowned journalist who captures not only the facts but the emotion of the incident and gives us some perspective on why the Americans are having such a difficult time in Iraq. The Age report not only tells us nothing it goes further in that it reduces human life to numbers devoid of even basic information about whether the dead are civilian, children etc and allows us the fantasy that because they live in an area were Saddam was believed to be that perhaps they were his supporters, were probably men of fighting age and were perhaps armed etc. Lack of information can allow us to create convenient fictions of the type that John Howard has so successfully promoted by restricting information on a range of issues from Iraq, David Hicks to refugees and the detention centres.

***

Colin McKerlie in Perth, Western Australia

Dear Jack Robertson,

I share your interest in finding ways to expose the lies we have been told by our government (Countering spin: An attempt).

I tend to think it would be a relatively simple job for an intelligent, competent journalist who wasn’t scared to lose his or her job to get the truth, but it is very difficult to get any journalists to accept that possibility. It makes it hard to debate methods when the people who are the problem control the debate.

But that is another issue. I am writing to suggest there is a much more simple way of exposing the lies told by the Americans and dutifully repeated by Howard about links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Typically, I have yet to see a single mainstream commentator or journalist point out this really obvious flaw in the argument. It is a deceptively simple observation, so take a minute to consider it.

In September, 2001 the American Congress passed a War Powers Act that empowered Bush to wage war on anyone who had been involved in the 9/11 attacks, or any country which helped or harboured anyone who was involved in those attacks. Bush and the Congress made it very clear that they would act absolutely without consideration of anyone else’s opinion in attacking the perpetrators of 9/11.

While the United Nations supported the invasion of Afghanistan, it has to be remembered that if every country on Earth had threatened to declare war on America if it invaded Afghanistan, the Americans would not have hesitated for a second. We can be sure that if they had any evidence at all of any other country harbouring or helping Al Qaeda, either before or after 9/11, they would have attacked at will.

It is a slightly circular argument, but the reason we know America has no evidence at all of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda is because if they had any evidence they would have invaded Iraq without any concern for what the rest of the world thought. The fact that they floated the allegation of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda in fact proves that they had no such evidence. Do you get my point?

It is a measure of how desperate the Americans were to persuade other countries to support the invasion of Iraq that it apparently never occurred to them that by claiming they had evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and not taking action on that evidence, they were demonstrating that they themselves did not believe there was any link. If they believed it, what else did they need?

Of course, they eventually did invade Iraq, but if the Bush administration actually believed they could prove a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they have to explain why they did nothing about it for nearly 18 months. I first heard the allegations about Mohammed Atta meeting Iraqi intelligence in Prague in October, 2001. If Bush believed he had evidence, he would have attacked Iraq a year before he did.

This point seems absolutely beyond argument to me. Maybe you could think about it and let me know if you can see a flaw in the reasoning. Maybe you have seen someone in the mainstream media make the same point. If you don’t and you can’t, then maybe you could make the point in the Webdiary and ask the mainstream media why they have missed such an obvious flaw in the justification of this invasion.

***

Jack Robertson recommends this Guardian piece “on the futility of committed, deathless prose!!”

Pointless prose

by DJ Taylor

July 29, first published in The Guardian

Given the current international situation, the densely printed circular that fell on to the doormat a week or two ago was half-expected. Headed ‘Authors Take Sides on Iraq’, dispatched by the publishing firm of Cecil Woolf and presumably copied to a couple of hundred phantom colleagues, it invited a response to two questions:

1. Were you for, or against, the American-led military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime in March and April 2003?

2. Do you believe that the intervention will bring about lasting peace and stability in the region?

For a fortnight now this catechism has been sitting quietly on the study desk – mute, unanswerable but at the same time stirring all kinds of reflections on that eternal stand-off between, on the one hand, the mystical figure of “the writer” and on the other, what used to be called, and perhaps still is, “commitment”.

The ‘Authors Take Sides’ booklets have a long and distinguished history. The first, sent out in 1937 by Auden, Spender, Louis Aragon and Nancy Cunard and asking: “Are you for, or against, the legal Government and People of Republican Spain?” had Orwell, in an unpublished response, demanding would they stop sending him this “bloody rubbish” and Evelyn Waugh apparently coming out for Franco.

Thirty years later a similar volume canvassed literary opinion – no less intense or divergent in its views – on the war in Vietnam. A decade-and-a-half after that followed ‘Authors Take Sides’ on the Falklands. Now, a further 20 years down the road – a 1991 Gulf war symposium perished in a fire at the publishers, alas – comes a chance for us all to say what we think about weapons of mass destruction, road maps and shock and awe.

No disrespect to the editorial sponsors, Cecil Woolf and his partner Jean Moorcroft Wilson, who are doubtless animated by the best of motives, or to the dozens of poets, novelists and dramatists currently shaking their heads over the respective merits of Dubya and Saddam, to say that among the various futile exercises that could be proposed for a writer at the present time, this is quite possibly the most futile of all.

When I first set out on my journey through what the Victorian novelist George Gissing called the Valley of the Shadow of Books – contributing novel reviews to the London Magazine at 30 a time – I took the proper attitude, common to practically every British writer since the 1930s, that in however marginal a way I was “committed”.

At the heart of the business of being a writer, I assumed – apart from the necessity to earn a living – was an urge to right wrongs, to expose injustice. To this end one preferred to write for the New Statesman rather than the Spectator, and for this newspaper rather than the Daily Telegraph (even though the rightwing papers offered better money) because in the last resorts, and without waxing too pretentious about it, sides had to be taken.

From all sides came cheering evidence of how literary interventions of this sort could produce practical results. Hadn’t Upton Sinclair’s expose of the Chicago slaughterhouses (The Jungle, 1906) actually forced a change in American law? And hadn’t Alan Sillitoe claimed that Robert Tressell’s novel The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropist helped to win the 1945 election for Labour? That was the kind of thing one wanted to write, even when it became clear that the world was changing and the old political certainties no longer held.

The moment at which I first dimly divined that the age of the writer as activist was passing came when I read the famous multi-signature letter to the broadsheet newspapers protesting at the short-lived Russian coup of 1991. Never, it seemed, had literary presumption and literary futility been so unhappily combined. Who gave a damn what novelist X and playwright Y, Harold Pinter and his inky battalions, thought about it all? What could they do? And who among their public cared?

And so here I am a dozen years later trying to establish – an exercise that seems to demand a great many thousands of words – what I, who know nothing but what I read in the newspapers and see on television, think about Iraqi corpses and slaughtered British military policemen. There is, it hardly needs saying, no point, just as there is no point – to descend a little further down the activist scale – in writing a letter to your MP. All you will get back in answer to your reasonable request for information – a recent missive to Charles Clarke bore this out in excelsis – is a sheet of platitudes.

In an environment where art has lost all formal influence, all the writer can do is to keep on writing, in the hope that somehow he or she can make an impact at bedrock, on the series of individual moral sensibilities that read books.

Meanwhile, this particular writer has reached a state that his 20-year-old self would have regarded with astonishment and horror. For the first time in my life, awful to relate, despite Bush, Blair and the terrors of “liberation”, I feel thoroughly degage.

DJ Taylor is a novelist and critic.

JESUIT SOCIAL SERVICES NEWS RELEASE 11 AM Wednesday, 30 July 2003 GAG ON CHARITIES NOT ON SAY JESUITS The threat to charities and church groups that criticise government policy of losing their tax-free status is simply “not on” according to Jesuit Social Services Policy Director, Father Peter Norden. This draft legislation is contained in the Charities Bill 2003 and is part of the Government’s response to the Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organisations. Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, who has introduced draft legislation that suggests that “attempting to change the law or government policy” is a “disqualifying purpose” or an unlawful activity for a charity will need to think again according to the Jesuit’s social policy centre in Melbourne. “This attempt to silence the churches and the non-government sector was tried on by the Kennett Government here in Victoria during the 1990’s”, according to Peter Norden, “but they soon found out that it simply could not be implemented”. “On that occasion, the gag was concealed in confidentiality clauses and intellectual property clauses in government contracts and we simply refused to sign. When Jesuit Social Services moved to engage our peak bodies of Catholic Social Services and VCOSS, the Kennett advisers backed right off”, Father Norden explained. “Government policy advisers simply have to learn that it is a central mission of charities such as ours not only to do good but to ensure that harmful legislation and regulations are changed to protect the vulnerable members of our community,” he said. “The Jesuits have been around for more than 450 years, and I think we will be around after the Howard Government, and even after an Abbott or Costello Government,” he insisted. “Moral issues are our bread and butter and we will not be starved out of this activity by such misguided and poorly grounded legislation,” said Father Norden. “A responsible and mature government encourages open and independent public debate and does not try to gag its critics as part of the democratic process,” insisted Father Norden “The church and the non-government welfare sector makes a serious attempt to understand the complex role of government, and, in turn, we expect government to do its homework in understanding the essential role of our sector as well,” he concluded. “If the Treasurer attempts to proceed with this legislation, without amendment, the Government will be in for a big surprise!”, he added. FOR FURTHER COMMENT, CONTACT: Father Peter Norden, S.J., 03 9427 7388 (office), 0409 0409 94 (mobile)

As Peter Costello tries to hose down his incendiary assault on free speech through tying tax relief for charities to their willingness to drop or downgrade public advocacy for the underprivileged and the powerless, perhaps he’ll take time to reflect on what he used to believe in.

Back in 1992 Costello, then shadow Attorney-General, led a vigorous campaign on free speech grounds against the Labor government’s law banning political advertising on television and radio. In the end, the High Court threw out the laws after finding that the Australian Constitution guaranteed citizens the right to free speech on political matters.

When I interviewed Costello on the ramifications of the High Court’s finding, he called on Labor to establish a parliamentary rights and freedoms committee to ensure that legislation contrary to human rights did not become law. He said the Courts should not be forced to protect our rights and freedoms, and had done so because Parliament had failed in its duty to do so. (See article republished below)

The High Court was activist in those days, and has since retreated from protecting citizens rights by constitutional implication as the Howard government began stacking the Court with legal conservatives.

At the time, Justice Toohey said there were virtually no parliamentary checks on “arbitrary government”, and that the judiciary would limit abuse of power by implying constitutional protections of “core liberal-democratic values”.

Then Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Mason, said that “human rights are seen as the countervailing force to the exercise of totalitarian, bureaucratic and institutional power, widely identified as the greatest threats to the liberty of the individual and democratic freedom in this century”.

As it happened, Labor did not set up a parliamentary human rights and freedoms committee. Since gaining government John Howard has often tried to curb our democratic rights and freedoms and disowned several human rights treaties Australia had committed to complying with.

Peter Costello’s Charities Act in its present form is the greatest threat to free speech in Australia since John Howard tried to define political protests and union pickets as “terrorist acts” last year. It took a backbench revolt to change his mind (see Crisis of conscience).

Costello claims the charity furore is all a mistake, and that he merely intended to codify existing judge-made law on charities. His office assured charities today that no current charity would lose its status under the new law.

It’s hard to credit that Costello would seriously peddle that line. As a lawyer he knows about “the rule of law”, the cornerstone of functioning democracies. It decrees that political leaders don’t have power over us because they want it or have police to enforce their will, but because the law delivers it to them. The law is what it says it is. Governments pass laws, and Courts apply them. To pass a law saying one thing with the assurance that it is not intended to mean what it says or that the government would never enforce the law as it is written is meaningless spin.

Costello’s plan would give the Australian Tax Office the power to close down participation by charities in political debate. Early on in government, Howard asked charities in receipt of government funds to promise not to speak out against or challenge government policy. The implied threat, of course, is that if they did they’d be defunded. Since then, Howard began coopting charities into doing traditional government work like job support services, and the big money they’re getting gives him more power to shut them up.

But Costello’s plan goes much further. Even a charity which gets nothing from government is at risk of losing its tax free status or the tax deductibility of its donations.

If Costello is fair dinkum that it’s all a misunderstanding he should fix the drafting pronto. A good start would be to put down in black and white his pledge that no registered charity is at any risk of losing its charitable status unde his proposed new law.

***

Parliament must reclaim role on rights – Costello

by Margo Kingston

The Age, 7-10-1992

The Federal Opposition last night urged the Government to establish a parliamentary rights and freedoms committee to ensure that legislation contrary to human rights did not become law.

The shadow attorney-general, Mr Costello, who will ask shadow cabinet to consider making the plan party policy, said it was vital for Parliament to reclaim its role of protecting citizens from interference with their rights.

The committee should be given the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a party, as the basis of its scrutiny, he said. The covenant includes rights to free association, freedom of movement, and of equality before the law.

Mr Costello was responding to last week’s High Court decision implying a constitutional right to free speech, and the statement of a High Court judge, Mr Justice Toohey, this week that the court would develop a bill of rights.

The call came as a prominent Labor backbencher, Senator Chris Schacht, lashed out at the decision as undemocratic, in contrast to statements by the Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Bolkus, welcoming an implied bill of rights.

Senator Schacht said the decision was clearly political, and that “no unelected body has the right to frustrate the will of Parliament (by) making political decisions”.

Senator Schacht said the community would now demand that if the judges persisted in playing politics, they should “reflect a wider cross-section of the community than those who have served the law all their lives”.

“Six of the judges are WASP men (white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant), and the other is a female WASP. The demand will come very quickly that we should appoint people to the High Court who do not represent the legal community alone,” he said.

Mr Costello said he opposed a legislative bill of rights, which would be applied by the courts, because that would mean “seven unelected judges deciding these issues, and if you don’t like what they do you can’t vote them out”. He said the court had become activist because Parliament had failed in its traditional role.

Mr Justice Toohey said this week that there were virtually no parliamentary checks on “arbitrary government”, and that the judiciary would limit abuse of power by implying constitutional protections of “core liberal-democratic values”.

Mr Justice Brennan has said that control of the political process by political parties “favors the creation of poll-driven policies which will appeal to the majority … whether or not they unjustifiably discriminate against minority groups or against the weak”.

The Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Mason, has said that “human rights are seen as the countervailing force to the exercise of totalitarian, bureaucratic and institutional power, widely identified as the greatest threats to the liberty of the individual and democratic freedom in this century”.

The Attorney-General, Mr Duffy, has so far refused to comment on the ramifications of last week’s decision, but Senator Bolkus has ruled out at this stage any renewed Government move for a legislative bill of rights.