G’Day. The Hanson story is hot, fast and fascinating – so I skipped my week off. Tonight, the indefatigible Antony Lowenstein, F2 trainee and Webdiary groupie, gives us the lowdown on how the commentators are telling the Hanson story. For One Nation background see australianpolitics.

Bring on the real agendas

by Antony Loewenstein

Depressingly predictable agendas are the order of the day for media commentators, however since the jailing of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge last week, a new kind of political orthodoxy has emerged. The attack dogs have fallen relatively silent, if not (self?) muzzled, and the liberal press have resumed their attacks on Hanson as a policy-maker, rather than seriously addressing the reasons behind her continued popularity, if not current martyrdom.

The media’s continued blackout on the ever increasing gap between those who feel empowered in Australia (and less likely to support Hanson) and those who feel disillusioned and removed from decision making, will hurt all Australians in the long run. The us-v-them dynamic must stop, and commentators in the media must begin to take responsibility for their continued obsession with primarily discussing the Big Two Parties whilst ignoring the growing undercurrent of alternative voices. Are some racist? Yes. Are some likely to increase division in society? Unquestionably. But if those in positions of power aren’t engaging in this debate, it’s clear what the outcome will be. Societal cracks are already beginning to show.

SMH’s editorial on August 22, Hanson’s Tawdry Martyrdom, suggested that:

The jailing of Hanson and Ettridge will strengthen the conviction that the established political parties have long been out to destroy One Nation – while quietly accepting many of its policies. There is something in this. In reality, though, the destruction of One Nation and the political careers of Hanson and Ettridge was pretty much all their own work.

To the letter of the law, the judgement may well have been correct in Queensland law, despite a possibly harsh sentence from Judge Patsy Wolfe. However, how do we explain the outpouring of support for Hanson despite the fundamental rightness of the guilty verdict?

The Australian editorial on August 22 had a whiff of condescension, arguably the kind of attitude that increases her support:

Perhaps Hanson is in prison for breaking a law she did not understand – if so, it demonstrates the fatal flaw that was always likely to destroy her career. Just as she never appeared to understand trade and tax policy or why immigration and indigenous affairs could not be easily altered to her prescription, she did not realise that improperly registering One Nation could destroy her. (Hanson was the architect of her sad fate)

Rupert’s Herald Sun took a conciliatory tone on August 22 with an editorial that was unkind on Hanson’s crimes but critical of her sentence. (Hanson’s price)

The Australian’s Steve Lewis Poll rorting’s fine for the big players states quite clearly that our political landscape is a sick one, allowing serious corruption to continue unchecked while small fry like Hanson are given harsh sentences:

Still, she did not deserve to be jailed for three years for the crime of using members of her supporters’ group to register One Nation as a political party. Where’s the justice when Alan Bond served just four years for stripping more than $1 billion from Bell Resources, ripping off countless investors? And where’s the justice when the main political parties routinely engage in shady electoral dealings which, for the most part, are completely unpunished?

The Sunday Age had the most powerful editorial, Pauline Hanson Still Walks Among Us, issuing a blunt challenge to the major political parties (and he media?):

There is a better way to fight Hanson however, and that is to openly discuss the threat racist ideas pose to our social cohesion and future in the region. Xenophobia is an irrational emotion; in a nation of immigrants, with a history of social tolerance, it should not have a natural place. Hanson’s rise and fall also reminds us of the importance of leadership. Without it, fear and hatred affect political outcomes. Hanson’s fortunes are in decline, but unfortunately her influence continues, even behind bars.

Overseas coverage was widespread, especially in our region, but the UK’s Independent on August 21 in Far-right firebrand Hanson is jailed for electoral fraud cited the most salient Hanson quote of recent times:

The reason why I got into politics was actually to make a difference. When you have the government and the Prime Minister take up your policies, I think I have made a difference.

On August 25, Herald Sun commentator Andrew Bolt suggested that Pauline had committed a crime but had already done her time. Bolt seemed to be encouraging more parties of similar pedigree to One Nation, if “we want to encourage new parties, new voices, new ideas”:

No party has been so vilified. None have had their supporters so regularly threatened, spat on, abused and even punched. No party leader has been so viciously caricatured as a racist and a moron. Hanson, for all her sins, forced the big parties to stop treating these voters like mushrooms, and that has to have restored the “confidence of people in the electoral process”. (Free Pauline Hanson)

Is Bolt seriously suggesting that One Nation has brought greater accountability to the Liberal or Labor parties? And more seriously, is Bolt encouraging new parties with hateful policies, rather than supporting those who aim for social harmony and inclusiveness? His flirting with the politics of the lunar right is welcome in an inclusive media environment, but the question remains: does he want Hanson released simply to annoy the “elites” in society whom have long disliked her (and him)?

Alan Ramsay’s Don’t Cry For a Sleazy Grub column in last weekend’s SMH pulled no punches, and Mike Carlton heaped on the vitriol in Too Severe on Stupidity:

Hatred piled upon ignorance, bigotry heaped upon stupidity, she was the exemplar of George Bernard Shaw’s ‘feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy’.

Naturally, this was seen as the “sneering of these little cappuccino-quaffing journalists”, to quote my the Herald’s Paul Sheehan. Even today her media hagiographers like to affect the notion that she spoke an intrinsic Aussie truth which has escaped those lofty elitists who befuddle their brains by actually reading a book or two.”

These views are undoubtedly shared by many SMH readers, but they don’t engage or attempt to explain her popularity, and moreover, give ammunition to those who accuse the media of treating Hanson with utter contempt ever since her maiden speech. Shaun Carney had a more reasoned discussion of the Hanson legacy in Saturday’s Age, Howard the Invincible? His piece highlights the fickle nature of Australian politics. Howard may well be the man for the times, as is often argued, but here he explains the frequently misguided analysis by many in the media. Are Hansons’ ghosts likely to give Howard another helping hand come the 2004 election? And how much did Hanson contribute to an environment in which Howard could suffocate all opposition?

To read the commentary, he [Howard] has every card in the deck. No matter what the Labor Party does, Howard’s supremacy is beyond question. Australian politics is not even considered a contest! Howard has the threat of terrorism on his side. Voters are frightened and Howard makes them feel safe. They want him to stay put. They do not care that he did not tell them the truth about weapons of mass destruction and the reasons for waging war on Iraq, or the children overboard, or his meeting with ethanol boss Dick Honan. Whatever he is doing, it is worth it. He is the great father figure of the nation who the people feel will protect them. This is the analysis and, all up, it is not very persuasive.

Piers Akerman in the Daily Telegraph was remarkably restrained in Three years too long for stupidity. He argued that Hanson was stupid, no more or less:

Before attempting to portray Mrs Hanson as a martyr, or more insanely as a political prisoner and an heir to Nelson Mandela’s heroic legacy, her supporters might ask themselves whether they want a return to a corrupt governmental process that for so long protected crooked Queensland politicians and rotten police officers.

Tellingly, there was no mention of Akerman’s good mate Tony Abbott. Questions remain as to the closeness of Akerman and Abbott, and whether Akerman is well aware of his friend’s role in the case.

The only way to maturely cope with the issues raised by Hanson is not to simply dismiss them as simplistic, racist or discriminatory, (though they may well be), but to engage the wider community in discussions about the issues of the day. Whether that is multiculturalism, immigration or economic rationalist policy, the personal impact of major party policy cannot be ignored any longer. Or the double standards.

A few words on the so-called “elites” and the ramifications for Hansonism. It’s a term loosely thrown around by commentators and politicians alike, and has become a powerful weapon in silencing dissent in Australia. It’s been used to dismiss journalists, lawyers, doctors, ABC reporters and intellectuals, amongst others. Howard has brilliantly tapped into the vein of distrust by many Australians towards those who supposedly rule us. Professor David Flint, Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, recently published The Twilight of the Elites, which sums up the arguments of Howard, Abbott, Hanson and co, as does a recent op-ed piece:

So those who dare present the traditional views of most Australians are inevitably branded as conservative, or worse. But members of the elite commentariat are presented to the public as if they are mainstream – which of course they are not. If you believe in cultural relativism, or that crime should not be followed by punishment, or that our borders should be thrown open – in sum if you oppose traditional institutions and values – you are hardly in the mainstream.

The message is blunt: If you diverge from the government line on the big issues, beware. As Tony Abbott said in launching Flint’s book:

The problem is that too many people in the commanding intellectual heights of our society have in recent times thought that because they might have been better educated and arguably better informed than the general public, they were therefore better people, and when it comes to making basic value judgements, there’s no reason why a professor is going to be intrinsically better at that than a shopkeeper and I think that’s the mistake that the elites, in inverted commas, have tended to make.

But I think that it would be fair to say that there is a world view in the ABC and in the Fairfax Press which tends to have very different views on, for argument’s sake, the three Rs, republicanism, refugees and reconciliation, than those of the majority of the Australian public.

Perhaps the barrage of criticisms from the right side of politics will force the left to learn more persuasive ways to engage the greater public. Hansonism is but one representation of an insecurity felt throughout Australia, an Australia rarely discussed in the mainstream media. Ideologues on both sides of politics have clouded the issues for too long.

In late 2002, Professor John Quiggin argued in How Power Elites work in Australia that the political landscape in Australia has split to the extent that neither side appears willing to listen to the other. The result is a force like Hansonism:

Keating’s new agenda attracted strong support from some members of the elite – these are the people that John Howard talks about when he uses the term ‘elite’. But the economic rationalists were either indifferent or actively hostile, particularly when proposals for Aboriginal land rights clashed with the interests of the mining industry, the chief financier of Australia’s free-market think tanks.

With the election of John Howard, and his advocacy (punctuated by occasional backflips) of the social agenda represented by Pauline Hanson, positions hardened. Today, the Australian elite is divided in much the same way as the population as a whole, between a right-wing group which favours both free markets and a conservative or reactionary social agenda, and a left-wing group which supports republicanism and reconciliation, and opposes free-market reform.

The main difference between the elite and the population as a whole is the absence of any group corresponding to the One Nation support base, opposing both free-market policies and social liberalism. Because of this absence, the Australian elite is both more ‘economically rationalist’ and more ‘socially progressive’ than the population as a whole. However, it is increasingly uncommon to find both traits in the same person.

In late 2001, the Whitlam Institute released Battlers vs Elites, which deconstructed the term “elite” and attempted to explain the processes through which Australia would have to pass to reach a greater understanding of itself. It would not come through name-calling, or petty putdowns. Rather it would come through an inclusive policy by political parties interested in engaging the greatest number of people. The question needs to be asked however: do the major parties really want to understand those members of the public with supposedly distasteful views?

Our attention to the incidence of the rubric of “elites” and its populist alternative “the mainstream” has a straightforward aim: to draw notice to how these rubrics are inseparable from the propagating of the policies of Howardism; and to note the particular provenance of “elite theory.” Howardism will pass but not without struggle, precisely the kind of struggles – over the complexities of and inequities currently inscribed in social relations of class and “race” and gender and sexuality and region, for example – it seeks to deny.

Finally, Angela Bennie had a fascinating article in last weekend’s Herald about the role of the public intellectual and his/her importance in fostering debate and new ideas (Missing in Action). It goes to the heart of the kind of country Hanson and Howard have forged in the last seven years, an environment of shutting down dissent, and most disturbingly, forcing the so-called elites to whisper their views on the periphery of society rather than fully engaging in mainstream Australia.

Australian writer and critic Ivor Indyk sums up the challenges ahead:

Australians have an ambivalence about the very word intellectual, because that person is perceived to be claiming a position of authority. It smacks to them of elitism. And that goes against the Australian egalitarian idea. Most of the people who do speak out on public issues are academics, who therefore come with institutional backing. So do people who come from those so-called think tanks.

I also believe the public intellectual has a position in the community that has to be fought for, striven for. The role is not just a given, it emerges at certain moments in the public’s time of crisis or need. It is the public who invests them with authority when they speak out at certain times in the community’s life. That is the time it is right for them to be heard. And that’s when the public listens and invests them with this particular authority.

Only when Australia cherishes the art of the dialogue, rather than the monologue, can we can call ourselves a truly progressive nation. And only then we may fully understand the legacy still being written by Hanson and Howard.

It was somewhere down in Toffsville in a city’s smoke and steam,

That a blueblood club existed, called the Oik Exploiters Team.

As a Privatising Greed-Gang ’twas a marvellous success,

For the Members were distinguished by unseen, unscreened largesse.

They had ‘economic policies’ so nice and smooth and sleek,

(‘Cos their opportunist owners changed the bastards once a week.)

And they started up for Oxley in pursuit of Anti-votes,

For they meant to (quietly) help these angries hit their angry notes.

Despatched their useful ‘Leader’ (social-climbing Sydney grub),

‘Ere they started operations on the Anti-Every Club.

G’Day. As you read Howard’s blather on Hanson today (PM labels Hanson’s jail sentence ‘severe’), bear in mind that his close mate and political hatchet man Tony Abbott – the bloke who hand-picked the appalling David Oldfield to work in his Canberra office – was involved in destroying One Nation.

Last night’s Johnathan Harley Lateline report Hanson’s fall the result of long campaign is instructive. Abbott got disaffected One Nation member Terry Sharples a barrister with close Liberal Party connections to mount a civil case against the registration of One Nation and promised Sharples he’d help fund the case. He denied this on the record to Four Corners. When confronted with a document proving his lie, he said misleading the ABC was not as bad as misleading Palriament. We know from the last couple of weeks that misleading parliament is cool these days. Here’s an extract from Deborah Snow’s SMH feature Absolute Abbottpublished March 11, 2000.

After One Nation shocked the Coalition by winning 11 seats in Queensland in June 1998, Abbott determined to dig up every piece of dirt he could on Hanson and her associates. He soon hooked up with Terry Sharples, a Gold Coast accountant and disgruntled One Nation candidate.

Sharples had evidence he believed could show One Nation had fraudulently registered as a political party in Queensland. This was potential dynamite. If successful, it could stop One Nation receiving half a million dollars of public money under the State’s electoral funding laws, money that otherwise would flow into the movement’s Federal election war chest.

Abbott’s troubles began with a meeting he instigated with Sharples at the Brisbane offices of solicitors Minter Ellison on July 7, 1998. Also present were the late Ted Briggs, a disaffected former State treasurer of One Nation, and Tom Bradley, a solicitor and a mate of Abbott from student politics.

The meeting discussed how to raise money for a court application by Sharples to stop public funds being paid to One Nation. Within days, the action had been mounted and would ultimately succeed – although not without a massive and convoluted falling-out of the anti-One Nation players along the way.

What has been at issue since is to what extent Abbott promised to bail Sharples out if he got into financial difficulty (Sharples is now being sued for bankruptcy by One Nation in Queensland).

At the original Minter Ellison meeting, Sharples maintains, Abbott asked him to “keep his name out of things” because, claims Sharples, Abbott didn’t want the action seen to be connected with anyone from the Liberal Party. A few days later, Sharples asked Abbott for a written undertaking to cover Sharples’s costs.

That agreement, a copy of which has been obtained by the Herald, was handwritten by Abbott and promised “my per-sonal guarantee that you will not be further out-of-pocket as a result of this action”. It was witnessed and dated July 11, 1998. A few days later, when interviewed by the ABC’s Four Corners, Abbott denied any such deal existed.

The morass worsened when Sharples entered the witness box in court on August 21, 1998, and also denied any agreement over funding with Abbott. He now claims he believed the questioning related to the injunction, not to possible cost orders.

Sharples, citing Abbott’s indemnity, is now furiously pursuing the minister for money to cover his massive court costs. To date Abbott has publicly ducked the indemnity issue, insisting his involvement came to an end within weeks, when Sharples sacked the pro bono lawyers that Abbott had arranged.

But, as recently as four months ago, correspondence seen by the Herald shows Abbott’s lawyer writing to Sharples asking him to accept $10,000 to call the whole matter quits (although still maintaining this is not “an admission of liability”). How does Abbott explain the inconsistencies?

When the Herald first put to him Sharples’s claim that he’d promised money at the outset to be paid into a solicitor’s trust account, Abbott said: “No, it’s not correct.”

But later he concedes: “I had secured the agreement of a donor to provide up to $10,000, if necessary, to cover any costs award made against Sharples. This person had no connection whatsoever with the Liberal Party. That was the basis of my letter. I wouldn’t accept that it was an indemnity.”

Challenged about the conflict between this and his denial on Four Corners, Abbott initially replies: “Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the parliament as a political crime.” But later he argues that he took the reporter’s question to relate solely to the provision of Liberal Party funds.

Abbott also denies speaking to Sharples and asking him to keep his name out of things in court. “I said to him, ‘Terry, this thing is out of control … You should just terminate this action. There’ll be a costs order against you and I’ll look after it.’ And he said, ‘No, I’m on a crusade’, or words to that effect, and away he went. Sharples thinks he can take this matter to the High Court if he wants and Abbott’s going to pay every step of the way.”

On signing the indemnity, Abbott says: “Obviously in hindsight I shouldn’t have done it. But if I had my time again and it was necessary to make an alliance with some pretty unusual people to stop a very serious threat to the social cohesion of the country, well, I would do it. I mean, how else were we going to stop One Nation at the time?”

Yet many nagging questions remain. Sharples says Abbott began referring him to a man called John Samuel for money: “Abbott told me a number of times that I should speak to Samuel about the dollars and cents.”

Samuel turns out to be a character of obscure provenance from Western Australia, who first turned up exposing cost overruns at the State’s casino and questioning its deals with the now-disgraced former Labor government. Later he was involved in efforts to split the Democrats in Western Australia, and later still, joined One Nation, only to lead the revolt from inside the organisation in that State.

Samuel won’t reveal who his backers are. But he styles himself as Abbott’s protector, telling the Herald: “I didn’t want to see someone of Abbott’s credibility involved. I spoke to my friends in the West and they all agreed. I spoke to Tony and said I’d take it from here.”

Abbott admits that “in discussions with a number of One Nation people – and One Nation people were always wanting money for this or that – I would say go and talk to John Samuel. He has access to people who might be able to provide access to that sort of thing.” He says he doesn’t know where Samuel’s alleged financial backing comes from, and admits asking few questions.

Meanwhile Sharples, who has fallen out with a number of his erstwhile collaborators, fights on. He is now single-hand-edly battling an appeal by One Nation – with no funds for legal representation.

Abbott is adamant he’s got nothing to hide: “Look, I really want to stress, the anti-One Nation thing was all my doing. Were any senior Liberal Party people involved? No. Were any junior Liberal Party people involved? Well, apart from me, no. Was I doing this because the Liberal Party had told me to? No. Was I doing this because I thought the Liberal Party wanted me to do it? No. Did I get any encouragement from the Liberal Party after I’d been doing it? No. Has anyone in the Liberal Party ever said to me, ‘Well, Tony, thank God you did that’? No.

“All my doing, for better or for worse. It has got Tony Abbott’s fingerprints on it and no-one else’s.”

Which is precisely what has got some of Tony Abbott’s colleagues worried.

***

Jack Robertson says of Howard’s latest spin:

Howard said today: “I don’t think Pauline Hanson’s political abilities were high, I think her policies were ill-developed and she did from time to time touch prejudicial elements in the community but not perhaps to the extent that many of her critics suggested.” If you can keep from laughing hysterically, you can have merry japes imagining JWH on other ‘Great Moments in Nation-Changing History’:

On Federation: “Not a completely pointless exercise in bumf-shuffling, I suppose.” On Gallipoli: “Lost the odd bloke or two, but it all came out in the wash, eventually.” On the ’42 strategic switch: “Winny was tied up with something in Burma, so Curts gave Frank a dingle instead. No biggie.” On Gough’s Revolution: “I was blinking at the time myself, but apparently he knew Ancient Greek.” On Kennett: “Jeff? Name-calling? Funny, no-one ever told me.”

He’s not seriously expecting anyone to cop tripe like that, is he? My bemused admiration at his chutzpah knows no bounds. Guess he clocks the ‘New Oz’ more acutely than I ever will. Or want to, really.

By the way, the party structure adopted by Hanson and co was the very one recommended to her by another Liberal, former Western Australian Liberal senator Noel Chrichton Brown, who was one of several far right figures courting her to form a party before she picked Oldfield. He wrote Hanson a detailed letter setting out the structure, arguing that democracy in the party would destroy it.

ABC election analyst Anthony Green wrote an important piece on the Hanson matter in the Herald today, Perils of Pauline: her breach of ‘club’ rules was technical rather than deceit. He points out that if Hanson had been a member of the Queensalnd parliament, she could have registered her party the way she did without a care in the world. The pollies club, you see. He also points out that the Sharples civil action against ON’s registration which finally led to the charges against her was defended by the Queensland Electoral Commission, which thought all was fine. There is no requirement for a democratic structure in political parties, none at all, as the major parties can attest to.

At the end of another dismal political week, readers in seats owned by a Liberal or National Party MP should know that your MP voted against referring Tuckey to the House of Representatives privileges committee to examine his multiple parliamentary misleadings this week. The government and its tainted MPs weren’t even prepared to have an internal inquiry into the matter by a committee on which it had the numbers. The case is so open and shut no-one could put their name to a report exonerating Tuckey.

So when Richard Alston and John Howard carry on about the ABC needing an independent review body for complaints, bear in mind that at the least the ABC conducted an internal review. The Alston/Howard poison against the ABC has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with preserving their regime from scrutiny.

Your Hanson emails keep pouring in. I’ll start with Webdiary’s One Nation contributor Greg Weilo then a selection of short ones before our versatile columnist Jack Robertson’s ode to Pauline and John. My favourite one liner is from Colin Griffiths: I do not agree with the polices of One Nation but with the sentence of three years for Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge this country now has the lowest common democracy.

I’m on holidays next week and back September 1, for Spring. Antony Loewenstein has agreed to guest edit a Webdiary on Hanson, so keep you responses rolling in.

***

Greg Weilo in Adelaide

In the blink of an eye, Big Media has reversed its spin. Pauline Hanson, the most vilified Australian since federation, is no longer portrayed as ignorant and stupid. She has now been cast as a Machiavellian plotter, deviously pursuing nefarious schemes in order to destroy Australian democracy and overthrow the Commonwealth.

The fiendish plot is necessary in order to justify her three-year prison sentence, whereas confusion over the bureaucratic details of a political party registration just doesnt have the same impact.

The Judge seems to believe that Hanson deviously tried to deceive the voting public, by arranging to get “Pauline Hansons One Nation” written on voting papers next to the names of people who supported her policies. Most people would find this clarifying rather than misleading, but many judges seem to enjoy demonstrating their remarkable ability to twist the truth into incomprehensible conclusions.

Apparently its OK to make and break promises about “no children living in poverty by 1990”, “L-A-W tax cuts”, or “never-ever GST”. Its OK to lie about your electoral address, to branch stack, rort your travel allowance or to receive votes from dead people. That’s not deceiving voters, that’s just politics, but letting the voters know what they are voting for is beyond the pale.

Apparently its important to split hairs when determining whether One Nation had 500 supporters or 500 members when deciding if it should be registered as a political party. The fact that the party received over one million votes was ignored in the federal election, so why should it matter now?

The fact that the party registration was independently checked, verified and approved by a government official is beside the point. If a mistake was made, the fact that it was a first offence and performed without intent is also irrelevant.

The $500,000 funding was intended to reimburse political candidates for election campaign costs. The costs were incurred, receipts were provided, but the money was still ordered to be returned. It was. Hanson had already effectively received a $500,000 penalty for an alleged mistake in applying for party registration.

Bizarre legal decisions are par for the course when it comes to One Nation, as evidenced by the Heather Hill case. Activist High Court Judges put their ability to creatively interpret the law into overdrive, when they decided that the Queen of Great Britain, defined as Head of State in the Australian Constitution, was a “foreign power”. Just don’t mention the catch-22, in that every federal politician must swear allegiance to this “foreign power” upon entering parliament, and therefore become ineligible to hold office.

Meanwhile, most Big Media journalists can hardly contain their glee, with gloating references to strip searches, prison uniforms and maximum security cells. The Democrat Senator Aden Ridgeway, acknowledges the treatment that white Australians can expect when they become a minority, with sneering remarks about the need for protective custody within the prison environment. Our prisons are just like Zimbabwe in miniature, and a glimpse into our multicultural future.

Anybody questioning the fairness of the legal system is ridiculed as a “conspiracy theorist”, yet what hope is there in finding 12 unbiased jurors to assess Hanson’s innocence or guilt after years of relentless vilification by Big Media? What hope of a fair trial when the police, the public prosecutor and the judge depend on Hanson’s political opponents for their appointments and promotions?

What kind of judicial impartiality imposes a three year custodial sentence for a legal technicality and a victimless crime, when last May the same judge delivered a six month sentence on a serial pedophile who abused an 11 year old girl? (The Australian):

PAULINE Hanson yesterday received six times the jail term the same judge gave a pedophile who molested an 11-year-old girl in her bed. In May this year Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe sentenced the 52-year-old man with a history of sexual, drug and violent offences to six months in prison. The grandfather was a repeat offender and had previously been jailed for 2 1/2 years for attempted rape 30 years ago.

How can Big Media claim that “white collar crimes” receive harsher penalties, when HIH’s Ray Williams and Rodney Adler retain their millions and their freedom?

Everybody knows that Hanson was sentenced as a political prisoner, with people from Bob Carr to Natasha Stott-Despoja virtually admitting the obvious. The world has now seen how Australia treats her political dissidents, but no doubt the silence from the “human rights activists” will be deafening.

Despite all the obstacles put in her path, Hanson and her supporters have only ever pursued democratic change. Hopefully they will never change this strategy, but it is worthwhile keeping JFK’s words in mind:

“If you make democratic change impossible, then revolutionary change becomes inevitable”.

***

Paul Forsyth

Re Margo Kingston’s Mother of the nation in jail, it’s father in charge, the Herald has gone too far (again!) with the libellous pen of that miserable dish rag of a creature, Kingston.You people still believe you run a quality broadsheet newspaper,huh??? The creature is a lunatic.

***

Peter Adams in Adelaide

Congrats on this morning’s piece on Pauline Hanson. As one of the many small-L liberals swimming harder against the political tide I found the situation superbly summarised and articulated in your piece, especially highlighting how the political professional in Howard hijacked the amateur’s agenda. I grew up in Bjelke-Petersen’s Queensalnd, but what we’re living in now frightens me even more. Keep up the good fight !

***

Paul Dillon

Your piece on Hasnon is the best article of its type I have read this year. Unfortunately it will probably be too truthful for the many who should heed it. The Opinion section of the Herald provides a source of information, understanding and balanced views that is becoming increasingly essential as our society corporatises and the “father” of our nation leaves us in the care of big brothers. (Margo: See Governing for the big two: Can people power stop them? for the imminent danger to your independent Herald.)

***

Duane van Twest

Just one word is really needed – “Exactly!” Thank you so much for this article and so many others on all the topics effecting us today. There are so many things that enrage me about this matter but over and over it comes down to the fact that the big boys club is at it again – just one of many tricks as you’ve highlighted in the many articles I’ve read (and forwarded) over the last few months.

It’s quite ironic that the power the members of the various boys clubs wield is disproportionate to the integrity of the individual members themselves. Isolate them and they are cowards, full of insecurities, without confidence to stand by their convictions, very self centred and without vision. In an imbalance in natural selection, these people have risen to an artificial level of importance and power – due only to their collective strength.That is why they so fear the collective strength of those they try to manipulate.

PS: I’m not a long suffering blue collar worker. I am a quite well off professional who just doesn’t like seeing injustice.

***

Howard Petts in Nowra, NSW

Hi! I’m wondering if it was Wilson Tuckey who uttered those ridiculous statements about Aborigines being unable to handle public funds because of their ‘cultural’ tendency to look after relatives first. (Margo: It was indeed.) If it was, then the recent uncovering of Wilson Tuckey’s own ‘cultural’ dispensation to look after his own family (and lie about it) as a minister is ironic. More than that, it is a case of the pigeons coming home to roost (or the truth being revealed). It is a strange irony too that Pauline Hanson, who advocated tougher sentences for criminals, is now receiving what she asked for.

I liked your piece on the hypocrisy of the major parties regarding the imprisonment of Pauline – it seems that it is an advantage to be in charge when you’re engaged in corruption, lies and deceits. I was reminded that the leaked DFAT reports of a few years ago talked about the widespread corruption of Pacific Islands leaders – it seems that now we truly are fit for leadership in the Pacific!

***

Maureen King in Lane Cove, NSW

Have you noticed that not so many people seem to care very much about what happened to David Ettridge? I suspect that they feel like I do – that Pauline does not deserve to be treated so harshly by the courts because she was such an incredible dill. But then other stupid people have not been able to use that as a defence, so why should Pauline be treated any differently to them? I understand ignorance is not an excuse under our legal system.

Another comment I would like to make is that I wish the general public would make as much fuss about Aboriginal deaths in custody, domestic violence or dreadful health as they have about the Dumb Redheaded Person.

Finally, what about the socially deprived who have been treated to harsh penalties over the years under laws like mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory? Why should Pauline be treated any differently to them just because she has worn a few glamorous frocks over the years and managed to become notorious because of her innate stupidity?

Please explain?!!

***

Peter Kennedy

I was on a jury about 4 years ago where we tried a man for murder (eventually reducing it to manslaughter) for killing his mother in law. He got 3 years inside for that. How can they justify Pauline Hanson’s sentence against for electoral fraud (or what’s worse – getting caught)?

***

Geoffrey Moule

I have never written to the SMH before but I must register my outrage at the treatment given to Pauline Hanson by the Queensland judical system. She may have committed an offence but the sentence does not in anyway reflect the nature of the crime. Consider for the moment the crimes being committed in this country by all types of deviates, and the light – if any – punishment given to them. Pauline should be released and at the most given some community activity for her crime.

***

Geoff Ward in Carlinford, NSW

It is not often that I feel such a sense of outrage that I am moved from my usual apathy to comment on a matter that does not impact me.

The sentence handed down to Pauline Hanson is one such event. This simple-minded woman, caught up in the euphoria of her short-lived political success, made some mistakes, which are now considered an electoral fraud, and has been sentenced to 3 years in gaol. She has been convicted of the victimless crime of defrauding the Queensland Electoral Commission of some half a million dollars, which she has now, apparently, fully repaid.

Alan Bond got a lesser sentence for defrauding the Bell Group shareholders of more than one billion dollars. Convicted armed robbers have been known to receive lesser sentences than 3 years. The perpetrators of the vicious father and daughter Nunes bashing have been released on bail.

I don’t support Pauline Hanson’s racial, red-necked policies. However, I do feel sorry for her and feel that her sentence is a travesty of justice. Three months, and even one month, in gaol is a severe punishment for a person who has not injured anyone and has not deliberately set out to break the law in a serious way. I think, as a civilised and decent society, we have lost the plot.

***

Jack Robertson, in poetic mode

An ode to the invisible gentleman who (temporarily?) sold Australia to the bigots in us all, with apologies to the Geebung Polo Club and the Cuff and Collar Team, who at least had the guts to wear their true colours on their sleeves and slug it out in public.

It was somewhere up in Oxley, in some working Ippy pub,

That they formed an institution called the Anti-Every Club.

They were mean and angry battlers from the outer sprawling belt,

And the gripe was never floated that the Antis hadn’t felt.

But their style of playing politics was rough and riled and raw,

They had f**k-all Big End dollars, but a mighty lot of poor.

And their Anti-Every leader led the Anti-Every song,

For her coat was surface-pleasing (though her Anti-Ideas wrong).

And they aimed their hottest anger at the globalised hubbub,

They were narky, were the Antis of the Anti-Every Club.

*

It was somewhere down in Toffsville in a city’s smoke and steam,

That a blueblood club existed, called the Oik Exploiters Team.

As a Privatising Greed-Gang ’twas a marvellous success,

For the Members were distinguished by unseen, unscreened largesse.

They had ‘economic policies’ so nice and smooth and sleek,

(‘Cos their opportunist owners changed the bastards once a week.)

And they started up for Oxley in pursuit of Anti-votes,

For they meant to (quietly) help these angries hit their angry notes.

Despatched their useful ‘Leader’ (social-climbing Sydney grub),

‘Ere they started operations on the Anti-Every Club.

*

Now readers will remember all the tricks they used to win,

How their useful-idiot Leader drove the useful wedges in.

The plan was pretty simple, ’twas to hide their greedy game,

By setting up some decoys for the Anti-Club to blame.

Abos, Asians, Greenies, Jews, they didn’t really mind,

So long as all these City Oiks could hide behind a blind.

Lost your job? It’s all them Arabs, coming in their boats!

Lost the farm? The Black Man, with his High Court wanker-votes!

Phone line’s crap? The bank’s shut down? There’s no more local planes?

Elitists! Damned elitists! Since that Keating took the reins!

*

Now the Anti-Every boys weren’t smart, but neither were they thick,

The Oik Exploiters’ grubby game was never going to stick.

Especially when their Biggest Pigs got obvious (and lax),

One-Tel, HIH, the AMP, dear Max the Axe.

Corporate payouts, bail-outs, cons, exposed their ‘market’ guff,

Milton Friedman – bullshit-artist – shivering in the buff!

The Oikish gig was nearly up, the buck was on the stop,

They’d have to raise the dirty stakes, to stay on dirty top.

And then – a double miracle! The Oikish scams will run!

For it’s TERROR!!! And the TAMPA!!!

And they’ve got the Antis skun.

* * *

I loved a sunburnt country…

It was somewhere out the country, in the town I learned to fend,

In a place that had no Melbourne Club or ASX Big End.

Thatcher didn’t visit, Hayek never took a squizz,

And ‘privatising zeal’ meant minding other peoples’ biz.

We never really bothered what these Oiks did up the smoke,

Didn’t give a shit if they got rich or went dirt broke.

Tho’ glad that Reggie thought the scrub should join the flying caper,

Glad that Frank (or Keith?) produced our profitless local paper.

We thanked the urban ‘User-Pays’ for sending stuff our way.

And blessed the PUBLIC POLITY for giving us a say.

*

Born in PUBLIC wards and caught in PUBLIC doctor’s hands,

Tonsils out in PUBLIC; PUBLIC pills for swollen glands.

Taught to read and write and count by PUBLIC school ‘elite’,

PUBLIC music lessons (as a PUBLIC-funding treat).

Played on PUBLIC ovals, swam in PUBLIC swimming pools,

Yet now we flog Oz off – we selfish, greedy, ‘private’ fools.

This ‘inner-City wanker’ trod an elitist PUBLIC track,

And now he craves a chance to PAY TOMORROW’S PUBLIC BACK.

***

I bet that not one of us, not from Kerry Packer or John W. Howard down, really, really likes what is happening to the Australian Ideal: this short-sighted and largely-by-stealth flogging off, to the highest Bloodless Stock-Market Telescreen bidder – in our globalised Free & Automated Number-Crunching Market Game – of the genuine fair go for all. Bush or Town. City or Suburb. Black or White, or in-between. Straight or gay. Man or woman. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else, or nothing. Billionaire or bum. Reffo or toff. We’re supposed to be governed by flesh-and-blood Human Beings, not economic ideologies. And we all have Free Democratic Will. We can make Australia whatever the hell we choose tomorrow.

Our politicians, and especially the PM, have been played for mugs by this destructive, non-existent beast – Market Theory – for too long. Surely WE will decide what sort of country we make for our kids, the opportunity ‘circumstances’ that will greet the Jack Robertsons and John Howards and Pauline Hansons of tomorrow?

She herself may be gone from the Australian political stage, and I’ll shed no tears, because she helped do a whole lot of nasty damage in her time, and it seems she turned out to be just another cynical self-server, anyway. But her many admirers, enthusiastic and absolute or grudging and qualified, mean and nasty or big-hearted and misrepresented and used and misled, are still here. And the better angels of all their – our – decent and gentle Australian natures, and the burning impulse to bellow what they – we – were trying to bellow, remain. Our mainstream politicians should start listening. Our very best and brightest Corporate leaders, too.

Yep, especially the smooth, invisible gentlemen up the Big End of Town, who are now pretty much alone in holding the purse strings of this nation’s tomorrows. Don’t flog Australia’s National Soul, gents, because sold souls usually die, and dead ones can’t easily be brought, much less bought, back to life. That’s the lesson we should learn from the One Nation epoch, in my view. We’re all in this together. If one single Australian kid living in a town 100 miles east of bloody Paraburdoo hasn’t got a decent phone or water or power service, or decent access to a hospital and a school and vaguely-regular transport to the exciting Big Smoke, bursting with its infinite possibilities, then none of our kids have.

If the Australian ‘Private Polity’ – that ‘Threatening Peril’ which, beneath all the easily-manipulated and wedgy, politically-convenient scapegoating, was what truly fired the Hanson movement in the first place – can’t or just won’t ensure a true ‘fair go’ for all Australians on a sustainable basis into the future, then I’m afraid the ‘Private Polity’ is just no bloody good to us Australians. We’re all this together. We have to be. We must be.

***

 

So, the self-proclaimed mother of the nation is in jail, and the man who took her policies and finessed her beliefs is Prime Minister of Australia.

The rights and wrongs of Pauline Hanson’s conviction and sentence aside, her imprisonment is a graphic symbolic representation of the state of Australia and its politics.

Australia’s political, police and legal establishment has put Pauline Hanson – fish and chip shop heroine to the poor, the ignorant and the disenfranchised, the woman who created a party out of nothing in an instant and mobilised Australians never before involved in politics – behind bars.

Big money, big brains, big spin machine politics triumphs – replete with its big, often disguised corporate donations, branch stacking, crony capitalism, deceit and betrayals of the poor and the powerless. Politicians with brains, money and privilege walk free after defrauding the taxpayer, ministers and the Prime Minister survive with a smile after lying to the public- even about the reason for war – and profit from politics with sinecure taxpayer funded jobs or jobs with big corporations exploiting their political contacts.

The big brand names of politics and the big media – with all their considerable assets – worked tirelessly to silence the scream of the Hanson’s disenfranchised. I wrote in my book about her 1998 election campaign, Off the Rails: The Pauline Hanson trip, that Australia had been lucky that our brand of far-right nationalist politics had been amateur, unresourced, and too-quickly put together by carpetbaggers like David Oldfield and David Ettridge. What if a professional had captured the masses’ imagination – where would Australia be now?

Now we know. A professional has stepped in. His name is John Howard. She wanted refugee boat people given five year temporary visas instead of permanent residence. Philip Ruddock deplored her inhumanity, then, once Hanson was out of action, gave refugees three year visas instead. She demanded that the boats be turned around at sea. In August 2001, our SAS boarded the Tampa and our defence force did just that.

The professional John Howard merely engineered the fears and angers of the insecure and economically suffering to his base political advantage. Softly softly suggestions only, then he sat back and watched the flames engulf each utterance, most recently with capital punishment after he gave the States the all clear to reintroduce it. Tick – another Hanson policy adopted.

The professional, John Howard, faced a fragmentation of the conservative vote with Pauline Hanson. Her One Nation Party helped elect Queensland and Western Australian Governments in early 2001. She pledged to put all sitting members last at the 2001 federal election, almost guaranteeing a Labor victory.

But then came Tampa. The One Nation vote collapsed and its voters ran to Howard. So did Labor, in mortal fear. The professional, John Howard, was triumphant, and Labor unelectable. Australia’s march to fascism began (see Howard’s roads to absolute power).

And now? The disenfranchised Hansonites are in the middle ground on social policy, Howard brilliantly manipulating their ignorance to exploit their downward envy as he screws them economically and demands they find the money to pay for their own basic health and the education of their children.

The disenfranchised have empowered a resurgent Greens Party. Those who once saw themselves as mainstream Australians in an Australia committed to the universality of human rights are now grassroots activists, visiting refugees, researching their treatment in detention camps, writing books, lobbying politicians.

And the rest of the old old middle ground?

Former Kim Beazley chief of staff Syd Hickman put it this way this week at the launch of the Reid Group, dedicated to reviving Liberalism:

Understandably it is taking liberal Australians a fair while to appreciate the alarming reality that faces us. After all, liberalism for a long time represented the political middle ground. For much of the past thirty years small l liberals have had the luxury of being the swinging voters who decided who would win federal elections. What we thought about key issues used to matter. Quite frankly, in political terms, now it doesn’t. And that’s why core liberal issues like the future of the ABC, the secular education system and universal health care get such meagre attention.

People who hold liberal values must demand their own place in the political spectrum. To get it they are going to have to work outside the old frameworks. They should stop telling themselves that it’s good enough to be the wets or progressives in political parties which are now openly dedicated to illiberal ends. This is not virtue, its self delusion.(See Can liberalism fight back?)

Hanson was the most hated woman in Australia when she shocked the powerful and the comfortable with the truth – that our construct of a tolerant, progressive, open Australia was a myth. Now, Australians overwhelmingly feel sympathy for her as she languishes in jail.

It’s easy to explain, really, with the benefit of time. Underneath the racism and the ignorance, Hanson triggered a people’s movement. It was crushed with all means at the powerful’s disposal. And we all know it.

One final word. John Ralston Saul made the point in his book, The Doubters Companion, that outbreaks like Hansonism are not the fault of supporters, but of the elites:

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

So blame the Labor elite of 1983-1996 for the rise of Hansonism. And blame John Howard’s elite for exploiting it now. And please, let Pauline Hanson walk free. She’s more innocent than our major parties by miles.

G’Day. There’s always another sensational twist in the Pauline Hanson story, isn’t there? And our feelings about her and what she meant for us keep changing too. Heaps of reaction today from Webdiarists, overwhelmingly of the view that the sentence stinks. And this on a leftie-dominated site. Crazy. My first take is Mother of the nation in jail, its father in charge. I’ll have a go at a more considered assessment of her legacy tomorrow. The Hanson support group’s take is at paulinehanson.

Tonight your first reaction, but first, some links to Hanson Webdiaries for a blast from the past in this most complicated relationship between the red head and the Australian people.

Hansonism: Then and Now, November 9, 2000

Pauline Hanson rises from the grave, February 5, 2001

Behind Pauline’s comeback, February 12, 2001

Pauline’s mob pumps out the Sunburnt Battler, February 13, 2001

One Nation and chaos theory, February 14, 2001

The blame game, February 16, 2001

Howard prefers Hanson?, February 19, 2001

Hanson and you, February 15, 2001

Retrospective Hansonism,September 26, 2001

Beyond Hanson, January 14, 2002

Fundamental inexperience, January 15, 2002

Hanson’s legacy, January 16, 2002

***

THE GUARDIAN’S TAKE

Australian icon of far right jailed for fraud

by David Fickling in Sydney, Thursday August 21, 2003

Pauline Hanson, the founder of Australia’s xenophobic One Nation party, who was once seen as a potential prime minister, was sent to prison for fraud yesterday.

“It’s a joke”, she shouted as she was jailed for three years on three charges of electoral fraud. After hugging her family and her co-accused and fellow One Nation founder David Ettridge, who received the same sentence, she was led away to the cells.

Hanson has seen her career nosedive and the party she led is in tatters.

One Nation has a single federal senator and four state MPs in Queensland and Western Australia. But without the fraud for which she was convicted yesterday it might not have existed at all.

The court ruled that 500 signatures used as proof of One Nation’s membership base in 1997 had belonged to an unofficial Hanson support group.

Funding of $500,000 (then worth about 175,000) from Queensland state, with which One Nation’s campaigned for its breakthrough election in 1998, was also obtained by fraud.

The Queensland premier, Peter Beattie, said last night that a sympathy vote could cause a temporary resurgence of One Nation support: a view endorsed by many of the party’s supporters.

“The sentence is bloody outrageous,” said Bill Flynn, One Nation MP for the Queensland seat of Lockyer. “We have murderers who go to jail for less. If any good can come out of this I would say to her, ‘Chin up, girl. They can make a mar tyr out of you but it will come back to bite them in the bum’.”

Hanson first appeared on the political scene with a shock victory in the suburban Brisbane seat of Oxley in 1996.

Initially endorsed by the rightwing Liberal party, she was removed from its slate when her views on Asian immigration and Aboriginal rights became known.

Her policies, which she described as “… a fair go for all Australians”, included slashing health, education and housing aid for impoverished Aborigines. She said Asian immigrants were synonymous with crime and disease, and that immigration should stop until unemployment reached nil.

The Liberals deselected her because of the fear that her extreme views would help Labor.

Their mistake became apparent when she was elected to Canberra on a 23% swing. Since then, it has been the ruling Liberal-National coalition, rather than Labor, which has benefited most from her views.

At One Nation’s high-water mark during the 1998 Queensland state elections, one in four people backed the party.

A few months later it polled 8% in the federal elections, equivalent to 1m votes, but the success was marred by Hanson losing her own Oxley seat, and decline soon followed.

David Oldfield, another of its founders, denied that the verdict posed a threat to One Nation’s existence. “I think there’s plenty of signs the party is in trouble, but it’s had greater troubles than Pauline Hanson going to jail,” he said.

“The greatest troubles have been arguments within One Nation itself, many of them caused by her.”

Hanson stood this year as an independent for a Sydney seat in the New South Wales state election, but lost to a gun-ownership lobby.

Despite her disappearance from parliament, her impact on Australian politics has remained dramatic. “She transformed the political landscape,” Margo Kingston, her biographer, said.

“She started off as a profound risk to the conservative side of politics, but when [prime minister] John Howard broke the bipartisan policy on refugees during the Tampa [immigrant boat] crisis, that was completely turned around. From that moment One Nation support ended, its support went to John Howard, politics was shifted to the right and Labor was dragged along with it.”

Hanson always insisted that Howard had simply stolen her policies on Aboriginal rights and immigration. “It’s ironic,” said Ms Kingston. “The woman who started all this is in jail and the man who took her policies is prime minister.”

***

Ben Kennedy

You say in The Guardian: “She started off as a profound risk to the conservative side of politics, but when [prime minister] John Howard broke the bipartisan policy on refugees during the Tampa [immigrant boat] crisis, that was completely turned around. From that moment One Nation support ended, its support went to John Howard, politics was shifted to the right and Labor was dragged along with it.”

I don’t know if this is true Margo. Pauline was a risk to the Conservative side of politics, but I don’t know if it was “profound”. In the UK the Coalition would have been dead ducks under first-past-the-post, but in Australia the major parties can always appeal for minor party preferences; afterall, a minor party or independent voter’s second preference is just as deadly as their first once their preferred candidate has been eliminated.

Being a regular reader of your work, I know that like many other commentators you also conveniently ignore that fact that it was the ALP between 1989-1994 that established the architecture of the system for dealing with refugees and unlawful entrants, which included the introduction of the much-maligned but highly popular and effective policy of “mandatory detention”. I don’t recall you criticising Labor back then – remember that Cambodian person who was stuffed into a body bag and dragged kicking and screaming onto an airplane? That was during Keating’s watch; Margo Kingston apparently had no moral qualms about refugee policy back then. (Margo: Dead wrong Ben. I was a trenchant and persistent critic of Labor’s boat people policy, working on it almost full time for the Canberra Times, where I then worked.)

At the same time you criticise others for not taking a principled stand against the death penalty – flailing them for turning their morality on and off like a switch – you seem to be forgetting your own hypocrisy. (Margo: Please advise the basis for your charge of hypocrisy.)

As for John Howard breaking bipartisan policy on refugees – am I suffering from serious brain damage or do I distinctly recall Kim Beazley explicitly saying in parliament during the Tampa crisis that: “On this issue the government and opposition are as one.” Perhaps you recall Bob Brown’s colourful opposition to Mr Howard’s actions. Bob doesn’t have an official party though Margo, at least not in parliament. (Margo: Howard broke the old biparrtisanship, Beazley joined Howard in the new one.)

I acknowledge that Mr Howard used One Nation-like ideas about turning refugee boats around (which was, in fact, one of One Nation’s better proposals) to fashion a legislative response to the issues raised by the Tampa affair – however the parliament, rather than the Howard government, established this arrangement – an important difference.

I know you will most probably ignore this email, but would you like to have a go at justifying any of the claims you have made above? (Margo: Why would you assume that? I’ve make a point of publishing articulate criticism of my work since I started Webdiary three years ago.)

***

Sean Hocking

I heard you on radio this morning, and for once I have to disagree with you. I think a jail sentence is completely appropriate, if only because she allowed Howard to steal her ideas!

She started a party that talked about exclusion, thinly veiled racism and worst of all allowed her ideas to be hijacked by the Liberal Party. She then played politics and the media game to the hilt and has come undone in the process.

I don’t worry about the martyr argument. Whether she went to jail or not she and her supporters will always paint her as a martyr.

My only hope that by some miracle Howard will one day end up in front of the same judge, but then again I live in fantasy land.

***

Helen Darville

I’ve always been of the view that you understood the whole ‘Pauline Hanson phenomenon’ better than any journalist in Australia. Your piece today only confirms that view. It seems we will have to pay for all the things we thought were true of Australia but turned out to be myth. And pay. And pay. And pay. Maybe our grandchildren will be free of the debt.

***

Martin Davies, Webdiary’s artist:

Ms Hanson’s conviction is certainly going to send a chill up the spine of politicians who think deceiving the public is in their interest. Liars and con men beware – the courts will send you to jail. Sure.

***

Denise Parkinson

Great article today on Howard and Hanson. You have articulated what a good number of people in this country would be thinking and feeling right now.

***

Krista Gerrard

Loved Off the rails. Do you think a Lib or ALP pollie would have ever got to prosecution on the same facts or would a deal have been struck early on? (the former). Do you know if Pauline was offered any deals, with respect to her charges, or did she fight on in an attempt to prove her innocence? (No, but my bet is she wasn’t.) Do you still think she is mostly narrow minded and stupid, rather than a force of evil or bad? (Yes. The evil is elsewhere.)

***

Gary Fallon

First we had Howard, then we had Tuckey and now Hanson goes to prison. All politicians. All lied.

The raving right are asking for a referendum on the death penalty. Howard wants to change the Constitution to weaken the Senate.

I’d like to see a referendum put to the Australian people that would change the Constitution to require any Minister of the Crown accused of misleading Parliament face the High Court to answer the charges and if found guilty to be expelled from Parliament and forfeit all of his/her superannuation entitlements.

The most interesting part would be the ‘No’ case that Howard would inevitably put forward!

***

Russell Dovey

You know, I hate to say this, but jailing someone for three years because they didn’t do their paperwork correctly is a bit harsh, in my opinion. We all know that it’s David Oldfield who manipulated these two, rode them to power, then dropped them like a hot turd. He’s still sitting in the NSW senate, collecting his paycheck and pushing his racism.

Hell, John Howard is an even better example. He not only blessed Hanson through faint lack of praise, but his Coalition stole her racist policies to woo her racist supporters.

Hanson gets three years in prison for being too stupid to understand the difference between a political party and a support movement, and Howard gets three years (and counting) in Kiribili House for giving racists permission to spread hatred. This is not justice.

***

Harry Cole in Drummoyne, Sydney

What happened to Hanson today proved beyond doubt that what we have in Australia is a sham democracy. A sham democracy within which any ordinary person who articulates political opinion, and tries to organise some kind of grassroots movement outside of the approved organisations, is ridiculed, demonised and finally jailed.

Oh sure, it wasn’t done overtly – but don’t take the Australian public for total fools. To be quite honest, I could not stand the ghastly woman. I thought she was reactionary and divisive. But that is not the point. The point is that if you are denied, by whatever means, the right to organise politically and challenge the way your country is being run, then what you have is something other than democracy. That being the case, all you political journalists, analysts, editors and soothsayers might as well pack it in and go home, after all what use is a parliament and its hangers on without democracy?

***

Tony Lane

Since I’ve always been an anti-Hansonite my first reaction to her jailing was **YES** but on reflection it looks totally disproportionate. Without knowing the details of the case, it looks more like she was guilty of gung-ho naivety than fraud. Community service would have been my option if I was the judge. Ettridge may well be another matter – I’ve always felt he was a cynical hanger on.

Your article points out some of the more complex truths behind the current scene. Do you really feel Australia is sliding into fascism? I ask not because I disagree, but because I have felt so alone and old-fashioned holding this viewpoint myself! Anyway, keep on stirring – there are some of us listening and puzzling out what to do.

***

Peter Woodforde in Canberra

Anyone would think she was an “illegal” except for the fact that she actually got an open trial. And she’ll never see the inside of one of Howard’s wicked hell-holes in Nauru or Baxter. Her sentence is nonetheless unduly harsh and rather stupidly unimaginative, as well as completely out of kilter with community expectations.

It’s a bit hard to write about Pauline Hanson the day after the murders of Sergio di Mello and his colleagues. On any count, he had more good in one of his finger nails than there would be in a whole exercise yard full of Pauline Hansons (let alone John Howards). But her long harsh sentence is cockeyed, as is Peter Beattie’s very disappointing and uncharacteristically maladroit response.

Beattie was right, however, to say that many will see Hanson as a martyr. I seriously doubt that it will cause too much of a resurgence of One Nation, but there will be many, many people in Australia today – from across the political spectrum – saying the sentence was unfair. They will resent it and further despise “them” who inflicted it. And they won’t have anywhere to go – the alienated never do. So the national political process is further poisoned. The expression of this almost certainly won’t be particularly political, but we’ll all feel it.

Out in the suburbs, people will remember that a reckless drunk got a similar (but suspended) sentence for killing a cousin or workmate with a motor car. They will know people who were bashed and robbed, and saw the perpetrators cop six months. They will remember that the kids who burgled and vandalised their home never even got caught. They’ll recall the battalions of heavy-jowled captains of industry who stole millions and walked.

And they will have uneasy feelings about close-to-the-wind political shenanigans in the moonlight sate and all the other rotten boroughs, too.

Peter Beattie was perfectly entitled to say that there was no political direction of the Hanson trial and that it was entirely and properly in the hands of the judiciary. Perhaps with an appeal looming, he was also entitled to stay his hand on much comment, anyway.

But at some stage, he might need to say the obvious – that the sentence is over the top and out of kilter with community expectations. It defies the principle of a fair go.

Bob Carr does it, although only when the convicts get too little, and they are from an unfashionable ethnic group. Ironically, Carr’s actions are part of the post-Hanson mood which grips huge chunks of the community.

People won’t forget the perils of Pauline, and the outcomes may bubble unpleasantly for years to come.

Meanwhile, our heroine is banged up with a new constituency (including a former Queensland Chief Magistrate). She’s probably already boning up on the biography of Nelson Mandela. Perhaps she’ll right a book to follow up “Off the Rails” – “My Struggle.”

***

Lyn Freeman

I read your piece on Pauline Hanson and agree entirely with everything you said. The double standards in this country leave me speechless – mainly because I don’t have the guts to speak out.

I don’t like One Nation politics but I admire any show of Democracy in action and she did that, as it was her right to do. This charge and sentence stinks of ‘witchunting’ to me! She is another one to be burned at the political stake, who else? Carmen, Roz, Cheryl and Natasha barely escaped, who else has been there? The dark forces certainly do ‘kill’ all our women politicians.

I just hope there is enough of a backlash against Pauline’s sentence and the trumped up ‘fraud’ conviction to slap Howard and the rest of the elites square on the jaw. But I’m dreaming I know he is untouchable now!

I will be voting Green in the next election all the way, just as my only way of protest.

G’Day. I attended the Reid Group launch today in NSW Parliament House in search of a flicker of hope for our democracy, and got it. As I wrote in Rekindling Liberalism: a beginning the Reid Group was set up to prove that Liberalism is not dead in our society, just in our political parties. The members I met today were Cameron Andrews, a former Democrat, Syd Hickman, a former chief of staff to Kim Beazley, James Gifford, a Wilderness Society activist, and David Barr, the independent state member for the Sydney North shore seat of Manly. Sounds like an ‘unholy alliance’ to me!

I’ve published Syd Hickman’s speech below. Apart from Syd’s misconceived attack on the Greens, I agree with just about all of it. So might Herald reader Pamela Chippindall in Sydney’s Point Piper, whose letter to the editor published today said in part: “…there are no Liberal “wets” in Federal Parliament, merely a collection of “yes-persons” who endorse their leader’s policies and pronouncements. But outside the Canberra hothouse, we flourish. We walked across the bridges of the nation for reconciliation, we marched in the streets for peace, or at least UN-sanctioned war, and we’ll fight for an ABC which will continue to encourage free and uninhibited debate, even when the topic is the present American administration (and no, we’re not anti-American, Mr Alston).”

Besides putting up genuine Liberal policies, the group is considering endorsing independent liberal candidates for safe “Liberal” seats at the federal election. Trends at the recent State election show there’s real potential to frighten a few “Liberals” in core constituency territory, just as John Howard has paralysed Labor by taking some blue collar voters.

David Barr survived a concerted attempt by the Libs to take back Manly at the recent State election, mainly because hundreds of grassroots supporters put in very hard yards on his behalf. This could be the future if enough people are prepared to put the work in and converse with people they usually wouldn’t have a beer with. The idea would be to find a person non “Liberal” party members in the seat and community people believe has the integrity, guts, intelligence, commitment and drive to represent the electorate with honesty in the public interest, and to stand up for the health of our democratic instititutions and democratic values.

The big task would be to convince such a person to stand – after all, why would any sane person want to try to enter the political bearpit? The way to do that would be for enough people in the seat, across the non “Liberal parties” and community groups, to back the candidate before the election and deliver support to get him or her through the ordeal. Even if the candidate didn’t win, a solid support base would put enormous pressure on the “Liberal” member to promise to fight for Liberal principles instead of caving in to Howard’s neo-conservatism out of fear or personal ambition.

In Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power, I wrote about the possibility of “unholy alliances” in the face of a powerful and determined threat to our democracy that many of us – despite our political differences on many issues – hold dear. If people who care about our democracy can put aside their differences to fight for what unites them – the core principles underlying our democracy – then they really can roll back the anti-democratic, corporatist juggernaut now rolling all over our freedoms and civil rights and ignoring the long term public interest for short term profit.

The threat to our democracy has got to the stage where only the people can save it. As Barr said today, we’ve got a government into corporate cronyism which cares nothing about civil rights and deliberately misleads the people on crucial issues during elections and even on going to war. “The government is getting away with an awful lot because there’s no opposition to stand up for different values and to get a different dialogue going,” Barr said. “We’re reduced to a low level, low brow debate – we desperately need people to stand up and say what’s going on in our democracy and what we can do about it.”

And there’s lots independents like Barr can do. At the moment, he’s trying to get a law passed which would limit the amount of costs a plaintiff can get in a successful defamation case to the amount of damages he or she receives. What happens now, Barr says, is that rich people can close down the free speech of epople without big money behind them through small-time defamation claims prosecuted by big time QCs. “It’s a gross inhibition of free speech. How can our democratiuc society allow the wealthy to take punitive action against someone who’s not wealthy?”

I’m working on a piece about Howard’s latest attack on free speech and the right of ordinary people to participate in and influence politics – his attempt with Peter Costello to strip charitable status from groups who engage in political advocacy. This is a long term Howard strategy with three related elements, including a contract with the neo-conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs to devise a policy to control and exclude non-government organisations and charities from the political process. I hope to have something ready by the end of the week.

Before Syd Hickman’s speech, Daniel Moye bites back at Philip Gomes’ critique in Whose democracy? of his conservative self examination Owning your beliefs.

***

Intellectual Yoga

by Daniel Moye

If only we could all have the intellectual flexibility and versatility of ideas of this nefarious New Left. We could then embrace and contemplate the world with our Yoga-master and find wondrous solutions to healing the world’s ills. But do not be confused – this is not a passive position but an active inquiry bound by a zealous need for transformation and transcendence of our history to bring a new dawn to the world.

Let us again redefine the debate and transform ourselves and our future. We can no longer be ideology bound, we must embrace this open-sourced common foundation of redemption and save the world from its sociopathic tendencies.

Awaken yourself to this rising Age of the Second Enlightment and embrace the righteous cause of a renewable future. Do not be passive in your middle class fishbowl – embrace this future with all its promise and we could finally find that salvation we all crave for Freedom from ourselves.

Teach me Yoga master, to disavow my longing to waste my last $20 dollars on bourbon and punting. Enlighten me, so that I can unshackle myself of the envy I have towards my D.I.N.K. friends and their newly borrowed Sydney housing dream. Lead me to this promised land of selflessness and far-sighted wisdom. Free me with your seductive voice as I drift off into meditative bliss.

Woe is me, who will only get cramps from yoga and who always ends up falling asleep and snoring when he meditates. I guess only that mythical bartender in the sky will be my salvation. Double bourbon and coke please.

Points of Clarification for Philip Gomes and all interested parties:

1. The political compass found me somewhere close to the centre but in the libertarian right. Unfortunately that was no surprise. It is an interesting website.

2. My use of the term ‘ownership’ was used more in a philosophical sense than in a direct material sense. It is true that ideas, ideals and institutions are in the public domain and yet some are owned, but that was certainly not the point that I was attempting to make. Rather, that when we confront the world we tend to possess ideas and ideals of ourselves and the society we live in. When confronted with a heavily marketed world, where people and ideas are not always what they seem, how do we repossess things that have been camouflaged by others?

3. I agree that in many senses Australian political conservatism has become very ideology bound. When contributing to this forum, I am attempting to reengage other conservative readers into reclaiming a broader conservative consensus.

4. I would suggest that your observation that modern conservatism is sociopathic in nature (paraphrase) is a caricature, and like my little ditty above and all caricatures is either wholly or partially false

5. Do not confuse Obscurantism with Conservatism. Conservatives are always open to new ideas but tend to want to moderate the changes of the world through traditional institutions and their moral framework. It is true that there is a preponderance of a particular type of conservatism under the Australian and American governments, and not all of their policies are conducive to providing as broader conservative umbrella as I would like to see.

***

THE REID GROUP

Address by Syd Hickman

Jubilee Room, NSW Parliament House

Tuesday August 19 2003

What are we on about? Why has this bunch of people, some ex-Labor, some ex-Democrat, some ex-Liberal – as well as quite a few with no previous associations in politics – come together to start this organisation?

The short answer is, the new application of old liberal values.

Right now, here in Australia, there is a black hole, a vacuum of ideas. And it’s a worry. Debates about the future of this country have become stale, reduced to point-scoring on minor issues, not consideration of major ones. We are all suffering as a result. And things will get worse if we don’t take action.

The causes of this change are party political. John Howard has successfully reoriented Australian political debate around a deeply conservative agenda. The ALP has failed to provide any kind of alternative vision, and simply comes up with populist twaddle or watered-down versions of conservative Government positions. The Greens and Democrats have become two variants of the economic irrationalist left.

Which leaves us with a great and gaping hole in national debate. And the great hole that exists is around liberalism – about a set of sensible, moderate and progressive beliefs that, when implemented in policy, have always delivered the best outcomes for Australia. The liberals within the Government are too cowed – or dazzled – by John Howard’s success to speak up for their beliefs. The term ‘Wet’ is now a dirty word. So is Moderate. So is Pragmatist. Even within the Labor party, the kind of progressive liberal values that guided the best of the Hawke-Keating reform efforts are now expressed as a nervous moralising.

So our political advocates have vacated the field. Which means it’s time for the citizens to step up.

Understandably it is taking liberal Australians a fair while to appreciate the alarming reality that faces us. After all, liberalism for a long time represented the political middle ground. For much of the past thirty years small l liberals have had the luxury of being the swinging voters who decided who would win federal elections. What we thought about key issues used to matter. Quite frankly, in political terms, now it doesn’t. And that’s why core liberal issues like the future of the ABC, the secular education system and universal health care get such meagre attention.

The war on terror has made great cover for the quiet dwindling of our key national institutions. We can complain loudly but that won’t change things. Quite frankly, things will not return to that long-standing idea of normal. We can not seriously believe a) that Peter Costello will become Liberal leader and b) that as Prime Minister he will suddenly discover his inner Moderate. Surely no-one seriously thinks Labor will suddenly regroup around progressive and forward-looking ideas?

People who hold liberal values must demand their own place in the political spectrum. To get it they are going to have to work outside the old frameworks. They should stop telling themselves that it’s good enough to be the wets or progressives in political parties which are now openly dedicated to illiberal ends. This is not virtue, its self delusion.

Conservatism must be opposed by a true liberal alternative, just like George Reid produced over a century ago. We in the Reid Group do not aim to be a political party but we do see ourselves making a start on a body of ideas and policies that can contribute to a political goal.

We focus our view of the future on five key ideas, what we call the five pillars.

The first is to strengthen support for an open and environmentally sustainable economy. The capitalist economy, combining free enterprise and free trade, has proved to be the best system for raising living standards and providing individual choice of life-styles. It is also increasingly clear that open, inclusive, tolerant societies generate the creativity and leadership that produce the highest levels of wealth creation. A commitment to sustainability is good for the environment, and also for business. The simplest summation of the Reid Group position is the phrase ‘for an open economy, a progressive society and a sustainable future’. We believe these are mutually-reinforcing positions.

The second pillar is the need to maximise the efficiency of government. One hundred years on from Federation it is time for a serious renovation of government. The original allocation of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and States is not working. The digital age offers enormous possibilities for government administration. And there is a great need to eliminate wasteful programs that exist only to buy votes. Across the board government is a big part of national efficiency and there is a lot to be done.

Third, revitalising our public institutions. The great public institutions that play a quiet but vital role in creating and maintaining our society are under threat. Think of the legal system, public health, public education, public broadcasting, the universities, the public service, the defence force, scientific research, museums, regulatory agencies. All are experiencing problems of funding cuts, improper interference or over commercialisation. We believe these institutions must be strengthened, not weakened, as society becomes more diverse and complex.

Fourth, encouraging the growth of the community sector. There is tremendous potential for social benefits from engaging more people in community activities and from dealing with social problems, in a more localised and personal way. With increased funding flowing from corporate social responsibility programs, and the stimulation of more philanthropy, the possibilities are endless. But governments must resist the temptation to use the community sector simply as a cost saving device. This is a complex area for government involving serious legislative and administrative change. We intend to pursue it vigorously.

And finally the fifth pillar. We support devolving government authority and empowering local communities. This is a recognition of what is already happening out of necessity. Society is becoming more diverse and the range of decisions that must be made are increasingly complex. So more decisions must be made by the people or institutions that really understand the problems and the potential. You can call this pluralism, or the end of top-down, one-size-fits-all, decision-making. The Reid Group sees a role for government in facilitating this process, making sure the decision making bodies are appropriate, devolving funding along with power and responsibility, and helping to enact decisions.

So, to return to my theme, we are here to take these very big ideas, the five pillars, develop them, and drum up support for a national renovation along such lines.

But I should add that we are also internationalist. Australia has 0.03% of the world’s population. But we make up nearly 2% of the global economy, and we are responsible for about 10% of the earths surface. To we true liberals in the Reid Group that has implications. Clearly we must work for a rule-based international system with strong global institutions, we must make a serious contribution to improving the situation of poorer nations, and we have a very big environmental role.

I will conclude with the observation that we are a small group but we have very big ideas. We want a big Australia. And we are going to have a go at spreading the word.

So, with high hopes for success, I declare the Reid Group open and ready for action.

Speech to the International Chief Executive Officers Forum in Canberra, August 19

Tonight I want to talk about the big difference in Australian economic policy, the big difference between Labor and Liberal. Labor believes in competition and productivity. Our political opponents believe in business deals and preferment. They believe in business. We believe in markets.

I want an economy governed by private sector competition and corporate social responsibility. The Liberals lean towards crony capitalism, a corporatist state in which some firms receive subsidies and special deals from government.

This has always been the Coalition way. It was the basis of McEwenism in the 1960s. It was the way in which Malcolm Fraser and John Howard ran the Australian economy in the 1970s and early 80s. As the development of ethanol policy has shown in recent times, the Prime Minister has reverted to type. As he and his government have grown older, they have slipped further and further into cronyism.

History tells us that crony capitalism emerges and evolves over time, with five stages of development:

1. The creation of political appointments or jobs-for-the-boys, of which the Howard Government has made over 100 since its election in 1996.

2. The loss of fiscal discipline and widespread funding of special interests.

3. The misleading of parliament and the people – a pattern that has now emerged in the Howard Government, from Kids Overboard to Iraq’s uranium out of Africa to the current Manildra-gate controversy.

4. The allocation of special privileges and power to associates of the government – something that featured, for instance, in the recent Cash-for-Visas scandal.

5. And finally, the abandonment of competition policy by awarding government funds, protection and preferment to selected firms in selected industries.

For those of us who believe in fair trading and an open market economy, this last problem is the most serious. In its final form, crony capitalism involves the allocation of publicly funded privileges to the few at the expense of the many (working class taxpayers and consumers).

This is why it is so repugnant to the Labor movement. It perverts the rule of law and increases inequality. It transfers power and privilege from working people into the hands of corporate elites.

Mr Dick Honan

The Manildra-gate controversy is a good example of this process. It has not only involved the misleading of the parliament, it has also debased the integrity of economic policy in this country.

What we have seen is the formation of a public-private cartel: the Howard Government working hand-in-glove with one company, Manildra, to disadvantage every other company in the ethanol market. This is more than just picking industry winners. It is picking one company in a particular industry – in this case, the dominant ethanol producer in Australia – to protect and preserve that company’s near-monopoly status.

This is a stunning example of crony capitalism at work. Let me explain the sequence of events and the perversion of public policy.

On 24 July last year representatives of Trafigura met with Manildra in an attempt to secure domestic ethanol product. Manildra stalled and then refused to supply Trafigura and another competitor company, a small Australian-owned firm called Neumann Petroleum.

On 1 August the head of Manildra, Mr Dick Honan, met with Prime Minister Howard. At this point, Manildra had an important piece of market information: if it did not supply Neumann and Trafigura, the only way in which they could obtain their product was from overseas. The official record of the meeting shows that Mr Howard and Mr Honan discussed: “The payment of a producer credit to ethanol producers to enable Australian ethanol producers to compete with the cheaper Brazilian product.”

On 10 September Cabinet decided to act on Honan’s request by imposing excise on ethanol and paying an equal production credit for domestic producers. By this time, Neumann and Trafigura had arranged an ethanol shipment from Brazil. In an amazing act of favouritism, the Government used the resources of the Australian Embassy in Brazil to monitor the shipment and ensure that it could never dock profitably in Australia.

The fix was in. While Honan had received a public subsidy of more than $200 million, his two competitors were stranded on the high seas with ethanol losses of $1 million. And the Howard Government did not even have the decency to tell Neumann and Trafigura of the new policy arrangements. It sat and watched the shipment cross the Pacific Ocean, knowing that this would financially damage Honan’s competitors.

Not surprisingly, Paul Morton, the head of Neumann and its 59 staff, described the decision as: “Pernicious and treacherous. The way that they did it was absolutely meant to punish Trafigura and Neumann. They weren’t just changing the law to protect Manildra but were setting out to cause us a financial loss.”

If these things had happened solely in the private sector, the members of the cartel would have been prosecuted under the Trade Practices Act. It is one of the worst pieces of public policy in memory, a signpost in the deterioration of the Howard Government.

We all have an interest in this case study, especially in the business community. The market economy relies heavily on the rule of law: fair trading and competition rules for all companies, not just the mates of the state. Fair-minded businesspeople and investors should be outraged by the Manildra decision.

When markets are distorted, investment flows into inefficient uses, thereby damaging economic growth and employment. We all suffer because of rorted public policy and government favouritism. Indeed, the growing damage to the ethanol industry in Australia has confirmed the folly of corporate capitalism.

When they work properly, the good thing about markets is that they aggregate all our interests. You don’t have to someone’s mate to market a product or sell a service. Of course, inequality – inequality of income and especially of wealth – determines the level of participation in the market. The rich can buy and sell more than the poor.

But when I look at the economy and compare it to society, the inequality of income and wealth is dwarfed by the inequality of power and political influence. Many can get access to the market, but very few people can get access to a Liberal Prime Minister.

This is why the public sector needs to be above preferment and dealism. If governments, elected by the will of the people, do not treat people fairly in the market then nobody else will. This is the real tragedy of crony capitalism: it takes the inequality of the market system and magnifies it many times over through the corruption of the state.

Mr Peter Costello

To their credit, the Departments of Treasury and Finance strongly opposed the Government’s ethanol rort. Unfortunately, the Treasurer Mr Costello did not support them. In Parliament last week he called it a good decision and said that: “There are [many] Australians who lobby the Government on particular issues that affect them. In fact, it is very hard to say ‘No’.”

A Treasurer who can’t say ‘No’ is a Treasurer who can’t control the budget. A Treasurer who can’t say ‘No’ is a Treasurer who can’t stop spending on interest groups. This is why the Howard Government is the highest taxing, highest spending government in Australia’s history. It lacks fiscal rigour.

This is one of the characteristics of crony capitalism: the funding of sectional interests ahead of the national interest. The Special Interest Express is back in town. It hasn’t been seen since the days of the Fraser Government but under Mr Costello, it has pulled back into Canberra station.

Since 1997 the Government has been on a $90 billion spending spree. It has been living off the fat of bracket creep and running down fiscal policy. The surplus is now running on empty, with a fiscal balance of 0.1 percent GDP. The following table details the damage:

Deterioration in Budget Bottom Line: Net Impact of Policy Decisions: Year $Million

1997 296

1998 20649

1999 11691

2000 7384

2001 25630

2002 5313

2003 18570

Total 89533

I’ve been Shadow Treasurer for just six weeks, and it seems that every second day there is another story about government waste and mismanagement. The list reads as follows:

* A $30 million bailout package for the Job Network.

* A $26 million bailout for the Government’s flawed higher education policy.

* GST fraud of $3 billion through the falsification of TFNs and ABNs.

* Another $50 million in public money for Manildra.

* A $7 billion increase in the black economy to 15 percent GDP.

* Handouts to business lobby groups totalling $60 million.

* A $2 billion blow-out in the Defence Budget.

* And the mother of all waste and mismanagement, a new Commonwealth logo and the reprinting of Commonwealth letterheads.

This is the problem with the Treasurer: he has never seen a tax he didn’t like and an example of waste that he could ever stop. He has abandoned the integrity of fiscal policy and placed all the weight of macro policy on the Reserve Bank. This is placing upward pressure on interest rates and destabilising the Australian economy. As ever, we all pay a price for bad public policy.

Mr Graeme Samuel

Costello’s cronyism extends beyond Manildra and his fiscal extravagance. He has fought a long battle with the States to install his Melbourne mate, Graeme Samuel, as the head of the ACCC. Labor is opposed to this appointment on the grounds of independence and objectivity.

We do not believe that someone who lists his occupation as a “company director and corporate strategic consultant” should be in charge of corporate competition policy. We do not believe that someone who has publicly supported insider trading should be in charge of the trading rules of the private sector.

In response, Mr Samuel has said that: “It is universally acknowledged that poachers make the best gamekeepers.”

By this logic, Robbie Waterhouse would be in charge of the AJC and Fine Cotton would be running in the third at Randwick. A poacher is a poacher, and he should never have been appointed as the competition regulator.

Allan Fels was always asking for more power and resources for the ACCC. In his first policy announcement last week, Mr Samuel asked for voluntary industry codes. This is the wrong emphasis and the wrong approach.

In government, Labor will strengthen the Trade Practices Act and increase the powers of the ACCC. This is not a question of being pro or anti-business. It is a matter of being pro-competition and pro-productivity.

I believe in competition policy. It is the key to economic growth and consumer satisfaction. Companies will not upgrade their technology, expand their markets and lower their prices without the pressure of market competition.

Under the Howard Government, private sector competition is in decline, with the economy trending towards duopoly and monopoly. This can be seen in the retail, banking, airline, media and telecommunication industries and, of course, ethanol.

Labor will reverse this trend by beefing up the Trade Practices Act. We have already announced our commitment to introducing criminal sanctions, attacking predatory pricing and overhauling Section 46 (abuse of market power). I am now looking at other ways in which the Act can be enhanced. Labor is a true believer in competitive capitalism.

The National Interest

The problem with crony capitalism is that it undermines the national interest in economic policy. This is a point well understood in the Treasury but not by the Treasurer. Recently the head of the Department, Ken Henry, warned against complacency in economic policy. He called for a lift in productivity, saying that: I consider it very unlikely that Australians would find their aspirations satisfied by maintenance of the present relative productivity position. There is a strong case, on economic and social grounds, for striving to bridge the productivity gap [between Australia and the United States].

This has always been Labor’s goal. Our economic tradition and values are for competition and productivity. In 1996 we left Australia with a strong legacy of reform. These were the national interest policies that the Liberals were too timid to implement: a floating exchange rate, financial deregulation, tariff liberalisation, competition policy and national superannuation.

One of the limits to microeconomic reform, of course, is that it can only be done once. Having opened the Australian economy to market competition in the 1980s, it cannot be opened a second time. Ultimately, the gains from micro reform start to diminish. New policies are needed to lift the long-term growth rate of the Australian economy.

This is where the findings of new growth theory are so significant. Traditionally, economists have identified material objects as the main drivers of economic growth. Neoclassical theory emphasised the importance of capital investment, while Keynesians emphasised the need for increased consumption. In both cases, the growth rate is limited by the finite nature of these material goods.

By contrast, the new growth theorists argue that research and technological enhancement are the main drivers of growth. Instead of focussing on the accumulation of objects, economists need to focus on the accumulation of ideas. In particular, education and research are the ‘twin-carburettors’ of economic expansion.

This is a persuasive body of research. Across the Western world, economic activity is becoming less resource-intensive and more knowledge-intensive. Jobs based on repetition and muscle power are disappearing, replaced by work in the information and service sectors.

In the long run, open and creative economies that apply new ideas to the production process will achieve the highest rates of growth. This is where Australia is most vulnerable. The Howard Government is bogged down in dealism and corporate welfare. It has given a low priority to education and innovation. As Australia’s leading new growth economist, Steve Dowrick, has argued:

“Compared with the OECD economies, Australia invests less of its resources into R and D, and a lesser proportion of that investment is carried out within the business sector … Even though an open economy can benefit substantially from research conducted overseas, the magnitude of the returns to domestic R and D are such that a major increase in research effort is called for, especially in the case of a relatively poor R and D performer like Australia.”

Dowrick’s research points to the unique nature of knowledge as an economic resource. Unlike capital and consumption spending, access to information is relatively unlimited. It has the characteristics of a public good, such that one person’s use of an idea does not necessarily harm the access rights of other people. This is why companies tend to under-invest in R and D – they cannot realise all of the economic benefits that flow from their investment.

The dispersed nature of knowledge also produces another important effect. Education and research outlays generate huge spillover benefits for society. For R and D expenditures, Dowrick estimates a social return of between 50 and 60 percent, an extremely high rate of public benefit.

So what does this mean for economic policy? Two conclusions stand out. The case for increased government investment in education and research is compelling. But so too, increased private sector investment is in the public interest, especially when it lifts inventiveness and product innovation.

This is not a zero-sum exercise. The unique nature of knowledge investments can produce win-win outcomes in public policy. The best way of increasing Australia’s economic growth rate is to increase the level of education, training and research. This is the basis of Labor’s productivity policy.

Conclusion

In this new role as Shadow Treasurer, the media have been speculating about my relationship with business. Certainly I want to do things differently to Mr Costello. I don’t believe in crony capitalism and the concentration of privilege. I don’t believe in pandering to special interest groups and blowing the budget surplus.

I’m not part of Melbourne’s high-society. I live in the last street in the last suburb on the fringe of South-West Sydney. I like being an outsider and want to keep it that way. None of my family or friends have ever owned big businesses or been corporate consultants. We grew up thinking that Toorak was the name of a horse race.

My only interest is in good economic policy and the integrity of economic markets. The people that I represent don’t have access to the Cabinet table or the ear of the Prime Minister. We have a fairly simple set of values and beliefs. We ask for nothing more than the rule of law, fair decision-making and the provision of community services.

When governments take these things away and look after the insiders, we lose out badly. Life becomes even tougher in the outer suburbs. This is why I believe in the discipline of market competition and corporate responsibility. This is why I believe in the active role of government and service provision.

They are a poor boy’s arsenal against inequality. This is why I got into politics in the first place. I believe in the benefits of competitive capitalism and the solidarity of a strong and fair society. Always have and I always will.

 

Actor Richard Healy

G’Day. I met actor Richard Healy a few weeks ago and got the lowdown on the actor’s industrial dispute – whether I liked it or not. Richard agreed to do a piece for Webdiary explaining the insider dynamics of this most insecure craft. Actors Equity is part of the Media Alliance, of which I’m a member. For the facts on the actors’ other big campaign – to stop the burial of Australian culture under an avalanche of United States product if the Americans get their way in the free trade agreement negotiations – go to free2baustralian.

The actors dispute

by Richard Healy

The current actors dispute is not about money. The details are money based, but the core of the issue lies in respect, respect for the right of actors to basic conditions of employment expected by most workers to prepare and perform our jobs adequately.

In the case of actors, wages have been essentially frozen for 10 years, and in some cases (major advertising jobs) reduced. There are new players on the scene, such as cable television, which pays lip service to their obligation to produce Australian shows – where 10% of the budget for each station should involve locally created product. (Only one or two of the Fox channels comes close – yes, Mr Alston, it’s self-regulated.)

The hidden reality is that as advertising dollars on commercial TV (7,9,10) dry up, the networks are squeezing the producers. The producers, not wishing to offend messrs Packer and Murdoch and Stokes, take what they are given. They then budget for their allocation. And this is where it gets irritating. The producers budget for their programs according to the current costs. So, if it cost $1,000 to hire a house for a days shooting five years ago, but it will now set them back $1,500, then that is what is budgeted. A 50s straight-eight chevy may be twice the price of 1988, but, what the heck, we can’t do the show without it. But when it comes to actors, where there is an over-supply and limited demand, the price paid stays at 1988 levels. From a rationalist perspective, this all sits well – save on the talent, put out for the hardware.

Example 1 – Last year the TV show Mcleods Daughters celebrated its fiftieth episode with winning ratings. The next day Channel 9 informed the producers that their shooting budget was being cut by one day. It is shot on film (lighting takes time.) It is all outside broadcast (no studio on a farm 80 minutes from Adelaide). All the 1st Assistant Director could do was compress time allocated to scenes.

Example 2 – I performed in an enjoyable yet forgettable soap called Breakers for two years. All the cast was on “equity minimum”, the lowest possible pay rate. I got paid the same rate as a 19-year old on the show, even though I had 20 years experience in the trade and spent a lot of time coaching the younger actors. We spent two years asking for an awning in the carpark (you had to leave the building for a smoke) and air-conditioning in our dressing-rooms (more than twenty minutes with the door shut and you asphyxiated.) Nup. Budgets. After one year I was over it, but decided to ask for a 10% increase in my wage (I had a one year contract.) My agent told me the producers were “thinking about it.” A week later I was on set, about to do a scene, when the head producer walked onto he floor and took my hand. He said, “Sorry to let you go.” It wasn’t what he said, it was the act. I quit, then, in an act I shame myself for, returned. It’s that hard to get work.

Example 3 – In the early 90s a mate got a US TV ad. The producers were keen to avoid the payout in the states, where one ad can hasten retirement (you get paid every time it goes on air, it can be millions.) So, they paid him $25,000. He did a number of them and paid off his house. After a few years, he relinquished his position as the face of YYY so someone else could have a go. Six months later he met a friend who had always been on struggle street and the friend was over the moon about an ad he’d been cast in. My mate asked ” Are you going to buy a house” And the happy new face of YYY said, “Nuh, new gearbox.” His fee was $5,000. The US producers had worked out what they could get, with the collusion of local producers.

Example 4 – Scene: Casting Agent (reputable). Five different things are being cast. All running an hour late. One asking beautiful mature women to dress up in their finery. And they have. Because of space restrictions they’re all sitting on the floor being ogled by the part-time actors going for a jocks ad. Numerous mums keeping loose control over rampant tots in for a cutie ad. Three actors trying to focus on the script they got yesterday and are trying to learn (and understand) and a receptionist whose smile is a monument to the perseverance of humanity. The director (American, think Colonel Sanders) arrives 2 hours late and points to two people, says “Yep. Now.” Mr beef Australia and Ms skinny tampons meet Mr 2-minute noodles in a sea of confusion. Amazingly, one of them gets cast.

Example 5 – I went for an ad (you try to avoid them until poverty bites,) at a new agency and was told it involved fairies. An old inner-city converted warehouse. The waiting-room was next to the “studio” and we could hear shouting. People arrived at regular intervals, including an amazing array of elderly women dressed as fairies. They said they were told “Best dressed gets the prize.” An esteemed veteran actor with a penchant for the unpredictable arrived and sat under a painting of fairies in a field. Then a doyen of the field (think “You’re soaking in it,”) turned up with a costume, wand and scent. The other male sneezed and she said “Bless you” and we were off. Hysterical. As people left the studio in (not happy) tears, a woman fronted us and shouted, “We’re trying to do a 100 percenter!” “Shut up!” I was led in. Told “Stand there, hold up the sign with your name on it, say your name, age, agency and height.” I told the casting person I thought we didn’t have to do that these days. She screamed – “Do you want this fucking job or not !” I told her I didn’t and left. Someone else got the job.

Example 6 – A recent example. A lead actress in a new TV show didn’t have a car. She was asked to walk a kilometre and wait outside a bikie pub to be picked up, and dropped at the end of shooting. Maybe 11pm.

Example 7 – I worked on a new comedy show made for TV. The producers were Fox TV and it was being made for Channel 9. Clout. Five weeks into the shoot my bank account was empty. I was told money was coming. A young cast member asked if he could stay at my house because he hadn’t been paid. I investigated, and found out that due to a dispute between the union and the producers our agents had been told not to sign contracts, and the producers, knowing full well the ramifications of their actions, instructed their accountants not to pay the actors. The bizarre upshot was that we were working on a show that, to our minds, was a winner, yet most of the cast didn’t have the petrol to drive home. It was only when the cast threatened to walk that we were paid and the issue was temporarily resolved.

Not a long way from where we are today. The producers did not provide the basic respect accorded to any employee, that they know where they stand. Their schedules were, and still are, arbitrary. The fact that in our industry our wages can be held to ransom is a sad indictment of the way that the people who control the money view actors as little more than elements of an economic puzzle (locations, sets, lights, publicity, grunt, talent). Famous actors are being wheeled out as examples that the industry is thriving. There may be 25 actors in that zone. The rest (the workforce) suffer constant harassment by authorities (try getting a home loan when you say you’re an actor), have no expectation of promotion (you do your next job for the same money as ten years ago) and struggle to maintain a semblance of legitimate existence in an expansive material world. That actors continue to do their job is not because, as the press often puts it, that we are all after the “big break”.

The reason I, and many actors continue to ply our trade is because it is a trade, like any other. As a carpenter hones bevelled joints, actors hone subtleties of pitch, nuance, rhythm, space, emotion and energy. The more you do it, the better you get. Our central argument with the producers is that their “new” work practices are undermining our ability to do our trade.

A guest actor in a TV show might have their whole performance shot in a day …. for one day’s pay. Often there is no rehearsal. Preparation usually involves tow or three days learning the lines and developing the character (without any consultation with those connected to the programme). Imagine this in any other industry. We’re not shrinking violets. An actors life is hard; full of self-doubt, anger and economic insecurity.

The way I put it to the average lay person (because they’ve seen you and want to find out where) is to imagine applying for a new job every week of your working life. It’s a reality we accept. What we don’t accept is a working environment in which there is no respect for our creative role and no understanding of the time and energy needed to fulfil that role.

 

Illustration by Cathy Wilcox.

Capital punishment hit the news this month when Howard and Crean backed the execution of Amrozi and Howard gave the OK for State governments to bring back the death penalty. (See The danger for Australians of approving death for Amrozi and Howard to the states: capital punishment your call. I got some great responses, and today, F2 trainee Antony Loewenstein guest edits the debate.

Giving life or taking it away

by Antony Loewenstein

The debate took off with John Howard’s August 8 statement on Melbourne’s 3AW radio after Amrozi was given the death penalty in Indonesia:

I am not supporting the reintroduction, I mean my position, let me repeat, is for reasons of pragmatic concern that the law from time to time will make mistakes, I am against the death penalty. That is the basis, always has been the basis of my objection. But I respect the fact that a lot of people are in favour of the death penalty, a lot of people who are close to me are in favour of the death penalty. It’s just that different people have different views.

The letters pages have since been filled with vitriol, bile, paranoia and outright indignation. The general tone has been one of disbelief that this issue, long thought buried after the hanging of Ronald Ryan in 1967, has again reared its ugly head.

Webdiary has received any number of responses – not many topics get the blood boiling like capital punishment. And John Howard sure knows how to play it both ways, or so says Chris Saliba:

As usual, John Howard excels at having it both ways. He’s against the death penalty, but approves of it at the same time. I can’t stand the way he talks about “normal Australian” response to grief, as if there is such a thing. I think the talk of Australian values and un-Australian behaviour the most moronic expressions flung about. Next there’ll be an Australian way for buttering your toast!

Howard knows that a Federal Election can be called very shortly, and as he said recently, national security will be one of the primary planks of his re-election campaign. Who you going to trust? asks Howard, and he knows what most people are answering.

One reader in Germany, Rodney Sewell, thought he must have misheard the PM:

“Mr Howard said that even if he were in favour of reintroducing the death penalty, he could not pass such a law. I’ve lived in Europe since 1985 so either I missed news of the referendum which allows Australian Prime Ministers to personally pass laws, or the PM was misquoted. Or does John Howard really talk like that?

Yours, settled in quite well in a democratic, free and very hot Germany, where NOBODY! wants to bring back the death penalty

David Shanahan suggests that Labor, by the undignified display of both Crean and Latham, still hasn’t learnt how to beat Howard on their own terms.

Margo, you’re dead right about Crean falling into Howard’s trap of moving the goal posts again. Crean has to go, he never learns. I just wish there was someone on the Labor horizon who could replace him and be less of a sucker where Howard is concerned.

The question remains: did Crean and Latham respond as they did because they believed it was electorally wise to do so, or because they actually supported the Amrozi death sentence? Are they too afraid of going against Howard on these vitally important issues? The public is left confused. Again.

Tim Dunlop, a former Webdiarist now based in the US, posted a warning against knee-jerk opposition to the death penalty on his blog roadtosurfdom:

Clearly Prime Minister Howard is willing to use it as wedge, but I’m sure he’d use his mother to chock up the car if he thought it would get him a few votes. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a debate about the issue.

Death penalty opponents sometimes seem to fear such debate because they presume they will lose it [Ed note: quite possibly what Crean was thinking last week, a lack of ticker as a well known PM once said!]. This fear is generated not because they doubt their own debating skills or the righteousness of their arguments – both of which they have a very high opinion of – but because they think “the public” will be too stupid and bloodthirsty to follow the “no” case. They just presume that “the majority” will vote yes.

Maybe that will be the outcome, but I don’t think it’s down to people being bloodthirsty or stupid at all.

Contrary to some received wisdom, I don’t think the arguments against the death penalty are open-and-shut, though I can’t really conceive of circumstances under which I would support its introduction. Even if my own child was the victim, I would hope I could be as clearheaded as father of Bali bombing victim, Brian Deegan, who said recently that he doesn’t want the death penalty enacted in the name of his child.

Nonetheless, I can see that other parents might come to a different conclusion, and if guilt was clearly established, and as long as it was enacted strictly within the confines of the legal system, I don’t think there is anything particularly awful about people wanting this ultimate form of sanction. In fact, it is almost the most understandable thing in the world. That doesn’t mean it’s right, and like I say, I don’t think I’d want it, but maybe that’s just me.

Anyway, stuff like this is precisely why I’d like to hear the arguments a long time in advance of any final decision being taken. Still, having said all that, I don’t think there is any particular urgency in such a debate. I mean, how high a priority is it really?

One final thing that always strikes me as weird is that it often seems to be the very people who purport to hate “government” the most, and wouldn’t trust it to do anything competently or honestly who are most willing to hand this power of life and death to the very organisation that is the usual object of their ire and contempt.

The Sydney Morning Herald ran a moving piece last week by Gregory David Roberts (It’s our humanity that dies in an execution) against the death penalty. Not an academic, lawyer or journalist, and not easily dismissed as a liberal, Roberts has spent a lot of time in prison. I like this in relation to Amrozi, a level-headed response to a heinous crime:

The term capital punishment is an oxymoron when applied to fanatics. You can’t capitally punish a man or woman who embraces death. I know this to be true because I spent time in a German prison with dozens of men who were accused or convicted of terrorist crimes. While I was busily trying, Colditz-style, to escape from the concrete fortress, the political prisoners remained placid and inert, because they saw their imprisonment as a triumph for their causes.

And before we start thinking that our religious beliefs could help us out of this mess, Webdiarist Peter Woodforde writes that our Christian heritage may just have been sold to the Devil:

The Australian flag carries four symbols of the instrument of capital punishment used by the government to kill Christ – the three amalgamated crosses of the British flag and the Southern Cross. Is it not fitting that our national political leader should wanly advocate the killing of a convicted terrorist in contravention of Christ’s teachings (and in accordance with the bomber’s wishes)? We have not, after all, ever pretended to be a Christian nation. What’s the bet that the nonces at the free-to-air and cable shopping-channels are already seeking broadcast rights for the “live” execution?

Following in the religious spirit, the recent visit to Australia by Sister Helen Prejean, granted fame due to the Tim Robbins directed Dead Man Walking movie, asserts that:

Killing them (the accused) is an act of despair that says the only thing we can do with you, since you did this, is to imitate you. It shows that we as a society have sunk to your level. (Capital punishment an act of despair, says adviser)

These views are from a woman who has seen countless men on death row in the US suffering, waiting sometimes years for execution. The church, certainly in the US at least, allows a wide variety of views under its steeple.

As an aside, the generally high support in the US for the death penalty could be explained by its God-fearing sensibility. Commentator Nicholas Kristoff, writing in the New York Times on August 15, senses a country descending into mysticism, myth, old wives tales and Bible stories as truth. It certainly makes the (archaic and traditional) nature of capital punishment more palatable. Since much of the world, developed and otherwise, gets some its moral direction and compass from the US, the death penalty will continue to be a troubling blot on America’s soul. Guantanemo Bay causes more constenation outside the US than within. The rise of DNA has made many Americans against capital punishment, but only because the wrong person might be executed, not because of an ethical opposition. Kristoff wrote:

Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible exception of South Korea. America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America.

In his public statements, the PM says it is up to the States to bring back capital punishment, suggesting Victorian opposition leader Robert Doyle might consider doing so in Victoria. Perhaps Howard was thinking that Doyle’s electoral chances, after a serious bollocking last year, would be helped by debating the issue. Michael Walton, from the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, points out that if Howard was serious about stopping this debate dead in its tracks, he could do so. But of course, who says Howard wants to do that?

By floating the idea that State Liberal opposition parties use the death penalty as a re-election policy, Prime Minister Howard has signalled a dangerous attack on our civil liberties and the most fundamental of our human rights: the right to life.

Mr Howard is correct to say that he does not have the power to impose the death penalty in a State such as Victoria. But what he fails to mention is that he does have the power to stop any State or Territory from re-introducing the death penalty.

In 1991, Australia acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OP2). OP2 commits Australia to abolishing the death penalty. So the re-introduction of the death penalty in any State or Territory would violate international law and further tarnish our international reputation.

Since 1983, the High Court of Australia has consistently held that the Federal Parliament can override States to uphold our international obligations. In 1983 that power was used to protect the Franklin River in Tasmania. In the 1990s Paul Keating used this power to override anti-gay laws in Tasmania. If Mr Howard is willing, this same power can be used again to protect all Australians from the re-introduction of the death penalty by the States or Territories.

In fact, Mr Howard does not even have to wait for the States or Territories to make the first move. The Federal Parliament already possesses all the necessary constitutional powers to pass legislation incorporating into Australian law the protections offered by OP2.

The Prime Minister is correct to say that the law can get it wrong – just ask Lindy Chamberlain or WA’s John Button. And the NSW Premier is correct to say that, when it comes to the death penalty, a mistake is irreversible. The PM has the power to protect all Australians from the irreversible errors of law that will, on his own admission, inevitably result from a re-introduction of the death penalty in Australia.

If Mr Howard really believes that the death penalty is wrong, then he should act now to prevent its re-introduction and to protect the civil liberties of all Australians.

The Age ran a very powerful editorial last week condemning the PM for flirting with the issue:

To authorise the taking of one life for another – even for many others – does not uphold or protect the inherent value and dignity of all human life, but panders to the desire for revenge. That was the lesson of the dispute over Ronald Ryan’s hanging, and Australia’s politicians should continue to heed it.

And in this stinging response to the arguments of Howard, Bush and Blair in The Australian last week, Neil Clark, a tutor in history and politics at Oxford Tutorial College in England who supports the death penalty for Amrozi, believes that opponents of the death penalty in their own countries are engaging in blatant hypocrisy, especially Tony Blair, “with [his] impeccable Left-liberal credentials”:

With their contradictory stances on capital punishment, both the British and Australian prime ministers have much explaining to do. Could Blair kindly tell us why he endorsed the dropping of four 1000kg bombs on a Baghdad restaurant where Saddam Hussein was thought to be dining, but why he would not support the execution of the ex-Iraqi leader if he were found guilty of capital crimes in a court of law?

Webdiarist Tim Goodwin from Brisbane argued, in perhaps the most convincing piece of the whole debate, that if we believe as a democratic society that we are progressing ethically, morally and indeed spiritually, how can the death penalty be used in any circumstances?

Of course John Howard would effectively support the death penalty for Amrozi and appear to equivocate on the broader implications of that very support. After all, Our Leader has wavered or given implicit support for executions on a number of occasions over the past few years. It is usually on the basis of ‘well, that’s their law and I respect that’, or similar words. That would be an interesting view if applied to stoning to death women convicted of adultery under Sharia laws in Nigeria. Or Australians sentenced to the firing squad under Vietnamese law after being caught with a bag of heroin stuffed in their luggage.

Is this John Howard the man of strong personal principles, a man of conviction, or John Howard the opportunist who is beginning to sound like he has been studying cultural relativism in his Postmodernism course at Uni?

Now we’ve long known that Howard is the master of the “slippery phrase”, the line that doesn’t actually commit to much when you look closely at it but which nonetheless sends that nod and wink of support out over the talkback airwaves. So in the past when he has been pressed about the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the alleged Bali bombers, John Howard has usually made some general statement about the law that applies.

When asked on American Fox News whether he’d welcome the possible execution of bin Laden, he replied: “I think everybody would.” When the follow-up questions have concerned those responsible for Bali, and in the last few days Amrozi himself, Howard has said there would be no protest from the Australian Government if the sentence were carried out. However he has played it, each time the death penalty has been raised in the last few years, John Howard has given the green light to whoever is aspiring to pull the trigger or the lever.

It is interesting then to contrast what Australia’s opposition to the death penalty means when Australians are on trial for their lives overseas. On these occasions it is left to Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to articulate in the strongest possible terms Australia’s “universal” opposition to the use of the death penalty. For example, when 43-year old Sydney woman Le My Linh was sentenced to death in Vietnam in 2002 after being convicted on drug trafficking charges, the Foreign Minister issued a statement saying: “Australia is universally and consistently opposed to capital punishment. The Government has made its opposition to the death penalty clear to the Vietnamese authorities in the lead-up to Ms Le’s trial and appeal, and will continue to do so.”

Earlier in the year, the Minister told Federal Parliament that “we do want to leave a clear message for the Vietnamese government that this government – and, I should say, almost all members of this parliament too – oppose the death penalty.” That is, the Government universally and consistently opposes capital punishment – but only when it relates to the execution of Australian citizens overseas.

David Hicks may be grateful for one half of that inconsistency, although it remains to be seen whether the US Government honours its concessions in Hicks’ case.

But there are others who are troubled by the selective and inconsistent opposition to the death penalty that is stalking the Government, and Federal politics in general over these past few months. These are the people who fear that when human rights are optional principles – to be defended when it suits and discarded when the emotions are running too high — then human rights become just one more pawn in a bigger and much more cynical game.

There are those who believe that the death penalty is an affront to the values we are supposed to be defending in the alleged “war on terror”. That it contradicts the argument that we are fighting these wars to defend the sanctity of life, to prove to the world’s darker elements that individual human lives should not be traded in as part of some broader political struggle.

I think I’m not alone when I feel that every effort to undermine the protection of universal human rights, every effort to neutralise them with specious reasoning or inconsistency, leaves us just that bit more vulnerable to people who believe that, “This is my law, and I’ll make them respect it.

Webdiarist Jacob Stam sent in this intriguing piece written around the time of the Port Arthur Massacre. It gives what is perhaps the best explanation of the extremely disconcerting behaviour of Amrozi during his trial, his constant outbursts, his laughter and nonchalance at being sentenced to death. It is important to try and understand these people as not just evil or deranged, but rather human beings with an apparent death-wish:

Amok is the Malay word meaning to rush around in a state of frenzy committing indiscriminate murder. In popular speech, Martin Bryant [the Port Arthur mass-murderer] ran amok, although frenzy doesn’t quite fit a man who, in the words of a witness, would ‘pick someone else out and line them up and shoot them’.

In 19th-century Malaya young men ran amok butchering strangers with a sword, usually after suffering a massive blow to their self-esteem or prestige. At the turn of the century the British colonial government passed legislation ordering that the men (called pengamoks) not be killed but put in insane asylums.

That decision caused a dramatic decrease in the number of pengamoks, says Paul Mullen, a forensic psychiatrist at Monash University. Instead of finding glory in death, the man was humiliated by incarceration, and the practice is said to have dwindled.

Despite great cultural differences, what the pengamoks and modern mass killers have in common is a desire to discharge some colossal grievance, and belief in heroic death. What distinguishes Martin Bryant from both groups is that he is still alive.

Everybody’s favourite Liberal MP, Chris Pyne, got a spray from Webdiarist Fergus Hancock after reading his letter in last week’s SMH stating that the death penalty “reduces recidivism.” Fergus sees and feels a slippery moral decline on the cards:

So, Chris Pyne thinks capital punishment is a good idea as it reduces recidivism. Based on overseas experience (surely a good reason for a taxpayer subsidised trip) it also is a nifty way to deal with political opponents or to conduct ethnic cleansing. Does Pyne intend to differentiate between criminals and his political opponents? If so, then which would receive higher priority? The pro-death penalty constituents have probably been waiting for this debate since 1967.

Webdiarist David Spring in Brussels delivered a stinging rebuke of recent Australian ‘experimentation’, and clearly wants a return to the days of yore. Here’s one voice of the disaffected expat:

Amrozi aside, I think it’s brilliant that Howard has resurrected this cracking idea that’s been simmering beneath the surface for years. When we lived in Australia it seemed that everyone I spoke to at functions, BBQs, over the fence, wine tastings whatever wanted the death penalty – oooohh secretly could we all be barbaric animals who bray for blood? No.

It was only because the self-righteous morons on the left told us it was barbaric, cruel et al that we ever got rid of it in the first place – it just didn’t fit in with our 70s new age Australia. Well, now that we’ve had that little social experiment and its well and truly failed we might be able to come back and revisit some of the good things. Law and order went to the dogs after the Whitlam social experiments of excessive welfare, booming populations of single mothers, poor discipline in schools. Where do you want me to stop?

Good stuff Johnny, the economy is bubbling along, the social reforms are flowing – regulated and controlled immigration policies, the smashing of the welfare state – and now capital punishment is back on the agenda. He’s gone a long way to repairing the damage the clown Keating caused with his so called “vision and foresight” that you ignorant fools on the left shovelled down our throats so long. Jeez, if this keeps up we, the educated people, might start returning to the place.

A more nuanced approach came from Scott Wickstein, who argued here that Australians should be treated as well or badly as another country’s citizens. Respect the country’s legal system, Scott says:

Margo, you write: “Would we make representations if an Australian citizen had been found guilty of the charges against Amrozi? If not, then we have decided that in certain matters, Australian citizens will be left without the support of their nation when convicted of a capital offence overseas.” I can live with that. Are we to assume that Australians abroad deserve the support of the nation, regardless of how disgraceful their conduct? I think not. This is why I’m indifferent to the fate of David Hicks – this guy thought it was OK to join up with the Taliban, which as far as I’m concerned is like signing up with the Waffen SS or Stalin’s NKVD. I don’t hold with this view that “my country right or wrong” or, in this case, fellow citizen right or wrong.

For the record, I’m quite opposed to capital punishment, on the grounds that, as a proponent of small government, the government has no right to kill people, whatever the well meaning grounds given.

Finally, Dudley Sharp, from Justice for All in the US, a pro-death penalty, “criminal justice reform organization”, sent a response to Webdiary which argues that the generally accepted notion that capital punishment does not deter violent crime is in fact incorrect. He claims that a person found guilty of a heinous crime forfeits his or her right to life and therefore should be put to death. Dudley does not mention, however, the extremely unequal nature of the US justice system, the disproportionately high number of black men on death row and the number of innocent people sentenced on faulty or tampered evidence:

Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation. The human rights violation argument often comes from European leadership and human rights organizations.

The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right. Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.

Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement. What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don’t approve of executions.

Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society’s laws. So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.

No one disputes that taking freedom away is different result than taking life away. However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights – be that freedom or life – is a human rights violation. It is not. It depends specifically on the circumstances.

How do we know? Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so. Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.

Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation? Because they think incarceration is just fine.

Do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don’t like it. They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.

In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state. And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.

Opinion is only worth the value of its foundation. Those who call execution a human rights violation have no credible foundation for that claim. What they are really saying is “We just don’t like it.

G’Day. There’s been a lot said in Webdiary lately about democracy and what the hell it is, or could be, from conservative, Green, Liberal and Labor left perspectives. Today, long suffering ALP member Guido Tresoldidiscusses what Carmen’s run for the ALP presidency might mean for democracy and the derision of the commentariat at Labor’s experiment in direct elections and Philip Gomes and Matthew Barnes respond toDaniel Moye’s piece on conservatism Why conservatives fear John Howard.

To begin, Webdiarist John Boase and many others sent me a great piece by journalist Greg Palast on the United States blackouts. Greg co-wrote Democracy and Regulation, a guide to electricity deregulation. Here’s an extract from POWER OUTAGE TRACED TO DIM BULB IN WHITE HOUSE – THE TALE OF THE BRITS WHO SWIPED 800 JOBS FROM NEW YORK, CARTED OFF $90 MILLION, THEN TONIGHT, TURNED OFF OUR LIGHTS:

In 1990, one devious little bunch of operators out of Texas, Houston Natural Gas, operating under the alias “Enron,” talked an over-the-edge free-market fanatic, Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, into licensing the first completely deregulated power plant in the hemisphere.

And so began an economic disease called “regulatory reform” that spread faster than SARS. Notably, Enron rewarded Thatcher’s Energy Minister, one Lord Wakeham, with a bushel of dollar bills for ‘consulting’ services and a seat on Enron’s board of directors. The English experiment proved the viability of Enron’s new industrial formula: that the enthusiasm of politicians for deregulation was in direct proportion to the payola provided by power companies.

The power elite first moved on England because they knew Americans wouldn’t swallow the deregulation snake oil easily. The USA had gotten used to cheap power available at the flick of switch. This was the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt who, in 1933, caged the man he thought to be the last of the power pirates, Samuel Insull… To frustrate Insull and his ilk, FDR gave us the Federal Power Commission and the Public Utilities Holding Company Act which told electricity companies where to stand and salute. Detailed regulations limited charges to real expenditures plus a government-set profit. The laws banned “power markets” and required companies to keep the lights on under threat of arrest – no blackout blackmail to hike rates.

Of particular significance as I write here in the dark, regulators told utilities exactly how much they had to spend to insure the system stayed in repair and the lights stayed on. Bureaucrats crawled along the wire and, like me, crawled through the account books, to make sure the power execs spent customers’ money on parts and labor. If they didn’t, we’d whack’m over the head with our thick rule books. Did we get in the way of these businessmen’s entrepreneurial spirit? Damn right we did.

Most important, FDR banned political contributions from utility companies – no ‘soft’ money, no ‘hard’ money, no money PERIOD.

But then came George the First. In 1992, just prior to his departure from the White House, President Bush Senior gave the power industry one long deep-through-the-teeth kiss good-bye: federal deregulation of electricity. It was a legacy he wanted to leave for his son, the gratitude of power companies which ponied up $16 million for the Republican campaign of 2000, seven times the sum they gave Democrats.

But Poppy Bush’s gift of deregulating of wholesale prices set by the feds only got the power pirates halfway to the plunder of Joe Ratepayer. For the big payday they needed deregulation at the state level. There were only two states, California and Texas, big enough and Republican enough to put the electricity market con into operation.

California fell first. The power companies spent $39 million to defeat a 1998 referendum pushed by Ralph Nadar which would have blocked the de-reg scam. Another $37 million was spent on lobbying and lubricating the campaign coffers of legislators to write a lie into law: in the deregulation act’s preamble, the Legislature promised that deregulation would reduce electricity bills by 20%. In fact, when San Diegans in the first California city to go “lawless” looked at their bills, the 20% savings became a 300% jump in surcharges.

Enron circled California and licked its lips. As the number one life-time contributor to the George W. Bush campaign, it was confident about the future. With just a half dozen other companies it controlled at times 100% of the available power capacity needed to keep the Golden State lit. Their motto, “your money or your lights.” Enron and its comrades played the system like a broken ATM machine, yanking out the bills. For example, in the shamelessly fixed “auctions” for electricity held by the state, Enron bid, in one instance, to supply 500 megawatts of electricity over a 15 megawatt line. That’s like pouring a gallon of gasoline into a thimble – the lines would burn up if they attempted it. Faced with blackout because of Enron’s destructive bid, the state was willing to pay anything to keep the lights on.

And the state did. According to Dr. Anjali Sheffrin, economist with the California state Independent System Operator which directed power movements, between May and November 2000, three power giants physically or “economically” withheld power from the state and concocted enough false bids to cost the California customers over $6.2 billion in excess charges.

It took until December 20, 2000, with the lights going out on the Golden Gate, for President Bill Clinton, once a deregulation booster, to find his lost Democratic soul and impose price caps in California and ban Enron from the market.

But the light-bulb buccaneers didn’t have to wait long to put their hooks back into the treasure chest. Within seventy-two hours of moving into the White House, while he was still sweeping out the inaugural champagne bottles, George Bush the Second reversed Clinton’s executive order and put the power pirates back in business in California. Enron, Reliant (aka Houston Industries), TXU (aka Texas Utilities) and the others who had economically snipped California’s wires knew they could count on Dubya, who as governor of the Lone Star state cut them the richest deregulation deal in America.

Meanwhile, the deregulation bug made it to New York where Republican Governor George Pataki and his industry-picked utility commissioners ripped the lid off electric bills and relieved my old friends at Niagara Mohawk of the expensive obligation to properly fund the maintenance of the grid system.

And the Pataki-Bush Axis of Weasels permitted something that must have former New York governor Roosevelt spinning in his wheelchair in Heaven: They allowed a foreign company, the notoriously incompetent National Grid of England, to buy up NiMo, get rid of 800 workers and pocket most of their wages – producing a bonus for NiMo stockholders approaching $90 million.

Is tonight’s black-out a surprise? Heck, no, not to us in the field who’ve watched Bush’s buddies flick the switches across the globe. In Brazil, Houston Industries seized ownership of Rio de Janeiro’s electric company. The Texans (aided by their French partners) fired workers, raised prices, cut maintenance expenditures and, CLICK! the juice went out so often the locals now call it, “Rio Dark.”

So too the free-market cowboys of Niagara Mohawk raised prices, slashed staff, cut maintenance and CLICK! – New York joins Brazil in the Dark Ages.

Californians have found the solution to the deregulation disaster: re-call the only governor in the nation with the cojones to stand up to the electricity price fixers. And unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gov. Gray Davis stood alone against the bad guys without using a body double. Davis called Reliant Corp of Houston a pack of “pirates” – and now he’ll walk the plank for daring to stand up to the Texas marauders.

So where’s the President? Just before he landed on the deck of the Abe Lincoln, the White House was so concerned about our brave troops facing the foe that they used the cover of war for a new push in Congress for yet more electricity deregulation. This has a certain logic: there’s no sense defeating Iraq if a hostile regime remains in California.

Sitting in the dark, as my laptop battery runs low, I don’t know if the truth about deregulation will ever see the light – until we change the dim bulb in the White House.

***

Anne Magarey

I was interested to read Rekindling Liberalism: a beginning. Have you come across what is known as neo-republicanism? It has nothing to do with the US party, or any party for that matter, but as proposed by Philip Pettit of the ANU is a very interesting, modern rethink of previous republics. Liberalism has a focus on freedom as non-interference; republicanism focuses on freedom as non-domination, which takes freedom one step further. It stresses a strong involvement of the people in politics, and the public good (something which liberalism says is not possible due to its focus on individualism). Pettit’s book is called Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government and is well worth reading.

***

Guido Tresoldi in Melbourne

I would like to discuss how Carmen Lawrence’s decision to run for ALP president can provide a good starting point in discussing a question you asked some time ago: “What is at the heart of democracy that makes it so sustainable, valuable and worth fighting for?”

That’s a pretty big question. One of the most important aspects of democracy is participation; the ability to participate into a process that has direct impacts on the type of society that we live in. On my part, joining a major political party was part of that process. I believe that joining the ALP and providing input into its policies is an integral part of my rights in a democracy. (See Carmen’s ldeas to save our withering democracy)

Of course anyone with the slightest knowledge of Australian politics would know that the ALP (or the Liberal Party for that matter) is not exactly the best model for democracy. As Chris Schacht wrote recently about the ALP, detailed policy adopted at party conferences bears little relationship to what is presented at election time. This had led to increasing cynicism, alienation of members, and declining active membership.

This has prompted calls for more democracy in the party, and one measure to try an increase the participation of members was the introduction of the direct election of the president of the ALP. Being president of the ALP is not a position of great power in the scheme of things, so it is somewhat disconcerting to hear the commentary around the possibility of Lawrence being elected. The Australian had this in one of its editorials:“Electing Carmen Lawrence as president, for example, might please party members who opposed Australia’s involvement in the war against Iraq and dislike the American alliance. But it would risk a split between the moderate politicians and the party machine – with catastrophic electoral consequences.”

The Age, which usually publishes articles supporting more democracy in politics, wrote in an editorial that Carmen Lawrence would create problems, not solutions, as the ALP national president: “Dr Lawrence has cast herself as a heroine of the hand-wringing left, a walking, talking embodiment of the Labor Party’s ‘conscience’. Such a person as national president is the last thing needed by Mr Crean, Labor’s broader electoral base or the political system at large.”

On the ABC’s Insiders program even the the idea of giving the rank and file the chance of electing the president was derided as a ‘bit of madness’ that ‘must had been seen to be a good idea at the time’.

What all this has to do with a broader issue of democracy? Quite a lot. I wish Carmen well, but in the end my argument does not focus on her, but rather how her candidacy has exposed an extraordinary disdain for party membership amongst political commentators. After each defeat by the ALP we read and hear in these same media outlets the fact that the ALP needs rejuvenation and new blood. But when we get a small token of direct democracy that does not fit in with the dominant paradigms we get this reactionary backlash.

Have we arrived at such a stage in Australia that the election of a party president is seen as ‘stupid idea’? Instead of seeing this as a positive step (albeit a small one) towards allowing those who have bothered join a party to elect their president, this is seen as an unnecessary risk. It really demeans the idea of participation and demeans the intelligence of party membership.

This lack of participation, which translates to apathy, is what feeds and keeps the Howard’s government alive. The ethanol lies, the attack on the ABC, not to mention keeping children in detention are things that do not register amongst a disengaged electorate which expects politicians to mislead parliament.

You asked me what I think is crucial for democracy? Many things are, but one is a greater degree of participation and debate in the parties that are supposed to reflect the opinions and sentiment of the people. And a degree of respect for that process

***

Philip Gomes in Redfern, Sydney

Perhaps Daniel Moye would like to try political compass for a different understanding of the left right nexus. He might surprise himself.

Like all suburban conservatives Daniel espouses an essentially passive view of his conservatism relaxed and comfortable. Or should I say; fortified and assured. His words: “Having read this outline, I was fortified in my belief that a ‘conservative’ I am. Having found out this answer and the reassurance I sought, a larger question begged itself. How do we own the ideas, ideals and institutions we label ourselves with?” (Owning your beliefs)

Unfortunately he has asked the wrong question. The question Daniel should have asked himself is, ‘How do I unshackle myself from the bonds of a hide bound ideology?’ In the face of a changing world many from the so-called left have done just that.

They have freed themselves from the apologist view of support of regimes of tyranny on the left for example and look to condemn all regimes that practise tyranny and oppression, a humanist position. They are embracing new ideas of co-operation across a wide rainbow of viewpoints, as evidenced by the slow rise of the Greens and similar movements (see When black is white, it’s easy being Green) State ownership is not necessarily embraced, and an emphasis of the powerful ideas of triple bottom line economics and fair trade is another example of this. The left can no longer be viewed as irrationally exuberant. They are fighting new battles with an enlightened responsibility.

I do not own these ideas, nor do I own our institutions – they are a public commons to be debated in and argued over. Ideas and institutions are not copyrighted but are open source. Free to be downloaded into the public consciousness. And as such we should have the chance to write a few new lines of code.

Many conservatives have objected to attempts to elicit a ‘philosophy’ of conservatism on the ground that conservatism is not a creed but a disposition, and that the conservative differs from radicals and intellectuals precisely because he is willing to change his mind and abandon any particular doctrine or any particular goal for the sake of conserving the vital interests of his society.

In Daniel’s Conservative definition, I would not hesitate to use the word cynical, and would say the opposite is true. The problem for old style conservatives like Daniel is that the current group of so-called conservatives (neo-cons) exhibit many of the attributes in his dictionary definition in spades, indeed they are reactionary and dogmatic in the extreme and lack a moral and ethical compass.

The hallmark of modern conservatism is its sociopathic nature – devoid of compassion, drilling all aspects of society and culture down to that of a commodity – including the ownership of ideas and institutions.

They have shown a singular disrespect for many of our institutions and have on more than one occasion shown an ability to abandon a particular doctrine to conserving the vital interests of the Party. Human rights, for example. Cute.

The ethical and moral compass of old-style conservatism has been challenged by this new variant. I suggest this explains the confusion felt by many of its adherents, because they are essentially unthinking in their practice of conservatism and the new boys on the block have forced them to choose i.e. you are either with us or against us. This is the cart to which he is hitched.

Daniel ultimately represents the silent majority of middle class Australian thought whose cosy little world has gone unchallenged until now. Their passivity and disposition has given rise to the neo-con view that is now being met by those who see another world possible.

I would suggest that the left is brimming with ideas and ideals filled with humanity and universality; something conservatives have shown little regard for of late. The left have embraced intellectual flexibility and uncertainty – the watchwords of our future. It’s new ideas and institutions are there to be accessed by all, not just those with the deepest pockets, the sharpest spin-doctors or the biggest media whores.

PS: Perhaps Daniel could also look to this little item in order to reassess his belief and relief at being a conservative, it’s quite amusing: Study of Bush’s psyche touches a nerve

Matthew Barnes in London

Disclosure: In every federal election up till now I’ve voted Liberal. In the next one I’ll probably vote informal because I can no longer keep on giving the Howard government my support when they are not committed to income tax relief or small government. Or I might vote Labor though and use my vote as a stick, because if both sides of politics are going to deliver big government I might as well have one more committed to subsidising university education. I live in the UK and am in the investment banking industry. I was born and raised in Penrith and commuted daily from Penrith during my five years at the University of NSW, where I did a combined degree in Commerce and Law. I consider myself one of these aspirational voters that Mr Howard pretends to champion.

Daniel Moye wrote in Why Conservatives fear John Howard:

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

I’ve got to take great exception to your passage above as far as it relates to the contention that (1) government has shrunk under John Howard’s stewardship (2) excellent management of the economy.

Government has shrunk under John Howard’s stewardship: Federal government revenues as a percentage of GDP have actually increased and are increasing. The reason for this is pretty simple: the Howard government is not interested in income tax relief and has taken the revenue benefit of wages bracket creep. In 1995/96 federal govt revenues amounted to $121.7 billion, or 25% of GDP. In 2001/02 federal government revenues (once the GST revenues are included, as of course they must be given that the GST is a federal tax ) amounted to $189 billion or 26.4% of GDP

The share of income tax as a percentage of GDP is now higher than in 1995/96 notwithstanding that the GST was supposed to lower the tax burden.

Internationally, Australians face a prohibitive income tax regime. The top marginal rate of 48.5% cuts in at just $62,000 a year, at just 1.35 times male average weekly earnings. In the USA the top rate of 35% cuts in at over $US 300,000. In the UK the top tax rate of 41% cuts in at about 1.7 times AWE.

The last 7 plus years have witnessed strong economic growth of the magnitude of 3.5% per annum. This is high by industrialised standards. Nevertheless, there has been little tax relief and the Australian people have been delivered a pathetic return from a so-called economically conservative government.

Examples of the rapacious tax appetite of the Howard govt can be seen in their obsession with stealth taxes such as the Ansett tax, sugar tax etc. The sugar tax represented basic industry assistance. Similarly, given the resources of government, the assistance provided to former Ansett employees should have been paid from existing revenues.

Part of the problem is that far too many conservative Australians just accept that we have an economically conservative government committed to smaller government when in fact we do not.

There is something seriously wrong with the way the average PAYE tax payer is treated in Australia. It is no wonder that we now have an investment housing boom in which people pay price multiples for homes which bear no relationship whatsoever to gross or net wages. Those who are dictating the prices are the baby boomers with little or no remaining mortgage who use their existing collateral to buy new houses, usually for speculative purposes. The price takers are the first home buyers who make up just 13% of new home purchases and who can look forward to a punitive mortgage eating up 50% to 60% of take home pay, or they can rent. The baby boomers also get a lovely tax benefit funded by the average Howard “battler”. Interest expense is fully tax deductible whilst the future capital gain is taxed at just 24.25%.

There is absolutely no reason why Howard couldn’t immediately limit the interest deduction to the revenue earned from the property, as is the rule in the UK. It is also unfair that an economically useless speculative activity gets taxed at a concessional 24% while the tax on labour is 48.5%. What a tragic misallocation or resources!

The Howard government was supposed to be about incentivising people and enabling people to make a decent go of things. That’s what I believed in 1996 as a then 22 year old. However, when you look at their record its a record of lost opportunity and laziness. I can go on and on about this. Margo, I really hope you use your column to reconsider your assumption about Howard’s record on small government and incentivisation.

Mr Howard is a brilliant politician. He polarises people and he knows that his policies have been a big winner for those fortunate enough to be at the stage of life to be in property. He’s made a lot of people very wealthy. However, his economic policies have been a disaster for those starting out in their adult life.

If that wasn’t bad enough the young also now have the joy of enjoying relatively little state subsidy for their university education, with the cost about 3 times what I paid. You may think higher university charges are OK on user pays grounds – and I guess it would be if the income tax burden was more reasonable. However, it would seem to be only fair that people receive a heavily subsidised university education when the tax burden remains so punitive.

Excellent management of the economy

Leaving aside the necessary budget fiscal tightening of 1996/97 which really helped us in the Asian economic crisis of 1997, the economic management of the economy has been average, not “excellent”.

There were many very favourable global factors that made it relatively benign for most western economies in the second half of the 1990s. The oil price was very low and the cost of capital in the form of interest rates declined all over the world. Howard, like Blair in the UK, inherited an internationally competitive economy in which all the necessary structural and trade reforms had been largely completed. In the Australian context the very weak dollar also boosted exports.

I contend that all the Howard government had to do was just to avoid exploding the economy.

If Howard had vision he would have used the opportunity to give people real income tax relief and incentivise families. Automatic indexation of income tax scales, as happens in the UK, would have been easy to implement and would have put a natural strain on the appetite of government spending as revenue growth would have been less.

Howard’s ill-conceived CGT changes of 2000 have made the housing boom worse, and now cause a situation where interest rates are unnecessarily high by global standards.

The federal government has also lost an important degree of revenue control through the decision to pass on all GST revenues to the states.

***

Jonathan Pagan in Sydney

I’d put a fairly large stake on Howard brazening it out destroying our democracy piece by piece, day by day. The scariest thing is that most of my generation (I’m 22) don’t care. They’ve never known anything else, so they expect politicians to lie and deceive on a daily basis.

I guess I was lucky. My grandfather was involved in the Liberal Party in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and Liberal and Labor leaders were and are regular guests and great friends. They are in our family photos, and still come over for lunch. These were and are all men and women of high integrity (whatever other personal faults they may have), who were diametrically opposed on ideas concerning how the country should be run; but once away from Parliament, were good friends who respected each other and each others views greatly.

My grandmother thinks the common bar in the Old Parliament House contributed to the civility and decency of that era of politics. No doubt the sacking of Gough contributed to the bitter schism that now exists. Now they do not know each others husband’s, wives and children. The sheer size of new Parliament House lets the current crop of self-serving toadies think they are the only important thing in the place, and cripple the sort of cross-party friendships, honour and decency that once pervaded Australian parliaments. There’s probably something in that. God know’s she’s right most of the time.

Peter Costello’s outline of the functioning of liberal democracies and civil society is a very sound conservative analysis. The Treasurer has quite rightly pointed out the tensions between government and civil society in providing necessary services in our community. The breathing room for civil society to create connections and allow individuals to establish comforting notions of ‘place’, ‘community’ and ‘tolerant diversity’ is crucial to the prosperity and freedom of a modern democracy.

Many of your readers would have one significant qualification to his analysis of the role of government. What should government do where civil societies fail? What is the role for governments where communities cannot provide for a functioning civil society eg subsistence communities where gaining food is more important than sport, scouts or bbqing for fires.

Clearly missing within Costello’s speech was a notion of equity in the extent to which government will participate in liberal democracies. Equity, whilst not my point of view, is obviously a missing element in the Treasurer’s speech for many Australians.

Having largely accepted what Peter Costello argues it is surprising to me that the government is pursuing some of its policies. Tolerance and diversity unencumbered by government interference is directly threatened by amendments to Cross Media Laws. Costello pointed out that some Australians find ‘proxy’ communities in the Cheers and Neighbours shows . It could also be said that alternative political and social commentary provided by the Fairfax press and the ABC act as a proxy to some Australian viewpoints. How does amending our media laws to provide Australians with fewer voices that influence the debates in our civil society help promote tolerance?

I can already hear your readers suggest that my surprise should extend to his

lack of tolerance in refugees, reconciliation etc. Perhaps they are right and perhaps not. But I emphasise cross media Laws in this context because without a diverse media environment your concerns for a more tolerant society will be increasingly harder to hear.

PS: Isn’t Transparency and Accountability of process key to engendering trust in Iraq? Perhaps Australians should examine the role and accountability of political minders as firewalls protecting our Federal and State government ministers from taking responsibility for their decisions.