Senator Brian Harradine and I have had several disagreements over the years, particularly on family planning issues, but we have come to like and respect each other. Last year Brian saved Australia�s only law to protect the diversity of ownership of Australia�s media, for which I will be forever grateful (see The debate that dare not speak its name and Brian Harradine: The voice of reason on media laws).

 

Brian is a major character in my book, in which I said of him:

�In my opinion, Brian Harradine is a statesman. If there�s one single politician I�d choose to have represent me on a vote of genuine bipartisan importance to Australia, it might just be him…

�Brian Harradine is a great Australian. One day someone will tell his story in the detail it deserves.�

Brian, the longest serving Senator in Australia�s Parliament, announced yesterday that he would retire. Here is his statement, and his summary of the highlights of his long and tumultuous political career.

***

HARRADINE STATEMENT

Senator Harradine will not recontest seat

I will not be recontesting my Tasmanian Senate seat at the next election. My term is due to end on 30 June 2005. I will leave the Senate as the longest serving senator in the current Parliament and the longest serving independent senator since Federation.

I have made this decision with some sadness and regret. After notifying my supporters of my intentions, I have received very strong appeals to reconsider. But I am sure they and other Tasmanians will understand that after reaching 30 years in the Senate next year, I would like to spend more time with my family. I would also like to concentrate on some writing, speaking engagements and bushwalking. (Margo: want to write for Webdiary, Brian?)

The Senator Brian Harradine Group will not be nominating another candidate for the election.

In my time in this place I have endeavoured to address public policy matters by applying a framework of social justice principles able to be understood and supported by all persons of goodwill who are committed to a just, free, equal, and life-affirming society.

When I was first elected to the Senate, I confronted a clear threat to the Australian way of life from Communists and the socialist left. From my first days in Parliament I urged a new and moderate path for Australia, arguing vigorously for economic justice for smaller states like Tasmania. I also demanded greater recognition and assistance for Australian families.

I am proud of my strong advocacy over the years for people suffering political oppression, for the rights of workers in Australia and overseas to organise, for initiatives to combat chronic unemployment and for assistance to refugees.

Throughout my parliamentary career I have sought to defend the dignity of the human person against attacks by those who promote a utilitarian philosophy.

In defending human dignity I have decried the objectification of women by the pornography and prostitution industries, tried to prevent the tragic destruction of unborn children through abortion and denounced the �what can be done should be done� technological imperative of some scientists experimenting on human embryos as though they are laboratory rats.

I am particularly proud of the role I have played in promoting and defending the Senate not as a rubber stamp for the government of the day, but as a true house of review scrutinising and refining the laws under which we all live. In the face of increasing centralisation of power, I have sought to ensure the Senate acts to protect the smaller states.

During the difficult GST debate, I remarked that you can be a rooster one day and a feather duster the next. But in recent times I have:

* secured $353 million for Tasmanians from the minority sales of Telstra. This money has contributed to the turn around in the Tasmanian economy;

* secured, as part of negotiations between the independents and the Government, an extra 1600 new university student places for Tasmanians by 2008, many of which will go to the state�s north and north west;

* brokered the Wik agreement which not only provided an equitable outcome for indigenous Australians, but also avoided a race-based election.

I will continue to strive to ensure Australia as a society measures up to the standard I have always espoused: that the measure of a civil society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

***

Senator Brian Harradine: a short history

Family man

Born Richard William Brian Harradine on 9 January 1935 at Quorn, South Australia. His wife Barbara died in 1980 after 18 years of marriage, leaving behind Brian and their six children. He married Marian, a widow with seven children, in 1982. He and Marian now have 27 grandchildren. Marian and Brian Harradine share a love of bushwalking and have walked in most areas of Tasmania.

Work and Union

Brian�s first job was on the Commonwealth Railway�s (CR) Ghan and East West services. After parting company with the CR he worked with the Post Master General’s Department (PMG) – Engineering Division – in Adelaide.

In late 1959 Brian Harradine arrived in Tasmania as a union organiser with the Federated Clerks� Union. During his first weeks in Tasmania, Brian resided in the head office keeper�s quarters on the roof of the Franklin Square Government Offices building in central Hobart.

He was Secretary of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council and a member of the Australian Council of Trade Unions executive for twelve years from 1964 to 1976. He was also instrumental in changing the first of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council objectives to that of the International Labour Organisation (ILO): �To contribute to the development of an economic and social order in which people can live with freedom and dignity and pursue both their spiritual development and material well-being in conditions of economic security and equal opportunity.�

Founder of the Tasmanian branch of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association and its president since 1967.

ALP member

Member of the ALP Tasmanian State Executive from 1965 to 1975.

Member of the Australian Labor Party Federal Executive from 1968 to 1975. Despite being repeatedly elected by the Tasmanian state conference of the ALP to the ALP Federal Executive, the socialist left voted to deny his right to sit on the Federal Executive for seven years. The Leader of the Opposition, Gough Whitlam, resigned as parliamentary leader to protest Brian Harradine�s treatment and was subsequently re-elected, defeating Dr Jim Cairns narrowly.

Expelled from the ALP by a 9-8 vote of the Federal Executive in September 1975. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam said at the time: �Harradine is the victim of perjured evidence.�

The Tasmanian ALP State Executive continued to support Brian Harradine. Rather than see further conflict between the Tasmanian branch and the Federal Executive, and to avoid possible Federal Executive intervention in the Tasmanian branch, Brian Harradine decided to appeal over the heads of the Federal Executive to the Tasmanian people and run for the Senate as an independent.

Independent Senator for Tasmania

Elected as a Tasmanian member of the Senate in 1975 as the first independent to win a Senate seat on primary votes. Senator Harradine achieved nearly two Senate quotas. Since elected to the Senate for six consecutive terms.

When elected he said he held no animosity towards the Labor Party. �In politics or the trade union movement, it is counter-productive,� he said.

He marked his first day in Parliament (17 February 1976) by deliberately taking the seat of the Opposition Leader, Gough Whitlam, at the centre table opposite the Prime Minister. Labor MPs and senators had boycotted the official opening of Parliament by Governor General Sir John Kerr. Senator Harradine said at the time: �Cabinet ministers started filling the front benches usually occupied by the Opposition. I felt this was too much and a position had been reached where the Government was getting it all its own way. I am sure many Labor supporters in Australia will be pleased that an Opposition presence was made.�

Balance of power

Between July 1981 and December 1984 Senator Harradine�s vote could become a deciding one, depending on whether the Democrat vote split.

Between December 1994 and March 1996, Senator Harradine�s vote, combined with the ALP, Democrats and Greens, was sufficient to carry legislation. If Senator Harradine voted with Senator Devereux and the Coalition, their combined vote was sufficient to defeat legislation. After September 1995 the vote of independent Senator Crichton-Brown (Margo: expelled from the Liberal Party) was also necessary to defeat Government legislation.

Between August 1996 and June 1999, Senator Harradine�s vote combined with Senator Colston�s and the Coalition Government was sufficient to carry legislation.

Between July 2002 and the present, Senator Harradine�s vote combined with the votes of Senators Murphy, Lees, Harris and the Coalition Government passes legislation.

In all Senate situations, irrespective of balance of power considerations, Senator Harradine has consistently argued the need to debate issues on their merits.

Some key events

In November 1976 Senator Harradine moved an urgency motion in the Senate to note that Queenstown was facing a 40 per cent cut in its workforce as a result of job cuts at the Mount Lyell mine on Tasmania�s west coast. Senator Harradine was subsequently appointed to the Select Committee on the Operations of the Mount Lyell Company. The Committee reported in December. The company�s financial problems were largely addressed by the Government�s decision in November to devalue the Australian dollar. The Committee recommended the Government consider further support for the copper industry. The company responded by halving its planned retrenchments.

In February 1978 Senator Harradine called for the establishment of an Australian coast guard. �The current method of maritime sovereignty enforcement is inefficient, wasteful and a drain on Australian defence capabilities. Naval patrols and aerial surveillance equipment are wastefully under-utilised in the essentially civil tasks involved in fisheries patrols and Australian law enforcement offshore�. The coast guard would address the problem of illegal foreign fishing boats and drug running. He also called for some of the manufacture of the coast guard fleet to be undertaken in Tasmania.

In August 1980 Senator Harradine presented what was described at the time as a �massive� petition of over 22,000 Australians to the Senate calling for the restoration of the value of family allowances. He has spoken on family allowances and the need to provide adequate support to families since 1976. The importance of this issue in the electorate was reflected in his record vote achieved in the 1980 Federal Election.

In June 1982 Senator Harradine chaired the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation. He reported to the Senate in October 1982 that the Committee found:

“The proposed legislation is an undesirable and unwarranted intervention into the field of industrial relations, particularly at a time when high levels of unemployment have already disturbed this balance. The Committee believes quite firmly that viable unions are essential for the operation of Australia’s system of conciliation and arbitration.”

In May 1985 Senator Harradine introduced a private members bill � the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, along with a petition with 100,000 signatures supporting it. The Bill sought to ban destructive experimentation on human embryos and anticipated by 17 years the debate over the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. A Senate committee reported on the Bill in October 1986, recommending a ban on destructive research on human embryos, but the Bill was not given time for debate.

On 17 August 1989, as Chair of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, Senator Harradine supported the introduction of the Abortion Funding Abolition Bill 1989 into the House of Representatives. The Bill would have ended Medicare funding of abortion. The Bill was not given time for debate.

In September 1990 Senator Harradine successfully moved an amendment to the Patents Act to ensure that �Human beings, and the biological processes for their generation, are not patentable inventions�.

In August 1993 Senator Harradine criticised the government for having �no plans to compensate Tasmanians for the increased costs across Bass Strait through proper adjustment of the freight equalisation scheme�. The Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme was adjusted in the 1993-94 federal budget as part of negotiations between Treasurer John Dawkins and Senator Harradine. A Department of the Parliamentary Library budget review paper recorded �an agreement was made with Senator Harradine for the provision of a further $2 million per year for four years to alleviate Bass Strait shipping costs. This resulted in a 5% increase in TFES rates of assistance�.

In May 1996 Senator Harradine successfully moved an amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1996 (No. 2) which ensures that abortion-inducing drugs cannot be imported into Australia without the express permission of the Federal Health Minister, rather than it being the decision of a departmental officer.

On 4 December 1996 Senator Harradine successfully moved an amendment to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill to ensure that the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) debt repayment threshold takes account of families. The income threshold at which HECS debts start to be repaid increased from the basic $20,700 to $23,478 for those graduates with a spouse, to $25,749 for those graduates with one child and so on. This takes account of graduates� capacity to pay.

On 11 December 1996 Senator Harradine supported the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Act 1996 (T1) which secured $183 million for Tasmanians for an unprecedented program combining environmental protection with technological advancement. This money was used to establish 59 on-line access centres throughout Tasmania, Telehealth centres, the Tasmanian Electronic Commerce Centre, Tasmanian Business On-line, landcare projects, walking tracks and facilities in the World Heritage area, National Parks and other Natural Heritage Trust projects.

In June 1997 Senator Harradine was instrumental in the establishment of an inquiry to examine the fairness of the settlement offered by the Commonwealth Government to recipients of human pituitary hormones who had contracted or were at risk of contracting the incurable Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD). The inquiry also heard damning evidence that CSL and other Government bodies failed to protect public safety. (Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report on the CJD Settlement Offer, October 1997). Senator Harradine called for a more wide ranging examination of the issue of contaminated blood, which had wreaked havoc in the lives of so many innocent people.

In July 1998 Senator Harradine negotiated a compromise to balance preserving native title rights and a new system for the recognition and operation of native title. This negotiation helped to avoid a divisive race-based election that could have played into the hands of extremists. The agreement he crafted led to the longest Parliamentary debate since Federation on a particular measure – the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 (No.2), known as the Wik debate.

In an opinion piece, Senator Harradine said:

�The ultimate result of the Wik debate is bipartisan acceptance of native title as a legitimate part of Australian law – a remarkable achievement given the vehemence with which the High Court was attacked after Mabo and Wik � the compromise I negotiated benefited indigenous Australians. It also held the line against attempts to further erode native title rights while delivering positive benefits such as the ability to negotiate Indigenous Land Use Agreements, improved claims and registration processes, and reaffirmation of the operation -of the Racial Discrimination Act.�

In July 1998 Senator Harradine�s persistent efforts to secure an inter-country adoption agreement between Australia and China were successful, allowing the adoption of Chinese children by Australian couples for the first time.

In May 1999 Senator Harradine prompted a Senate Inquiry into the operation of Australia�s Refugee and Humanitarian Programme after exposing the deportation of an 8 � month pregnant Chinese woman who was aborted on arrival in China. The Committee report A Sanctuary Under Review: An Examination of Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Determination Processes was completed in June 2000.

On 14 May 1999 Senator Harradine announced he would not support the Government�s GST package:

�But one thing can be guaranteed, and that is that the goods and services tax, once enshrined in legislation, will never be removed. Decisions we make now on this issue are not for the next three years; we are making decisions here that will affect generations. The question that I have to ask myself is whether I am going to be a party to imposing an impersonal, indiscriminate tax on my children, my grandchildren and their children for generations to come. I cannot.�

In May 1999 Senator Harradine reached agreement with the Government for his support for the Online Content Co-Regulatory Scheme. The Scheme was part of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999. The Scheme puts restrictions on Internet content that is likely to offend adults and was meant to provide for the protection of children from pornography.

On 21 June 1999 Senator Harradine supported the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 (T2), negotiating another $150 million for Tasmanians, plus a further $20 million from Telstra. This led to funding for the Intelligent Island program, NetAlert to promote Internet safety to Australians, funding under the Networking the Nation program and the Launceston Broadband Project.

In June 2001 Senator Harradine called for the release of women, children and families seeking asylum, where their detention was not necessary for security or some other compelling reason, in a qualifying comment to the Human Rights Sub-Committee report on visits to immigration detention centres.

In February 2003 Senator Harradine opposed the war in Iraq on the grounds that he was not convinced that it satisfied the tests for a �just war�.

In June 2003 Senator Harradine successfully moved an amendment to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002 to ensure that a media proprietor could not own both a television licence and a newspaper in the same mainland capital city. This contributed to the rejection of the Bill by the Government and the House of Representatives.

In September 2003 Senator Harradine negotiated with the Government to change Therapeutic Goods Regulations to ensure that consumers will be informed if human embryos, human embryonic stem cells or materials derived from embryos or stem cells are used in the manufacture or testing of pharmaceuticals. Consumers can then make an informed decision as to whether they want to use these drugs. The Government agreed to require pharmaceutical companies to provide plain English advice in Product Information (pamphlets for medical professionals) and Consumer Medicine Information (pamphlets for consumers), which are available for all registered drugs in Australia. This was a world first.

On 24 October 2003 Senator Harradine boycotted a special joint sitting of parliament convened to hear Chinese President Hu Jintao in protest against continuing and appalling breaches of human rights committed by the Chinese government. Senator Harradine said the parliamentary address set a precedent by honouring the head of a totalitarian regime in the elected chamber and he could not take part.

In December 2003 Senator Harradine and his three independent colleagues negotiated with the Government over the Higher Education Support Bill to achieve a variety of benefits including an increase in the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) income repayment threshold from $24,000 to $35,000. The Bill secured more than $200 million in benefits over six years for Tasmanians, including an extra 1600 new university student places for the state.

In March 2004 Senator Harradine and his three independent colleagues negotiated with the Government to secure an extra $427 million in improvements to MedicarePlus. This included ensuring Tasmania had the higher $7.50 bulk billing incentive across Tasmania and ensuring an extra 6,600 individuals and families in Tasmania get access to the safety net. Improving the coverage of the safety net was the only concrete way, barring the Government properly investing in Medicare, of making sure lower income people are safe from the burden of high medical bills.

G’day. A number a readers have complained about a line in On the road again in response to a query from Tim and Anna-Maria Stephens:

“Hi Margo. Please see below our e-mail to Minister Downer today concerning Australia’s vote in the UN General Assembly on the West Bank wall. This one has really slipped under the radar. Why, we can all ask, was there no public debate about this? (Margo: Because the fundamentalist Zionist lobby controls politics and the media in the US and Australia. A chapter in my book by Antony Loewenstein includes an indictment of the tactics of these people by Bob Carr.)

As you know, I routinely publish complaints about my work, of which there were many during last year’s debate on the Ashrawi affair (for example, see Ashrawi leaves behind a fresh air debate on the Israel Palestine question and More than two sides to Ashrawi fallout story.)

But this time, most complaints were marked ‘not for publication’ and went straight to the editor, demanding that I be sacked for “anti-Semitic Jew baiting” and “incitement to racial hatred”. I was also accused of “the kind of language and views that I might expect to find in some diatribe by Goebbels”. Another complainant said that my “comments come straight out of Czarist Russia”.

A number of colleagues at the Sydney Morning Herald also wrote to me privately expressing their distaste for my remarks. The suggestion that “the fundamentalist Zionist lobby controls politics and the media in the US and Australia” was “not true now – and nor was it true when a secret group of “fundamentalist” Russian Jews, who planned to set up a Jewish world state, were alleged to have declared that “the Press, with a few exceptions, is already entirely in our hands”.

The only complaint not marked NFP was from Paul Williams, who wrote: “Well done Margo, straight from the annals of Nazi propaganda. Tell me, do the Jews control the banks and international finance as well?”

Obviously, I did not mean what many people believed I meant. I am not anti-semitic, and I thought what I wrote was a statement of fact. Is there a language problem here? So I read more about Zionism, its history and its various meanings at Wikipedia and corresponded with two Jewish Australians of my acquaintance to work out where I’d gone wrong.

One, who wishes to remain anonymous, wrote that my comment was “a bit rich – it’s harking back to classic anti-semitic stereotypes.” I responded: “I admit I’m at a loss to understand the anti-semitic charge. Is it the use of the ‘Zionist’ lobby? After all, there are Zionist Federations everywhere. Or is it the suggestion that this lobby controls politics and silences the media on the Israel issue? I’d really appreciate your advice on this – it seemed so uncontroversial when I wrote it – I suppose because I mix largely with left wing Jewish Australians. Is there another form of words which won’t offend people but makes the same point?”

He replied: “It’s the second suggestion: that Zionist groups control politics and the media i.e. that they are lumped into one intangible network, with a power so great that it is by nature malignant. By analogy, it’s akin to lumping all muslims into one one umbrella, and assigning to all muslims the aims and activities of just some. I also think using the adjective ‘fundamentalist’ is not quite right. It implies a religious fundamentalism and the religious intolerance (no brooking of difference in values) that goes with that. I suspect you were alluding to the political intolerance (ie no brooking of dissent). There’s a difference.”

I still couldn’t quite work it out, because “Fundamentalist Zionism” was not a description of all Jewish people, but of some Jewish and some fundamentalist Christian people in a political movement which support the actions of Sharon and his Likud party without question. In that regard, on the recommendation of a reader I read Israel’s apartheid: roots in ‘Revisionist Zionism’ (July 23). It reads:

When Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister of Israel, the picture on the wall was not that of Theodore Herzl, the secular and worldly European Jewish journalist whose book ‘The Jewish State’ launched the movement to create a modern-day nation-state tied to historical Judaism. Rather the picture on the wall was that of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Jewish militant who was for many years the arch-nemesis of the Zionist establishment led by David Ben-Gurion and the Labor Party.

Jabotinsky was in fact declared a fascist by his opponents for espousing what today can be easily recognized as a kind of racist ‘ethnic-cleansing’ philosophy. He was so controversial that the leaders of Israel refused to even let him be buried in the Jewish State until the late 1970s after the first victory of his followers when Manachem Begin became Prime Minister.

In 1923, a generation after Herzl wrote ‘The Jewish State’, Jabotinsky wrote ‘The Iron Wall’. The roots of what has become Israeli Apartheid and now the widely-condemned nearly 500 kilometer long “Wall” are in this approach to the Palestinians long known as “Revisionism Zionism” and long the underlying philosophy of those who today rule Israel and attempt to speak for American Jewry. This telling excerpt from Jabotinsky’s ‘The Iron Wall’:

“There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. All well-meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some general understanding of the history of colonization. Try to find even one example when the colonization of a country took place with the agreement of the native population. Such an event has never occurred.

The natives will always struggle obstinately against the colonists – and it is all the same whether they are cultured or uncultured. The comrades in arms of [Hernan] Cortez or [Francisco] Pizarro conducted themselves like brigands. The Redskins fought with uncompromising fervor against both evil and good-hearted colonizers. The natives struggled because any kind of colonization anywhere at anytime is inadmissible to any native people.

Any native people view their country as their national home, of which they will be complete masters. They will never voluntarily allow a new master. So it is for the Arabs. Compromisers among us try to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked with hidden formulations of our basic goals. I flatly refuse to accept this view of the Palestinian Arabs.

They have the precise psychology that we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.

It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same condition exists now.

Even an agreement with non-Palestinians represents the same kind of fantasy. In order for Arab nationalists of Baghdad and Mecca and Damascus to agree to pay so serious a price they would have to refuse to maintain the Arab character of Palestine.

We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.”

***

This was the sense in which I used the phrase “Fundamentalist Zionism”. Could a reader advise another form of words to describe this subset of Zionism which does not offend? As to my belief that powerful members of this subset control politics and the media, I thought this was stating a fact (see, for example, Shifting sands and awakening public and Senator Hollings Is Right: it’s all about Israel). I thought it was well known that in the US no politician wanting re-election would speak out about the excesses of current Israeli policy. I thought the relentless intimidation of the media by Australia’s AIJAC was commonly accepted. Clearly neither of these suppositions were true. My apologies.

I also asked Jenny Green, a long time Webdiarist and Jewish Australian, to help me understand where I went wrong. She replied:

“A nasty one. I clocked that when I read Webdiary last week and thought “Oh no, she’s going to get yelled at….”. I don’t believe or support some of the stuff I’m about to say, I’m just going to try to explain it.

No, it’s not anti-semitic, but I may be saying that because I know exactly what you’re referring to by the fundamentalist Zionist lobby. I think it could all be cleared up by defining the terms in which you’re talking – for instance, the fundamentalist Zionist lobby (at least in the US) is not exclusively Jewish, but also comprises many scary Christians, who believe (for various reasons) that the establishment of the state of Israel is necessary for the second coming. (No, I’m not joking! And there are LOTS of them.) Israelis are a bit divided on this issue – some of them welcome the support, while most of them deeply mistrust it.

It may also help if you define why Zionist is not synonymous with Jew. It may also help if you spell out that not all Jews have the financial clout and political power you write of. I know this must feel a little precious, but I can explain – a bit – why comments such as this get are getting an increasingly strong reaction.

Many Jews – ordinary, Australian, often non-practising, non-political, non-shul attending Jews – feel that when Palestinians or Palestinian supporting groups make a public “complaint” about the whole debacle, their complaints are welcomed, published and supported – but when Jews, or Jewish-supporting groups complain about – SPECIFICALLY – suicide bombers, they are told that because they are members of a wealthy, influential zionist lobby they have no right to complain. This often feels close to the sort of all “all Jews have lots of money and are secretly trying to take over the world” scenario which has been all too familiar.

This feeds right into the other biggest fear – that by refusing to explicitly condemn suicide bombing, the old attitude of a Jew’s death being worth nothing is on the rise again. And the fact – which I noticed especially during the Ashrawi debate – that the description “Jew” is being used more and more often doesn’t help. You have to remember that that label has variously been a source of shame and fear and danger within the lifetime of my own grandparents.

Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Jews are rich. Not all Jews have political clout. If fact, most do not. And the interests of all Jews are not covered by the activities of those Jews who DO have money and political power. So when my cousin gets killed in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv and I demand some action to prevent this happening, and Ariel Sharon decides that that action will take the form of a wall (which I personally think is discraceful), I get really angry when “you” tell me that instead of taking action to stop my other loved ones being killed, I have to right to self defence because I have the money and standing to get whet I want anyway.

I’m not saying that you specifically are trying to do this, but do you get what I mean? Just define your terms. Even during the Ashrawi debate, some definition would have prevented much of the angst amd anger of some of the responses. I remember noticing that several people who took offence at some of the responses were actually saying the same thing but had just misunderstood each other.

By the way, I’m half Jewish and half Irish – not only do I have terrorists on both sides of the family, but if there is a book of Guilt then honey, I wrote it!

***

To conclude, I sincerely apologise for any offence caused, and will be happy to publish reader discussion on the matter. The latest outbreak of hostilities is the decision by the Presbyterian Church in the US to consider divesting its assets in Israel: see haaretz.

***

READERS ON THE WALL, AND ITS SUPPORTERS

A long time journalist who closely watches Middle East Politics

One thing that is such a telltale about Downer’s recent closeness to the Jewish right is his continued use of the expresion “suicide-homicide bomber”. There’s inherently nothing with it per se apart from the simple clumsiness of the expression, but the phrase has history. It was in the very far right in Israel and the US that the push came for this expression a couple of years ago, the argument being that even the expresion suicide bomber was unfair to Israel because it promoted the martyr and left out the victim. Totally one-eyed media watch groups like the hideoushonestreporting pushed its use as a matter of urgency, suggesting the use of “suicide bomber” was tantamount to supporting the act! Whatever the rather spurious merits of that argument, the expression became a real identifier of people from the “Israel right or wrong” side of politics.

So just watch how Downer is so absolutely careful to never use the expression “suicide bomber”, flagging his support behind – well behind Likud I guess.

***

Grant Bar

You seem to think that Moir’s cartoon of 23/7 sums up the situation in the Middle East. Hardly surprising as you both seem to only be aware of (or pay attention to) the facts that support the conclusion that you have already reached – that is, Israel is bad and can do no right and the Palestinians are all peace loving people who, if given “back” the West Bank and Gaza would happily live in peace with Israel. Would that were true. Please find below the complete text of my letter to the editor regarding Moir’s cartoon:

Moir’s cartoon in today’s SMH demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Arab/Israeli conflict (or a deliberate attempt to ignore the facts). Israel was attacked in 1967 and in this defensive war captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan (neither of whom created a Palestinian state when they occupied these lands).

UN Resolution 242 called for an exchange of “land for peace”. Israel has subsequently signed such peace agreements with these countries and they reclaimed all the land that they wanted. Neither wanted to take back control of the West Bank or Gaza even to immediately create a Palestinian state within these territories as it suited them to keep a thorn in Israel’s side.

These lands are now disputed territories. Israel offered Arafat 97% of this land in exchange for peace (with a territory exchanges to compensate for the 3%) in 2000. Arafat refused outright and unleashed a storm of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

Israel is building a barrier to protect her citizens. When the Palestinian leadership is prepared to make peace a barrier can be moved but those murdered by terrorist bombs cannot be brought back to life.”

I am sure that the Palestinian people are suffering and I have sympathy for them but their suffering is as a direct result of the policies of their leaders. To focus on their suffering exclusively without putting this into the context of the Israeli suffering under constant terrorist attacks and the numerous attempts by Israel to make peace which have been spurned by the Palestinian leadership is to only consider part of the picture.

Australia’s vote against the International Court of Justice’s ruling on the barrier was a vote in recognition of a country’s right to defend herself against terrorism. The question is not why Australia voted against the UN resolution, but why more countries did not do the same.

***

Allen Jay

First congratulations on the book – I bought it on release at Brisbane airport and read it on the way to Manila. Yes, we have to get rid of John but will Mark be radical enough to wind back all the damage? Bob Brown seems the only small light in a Dark Night.

Anyway onto the latest digusting bit – the pro Israel vote in the general assembly and Alexanders disgusting defense of it. He really is a pathetic excuse for a man – mind you Little John is not much better – and these are our representatives to the world, representing the ANZAC spirit?! God help us all.

This really is the rabid right wing Zioinists leading the US and Australia meekly tagging behind – this is like a mirror image of the NAZI plan, which given Lenni Brenner’s investigations into the early history of the Zionist leadership is not surprising. When Sharon come to power on the back of the assassination of a PM who made peace with the Palestinians promising to destroy that peace, should anyone be suprised at what he has been prepared to do to achieve that end?

I know Anthony Loewenstein would not agree and is sensitive to the comparison, but, how else can it but be compared in all its ruthlessness, illegality and arrogance to the master race in replay (see Rubenstein strikes again: Now Howard’s a champion of human rights!).

The real problem for all of us is to stop this nonsense before it really does come back to destroy us as well as the people we have already destroyed in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq.

***

Andrew Price in Singapore

Good luck with going solo, I did it five years ago and have not looked back. I have lived in Singapore for 10 years but still logon to the SMH and Webdiary regularly. I thought you may be interested in my correspondence to the Australian High Commissioner in Singapore about this week’s vote against the UN resolution calling on Israel to dismantle its wall. As a Muslim convert, I wonder whether the Australian government has gone completely AWOL on its recent foreign policy decisions. It is hard to imagine any justification that could be given for the current route and location for this wall other than even more injustice for the Palestinians. Maybe that is why the Government voted against the UN resolution.

From: Andrew Price, July 21

To: Gary.Quinlan@dfat.gov.au

Subject: Terrorism White Paper

Gary,

I received the White Paper today, thank you very much.

It is impressive in its research on the problem of extremism and the ideology behind the “Al Qaida” way of thinking. It was good to read in there that Australia understands well and appreciates the difference between the ideology of the terrorists and mainstream Islam, especially in SE Asia.

But on a separate note I was shocked to read that Australia was one of a handful of countries that voted yesterday against the UN General Assembly resolution to press Israel to remove its illegal wall.

It is hard to imagine how any justification could be given for Australia’s decision which of course will be viewed extremely badly in the entire Islamic world. To me, there is no greater injustice than that faced by the Palestinians living under an illegal occupation for nearly 40 years.

While Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorists is understandable, the big problem is the location of the wall, not the wall itself. If the wall was located along the so-called green line, there would be no cause for complaint. However, its present location is clearly designed to make life impossible for even more Palestinians and to put more pressure on them to leave and to assume even more of their land.

How is it possible for Australia to ignore the findings of the International Court of Justice about the illegality of Israel’s plans? The resolution calls on Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion issued July 9 and tear down the barrier. It even included a requirement on the Palestinian Authority to “undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks”.

Australia’s one-sided support for Israel is becoming as absurd as the position of the United States itself.

Surely resolving the Israel/Palestine dispute must be one of the best ways of reducing the threat of global terrorism. I notice that the White Paper does not even mention the importance of this dispute to the level of frustration and embitterment felt by so many Muslims and others about the injustice suffered by the Palestinians. But to ignore this factor in order not to be seen as rewarding terrorists is a grave mistake, in my opinion.

I am at a loss to explain to my friends the logic of recent Australian foreign policy decisions.

G’day Webdiarists. No Webdiary this week – I’m travelling and chatting on radio to launch my book, “Not happy John! Defending our democracy”. Here’s my current itinerary, subject to change. I hope I can meet some of you at the launches and that you can tune in to an interview. The launches are all free except Gleebooks in Sydney – $7 to hear my hero Tony Fitzgerald launch it. Please introduce yourself and I’ll refund the money. For the Canberra launch in Parliament House tomorrow (Monday) you’ll need someone to sign you into the place. Call me on 62404040 if you need help. Otherwise, there’s a local launch on Saturday in Kingston. The book is the result of four years of conversations we’ve had on Webdiary. Thank you to all those who’ve read Webdiary and contributed to it. The book’s website, nothappyjohn should be live late this week – we welcome corrections, new info, reader reviews and ideas to get together to take back OUR democracy.

 

***

NOT HAPPY JOHN! DEFENDING OUR DEMOCRACY, Penguin, rrp $24.95, publication date 21 June 2004

MONDAY 21 June 2004, CANBERRA/SYDNEY

7.40am – RADIO 2CC Canberra, interviewer Mike Jeffreys, LIVE

9am – AUSTRALIAN JEWISH NEWS Newspaper, interviewer Peter Kohn

9.40am – STEREO 974 Melbourne, interviewer Bob Taylor, LIVE

10.20am – COMMERCIAL RADIO 2UE Sydney, interviewer George Moore, LIVE

10.40am – COMMERCIAL RADIO 2GB Sydney, interviewer Tim Webster, LIVE

Noon – NOT HAPPY, JOHN! LAUNCH by Julia Gillard MP, shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business. Hosted by Senator Bob Brown, Australian Greens Senator for Tasmania. Senators Members and Guests Bar, 2nd Floor, Parliament House, Canberra.

4pm – 702 ABC RADIO Sydney, interviewer Richard Glover, LIVE

6.20pm – COMMERCIAL RADIO 4BC Brisbane, interviewer Tony Johnston, PRE RECORD

***

TUESDAY 22 June 2004, SYDNEY

10.10am EST, 9.40AM SA – RADIO 5DN Adelaide, interviewer Jeremy Cordeaux, LIVE

Noon EST, 11.30AM SA – 5UV RADIO Adelaide, interviewer Cath Keneally, PRE RECORD

12.30pm – BAY FM Byron Bay, interviewer Terrie Wells, PRE RECORD

12.45pm EST, 10.15 Perth – RADIO 6PR Perth, interviewers Mario Dorazio and Deb Kennedy, LIVE

5.30pm – ABC RADIO TRIPLE J Nationally, ‘Hack’, interviewer Steve Cannane, LIVE

5.45pm – 666 ABC RADIO Canberra, interviewer Ross Sully, LIVE

6.30pm – NOT HAPPY JOHN SYDNEY LAUNCH, GLEEBOOKS, to be launched by Tony Fitzgerald QC, 49 Glebe Point Rd, Glebe

10pm – ABC RADIO NATIONAL, interviewer Phillip Adams, LIVE

***

WEDNESDAY 23 June 2004, SYDNEY

10am – 936 ABC RADIO Hobart, interviewer Tim Cox, LIVE

11.30am EST, 11am NT – 105.7 ABC RADIO Darwin, interviewer Annie Gastin, LIVE

12.30pm – RADIO 927 Melbourne, interviewer Trevor Himstedt, PRE RECORD

***

THURSDAY 24 June 2004 MELBOURNE

7.45am – RADIO 3RRR Melbourne, interviewers Fee Badford-Braycher, Sam Pang and Tony Wilson, LIVE

10am – RADIO 3AW Melbourne, interviewer Ross Warnecke, LIVE

11.00am – 774 ABC RADIO Melbourne, interviewers Jon Faine and Terry Lane, LIVE

3.30pm – TIME OFF MAGAZINE Nationally, interviewer Matt Connors

4pm – BIG ISSUE Magazine Nationally, interviewer Jo Case

6.30pm – MELBOURNE LAUNCH, READINGS BOOKSHOP, 309 Lygon St, Carlton

***

FRIDAY 25 June 2004, BRISBANE

10.30am – 612 ABC RADIO Brisbane, interviewer Steve Austin, LIVE

11am – ABC RADIO NORTH WEST Queensland, interviewer Jemma Schweikert, LIVE

1.10pm EST, 11.10am Perth – 720 ABC RADIO Perth Chat Room Media Section, interviewer Jo McManus, LIVE

3pm – THE INDEPENDENT Street Press QLD, UTOPIA MAGAZINE Queeensland University of Technology, interviewer Tim Milfull, to run 8 July

6.30pm – BRISBANE LAUNCH, an AVID READER event at Kurilpa Hall, 174 Boundary Street, West End. Margo in Conversation with journo Wayne Sanderson
Contact: Fiona 07 3846 3422

***

SATURDAY 26 June 2004, CANBERRA

12.30pm – A SUITABLE BOOK Event, Shop 6, Kennedy St, Kingston. Contact Mark Thornton on 02 6239 7798

***

Saturday 3 July 2004, CANBERRA

12.30pm – A SUITABLE BOOK event, Village Square, Malbon St, Bungendore. Contact Mark Thornton on 02-62381648

***

To contact Penguin call 03-98112400.

This is yesterday’s reply by Labor Senate Leader John Faulkner to Robert Hill’s “statement” on Australia’s cover-up of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

 

This much-heralded statement, this comprehensive explanation promised two weeks ago by the Prime Minister, is a disgrace. It�s a damp squib. It�s not an explanation. It�s a whitewash.

The Government insists on responding to allegations that have not been made. The Opposition has not � does not � accuse Australian troops of having been involved in the abuse of prisoners. This is a straw man put up by the Government. After all it�s so much easier for Mr Howard and his colleagues to defend Australian troops against imagined slurs than to address the real and uncomfortable issues this saga has raised.

This so-called statement is just the last in a litany of failures for which Senator Hill must take ultimate responsibility.

What it reveals is a supine Government, a dysfunctional department and a Minister asleep at the wheel.

Senator Hill blames the Opposition � for indulging in smear tactics and claims of cover-up. He blames Defence � for providing inaccurate information to the Government. He blames everybody but himself.

This is a Minister more concerned about self-preservation than decent standards. His statement is full of excuses � there�s nothing about consequences.

And the logical consequence of a fiasco such as this is the big gap in Senator Hill�s statement � his own resignation.

This is the Minister who, 20 months ago, in the wake of the �children overboard� scandal, promised to fix the very problems which have caused this mess. He has failed abysmally.

The Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and senior Defence officials seriously misled the Australian parliament and people about what the Government knew and when, in relation to the abuse of Coalition detainees in Iraq. And the only excuse Senator Hill can offer is �It was the best we knew at the time.� We hear today Senator Hill has apologised to the Prime Minister. What about apologising to the Parliament and the Australian people?

Remember that on 27 May in the House of Representatives, Mr Howard said it was not until February of this year that a report by the Red Cross raised allegations of ill treatment of detainees. An earlier report in October 2003 had covered only �general concerns about detainee conditions and treatment�. He went on to say: �To suggest that, because Major O�Kane drafted a response to the October report, he or the Australian government were in some way aware of the more serious allegations�.. is quite nonsensical.

In the Senate, Senator Hill told us on 11 May that Defence and the Government �became aware of the International Red Cross report in February�. When asked when he personally became aware of the prisoner abuse, he said �I am not going to split myself from the Government� and �I accept the responsibilities that flow from that.� I�ll come back to the issue of Senator Hill�s responsibility.

Persistent questioning by the media and the Opposition following the publication of the abuse photos at the end of April led Defence to conduct an inquiry � its first inquiry – into its state of knowledge of the abuses.

The results of that inquiry, which included a survey of 298 members of the Defence forces, were announced by the Chief of the Defence Force, General Cosgrove and the Secretary of Defence, Mr Ric Smith, on 28 May. We were informed that �none of those surveyed were aware of abuse or serious mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners or detainees, of the nature of recent allegations, during their deployment� and �there were no reports about the abuse or serious mistreatment of prisoners or detainees of the nature of recent allegations made, either through the chain of command or informally.�

General Cosgrove and Mr Smith informed us that Major O�Kane had said that �the October 2003 [Red Cross] report raised general concerns about detainee conditions and treatment, but no mention of abuse.� As for the top brass? �Neither the current Australian Joint Force Commander in the Middle East or any of his predecessors was aware of these allegations of abuse or serious mistreatment � until the publication of photographs in April 2004, and neither was Defence leadership in Canberra.�

So, according to the Government, the situation as at 28 May was that the ADF first knew of the abuses in February when Major O�Kane saw the second Red Cross report, and the Defence leadership and Ministers first knew of them when the photos were published at the end of April.

Remember that 28 May was 7 months after the Red Cross first raised prisoner abuses with the Coalition Provisional Authority (including the embedded Australians); it was more than 4 months after the US issued a press release about the abuse allegations; it was three months after the Red Cross submitted a detailed report to the US; and 1 month after the abuse photos were published. Remember also that the 28 May statement came after the prisoner abuse issue had been running as the number one media issue nationally and internationally for a full four weeks and following exhaustive inquiries of all relevant defence personnel.

Precisely how the Government got it so wrong and maintained such ignorance in these circumstances has still not been explained satisfactorily � certainly not by Senator Hill today. And of course anyone who dared question this unbelievable version of reality was subjected � and has been again today by Senator Hill – to streams of abuse for questioning the integrity of our troops. That is something the Opposition has never done � no matter how hard the Government tries to pretend otherwise.

Since then of course � since the 28 May statement – the Government has been in full retreat. How�s this for classic backsliding � Mr Howard on 30 May: �I�m told by Defence that Major O�Kane has told Defence that the October report did not contain references to the abuse ���I�m just telling you what I have been told.� What I want to know is what else the Prime Minister had been told at that time to warrant such incredibly guarded language.

Then on Tuesday afternoon, 1 June, after one and a half days of questioning at Senate Estimates, Defence Secretary Ric Smith admitted that there were �inaccuracies� in the 28 May statement, �inconsistencies between that statement and the evidence [we] have heard over the last two days.� He explained the 28 May statement �reflected the best knowledge we had at that time�. Since that time, Mr Smith said, the existence of two Red Cross working papers dated October and November 2003 had come to light and, further, Major O�Kane�s understanding that the October report had only raised general concerns as opposed to serious allegations, was incorrect. He and General Cosgrove took full responsibility for the stuffups � to the enormous relief of the Minister beside them – and regretted any embarrassment they had caused the Government.

Mr Howard was also very happy to let his two top Defence officials accept the blame. On 1 June, leaving for the United States, he dumped all over them. �I regret very much that I was given the wrong advice�, �I am very unhappy that I was misinformed by the Defence Department.� Remarkably, while he claimed to have been misled by the Defence Department, he denied he had misled the Parliament and the Australian public: �I did not mislead the public or the Australian Parliament. The advice that I gave the Parliament and the public was based on the advice I�d received from the Defence Department.�

This was a desperate Prime Minister trying to rewrite the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility to avoid any of the mess sticking to him or his ministerial colleagues. Note there was not a mention of the Minister who was presiding over this shambles.

Now, after the indignant denials and subsequent retreat, what we�ve heard today from Senator Hill is yet another grudging apology: � I regret that incorrect information was provided to me and, through me, to the Prime Minister.� As if that�s enough!

I think it�s important at this stage to explain just what it is the Opposition is accusing the Government of.

It is:

� Failure to take seriously the reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US personnel.

� Failure to acknowledge Australia�s legal and moral obligations to Iraqi prisoners in general and those captured by Australian forces in particular.

� Failure to take its accountability responsibilities seriously.

� Failure to correct the serious procedural faults in Defence which were revealed by the �Children Overboard� inquiry.

This is a serious litany of failure by any standard � even the standards of the Howard Government.

Let me take the first of these. Right from the start the Government has demonstrated by its inaction that it does not take the issue of prisoner abuse in Iraq seriously. It is impossible to come to any other conclusion. What did the Government do in response to the US press release about prisoner abuse accusations in mid-January and the CNN reports a few days later? Nothing. Did it think to make inquiries of its Coalition partner about the seriousness and extent of these allegations? No. Did it bother to check whether the allegations involved violation of the Geneva Conventions? It did not. Has it even now bothered to check on the welfare of the 120 Iraqis Australian forces assisted in capturing? No. It doesn�t even care. According to Senator Hill, they were just a drop in the ocean.

When the photos of prisoner abuse were first published on 29 April, provoking shock and outrage around the world, you might have imagined that the Howard Government, as a loyal and close ally of the United States, a strong and unquestioning supporter of its actions in Iraq and an influential member of the Coalition of the Willing, would immediately express its concern to the US. But no. The abuses were not regarded as serious enough to warrant even a diplomatic murmur of disapproval.

You would have thought also that � in the face of such universal outrage and disgust – the Prime Minister, or Minister Hill or Minister Downer, might have been prompted to think �We�re part of what�s happening in Iraq. We�ve got Australian military personnel embedded in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. What did they know about this? When did they know it? And what did they do about it?� But no � it was left to others, the media and the Opposition, to ask such questions. And even a month later � on 28 May � the Government wasn�t able to accurately answer them.

It was either not asking any questions, or not asking the right questions or refusing to listen to the answers. Whatever, the Government stands condemned for this massive dereliction of duty.

The Government has also failed to take its legal and moral responsibilities to Iraqi detainees seriously. It has both legal and moral responsibilities as an occupying power and as a member of the Coalition. These responsibilities include ensuring respect for the Geneva Conventions not only in relation to Iraqis captured by Australian forces, but to Iraqi detainees generally.

In fact Mr Downer directly acknowledged these responsibilities in an answer to a question on notice last September, when he said the Government had established a legal watch group to �advise on legal matters of relevance to Australia�s participation in the Coalition Provisional Authority�..and consult with its counterparts to ensure that Australia�s legal obligations are taken into account.�

Since then the Government has been attempting to sidestep the responsibilities flowing from Australia�s participation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It argues that Australia is not an Occupying Power, on the basis that the United Nations, in Security Council Resolution 1483, has specifically only recognised the US and UK as Occupying Powers.

However, according to Professor Gillian Triggs of Melbourne University, �Australia has a legal responsibility to all detained persons, whether prisoners of war or civilians, as a Joint Occupying Power in Iraq and as a member of the Coalition� and further �Australia�s continuing obligations as a joint Occupying Power are not altered by Security Council Resolution 1483 in the absence of express termination of its status in relation to future acts.�

The Government also contrived a legal artifice to ensure that Australian troops never officially detained any Iraqi POWs and therefore never triggered the immediate or longer-term responsibilities of a Detaining Power under the third Geneva Convention. The arrangement was that US troops who accompanied the Australian troops would always act as the detaining power, even when POWs were detained by an Australian warship crewed by Australians with only a single US Coast Guard sailor on board.

When we pressed Senator Hill for the legal basis of this arrangement, all he could point to was a letter dated 11 March 2002 from the then Commander of US Central Command to the then Chief of the Australian Defence Forces referring to an agreement negotiated for the conflict in Afghanistan! He was unable to say, he didn�t know, noone in Defence could tell him – how that 2-year old agreement came to be relevant to the conflict in Iraq. And today � in his so-called explanatory statement � he doesn�t even address the issue.

It is incredible after the total incapacity of the Minister and officials at the estimates hearings to explain the legal underpinning for the arrangements relating to the 120 Iraqis captured by Australian forces that Senator hasn�t offered an explanation today. He promised to do this two weeks ago. He still hasn�t done it.

As for the Government�s accountability responsibilities, it has shirked these absolutely. In fact it has rendered the concept of ministerial responsibility virtually meaningless. As I�ve said, on 1 June General Cosgrove and Mr Smith dutifully took �full responsibility� for having provided incorrect advice to the Government and the public. But �taking full responsibility� apparently meant nothing more than mouthing the words.

And neither General Cosgrove nor Mr Smith � nor the Minister today � has offered any explanation as to why, knowing their earlier evidence was incorrect, they waited until the afternoon of Tuesday 1 June before correcting the record. We know the errors in their evidence came to light over the weekend of 29 and 30 May.

So why did Mr Smith tell the Senate Estimates Committee on Monday 31 May that �we know that no Defence personnel were aware of the allegations of abuse or serious mistreatment before the public reports in January� when he must have known this to be untrue? Why did he say the October Red Cross reports were only �about things like prison conditions and so on� when he knew they were not? Why did Mr Carmody fail to acknowledge, when asked, that the October report described serious abuses, when he knew this to be the case?

Were these senior Defence officials hoping we would not pursue these issues, and that they may not have to correct the record? Why else would they have sat there in estimates biting their tongues for a day and a half before putting the facts on the record? We are at least entitled to an explanation of what, on the face of it, appears to be a contempt of parliament. Yet Senator Hill � illustrating the culture he appears to preside over in Defence � has simply ignored this serious issue.

The Prime Minister, as I have said, has adopted a trenchant �Don�t blame me. It�s all Defence�s fault� approach. After all, he�s just the Prime Minister.

And Senator Hill himself? The Minister who, according to Mr Howard�s code of ministerial conduct is �ultimately accountable for the overall operation of his portfolio�? The Minister who bravely asserted when asked when the government became aware of the prisoner abuse �I accept the responsibilities that flow from that�? How has he discharged his accountability obligations? By doing nothing more than presenting half-baked excuses to the Senate weeks too late. He hasn�t even done it as a proper Ministerial statement. He�s avoided this by simply providing additional information to an answer given to a question asked five weeks ago. That�s not good enough, Senator Hill, nowhere near good enough. If ministerial responsibility is to mean anything Senator Hill has to resign.

Ignorance of matters such as these does not absolve a Minister from responsibility. In fact it only compounds Senator Hill�s responsibility. After all Senator Hill is � in the words of Jack Waterford in an excellent article in the Canberra Times [on 6 June] � �a paranoid and suspicious minister�who distrusts all of his advisers [and] is a compulsive micromanager who wants to know everything.� He�s had almost three years at the helm of Defence. If he�s been kept in the dark, then he must accept responsibility for having created, or failed to correct, the circumstances and environment that have kept him in the dark.

There are uncanny parallels between the Government�s handling of the prisoner abuse scandal and the �children overboard� affair: the same obstinate refusal on the part of the Prime Minister and other Ministers to seek out the truth; the same reluctance on the part of senior officials and advisers to pass on unwelcome or inconvenient advice to their political masters; the same Nixonian culture of plausible deniability.

Then, as now, neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for Defence accepted any responsibility. Then, as now, the Government made Defence the scapegoat. Then, as now, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary of Defence set up a task force. Back then, it was to examine �the range of internal and external communication issues flowing from the [children overboard] incident�.

Following the report of that task force, Senator Hill issued a press release, on 22 October 2002, claiming that it was �confusion surrounding the [children overboard] incident that led to inaccurate information being given to the Government�. Not to worry, he had instructed Defence �to move quickly to �.ensure there is no repeat of the communication problems experienced ..�.

He claimed to have already ensured �a clearer understanding of the incident reporting requirements through the chain of command and the passing of such information to the Minister�s office.� �Ministers and decision makers within Defence� he said, �must be confident that the information they are acting on is delivered in a timely and accurate manner.� And this: �I also accept there is a responsibility to ensure there are clear lines of communication between the Minister�s office and Defence.� Yes Minister � your responsibility! And one you have patently failed to deliver on.

If the Prime Minister wants us to believe the Government is serious about respect for the Geneva Conventions, if he wants the Australian people to have confidence in the leadership of our Defence Forces and Defence Department, if he is to demand even the most minimal standards of competence from his Ministry, if he is to attach any meaning at all to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility � then he has no alternative but to sack Senator Hill.

Hi. Now Howard wants to rush through the American Free Trade Agreement legislation before it’s been properly investigated. Here’s the submission to the Senate’s inquiry by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies. For more submissions, see SenateFTA

 

***

The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) is the peak representative body for 60,000 scientists and technologists.

FASTS was established in 1985 and has approximately 65 member organisations. FASTS is well known in Parliamentary circles as the initiator and co-ordinator of the highly successful �Science Meets Parliament� and the President of FASTS is a member of the Prime Minister�s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC).

FASTS do not have a formal position on whether Australia should ratify the draft Aus-US Free Trade Agreement.

There are, however, a number of implications for science that we would like to draw to the attention of the committee.

INVESTMENT � Chapter 11

FASTS are concerned that provisions of the draft FTA liberalizing US investment in Australia may diminish Australia�s capacity to maximize benefits from publicly funded R&D.

It is well recognized that R&D intensive small and medium enteprises (SMEs) in science and technology are crucial for economic growth and success in the global economy. However, the national benefits generated by R&D intensive SMEs are at risk if the Australian Government does not exercise oversight of foreign takeovers, specifically foreign takeovers that may result in production, jobs and export opportunities being taken offshore.

It is manifestly not in Australia�s national interest if we simply allow multinational firms to cherry-pick Australia�s most promising and innovative technology SMEs with no constraints or oversight.It is manifestly not in Australia�s national interest if we simply allow multinational firms to cherry-pick Australia�s most promising and innovative technology SMEs with no constraints or oversight.

FASTS believes the investment provisions in the draft FTA are not consistent with a key policy objective of Backing Australia�s Ability to strengthen the capacity of Australian inventions being commercialized by Australian firms and exported into the global market.

FASTS recommends:

 the Committee consider striking out provisions relating to technology transfer and domestic content in 11.9 (Performance requirements);

 the Committee request the Government review terms and conditions of publicly funded research with a view to developing relevant and transparent �national benefits� tests for commercialization of publicly funded research; including conditions requiring Government approval of grant recipients to locate operations and/or production offshore.

***

BENEFITS OF INVESTMENT PROVISIONS

A long-standing constraint on developing and commercializing Australian R&D has been the lack of venture capital throughout the R&D process. Thus it is plausible that measures in the draft FTA which encourage US investment in Australia may provide;

 additional investment;

 reductions in the cost of capital; and

 enhanced technology transfer between Australian and US firms.

Risks of Investment provisions

FASTS believes a combination of factors, including;

 Changes in global R&D practices towards large firms purchasing technology and intellectual property through mergers and acquisition of R&D intensive SMEs;

 Shift in Government R&D policy towards public funding of commercialization;

 Inadequate coverage of �national benefits� conditions on recipients of public funding of R&D;

 Liberalising capacity for US takeovers of Australian firms in the draft FTA; and

 constraints on the scope of terms and conditions of Government grants and subsidies for R&D in the draft FTA;

may result in Australia losing the benefits of publicly-funded R&D through takeovers of R&D intensive SMEs and subsequent transfer of IP, know-how, jobs and export opportunities offshore.

By way of contrast, the US, through the Bayh-Dole Act and conditions on publicly funded R&D grants, maintains strict controls and barriers on foreign takeovers and offshore relocation of US firms derived from licencing of publicly-funded R&D.

Change in international business R&D practices

Since the mid-1990s it has become apparent that there are significant changes in how business R&D (BERD) is performed, notably in OECD countries.

With some exceptions, including Australia, Italy and the UK, business investment in R&D grew considerably in real terms and as a percentage of GDP in the 1990s. Two important characteristics of that growth are;

a) substantial increase in R&D alliances, mergers and acquisitions, and

b) significant increase of SMEs� share of BERD.

The growing reliance on externally developed IP by large firms is particularly notable in the growth of mergers and acquisitions of small, R&D intensive SMEs by multinational high technology firms.

Focus on Commercialization in Government Policy

An important theme in innovation and R&D public policy debates is the need for Australia to maximize the benefits of publicly funded research and Australian innovation through successful commercialization of Australian ideas and inventions.

This is explicitly taken up in the recently announced Backing Australia�s Ability: Building Our Future Through Science and Innovation program notably in the $1 billion Commercial Ready suite of programs which are designed to �strengthen the capacity of Australian small and medium-sized businesses to take competitive ideas to market.�

Informally, this policy intent is often described as �we need more Cochlears and ResMeds�.

The focus on commercialization is evident in other Government R&D programs notably the change in selection criteria of CRCs announced in December 2003.

Existing constraints on transferring ownership

Despite the Government�s policy intent to maximize the benefits for Australia of commercializing Australian inventions and innovations, there are few constraints in the existing framework to prevent foreign takeover of Australian firms, and subsequent relocation of production offshore, derived from publicly-funded R&D.

The Industry Research & Development Board (IR&DB), which administers a number of Commonwealth industry R&D programs, are required to consider �National Benefits� when assessing applications for various programs including R&D Start and COMET.

The �National Benefits� test includes consideration of an application�s capacity to contribute to national productivity and economic growth, diffusion of knowledge and skills and societal, community and ecological benefits.

The potential benefits or necessity of overseas commercialization are explicitly allowed for and in these circumstances the IR&DB considers applicants� level of commitment to retaining or enhancing the firm�s R&D facilities in Australia and technology transfer arrangements from overseas to Australia.

A condition of R&D Start and COMET contracts is grant recipients cannot vary the grant conditions, including ownership, without the permission within 10 years of commencement of the grant. In the event of a proposed takeover or variation to contract, the IR&DB may consider elements of the �national benefits� test including technology transfer arrangements.

If an application to allow overseas commercialization fails the �national benefits� test, the IR&DB may terminate the project agreement and require repayment of relevant grants or loans.

FASTS believes the scope of the �national benefits� test will be constrained by the performance requirements provisions (11.9) of the draft FTA, notably in respect of technology transfer (see below).

There are no commensurate provisions to the �national benefits� test of the IR&DB in other publicly funded R&D initiatives including Australian Research Council (ARC) or National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Moreover, should a future Government seek to develop �national benefits� criteria the draft FTA will constrain the scope of such a test.

Liberalization of investment in Draft FTA

The draft FTA requires that each party accord to investors of the other party national treatment (11.3) or Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) (11.4) treatment for the �establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments�.

Various non-conforming measures, notably for media, property, Telstra and Qantas are listed in Annex 1 and Annex II.

A key measure in Annex I lifts the threshold by which foreign investment in Australian firms needs to be notified to the Australian Government�s Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) from $50m to $800m for most industries, including manufacturing and agriculture (Annex 11-I Australia-5 (c)).

FASTS notes the �ratchet� provisions of 11.13.(c) that cover Annex I means a future Government could further liberalise this threshold but could not make it more restrictive if it became apparent that lack of oversight and analysis of investment proposals was having a detrimental effect including takeovers of our most promising R&D intensive firms.

Constraints On Terms and Conditions of Government Grants And Subsidies for Publicly-funded R&D

Chapter 10 (Cross Border Trade In Services) and Chapter 11 (Investment) provide exemptions from other liberalizing provisions in the draft FTA for Government subsidies and grants, including subsidies and grants for R&D.

In the case of trade in services; subsidies, grants, Government-supported loans, guarantees and insurance are exempt from all other provisions in Chapter 10 (10.4.(d)).

However, the scope of exemptions for goods is much narrower than for services.

Government provision of subsidies and grants for goods is not required to comply with provisions affecting national treatment (11.3), most-favoured-nation (11.4) and senior management and boards of directors (11.10).

However, provisions preventing the imposition on investors of a comprehensive range of performance requirements (11.9) including technology transfer (11.9.1.(f)) and domestic content requirements (11.9.2(a)) do apply to grants and subsidies.

This may have a direct impact on the existing terms and conditions of R&D Start and COMET and may adversely constrain the capacity of the Government to implement �national benefits� criteria to other publicly-funded R&D programs such as the ARC, Universities and NHMRC.

As discussed below, the US currently requires that firms with a licence for IP derived from federally funded research are required to substantially manufacture in the US. This performance requirement is, at face value, inconsistent with the provision that requires domestic content requirements cannot apply to Government grants and subsidies. It is not clear whether the US intends to change its law to ensure consistency with the FTA, nor is there anything in the US annexes that go to this.

Bayh-Dole Act (US)

The policy intent of the Patent and Trademark Amendment Act (1980) – commonly called the Bayh-Dole Act – is to maximize the economic benefits of federally funded R&D for the US by ensuring inventions from federally funded research are made available to the US public for the US public�s benefit (35 U.S.C. s.200).

Essentially, the Act requires inventors/researchers to maximize the opportunities to commercialise inventions that emerge from federally funded R&D.

Inventors/researchers may elect to own and exercise IP rights of their inventions (s. 202(a)), providing they take out a patent (s.202(c)). However, the US Government can claim ownership if an inventor does not exercise this right, take out a patent or commercialization is not reasonably pursued (use-it or lose-it) (s. 202(c), s.203). Where inventors do not take out title or fail to meet their obligations, the US Government licences the IP to US firms.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) maintains rights to all NIH federally funded inventions including a non-exclusive, non-transferable paid-up licence to practice or have practiced for, or on behalf of, the US any invention anywhere in the world.

The Act also requires that licenses of IP created from federal funds can only be awarded to firms who will substantially manufacture in the US and imposes significant constraints on foreign takeovers or attempts to take manufacturing offshore (s.204).

Under Bayh-Dole, the US Government retains the right to approve or not approve any decision of a relevant firm with a licence to relocate production offshore. The only circumstances that the US Government permits inventions derived from federally funded R&D offshore are when it is not commercially feasible to manufacture in the US or the grantee has not been successful in their attempts to licence the patent to domestic US industry.

Federal funding agencies including the NIH stipulate in their terms and conditions of grants that grantees/contractors are required to comply with all provisions of Bayh-Dole.

Foreign recipients of NIH funding – Australia is second to Canada in success of foreign NIH grantees – are also bound by Bayh-Dole provisions.

In 2002, the NIH proposed a further policy change whereby foreign recipients of grants could only exercise IP rights in their country while the NIH would hold all rights for the rest of the world. This policy is not yet in effect but highlights the asymmetry between the NIH and the NHMRC.

Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB)

It could be argued that lifting the threshold for notification to FIRB for US investment in manufacturing from $50 m to $800 m will make little difference in practice as the Government, through FIRB, have only rejected 4 out of 2285 investment proposals from all countries in the past 5 years.

This success rate reflects current Government policy. However, should Government policy change in the future as a response, for example, to cherry-picking by multinational firms of Australia�s most promising companies, the increased threshold will preclude examination of a considerable proportion of Australian firms including all science and technology R&D intensive SMEs.

FASTS understands FIRB do not collect data on the ownership or origin of intellectual property in investment proposals. Thus its current operating practices mean it is not in a position to identify firms developed around IP generated from publicly-funded R&D.

Firms in receipt of publicly funded support of R&D

Thousands of Australian firms have received public funding for R&D and innovation including;

 560 R&D Start grants and loans to the value of $552 million since 1 July 2000. (Cochlear received R&D Start grants in its developmental stage)

 138 Biotechnology Innovation Fund grants since inception in 2000

 800 grants approved in COMET since 1999

 275 start-up companies have been accepted into the incubators program of Building Information Technology Strengths (BITS)

 4707 companies had registered for the R&D tax concession by August 2003 for FY 2001-02. Nearly 600 SMEs registered for the 125% R&D tax offset for 2001-02 and nearly 500 firms registered for the 175% R&D Tax premium in the same year.

 61 companies have received Innovation Investment Fund (IIF) funding since inception.

In addition, the ARC awarded 921 Discovery grants for the 2003 round and 586 new linkage grants in the two rounds October 2002 and May 2003 and in 2003 the NHMRC approved 911 new grants.

The outcomes of many of these grants � and research in public sector research agencies such as CSIRO, AIMS and ANSTO – will produce new IP, which will provide commercial opportunities for existing Australian firms or drive new spin-off companies.

Recommendations

While acknowledging possible benefits from US investment in Australian firms, FASTS believes the Committee must consider the possible negative impacts of the draft FTA in terms of maximizing public benefits of commercializing Australian R&D.

FASTS recommends;

 the Committee consider striking out provisions relating to technology transfer and domestic content in 11.9 (Performance requirements);

 the Committee request the Government review terms and conditions of publicly funded research with a view to developing relevant and transparent �national benefits� tests for commercialization of publicly funded research; including conditions requiring Government approval of grant recipients to locate operations and/or production offshore.

FASTS notes however, that IP arrangements and issues around commercialization of publicly-funded research are highly complex, particularly when it involves multiple sources of funding and investment.

FASTS believes the key public policy intent of the Bayh-Dole Act to maximize public benefits from publicly funded research is highly commendable. We do not, however, recommend that Australia simply adopt Bayh-Dole provisions.

The need for examination of these issues is urgent and any changes to current arrangements will require careful consideration and detailed consultation with universities, CSIRO, ARC, NHMRC, industry, IPA and others in the research and intellectual property sectors.

***

SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES � Ch. 7 Background

FASTS believes that good science is a necessary condition of robust policy, import risk assessment and regulation of sanitary measures.

Invasive species and introduced diseases have had major impacts on the environment and commercial agriculture and aquaculture (eg cane toads and phylloxera). To date, conservative quarantine practices have played an important role in Australia avoiding or minimizing exposure to diseases and pests that have seriously damaged agricultural production in other countries (eg fire blight). Indeed, Australia�s reputation for being comparatively clean and low in disease, has given Australian agricultural exporters competitive advantages in many markets.

However, a number of factors are increasing the risk to Australia�s environment, human, plant and animal health and commercial agriculture, including

 increasing flows of people, goods and services;

 climate change;

 reduced investment in relevant education and research disciplines such as parasitology; and  growing resistance of diseases and parasites to chemical controls; and

 apparent changes in regulatory practices.

In short, the importance of good science informing policy and risk assessment is increasing.

Assumptions about risk that may be robust today could well be invalid in the future as a consequence of climate change. Australia exposes itself to great risk if we become complacent, fail to support relevant research and monitoring or allow trade considerations to undermine proper scientific analysis.

FASTS Recommends;

 The Committee urge the Government initiate reform of Biosecurity Australia�s objectives and operations.

Objectives

The DFAT Guide To The Agreement states: Nothing in the chapter undermines the right of either party to determine the level of protection it considers appropriate (p. 35).

FASTS is not so confident that this is so. The objectives of Chapter 7 go explicitly to resolving trade issues �and thereby expand trade opportunities�.

The draft agreement provides for the creation of two bi-lateral Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committees � a general committee and a Standing Technical Working Group on Animal and Plant Health Measures.

The objectives of the general committee include �protecting human, animal, or plant life� and �facilitate trade between the parties� (7.4.3).

The objectives of the technical working group are to �resolve specific bilateral animal and plant health matters with a view to facilitating trade (Annex 7-A 4(a)).�

That is, there may be an intrinsic conflict in the objectives of both committees.

FASTS notes that US agribusiness interests have clearly interpreted the new arrangements as a concession by Australia to the USA.

Clearly, that is the interpretation of the American Farm Bureau Federation who state in their press release of 10 March 2004:

AFBF’s analysis of the proposed free trade agreement forecasts that annual exports of high-value U.S. food products to Australia will grow by $150 million to $200 million after that nation removes non-tariff trade barriers, particularly in the area of sanitary/phytosanitary rules.

FASTS believes scientific analysis of risk must have priority over trade imperatives.

We are concerned that both the objectives of the committees and their character as bureaucratic instruments to facilitate trade may undermine the fundamental role that proper scientific analysis must have in a sound quarantine system.

Our concern is compounded by the fact that there are no provisions requiring independent scientific expertise on the membership of either committee.

If the draft FTA is ratified then confidence in the two bi-lateral committees will be highly dependent on the capacity and approach of the lead Australian agency, Biosecurity Australia.

Biosecurity Australia

FASTS is aware that the confidence of agriculture sectors and relevant scientists in Biosecurity Australia is diminishing over time due to concerns that trade considerations are inappropriately prioritized over scientific analysis of risk. Recent debates and decisions over pineapples, Atlantic salmon, apples and pig meat have raised skepticism of Biosecurity Australia�s capacity to make good judgments.

More specifically, scientists are concerned with the changing culture within Biosecurity Australia, including

 Increasing emphasis on a �least trade restrictive� approach that has the potential to undermine the science base of IRA;

 Attempts by Biosecurity Australia representatives to �direct� IRA teams toward facilitating trade;

 Inadequate record keeping of Import Risk Assessment (IRA) committees; and

 Scientific errors in Biosecurity Australia�s modeling and data;

For some detailed evidence and discussion of such concerns FASTS draws the attention of the Committee to the three Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee inquiries into the Import Risk Analysis of bananas, apples and pork meat.

Evidence presented to that committee raises serious concerns over Biosecurity Australia�s procedures and culture consistent with the concerns noted above.

FASTS believe the arguments for significant reform of Biosecurity Australia�s processes and objectives are strong. We recommend the Government initiate reform of Biosecurity Australia with some urgency. This should be done irrespective of Parliament�s determination on the draft FTA.

***

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY � PATENTS (ch. 17.9)

Background

The patent system is crucial to encourage R&D innovation and FASTS are broadly supportive of changes in the Australian patent system in the past few years to lift the threshold of patentability and improve the capacity of patent holders to protect patents.

Patents can, however, be a serious constraint on research.

FASTS believe that patents should not be permissible for factual scientific information including naturally occurring genes and gene sequences.

There is considerable international concern over the issuing of gene patents. There arguments against issuing patents for genes and gene sequences include ethical arguments, constraints on bona fide research and discovery of a gene or gene sequence does not satisfy a fundamental – and internationally recognised criteria for a patent – that it should be an invention.

Such concerns have resulted in major biotechnology research initiatives including the Human Genome Project and the International Haplotype Mapping (HapMap) Project placing their research results in the public domain with no constraints or costs on access for researchers.

No jurisdiction in the world permits patenting of genes or gene sequences per se. Debates over what is patentable typically revolve around questions of isolable genes and gene sequences.

It is fair to say that there is a widespread belief internationally that the US Patent system � unquestionably the most powerful patent regime in the world – has not got the balance of interests right and patents have been issued for isolable genes and gene sequences that stretch the criteria of patentability beyond what many scientists, ethicists and legislators consider as acceptable. The European Union, for instance, is vigorously opposed to the USA approach.

FTA Provisions

It is not clear what implications there are for the Australian patent system in the draft FTA.

The advice FASTS have received from DFAT is that the patent provisions in the draft FTA are consistent with existing Australian law so presumably there will be no changes at all or no changes of substance.

However, there does appear to be some variance between the proposals in the draft FTA and the current Patent Act 1990.

For example, article 17.9.1, seems to imply a broader definition of patents by changing the definition of invention. It makes the USA and Australia provide patents for �any invention � provided � (it) � is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application�. Presumably, this will replace the current definition in Schedule 1 of the Patents Act 1990, which defines invention as �a manner of new manufacture within the meaning of s.6 of the Statute of Monopolies�. That statute lists a number of exclusions including that a patent is �not contrary to the law, nor mischievous to the state by raising of the prices of commodities at home or hurt of trade, or generally inconvenient�. The scope of this exclusions list is not, however, replicated in 17.9.2(a).

17.9.2(b) does allow for a change in Australian law. It provides that parties may exclude �diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans and animals�. Under current Australian law exclusions relate to generating a human being (Patent Act (1990) s.19(2)). FASTS understand that the Federal Court has allowed that treatments are patentable.

In addition, article 17.9.3 refers to �exclusive rights� but these aren�t defined elsewhere in the chapter so we are not sure exactly what this might mean.

Accordingly, FASTS are unable to really determine whether there are any substantive implications for science and R&D that are specific to the patent provisions in the draft FTA. Close examination of any legislation will be required.

We note that in some of the commentary surrounding the FTA, the Government has stated �Australians will benefit through closer harmonisation of our already strong intellectual property regime with that of the largest intellectual property market in the world�.

It is not clear to FASTS what the scope of �harmonisation� will mean in practice.

As the committee will be aware, law operates at a variety of levels including parliamentary legislation and regulation; judicial, including case law; and administrative and normative practices of agencies.

There is a view that the apparent expansion in the US of what is patentable in respect of genes and gene sequences seems to be driven by interpretations at the officer level in the US patents office as distinct from US legislation.

FASTS does not have the expertise to provide the Committee with the relevant legal analysis of this but if this is, in fact, the case then this may have some implications to Australian patents if �harmonisation� is interpreted broadly and acted upon.

Australian Law Reform Commission Inquiry

The Committee will be aware that the Australia Law Reform Commission is currently reviewing gene patenting and human health. An issues paper and a discussion paper have been released and the final report is due in June 2004.

FASTS considers the ALRC to be a highly credible organisation and the processes of their reviews to be genuinely consultative and comprehensive.

FASTS believes public debate over such an important set of issues as gene patents and consequences for research, human health and ethics should not be constrained or pre-empted by a trade agreement.

***

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT � Ch. 15

Fasts welcomes the liberalization of access for Australian firms to US Government procurement programs. At face value, this provides opportunities for firms in a variety of advanced technology and the service sectors to benefit. In practice, it is not clear how many Australian firms will benefit due to far to a range of distortions in the procurement process, including US State Government�s interventions in support of local firms.

In addition, there will be extensive costs associated with tendering as appeals mechanisms are used extensively and aggressively. Nevertheless, these provisions are a significant improvement on current arrangements and as such are welcome.

***

MOBILITY

A defect in the FTA is the failure to resolve the barriers that constrain labor mobility to the US, specifically business people wishing to work in the USA for periods greater than 6 months. This impacts on Australian businesses, notably, given FASTS interests, R&D intensive technology SMEs trying to expand into the US market.

G’day. I’m getting pretty tense because my book Not happy John! Defending our democracy will be launched on Monday in Canberra, Tuesday in Sydney, Thursday in Melbourne and Friday in Brisbane. Webdiary columnists Harry Heidelberg, Jack Robertson and Antony Loewenstein have each written a chapter. Antony dissected the Hanan Ashrawi affair (see The battle for minds on November 5 and follow-up entries). To refresh your memory, a director of the Sydney Peace Foundation and Prize committtee, Professor Stuart Rees, who also heads Sydney University’s Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, reflects on the scandal and the politics of media derision.

 

***

Revisiting the Hanan Ashrawi affair

by Stuart Rees

Eight months after the award of the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize to the Palestinian academic and human rights campaigner Hanan Ashrawi, it is still painful to revisit that event let alone write about it. Since the August 2003 announcement of the award, as Director of the Sydney Peace Foundation, I had received e mail, phone calls and letters, many hostile, most supportive. The tenor of these personal communications was reflected in letters to newspapers and by the anchor men on call back radio who invited their listeners to take sides over Dr. Ashrawi’s selection.

The involvement of major political figures, the Premier of New South Wales Bob Carr and the Lord Mayor of Sydney Lucy Turnbull and the organization by an Israeli academic of a world wide petition against Dr. Ashrawi receiving the Prize put the issue in national and international spotlights. Premier Carr was involved because he had agreed to present the Prize at the award ceremony in November. The Lord Mayor �s views became an issue when she made public her decision to withdraw the City �s support for Dr. Ashrawi.

Despite the controversy, Hanan Ashrawi left Ramallah on Sunday November 1st, traveled through checkpoints to Jerusalem, and from there to Tel Aviv in the middle of an Israel wide transport strike. She eventually took a British Airways jet from Tel Aviv bound for London�s Heathrow. On arrival and after much negotiation she boarded a Qantas jet for Sydney and landed on the morning of November 4th just hours before Hanan was to deliver the 2003 City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture.

The following appraisal of ways of thinking and writing focuses on the scornful attitudes of authors who opposed the choice of Dr. Ashrawi. Sections of the media seemed pleased to encourage such writing. Polarized positions were cherished and an understanding free from the call of tribal loyalties was difficult to achieve.

Examples of the use of derision as a way of conducting an argument will be taken from articles inThe Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald and from letters to the editors of those newspapers. I am picking these items to show how editors accepted accusations without foundation, and name calling without caveat or caution. To comprehend why such writing was regarded as worthy of being published requires a recall of the atmosphere which followed the events of September 11th and the subsequent announcement of a war on terror. Before describing that atmosphere, here is a brief profile of the 2004 Sydney Peace Peace Prize recipient.

Balanced person, reasonable choice

Hanan Ashrawi is a Christian woman in a Muslim, male dominated part of the world. The holder of a PhD in literature from a major US university, she had been Dean of Arts at Bir Zeit University, a Minister of Education in the Palestinian Authority and spokesperson for the PLO in the Madrid/ Washington peace talks of 1992. Since that time she had founded MIFTAH a non government institution concerned to foster democracy and good governance within Palestinian society.

Ashrawi is openly hostile to the policies of the Sharon Government. Her perspectives are partisan. Her Israeli critics said she was an absolutist who rejected the idea of Israeli/Palestinian coexistence but her website includes the comment, �The solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must emanate from a spirit of tolerance and sharing, not one of blind hatred and exclusion�. She has consistently supported a two state solution in the region but remains critical of the implementation of the ‘road map to peace’ because it lessens the prospect of a just outcome.

To assess the invective against her receiving a Peace Prize, a picture can be drawn of Ashrawi as a moderate who had condemned violence and contributed to dialogue about peace. Mary Robinson, the former UN high commissioner for human rights commented, ‘I admire her (Dr.Ashrawi’s) integrity and commitment to seeking a peaceful and just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict�.She has the respect of the international human rights community for her condemnation of violence on all sides’. Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu said, ‘No one could be more deserving of this prestigious award. Against daunting odds she has remained committed to finding a peaceful solution to what seems an intractable problem’. Madeline Albright former US Secretary of State praised the selection of Dr. Ashrawi and commented, �She is a brilliant spokeswoman for her cause�.

Appraisals of Dr. Ashrawi’s ‘peace record’ also came from significant Israeli citizens. Interviewed on the ABC �s Religion Report of 29th October, the Israeli Meretz MP Yael Dayan said, �Look, as a Palestinian, she is an activist compared to some of the others. But from my point of view, she could have done more, she could have denounced terror more � but she did carry out a dialogue with us Israeli women, which is commendable and certainly peace making.� Baruch Kimmerling a sociologist from the Hebrew University observed that awarding Dr. Ashrawi the prize was an important symbolic act. He wrote, ‘As an Israeli, as a Jew and as an academic I am deeply sorry and ashamed that members of the Australian Jewish community are acting against this rightful nomination’.

A culture of far and intolerance

In many circles a culture of global intolerance was fomenting. In response to the destruction of the twin towers in New York on September 11th 2001, President George W. Bush challenged, �You are either for us or against us�. He implied that there were civilizations and civil peoples, barbaric societies and uncivil peoples. Made more specific,that division translated into Christian democracies versus Muslim autocracies, into responsible democratic Israel confronting irresponsible, dangerous Palestinians. The events of September 11th became a catalyst for thinking in terms of wars against enemies, of good versus evil. Accusation could replace analysis.

The charge of anti semitism merits more detailed attention later in this paper. At this point it is important to say that when such charges became a catch all phrase, they nurtured intolerance. In 2003 the Jewish author Judith Butler wrote in the London Review of Books that following September 11th, the phrase ‘anti semitic’ was being used as a form of censorship which prevented issues such as the ‘the containment and dehumanization of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories from being thoughtfully debated’. In Australia, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict provoked partisanship so intense as to make people take sides and find it difficult to hear others’ perspectives. In discussions with Israeli academics in North America and in Israel six months before the award of the Peace Prize, one colleague warned, �Jewish leaders in the diaspora are often more inflexible, more dogmatic than we would be in Israel�.

Significant Australian observers warned of a culture which encouraged denigration of opponents as though ridicule could be accepted as argument. In November 2003, in an address to the Melbourne Institute, the new Governor General of Australia Lieutenant General Mike Jeffery said that unless debate in Australia became more civilized, a drift towards a destructive polarization of views was inevitable.

A few days earlier in a public address, the actress Judy Davis said, �We are incapable it seems of conducting a civilized conversation with each other. Petty local politics are the order of the day. It is distressing to realize the lengths the supporters of this �new world order� will go in order to control the public debate and vilify great international institutions such as the United Nations’.

A culture of fear and intolerance seemed to invite abusive language and a taken-for-granted assumption that vilifying those you did not agree with was an appropriate way to conduct arguments. At first sight the derision might seem plausible. It was also confusing. The writers identified themselves as respectable professionals or office holders. Violent ways of expressing criticism were presented as though these were not unusual. In the following examples of derision, the adjective �left� crops up as though it means extremist, dangerous, to be condemned and avoided. It is a lazy way of arguing and so routine as to be politically meaningless. Nevertheless it was a stock in trade of those who seemed to think that adjectives should be used as weapons.

Derision as a Form of Argument

To stereotype people as Islamists or as Palestinian apologists and to use ridicule as a way of arguing, is a style which schoolchildren are usually persuaded is inappropriate and inadmissible. A prime example came in an article by Michael Kapel, a member of the board of the Australian/Israel and Jewish affairs Council. Even the title of his article reads like an incitement. �Award raises the volume of terrorist mouthpiece�. He maintained that Hanan Ashrawi was �an apologist for Islamic terror� who had falsely accused Israel of indulging in the cold blooded murder of Palestinian children.

Mr. Kapel then took aim at me. �Rees presents himself as a champion of tolerance, justice and peace for all. That is of course unless they are American or Jewish for whom he reserves little more than undergraduate vilification.’ At the time I did not respond to Mr. Kapel. But his claims merit a response now. In my accounts of the Peace Foundation�s work, I would be ashamed to lump together the members of any one nationality or ethnic group. Over the Ashrawi issue I might have sounded defensive and I certainly pleaded for tolerance and magnanimity. Nevertheless Mr. Kapel claimed that I had �stomped around the media in terms reminiscent of Malaysian leader Dr. Mahathir Mohamed’. Kapel maintained I was �prone to conspiracies and the vilification of those who do not support his extreme views�. One might ask, as calmly as possible, under what circumstances is the promotion of peace with justice ‘extreme’?

The technique of claiming someone’s guilt by virtue of their perceived association with people defined as terrorists, thereby painting a picture of danger, characterized a letter from Martin Guenzl of Perth in The Australian of 29th October. He asked: “Does Sydney really want to laud someone who legitimizes the murder of women and children in their homes?” In similar vein – the assumption that people can be labeled in terms of guilt or innocence, good or bad – Tom Minchin of Victoria wrote in The Australian on November 5th: “She (Dr. Ashrawi) is an apologist for terror who provides terrorists intellectual shelter. As such she is as guilty as those who strap on bombs.”

Paddy McGuiness of The Sydney Morning Herald used an article called �Prizes for Prejudice of a Particular Kind�, to not only scoff at Hanan Ashrawi but dereide the Nobel Peace Prize: “In general the Nobel Prize is comparable in its recipients to the Stalin Prize..� It is clear what the politics of the Sydney Peace Foundation are. They are about claiming the moral high ground for the left, while making excuses for terrorists and warmongers.”

A habit of making sweeping claims as to what sort of people were against Ashrawi receiving the Peace Prize appeared to have the advantage of identifying friends and enemies. Such an either-or way of arguing was not to be impeded by evidence. The claims about the worthiness of critics of the Peace Foundation�s decision implied that those they criticized would be against peace, unable to think, anything but respectable and almost certainly not Jewish. A certain Professor Allan Borowski wrote in a personal letter that the award of the prize would bring its host, the University of Sydney (which was not the host) into great disrepute among the vast majority of decent Australians who abhor all terror and racism and seek a truly just peace in the Middle East. All decent Australians, it seems, would be against Ashrawi winning the Peace Prize which presumably meant that all indecent Australians, who favoured terrorism and racism, would be supporting the Sydney Peace Foundation?

Another example of jumping from one topic to another as though they were connected was also displayed in an article on the front page of The Australian on the weekend of 29th October, �Peace Prize A Betrayal: Officer�s letter from Baghdad�. A Colonel Mike Kelly, described as a senior adviser to coalition forces in Iraq, made connections between attacks by terrorists, injuries to soldiers, the case against an Australian State Premier awarding a peace prize to a Palestinian and the award of this prize as amounting to support for an (undisclosed) enemy�. According to Colonel Kelly, “It would be hard to explain to a soldier who has just lost both his legs in a terrorist attack why an Australian state Premier (supposedly an ally in this war) has been in effect comforting the enemy.”

As if the monolithic arguments of Colonel Kelly and those who decided to publish this material were not sufficient, Government MP Christopher Pyne, chairman of the parliamentary Australia/Israel committee, said: “People like Bob Carr are more dangerous than they realize when they legitimize people who have justified what we describe as terror. Bob Carr is an awful fool in the way that revolutionaries described French aristocrats who helped them against other aristocrats.”

At least Mr. Pyne�s statement had the quality of searching for obscure historical precedent. Others used words and phrases such as �incendiary�, �Arafat booster�, �Israeli bashing�, �rush of blood to the head�, which were inflammatory as well as partisan.

The Australian Jewish Council leader Mr. Colin Rubinstein seemed unable to use moderate language. He claimed that �Mrs Ashrawi was an incendiary who has given unyielding support to violence�. In support of Mr. Rubinstein, an editorial in The Australian of 23rd October said: “Mr. Carr has had a rush of blood to the head, and has agreed to present the Sydney Peace Prize to Palestinian MP and longtime Arafat booster, Hanan Ashrawi.” The same editorial speculated that Carr�s decision had left Labor�s Jewish supporters wondering how deeply the party has been infected by knee jerk Israeli bashing of the Left.

The anti semitism issue

Polarized views included the claim that Jews monopolized the position of victim, which in turn increased the likelihood of charges of anti-semitism, a sensitive issue which needs to be considered in the context of September 11th and the continuing Israel/Palestine conflict.

The Jewish scholar Kimmerling refers to the dominance of a primordial or tribal identity in Israel as opposed to a civil identity based on concepts of universal human and civil rights. Participation in the primordial identity meant that ‘any criticism of Jews, the Jewish state, or its policies, is considered anti-semitic while Jewish traitors are to be vigorously denounced’. Given this atmosphere it was not surprising that support for a controversial Palestinian receiving a Peace Prize was treated in some quarters as being evidence of anti-semitism. Such charges amounted, in Judith Butler’s words, to a form of censorship, the charge ‘anti-semitic’ being so unexceptional that almost anyone and anything could be included.

The writer Bob Ellis addressed the blanket nature of anti-semitism in a letter to The Australian of 29 October, 2003: “Is it being anti semitic to say it is wrong to bulldoze apartment blocks and leave the tenants nowhere to live? Then I swear on the head of my grandmother Rachel Larkman that I am anti-semitic too. Is it anti semitic to say that killing 3000 unarmed Palestinians in three years is wrong and a crime against humanity. Then I swear by the blood of my ancestors all the way back to Abraham that I am anti semitic too.”

In Handing a club to the anti-semites, Phillip Adams wrote in The Australian that he could be an admirer of Hanan Ashrawi and a friend of Israel: “My first daughter, named Rebecca, renounced her father’s atheism and converted to Judaism. And I’ve lost count of the occasions when I’ve launched books by Jewish authors, opened exhibitions by Jewish artists and spoken at Jewish fund raisers or at Holocaust exhibitions or museums.”

Nevertheless the critics kept coming, notably the Minister for Employment and Labor Relations Tony Abbott who addressed the Zionist Council of Victoria and was reported in The Australian of 30th October as saying it was anti-semitism that made many in the West ‘habitual critics of Israel even though it’s the only functioning liberal democracy anywhere in the Middle East’.

A tendency to lump together people by nationality or religious conviction lives alongside assumptions about anti-semitism. Ian Fraser of Rockdale NSW said in The Australian: “In Australia there is a powerful pro Palestinian lobby consisting mostly of Muslims, but also including the far Left. They lobby politicians and vilify anyone who has a good word to say about Israel.” McGuiness in The Sydney Morning Herald wrote that the award to Ashrawi was “yet another manifestation of the anti-semitic strain which lies just below the surface of those who regard themselves as progressives”.

“They prefer to applaud Arab extremists who want to murder Jews � The SPF is not alone in providing monetary rewards for propaganda in Australia.”

Prospects of Dialogue

Seeing everything and everyone as being for or against and using derision and misrepresentation to express such views sucks the oxygen out of any conversation. Such polarization may give an illusion of certainty but precludes enquiry and appraisal of evidence, let alone the beginnings of dialogue.

By contrast there exist perspectives which enhance the prospect of building bridges between peoples such as the leaders of Jewish and Palestinian communities within Australia who were said to be enemies or whom their followers claimed had nothing in common. John Swanston of Kenmore Hills, Queensland in a letter to The Australian of 26th October 2003 sounded a conciliatory note:

“Her visit might just contribute to the peace process by allowing the ignored and despised voice to be heard, listened to and respected. ”

Ashrawi herself subsequently observed: “Blind loyalty for and identification with one side leads to the adoption of strident belligerency towards the other. This intensifies the conflict and subverts rational dialogue.”

Building bridges between peoples requires language that leaves room for interpretation. It requires that touch of humility which allows for consideration of others�` points of view coupled to courage to at least question one�s age old assumptions. The attacks on Hanan Ashrawi displayed few characteristics of dialogue and not much evidence of courage to show even a tinge of doubt. Perhaps the surprising and disappointing feature of this controversy is why those sections of the print media, who regard themselves as mainstream and respectable, facilitated and even encouraged a partisan and gladiatorial way of thinking and writing?

***

References

Adams, Phillip (2003) Handing a club to the ant-semites, The Australian, October, 28th

Ashrawi, Hanan, (2003), Peace not a question of legitimacy, but of humanity, Sydney Morning Herald, November 6th

Butler, Judith (2003) No, it�s not anti semitic, London Review of Books, August 16th

Kapel, Michael; (2003) Award raises the volume of terrorist mouthpiece, The Australian October 29th

Kimmerling, Baruch (2003) Politicide, Ariel Sharon�s war against the Palestinians, London & New York, Verso Press

McGuiness, Padraic (2003) Prizes for prejudice of a particular kind, Sydney Morning Herald, November 11th

Ramsey, Alan (2003) At last some fine words about peace, Sydney Morning Herald, November 1st/2nd

Shanahan, Denis (2003) Peace prize betrayal: officer�s letter from Baghdad, The Weekend Australian, Nov. 1st/2nd

A fuller version of this article will appear in early July in the first edition of the new Arts Commentary Journal EAST WEST.

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

 

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I stand by that statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was no reference to the pyramid of naked prisoners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Securing Australia’s energy future

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

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

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

Looking over the horizon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintaining Australia’s Energy Advantage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyoto and beyond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solar cities

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

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

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

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

Support for renewables

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

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

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

Mandatory Renewable Energy Target

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

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

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

Fuel excise reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requiring Business to Do its Part

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

 

15 June 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Margo: Shadow boxing.)

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

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

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

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

PRIME MINISTER: Who am I hearing from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crikey John Howard has a bloody hide!

 

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

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

So what does Howard do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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