With all the spin spinning around on Iraq I thought now would be a good time to publish a piece I wrote earlier this year on Webdiary’s ethics. It’s a chapter of a book called Remote Control about where ethics are at in the modern media, to be published by Cambridge University Press in October. It’s also a potted history of Webdiary which may be of interest to new readers.

While writing the chapter, I also wrote a Webdiary ethics statement, which appears at the top of the right hand column under the Webdiary Charter. My union’s code of ethics is also published there, and the Sydney Morning Herald’s code of ethics is published under Webdiary’s ethics statement. If you have a comment, question or complaint about Webdiary’s ethics, please email me and/or the Herald’s online editor Stephen Hutcheon at smhonline@access.fairfax.com.au.

The Herald’s ethics code is the strictest and most demanding of any commercial media ethical code and is taken very seriously by our editors. It gives journalists the power to insist on ethical rules being followed and our editors the power to stop advertising considerations polluting our editorial judgement. The Age has a similar code.

Despite the rare rigour of our code there is nothing in the government’s cross media legislation to protect the ethical integrity of the Herald if it is taken over after the legislation passes the Senate. If the government really cared about media accountability and media integrity – and thus the public’s interest in a free, responsible media – the least it could do is protect the Herald code in the event of a takeover. It’s done no such thing. The government is governing for big media businesses, not the readers, listeners and viewers it supposedly represents.

Webdiary ethics

by Margo Kingston

It was meant to be a weekly online column on federal politics, a mere change in the forum for my work. It was my price for agreeing to do another stint as the Sydney Morning Herald’s chief of staff at our Canberra bureau in 2000, so I didn’t lose my public voice while doing a behind-the scenes organisational job. A year later it was my full-time job, yet until I agreed to do this chapter, I hadn’t systematically considered the ethics of it all, or how my ethical duties as a journalist were adapting to the net experience.

After Herald editor Paul McGeough gave me the column, online editor Tom Burton suggested something more fluid. He pointed me to a couple of journalist’s weblogs in the United States where specialist reporters jotted down developments in their area, inside stories, and comment. The advantage for me was that I had no deadlines, so could write something now and then when I had time. I had a quick look, got scared, and decided to start with a blank page and see what happened.

When the technical people sent their design for the Webdiary page, I was horrified that they’d included my email address. I’d got a silent home number after receiving hate snail mail and abusive phone calls while covering the Wik legislation and Pauline Hanson’s 1998 federal election campaign, and the last thing I wanted was to invite an onslaught. Get used to it, Tom said. Interactivity is the future.

The first entry began: “Welcome to my Canberra diary. I’m allowed to say what I think whenever I like, and lucky you can interact if you like. The downside for this indulgence is that all the words stay forever so I can be judged for my sins.” (Welcome to my diary…and now for the GST)

It’s ironic, thinking back, that I was so loathe to encourage reader feedback. My experience covering Pauline Hanson had convinced me that was something very wrong with the relationship between journalists and the public they supposedly served. When would the media address our endemic disconnect with the people? And how could we do it?

Webdiary was my answer. Far from an onslaught of hate mail, interesting emails, on the topic I’d written about, other topics and the idea of interaction between journalist and reader, started rolling in. Most were so good I made the decision that would transform the page, to publish them as a matter of course.

A big plus for readers was that they could talk one on one with a journalist. Being able to drop the formality of letters to the editor style and say “I think you’re wrong, and here’s some questions for YOU’ proved deliciously tempting for many. For me, admitting in writing that ‘Yes, I hadn’t thought of that’, or ‘You’re right’ or ‘Here’s where you’re wrong’ began an exciting, unpredictable public conversation with readers.

Pretty soon I had more emails than I could publish, and it dawned on me that I had absolute power over the space. What appeared did not depend on a decision of the editor/deputy editors/assistant editors based on the mix of news, the space available, and the competition on the day. It depended on what I decided. I had no excuses if something went wrong. I set the tone.

The decision to publish reader’s contributions also transformed my ethical considerations. Writing an online column is the same obligations, different delivery mechanism. When you let readers join the show and help direct it, accountability is no longer a sham, but a reality. Online ethical codes drafted for hard copy journalism must adapt and stretch to fit a medium less planned, more open, faster, and much more in-the-moment.

At first I had a full-time, demanding job, and Webdiary got tossed off in spare moments. My response to the trust my bosses had put in me was instinctive – not based on reading The Media Alliance’s code of ethics, to which I am bound.

It’s funny, but often you don’t know what you’ve got until someone else describes it. Two years after Webdiary began, Lateline program presenter Tony Jones said of Webdiary:

“Kingston’s net site is irreverent, straight-shooting and interactive. The readers get to answer back, often at length and apparently uncensored. You could describe it as participatory journalism with an attitude.”(Lateline)

While writing this chapter, I asked long-time Webdiary contributor John Wojdylo for his thoughts on Webdiary and its ethics:

“The running conversation that arises between readers is richer in form than at any of the Internet forums I have seen, with the exception of a handful of Usenet newsgroups. The exciting thing about the format is that Webdiary has the potential to be part of the pulse of contemporary life, influencing and being influenced by it. The moderator controls what is published in Webdiary, and it comes out under her name; therefore, “Webdiary ethics” means “the moderator’s professional ethics”. The moderator selects the contributions to appear and often makes minor alterations to them.”

“Whichever decision the Webdiary moderator makes, the result is aggressive: it isn’t possible to satisfy everybody, because some demands are contradictory … Knowing how to use power responsibly is the essence of ethics – in Webdiary, or anywhere else.” (On Webdiary ethics)

Doesn’t the word “power” leap from that description! My first bout of introspection about my responsibilities was in 2001:

“I spoke to a Rotary lunch on Wednesday on the topic “Playing politics in post-egalitarian Australia” which made me think about what this page has turned out to be, and what’s the philosophy that’s come to underpin it.

1. After following Pauline Hanson around in 1998, I realised that I didn’t know much at all, had been lazy in accepting the truths of the experts without thinking about it, and was generally out of touch. I was also convinced that conversation across viewpoints was vital to national coherence and the search for a new consensus.

2. I had three main assets:

(1) I have access to information and an opportunity to scrutinise people of power because of my job and the paper I work for;

(2) I am independent. The only constraint I have is in speaking completely openly about the company I work for, although over the years I’ve come pretty close. That means I can be trusted – not to be objective, but to be honest.

(3) After going through the agony of using the “I” word in my Pauline Hanson book, I have thrown off the shackles of the myth of objectivity, which is really an excuse to hide the truth from readers, not expose it. It also falsely sets the journalist up as observer/judge, not participant.

(4) Once you get over that one, you stop being defensive about criticism and realise that publication of criticism is a sign of confidence, and its censorship proof of insecurity. It also means that since everyone’s sitting at the same table, genuine engagement is natural. “

As it’s turned out, the page has become an open ended-conversation with me as facilitator, as well as general rave merchant. What’s the point of that? A big thing in its favour is that no-one believes anyone HAS the answers/the complete picture, anymore. We are in a transition of thinking, ideologically and philosophically, about our society and its values. To scream at and deride those who have different starting points castrates the debate, not enlivens it. It’s also depressing.

What I love about this page is that intelligent people from many starting points are interested in other thoughts. It’s exhilarating. It cleans out cobwebs and lifts feelings of disempowerment or hopelessness. It’s also a pretty big challenge to the mainstream, in that it’s privileging ideas over who has them, and intellectual debate over rhetoric and conflict-thrill.” (Disclosure and you)

The first thing I decided was that the space would be safe for readers – that they would trust it, and that I would trust them. It quickly became clear that most readers were inclined to my world view, so the space would quickly become predictable, boring, and of no use if people of a different mind felt there was no place in Webdiary for their voices to be safely heard. So I didn’t ridicule or deride contributions, and published most emails critical of me, my style, and my substance.

Invariably, when people of one view begin to dominate, other readers rebalance them. The Tampa issue triggered a torrent of emails from readers appalled at what was happening and desperate to get their response on the record. After a few days supporters of government policy and people unsure of what to think began to email me, both balancing the page and beginning weeks of detailed, passionate engagement. This year, emails antagonistic to the American position on war with Iraq dominated published emails in the lead up to George Bush’s address to the nation. Almost at the precise moment I began to feel uncomfortable that anti-Americanism was overwhelming the page, several readers wrote pieces “in defence of America” and the American people.

This has not stopped several readers bitterly complaining that the Webdiary lacks balance. I publish complaints, and make the point that Webdiary’s content is self selecting by writer/readers. Webdiary reflects the contributions of readers, and it’s not my job, unlike in op-ed pages, to impose a top down balance. Publishing and responding to criticism invariably triggers contrarian pieces from readers, rebalancing debate as if by magic!

Being so open to criticism means I’ve been forced to get a much thicker skin. Journalists are under constant pressure to write what the powerful want written, and not delve into what they don’t. Threats are commonplace. We are unpopular. I’ve found, however, that developing an honest, open, transparent relationship with readers eventually built my confidence, not destroyed it. I began to trust THEM! Giving virtually automatic rights of reply to readers who disagree with me, and to published reader’s contributions, not only enriches my thinking but gives real meaning and muscle to the code of ethics.

When I asked long-time Webdiarist Polly Bush for a comment on what Webdiary’s ethics were, she wrote: “The problem is when you dip your toe into the water on the complex topic of ethics (and Webdiary for that matter) you end up with more questions than answers. I was thinking about this relationship between reader/contributor, yourself and the only word that kept coming up was ‘trust’ – but is trust ethics?”

Yep. That’s what it is. And yet, ethics codes have done little or nothing to improve the relationship between journalist and reader. Many readers have given up on journalism, and journalists, because they feel powerless. Many don’t even know there’s a code of ethics, or if they do, feel powerless to enforce it. How many papers publish their ethical codes, or that of the alliance, in their papers? How many television and radio proprietors let their listeners and viewers know about it?

Most media groups are extremely loathe to print corrections. They’re by nature defensive, partly because they don’t want to undermine confidence in them, partly because there’s effectively no accountability for their breach, and partly because they fear getting bogged down with complaints from relentlessly partisan players. Who do you complain to? What’s the process for resolution? Suggest setting up and publicising a process for accountability, and everyone runs a mile. Apart from defamation law, we’re not used to accountability, and we don’t like it.

As ethical questions have been raised and debated on Webdiary, I’ve realised that ethics – when laid on the table for open discussion between writer and reader – can be a tool of empowerment, not constraint, and a confidence builder, not destroyer.

What I hadn’t done before writing this chapter was to make my ethical obligations clear. So I’ve decided to publish the Media Alliance code and the Herald’s code in a prominent permanent position of Webdiary’s home page, along with the procedure to complain to the Alliance. If readers want to complain to my paper, I’ve asked that they email me and my online editor. What I envisage is that I publish complaints on the Webdiary with my initial response, and ask for reader comment, which I will publish and reply to on Webdiary, as could my editor. I hope this will cement confidence in my good faith, and the sense that ethical matters need not be matters for confrontation, but for conversation and resolution.

This procedure will add depth to the occasional navel-gazing debate in Webdiary, invariably triggered by a provocative email that makes me think about where Webdiary’s going. In 2001 I wrote the Webdiary Charter, published on the right-hand column of Webdiary as a permanent reference point for readers, in response to this email from Paul McLaren:

“Please excuse my ignorance, but I am perplexed by the object of your section of the Sydney Morning Herald. Could you please tell me why I should contribute? It seems very interesting but a little pointless unless, like I suspect, I am missing something.” (What’s the point?)

The ethics of Webdiary evolve in consultation with readers as issues arises, and ethics discussions are not confined to interpreting the principles set out in the code. Readers have insisted that it’s much wider – they’re interested in how the media, and journalists, work, and are prepared to challenge the basis of our right to be critical of public figures, and insisted that journalists are public figures needing scrutiny. Trust breeds demands for greater accountability.

At the end of 2000, I wrote a series of columns berating Peter Reith over the Telecard scandal. In response reader Jack Robertson wrote a passionate piece calling me, and my profession, to account for OUR double standards. (Questions to you journos) He demanded to know what WE were paid, details of relationships between journalists and political players and details of when our owners had heavied us. (To my regret I disclosed my pay, a disclosure now used by right wing webloggers as a weapon of attack.)

The process of answering Jack’s questions, or explaining why I wouldn’t, opened to floodgates to a torrent of emails critical of the media, and extended Webdiary’s focus from politics to the media.

My editors over the years had always pooh-poohed my suggestion for a media section or page as boring for readers, who’d see it as navel gazing. They were wrong. I appointed Jack Webdiary’s “Meeja Watch” commentator, and he and others now regularly critique media coverage of issues and prominent media figures. Jack took the debate further with 52 ideas for healthier Australian news media, encouraging readers to think constructively about change.

Through Webdiary, readers have forced me to think harder about, and justify, my ethical stances and those of the profession. The controversy over the Laurie Oakes disclosure of the affair between Cheryl Kernot and Gareth inspired debate of the highest quality on the appropriate line between public and private lives, when I was overrun with reader emails disputing my support for Laurie in a Lateline debate (Your say on the Cheryl Affair). By the end of it, Webdiarists had influenced my view and forced from me a detailed statement of my position. (An affair to remember)

This is ethics in action. Ethics are ideals, not black letter law. They rely on the judgement of journalists trying to apply the principles in good faith, readers trusting them to do so, and regular dialogue between the two when real-life examples crop up.

Nom de plumes.

The issue of anonymity raises the most difficult issue for online journalism. The Media Alliance code of ethics states: “3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the sources motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.”

In newspapers, writers must identify themselves. Anonymous contributions are not considered appropriate. Yet journalists quote anonymous sources all the time, too often becoming tools for their sources to influence debate behind the scenes. We make judgments all the time about which source to trust, when and how, and know that we’re usually being used. This is a closed world to the reader.

Online, you can’t usually check whether writers are real or writing under false names and anonymous comment is common place. The issue flared up when contributor Tim Dunlop challenged my decision to allow readers to write reports on marginal seats under nom de plumes. After “Stephen Henderson”, a member of the Democrats, wrote a report on the seat of Paramatta, Tim saw red:

“I think the practice of people writing under false names on your website is appalling. From what I’ve read, they say nothing that is particularly ‘radical’ or anything that would threaten their jobs and yet they feel the need to hide behind a phoney identity. It sucks, and I don’t think you should encourage it. It shows contempt for your readers. And surely such sanctioned dishonesty is not good for journalism in general.” (Last dispatch from Canberra)

The resulting debate was fast and furious, but I stood my ground. “I want real people to have a voice. Many can’t because of the stupid censorship that suffocates them, where people can’t be themselves by speaking as a private citizen because of the crappy constraints of their public or private sector jobs. I know it’s hard, and I could be caught out, but this marginal seats idea is about perspective and opinion. I want interesting readers to be able to say interesting things to interested readers. No-one’s who’s offered to write for me on marginal seats has offered to write under their real name yet. How about it?”

I didn’t change my mind, but I came up with a policy. I asked readers to tell me if they were writing under a nom de plume, and to give reasons why, which I publish at the beginning of each nom de plume piece. I can’t enforce the rule, but many contributors comply.

There is a critical exception. I would never publish personal slurs under a nom de plume, as a matter of basic fairness. I strongly disagree with the modus operandi of crikey in this regard, and believe that whatever its considerable merits, it cannot lay claim to be a site complying with the code of ethics.

Of course, Webdiary does not seek to break news. If I get a story, I write it for the paper, and I give readers’ news tips to the Herald news desk. Crikey, which has as a central aim breaking news, is different. But in my view a journalists website cannot ethically publish serious allegations or personal attacks under cover of anonymity. A policy of fulsome corrections is not a good enough. The code also bars publication under the rule that allegations should be verified before publication. In a Lateline debate on media ethics, Tony Jones asked: “Isn’t this, though, one of the things the Internet is famous for – no censorship, no boundaries?” I replied: “Yeah, but it doesn’t mean that I don’t disapprove of some of the things on Crikey as a journalist.”

Offensive material

The Media Alliance code of ethics states: 2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics,including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.

I’m more relaxed about this requirement on the net, as are my readers, partly because it is a deliberate choice to log on.

Racism is the red-button issue in contemporary Australia. Australians tend to live in enclaves of the like-minded these days, creating a terrible barrier to understanding and national unity. I once agonised over whether to publish a contribution from a racist One Nation supporter, and did so, without complaint from readers, some of whom responded respectfully to the contributor.

My use of “Yanks” recently triggered a barrage of criticism from readers suggesting the word was a term of abuse. When I dropped it to avoid causing needless, although unintended offence, other readers protested that the term was neutral. I took up “Yanks” again after an American general used it while praising Australians for pre-deploying troops to Iraq. That settled it, I said, and noone disagreed.

In 2002, Media Watch asked me whether I’d known that a link to a page of Henry Lawson poems directed readers to a racist site. I hadn’t. I wrote in Webdiary:

“The implication, I assume, is that if I had done so I would have been knowingly promoting a racist site, something which right-minded people would not do. I thought hard about the question, and finally decided I would have done the same thing.

“He’s the first great poet of Australian identity, Lawson, and he was also deeply racist, antagonistic in the cruellest sense to both the Aboriginal peoples and Chinese migrants. This was a mainstream view then, and since Tampa you’d have to say it hasn’t left the mainstream yet. But does that take away from Lawson’s importance, or artistry, or capacity to move us?

“So I told Media Watch I would have still provided the link, and raised the fors and againsts of a nationalistic response to the bombing,with the poetry and political views of Lawson as a case in point.”

“I pointed out to Media Watch that during the terrorism laws debate I’d published a press statement from the far-right National Civic Council, which worked hard to stop the laws, claiming they paralleled Hitler’s actions in the prelude to World War 11. Is that promoting racism? No – it’s acknowledging that groups of opposing persuasions can come together on certain issues. And it’s inviting readers to consider what those groups have in common, and why.

“And that’s what the Webdiary space is partly about – providing a safe space for people with articulate, coherent views from all sectors of Australian opinion to discuss issues of importance. I run One Nation nationalist Greg Weilo quite regularly, for example, and his contributions often provoke interesting debate. I’ve got no problem with my readers finding a racist site through Webdiary. My views on racism are crystal clear, so I assume there could be no question mark over my motivations. What do you think?” (Webdiary Watch) Readers agreed.

Conflicts of interest

In 2001 Don Arthur, a regular contributor on welfare policy, raised the matter of reader conflicts of interest.

“I was thinking over what you were saying on Late Night Live about (Webdiary) attracting people who are not part of peak groups. Here’s something people ought to know about me. I can afford to study full time because I’ve got a scholarship – it’s called an Australian Postgraduate Award (Industry). My industry partner is Anglicare (WA). I’m not exactly sure how the money thing works but Anglicare puts up some of the funds and is involved in setting the research topic. I have three supervisors, two from Edith Cowan and one from the industry partner. Sorry I didn’t say this earlier.”

I replied:

“I can’t see anything remiss in not disclosing this, unless you mentioned Anglicare in a piece, or were writing on religious charity or the like. But Don’s disclosure does raise the question of independence on this page…Don, I can’t check out every contributor and investigate hidden agendas. Basically this page is a trust exercise. I run most of what’s sent in, with my judgement being pretty simple – is it interesting, is it repeating previous contributions, is it accessible? So it doesn’t matter who’s name is on it, in that sense, which is – apart from trying to free people from the constraints their work places put on their freedom of speech – why nom de plumes are cool with me. But I do ask that if it would be reasonable to perceive a bias, or conflict of interest, in what you write, that you disclose this. Like the marginal seats reports – if you’re a party member, just say so. Also, if you’ve got expertise in an area you’re writing on, I’m sure readers would appreciate that information too.” (Disclosure and you). Since then, many readers have disclosed their affiliations.

Plagiarism and corrections

There’s been one instance of plagiarism that I know of, notified by a reader. I published his email and gave readers the low down on the issue.

Many readers have pointed out inaccuracies in my work, and others, and I correct them as soon as possible. Since the explosion of weblogging in early 2002, there’s many more critical eyes on Webdiary, and many webloggers take delight in pointing out errors. This adds another layer of accountability to the site.

Many newspapers are loathe to correct errors, many journalists fear admitting them, and – in my experience – corrections are drafted so carefully to minimise embarrassment that they’re wrong anyway. With all control in my hands, I have no excuse for failure to correct or insufficiently, and any fear of correcting is far outweighed by the fear of losing credibility with the reader who points out the error.

So is all this openness and honesty in the public interest? Last year NSW Premier Bob Carr accused me at a press conference of blaming the Bali dead for their for own deaths in a column in Webdiary. I was horrified, fearing my reputation had been destroyed by a powerful man’s lies. Rather than rush into print defending myself, I published the relevant extracts from the press conference, a transcript of Carr’s subsequent radio interview on the matter, and the column I thought he could have based his false allegation on. (Bob Carr and me)

The next day, we ran a “Your Say” forum on the front page of the Herald online on Carr’s anti-terrorism laws, the subject of the press conference. Several readers demanded a forum on the Carr-Kingston dust-up, got it, and hopped right into it after reading the material. The verdict, in Your Say and from Webdiary emails, was overwhelmingly in my favour – with some admitting to surprising themselves by defending a journalist!

Dr Kelly’s suicide has pressed red buttons for many readers. Here are two red hot responses from Luke Stegemann and Jack Robertson. I disagree with their calls to be angry, partly because when I get angry I lose effectiveness and tend to self-immolate, and partly because those pro-Howard talk back callers are already so angry we’d end up with violence, which is the worst way to solve anything. I prefer the energy of optimism, of working with other people, and of dispassionate strategising. Then again, this is a new way of looking at things for me, and I don’t know if it works.

Luke Stegemann in Osaka, Japan

Jack Robertson has hit the nail on the head in many important respects in When spin starts to kill it’s time to kill spin. Not only journalists, but all Australians who care about the direction in which our country has veered recently need to stand up to cant and linguistic nothingness, the vapid speech and lies of politicians and spin doctors who twist and manipulate language to make black seem white, the innocent seem guilty, the poor seem selfish and the greedy seem generous.

Jack says it is disheartening to say the least how seldom – if ever – these spokespersons are held accountable for their devious and downright dishonest use of language. It’s time more and more of us said, in what he points out is the true Aussie sprit, “That’s bullshit, mate!”

It’s also time to realise that anger has a purpose and a goal, and is not to be held at arms length as something pathological and threatening.

John Howard and his crew make much of the great Australian traditions of mateship and the fair go. That this government lays claim to represent such abstractions is by itself reason enough to make many Australians’ blood boil with anger.

But what of another Australian characteristic to which Jack refers, our ability to see through hypocrisy and pretence and to call bullshit bullshit in real time as a matter of instinct? This ability is central to our much-commented tall poppy syndrome. Australians have always called a spade a spade in our dry, laconic way. It’s perhaps one of our most endearing traits as a nation.

Or it was. Times have changed and we have been increasingly educated into a denial and suppression of truth-telling. Truth-telling – revealing the Emperor has no clothes – now implies committing the relatively recent cardinal Australian sin of possibly offending others. Truth-telling or reclaiming against lies and injustice often involves conflict and anger. In our education system at all ages, in the workplace, on radio and television, through the plethora of self-help books, management training seminars and workplace workshops, we are taught NOT to argue. We are educated, increasingly, to be passive, and hence it comes as no surprise how little public ire the WMD lies have raised amongst the Australian public.

Look no further than today’s Newspoll results – 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.

We have been pacified by notions of “anger management”, “mediation”, “impulse control” and “conflict resolution”, to name but a few. Children are taught it is rude to shout. Adults try at all costs to avoid argument. We are supposed to smile in the company of those we despise while we resolve workplace conflicts with counsellors.

The right to be angry, enraged and furious has been rationalised away as asocial, pathological behaviour. One must be calm: one must not, under any circumstances, offend or disrupt. Our discontent is suppressed within us by the notion that we must not shout, must not be rude, must not embarrass or disrupt by raw emotion, by the notion that we must always seek peaceful compromises.

We are constantly taught that anger and rage are negative, self-defeating, and ultimately, unproductive (the latter absolute heresy in a neo-capitalist world). Protest organisers go out of their way to assure one and all that any protest will be “peaceful”. Why?

The dignity of the Australian people has been deeply offended and compromised consistently by the Howard government. Voices that rise up publicly in anger are treated as voices of irrational, antisocial madness (witness Downer’s description of the ‘feral left’). Witness the outrage and scorn heaped upon Mark Latham when he had the courage to call a spade a spade re the Howard governments subservience to the Bush administration and the subsequent disgraceful interference by the US ambassador.

As John Lydon of Public Image Ltd. once famously sang, Anger is an energy. Anger is dissent. Anger is loudly proclaiming “NO!” Whether in the schoolyard, the home, the office or the street, anger is a way of saying that we will not accept a given situation, that we see through and wish to denounce incompetence, hypocrisy, lies, cowardice, racism and a host of other hallmarks of contemporary Australian society.

Given anger is at its core a form of dissent that cannot be removed from us, is it any wonder that so much effort has been made to neutralise its potency? Anger and rage have been consistently pathologised over the last few decades, viewed more and more as a sign of illness, of wrong, of irrationality, of violence.

Any guesses who are the ultimate winners when from childhood we are taught not to get angry but to seek peaceful resolution, counselling, mediation, therapy and so on? What type of workforce, what sort of mind-numbed populace does this ideology of passivity create? Just look around Australia to find the answer.

Australia? We are a nation which has voted John Howard into office no less than three times, and may well do so a fourth, in spite of the lies, the scandals and the tearing apart of social and community networks, in spite of the impoverishment of public debate, the withering of diversity, the attacks on public health and education. Something must be very wrong deep inside.

It’s time to stop believing in the bullshit, whether it be political spin or the notion that harmony must be preserved at all costs. It’s time to get angry, and use that anger as an energy. If the left (Howard’s opponents) are to be designated as feral why are we not deploying language in the same way, publicly designating the right (the Howard government and its supporters) as blood-sucking, voracious, criminal, myopic and irredeemably racist?

Your anger may shock some of your fellow Australians, your family or workmates, lulled as they are into a world of tame, self-censoring consensus where anything goes so long as no-one is offended or upset. So be it. Your anger might shock them out of their real-estate, lifestyle and sporting torpor.

The times call for, as Jack puts it, contemptuous rudeness and fruity aggro for the slumber to be broken and for the immorality and cowardice to be exposed. If we advocate and practice rudeness and cause offence, is that not simply replying in kind to what weve been asked to swallow for years now?

In popular discourse, anger, rage and passion are immediately disregarded as emotional responses to any given problem or injustice, as if the presence of emotion somehow precluded insight or veracity, which at the same time are apparently guaranteed by cool, dispassionate analysis. This is the appalling myth of objectivity used constantly by politicians of all persuasions, bosses, managers, teachers, parents, counsellors, therapists. This, my friends, is bullshit.

In our brave new world of schoolyard harmony, efficient workplace relations, and endlessly productive outcomes, in this brave new castrated world, the only place for anger, we are told, is when it is directed against the ill-disciplined, irrational, unproductive, quasi-sinful self. To be furious is to lose self-control, and to lose self-control is to sin. There is no place for anger and rage to be directed against others, or against institutions, forms of injustice, public lying and scandal. When we protest, we must do so where we are told, and like school children, we must promise to be on our best behaviour. The angry student is misguided and rushed before panels of counsellors and guidance officers, the angry worker is a troublemaker and marked down for removal upon the completion of a probably casual contract, the angry citizen is part of a feral left.

And yet, our final irony and misery: the shock-jock when angry is right and good, representing the silent majority. Apparently.

Let’s hope enough Australians reclaim the right to be angry, the right to offend and the right to be rude, to denounce bullshit where it stands, for the state of the country urgently needs that wonderful trait which is deeply embedded in the Australian character to emerge once again.

***

Fisking John

by Jack Robertson

Speaking of WMD Spin, let’s do a little brief deconstruction ourselves. Here’s one cute Prime Ministerial soundbite, hot off the Spin Central presses today:

“We entered the war in Iraq based upon the failure of the Iraqi government of the time to comply with United Nations’ resolutions, we had intelligence assessments of WMD capability and we reacted appropriately.”

It’s been a while since I’ve hung out with the warbloggers, but let’s see if I can remember how to Fisk such waffle. (Margo: Fisking is blogger talk for taking apart someone’s work line by line. I had a go at fisking Howard’s press club question and answer session just before the war in Deconstructing JW Howard.)

1. “We entered the war in Iraq…”

Passive, weak and slippery verb (a real give-away). We didn’t ‘enter the war in Iraq’, Prime Minister. We helped start the bloody thing. We were one of only three countries in the entire United Nations of nations to do so meaningfully. No Australian government has ever done this before – helped start a war. Yours did. Our country won’t ever be quite the same again. No matter what your ‘profound conviction’ might be. Australians don’t start wars, John. Thanks to your government’s strategic stupidity, it’s what Australians now do. You might not think so. Most Australians might not think so. The majority of the world’s countries do. They are more right than we are.

2. “based upon the failure of the Iraqi government of the time to comply with UN resolutions…”

This statement is Classic Spin, which really means lies. The Prime Minister is merely ‘fuzzing-up’ the ‘reason’ for invading Iraq – from the very precise (read: dramatic, scary, public opinion-winning) reasons that were quoted daily, to an over-arching ‘sound-good, feel-good’ cure-all which in reality can never be tested or disproved. The Coalition of the Willing specifically claimed at various times (and among much else), that

a) Saddam Hussein was both able and willing to deploy WMD against his neighbours within 45 minutes;

b) had sought to obtain uranium from Nigeria;

c) had direct and dangerous enabling links with al-Qaeda;

d) possessed unmanned drones capable of delivering WMD beyond its borders;

e) had obtained aluminium tubes intended for use in its nuclear weapons programs, and

on, an on, and on.

These are hard, specific claims which, correspondingly, can be proven wrong or right – and all have been proven wrong. Nothing has so far turned up that ‘proves’ Saddam had ‘failed to comply’ with UN resolutions. In the absence of UN sanction for this invasion this is in any case an absurd accusation, since without the UN’s own imprimatur that very ‘reason’ to invade becomes a bitterly-dishonest forgery. The Coalition invading Saddam’s Iraq for his ‘failing to comply with UN resolutions’ – even as the UN refuses to support the action – is like thumping a kid because he ‘looked at your mate funny’, even though your mate is himself urging you to calm down and not hit him.

‘Failure to comply’ is an arbitrary, malleable, meaningless standard when you alone are the sole arbiter. ‘Failure to comply’? What is ‘compliance’ in measurable terms, John?

How can we ever prove or disprove ‘compliance’ now? This is uber-Spin; Alice-in-Wonderland stuff par excellence: Saddam Hussein will have ‘complied’ with UN resolutions when, and only when, the Coalition says he has. A self-defined, UN-excluding, self-serving linguistic roundabout. Spin. Spin. Spin – any faster, John, and your government will whirl right up its own ‘profound convictions and fundamentals’.

Also Spin here is that nifty ‘Iraqi government of the time’ bit – it’s pure (instinctive) Howard verbiage, designed to add an artificially sombre and measured tone to his reference to Saddam’s regime, and to inject a subtle reminder that ‘the world has changed’, that ‘we’ve moved on’, that of course everything (including the ’emerging’ facts) is now ‘different’, and thus, you surely can’t expect the government’s position not to change subtly, too?

As transparent as a sheet of glass. The Emperor has no linguistic clothes.

3. “we had intelligence assessments of WMD capability…”

Big deal. I’ve got my own intelligence assessments of WMD capability, too. So has every other man and his dog on the planet, now. My brother, who’s just spent several savage months in Iraq, could tell you a thing or two about ‘intelligence assessments of WMD capability’ too, John, but I bet you wouldn’t like what he’d have to say, mate. (And you wouldn’t be able to destroy him as an anti-American Lefty loon, a cowardly appeaser, or un-Australian, either; he was nicked by shrapnel once and got a richochet under the chin for your troubles, John. Didn’t find any WMD, though – maybe he was too busy reading Greg Sheridan’s riveting prose).

So – now that we’re all on a ‘WMD intelligence assessment’ level playing field – namely, none of us really have a bloody clue what was what – do tell us about these ‘intelligence assessments’ of yours, John. What did they all specifically say? Which ones (‘sexed-up’?) did you choose to accept with glee, and which ones (sexed-down? boring? too long and measured and grounded in grown-up, detailed, expert opinion?) did you choose to ignore completely? And why, and how did you make those subjective judgements, and where is the hard vindication that your choices and judgements were better than mine, or Bob Hawke’s, or Ray Funnell’s, or Scott Ritter’s, or Robin Cook’s, or Peter Gration’s, or Andrew Wilkie’s, or the late Dr David Kelly’s?

And if you can’t give us that now or soon, with Coalition soldiers increasingly being picked off in the ugly mess you’ve dumped them in, doesn’t that mean your government and your intelligence advisers are incompetent, weak on security, cavalier with our soldiers’ lives, and – above all else – not not not to be trusted on future ‘intelligence assessments’ of when and where they should be sent, in this ‘war on terror’ we are fighting?

Prime Minister – do you (and George W. Bush and Tony Blair) know what the bloody hell you are doing in this war? Or is it time for a change of government? Australian conservative leaderships, as history reminds us, have a proven knack for getting Australia into the kinds of strategic military messes that require fresh, sceptical and lateral-thinking governments to extract us from.

Are you weak on security, Mr Howard? Is George W. Bush? Because it seems pretty weak to me to commit the grand bulk of your fine fighting forces to occupying a country half-way around the world where there was no real threat to begin with, either to you or your allies.

Where was (and is) the true Middle Eastern threat to America, England and Australia? And, for that matter, to Israel? Iraq? Or was and is it from Hamas, from al-Qaeda, from Jemah Islamiah, from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, North Pakistan, the remote Afghanistan deserts? Because it’s pretty clear that none of these groups or places had, in relative terms, very much to do with Saddam Hussein’s WMD or his version of Iraq – however awful either was. Or at least, not until we waded in there with our guns blazing, anyway. Now, of course, the world has changed again; an increasing number of Iraqis hate our guts just as much as the next self-respecting anti-Western fanatic.

So why, for our own sakes, don’t Bush, Blair and you at least admit the awful truth: that of all the countries in the Middle East to invade and occupy – creating chaos, misery, resentment and increased anti-Westernism – Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was, in hard-nosed military-strategic terms, the very stupidest, most self-defeating choice. While 200, 000+ American soldiers have their hands full with newly anti-American zealots in Iraq, established anti-American zealots worldwide are cheering with glee and busying themselves with their next box-cutter or Bali plans.

So tell us a few details about these ‘Iraq threat intelligence assessments’, Prime Minister. What we want to know is why you sent our soldiers to disarm Iraq’s WMD threat by brute force if, as it looks increasingly likely, there wasn’t much of a WMD threat after all. British and US soldiers are still dying every other day. Meanwhile, we don’t even know where Saddam is, let alone what Osama bin Laden and his friends – our true arch-enemies – are currently up to. I just hope that the Coalition’s ‘intelligence assessments’ of that are a touch more reliable.

4. “…and we reacted appropriately.”

‘Appropriately’ – the most pointless word in the English language. Appropriately to what? Appropriate to John W. Howard is what, because as today’s frightening polls show, the bulk of the population in this country is utterly committed to you, John, and nothing else. A majority of Australians still cling desperately to your contrived ‘politics of conviction’ Presidential persona, Prime Minister, even in the stark face of their own dawning realisation that you lied through your teeth on WMD.

So many voters have invested so much in you personally that they have now apparently embraced an almost visceral refusal to allow the scales to fall from their own eyes. Refugees, WMD, ASIO, ANZAC deployments, Reconciliation, the Republic – swathes of ordinary Australians are screwing their eyes and minds shut against ugly facts, against their own common-sense instinct and decency, simply – disastrously – trusting in the convictions of the self-ordained Battler’s Best Mate. Welcome to Louis the Fourteenth territory, Prime Minister: L’etat, c’est Moi! Where ‘appropriate’ means whatever the hell you think is ‘appropriate’. Fine. Let me ask you about the modern Spin Doctor’s ‘Word of Mass Delusion’ I:

Is it ‘appropriate’ that Australia has ‘moved on’ from Iraq even as many Australians are still over there in-country, hunkered down in their flak jackets outside Baghdad airport or patrolling the streets with their anxious Yank and Brit comrades, wondering when a grenade is going to blow up in their face, or an anonymous bullet enter the back of their head?

Is it ‘appropriate’ that David Kelly – Iraq WMD expert – killed himself in isolated despair while gutless politicians just like you keep running like buggery and persist in avoiding the deeper truths about Iraqi WMD that he was trying to make public?

Is it ‘appropriate’ that American soldiers are being daily killed by an increasingly hostile and resentful Iraqi population that just doesn’t really want them to be there any more, and almost certainly never will again?

Is it ‘appropriate’ that George W. Bush recently excluded many of those same soldiers – low-paid political cannon fodder – from the swathe of tax cuts he bestowed upon his most supportive constituency – the rich, many of whom helped sweep him into office, and thus helped drive that an already-dangerously threatened America into an unnecessary and probably-unwinnable war? I

Is it ‘appropriate’ that your own Liberal Party backbench continues to raise not a squeak of dissent about this staggering strategic fiasco? Is it ‘appropriate’ in a modern liberal democracy like Australia – Peter Costello and Phillip Ruddock and Robert Hill and anyone in Cabinet or the back seats – that so many voting Australians continue to ‘support’ your Prime Minister, even while simultaneously agreeing that he lied to them to gain their support for sending our sons and daughters away to kill other human beings?

This, to me, at last, is lunacy territory, and with Australian soldiers again outbound on an unpredictable international intervention, it’s time for the broader parliamentary Liberal Party to wake up, re-assert some Westminster collective balance, and force our Prime Minister to stop spinning his self-serving and now dangerous webs of deceit. Or have they, too, now got too much vested interest in continuing to place their deaf, dumb and blind trust in our nation’s Spin Doctor-in-Chief?

G’Day. Today your say and recommended reading on the dangers of spin and how to counter it.

In response to Jack Robertson’s When spin starts to kill it’s time to kill spin, Webdiarist John Boase recommends a new British journalism website which aims to draw readers into the struggle:

“Your readers might be interested in new web site anti-spin.com, which is up in rudimentary form though still under construction. It looks promising.”

The aims:

Anti-Spin.com is a not for profit organisation for those who believe that our society is being swamped by propaganda, half truth and untruth. It offers a space to dialogue on these issues. It will investigate techniques of spin and methods of sieving spin and if these methods are deficient, and why.

It aims to provide a focal point for the anti-spin movement in this country, to encourage dialogue between the media-empowered and the rest by understanding the difficulties of both sides, to seek small continuous incremental improvements, often discreetly, and without seeking credit. Occasionally high profile public campaigns may be necessary but this should be as a last resort.

Webdiarist and blogger Jozef Imrich recommends Feeling Misquoted? Weblogs, Transcripts Let the Reader Decide, an Online Journalism Review article about how readers, through the net, can keep journos and public figures honest.

Daniel Moye in Roseville, Sydney, describing himself as “a conservative dizzy from spin”, was concerned at the revelation that someone in Howard’s office had spread rumours about Andrew Wilkie’s personal life after his resignation. Daniel wrote:

Andrew Wilkie’s experience is an important comment on the functioning of Western Democracies. Spin Doctors and firewalls around Ministerial responsibility are a corrosive disease on the democratic fabric. It is not only in the most prominent political battlegrounds of the coalition of the willing but throughout democracies at all levels of government that these tactics of political opportunism and survival are undermining the foundations of our democracies.

For many conservative Australians the disturbing aspect of Spin Doctors and firewalls is that many good policies are being undermined by the unnecessary spin used to implement and defend them. Whether policies stand or fall appears to be more reliant on the success or not of the spin than the merits of the policy. Firewalls play a similar role as they abrogate the responsibility of the Minister for the decisions the government makes.

The sovereign power of the people conferred upon politicians require that they be held responsible and accountable for their actions. Jack Robertson described several solutions to enhance the transparency surrounding the Ministers of our government and all have varying degrees of merit. All should be included in an attack on this unelected coterie of advisers, but more importantly Ministers should be held directly accountable for the actions of their advisers.

I do not claim to be all- knowing on this subject, and would be interested to know the answers to the following questions:

Isn’t the higher echelon of the public service supposed to offer advice on the positive and negative implication of policies? If so, then surely the coterie of advisers are only used in a party political sense.

Have Australian politicians always used publicly funded advisers who are not members of the public bureaucracy?

Has there been a significant change in the powers of parliamentary committees to investigate Ministerial conduct? Have they been officially or unofficially detoothed?

I ask these questions because if the parliament is not a proxy for the people then we are not living in a democracy. The ballot box is NOT the ONLY vehicle for the public holding politicians accountable – in fact one of the parliament’s major functions is to represent the public interest between election periods. Politicians have failed to see the trees for the forest – their political opponents represent the collective will of a large proportion of any given electorate and Parliamentary committees have a right to hold Ministers accountable on an ongoing basis.

Whether or not you believe that the War on Iraq was justified, transparency and accountability in our democracy appears to be at a low ebb. John Howard, Bob Carr and all democratic leaders should be held accountable for their actions and the actions of their spin doctors.

Dan, you’re such a romantic! For the truth about our utterly compromised public service and our politicians’ completely unaccountable political advisers, see former public servant John Nethercote’s analysis of the children overboard inquiry at What servants are for. John wrote:

“For the public service, the affair demonstrates its fragility in the face of both ministers and, more perniciously, ministerial staffers. In the absence of adequate means to bring ex-ministers and ministerial staff to account, it demonstrates the vulnerability of the modern public service.”

Colin McKerlie has some more ideas on how us journos can do a better job. When I get a chance I’ll write a piece about the constraints we’re under, real and perceived. I think both Jack’s and Colin’s ideas are naive, but that’s why they’re good – they force us journos, if we’re willing, to describe the realities to readers, and even to push the boundaries we’ve come to accept we can’t cross.

Colin McKerlie

Jack Robertson’s ideas are fine, but they are based on an absolutely fatuous premise, that the media is on our side. What unmitigated crap. Murdoch journalists would not work for Murdoch if they had a shred of commitment to the public interest. If this was not proven beyond doubt by the Murdoch press coverage of the illegal invasion of Iraq, then nothing ever could be.

The idea of targeting spin doctors is fine, but they are not the problem. As Jack makes clear, all the spin doctoring in the world will have no effect on the quality of journalism if the journalists do their job. The fact that journalists publish material which comes from a single source, even the government, is typical of their shoddy standards.

When Paul Kelly reported the children overboard allegations, I wrote to him and asked him if he had an independent source on board the navy ship that picked up those refugees, because unless he did, then he could have no justifiable basis for publishing the story. I got no reply of course, but the point must be made that the government is no longer a reliable single source.

Journalists can overcome all the evils of spin doctoring just by doing their job. For broadcast journalists, this involves asking questions and getting answers, both talents which Australian broadcast journalists universally failed to demonstrate in the months before Australia went into an illegal invasion of Iraq, when our political leaders refused to tell us their plans.

Here are a few ideas for how broadcast journalists, especially those journalists who have a duty to be on our side – those on the public payroll at the ABC and SBS – can not only improve their performance, but also demonstrate to their ultimate employers that they are doing their job and are prepared to display what Robertson calls ‘fruity aggro’.

1. Show the public you can get answers to the questions you have prepared

Most current affairs programs now have websites on which they publish the transcripts of the interviews conducted with politicians. They should also publish the list of prepared questions the interviewer has taken into these interviews, so the public can see for themselves if the interviewer had the skill and determination to get answers or was fobbed off.

2. Abandon time limits for important political interviews

Politicians are trained at great expense in the techniques needed to avoid answering questions in real time interviews. One of the fundamental tactics is to know how long the interview is going to run and then talk over the interviewer long enough to avoid being put on the spot with a difficult question. If an interview is important, let it run until its done.

3. Tell the audience who you intend to interview and ask for questions

Journalists display breathtaking arrogance in their refusal to allow their audience any chance to participate in the process of questioning our elected representatives. Every night we see journalists failing to ask the important questions or failing to get them answered. Current affairs programs should tell us in advance who they are going to interview and call for ideas.

4. Interviewers and executive producers have to display some guts

What was clear during all the interviews of John Howard conducted by the ABC before the invasion of Iraq was that every interviewer was just too scared to even attempt to use any of the tactics for the elimination of bullshit suggested by Jack Robertson. We need journalists and producers who display the courage of their convictions and a commitment to truth.

5. Compel politicians to face the questions of ordinary people

Tony Blair’s appearance on the BBC’s Newsnight program was the only time anyone displayed the intelligence and courage necessary to get answers out of him during the lead up to Iraq. The reason was that the audience were ordinary people who wanted the truth and weren'[t scared of him. If the journalists can’t get the truth give ordinary people a turn.

You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, and you cant improve the quality of the public broadcasters journalists without pointing out their deficiencies. If you are not prepared to publish criticism of the people who let John Howard lie to the Australian people for six months, then please say so openly in your column. People need truth more than hope, Margo.

***

Web diarist Michael Strutt emailed a piece on Richard Butler’s history, in reply to his tribute to Dr Kelly which I published in Taking a stand. I don’t know the detail of Butler’s record as head of UNSCOM, but Richard gave a great little speech on the topic ‘Freedom from information’ at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas. My notes are at home, but his advice on how to read the news and what questions to ask while reading it was brilliant. Former insiders who let us in on insiders games are a great asset to activists. Richard is doing a wonderful job speaking out on where this country is heading.

Richard Butler holds his title of ‘King of political spin’

by Michael Strutt

I am unsure as to whether I should see Richard Butler’s recent eulogy of David Kelly as another attempt by a pathological ‘diplomat’ to cynically spin current affairs for his own benefit or an example of unprecedented ironic self deprecation.

The sequence of events culminating in Dr Kelly’s suicide was already the most disgusting example of self serving government and media spin doctoring I have seen for some time. But to Butler it seemed to be little more than another opportunity to engage in historical revisionism of his leadership of UNSCOM.

During 1998 the efforts of UNSCOM were put under great pressure in Iraq, leading at the end of that year to Saddam Hussein shutting down our operation and throwing us out of the country.

No Richard, Saddam did not ‘throw you out of the country’. You withdrew the UNSCOM inspectors yourself upon receiving information that the US airforce was about to commence its December 1998 ‘Desert Fox’ bombings of Baghdad.

It was in this tense period that UNSCOM, and especially advisers like David Kelly who had been supplied by key Western states, came to be accused by Iraq and its supporters on the Security Council of serving the interests of their sending government rather than the UN.

This attempt to portray a recently deceased scientist as the main objection Iraqi authorities had to UNSCOM is so cynical it’s stomach turning.

UNSCOM came under fire for many reasons, but the most virulent and justified criticism was over its lack of independence and integrity due to Butler’s preparedness to make it subservient to US and Israeli intelligence agencies. It was Butler himself, not Kelly, who was criticised for using US/Israeli intelligence assets to gather information on Iraqi WMDs, in a manner that ensured that UNSCOM became an arm of those agencies. It was Butler himself who briefed the US Senate on what he had found in Iraq. And it was information supplied by Butler that was used by those setting the targets for the ‘Desert Fox’ air assault.

Perhaps the saddest irony is that Margo, apparently unwittingly, allowed a piece purporting to condemn the moral morass that spindoctors have made of the media to be used by one of the worst perpetrators to push his own self-serving agenda.

Its the short memory of the media and the preparedness of journos to overlook the lies of those they perceive as ideological allies that have allowed the likes of Butler to reduce the UK, US and Australian press to the corrupt appendage of authority they have become.

***

Webdiarist Marilyn Shepherd recommends ‘Standing firm’ in The Guardian on the journalistic implications of Dr Kelly’s suicide, which I publish below. I reckon the relentless Blair pressure is about ensuring the BBC becomes more defensive and less courageous in its future reporting. Richard Alston has had enormous success with this tactic, with the ABC now a mere blancmange when it comes to news and current affairs reporting. A couple of pockets of courageous, honest journalism remain, particularly Four Corners and Lateline.

To end this entry, I’ve republished today’s Australian Financial Review news story on how the Democrats look like splitting over the cross media legislation when it returns to the Senate in early October. Imagine how the BBC would cope without any independent media seeking to expose the truth behind Blair’s spin machine? That’s what the poor old ABC will face if Howard’s anti-democratic media ‘reforms’ get through. And that’s exactly what he wants (see Governing for the big two: Can people power stop them?).

Clivia Frieden in Dee Why, Sydney, wrote today:

In recent days, I have been getting more and more angry about more and more issues: education, health care, war, Tampa etc, etc. But at least I have been able to get angry about these issues because I have been able to read about them.

If the proposed changes to media ownership laws go ahead, none of us may be informed enough to generate any anger about such issues. It seems, though, that we here in Australia are not the only worried ones – at least some people in the US are worried, too, if ‘Murdoch’s Extended Reach’ in The Nation is anything to go by. An extract:

“Murdoch is on the cusp of fulfilling a longstanding ambition that will finally give him a global network of powerful orbiting, interactive, direct broadcast satellites. Imagine a torrential downpour of dozens of Fox News Channels targeting major US cities; a super-broadband site continuously promoting the viewpoints of the Weekly Standard; and the ability to focus similar political messages simultaneously in Asia, Europe and North and South America.”

There are a few good American websites on the Bush attempt to deliver more power to Murdoch. See mediareform, democraticmedia and saveourmedia. An Australian website on Howard’s continuing attempt to deliver more power to Murdoch by abolishing cross media restrictions is under construction.

***

Standing firm

The Guardian, Monday July 21, 2003

The David Kelly tragedy has thrust the BBC into the limelight as has seldom happened before. Emily Bell examines the corporations’s role in the story and how it has conducted itself in the face of enormous pressure.

Yesterday morning the BBC finished what it had started. Following a final conference call between the director-general Greg Dyke, his director of news Richard Sambrook and head of corporate affairs Sally Osman, the corporation put out a statement confirming that microbiologist David Kelly was the source for defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan’s by now infamous story broken on the Today Programme on May 29.

The BBC does not relish its role at the heart of this story. It does not want to be the organisation which brings down a government, it has had its journalistic practices endlessly scrutinised and criticised, often by a national press whose own hygiene standards are far lower than those of the corporation.

It is an open secret that long before Gilligan dropped his timebomb of a government dossier made more sexy (like many of the confusing details of this story the words “sexed up” never appeared in his original disclosure), the BBC had been under relentless pressure from Downing Street’s communications directorate over its coverage of the Iraq conflict. Privately, Sambrook and his deputy Mark Damazer had seen a daily stream of pressure and complaint about the BBC’s reporting, orchestrated by Alastair Campbell, who later described the corporation as having an “anti-war agenda”.

Any correspondent who files reports for the BBC which are off-message knows what to expect; either an abusive tirade from Campbell in person or a multipaged letter complaining to their boss of their lack of journalistic rigour, or sometimes both. Editors, journalists, Sambrook and Damazer, know that it is part of the price for attempting to conduct independent journalism. When a recent academic study showed that the BBC had in fact given more airtime to government sources in the Iraqi conflict than any other news outlet it showed up the untenable nature of Campbell’s central complaint.

It will be impossible for the BBC not to ask itself questions about its own role in the death of Dr Kelly. Should it have acted differently in relation to Gilligan’s original story? Should it have given Dr Kelly more guidance or support in terms of his role in the story once he had been outed as the “mole”? Should the BBC be running uncorroborated single-source stories at all?

Even as Sambrook was negotiating the terms of yesterday’s statement with Dr Kelly’s family, elsewhere the destructively macho spin stand-off continued unabated.

One cabinet minister was allegedly suggesting to Sunday papers that Dr Kelly’s name had reached the public domain through a leak from the BBC’s chairman, Gavyn Davies. Something which the press already knew to be untrue, as Dr Kelly’s name slipped all too easily out of the Ministry of Defence – the very government department which employed him. It was confirmed by Campbell’s office which said they were “99% certain” Dr Kelly was the BBC’s “mole”.

Former minister and communications expert Peter Mandelson was busily penning an extraordinary piece for the Observer claiming that it was the BBC’s obsession with Alastair Campbell which had caused the tragedy. More spin which prompted an unnamed minister to also remark to the Observer: “Will we never learn?”.

The journalistic questions raised by Dr Kelly’s death are as profound as the political questions. Internally the BBC did not, as the government suggested, ever waver from backing its journalist or its story. BBC news executives might have been unhappy with Gilligan in respect of an article written for the Mail on Sunday, where he arguably dropped too many details about the source of his story. This resulted in an overdue ban on BBC correspondents penning columns for the national press.

Outside this particular point, the BBC’s procedures could have been improved with hindsight, but there are few journalistic organisations which could honestly say they would have been better or even different in the same circumstances. It was impossible for the BBC to disclose its source – the free flow of information rests on the principle that sources can talk to the press with a guarantee of anonymity. The promised public inquiry may reveal more about whether Dr Kelly did unilaterally come forward or whether there was pressure from the MoD which the BBC could have alleviated. Was saying anything at all about sources in effect saying too much? This is a very difficult point for a public-service broadcaster which is expected to show greater accountability than the commercial press.

Some might raise the question whether the nature of the original Gilligan story – which was disclosed in a “two-way” discussion on Today rather than in an edited package – was tightly edited enough. Although the two-way gives the impression of casual discourse, on stories such as this it is highly unlikely that the disclosure would not have been choreographed, possibly even scripted and that the story would not have been known to the editor. The two-way is often used as a device – ironically – to add impact to a story.

The government would like to see the BBC adhere to its own suggested guidelines of sourcing stories in triplicate, although this is an “ideal” rather than a rigid rule. But to shackle the BBC in the pursuit of original journalism would be entirely wrong – so long as the editorial processes bear scrutiny.

The BBC has not as a result of its bruising encounter changed any journalistic practices or issued new guidelines to producers or editors. As it said in its statement yesterday it will co-operate fully with the public inquiry – though it will not be drawn yet into whether it should abide by the terms of the public inquiry.

As for Gilligan’s story, the detail of his discussion with Dr Kelly was known only to the two of them. Whether or not it included any discussion of Campbell may never be fully established, and nor will the issue of whether Campbell deserves the apology he so doggedly and tragically pursued.

The BBC has stood behind its story and behind its journalist in a way which is entirely consistent with the operation of a free and independent media. Whether it stood by Dr Kelly in a way that would have alleviated his personal torture we may find through the public inquiry. Andrew Gilligan, who has suffered every journalist’s worst nightmare, will be suffering further agonies, as will the civil servants at the MoD and Downing Street. Alastair Campbell, it is widely assumed, will stay only until the outcome of the public inquiry, if that.

The BBC’s public stoicism is however bound to mask a subtle, even unconscious shift in its own journalistic psyche – and how that will impact on its future coverage may take years to work through. Meanwhile Dr Kelly and his family are the only part of the story for whom the spin, the bullying and the subterfuge can never be undone.

***

Democrats open media law talks

by Toni O’Loughlin

The Australian Financial Review, 22/07/2003

Tensions within the Australian Democrats over media ownership laws and the full privatisation of Telstra have intensified, raising speculation that the federal government may succeed in passing two of its most contentious bills through the Senate.

Senior Democrat sources claim the party’s media policy, along with several other policies including health, is under review.

The news comes as Democrats Senator Andrew Murray has warned his colleagues that he is considering voting for the full privatisation of Telstra, which is being opposed by Labor and the minor parties.

It is believed the Democrats’ media spokesman, Senator John Cherry, has been informally canvassing party members in an attempt to relax the party’s tough stance against the government’s media legislation, which is expected to be re-introduced to the parliament later this year.

“It was hard for the Democrats to negotiate with the government last time because the party was bound by the platform,” a senior party source said.

Senator Cherry has been canvassing “ordinary members who have an interest in [media policy] as well as state and national policy co-ordinators” to try and shift policy, the source said.

Democrats leader Senator Andrew Bartlett, who played down the review, said “it would be silly not to be talking to people”.

“I would be very surprised if he’s not, particularly as it seems to be a live issue,” he said.

However, Senator Cherry denied he had been reviewing the party’s policy.

“I’ve had no meetings with anybody on media policy,” Senator Cherry said.

Both senators said the government would have to give substantial ground if it wanted to negotiate with the Democrats, who will continue to insist that the big media players, notably Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch, should be stopped from growing any bigger.

Meanwhile, a report that Senator Murray was considering breaking with the party’s policy and backing the full privatisation of Telstra after the next election has reignited speculation that he might defect and join his former Democrat colleague Meg Lees in her new Progressive Alliance Party.

G’Day. Lachlan Brown is a fourth year media and communications student at Sydney University. He also plays the piano and french horn, and teaching music helps pay his way through uni. He’s written a piece for Webdiary on the Menzies vision for higher education and how John Howard has turned his back on that vision. In essence, the difference between the two men’s perspectives is that Menzies believed higher education was a public good – a public asset – while Howard and ‘social capital’ convert Peter Costello believe it is a private privilege.

In February, Webdiary columnist John Wojdylo wrote a comprehensive piece on the disastrous state of our universities called The intellectual holocaust in our universities has just begun. It’s the abstract analysis of what’s gone wrong. He’s just sent me the companion piece, an in-depth interview with Brian Bosworth, a professor of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Western Australia. This interview draws out the coalface reality of the top-down transformation of our universities. It’s at They wouldn’t hurt a hair of us, they’d only let us die.

Sorry I haven’t got to all your emails this week. If you’ve sent a gem, please resend.

Destroying Menzies’ noble revolution

by Lachlan Brown

“I think of the Menzies period as a golden age in terms of people,” said John Howard in 1989, “Australia had a sense of family, social stability and optimism during that period”. Fourteen years later many argue that Howard’s adulation has become emulation. In everything from the enduring length of their reigns to their decisions to commit troops to controversial wars, it seems that the two leaders are linked by much more than just party affiliation.

However, whilst hopeful large ‘l’ Liberals eye a delicious fourth term in government and small ‘l’ liberals ponder a neo-Menzian suppression of dissenting voices, there is one striking aspect of the Menzies government which Howard has failed to reproduce.

Menzies is often remembered as the ‘saviour’ of higher education. After World War II universities found themselves in an alarming state, with swelling numbers of students and decreasing levels of funding from the cash-strapped state governments. As class sizes ballooned and education standards dropped, things looked desperate.

After intense lobbying from university vice-chancellors Menzies set up the Murray committee in 1957 Three months later the committee recommended sweeping changes to higher education.

Most important was the continued injection of funds from the federal government, – as a result, 13.5 million pounds of federal money flowed into the system on top of the 15 million it had already allocated. Money was spent on new buildings, staff salaries and commonwealth scholarships that paid the course fees of twenty percent of the student population.

As a result of these changes, one academic wrote to the prime minister thanking him for starting a “noble revolution” in Australia’s universities.

Fast forward to the present and Howard faces many of the same challenges as his Liberal party role model. Student numbers are swelling. After subsequent budget cuts universities desperately need further funds. The education minister Dr. Brendan Nelson has labelled the Australian higher education system as ‘mediocre’ in an international context.

Menzies’ response was to shift the burden of funding from the states onto the commonwealth. Howard’s response, however, has been to restore some of money his government cut from university budgets supplemented by with increased payments from students and their families. So if universities need more funds they can charge more HECs. If an individual wishes to pay for the entire cost of their education they have a better chance of obtaining a place at university.

However, the difference between the two leaders isn’t just about how they pay for things. Budgets are based on priorities and philosophies. Education budgets reflect philosophies of education. And it is in these philosophies and foundations that Menzies and Howard are diametrically opposed.

At the heart of Menzies’ higher education program was the notion that society would benefit from robust universities, a notion of great significance in the nation building period following the second world war. In his speech to parliament in 1957 he explained his vision in very Menzian terms:

We must, on a broad basis become a more and more educated democracy if we are to raise our spiritual, intellectual and material living standards.

There is a collective sense of education at the heart of Menzies’ vision, education which benefits the entire country and not just isolated individuals. In another part of his speech he advised students to use their university education to advance Australian society:

[Students] will, I am sure, not forget that, under all the circumstances I have described, the community is accepting heavy burdens in order that, through the training of university graduates the community may be served.

In the current climate of economic rationalism Menzies’ ideas seem oddly out of place. Indeed in education, where Sir Robert envisaged ‘community sacrifices for community benefit’, the Howard government speaks more along the lines of ‘individual sacrifices for individual benefit’.

So when Brendan Nelson is questioned about HECs increases, loans and full fee paying positions his responses invariably highlight the benefit of university degrees for individuals. When asked about $100,000 degrees for example, he is quick to inform us that the expected lifetime earnings of a medical or dental graduate run into the millions. A university degree, he argues, is a good commodity to have. It’s an investment during your youth which brings large financial benefits further down the track.

Who then, do we believe? In 1957 Menzies declared that universities provided advantages for all of society:

Our universities are to be regarded not as the home of privilege for a few, but as something essential to the lives of millions of people who never enter their doors.

In 2003, Nelson emphatically told Laurie Oakes the opposite:

But the education that you receive at university is a privilege. It is provided by hardworking taxes of ordinary Australians, many of whom have not ever seen the inside of a university.

Whichever way we lean, it is interesting to note the type of society that is created by these two visions of higher education. Menzies wished for a unified nation or a community, where those with skills were obliged to serve their compatriots. Howard, on the other hand, seems to be breeding a type of selfishness where a university education is seen in terms of its earning power, rather than its societal contribution.

Under Howard’s system, lawyers and doctors will leave university with enormous financial debts. In order to repay them, they will need to take on high paying jobs. In these circumstances it is difficult to envisage anyone using their law or medical degree for benevolent reasons. So a doctor’s wish to volunteer in a third world country must be weighed against the massive debt that she owes the government.

In his 1957 speech, Menzies described the ‘bad old days’ of his university study:

In my own undergraduate days students were either scholarship holders at a time when scholarships were few and difficult to win, or students that were maintained by relatively poor parents prepared to make great sacrifices for their children, or (in probably a minority of cases) students whose parents could readily afford to sustain them through their courses of training.

It is easy to argue that we are returning to such days. Commonwealth funding for scholarships is miserly. Families (poor and middle class) still make great sacrifices for their children’s education. Meanwhile the rich are able to buy their way into elite schools and sandstone universities. It is ironic then, that the man marked as the ‘new Menzies’ is dragging us back to the very situation that Sir Robert dreaded. An ‘ignoble revolution’ is indeed underway.

***

Margo: Many bright, passionate Australians from all walks of life have received scholarships to study at Cambridge and Oxford universities through the Menzies Foundation. It is “a non-profit, non-political organisation created in 1979 to promote excellence in health research, scholarship and post graduate study by Australians.” Its objective is “to promote, through research and innovation, the health and fitness of the Australian community.”

John Wojdylo is one of an increasingly lonely band of academic idealists struggling to restore the central role of our higher education system in our society. He outlined the gradual destruction of this priceless national asset and the likely next phase in the destruction agenda in The intellectual holocaust in our universities has just begun. Some of his forecasts were realised when the government released its new higher education policy in this year’s budget.

John wrote to me today:

Hi Margo,

Albert Brian Bosworth is Professor of Classics and Ancient History, University of Western Australia. He’s widely regarded as a world-expert on Alexander the Great. In 2000, his book, “From Arrian to Alexander”, was included in Oxford University Presss Oxford Scholarly Classics. His “Conquest and Empire: the Reign of Alexander the Great” is also highly regarded.

After transcribing this interview, I sent the text back to Professor Bosworth with some extra questions, who then sent the text on to Dr. Judith Maitland, Head of the Disciplinary Group, to check the accuracy of the figures. She also added a few comments of her own. This cooperative effort has resulted in a number of longish footnotes and one or two interjections. I think these enhance our conversation immensely.

The point of the interview is to describe the situation of universities in Australia at a concrete level the view from the coalface. This time I’ve focussed on the humanities. Professor Bosworth cannot be certain that his “Disciplinary Group of Classics and Ancient History” will exist in 10 years’ time. The situation is precarious.

The text has been meticulously checked for accuracy yes it’s “us” not “ours” in the title!! Could you please be careful with the quotation marks, bold face and italics? Thanks!

I pressed my luck and asked John if he’d guest edit reader responses to his piece and that of Lachlan Brown on the Menzies vision for higher education (see Destroying Menzies’ noble revolution. He agreed:

I’ve long thought of how I would do Webdiary if I had to be in your position. I guess doing this guest editor thing would give me the chance to put my ideas into practice. There are two essential roles:

* neutral agitator

* partisan agitator.

These roles would have to be clearly demarcated. Also, I wouldn’t shy away from criticism, which is necessary in order to tease out what sense (if any) the writer is trying to make. I’d encourage writers to write back and develop their ideas better.

The problem, as I see it, is that it has the potential to take up a lot of time, which I’d have to create from the couple of other things I’m doing at the moment. As a one-off or two-off, though, it should be OK.

Please email your comments to me at mkingston@smh.com.au, and I’ll forward them to John.

***

John Wojdylo interviews Albert Brian Bosworth, Professor of Classics and Ancient History and a world expert on Alexander the Great, on life at the coalface of our dying universities.

JW: The first topic I’d like to get on to is rather mundane, I guess, although it’s vital to your survival. It’s operational grants and infrastructure funding. How does it work? Now, as far as I can work out, it’s a performance based grant. The Federal Government has a law, the HEFA – Higher Education Funding Act – that contains a formula which looks at a department’s scholarly output as well as the number of students it has. And based on that, the Federal Government allocates a certain amount of funding – the operational grants and infrastructure funding – to the university. Then the university decides how this is spread around the departments. Is that correct?

ABB: That is largely correct. There are, of course, two quanta: the operational one, which is based on the number of students; and secondly, the research quantum, which comes really from two sources, one is from postgraduates, in particular postgraduate completions, which, thanks to the government, is going to become more and more important. And secondly, the outcome – the publications. The publications are assessed on a pro rata basis, and the money based on those publications is transferred to the faculty, which then distributes it to the schools, and the schools use it according to the operating groups within the school. So in my own case, the research money supposedly is used to keep the staffing level up to meet what is regarded as the disciplinary group’s debt. [The disciplinary group here consists of Latin, Latin Humanism, Ancient Greek, Ancient History and Classical Archaeology.]

I would like to say that I was involved in the early stages of working out the ratio of research publications – in particular, the categories of refereed articles. We have – which is a sort of lifeline for us – a very generous allocation for books. A monograph counts 15 points, as opposed to DEST’s [the (federal) Department of Education, Science and Training] regular 5 points, which is ridiculous.

JW: So this is 15 points when the school assesses the monograph…

ABB: . . . when the university assesses it. That figure hasn’t been touched [for a number of years]. I was very glad to get that in because, for instance, if you’ve got a book of 200 pages – which is the sort of average monograph in my area – at least how many individual small research papers is that worth? It’s worth a lot. [A typical research paper only worth 1 point.]

At least we have this factored into our resource allocation. I think it’s the one area that I can think of in which the humanities get perhaps advantageous treatment. Elsewhere we’re – I wouldn’t say stuffed – but, things like well, this is one of the absurdities at the moment library funds all over Australia are being starved, as you probably know. We’ve had a moratorium on acquisitions in the Reid Library. We in Classics used up our allocation for the year a month ago.

JW: You used up your allocation for the year in May.

ABB: Yes, that’s right. And because of the lag between orders and statements, we overspent. And it means that we’ve been cutting back on periodicals. And we have what was a superb historical collection in the library – it was very good – but now it’s been cut back year by year, to the degree that it’s very problematic to use it as a basic research library. I have to go elsewhere to the big archives so that I can find what I want.

Admittedly, there are funds you see, a lot of money’s gone from acquisition – brute acquisition of stuff in hard copy – to document delivery. But, you see, to find out what you need, you have to have the research tools there. You can’t use the Web, which is a very,

JW: Porous?

ABB: Very porous, and 90 percent garbage, at least.

JW: 99 percent garbage, I’d say.

ABB: So we’re having the library cut down its acquisitions, while at the same time we’re being encouraged to publish stuff in hard copy in journals, refereed journals and refereed books, which is my line of country.

JW: So you wouldn’t be able to read your own paper in the journal because the journal has stopped coming to the library.

ABB: That’s the case in a lot of areas. In my own case, I flatter myself that I publish in journals that on the whole would never be cut back. And my books are always either OUP [Oxford University Press] or CUP [Cambridge University Press].

But the absurdity is, of course, that so many things published and classified as research will never be purchased by this particular library.

JW: At which level is library funding decided? Is it at federal government level or university level?

ABB: I’m the wrong person to ask about the mechanism of distribution. I think it comes from the operating grant and, well, from the university’s overall budget, as decided by the budget committee, so it’s an internal decision.

[Judith Maitland, Head of the Disciplinary Group, adds: Yes. The funds are devolved all the way down and allocated to us by the school according to the number of full-time staff members. As 5.3 of us (including Cassamarca appointment – see below) are trying to teach 5 branches of Classics and Ancient History, it is obviously impossible to maintain a good collection for all of these.]

It’s said that the UWA library gets better treatment than the vast majority of libraries in Australia, which to some degree is true. But even so, it’s like saying that Auschwitz is better than Dachau, which doesn’t mean that Dachau is in a particularly rosy situation.

JW: The ARC is the other major source of funding for universities. That applies to research. The Australian Research Council is a group of specialists that assesses applications for research funding from academics and scholars at Australian universities. How does the process impact on your department? How does it work? Which sort of positive aspects are there in the ARC system, and which negative aspects are there?

ABB: Positive aspects. Well, I’ve been relatively well treated myself. I haven’t a current ARC grant going, but I’ve got leave coming up. In a sense, what I need ARC money for primarily is research time and thinking time, and writing time, and this I’m going to get when I’m on study leave.

I’ve found that in the past I’ve rated relatively well. It’s largely my reputation that’s got me the grants. Some of them have been quite interesting. I’ve had, really, little complaint about the way the process has gone.

I think two things are bothering me at the moment. One is the assessment of proposals. I think more and more the move is away from not so much peer review, but informed review. Now we’re getting people who are reviewing up to a dozen applications, not in their area of speciality but in, what you might say, their wider purview of experience. And that leads to a certain degree, I think, of sloppiness and haphazardness, even more than before.

Some years ago I was ill-advised enough to put up a proposal for a research centre – a CRC, Collaborative Research Centre – on the Hellenistic Period, the post-Alexander period. This was going to bring in experts in Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian history. It was an international network of people. It was going to be based both here at UWA and Newcastle [University]. It got the university’s support – it was the first project in the humanities to be nominated for a CRC. It got absolutely nowhere. There was a one paragraph assessment which made it clear that the assessors had no idea what I was getting at. They said ‘not enough collaboration with distinguished people within Australia’. But there aren’t any – well, there aren’t all that many – distinguished people in Australia working in this field, and this was the whole point of the proposal to bring them in and stimulate it. That was very frustrating.

One of the things that got me from the start was that people didn’t know the difference between ‘Hellenistic’ – the historical period post-Alexander – and ‘Hellenic’ – meaning Greek in general. So, ‘you’re proposing a Hellenic centre – isn’t this a bit wide [and unfocussed]?’ I got that from people even here at quite a high level.

JW: How does the rest of your department fare with ARC grants, and why?

ABB: John Jory, who has now retired, has done particularly well with the ARC grants, first of all because he was into computing, and in the old days, when relatively few people applied to what was then the equivalent to the ARC, it was less competitive. He did have a big grant over many years to produce the largest ever at that time computer-generated lexicon of the corpus of Roman inscriptions – some 40000 inscriptions – and its complete word index. He was doing that in the 60s and early 70s. He has had a spell on the ARC itself. In more recent years, he teamed up with Dick Green, professor of classical archaeology in Sydney – who’s an old university friend – and they were doing a lot about the iconography of the Roman theatre. They’re both well known, they were getting very good reports. You see, the thing is, a little bit in the way of cross-disciplinary – that you’re bringing together the literary text and the iconography – so really anything that you can say is ‘cross-disciplinary’ gives you an advantage.

JW: What’s the condition placed on applications, that 10 percent of the grant has to go towards promoting Australian society and culture?

ABB: Well, it’s difficult. This has always been a problem. Up until a year or two ago, this wasn’t quantified. And it has become so that 10 percent of the assessment – what is it 40 percent on the project, 50 percent on track record, and 10 percent on relevance to Australian conditions. That was one of the criticisms made of my Hellenistic proposal – that the Australian relevance was not particularly well-founded.

JW: So how do you argue ‘Australian relevance’ when applying for an ARC grant?

ABB: It’s very difficult. All you can say is, well suppose you’re dealing with Alexander the Great, my own principle area of study, then you can say, right, Alexander is an international icon, he’s politically important for both the Greek and Macedonian Slavic communities In fact, a conference on ancient Macedonia in Melbourne a few years ago was the nearest we’ve had in Australia – or one of the nearest – to a racial riot.

So there’s that relevance. And there’s also the, I suppose you could say, the general concept of militarism and its importance. What is the justification of empire? Why are generals – why are successful killers – so idolized in the popular view?

But that isn’t simply Australian, it’s international. As soon as you push this in an Australian direction, you’re straight away into an international context. I worry very much that the focus of this, the focus of the ‘Australian relevance’, is making Australian research far less central, far less internationally ‘impactive’, if that’s a word.

And that’s the great thing about Classics: if you publish in the right places, you are read internationally. My ‘Conquest and Empire’ is translated into Spanish, Greek – I lose count – Hungarian; it’s coming out in Italian, and coming out, of all things, in Korean. So you do hit an international network. The journals are truly international.

JW: Do you think that insisting on ‘Australian relevance’ increases parochial isolationism?

ABB: I don’t think it has yet, but I think it could have that effect. People of course are going to frame their projects [so as to make ‘Australian relevance’ central]. As I said, that’s not that easy to do in the Classics and Ancient History. But people will jump in the direction of the funding. So people will form research groups on, say, nutrients in Australian history Nothing wrong with it. It obviously can be excellent research. But the challenge, then, to the people working in that field will be to present the outcome, the publication, in a form and a medium that is going to have international impact. The danger is that you’re going to get the research coming in from the [global] periphery – the sort of ground-breaking shifting of the frontiers – that’s come down, used by Australian universities, and published locally, but doesn’t go back out again. I think that’s a real problem. [See Footnote 1.]

JW: How is your department?

ABB: We aren’t a department, really. We have to call ourselves a ‘disciplinary group’.

JW: OK. I know of departments, a number of whose members receive hundreds of thousands of dollars – in some cases millions over several years – in ARC research funding, while the department itself is having great difficulties meeting its operational budget allocation, and can’t afford things like tutorials, new lab equipment, the basic infrastructure you need to teach. So you have very well funded individuals in the department – funded for research – but the actual teaching side of the funding is being neglected.

ABB: Well, we get much the same problems Yes, individually we’ve had our grants. Not on the same scale, of course, because the average grant in the humanities is about $38,000 a year. It’s going up a little bit. But then on the other hand, there aren’t usually expensive pieces of equipment or commodities required.

We’ve had the research grants, and these provide teaching relief. It’s been one of the, I think, positive developments in the ARC over the last decade, that teaching relief has become more a standard thing that you ask for. Most people, I think, getting grants in the humanities would have quite a substantial component for teaching relief. Which means you can use graduate students at decent casual rates to get the teaching experience that they need to go on. If there are any jobs to take.

So that works out at one level, but certainly the basic maintenance of the departments through normal means is minimal. I’d have to ask Judith [Maitland] what the maintenance grant was for the department this year. It’s only about $6,000, I think. [This figure is correct.]

There’s always been this mismatch between the pressure on the teaching we’ve got a lot of courses to teach, in essence because we have three, or if you include classical archaeology, four separate majors to service.

JW: What are they?

ABB: Latin, Greek, ancient history, which includes higher courses in literature and translation, things like the study of Athenian drama and so on; and classical archaeology, which my colleague David [Kennedy] does.

In fact, David is an interesting case. He’s an active archaeologist. He works in Jordan, and has managed to get the Jordanian air force to go in for remote sensing. So he goes in Jordanian helicopters over the desert and marks out sites to be investigated on the ground later. He’s the first person in recent years to have got that permission. Of course, he knows King Abdullah.

And he also was the first person to get excited about the flooding of the dam at Birecik and the inundation of the old site at Zeugma. Zeugma is a vast site, and most of it is going under water through the creation of the dam. David drew attention to that, and tried to get support from the ARC. ‘No, it’s much too big a grant, 200-250,000 bucks a year. We have not got that sort of money.’ And he got nowhere.

But then, of course, when it was too late, or nearly too late, David Packard [the American philanthropist, founder of the David and Lucille Packard Foundation] came in with millions and paid David about $50,000 to go around and to make a sort of survey on site. It could have been done years before at a fraction of the cost. But he couldn’t put the money together.

If he were in a large scale archaeology department, it’d be possible for him to take time off regularly each year. Here, he’s involved in teaching and has to use accumulated leave, use study leave, just to get away. It’s a constant struggle.

JW: How big is your department now, and how big was it 10 years ago?

ABB: 15 years ago it was 10. Now it’s 4.3. [Judith Maitland, Head of the Disciplinary Group, adds: Or 5.3 if one includes the Cassamarca appointment. That is a separate discipline attached to us thanks to the gift of a sponsor. See Footnote 2.] And the 0.3 appointment is John Melville-Jones, who’s now pushing 70 and refuses to retire … Otherwise it’d be 4.

JW: Why has it decreased?

ABB: Largely, if you like, student numbers. We’ve not had, in particular, the first year intake that we’d like?

JW: What are your first year student numbers?

ABB: About something over 100 all in.

JW: How many did you have 15 years ago?

ABB: A few more, but not significantly more. We’ve had slight declines, slight increases from year to year, but there has been a declining tendency

JW: Out of that 100, how many make it to third year, and then postgrad?

ABB: More than we used to have. In fact, our retention rates aren’t too bad, I suppose. We’d have about 60 odd in third year.

JW: That’s very high.

ABB: Yes, the retention is something that has changed dramatically since I came. When I arrived, over 30 years ago, we’d have something like over 200 first year students, and that’d go down to a handful in third year. Say, something like 20.

JW: So these days you have a retention rate of about 60 percent.

ABB: Probably not as great as 60, but certainly 50.

JW: That’s extraordinary.

ABB: Yes. We’re getting more honours [students]. We’ve got at the moment something like 10 honours, and quite a large – for our size – and almost unsustainable postgraduate load. I’ve got 5 doctoral students. . .

JW: The ‘disciplinary group’ of classics, ancient history and classical archaeology [your ‘department’] has 4.3 staff supervising 10 honours students and 12 postgrads, and is teaching undergraduate and postgraduate courses for over 200 students?

ABB: Yes.

JW: The student numbers and the retention rate seem to be very good, yet you just told me that the problem is low student numbers.

ABB: Our problem has always been the relative seniority of the staff. I’ve had a personal chair [professorship] for years, David Kennedy is a professorial associate, Neil O’Sullivan and Judith [Maitland] are both senior lecturers, John Melville-Jones is, I think, a professorial fellow, so we are relatively expensive. Our numbers are small, but for us really to be making things out of the current situation we need to have a battery of level B’s or some level A’s, then the staffing bill goes down, then there’s scope for more.

It’s unfortunate: the creation of the schools was supposed to level all this out but, of course, all that happens is that you have an allocation for your group within the school, and it’s the classic thing which we’re told would never happen but we’ve just got another level of bureaucracy. [See Footnote 3.]

JW: How does the future look for the department? Is it rosy or grim?

ABB: That depends on your perspective

JW: Will it exist in 10 years’ time?

ABB: I don’t know. It will exist if some initiative is taken to fill vacancies when they arise. The big danger is that it will be said, ‘Well, Australian history (or whichever department), really needs an appointment, and they’re struggling with all these students with just one person (or whatever): we can’t afford to fill this vacancy.’ So 4.3 becomes 3.3, and suddenly you disappear. I think we’re at the absolute minimum, I think, really, on any rational basis, below the absolute minimum for covering the courses that we do. I think if we lose any more, we’re gone. It’s the old quoting the poem ‘They wouldn’t hurt a hair of us, they’d only let us die.’

Which could well happen, but I hope it doesn’t. We’ve always had at least expressions of support from up top – the vice-chancellor and deputy vice-chancellor. Latin and Greek have been, to some degree, preserved as subjects of low enrolment…

JW: 100 first-years doesn’t sound low to me.

ABB: No, that’s for the whole of the department. Most of them are in ancient history In our introduction to classical languages, we start off with about 30 to 40 Of these, the number that go on to third year varies from year to year. Some years there are zero, some years up to 6 to 8. At the moment we’re doing not too badly in honours, we’ve got 3 or 4. And a couple doing postgraduate work.

JW: What’s the global picture in classics and ancient history? Is there a Mecca where scholars can go and be paid well and have job security?

ABB: There are various places. The Mecca used to be Oxford [University], because in the late 60s and 70s it was very powerful. Most of the jobs worldwide in classics, and ancient history generally, tended to go to people who’d been at Oxford, and had taken second degrees at Oxford. Now the cutbacks have hit even Oxford. Their libraries are still excellent, though. They have more libraries, with more exhaustive holdings of books, than anywhere in England, I think. Their purchase of books is something like a thousand quid per year per student.

JW: Even at the moment.

ABB: Even at the moment. I think that’s all Oxford libraries, including college libraries. So Oxford is a Mecca [from this perspective]. Harvard could have been, but for a lot of reasons, mainly

JW: Geographical location?

ABB: Not so much geographical location. More like interdepartmental exclusiveness, for instance, and personalities. A friend of mine, an ancient historian, world expert in his fields, was appointed to Harvard with the expectation that he’d take on three graduates a year. But his demands on students were so strenuous that he took one every three years. They weren’t particularly happy with that.

[JW: What was the nature of the demands on him?

ABB: Not on him, on his students! He rejected applicants whom he considered unqualified for advanced research, and the demands were linguistic: Latin and ancient Greek as well as reading competence in French, German and Italian. For most Europeans this wouldn’t be thought outrageous, but in an Anglophone culture like the US or Australia, it is unimaginable for many students.Incidentally I think even the US makes more linguistic demands on its students than Australia – but they have six years of graduate study to develop competence.]

JW: Teaching demands?

ABB: Teaching demands seem to be fairly standard in America. It’s two courses per semester, and the courses can be anything from core courses to hordes of first-years to graduate seminars. But there’s certainly a lot of pressure at Harvard. There are two places in America which you might say are Meccas. One is Berkeley, which has a lot of high-powered people. Stanford’s good. But the funny thing is the University of Cincinnati, which by itself isn’t a particularly prestigious university, but they’ve got a superb classics department, largely through a single benefactress, Louise Taft Semple who endowed them with an absolute fortune. But just for Classics, it can’t go anywhere else in the university.

JW: Do you know offhand how much she bequeathed?

ABB: I have no idea. But it’s countless millions. You see, they’ve got one of the best classical libraries in the world. They’ve got a professor of Greek who is – well, one of the conditions of employment is that he spends at least 6 months a year in Greece…. They had a recent additional endowment from Margot Tytus.

JW: So they’ve scored two benefactors. Or more.

ABB: Oh, yeah, at least. The Tytus Fellowships invite you over there. They pay a travel subsidy, free accommodation, a stipend if you’re there for more than a month. And the only obligation is that you do your work.

JW: . . .and your thinking.

ABB: Yes. And use the library, basically.

JW: Do you know of any departments of Classics or other disciplines in Australia that have endowments from benefactors?

ABB: No. I don’t think… just a minute…. Sydney [University], I think, would be the closest. Particularly in archaeology. They’ve got a museum, the Nicholson Museum, which comes close to being world class. It’s got some very good things in it. But that was largely the donation well, it’s called the Nicholson Museum, I don’t know the details behind that… [See Footnote 4.]

JW: There seems to be this one great difference between the Australian University system and the American one, and that is the role of benefactors in the American system.

ABB: Yes. Large scale benefactors.

JW: Large scale. Huge.

ABB: We’ve had a lot of relatively small scale benefits, which have allowed us to give, well, an abundance of prizes. But we haven’t had the really big bequests. We’ve had the thousands, but we haven’t had – and don’t look likely to have – the millions. [Judith Maitland, Head of Disciplinary Group, adds: Apart from Cassamarca, which was for a specific purpose. We were not asked what was needed.]

JW: Do you think it’s something in Australian culture? Can you put your finger on it?

ABB: I think it is something in Australian culture. The university as a whole has had big donations. Music has been very successful over the years. They’ve had a chair endowed from outside funds. Then of course there’s the [Lawrence] Wilson Art Gallery. These things are very high profile. It’s more difficult to get people attracted to the run of the mill subjects. My colleague, Judith Maitland, has managed to assemble a very large support group of people who have an interest in Classics. So when we have public lectures, people come out in droves, really. We usually have about a hundred at our public lectures. And it means that there are people who feel an attachment to Classics, and I think would scream to a level that would surprise people if there were any attempt to close the subject down. But it’s not really creating endowments, as such. What we’ve got is intended to be a support group, and it’s working pretty well as that. But it’s not generating income.

JW: What made Louise Taft Semple take an interest in the Classics?

ABB: I don’t know. She might have studied Classics as a girl.” [See Footnote 5.]

JW: A lot of people did in those days.

ABB: Yes.

JW: Perhaps that’s the problem. Not enough of Australia’s millionaires have studied the Classics.

ABB: [Laughing] Well, yes, or have much interest in it.

JW: Probably none of them have.

ABB: Well, I’d think so Gough Whitlam, I think, was the most distinguished ex-Classicist. He did Classics before going onto law, I think.

JW: Professor Bosworth, thank you for your time.

ABB: Thank you.

* * *

Footnotes

Footnote 1, JW: [A long comment, and response from ABB.] In other words, it’s creating a sort of ‘fragmentation’ of knowledge, isn’t it.

What I mean is, it seems the trend is towards loss of global perspective: the tendency is to focus more and more on one’s own immediate vicinity while at the same time losing touch with other groups working on similar things in other countries. One remains unaware of manifestations elsewhere of the very phenomena one is studying at home: more and more knowledge of a smaller and smaller part of one’s own navel, while ignoring the existence of all those other navels, and not seeing or comprehending one’s place in this vast world.

I should hasten to add that that’s not necessarily all bad. In a way, it reminds me of what I saw in Europe and Japan a lot, where every town and every hillside or field has some – usually bloody, as much of history tends to be – story behind it. These are small and, on the global scale, largely insignificant events. (I do know of little-known events that certainly were historically significant, though.) Much archaeological and historical research occurs there at the local level – commissioned even (I know in the case of Japan) by local town councils. This sort of research, though of little significance on the global scale, is often intellectually (methodologically, say) quite solid. The positive thing it brings is that it serves to humanise an area – people living there, as well as visitors, feel the heritage of the place. But you also get the feeling that this kind of research is often a sort of cottage industry.

Perhaps it’s a sign of a society’s prosperity and achievement of an advanced stage of peaceful existence – together with a sense of wanting to understand more about itself through knowing its past – that it funds projects that seem to be tangential or incidental to history’s main currents. I think they really can bring something positive to a local area. But would a researcher – or anybody else – in a different country find them relevant? The fact that some samurai skewered another at Yagihara is – if it’s just a run-of-the-mill skirmish – significant only to the people living there: the event’s significance is bound to the place, and vanishes outside it.

It vanishes because irresponsible use of power has always happened and will continue to happen the world over. On the historical scale, it’s a commonplace – and commonplaces hold our interest only for a moment, before the ubiquitous other commonplaces subvert it. We are already acutely aware of the irresponsible use of power around us and by our forefathers. The real question is: what understanding – if any – of an event lifts it above the mundane? What makes an event – or object of study – universal?

I’m afraid this is the danger of focusing too much on ‘Australian relevance’: if the researcher does not have to win over non-Australians and convince them in a global forum that these events or objects of study – or his or her account of them – are anything more than mundane, then university research in Australia will slip into the sort of cottage industry accounts of the mundane any traveller can see in local town councils in Europe and Japan. Gone will be perspectives and ideas that transcend local boundaries – in will be enumeration of ordinary details and stamp-collecting. On the other hand, notions that easily transcend local boundaries may not be as solidly fleshed out as they ought to be: the claim of universality can be just a facade, a fancy coat bought at a jumble sale used to clothe a desperate emperor.

What I’m saying is that a scholar’s getting read – and accepted – internationally can be fundamentally related to standards.

I have no idea whether anybody in the federal government is enlightened enough to think as deeply as this – but perhaps there is. Perhaps the torch has been taken to the belly of the humanities in Australia – witness the lack of impact the humanities have had to date in defining ‘Australia’s national research priorities’ – because somebody is worried about the lack of universality in humanities research in Australia. But unfortunately, because the strategy, if it can be called that, hasn’t been thought through properly, they have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater, rejecting projects such as your Hellenistic proposal.

I should add, though, that there have recently been positive signs that the humanities are beginning to make their mark on federal government education and research planning, making the situation a little less catastrophic than last year – at least positive signs have emerged. Lobbying by the Australian Academy of the Humanities is starting to have an effect. Quoting the Academy’s June newsletter Symposium:

So far, 2003 has been relatively good for the Humanities. The Government announced a three-year funding boost for the AH under the Higher Education Innovation Program. Second, significant progress was made in ensuring that the four national research priorities announced last year will be expanded to incorporate Humanities interests. And third, the Federal budget included $200,000 seed funding for a new advocacy council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences.

JW: Is there anything in the above that you feel is mistaken, or that you’d otherwise like to respond to?

ABB: I agree that locally based research can be rigorous and extremely valuable. The problem is to integrate it into a more comprehensive matrix that encourages dialogue with an international readership. The trick is to see the wider analogy. I did this on a small scale with my research on Alexander. I was able to point out very striking similarities between the actions of Alexander in the far east and the Conquistadors in central America and extremely strong parallels in the historical tradition. I felt that the study was mutually illuminating. I took care to have my work vetted by experts in Spanish American history in the hope that the parallels would be taken up and developed. As yet that has not happened. The research has stimulated interest among Classical historians, but there hasn’t been comparable interest from the Spanish American side; it is, I would think, regarded as a footnote-an interesting parallel but perhaps not worth developing in its own right.

Footnote 2. ABB adds: The Cassamarca professorship was a special grant from the Cassamarca Foundation which is devoted to the promotion of Italian studies overseas, and the object of the position is to promote the study of Latin Humanism (i.e. Renaissance and Neo Latin). This is a three year renewable position, wholly funded by Cassamarca and attached to Classics within the wider structure of the School.

Footnote 3. JW: How was the creation of the schools going to solve the problem?

ABB: The idea was that with a larger resourcing group you have more flexibility in finance and can divert funds to help disciplinary areas which have an imbalance. That is fine if the school is properly funded. However, thanks in part to the seniority of staff, the funding allows one to do no more than pay the recurrent salaries, and the promised flexibility does not eventuate. One has to save at all costs, and it is difficult to do anything but delegate the problem to the individual disciplinary groups.

JW: In any case, perhaps the solution is at hand. This situation of an aging department such as yours can be avoided in the future if all newly appointed staff sign a relatively short-term contract – say, lasting a year or two. When the contract runs out, and the powers-that-be have had enough of a particular scholar – for whatever reason – his or her contract is simply not renewed. They’re put to the sword, quickly and easily.

We could sell this solution by trumpeting ‘flexibility in the workplace’, the jargon of management ideology. Universities can be forced to accept the solution by tying a significant proportion of promised funding to such workplace reforms. Of course, implementation of such a solution would require the establishment of a ruling class, whose members have enough stability in their positions to gain an overview of a department that allows them to make strategic decisions.

Do you think that short-term contracts are the solution?

ABB: It gives me the horrors. Casual employment has been the curse of young scholars working in the humanities. Research positions at the postdoctoral level are very hard to achieve and they are in any case strictly limited in time. Even senior research fellowships provide no security. A couple of years ago a senior ARC fellow who was working in the department (as it then was) failed to get his fellowship renewed and moved to a tenured position in Copenhagen, where his working conditions are much better than he could dream of here. At a lower level it is worse. Even brilliantly talented scholars have tended to exist on short term contracts which can take them into their forties. At that point it is very hard for them to retrain and change careers.

I feel passionately that what we need is to be able to offer the security of tenure, and that security can only encourage better research. It is no help to concentration if one is perpetually worried by the prospect of finding another position. The insecurity also leads to premature publication, writing short, insubstantial pieces simply to inflate one’s CV. So I think the challenge is to create more tenured positions at the bottom end (level B), and although the problem is recognised, little is being done to correct it, and I can see the demise of my profession through sheer neglect. One might perhaps look at the British model which has a huge incremental range at Lecturer and Senior Lecturer level. It means that young scholars can (and are) employed in tenured positions at a very early age. But it also means that it is practically impossible for a person of mature age to get tenured employment.

Footnote 4. ABB adds: To my knowledge the only comparable moneyed classicist in Australia is Alexander Cambitoglou of Sydney, who has set up the Australian Institute of Archaeology at Athens and contributed generously to it from his own funds. Comparable, but not on the level of the Semples!

Footnote 5. ABB adds: Wrong. Her husband was head of Classics, and they both pumped in money. They must have had considerable private fortunes. This is from the Cincinnati web site:

When William T. Semple assumed the Headship in 1920, he worked together with his wife, Louise Taft Semple, towards the ambitious goal of creating the finest department in the country. Under Semple’s direction, the Department embraced the holistic view of ancient studies that continues to be our hallmark, combining under one roof the study of Greek and Latin language and literatures, ancient history, and Mediterranean archaeology.

The Semples supported this ambitious project with their personal funds, fostering goals as diverse as the landmark excavations of Carl Blegen at Troy and Pylos (Palace of Nestor) and the creation of deep library resources in rare areas like Palaeography and modern Greek scholarship. When Louise Taft Semple died in 1961, she left to the department a large dedicated endowment. Because of this endowment, the Department is able to maintain what we believe to be the finest Classics library in North America, if not the world; to bring in dozens of visiting scholars every year, including three scholars-in-residence; to pamper our large graduate population; to attract a faculty of the highest caliber; to offer computer resources and services unparalleled among Classics departments; to fund several archaeological excavations and surveys (most recently in Troy, Cyprus, Pylos, Albania). The Department maintains three professorial chairs: The John Miller Burnam Professor of Latin and Romance Palaeography; the Carl W. Blegen Professor of Greek Archaeology; the Marion Rawson Professor of Greek Archaeology. In the current era, the Department has collected a prize-winning faculty [link to prizes and awards pages] with a strikingly rich and diverse set of approaches to antiquity, including textual, literary, material, historical, sociological, theoretical.

I couldn’t believe my ears last night when I heard Howard using the same tactic on Korea that he used to send us to war on Iraq without UN sanction and without an informed public debate about the risks and benefits of such radical action.

Sorry, yes I could. He shocks me so often these days I’m not shocked any more.

At a Koizumi/Howard press conference in Tokyo yesterday, the Seven Network’s Glenn Milne asked Howard:

Your counterpart there in reference to the interdiction of North Korean vessels said he would be interested to know what the US and Australia’s plans were in that regard. Can you enlighten us on that, and would we be prepared to go ahead with the United States unilaterally if other countries were not involved? And a second one if I may in Australia this morning our Foreign Minister suggested that we believe North Korea has up to three nuclear devices but they cannot yet be delivered to Australia. Do we have any assessment about how soon they will be able to develop that capability?

Howard replied:

Well Glenn in relation to the second question I can’t provide any more information than the Foreign Minister provided. In relation to the first question, you will be aware that there has been no decision taken by the Australian Government to be involved in interdiction. What we have agreed is that we will take part in some exercises, and we have in mind that those exercises will be some extension of already arranged Coral Sea exercises between the American and the Australian naval forces. Beyond that, we haven’t planned any. And it is literally not the case that we have committed ourselves. I know some people are saying that and writing that and reporting that, but that is not true. Obviously though, if you engage in exercises and you later decide to be involved in something, you are better prepared for that involvement. So far as enlightening people, there will need to be further discussions, and at this stage I think everybody is running ahead of themselves and I can understand why you want to know, but at this stage all we have agreed to do is to further discuss the matter. Arising out of the Brisbane meeting, all of the participants in effect took the matter on an ad referendum basis of going back and talking about it and thinking about it, and we have agreed to have these exercises with the Americans, but it oughtn’t to automatically be construed from that weve definitely decided on interdiction or indeed that we’ve decided precisely on what form it will take.

It’s an eerie echo of ‘We haven’t decided to go to war on Iraq but we’ve predeployed with the Americans to prepare us just in case. No decision has been made, no decision has been made.’

Of course when the UN said no, a quick call from Bush and an instant Cabinet meeting got the ‘yes’ within hours. Howard had cleverly avoided all debate about the risks for us without UN involvement by saying that until the formal US request came the question was hypothetical. Can he really get away with a big lie yet again, particularly when the case given for the Iraq war has proved to be highly misleading, even deceptive?

For an analysis of where US aggression and Australian subservience may be hurling us – a nuclear attack on America no less, according to the former US secretary of defence William Perry – see Lateline’s interviewlast night with Labor spokesman and former diplomat Kevin Rudd.

It seems that when Howard hoodwinks the people one way he tries the same way again, word vfor word. The Korea tactic comes after he played the same amoral game on what he was told on the uranium forgery scandal as he did on children overboard. I wasn’t told, the public service knew, ministerial advisers knew utthey didn’t tell their minister, the public service is good, the advisors are good and the key people will get a promotion.

Maybe Australians will fall for it again, and maybe the media is either so compromised or so cautious it won’t go in hard to flush him out. Certainly the government is doing everything it can to achieve that result.

Communications Minister Richard Alston upped the anti on the ABC yet again yesterday, this time asking the Australian Broadcasting Authority, led by Howard sycophant David Flint, to “formally review the ABC’s treatment of his complaint about bias in its coverage of the Iraq war (Alston sets watchdog on ABC to settle gripe).

This stunt is designed to make ABC journalists so defensive they lose their courage and spontaneity in reporting the news. He’s targetted particular reporters, particular programs. Alston is deliberately trying to destroy the independence of the ABC through fear.

The sinister irony is that while the ABC has a charter and statutory obligations to examine complaints and to be balanced, commercial TV has virtually no accountability contraints.

The Senate tried to do something about this on behalf of the people of Australia during the recent cross media debate. It inserted an amendment which would put the commercial networks on a level playing field with the ABC and SBS when it came to just complaints by viewers. The ABA can, after investigation, recommend that the public boradscasters publish an apology or give a right of reply, but they have no such power when it comes to commercial networks. Surprise, surprise, the Government rejected that amendment. The people are disempowered again. Commercial news imperatives without enforceable ethical duties can still run riot. The Government’s strategic objectives I outlined in Howard’s roads to absolute power continue to play out.

The most interesting thing about Peter Costello’s speech last night was what he didn’t say. On the question of trust, he said:

If you want to run a successful modern liberal economy then trust and tolerance between citizens gives you a long head start.

Trust facilitates compliance. Trust enhances efficiency. It reduces transaction costs – you do not have to ascertain and negotiate the bribe on each transaction. Trust in the legal system and the enforceability of contract underpins the willingness to invest.

Trust and tolerance, are sometimes described as social capital. In an IMF paper on Second Generation Reform, Francis Fukuyama argued: “Social capital is important to the efficient functioning of modern economies and is the sine qua non of stable liberal democracy.”

Notice he makes no mention of the need for trust between government and the people. Well he couldn’t, could he. He knows that making such a statement would be a direct challenge to his Prime Minister and a warning that Howard’s amorality when it comes to telling people the truth is dangerous to our democracy.

G’Day. Webdiary columnist Polly Bush has been angsting her way through the fraught issue of joint custody for a few weeks now, and she’s come up with a piece she’s not ENTIRELY happy with.

She calls it “the nightmare issue”, and writes:

I guess the conclusion I came to was that …

(a) joint residency is a wonderful concept and can work beautifully for some people,

(b) unfortunately I don’t think all separating couples would be able to cope with joint residency due to the differences in parenting responsibilities within relationships, and don’t think it’s necessarily good for all kids and

(c) residency issues should still be judged on an individual basis, therefore I’m against a one size fits all policy.

She found some wild men’s sites during her research, including kittennews.

If you’ve got something to say send your contributions to mkingston@smh.com.au and I’ll forward them to Polly, who’s agreed to guest edit a Webdiary on joint custody. The inquiry’s terms of reference and information on where to send your submission is published after Polly’s column.

***

Are your shoes mucky?

by Polly Bush

Just for one crazy moment imagine John and Janette ‘are your shoes mucky’ Howard are no longer comfortable old boots together and, God forbid, separate and divorce. Also imagine the three Howard children are much younger and require more intensive care from both parents.

After vetoing a teaching career to embrace the unpaid work of full-time parenting, Janette wants the children to remain with her. John knows the importance of family life personally and professionally and also wants his own time with the littlies. With both parents seen as being capable of fulfilling these roles, Melanie, Timmy and the other one are plunged into a 50/50 joint residency arrangement.

John has to somehow morph from man of steel to super dad. When he’s not protecting Australia from a handful of desperate people in leaky boats or saving the world from remarkably well hidden weapons of mass destruction, he’s busy car pooling (in a government car of course) on the school run.

Like all other dads in 50/50 share time arrangements, he’s forced to cut his working hours. On alternative weeks, he has to reschedule overseas and regional photo opportunities to rub up against world leaders and khaki families. If George calls an emergency meeting at the Ranch, John can no longer jet over at the drop of a cowboy hat. He’s far too busy sewing the sequins on the little one’s concert outfit, helping Timmy with his algebra, and talking through the birds and the bees to a pre-pubescent Melanie. The Australian public sees a lot less of their Prime Minister. Sniffs all round.

Realising the enormous pressures of being a part-time primary care-giver, John has the revelation that parliamentary sitting times are not so family friendly. When he’s looking after the children and parliament is sitting, he thinks about moving Parliament House in Canberra to Sydney. Maybe he and Bob Carr could swap cities. While in the past John may not have embraced paid maternity leave, he now considers paid paternity leave.

Anxious about John’s working hours and the time he can invest in the kids, Janette dreams of an alternative arrangement. Now sharing the costs of parenting, she looks for paid work. If she wants to challenge the presumed joint residency arrangement, she’ll take on the legal costs. With men still typically earning more than women, this might require a full-time job. Family friendly of course.

Given his stance on the Lodge, presumably Dad doesn’t want to move. For locality convenience, Janette will have to shack up close by. Fortunately, apparently there’s a vacancy in the GG’s Admiralty House right next door to Kirribilli. When the kiddies are with Mum and on the rare occasions Dad isn’t off playing politics, the kids will only have to look over the rambling harbourside lawn to catch a glimpse of Dad engaged in one of his favourite past-times – raking leaves. Then, particularly Timmy and the other lil fulla can reap the benefits of a male role model in their life.

If this scenario sounds like it’s radically changing the face of the family unit post separation, John Howard is the first to admit it. Of the Federal Government’s inquiry into changing the law to give separating parents automatic joint residency of children, Howard said it would be turning the existing arrangement “on its head”. Based on the rebuttable principle, joint residency would be the presumption for all separating couples with children – with those wanting different arrangements having to prove the other parent was incapable of sharing equal time.

The Inquiry is partially the result of intense lobbying by disgruntled fathers groups. One of the pollies targeted in the effort was One Nation Senator Len Harris, who introduced a private members bill on the issue around a year ago. The proposal was already one that was close to One Nation’s heart – in 1998, the Party’s policy on family law stated: “One Nation believes amicable family separations that result in joint custody or joint guardianship are the ideal outcome.” One Nation also planned to review “the functions and operations of the Child Support Agency”, another part of Howard’s current Inquiry.

South Australian Liberal MP Chris Pyne was targeted by another key player in the lobbying campaign, former South Australian Liberal Party Deputy Director and now Shared Parenting Association Director Geoff Greene. As such, Pyne raised the issue in a party meeting. It struck a chord, with Howard reportedly identifying the issue as an electoral “hot button”. Bit like that ol’ chestnut policy on asylum seekers.

Following the recent announcement of the Inquiry, One Nation Senator Len Harris has claimed victory. In a press release he issued last month with the headline ‘Liberals Adopt One Nation Family Law Policy’, he says: “It’s good to see that the Government is actively listening to One Nation, the voice of the people.” Again – it’s a bit like that ol’ chestnut policy on asylum seekers.

The Age’s Michelle Grattan described the proposal as “a union of battler politics and white picket fence ideology”. Labor’s Nicola Roxon labelled it “dog whistle politics to men’s groups aggrieved by the Family Court”. In response to Roxon, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs Larry Anthony (who has since become a bit of a pin-up boy on some men’s rights websites), said “I respect the Member’s long academic interest in women’s rights – but she must not let that cloud her vision when it comes to children and young people.” Because, you know, feminism is so anti-children.

Anthony has been quick to argue the Inquiry is “not about gender politics”. But isn’t it? One of John Howard’s public reasons for holding the Inquiry is out of concern for boys and the lack of so-called male role models. This nicely ties in with Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson’s recent agonising over the lack of male teachers in schools.

Of boys being brought up by separated mothers, Howard told former school teacher and now radio announcer Alan Jones that “they live with their mother, they don’t have older brothers or uncles or male grandparent with whom they can identify, and they go to schools now where there are very few male teachers”.

“They can often be 15 or 16 and perhaps never before they find a male role model and it does result in perhaps not the most balanced upbringing”.

Apart from the big question mark over what exactly constitutes a male role model, Howard’s remarks suggest the Inquiry is being set up to examine the interests of the sole male child, as opposed to acting in the interests of children per se. By dividing residency down the middle to equal shared time, some argue the proposal is not in the interests of children because it reduces them to being split like property. Perhaps that’s being generous, given the VCR doesn’t get passed between separated mums and dads week in week out.

Since news of the Inquiry broke newspapers have contained stories on joint residency families where the situation of shared time 50/50 works remarkably well. The featured couples have come up with the arrangement themselves – they live near each other and in some cases as neighbours. But in each of these stories (least the ones this ranter has read), the subjects say this is not something which would work for everybody, as in these special cases the parents have split amicably and remain on good terms. All credit to them.

On the surface the concept of 50/50 residency seems a fair one to parents, but is it fair to all children in practice? Most people would argue stability is one of the key factors in bringing up children. In this regard, is it in the best interests of all children of separated couples to regularly shift from home to home week in week out? Would it result in what Howard champions a “most balanced upbringing”? According to psychologist Jill Burrett, “the backwards and forwards between two houses can be really unsettling for kids over the years”.

At the very least, Howard’s decision to hold an Inquiry has spurred a side discussion on the broader issue of parenting. Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward applied the ‘even-if’ debate, looking at the role of fathers. “Equal parenting is not the 16 minutes of child play a day that is the average amount of time men spend with their children,” she said. By the time of divorce, Goward said, “one parent by then has invested so much more time and energy in the relationship with the children”.

Chief Justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson has a similar view. Responding last year to the perception that the Court unfairly grants residency to mothers (voiced in an article by Bettina Arndt), Nicholson wrote:

“The fact is that we do live in a society where the mother is the primary care giver in most intact marriages. It is therefore not surprising that parents are most likely to decide that mothers should retain that primary responsibility … it is also not surprising that judges will choose an environment that provides the greatest continuity and least disruption for children.”

A study released by a University of NSW researcher last week calculated the amount of time working mothers and fathers of young children had each day for their own leisure time. Of the 4000 families researched in the study, working fathers are said to have one hour and 12 minutes a day free time. For working mothers, it’s estimated at less than a second per day. If parenting arrangements currently have one parent with a more hands on role than the other, would shared parenting seriously be an option for most separating couples?

One of the separated fathers interviewed in a feature in The Age (‘Degrees of Separation’, June 28, Insight) conceded he’d like to have his daughter over to stay more, but “realises his job makes that impossible”.

When Bruce Smyth from the Australian Institute of Family Studies researched families in 50/50 situations, the fathers in these circumstances needed to reduce their working hours. An expert in family law, Smyth has described the arrangements of such cases as “the most logistically complex parenting arrangement possible”.

While many people argue the Family Court unfairly favours mothers, statistics are on the move, with an increasing number of fathers who appear in court winning residence. In 2000-01, 19.6 percent of residency orders went to fathers, up around ten percent from twenty years ago. Other research shows fathers winning up to 40 percent of cases they contest. Family law expert and University of Sydney Professor Patrick Parkinson has described the statistical jump as “a massive cultural shift in the interests of fathers”.

Currently, only around five percent of residency cases make it to trial. Most separating couples make their own arrangements; many others settle. With court stats recently showing an increase in granting residency to fathers, decisions favouring mothers have subsequently fallen. While split residency orders (splitting up siblings) have risen slightly, the already small amount of joint residency orders have recently fallen.

If legislation orders joint residency as the presumption, the number of couples appearing in the Family Court to alter this arrangement could actually increase. This would add significant costs to the separating couples involved, which in turn could cause debt to spiral and the rest. The Law Council of Australia’s Michael Foster estimates that with rebuttable joint residency in place, “there would be many more [court] proceedings … and far fewer settlements”.

It’s also estimated more women would bear the brunt of legal costs with many not able to challenge the arrangement. As the University of Sydney’s Professor Patrick Parkinson explains:

“There’s no way you could say it is in the best interest of the majority of children. If there’s a presumption, a lot of women will be pressured into it because they can’t afford $20,000 to litigate.”

If reports are true that Howard recognises the issue as a “hot button”, he’s right. Many people have stories and experiences on this highly emotive topic. Ask anyone. Stories from children of divorce will vary from bitter divides between parents to parents who had reasonably amicable relationships. Stories from separated parents can vary from those who want less contact to those who want more residency.

Like all issues, this one has its extremes. Some will argue that limited contact combined with the costs of child support combined with family court costs is literally killing fathers. At the other end, the debate shifts to the old fashioned argument that women are universally better parents. Like all debates the truth probably lies murkily in the middle.

The point is that all family situations are unique. Let’s face it, all families are different and have their own individual make-ups and break-ups. This is one of the main arguments against imposing a one-size-fits-all policy like joint residency. A one-size-fits-all policy will not fit all, and arguably won’t even fit the majority of all current situations. While the current system doesn’t satisfy all involved, cases are examined on an individual basis with the Family Court basing its judgement on the best interests of the child(ren).

As a politician, John Howard would know too well the demands his working life has had on his family. Would shared residency be an option for a career politician and his/her partner with young children? It might be easy to spoof John Howard tackling the joys of care giving in a shared residency arrangement, but why so? Why should the scenario seem outrageous? Take out the gender argument and it might be simply because it’s assumed the job of a Prime Minister would be too intensive to also factor in intensive hands-on child caring. If so, is a workaholic by choice or by career really a good role model for their children? Do workaholics keep families together?

If Howard is prepared to examine the issue of giving separating parents equal time, he should be prepared to have a broader debate on the roles and responsibilities of parents prior to divorce. The issue of shared parenting must be tackled well and truly before governments have inquiries into shared custody. Shared parenting and family friendly work practices for both parents might even just keep more families together.

***

Inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation

Terms of Reference

see childcustodyinquiry

On 25 June 2003 the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the Hon Larry Anthony MP, and the Attorney-General, the Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, asked the committee to inquire into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation.

Having regard to the Government’s recent response to the Report of the Family Law Pathways Advisory Group, the committee should inquire into, report on and make recommendations for action:

(a) given that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration:

(i) what other factors should be taken into account in deciding the respective time each parent should spend with their children post separation, in particular whether there should be a presumption that children will spend equal time with each parent and, if so, in what circumstances such a presumption could be rebutted; and

(ii) in what circumstances a court should order that children of separated parents have contact with other persons, including their grandparents.

(b) whether the existing child support formula works fairly for both parents in relation to their care of, and contact with, their children.

(c) with the committee to report to the Parliament by 31 December 2003.

Submissions to the inquiry are sought by Friday 8 August 2003. Given the tight reporting time for this inquiry those making submissions are asked to keep their submissions concise. Contributors making submissions are advised to obtain guidelines on the preparation of a submission. These are available from the secretariat or from the committee’s website. If you would like your submission, or parts of it, to be made confidential, please indicate this clearly in your submission.

Submissions should be directed to:

Committee Secretary

Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs

Child Custody Arrangements Inquiry

Department of the House of Representatives

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Australia

Tel: (02) 6277 4566

Fax: (02) 6277 4844

Email: FCA.REPS@aph.gov.au

Public hearings, community forums and briefings also will be held to collect further evidence. Details of these will be posted on this website as soon as they are known.

G’Day. Today, some of your responses to Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power. I’m getting stacks of great emails on the implications of Howard’s agenda and how to counter it – sorry if you haven’t got a run. I LOVE this suggestion from Sue King: “Wouldn’t be bad to have an Australian version of opengov.” A Washington Post report, Site lets citizens monitor Big Brother, begins:

Ryan McKinley relishes the idea of turning Big Brother on his head.

Concerned about expanded government monitoring of individuals, McKinley, a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has created an Internet repository for citizens to provide information about public officials, corporations and their executives.

The result, he hopes, will be a giant set of databases that show the web of connections that often fuel politics and policymaking, such as old school ties, shared club memberships and campaign donations.

I’m off to Adelaide this afternoon for the Adelaide festival of ideas, so I’ll get an injection of ideas I’ll share with you next week. I’m giving a speech called ‘Redrawing maps of home’, a great phrase used by WebdiaristChristine Evans after the 2001 federal election (Redrawing my map of home). Her piece, republished below, was a response to the question “What will you do?” after the 2001 election result.

My speech will be based on what we’ve been discussing for the last couple of weeks – haven’t written it yet, but I’ll publish it when I get back to work on Tuesday.

Contributors today are Stuart Skelton, Joe Bryant, Damian Shaw-Williams, David Redfearn, Grant Long, Greg Carroll, Mark Carey, Alistair Noble, Malcolm Manville, Stuart Cairns, Sven Klinge, Philip Hewett, Simon Jarman, Matthew Barnes, Jim Robinson and Andrew Byrne.

Thanks to University of Sydney journalism student Lachlan Brown for helping me process your emails this week.

***

Christine Evans (published in Webdiary on November 13, 2001)

I am writing from the US, which the Fulbright commission has generously funded me to visit on the presumption that world peace is more likely if we get to know people from other countries and share our views and lives a little.

I am trying to make sense of the fact that the post-Sept 11 atmosphere seems more poisonous in Australia than in Manhattan, where strenuous attempts are being made to AVOID racial profiling and bigotry. I am trying to redraw my map of “home” after the deeply depressing election results – and more generally, political ugliness – in Australia.

Globally, I feel we are living through the first death throes of the nation state and that the ugliness and fear we are seeing is more than just racism, but a response to the vague but real perception that borders mean less and less.

With over 28 million refugees now world wide, our way of being “citizens” and defining our sense of belonging has to change, unless we are going to define an exponentially escalating part of the population as pariahs. And populations with nothing to lose are, of necessity, terrifying.

Back to ‘What will I do’ and the map of home. Edward Bond (playwright) says that the child maps the world in a process which also creates the child; the map and the mapmaker are one. He writes “If the map is torn, the mapmaker is torn”. My map of Australia has just been torn, but along folds that have been worn thin for a long time.

Another vision of maps inspired by visiting Belgrade this summer (in conversations with my Serbian theatre friends who have survived, overcome despair and offered continuous resistance to a far more poisonous political situation than ours) is one in which “home ” is redefined not as country or race or nation, but by the connective tissue one builds between points of meaning: connection points to land, music, people, ideas, cultures. The task is then to make “home” by building bridges between these starry points.

This sounds abstract, but as a strategy kept my theatre friends alive as people and artists for 10 years: when “home” was unlivable they worked overseas; when the regime fell they brought their international friends to visit. They refused to be as small as the degraded and shrunken politics of their country would have them be, and defined themselves as both Serbs and more than Serbs, human beings and artists with loyalties beyond their State.

How can I apply this way of mapping? By ways despised in the current climate in Australia; through art, conversation, imagination and trying to strengthen community. By refusing to recognize the borders of the nation state as the borders of my and others’ world.

For instance: I am writing a musical set in a refugee camp. Much of it takes place in the Australian desert. I hope I can get it produced in Australia as well as the US and that the music will be so seductive that even people who hate its politics will tap their feet.

I also visit the International Institute in Providence, RI USA, twice a week helping on a project where recent immigrants are learning English and writing a script together. I’m organising a visit for my Serbian friends to Providence, where we will do a theatre project bringing African-American, student, and local arts communities together. Dijana Milosevic will lecture to our community on “The Role of the Artist in Wartime”.

These are only small things but they are attempts to redraw the map. Every day with every action we vote for the world we believe in, which – like the notion of a country – is both imaginary and real.

***

Stuart Skelton in Germany

It would appear to me that the mere inclusion of your obviously partisan diatribe serves to show exactly how patently ridiculous your premise over media bias is.

Your keep referring to John Howard’s popularity. It is so painfully obvious that you are upset that so many people actually approve of him, and the job his government is doing. How galling it must be that DEMOCRATIC PROCESS doesn’t agree with YOU!

The avenue for your consistently anti-Howard messages, along with your equally partisan colleagues Messrs Carlton and Ramsey have yet to be interfered with from this “evil” conspiracy of right wing media ownership.

The reform of the Senate has been one of the avowed ideals of Labor Party policy since 1975, and yet now you scream blue murder at the fact that the Liberal Party are actually the ones to contemplate reform and present an actual plan for doing so (see Howard’s rubber-stamp democracy). The Senate has been the private publicity firm for single issue parties (or in some case single issue people) almost since its inception. Does anyone really think that “Keep the Bastards Honest” was about party platform rather than about headline grabbing?

Whatever your arguments with the current Federal Government, you seem to be most upset with it because it simply doesn’t agree with you. Strange then that they are continuously re-elected. Perhaps the “intellectual elite” that you so obviously feel to be a part of could get it so wrong so often.

Perhaps you should learn a little more about the PRACTICE of democracy rather than your CONCEPT of what you think it should be.

As far as I am aware, the Government presents its policies. The Opposition presents their policies, and then the PEOPLE decide who they would prefer to have running the country for the next four years. It must be of endless frustration to you that the PEOPLE so often, in your opinion, get it wrong.

Keep scribing your Labor Party advertising, please! It continues to make a mockery of your claims about media bias, and displays your true colours about what you really think about Democracy, and the people who practice it!

***

Joe Bryant in Sydney

Here’s an extract from the Declaration of Independence that we should all know off by heart, not only Americans but all people across the world, because it states important truths, in particular the lines highlighted:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

Let’s mark what it meant then and make it mean something in the future.

***

Damian Shaw-Williams

What can be done in this mono-media-culture people ask?

Several things came to mind. One is the move-on movement in the US which is an online organising forum which has provided momentum for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. The online forum would provide a means of democratic and electoral discussion.

More generally it would be a ‘permanent petition’ for anyone registered to vote in Australia, regardless of political persuasion. As opposed to affixing your signature to a petition once for a worthy cause, it would be a mass of people subscribing to say four or five core principles, and a declaration that those undersigned will vote according to the democratically determined position on selected issues.

Of course there is no obligation apart from the stated intent, and those who differ in opinion could simply vote however they please. But impact would occur in marginal seats if it could be demonstrated that those on the site represented a block large enough to swing the electorate.

In short it would be the next step on from Webdiary, with a charter and a permanent presence (i.e. not subject to the ownership of the Fairfax group). Cheap and relatively easy to run too.

***

David Redfearn in Northcote, Victoria

A few random thoughts.

1. Reading ‘Howard’s Faultlines’ made me think of Victoria in 1999. Who would ever have thought that Labor would have won seats like Ripon and Seymour (with Green help in the latter). The national situation is obviously much more complex because Victoria’s demography and a bipartisan consensus on our diversity ensured that One Nation never had much oxygen here. But we should never really underestimate genuine grass roots discontent wherever it occurs because electoral consequences are more than possible (Tony Windsor and Peter Andren should be testimony to that).

2. A friend in Queensland who is a genuine swinging voter with Liberal leanings (and Peter Beattie watch out because he is not happy with you after supporting you for two elections!!) said in a recent email that he had now enough reasons to vote against Howard but not enough to move across to Labor. I don’t think it was Simon Crean per se, as he has some regard for him, but there is a cry for some sort of leadership on the Centre Left to articulate a vision for Australia.

There needs to be some sort of dialogue to find issues which unite us on the Centre and Left with the aim of removing Howard and ensuring a vigorous but unifying debate occurs because much that most Australian’s treasure will be lost by stealth and clever wedge politics. It will require effort, considerable patience, acceptance and tolerance at times but is achievable at community level, which is a most delightfully subversive way to do it!! And to boot, Murdoch and Packer will never know until it is much too late (once again I return to Victoria 1999)!!!

3. I am ever sustained by my outward looking and curious adult children who are blessed with knowing and valuing many Australias. including the very small rural NSW community I hail from, their Italian and English heritage, and their cosmopolitan environment in Melbourne.

Some things are right in this country and must be fiercely protected.

***

Grant Long in Newcastle

It’s great that you pick up on the grass roots resurgence in ‘Faultlines’. Over the last few years it has been easy to become very disheartened by what was happening politically in this country. This, I’m sure, is exactly what the government and the big corporate players want.

But tough times demand tough hearts, and it is at that local level that most people feel that they can make a difference. We are seeing many signs of this happening. This week’s news report about a Supreme Court victory by a local group against a mobile phone tower was an example.

The beauty of this sort of action is that it highlights a latent passion for our places and shows that our local societies are strong. These actions bring people together. The joy on these people’s faces was invigorating.

It’s good to hear about the US Democrat Howard Dean who is garnering support from individuals. The prominence of Ralph Nader at the last US elections is another example that people are not comfortable with the shifts taking place in our democracies. The Michael Moore website also includes some stinging comment regarding the current US president (the latest, a letter to Lt Bush is a doozee and focuses attention on the unpopular question, ‘When is a victory a VICTORY?’).

Your alliance discourse was also enlightening. In Australia, we had the alliance between the Australian Conservation Foundation and the National Farmer’s Federation over land degradation (dryland salinity, water quality, etc). This “unlikely” alliance seems entirely logical when seen in context.

As a whole, I think your faultlines are a reality today. Far from being disheartened, every time I hear Howard pushing his little barrow I see another nail in his political coffin. His comments this week regarding the Hicks trial were laughable. It’s like one of the rules of cross-examination – leave irrational and absurd answers where they lie.

All we can hope is that an alliance will withstand the inevitable pre-election barrage. Oh yeah, and let’s all hope that we don’t have another Tampa or children overboard fiasco the week before.

***

Greg Carroll

I think your analysis about the disconnection and alienation from communities and the consequences is spot on. I hope your speculation about possible weaknesses in the current neo-liberal domination are proven to be as accurate. Like you, I think the Nats are at fork in the road. It will be interesting to see if they’ve got any guts or pride left.

***

Mark Carey in Springwood, NSW

Howard has always been divisive: look how the Liberals divided around his ambitions, several times, back in the 80s; his consistent wedge politics; the polarisation of the country now. Accumulating power to oneself is by definition divisive.

I think you are right that to counter this, we must look for what the rest of us share, what we have in common, what unites us. Call me romantic if you like, but the awareness of Howard’s megalomania will grow if it is named often enough, and his willingness to say whatever keeps him in power will undo him.

The only thing is, each round we go with him the stakes are higher. You have pointed out where his agenda is taking us (Howard’s roads to absolute power). It is important to keep on saying what is happening. This is a time when every conversation you have, every piece you write, makes a difference.

***

Alistair Noble in Glen Innes, NSW

Your recent analyses of Howard’s agenda have cheered me up no end – it’s so good to read views similar to one’s own in the media! The full horror of Howard’s vision may only now be becoming certain, but we should all have seen it coming years ago. The thought of a (l)iberal backlash is lovely but I’m not going to hold my breath any longer …

From where I live, in what Howard so patronisingly calls “the bush” (here in Glen Innes the nearest real bush is a 45 minute drive away!), I can see at a grassroots level the development of the sort of unholy alliances you mention.

This might yet prove to be our salvation. Imagine the support a Greens/Nationals alliance could gather across the country.

Keep up the good work, Margo. You can’t really hope to keep the bastard honest but at least you can annoy him a bit and you’ll be able to say to everyone “I told you so!”.

***

Malcolm Manville in Killara, Sydney

I hope your articles about John Howard’s political position in our lives stirs people into action, because that is what is needed. Howard has, without one dissenting voice from his government colleagues, made Australia a different place. I have a mental image of Howard going to bed at night kissing his wife goodnight, then the photo of Bob Menzies that sits on his bedside table and once more turning the clock a bit further back.(Margo: Howard is no Menzies. A Webdiary intern, Lachlan Brown, is writing a piece for Webdiary about Menzies’ vision for education, and boy oh boy is it poles apart from Howards!)

Surely we don’t need another political party under John Hewson but rather a reduction in party political power. We don’t get to chose our members of parliament anyway, it’s done by the party machine. We just have the privilege of voting them into a job without really knowing their capabilities or often them knowing anything about us.

This was the case with my federal MP hastily moving into our electorate and given the nod weeks before the election. In the process our long standing and respected MP was dumped to give the blue eyed boy a seat.

If voters were to select an independent member who was truly concerned about the electorate – hopefully without any previous party affiliations – he or she might truly be representational and not just a puppet too frightened to speak out when it counts. The people, in the bush in particular, would then have some control over their destiny, Brian Harradine, for example, has managed to do quite nicely.

***

Stuart Cairns in Armidale, NSW

I wouldn’t cross my fingers too hard for Mark Latham if I were you. I can see what is going to happen to him even if there is not another Beazley challenge. Last week we had Mark Latham saying on Lateline that he would be interested in looking at the issue of negative gearing in relation to taxation and revenue raising. The next day we had Simon Crean wetting himself when asked about this and saying that no, that no consideration would be given, when formulating new policies, to the issue of negative gearing.

We then had the Treasurer smirking his way through a one-liner about Labor not being able to make up its mind between Lateline and lunchtime. Very droll, Very depressing.

Given that there are sound economic reasons for examining the effects of negative gearing on an over-heated housing and construction market, I would have thought that Labor should look at it if, as has been said often, the only policy issue not under consideration is the sale of Telstra. However, it looks as though we will just have to stand by and watch Simon Crean morph into a small target like his predecessor did. Perhaps he doesn’t know that most of us don’t own investment properties and avail ourselves of the tax minimisation advantages of negative gearing?

There is also a sizeable minority of us who want to see taxes raised equitably and spent on the creation of a fair society. If this is the case, then it may not be too difficult to convince others that bold policies which achieve this are worth supporting.

If this is to be the direction in which Labor chooses to go, then I’m sure that Mark Latham will go the distance. However, if Labor is heading in the direction of becoming a new style small target, then I doubt that he will stick it out.

***

Sven Klinge

‘Faultlines’ didn’t mention the Greens once. (MARGO: Not true!) Labor doesn’t represent the left or the centre – since 1983 it joined Thatcher and Reagan in a world-wide move to the right.

When looking at the 20th century as a whole, Labor now represents a moderate-right and the Liberals a far right. The political spectrum has become narrower with the ideological battleground moving to the right. It seems from your writing, with its focus on Labor, that you have fallen into this trap.

Given your voice, why not encourage people to think about Greens, Independents and other truly LEFT wing candidates for elections?

It’s a mistake that activists in the USA make – supporting the Democrats. As was seen with Clinton, nothing really changes. Instead of an ultra-ultra-ultra right wing corporate-sponsored conservative political party, they just get a ultra-ultra right wing corporate sponsored conservative political party.

People will not vote Labor if their policies are virtually identical to the Liberals in all the important areas. Is it laying too much of a burden on Dr Bob Brown?

***

Philip Hewett in East Gosford, NSW

I wish I had the capacity to write nice dispassionate logical analysis as do others who contribute – but I can’t so here’s an alternative diatribe.

Packer and Murdoch are almost always referred to as Australia’s most powerful men. Why is it necessary to preface their names this way? They hold no power or sway over me. I do not read their journals, magazines, watch their TV stations or consume anything else they produce – to the best of my knowledge.

Whatever power they have stems from general (but waning) public acceptance of the corrupted political system by which they are feted. If enough people think the system is no longer worth supporting (which it isn’t) then they can turn on these powerful ‘elites’ and dismantle the system (as many have done throughout history). Howard is in the same position. He stays only as long as the people accept his corrupt and corrupting system.

Power can only be held for so long. Like wealth, it tends to accumulate. Then one day a seething populace snaps and the real action starts. Let the powerless masses revolt now against these mandarins instead of bleating in fear of losing a democracy that has been in terminal decline for more than 25 years.

Today’s Australians seem unable to exercise the level of courage of their ancestral shearers, miners and waterfront workers, who at enormous risk and expense stood up to the abusers and the exploiters. These were long and debilitating battles but they won our democracy. We too are going to have to fight for our democracy instead of handing our souls over to the corrupt Howards, Murdochs and Packers of this nation.

These oligarchs fear losing power more than you can image. To be at all like the mob absolutely spooks them. But Howard certainly has the measure of mainstream Australia (his ‘mob’).

He knows they are confused and divided. He knows they lack the ticker of past generations. He knows they have grown fat on consumption and have become intellectually lazy. He knows they will merely bleat and appeal to fair play. He knows they will not stand up for themselves. He loves that.

Get over it Australia. Get active and give the whole system a damned big shake up.

***

Simon Jarman

Thanks for your recent articles. They really resonate with me and give me cause for optimism. I have to say that everything this government does and stands for makes me feel oppressed as a citizen. It’s a sense of oppression that I don’t believe will be lifted until John Howard’s political demise (which can’t come too soon).

It’s almost as if everything that I valued as good or great about Australia has been under assault since his election. During 1997 I was the Secretary of the A.C.T. Branch of the Community and Public Service Union. Peter Reith had just introduced his workplace relations act and was sacking thousands of public servants. My job was to represent 40% of the workforce in Canberra during this time.

That job was tough, but what I find harder to come to terms with is the current state of the Commonwealth public service. This once great Australian institution that proudly provided ‘independent, frank and fearless’ advice to ministers is now, under John Howard’s stewardship, nothing but a hollow shell. Ministers simply shout their orders into it and back comes an echo. Senior staff are rewarded if they can tow the party line.

Just look, for instance, at Jane Halton – the current Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing. Ms Halton was one of the architects of that derided policy that wanted to make our parents sell their homes to obtain a place in a nursing home. Any public servant worth their salt should have advised the government that this was a dog, but Ms Halton got rewarded – and then when she covered for the Prime Minister in the ‘children overboard’ scandal she was rewarded again with the plum job she has now. Is this the kind of public service that Australians deserve?

Our taxes pay for it and as citizens we must demand better. I understand that this is not a sexy issue with the voting public, but nevertheless it’s vital to the strength of our democracy. Hopefully Labor will move to restore the public service as part of its policy and election platform.

The Public Service may be a personal hobby horse of mine, but in general, it’s the lack of fairness exhibited by this government that assaults my value system. If a country or government should be judged on the way it deals with the worst off in its society, then John Howard’s government would be guilty on all counts. Under John Howard there has literally been an explosion in welfare for the rich – at the expense of the poor. He’s our very own Sheriff of Nottingham.

It’s certainly not the ‘battlers’ who benefit from the private health insurance rebate or the massive funding increases to wealthy private schools at the expense of the public school system, but their taxes certainly provide for these little luxuries. The working poor may now be forced to pay for a visit to a doctor – even though they’ve already paid their Medicare levy, but a retired millionaire with a concession card? No problem madam – you’ll be bulk billed!!

Throw in the regressive nature of the GST, Howard’s failure to tax trusts as companies (trusts being a favourite tax dodge for the wealthy) and his treatment of those seeking asylum in this country and how long is this piece of string?

Next to the lack of fairness, I would have to say that John Howard’s mastery of deceit would have to be one of the saddest hallmarks of his Prime Ministership. I don’t just mean the bald faced lies like the ‘never-ever’ GST, but the day to day stuff – like the plastered-on look and tone of false sincerity when he insists that he hasn’t already decided to commit our country to war. You know, simple stuff like that.

Sorry if I’m rambling Margo, but you got me started! The last thing I want to say is that I’m a bit of a fan of John Ralston Saul, who talks about the power of language in some of his writings. I think its time that journalists, the opposition and community leaders harness the power of language to attack this government.

Let’s face it, this is the most extreme right wing government this country has ever experienced, so let’s call a spade a spade. A label like ‘extreme (or ‘ultra’) right wing’ could be an enormously damaging one if used against this government in a concerted and ongoing way.

I suppose, if you throw enough mud, some of it has to stick and there are plenty of instances where it would where John Howard is concerned. Maybe applying such a label is propaganda, but maybe we should fight fire with fire. Maybe there is a better label, but anything that takes the gloss off this disgusting government would be worthwhile.

***

Matthew Barnes in London

I’m at a loss to understand what John Howard stands for economically other than stealth tax and spend. Do you think that Howard is aware the burden that his policies have on the average Australian?

I would suspect that he and the Treasurer have absolutely no idea. Nevertheless, I’m sure they think they are doing a great job because there’s not a budget deficit and economic growth is about 3% per year.

Paradoxically, strong economic growth is a function of just how hard Australians are having to work to keep their heads above water.

Under the Australian regime its very simple to have a budget surplus. Every year there’s substantial wage creep and it’s a no brainer to earn surpluses by simply giving very little of it back. In contrast, over here in the UK there is a commitment to an annual indexation of the income tax brackets notwithstanding that economic growth is rarely more than 2% per annum.

Australians have really received none of the fruits of the labour they could expect from the 10+ years of strong economic growth. The top tax rate of 48.5% cuts in at about 1.4x Average Weekly Earnings compared to about 1.7x in 1990.

Nor can I understand this government’s obsession with being debt free. Name a company that carries no debt on its books! Compared to a company, governments have the benefit of a predictable revenue stream and should carry some debt. Nor can it be said that the interest burden for a AAA rated government is at all an issue.

Margo, I assure you I care about issues other than economics, but I feel the federal government’s lamentable performance in this area has not been criticised anywhere near to the extent that it should have been by the Australian press.

Opponents of the government should focus much more on this issue, as dissatisfaction in this area is much more likely to cause the Liberal’s electoral demise than some of the other issues that so infuriate opponents.

***

Jim Robinson in Perth

I read with great interest your articles about Howard and his plans. As a transplanted Canadian, I urge you to look at the Canadian situation in regards to US political partnership.

Canada has an appointed Senate, which means they are a ‘rubber stamp’ body that does nothing but cost money. All the real power is in the Prime Minister’s Office. This has lead to rorting of both power and money. For example, the ex-Minister of Public Works was investigated for influence peddling and appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands.

Canada does more than eighty percent of it’s trade with the US, and is the USA’s biggest trading partner. This did not stop the US from slapping a 27% duty on Canadian softwood lumber for the third time!! The last two times the WHO and NAFTA overturned the duties, but that did not stop the US Federal Government from trying again. If the US will do that to their biggest trading partner, what will they pull on Australia when they feel like it?

The politicians here need to be very careful when dealing with the US because they have proven time and again, that a deal is only a deal when it is good for the USA. And let’s not even start on the war in Iraq …

If you want a view of where Howard appears to be taking us, just look at the Great White North (Canada :-))

***

Andrew Byrne in Chiswick, Sydney

I recently read an article on the SMH online had me laughing my head off (Australia could be richer if economy more free).

The article was prompted by the publishing of a report primarily pushed by the Cato Institute in Washington. Seeing Cato and the name of a “reputable” economist Milton Friedman made me gag. Friedman is as neocon as one can be.

A while back, Margo, you wrote an article with an accompanying piece by Alistair Mant on corporations muddying public waters ( Muddying the waters between guardians and traders). It discussed PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives) and PPPs (Private/Public Partnerships) models.

Friedman is the god of Globalisation and father of the original PPP and PFI models in Chicago in the 1970s. The man is a lunatic who believes the world should roll over and let the corporate world get on with owning everything. This is his version of “economic freedom”. This philosophy is used by the priests and snake oil salesmen of the World Bank, World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund and the Cato Institute.

Their freedom medicine comes down the heroin syringe of Free Trade Agreements. In the US, the same system brought California (and other states since) to its knees.

As for the Cato Institute – where does one start? They’re very wealthy because vaults of money are hurled at them every year from the biggest corporations in banking, tobacco, oil, pharmaceuticals, media, technology and finance.

Names like Shell, Chevron, Exxon, Citibank/Citicorp, Chase Manhattan, American Express American Petroleum Institute, Pfizer, Saloman Brothers, Prudential, Microsoft and Philip Morris are just some of them.

Rupert Murdoch is up to his eyebrows in Cato (including his directorship of the institute (1997). The sponsorship data is very hard to get from Cato (but not impossible, obviously). Still, they’re very coy about who pays them to spout Orwellian gumpf.

I could spill it all out, but the previous paragraphs are enough to show that the SMH article promoting free trade is a standard diversionary plant. In World Bank/WTO parlance it’s part of the first of four phases in Free Trade Agreement based take-over called “Softening” (that fell out of their mouths – not mine).

The connection with Murdoch is even more wonderful. The article said Hong Kong was number one – the most free economy in its study. Does this suggest that its sinking democratic rights are directly proportional to its “economic freedom”? (It’s comparable to gloating that a death row in-mate has the best surround-sound home entertainment system on the cell block – gee, he’s so lucky and well off!)

How ironic to laud the greatness of Hong Kong’s economic freedom when Murdoch is currently pushing his media empire in China. Consider his cancellation of the BBC on his Star TV channel because Chinese authorities complained the BBC was being too nosy into China’s human rights history. In 1994 Murdoch said: “The BBC was driving them nuts. Its not worth it”. Murdoch quickly disconnected BBC from Star TV.

The Cato Institute said in its report: “The actual income of poor people increases as nations gain in economic freedom because of the increased wealth economic freedom generates.”

(Stunned silence)

A year or two ago a rubbish dump in Argentina saw the odd sight of jobless professionals combing the trash-heaps for food. It was just after Argentina had been manhandled into “economic freedom”.

Want economic freedom as Cato promises? Go ahead, enjoy your home entertainment system – the problem will be paying the 400% electricity bill increase from yesterday’s price just to watch your DVD. (400% increases and worse occurred regularly during the Californian energy crisis due to these same “free market systems” designed to allow private industry to set the prices for electricity, water, gas and telephone at their whim with no government oversight.)

In June last year Melbourne QC Julian Burnside launched a group called ‘Just and fair asylum’ with a blistering speech I published at Well, it’s the rule. A year on, he updated the state of our refugee policy in a speech at Victoria’s Parliament house on World Refugee Day. Here it is.

Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers: The view from outside

by Julian Burnside

A speech at Parliament House, Victoria on World Refugee Day 2003, first published at Scatt

The universal declaration of human rights is the most widely accepted international convention in human history. Most countries in the world are parties to it. Article 14 of the universal declaration of human rights provides that every person has a right to seek asylum in any territory to which they can gain access. Despite that almost universally accepted norm, when a person arrives in Australia and seeks asylum, we lock them up. We lock them up indefinitely and in conditions of the utmost harshness.

The Migration Act provides for the detention of such people until they are either given a visa or removed from Australia. In practice, this means that human beings men, women and children innocent of any crime are locked up for months, and in many cases years.

They are held in conditions of shocking harshness. The United Nations Human Rights Commission has described conditions in Australia’s detention centres as “offensive to human dignity”. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has described Australia’s detention centres as “worse than prisons” and observed “alarming levels of self-harm”. Furthermore, they have found that the detention of asylum seekers in Australia contravenes Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which bans arbitrary detention.

The Delegate of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner who visited Woomera in 2002 described it as “a great human tragedy”. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have repeatedly criticised Australia’s policy of mandatory detention and the conditions in which people are held in detention.

In short, every responsible human rights organisation in the world has condemned Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers. Only the Australian government and the Australian public are untroubled by our treatment of innocent, traumatised people who seek our help.

The matter reached an extreme during the Tampa “crisis”. The rhetoric of the Federal Government at that time came to this: that Australia had a sovereign right to protect its borders; that it had a right to decide who came into Australia and the circumstances in which they would come; that the Captain of the Tampa was threatening to infringe Australia’s sovereign rights, and that the civilised nations of the world supported Australia’s firm but principled stand. That was the rhetoric which helped the Howard Government win the November 2001 election.

The truth, of course, was very different. The Captain of the Tampa followed the written and unwritten law of the sea: he rescued people in distress and took them to the nearest place of safety, Christmas Island. For his efforts, Captain Arne Rinnan received the highest civil honour in Norway; his ship received commendations from mercantile and shipping organisations around the world; all the companies who had cargo on Tampa congratulated Captain Rinnan for the stand he took, even though their cargo was delayed 10 days by the episode. Australia, for its part, threatened to prosecute Captain Rinnan as a people smuggler. The disparity between Australia’s self-perception and the view of others from outside could hardly have been greater.

As a sidenote, I was recently in London and was introduced by Geoffrey Robertson, Q.C. to a number of European lawyers. He introduced me as “the barrister who acted for the Tampa asylum seekers”. It took me a couple of minutes to recognise the significance of the fact that his introduction was immediately comprehensible to them: they all knew about the Tampa episode and the stain it made on Australia’s national image. In recent months, Australia’s human rights’ record has been criticised by the South African judiciary. Less than 30 years ago, most Australians would have been ashamed to think that South Africa would criticise our human rights’ record.

It is hard to understand how Australia has got itself to this position. Part of the difficulty is, I think, that we lack the imagination to understand the realities of our policy of mandatory detention; and we fail to understand why it is the people seek asylum in the first place. The prevailing view in Australia seems to be that asylum seekers come here to improve their economic circumstances, and that we put them in holiday camps for a short time whilst their claims are processed. Let us consider the reality.

In late 2000 a family fled Iran. They were members of a small quasi-Christian sect which has traditionally been regarded as “unclean” by the religious majority. Their lives have traditionally been marked by persecution in every conceivable aspect. The recent history of Jews in Germany and Poland is a sufficient reminder of what happens to groups who are regarded by the majority as “unclean”. The family’s flight was triggered by a terrible event, the details of which are too terrible to relate at a luncheon like this. They arrived in Australia after a terrifying voyage across the sea and were locked up in Woomera. The family comprised mother and father in their thirties, and two daughters aged 7 and 10.

In Woomera, month after month, their condition deteriorated. In particular, the 10 year old girl who ceased eating, stopped engaging in self-care activities, had trouble sleeping and began scratching herself constantly. The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service of South Australia learnt of the family’s plight and went to examine them. They wrote a report which included the following passages:

“(She) does not eat her breakfast or other meals and throws her food in the bin. She was preoccupied constantly with death, saying ‘don’t bury me here in the camp, bury me back in Iran with grandfather and grandmother’.

(She) carried a cloth doll, the face of which she had coloured in blue pencil. When asked in the interview if she would like to draw a picture, she drew a picture of a bird in a cage with tears falling and a padlock on the door. She said she was the bird.

It is my professional opinion that to delay action on this matter will only result in further harm to (this child) and her family. The trauma and personal suffering already endured by them has been beyond the capacity of any human being and I foresee that this family will require intensive and ongoing therapy for some time to enable them to conciliate and recover.”

Despite the urgent recommendations in that report, the family were left where they were. A further report was sent and, after weeks of delay, the family was finally sent to the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre: Melbourne’s own concentration camp. When the family was moved, the South Australian authorities urged that the 10 year old daughter needed daily clinical attention. Nevertheless, for another three weeks nothing happened: no-one saw the family, no-one paid attention to the obvious psychological and medical needs of the 10 year old. Not long afterwards, on a Sunday night whilst her parents and her sister were at dinner, she hanged herself.

She did not die. When she was taken down, she tried to swallow shampoo because she had seen adults kill themselves that way in Woomera.

The family remained in immigration detention for another year. At last, after they had appealed to the full Federal Court, they were finally granted protection visas. In the meantime, they had suffered under Australia’s detention system for more than two years, the entire family has been traumatised to an extent which is inconceivable for ordinary members of the Australian community and a 10 year old girl very nearly succeeded in ending her own life.

That is the reality of mandatory indefinite detention in Australia in the 21st Century. It is passing strange that a government which prides itself in family values still implements policies so harsh that they drive children to attempt suicide. Suicide amongst pre-pubescent children is almost unheard of except in Australia’s detention centres.

* * *

Just as we do not really understand what mandatory detention entails, neither do we understand fully why people come here in the first place. If we had even a glimmer of understanding of the conditions which drive people out of their homeland, we might be inclined to treat them more compassionately.

Let a single instance serve the purpose. Currently in Australia’s detention centres there are several hundred Iranians who desperately fear being returned to Iran. They have so far failed to make the Immigration Department understand the fate which awaits them should they be returned to Iran. One of them sent me a video tape which had been smuggled out of Iran. It is the most disturbing video tape I have ever seen or ever wish to see.

The tape is apparently an official recording: it contains an Iranian watermark in the bottom right-hand corner. Notwithstanding that, it is fairly poor quality handheld and a bit blurry at times. The scene is a largish room. On one side of the room stand two people who might be officials: they are holding sheets of paper from which they are reading out loud in a flat, bureaucratic manner. In the centre of the room stands a group of five or six people, huddled together, looking distressed. They may be members of a family, or possibly friends. On the opposite side of the room is a table. On the table lies a man, face up. He is being held by the shoulders.

Most of the time the camera is focussed on the officials: they are reading and reading and reading.

The camera swings to the family group who look very distressed and upset. Then it swings to the man on the table who attempts to sit up but is restrained and held down again, he looks increasingly disturbed and terrified.

The camera focuses again on the officials who continue reading at great length but flatly, bureaucratically, without interest. Just as the viewer begins to wonder where all this is leading, the camera swings around to the man on the table and then they remove his eyes with forceps.

* * *

In 2002 Australia, along with more than 80 other nations, acceded to the Rome statute by which the International Criminal Court was created. The court is the first permanent court every established with jurisdiction to try war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators and regardless of the place where the offences occurred.

As part of the process of implementing the International Criminal Court regime, Australia has introduced into its own domestic law a series of offences which mirror precisely the offences over which the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction. So, for the first time since Federation, the Commonwealth of Australia now recognised genocide as a crime and now recognises various war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Australian Criminal Code now recognises various acts as constituting crimes against humanity. Two of them are of particular significance in the present context. They are as follows:

268.12 Crime Against Humanity Imprisonment Or Other Severe Deprivation Of Physical Liberty

A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:

the perpetrator imprisons one or more persons or otherwise severely deprives one or more persons of physical liberty; and

the perpetrator’s conduct violates article 9, 14 or 15 of the Covenant; and

the perpetrator’s conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 17 years.

Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b).

268.13 Crime against humanity torture

A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:

the perpetrator inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons who are in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator; and

the pain or suffering does not arise only from, and is not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions; and

the perpetrator’s conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years.”

(The Covenant referred to is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCPR.)

The elements of these offences are relatively simple. For the first, the elements are as follows:

The perpetrator imprisons one or more persons;

That conduct violates Article 9 of the ICCPR;

The conduct is committed knowingly as part of a systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Australia’s system of mandatory, indefinite detention appears to satisfy each of the elements of that crime. Mr Ruddock and Mr Howard imprison asylum seekers. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has found that the system violates Article 9 of the ICCPR. Their conduct is intentional, and is part of a systematic attack directed against those who arrive in Australia without papers and seek asylum. A representative of the International Criminal Court has expressed privately the view that asylum seekers as a group can readily be regarded as “a civilian population”.

The second of the offences begins with imprisonment in violation of 268.12 and has an added element that the perpetrator inflicts severe mental pain or suffering upon one or more of the persons in the custody of the perpetrator, and the pain or suffering doesn’t arise only from lawful sanctions.

There is abundant evidence of overwhelming mental suffering in Australia’s detention centres. Neither Mr Ruddock nor Mr Howard could rationally deny that they are aware of the suffering of the people they lock up.

A careful analysis of the criminal code therefore suggests that Mr Ruddock and Mr Howard are guilty of crimes against humanity by virtue of their imprisonment of asylum seekers. The prospect of their being prosecuted is remote, because the Federal Attorney-General has an effective veto on the laying of charges under these provisions. But whether they are charged with these offences or not may not matter. The important point is this: an increasing number of people are raising their voices against Australia’s system of mandatory indefinite detention of asylum seekers. They assert that the system is morally wrong. Unfortunately, the debate generally stalls when the protagonists are unable to agree about moral norms.

The argument against mandatory detention takes on a new complexion when it is seen that the system very likely amounts to a crime against humanity. Those who support mandatory detention on whatever grounds appeal to them may find it harder to justify the fact that our Government is engaged in crimes against humanity judged not only by the standards of the international community but by the standards of our own legislation.

Last week, I set out a scenario under which John Howard would oversee a seismic shift in Australia’s democracy. We would become a corporatist state almost fully integrated into the United States economically and militarily, in partnership with a mainstream media tightly controlled by Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer (Howard’s roads to absolute power).

Howard’s dominant political position and his success in coopting traditional institutions which operate as checks on power – the public service and much of the mass media – and in suppressing dissent by defunding public interest groups, stifling free speech in universities and terrorising the ABC – makes this neo-liberal, neo-conservative dream plausible. But what are the weak points, and can it be countered?

There are several faultlines I can think of, apart from the unpredictable outcomes in Iraq and the possibility of a world recession. They are:

* a backlash from traditional Liberal voters,

* the politics of Telstra,

* the risks of Howard’s idea to gut the Senate blowing up in his face and

* the chance that non-Coalition parties, independents and our public interest groups could band together to defend Australian values and Australian democracy against the Howard onslaught.

Howard has many things going for him. The world is now so complicated and frightening that many people want to trust Howard – almost a ‘father figure’ – with their fate and get on with their lives to meet the increasing obligations he imposes on them, including funding their basic health care and education for their kids. They’re working longer, harder, and less securely – their lives are tightly managed and they want to relax with sport, entertainment and home renovation. Many have disconnected from their society as communities disintegrate, partly because few have the time to contribute to their local community and build local support systems. Many people, perhaps most, have lost faith in their democratic institutions – the law, media, the public service and business. Many salve their alienations and insecurities through downward envy and prejudice, a tendency happily exploited by Howard.

Faultline 1: Will true Liberals revolt?

As we saw from reader reaction last week, some of Howard’s traditional constituency, particularly small l Liberals, are uncomfortable with Howard’s agenda. As natural opponents of big government, they didn’t like his grab for state power and control with his original ASIO and anti-terrorism bills. They prefer a more independent foreign policy, and they’re growing increasingly concerned at the excesses of Howard’s refugee policy. They understand that his cross media proposals threaten our democratic right to know what’s going on. To true Liberals, Howard’s combination of small government in the economic sphere and extra large, highly intrusive government in the private, social sphere, is untenable. It’s also grating, because at the international level, where big business makes the big money and wields enormous power, Howard is a fan of international agreements to grease big business wheels. Yet on human and civil rights and environmental protection he walks away from our international obligations and slams them as a breach of national sovereignty. In other words, the place of the citizen in the state and the world is downgraded, even ignored, as we are told we exist to serve “the economy” and Howard busily dismantles our civil “society”.

I believe that some in the business world will also grow increasingly concerned. After all, if Packer and Murdoch control the mainstream media we’re talking an effective oligopoly. That means the pair could set advertising rates at high levels, hurting big and small business alike. The pair could also veto advertising which is not in their interests. Already in Sydney, professionals like lawyers and accountants have to decide whether they’re Packer or Murdoch people. An increase in their power compromises them further. (My analysis of the consequences for Australia if Howard’s cross media revolution gets up is at Closing the door on your right to know.)

An interesting piece in last week’s media supplement in The Australian revealed that stockbroker Roger Colman, of CCZ Equities, had advised independent Senator Shayne Murphy and One Nation’s Len Harris on Howard’s cross media revolution:

“In his role as a broker, Colman had previously advised financial institutions which media share prices would benefit from media reform. “I was arguing against the research I put out, and I was arguing in my capacity as a private citizen,” he says. “I did not want to be swamped by Kerry Packer.”

There’s now a gaping hole in our political market place – small l Liberals (and middle class Labor voters with similar values) have nowhere to go. Last year, the Democrats imploded after Meg Lees and her supporters sought to move the Democrats into the centre, with a policy of cooperating with the Coalition agenda in exchange for side deals on things like the environment and the ABC, while standing firm on core small l principles of a non-intrusive state and human and civil rights.

That cause was lost, but Lees now has a new party, the Australian Progressive Alliance, which is seeking to fill the gap. It’s a hopeless cause, one would think, without the attraction of a big name to get momentum and perhaps even a few breakaway Liberals from what’s left of the moderate strand of the Liberal Party.

There’s a wild interview with former opposition leader John Hewson in last week’s Bulletin magazine in which he strongly criticises John Howard’s agenda. Hewson is an economic dry with progressive views on foreign policy, the environment and human rights. He supports us signing the Kyoto protocol, opposed us invading Iraq without UN sanction and is a critic of our refugee policy. Maxine McKew, after hearing his rave over lunch, wrote:

“Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Is this the sound of a resurgent political ambition? Is John Hewson making another run? He doesn’t back away from the question. “I’ve had dozens of offers to go back. Wealthy people offering to fund me, either to go back or set up a new party. Every time there is a preselection in Wentworth (Hewson’s old seat in Sydney) there are people who want to know if I’ll run. But my view in life is you never go back.”

But to paraphrase what Al Gore’s mate Bill Clinton would say, it may depend on what ‘going back’ means.”

I’ve had quite a few conversations with Liberal moderate staffers and pollies over the years where the question a new, true Liberal Party came up. It’s probably not possible, for now at least, but Hewson’s musings indicate some alternatives.

Liberal aligned independents have the potential to do well in safe Liberal seats, as Ted Mack showed when he held North Sydney for years. Peter McDonald gave Tony Abbott a run for his money in his Sydney North Shore seat at the last election.

The vast majority of Liberal voters in safe Liberal seats would not dream of voting Labor, although a few of them are voting Green. I’d see promise in a well-funded, high powered group funding strong, respected, people in safe Liberal seats to stand as Liberal independents. They’d promise to support a Liberal government on supply, but to act in accordance with their conscience otherwise. They’d be loosely aligned, run joint advertising campaigns, and pool their supporter base. Someone like John Hewson or the renegade former NSW party president John Valder could endorse the group and campaign for them.

FAULTLINE 2: The Senate focus

But the real action would be in the Senate. Howard will publish his discussion paper on dumping the Senate’s veto power over the winter break (see Howard’s rubber-stamp democracy). Howard’s ploy is to trap Labor into supporting the idea because he’s nicked one of their traditional cornerstone issues. Labor won’t do it – can’t do it – though, because now Labor is the Party trying to preserve the status quo and the social contract, while Howard is the radical reformer.

The concerns of some Liberal voters about Howard’s direction could help mobilise a centre-right team in Senate races and an unprecedented focus on the Senate campaign at the next election on the theme of keeping John Howard accountable. A prominent person to head the ticket in each state and a well funded campaign could spell danger for Howard.

Faultline 3: Telstra danger (Disclosure: I own Telstra shares.)

Then there’s the Nationals. Webdiarist Denis Berrell is sanguine about my Howard scenario. “How is John Howard going to manage a majority in the House of Representatives after the National Party get wiped out at the next election after supporting the sale of Telstra?” he asks.

Let me tell you, some cynical political observers in Canberra think Howard’s Telstra play is actually designed to destroy the Nats, thus freeing him from the economic and cultural constraints they place on his agenda.

The Liberals still insist that the proceeds of a sale would retire debt, and won’t yet answer the obvious rejoinder – that Peter Costello announced after the last budget that our debt was now low enough, and that’s why he could give a tax cut. My guess is that Howard will attempt a 1996 type tactic at the next election. Back then, he announced that a Liberal government would sell one third of Telstra, with much of the proceeds to go to a Natural Heritage Trust. But it’s likely that Telstra shares won’t be anywhere near the right price to sell by the next election, so any such promises would be a bit never-never.

I reckon the Nationals are in appalling trouble over this issue. There are already two country independents in the Parliament – Bob Katter in North Queensland and Tony Windsor in country NSW, both of whom are strong opponents of Howard’s cross media laws and the sale of Telstra. Both have threatened to start a new Country Party or country alliance to capitalise on the National’s troubles. Like the small l liberal apprehension, country Australia is very suspicious of Howard’s big business agenda, and there’s no guarantee One Nation leaners will stick with him because of his hardline refugee policy. A new Country Party or country alliance would be well placed to tap into disaffection. Again, they could promise to back the Coalition on supply but keep them honest on other matters.

More broadly, the public’s attitude to selling Telstra could be a referendum on how it judges the success of privatisations so far, particularly in areas where very Australian believes he or she has a basic right to services. It’s called fairness. Tony Windsor’s line is potent – that government ownership means our elected representatives are truly accountable for performance, and that once Telstra is off the leash, anything goes. Little people, as always, will suffer, as they have post the Commonwealth bank and electricity privatisations. Why has the bush got a good deal on telecommunications services for the past few years? Because the government wants to sell. Why would ordinary citizens vote to lose cede yet more of their power in a democracy to private, unaccountable business in the game for money alone?

Faultline 4: Unholy alliances

Last night’s Four Corners program on the operation of the Tweed Shire council in northern NSW, Ocean views, is a classic micro view of the big picture, and of the emerging formation of unlikely alliances against the new values of money talks and only making money for big business matters. Big developers effectively bought the last council election, and it’s been let her rip ever since, with processes subverted, transparency in retreat, and a pristine coastline razed to the ground to prepare for million dollar views for the wealthy.

The “opposition” comprises Liberal/Green/Labor and National Party councillors. A new newspaper detailing the dirty tricks and developer misdeeds has just started in the Tweed, and the four opposition councillors proudly appear in the same full page advertisement as representatives of the local community insisting on having a say in determining what happens to their community. What do you want to preserve of your way of life? Do you have a right to help decide what your children will enjoy, or lose the enjoyment of? Local unholy alliances are made up of local people normally at loggerheads who realise that only they care about the public interest, and that the public interest requires them to work together to keep the playing field fair and the community in the game.

Could this local trend move up to the federal sphere? Mobilisation of disaffection across the political spectrum would upset Howard’s presently unassailable constituency mix. Medicare, education, Telstra, the Senate, and foreign policy – all have the potential to splinter the mix by creating unlikely partners in opposition. Just one example. Who would have thought that small l Liberal and Labor internationalism could align with One Nation nationalism against Howard? Yet they do when it comes to Howard’s planned free trade agreement and his subservience to US foreign policy demands. Neither constituency is at all happy that Howard is happy to see a secretive US military tribunal try David Hicks while US citizens captured in Afghanistan in the same circumstances enjoy the full protection of US law and its constitutional bill of rights. This is straight out double standards and Australian acquiescence to Australian citizens being second class world citizens. Many Liberals are also determined to protect and enhance our local culture, and not see it buried in foreign material if the Americans get their way in the free trade talks.

Often it’s about issues of process, of the means to the end. In the end, people under pressure – and they include Labor, Democrats, Greens, Liberal and One Nation voters – want a fair process and transparency in decision making. The key moment is when all of them realise that there’s an enormous force out there which threatens to swamp them all, and that their only chance to protect their right to have a say is to band together against the common enemy. For instance, the far right, the left and small l Liberals were as one on the evils of Howard’s ASIO and anti-terrorist bills. Imagine the power of that coalition if they worked together, rather than separately, on such campaigns. Similarly, all parties except the Coalition opposed Howard’s cross media bill, and his decision to follow the US into Iraq without UN sanction.

These sorts of issue or values specific alliances on particular issues would require a major mindshift from the players based on the recognition that fighting amongst each other while the Howard machine rolls over all of them is counterproductive. They might even need to agree to disagree on some fundamental issues while agreeing that the big political picture required the election of a Labor government in the short term, when they could resume battling it out between themselves.

This would be provided, of course, that Labor listened and learned, articulated the values which united opponents of Howard’s agenda, guaranteed to raise ethical standards in the public service, politics and business and to improve the accountability of all three.

Labor would also have to defend the Senate. If it did, an anti-Howard coalition might even work together on an intensive Senate election campaign, deciding preferences with a view to getting anyone BUT Coalition candidates up. As we know from Malcolm Mackerras in ‘Howard’s roads to absolute power’, Howard can expect a vote of 42 percent in the Senate at the next election, which would deliver him half the Senate seats, and the delightful prospect of needing to woo only one non-Coalition Senator to ram through its policy agenda.

To counter this, a disparate groups of political parties and interest groups would need to focus the public’s mind on the dangers of such dominance and convince Australians they need to curb Howard’s excesses with their Senate vote.

All this, of course, would require enormous effort and commitment from many Australians on the ground, who’d have to be willing to dedicate some of their precious spare time to establishing local networks and action groups. All the non-Coalition parties and movements would need to bulk up their grassroots membership and bypass the mainstream media in favour of traditional and direct information and grassroots political campaigns. The return of the town meeting, perhaps? Letter box drops, routinely. Local fundraising events. Guest speakers. Social events. All of it. The internet is the building block for such an ambitious undertaking. Websites would aim to attract activists across Australia who would then do the grassroots work.

These things can work, you know. There’s a bloke called Howard Dean who was considered a rank outsider in the US Democrats presidential race. He’s the only Democrats contender who’s been against the Iraqi war from the beginning, and through the internet he’s garnered more money for his campaign than any other candidate. He’s now a frontrunner! (See Salon).

During Hanson’s 1998 election campaign, I realised that Australia was divided by the fact that we couldn’t understand each other. The urge to preserve our democracy would require disparate Australians to drop their certainties and their prejudices against the prejudices of others and really talk to each other directly again in plain terms, taking joint responsibility for our legacy to future generations.

They’d need to look for what they had in common, rather than what divides them (Howard’s motto in reverse!) And they’d need to realise that whatever their differences, they had one thing in common – the determination to save and enhance our democracy against the forces which seek to diminish it and disempower the people.

In the late Labor government years, when the media was at its beck and call and many issues affecting ordinary Australians were not discussed or discussed in dehumanised terms, a red head from Ipswich broke through and a grassroots movement exploded into the public arena. Hansonites didn’t trust anything they read in the newspapers and began an internet site to spread their own information and reinforce their own beliefs. In a strange way, most of us who fear Howard’s agenda are now outsiders. We fear losing our voice, our say, in what our society is to be and what values it is to live by.

Howard’s media are even more dominant than were the Keating media elite. If the One Nation experience is anything to go by, disaffected Australians may again be ready to again bypass it to look elsewhere for their information and their world view.

If this is true, that old Australian trait of backing the underdog could come into play. Australians could become uncomfortable with John Howard’s rush to absolute power and, if Labor gets its act together, vote Labor to keep Howard on some sort of leash, or even toss him out.

Politics today is an exercise in feeling the earth move under your feet.