No De Groot moment spoils Bridge's 75th birthday

The 75th birthday of the Sydney Harbour Bridge was celebrated today.

The ceremonies have passed off without any disruption similar to that which occurred in 1932, when Francis De Groot , a member of the New Guard, a right-wing paramilitary group, evaded security (riding a horse helped him do this) and "opened" the bridge by cutting the official ribbon. The ribbon had to be retied or replaced (accounts differ) before the official opening, by the then Premier of NSW J T Lang, who had annoyed many people by insisting on cutting the ribbon himself instead of the Sir Philip Game the state Governor.

In an ironic echo of the 1932 contretemps over who should open the bridge the ABC reports

[ NSW] Opposition Leader Peter Debnam says it is a shame the Premier did not keep the celebrations politician-free.Mr Iemma was among the official party on the bridge this morning and, alongside his family, was one of the first to complete the walk.

Mr Debnam also took part in the walk, and then travelled to Sydney's south-west where he delivered the last of his so called Liberal Party 'headland' speeches announcing the Coalition's road infrastructure package.

Mr Debnam says it is disappointing Mr Iemma was involved in the official proceedings.

"He's in Government and incumbent governments use their power ruthlessly - that's fine I suppose, that's the way he plays the game - I suggested to him that it be a politician-free day - well he obviously didn't agree," he said.

Tonight ABC TV screened what it described as a "doco-drama" about the bridge construction and opening. It was a mixture of archival footage, dramatised reconstructions and talking heads, some of whom, eg Andrew Moore, who has published a biography of De Groot which I've just read thought had a better grasp of the historical context of the times than others.

Whatever you think, it's undeniable that, as this story attests, 75 years on, De Groot's action has become embedded in our folk memory and will always be associated with the opening of the bridge.

For more info about the Bridge (and some very good photos) see here.

Update 19 March

Today's Australian provides more details about yesterday's event , including the prominent played role played by NSW Governor (insensitively described in the headline as "the Queen's woman" and in the body of the report as "Professor" ) Marie Bashir.

The greatest irony, however, was that the Governor reiterated the ideas of J T Lang:

Professor [sic] Bashir cut the ribbon and echoed the words of Lang, re-dedicating the bridge to the people of Australia and Sydney.

"It is a bridge of dreams," she said. "Purchased by the coins of our people, it has paid us back a hundred-fold. It is our landmark, our achievement, our conquest, our bridge."

If you'd like even more information, see this.

The sweet smell of excess

A number of sources, including the BBC and Reuters, report that police in the Indian state of Gujarat are to be issued with new cotton uniforms impregnated with special fragrances which also glow in the dark and make overweight officers look more svelte :

The co-ordinator of the apparel design section of India's National Institute of Design (NID), Somesh Singh, told the BBC that the idea to design more fragrantly pleasing police uniforms was agreed with the police authorities last month.

"The purpose is to do away with the perspiration odour," he said. "We have decided to make these uniforms more sweet smelling. Three different fragrances - jasmine, rose and citrus will be incorporated into these uniforms."

Mr Singh said that the designs would use the latest fibre optic technology to make sure the uniform not only smells good but glows at night so officers can be seen more clearly. He said the uniforms had also been specially designed to make overweight policemen look more streamlined when they are on the beat.

"They have been designed in a manner to ensure that the paunch of the wearer does not draw the attention of anyone looking at him," Mr Singh said.

In the Reuter's report Mr Singh alludes obliquely to the Indian police's reputation (also suggested by the photos accompanying the BBC report and depicted in several contemporary novels eg Vikas Swarup's Q&A) for robust operational methods:

"Most policemen look hassled, drenched in sweat after coming from any scene of crime," said Somesh Singh...They are surely not the best person one would like to meet, but if they smell good and fresh one might as well approach them."

And the police? The Reuters report quotes an Indian English speaking officer:

"We are tired wearing the thick cotton brown colour uniform with a broad belt and plastic badges for several decades now," said R.K. Patel a senior police officer."If the new uniforms makes us stand out in the crowd, keeps us active with pleasant aroma and is yet very formal, then we are all for it."

PS The Indian cricket team is also hoping to steal a march (or a few runs) on its opponents by adopting a uniform which is 15% lighter in weight than its predecessors. I'll say more about this on Nudges and Deflections.

Awards for defenders of free speech

The BBC reports that five "defenders of free speech" have been honoured at a ceremony in London:

The annual Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards salute people who have contributed to the defence of freedom of expression. ..They are given to those who use film, the law, books, journalism, campaigning or whistleblowing to achieve this.

The whistleblower award went to Chen Guangcheng, a self-taught lawyer in the Shandong province of China. Known as the "barefoot lawyer", he is a blind activist who publicised reports of forced abortions, as late as eight months pregnant, and sterilisations in the city of Linyi to enforce China's one-child policy.
Mr Chen was sentenced in August 2006 to over four years in prison for property damage and organising a crowd to disturb traffic.

The 2007 award for journalism went to 22-year old blogger Abdel Kareem Soliman, who wrote under the name Kareem Amer.He was recently sentenced to four years in prison after using his web log to criticise the country's top Islamic institution, al-Azhar university, and President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.

Other awards went to an assassinated Lebanese journalist, an Aids activist and an Israeli film maker.

Reading their stories, and those of others such as Morgan Tsvangirai , puts the vicissitudes of my life into perspective.

For more about Chen Guangcheng see here. It's interesting disturbing to note, among other things, how China discriminates against blind people's attempts to educate themselves.

For more about Kareem Amer see here.

Warhol moment averted

It's not often that my neighbourhood makes the news, but it did so today. As Adelaide Now reports:

Fast-acting emergency services averted a potential disaster in the eastern suburbs this morning, after a high pressure gas main was ruptured by workmen causing a major leak...Roads around the leak - near the corner of Portrush and Beulah roads at Norwood - were closed as emergency services were called to the scene.

Fortunately normal services were restored very swiftly. In fact I didn't notice anything amiss: the first I heard of the problem was on ABC Radio News. If there'd been an explosion I suppose I'd have had my 15 minutes of flame.

New species of taipan found

The Australian reports that researchers have found a new species of taipan in the outback central deserts about 200km north west of Uluru/Ayers Rock. A report of their findings, which non-specialists may find heavy going, is here.

Of the other two species one is commonly known as the inland or western taipan , the other as the coastal taipan. For more information about them from another source see here. I hadn't realised that both species have a wide distribution across many areas which I've visited (and camped out in).

Important South Australian anniversary overlooked by government

Peter Brent, speaking on ABC RN's Perspective on Friday, drew attention to a significant anniversary: 150 years since South Australia's first election under self government. As Brent explains, the event has an added significance: it was the first election in the world run by a chief electoral officer, W R Boothby.

The transcript (click the link to read it) is brief and well worth reading, Here's an extract describing some of the Boothby-driven innovations:

Boothby also changed the ballot paper. The Victorian version had voters crossing out the candidates they did NOT want; under Boothby's alteration they now put a cross in a box next to the candidate they DID want. By the end of the century this system had swept much of Europe and America, where it is still often called the Australian Ballot.

Perhaps even more importantly, he re-invented the way electoral rolls were constructed. Previously it had been left to electors to enrol, now the government door-knocked every house in South Australia.

As the decades rolled by, Boothby's power, and the organization below him, continued to grow, and eventually his enrolment procedure, other reforms and the very structure of his electoral fiefdom, were adopted around the globe.

After his death in 1903, a federal electorate was named after him. As far as I can tell, nowhere else on the planet has named an electorate after an electoral official.

Yes, they took their elections seriously in South Australia in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Nowadays in South Australia we don't seem to take our history very seriously. True, last week there was a conference "The Politics of Democracy in South Australia"arranged by the History Trust of South Australia and the State Electoral Office. The History Trust also has an exhibition "The Voice of the People: Democracy comes to South Australia" which runs until 31 August, but there's nothing about the anniversary on the Premier and Ministers' website, which you may think, as I do, is a pity.

Gunboat diplomacy and marketing as Spanish fly flags in Adelaide

The flag in the photo is the Spanish one. It's flying from the stern of the Alvaro de Bazan, a naval vessel variously described as a frigate or destroyer which is visiting Adelaide for what The Advertiser describes, in an article which isn't online but is at p16 of Thursday's print edition, as a "marketing and goodwill visit":

An Australian version of the ship, built by the Spanish firm Navantia, is one of two competing designs for the $6 billion air warfare destroyer program.

The other is by US - based firm Gibbs & Cox, which is being developed by the 50 people working at its Adelaide office.

Three destroyers will be built at Outer-Harbor based ASC, which won the construction contract in 2005. Federal Cabinet is expected to decide the winning design in July and construction will start in 2009.

The Navantia design is thought to be the favourite because it is reportedly at least $500 million cheaper, would require a smaller crew and could be delivered two years earlier.

The Gibbs & Cox design would inject an extra $1 billion into Australian industry, while its rival would benefit Spanish industry.

The Australian also reports the visit, and implies that the selection has already been made:

A visiting Spanish frigate competing to be Australia's next air warfare destroyer was yesterday dubbed "a great ship" by a key federal minister who will help make the $7 billion decision in July.

Finance Minister Nick Minchin made the comment as he toured the Alvaro De Bazan, a 147m, 6000-tonne Spanish frigate which docked in Adelaide's outer harbour yesterday.

The Government will choose between the Spanish F100 design, of which Alvaro De Bazan is an example, and an as-yet-unbuilt warship being designed by US company Gibbs and Cox.

The "evolved design" will be a larger ship, based on the US navy's Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, which is 155m long and weighs more than 9000 tonnes.

As an untested warship, the evolved design is thought to carry higher risks of budget and equipment problems.

Yesterday, Senator Minchin said he appreciated the opportunity to board the ship. "It is a great opportunity to see one of the two possible designs in the flesh," he said.

"As one of the decision-makers, I'm personally pleased to see this vessel in real life."

Since the Alvaro De Bazan was commissioned in 2002, Spain's navy has added another three F100 frigates to its fleet.

Built by Spanish shipbuilders Navantia, the F100 has long been regarded as a stalking horse for the Gibbs & Cox option.

But with $7 billion at stake, an Australianised F100 is now thought to be an even-money bet to win the contract.

.....

Senator Minchin said "value for money will be a primary consideration in that choice" along with capability.

The Alvaro De Bazan and its crew of 200 men and women, including 20 heavily armed marines, will stay in Adelaide until Saturday. The ship will visit Sydney from next Monday for a week and will arrive back in Spain on May 19.

Unlike Senator Minchin and Premier Rann (a photograph of whom with the Spanish captain is in the 'Tiser) I was unable to get close enough to the vessel to have a good look. Security at Outer Harbor [the correct spelling] is very tight to protect not just the Spanish navy but also the car exports which occupy the fore and middle ground of my picture, so I decided to concentrate upon the flag, which I think is unlikely ever to have been seen here on a Spanish fighting ship before. Training ship maybe, but fighting ship I very much doubt. Of course a few people have claimed that Spanish (and Portuguese) mariners did discover parts of Australia, usually by being shipwrecked there. But, in the absence of more details I'm not going to buy into that one.....



Update 11 March

Patrick Walters in The Weekend Australian sheds more light on the history of Spanish naval contacts with Australia. He says that the visit to Australia by the Alvaro de Bazan is the first by a Spanish warship since 1859. The rest of the article is also worth reading not least for Mr Walters' advocacy of the claims of the Spanish (publicly owned) shipbuilding firm Navantia and for his admission that his recent trip to Spain was paid for by Navantia.

Further Update 14 March

Yesterday's Australian had a full page ad about the "Armada" which was paid for by the Spanish government.

More on dumbing down curriculum

In today's Australian John Hirst has a good opinion piece "A chance to instil a sense of civic duty". He laments that subjects such as history, which the Prime Minister and his various Education Ministers have insisted be given more prominence in secondary school education, effectively cut out at the end of year 10:

Last year's history summit was invited to say what students should know of Australian history by the end of Year 10. Compulsory education ends at Year10, so education policy-makers think that if there is a subject that all students should know, then it has to be offered in that year or before. But the proportion of students who go on to Year 12 has risen rapidly and these last two years of schooling immediately precede the assumption of the right to vote. No one has been considering how schooling should be used to help in the transition to this adult responsibility.

I estimate that 80 per cent of children in the last years of school study nothing that links them to their country: no Australian history, no Australian literature, no Australian art, no Australian politics, no Australian geography. An overseas visitor to most of our years 11 and 12 classrooms would not know they were in Australia.

In these years students are left free to choose their subjects except for the compulsion to study English language. Some need to take certain subjects in preparation for tertiary studies. But many choose their subjects not because they relate to the course they want to take at university but because they hope to get a high score in the subject and so improve the chances of getting into the university course they want. So a would-be student of law may take physics or psychology instead of history or politics.

In these vital years we have abdicated the responsibility to prepare students to be citizens of this country.

Of course this point has been made many times before. It's also easy to identify the problem than to enunciate a solution. Mr Howard and Ms Bishop seem to have a view of history where certain facts, opinions and dates are set in stone: these are relatively easy to put across to year 10 students and to assess. As a longstanding professional historian of good repute Hirst is to a degree protecting his own patch by asking for more higher level teaching of humanities subjects, but he has a good point. Whether he can persuade other influential people to support him on this will be interesting to see, but I'd like to see it happen, ideally as a result of frank and open debate rather than resorting to the likes of Brian Burke.

Much slinging of mud, but what are the consequences?

All the mud slinging and abuse in the wake of the revelations about the lobbying activities of Brian Burke have produced a lot of comment, yet surprisingly little discussion of how best to manage situations where lobbyists appear to pull the wires. Honourable exceptions include Christian Kerr in Crikey, who sums the situation up pithily: "all the major parties are not just very, very busy operating in an ethical grey area.They’re also actively engaged in a process that is profoundly anti-democratic."

Surely, given the rise of lobbyists to positions of influence and, as the Burke affair suggests, power there needs to be a more transparent regulatory regime, with information about who is lobbying whom much more freely available. A public register of some kind would be a good start, though no doubt any attempt to introduce one would require bipartisan support, which means that it would almost certainly be watered down. As with so many other matters in the body politic, I won't expect too much too soon.

That said, the last few days have elicited some vintage comments from key players and interested bystanders. Yesterday Paul Keating on ABC Radio's The World Today gave his own party a rap over the knuckles on what he described as the "more technical issue"of superannuation. He then switched to attack dog mode, turning on the government , or more precisely the Prime Minister:

ELEANOR HALL: Okay, you're clearly unhappy with the Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, on this issue of policy. How do you think he's handling the politics, with this attack that he's facing from the Government over his contacts with Brian Burke?

PAUL KEATING: Oh, look, it's just Howard being Howard, isn't it, you know. The little desiccated coconut's under pressure and he's attacking anything he can get his hands on.

You know, I mean, look, Brian Burke and Julian Grill, they're the Arthur Daley and Terry of the Western Australian Labor Party, you know. They're like the wallpaper over there. You can't visit Perth without running into them, you know.

It's a bit like Kevin Rudd coming to Sydney, somewhere you're going to meet Johno Johnson who runs the raffle tickets and things. I mean, it's just part of life.

And the idea that … I mean, what are they? They're are a couple of small-time lobbyists. So what, you know, so what?

ELEANOR HALL: Was Kevin Rudd, though, naive to meet Brian Burke at that dinner in 2005?

PAUL KEATING: Well, he was the shadow minister for foreign affairs talking about China and what have you. I think, you know, you can't apply … I mean if, have a look at all the bagmen in the Liberal Party, for God's sake. I mean, if you applied a sanitary test to those guys, I mean, no minister would do any business in this country.

ELEANOR HALL: He's said, though, that he didn't know that Brian Burke was off-limits for state ministers.

PAUL KEATING: Well, look, the real problem about Western Australia is this - look, I haven't seen, myself, seen Burke for 20 years, but the fact is Burke is smarter than two thirds of the Western Australian Labor Party rolled together. That's why he keeps bobbing up. And instead of leaving him out in the cold, what Gallop and Carpenter should've done was bring him in simply as a lobbyist and legitimise him like all of the other lobbyists over there, so all this nonsense goes away, you know. Instead of that they leave him out there so he turns up at these various things or tries to, you know, get himself a quid doing one thing or another.

Now, you know, I mean, Burke was Richardson's candidate against me for the prime ministership, so I'm not a Burke barracker, you understand, but the idea that someone as clever as that is going to be sat on forever by a Carpenter or a Gallop is of course nonsense. And that's why he's been friendly with Beazley for years, you know.

Another trenchant comment, from a somewhat surprising source given its propensity to support the government come what may, was yesterday's Australian
editorial "Campbell sacrificed in pursuit of Rudd":

THERE appears to be only one standard of ministerial accountability in the Howard Government: you may remain as a minister until the political advantage of your departure exceeds that of your retaining the job.

Human resources minister Ian Campbell did nothing which, by the standards the community is entitled to expect of its politicians, could be considered a hanging offence.

John Howard himself described Senator Campbell's meeting with Brian Burke and racing industry representatives as "benign". No favours were asked for and none were delivered. His sin, Mr Howard said, was exercising poor judgment in meeting Mr Burke, given "the circumstances" surrounding the former West Australian premier.

.....

The circumstances of both Senator Campbell and Kevin Rudd's meetings with Mr Burke in 2005 do not include any knowledge of the corrupt dealings that it took the extraordinary phone-tapping powers of Western Australia's Crime and Corruption Commission to uncover. It would be unreasonable to retrospectively judge meetings held two years ago in the light of revelations of the past six weeks.

A criminal conviction punishable by imprisonment is a bar to parliamentary election. But politicians are not prevented from meeting people who have been imprisoned. It is a healthy element of Australia's culture that someone who has completed a prison term has expunged their debt to society and is entitled at least to a hearing.

It was no more a gross error for Senator Campbell to meet the delegation of racing officials assembled by Mr Burke than it was for Mr Rudd to accept an invitation to meet a group of businesspeople Mr Burke had invited to dinner.

The worst that can be said is that it was naive at a time when the West Australian premier had banned his colleagues from meetings with Mr Burke. It is ludicrous to suggest that Mr Rudd was enlisting Mr Burke's support for a leadership tilt, given that the leadership was held by Mr Burke's good friend, Kim Beazley. It is perfectly normal that a frontbencher with leadership aspirations should tour the country, accepting invitations to meet and greet coming from all quarters. It should be noted that Mr Burke did have extensive contacts in Perth with business leaders and other people of influence, including the editor of the local paper.

Mr Howard's burst of rectitude over Senator Campbell is all the more extraordinary for the slack approach he has shown to ministerial accountability over the past nine years.

Mr Howard came to office promising a much higher standard than that of his predecessors and introduced an extensive guide on ministerial responsibility. It covered such matters as share ownership, employment of family and using ministerial office to obtain favours.

Within the first two years, it cost seven ministers and parliamentary secretaries their jobs. Assistant treasurer Jim Short, parliamentary secretary Brian Gibson and small business minister Jim Prosser were all fired for investments and business interests conflicting with their responsibilities. Four others - John Sharp, Peter McGauran, David Jull and Bob Woods - were caught in a scandal concerning abuse of travel allowances.

And then the spotlight fell upon minerals and energy minister Warwick Parer. He held an investment of more than $2 million in the coal industry. Was not this a clear breach of the code? "At the end of the day, they are guidelines, they are not a death sentence and you do have to look at the totality of his behaviour," Mr Howard said, explaining his decision to keep Mr Parer in the job. From that day until this, no minister has been held to account for breaches of the code.

The code was updated in 1998 to include a section on lobbyists, requiring that public duty not conflict with private interest. But when the parliamentary secretary for regional partnerships, De-Anne Kelly, hired former National Party secretary and lobbyist Ken Crooke and subsequently approved a $1.2 million grant to one of his former clients, no action was taken.

The code says that ministers should not accept any benefit which might give rise to an appearance of improper influence. But former immigration minister Philip Ruddock accepted political donations from Lebanese groups in Sydney whose visa applications he was favouring with ministerial discretion.

As forestry minister, Wilson Tuckey was able to use his ministerial letterhead to plead for his son to be excused a traffic fine, in breach of the code's requirement that ministers not use their position to gain any improper benefit for themselves or anyone else.

The code holds ministers responsible for failings about which they knew or should have known. Both Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Trade Minister Mark Vaile should have known about the Australian Wheat Board's dealings with Iraq. Mr Downer personally approved the contracts that shamed Australia.

The sacrifice of Senator Campbell has nothing to do with the code. The only reason for his departure is to further the attack on Mr Rudd. As Mr Howard put it, Senator Campbell has behaved with integrity, so what about Mr Rudd?

It could have been hoped that 2007 would bring the Australian public an election fought on ideas. Let people decide on the basis of education, industrial relations, national security and economic management. True, the character of leaders must form part of the judgment. But the opportunism displayed in the dismissal of Senator Campbell reflects poorly on the judgment of the Prime Minister.

PS The Oz's second editorial " Monument to crime: ACT's grotesque decision to honour Al Grassby" is also worth reading.:

THE proposed erection of a monument to the Whitlam government's immigration minister, Al Grassby, borders on the grotesque. Grassby, who died in April 2005, was an associate of the Calabrian mafia and its Australian connections based in Griffith, NSW. He tried to spread the fiction that anti-drugs campaigner Donald Mackay was not murdered in 1977 by the mafia, alleging that Mackay's wife Barbara had been responsible, an attempted smear that brought charges of criminal defamation. Yet the ACT Government led by Chief Minister Jon Stanhope plans to honour Grassby with a $72,325 bronze statue to adorn the foyer of a multicultural centre in Canberra....in the ACT, rusted-on multiculturalists cling to the tattered reputation of Grassby as if he was the saintly embodiment of inclusiveness. The fact that the Stanhope Government has overlooked, or forgiven, his extensive contacts with criminals and his use of political influence to avoid investigation of those links is a cause for great regret.

Another step in the Hicks case

Hard on the heels of today's Age report of allegations of torture made by David Hicks comes news of the next stage in the process laid down by the US authorities (which prompted an on air exchange between Terry Hicks and the Prime Minister: reported on the same link):

Hicks was charged today with providing material support for terrorism and referred to trial by a special military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon said. But a second charge of attempted murder was dismissed after Judge Susan Crawford concluded there was no "probable cause" to justify it.

For other comments see here(whose headline "Clock ticking for Hicks" implies that the charge will now automatically proceed to a hearing) and here (an unfortunate greengrocer's apostrophe in the headline "Hick's father feels no relief at charges).

Homeless people inconvenienced

During the last few months parts of the East Parklands have been reclaimed by a group of people, whom the media describe as "homeless". I frequently walk or cycle there, so I can confirm that they are mostly, if not all, Aboriginal people.

The Adelaide City Council, to judge from the few media reports which I've seen, has been wringing, though not washing, its hands about them. The Council'sReconciliation Policy states:

Adelaide City Council acknowledges that we are meeting on the traditional country of the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains.We recognise and respect their cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship with the land. We acknowledge that they are of continuing importance to the Kaurna people living today.

The Council has also given (or restored) Aboriginal names to many parks .

I took the photo above today in Rundle Park/ Kadlitpinna ("Captain Jack"). It shows a public convenience with the camping equipment of the homeless/ Aboriginal people on the roof. Presumably they did this because the low level harassment they've endured for the time they've been there has given way way to the annual encroachment of the motor race and, to a lesser degree, the Fringe Festival, on the land they've reclaimed.

Is this the best the ACC can do?

Oscars 2007

The Oscars for this year have been awarded. Congratulations to the winners. Here is a list of them (and the other nominees).

A few comments:

• Best Foreign Language Film: Having seen each of them in the last 10 days I thought that Pan's Labyrinthwas a better film than The Lives of Others. IMO both were worthy nominees but the Spanish film had an emotional and imaginative richness which the German one lacked. The depiction of the captain in Pan's Labyrinth is a masterly portrayal of evil while the fantasy world into which Ofelia escaped was brilliantly realised. The German film explored the moral dilemmas faced by the main characters but I thought that the Stasi agent and central character Wiesler was just a little too good to be true (and his superior just a little too stupid to let him get away with what he did for so long).
  

• After viewing The Queen and The Last King of Scotland I thought that it would be hard to beat Helen Mirren and Forrest Whittaker for the best actress and actor awards, and so it proved.

• Martin Scorsese's Best Director Oscar was a fitting tribute to a craftsman with a substantial body of good work under his belt. Like may of his other films, The Departed features some excellent acting (eg Leonardo Di Caprio) though the whole is overlong and lacks the zippiness of its source Infernal Affairs.

Outback 'ungoverned'

Tucked away on p 7 of today's printed Australian but not, as far as I can tell, online, is an article by Victoria Laurie reporting a speech given on Saturday by former WA governor John Sanderson to the Order of Australia Association. He drew attention to governance problems in the outback, and the report quotes him as saying:

A large part of this continent is increasingly neglected and, for a significant number of our rural people, governance is weak and intangible...Government is receding from the country to what I describe as pockets of indulgence and indifference in the southeast and southwest corners. Over the past three or four decades, possibly as a consequence of market forces, we have seen a steady withdrawal of the presence of both the public and the private sector from the remote regions of the continent.

Some of this is in code (eg for "significant number of our rural people" read aboriginals) but, as a regular traveller to some of the regions he mentions, I agree that the matter should be raised and debated. The government is always banging on, often with good reason, about Australia's security, yet doesn't seem to realise that it is important to secure our own territory. Weak and intangible governance throughout much of inland and northern Australia is a major security risk.

PS Today another report Dropping Off The Edge: the distribution of disadvantage in Australia has been released. It identifies the most disadvantaged areas in Australia, several of which eg East Kimberley (WA) and Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands (SA), meet Mr Sanderson's criteria.(Today's Australian has a story about this on p3 but once again it's not online).

Hicks could face years of litigation says Major Mori

Today at Adelaide University there was another meeting or "rally", as most of the media reports I've seen described it, about David Hicks. Anyone who's ever been in a Napier Building lecture theatre (the venue) will know how inaccurate the latter term is. That aside, the indefatigable Major Mori spoke to those present. His comments have been reported in the media, including News.com.au("Hicks will 'be in court for years'"), The Age ("Hicks could face years of litigation"), The Australian ("Hicks will spend years in court: Mori") and Yahoo!7 News ("Hicks facing years of litigation:Mori").

I wasn't at the meeting as I was visiting a friend in the nearby Royal Adelaide Hospital. I did by chance bump into Major Mori as I was walking along North Terrace afterwards, so I was able to tender my apologies, shake his hand and tell him to keep up his good work.

US Vice President Cheney, who is still visiting Sydney (which is not the same as a"tour of Australia", as some eg the ABC have described it) has been quoted by News.com.au as saying that "Hicks is near the head of the queue":

Mr Cheney said Hicks had now been charged and the US Defence Department was now deciding whether a military commission would be convened to try Hicks. "Mr Hicks is near the head of the queue," Mr Cheney said. "We can't interfere with that process.It's a judicial process. We can't influence it. That would be a violation of the procedure.But I do expect that in the not too distant future that ... will get resolved. I can assure you we will be doing everything we can to deal with these matters in as expeditious manner as possible."

Mr Howard said while he did not sympathise with Hicks, he did stress to Mr Cheney his concern about the amount of time it was taking for him to be put on trial. "I have asked ... that the trial be brought on as soon as humanly possible and that there be no further delay," Mr Howard said. "I have put that very plainly and I have put that in the context of direct speaking of close friends."

Hmmm...

PM looks rattled but tries to defend Vice-President Cheney who has troubles of his own at home

When even The Advertiser has, as it did today, a lead editorial "PM falls out of step with opinion"(print version)/ "Mr Howard must fall into step"(online) , stating that Prime Minister Howard "appears increasingly isolated and out of step with the electorate on issues of key community concern", this is further evidence that the public mood is changing.

On issues as diverse as Australia's continued military commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan, the detention of terror suspect David Hicks and global warming, Mr Howard has given the appearance of being inflexible and unyielding.

.....

On almost the same day Mr Howard pledged to send 70 additional military trainers to Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the immediate withdrawal of 1600 troops.

Mr Howard's protest that it was not a withdrawal, merely a reduction in troop numbers, was at best hollow.

The Labor states are refusing to endorse Mr Howard's $10 billion River Murray plan – the centrepiece of his Government's environment policy – Hicks remains in his cell and, to add to the Government's discomfort, Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens hinted that interest rates could rise again this year.

To magnify Mr Howard's Iraq dilemma, U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney is in Australia.

Normally the opportunity to host the U.S. vice-president would be an advantage for the incumbent government. Yet, for Mr Howard Mr Cheney's visit could not have come at a worse time.

It's far too premature to be predicting a Coalition election defeat. Mr Howard is a superb political campaigner and strategist.

But to be assured of a fifth term in office, Mr Howard's political luck and political judgment will have to change.

It's good to see at least some parts of the News Corp media (another is Tim Dunlop's Blogocracyat News.com.au) not automatically endorsing the government's position.

Speaking of News.com.au, I see that on its website it quotes Mr Howard as saying, contrary to The Advertiser's view, that Vice-President Cheney's visit here "isn't a political liability".

"It's never a political liability, ever, for the Prime Minister of Australia to have a good relationship with the president and the vice-president of the US," Mr Howard said on Seven News today.

"That is an absurd proposition, and I reject it completely."

Mr Howard said he respected Vice-President Dick Cheney even though they didn't always agree.

"People should look beyond their personal prejudices and understand how fundamental the American alliance is to the security of Australia in our own region," he said.

Mr Howard did not meet Mr Cheney at the airport last night, nor attend his major speech to the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Sydney today. The pair will meet tomorrow.

Mr Howard's increasingly inflexible opinions have in the last two weeks made him (and, by implication Australia) look foolish. The swift and effective riposte of Senator Barack Obama, in response to a some ill judged comments by the PM (including some Beasleyesque befuddlement over dates) and his being caught napping by Mr Blair's announcement of troop reductions (and what ever you might want to call them, they are reductions) of British forces in Iraq have made Mr Howard look out of his depth.

He should also be aware that a considerable body of opinion in the USA is turning against the policies of the Bush - Cheney administration. See for example a piece by Jeffrey H Smith in The Washington Post.

Smith is a former CIA employee who now represents some Kuwaitis who are detained in Guantanamo. He says:

In November, Americans voiced their frustration with the war in Iraq and gave control of Congress to the Democrats. The voters rejected the president's swaggering, go-it-alone approach and the administration's contemptuous attitude toward the Geneva Conventions, which led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, actions that so damaged our credibility that other nations are much less willing to cooperate in the war on terrorism. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and her able legal adviser, John Bellinger, have pushed for reforms that have begun to reverse this trend -- but much more must be done....there are three things Congress should do.

First, Congress should reconsider the detainee legislation passed last fall. Last-minute changes rammed through by the White House watered down many of the bill's key provisions. On the treatment of detainees and interrogation techniques it created two standards -- one for the military and another for the CIA. The standards for the military are in an Army Field Manual, but the CIA standards are to be enumerated in a presidential executive order. Rumors suggest that the White House is struggling to develop those rules. Congress should relieve the president of that task before he makes a bad situation worse.

If Vice President Cheney has his way, a good dunking may be among the approved CIA techniques, even though "waterboarding" is prohibited by the Army Field Manual. Cheney's October remarks that dunking a detainee was " a no-brainer" were irresponsible and added to the confusion in the field (and around the world) about the rules for treatment of detainees.

It is not clear why the military and the CIA should have different standards for the treatment and interrogation of detainees. All U.S. agencies should use the techniques best able to elicit information that is vital to our security. And why should the CIA once again be asked to take risks not knowing whether, when the political winds change in Washington, its officers will be left facing charges that they violated the law?

Hearings should be held to determine which interrogation techniques have produced useful intelligence. Lawmakers should review the recent report of the government's Intelligence Science Board, which concluded that there was no scientific evidence that coercive techniques produced good intelligence. Congress should also consider the requirements of international law and develop a single standard that will apply equally to all agencies.

Second, Congress should repeal the provisions that stripped detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere of the right of habeas corpus and that instead gave them an extremely limited right to challenge their detentions. A federal appeals court, interpreting lawmakers' last effort, ruled Tuesday that detainees do not have the right to use a habeas petition to challenge the basis of their detention. The case will surely be appealed to the Supreme Court because detainees must have the right to argue to a federal judge -- not a military officer, as in the current law -- that the factual basis on which they are being held indefinitely and without criminal charges is not accurate. Detainees' right to habeas corpus could be limited, as was suggested by Sens. Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy, to prevent frivolous lawsuits over conditions at Guantanamo. But detaining men with no hope of a fair hearing ensures that, if they weren't terrorists when they were detained, they probably will be when they are finally released.

Third, Congress should also examine the practice of "rendition," or sending detainees to countries for trial or detention where, it is alleged, they can be mistreated or tortured. Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, rendition was a valuable but selectively used tool of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Since Sept. 11 it has been used extensively, and its continued viability has been questioned. Congress should establish a solid legal footing for renditions, including measures to ensure that anyone sent to another country is not mistreated.

The administration should listen, really listen, to the American people and to those in Congress and the military who understand that adhering to international law and our core values will help us win the war on terrorism. It will take years to get out of the hole we're in, but if Congress leads and the president understands, we can begin climbing out.

If you think that Smith is a lone voice look at this New York Times editorial "American Liberty at the Precipice".

In another low moment for American justice, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that detainees held at the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to be heard in court. The ruling relied on a shameful law that President Bush stampeded through Congress last fall that gives dangerously short shrift to the Constitution.

The right of prisoners to challenge their confinement — habeas corpus — is enshrined in the Constitution and is central to American liberty. Congress and the Supreme Court should act quickly and forcefully to undo the grievous damage that last fall’s law — and this week’s ruling — have done to this basic freedom.

The Supreme Court ruled last year on the jerry-built system of military tribunals that the Bush Administration established to try the Guantánamo detainees, finding it illegal. Mr. Bush responded by driving through Congress the Military Commissions Act, which presumed to deny the right of habeas corpus to any noncitizen designated as an “enemy combatant.” This frightening law raises insurmountable obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. And it gives the government the power to take away habeas rights from any noncitizen living in the United States who is unfortunate enough to be labeled an enemy combatant.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which rejected the detainees’ claims by a vote of 2 to 1, should have permitted the detainees to be heard in court — and it should have ruled that the law is unconstitutional.

As Judge Judith Rogers argued in a strong dissent, the Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that detainees do not have habeas rights because Guantánamo is located outside the United States. Judge Rogers also rightly noted that the Constitution limits the circumstances under which Congress can suspend habeas to “cases of Rebellion or invasion,” which is hardly the situation today. Moreover, she said, the act’s alternative provisions for review of cases are constitutionally inadequate. The Supreme Court should add this case to its docket right away and reverse it before this term ends.

Congress should not wait for the Supreme Court to act. With the Democrats now in charge, it is in a good position to pass a new law that fixes the dangerous mess it has made. Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, have introduced a bill that would repeal the provision in the Military Commissions Act that purports to obliterate the habeas corpus rights of detainees.

The Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties does not end with habeas corpus. Congress should also move quickly to pass another crucial bill, introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, that, among other steps, would once and for all outlaw the use of evidence obtained through torture.

When the Founding Fathers put habeas corpus in Article I of the Constitution, they were underscoring the vital importance to a democracy of allowing prisoners to challenge their confinement in a court of law. Much has changed since Sept. 11, but the bedrock principles of American freedom must remain.

Are our core values and the "bedrock principles of Australian freedom " that different from those of the USA ?

David Hicks update

In the last few days there have been several media items about David Hicks, including two from Channel Nine's Sunday

• The cover story "Caged Animal, David Hicks, A Nation's Shame"and whose website features a computer generated image based on reports from recent eyewitnesses: to see it click here.
  
• An interview with Foreign Minister Downer, which included this among several other equivocal statements:

LAURIE OAKES: Some newspapers are reporting this morning that John Howard is working to get David Hicks home before the Federal election, is that true?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, what we are trying to do is ensure that the trial takes place as quickly as possible so assuming that the trial goes ahead on schedule, then whether he's – whether David Hicks is convicted or he's acquitted, and we obviously make no judgment about that - but he should be able to come home to Australia before the end of the year. That is, if he's convicted we've made an arrangement with the Americans which was confirmed to me 10 days ago by the Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, that David Hicks will be able to serve his sentence or the remainder of his sentence in Australia. If he's acquitted, of course, he'll be allowed to go.


On ABC TV's Insiders Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McLelland not surprisingly doubted Mr Downer's claims.(Transcript is not available at time of posting - promised for later - but item can be viewed using Windows Media/ Real Player.)

Development opportunity?

One of my favourite places is the southern coast of the Fleurieu Peninsula, where I've walked many times. I took this photo last November looking westward from Waitpinga, near Victor Harbor. In the far background is a property called Balquhidder, which , as The Weekend Australian's Property Section reports, is up for sale, and may be divided into as many as 76 different lots. The print version (at Prime Space p8) is illustrated with a very good photo, similar to but not identical to this one of Blowhole Beach at Deep Creek Conservation Park, which is nearby. If you're not familiar with the area Balquhidder is about halfway between Deep Creek and Waitpinga on this map.

One of the most attractive sections of the long distance Heysen Trail passes through the area, but at present detours inland to avoid several properties including Balquhidder whose owners have not given permission for walkers to traverse their land. It would be very good if enough of the new proprietors were to allow a re-route or loop trail which stays closer to the coast and allows walkers to experience more of the magnificent combination of beaches and cliff tops.

Images of Singapore

Chaos at Perth airport

Here are some photos which I took at Perth airport on Monday during a baggage handlers' stoppage, or strike, as this ABC News item described it.

The photos show both a significant quantity of unattended baggage left lying around (there was even more elsewhere in the terminal) and the stoic resignation of many affected passengers, who from my observations, included several elderly people and at least one unaccompanied child.

The ABC report's comment: 'Qantas says it is disappointed with what it calls the "total disregard staff have shown to customers."' overlooks the inept handling of the customer/passenger aspects of the situation by Qantas management. The airline essentially washed its hands of responsibility for transit passengers like me, leaving us, once most flights east had been cancelled, to make our own arrangements for overnight accommodation. It should have been relatively easy for staff to conduct internet searches on behalf of the stranded passengers.

Several people purporting to be Qantas staff had no ID, while there were two queues at different points of the domestic terminal, one for rebooking cancelled flights, the other for baggage and other matters.

When I and several other Adeaide bound passengers had found accommodation the check in counter staff could not locate our checked baggage. They undertook to deliver it to where we were staying overnight but did not do so.

We were not offered an emergency pack (which includes a t shirt and unisex underpants) until the next day, when we returned to the airport to resume our journey.

Whatever the causes of the baggage handlers' action, passengers were treated abominably by the airline, mainly because there was no leadership or effective communication from Qantas management on the spot.

I hope that Qantas conducts a review into this schemozzle. I've contacted them and will wait to see how long it takes them to respond.

Travellers responsible for Melbourne public transport woes?

See this, by Christopher Scanlon, from The Age ,which takes its cue from a new Connex advertising campaign: "Don't hold others back, help our trains stay on the track":

That message, despite the spiffy-looking website and expensive TV ad campaign, was never particularly convincing. In fact, it's looking decidedly worse for wear amid the recent crisis around the braking system of Siemens trains.

As the repeated references to "Siemen's trains" in the media implies, though, Connex still isn't responsible. Rather, it's that pesky German electrical engineering giant with its unreliable brake system that's to blame. This overlooks the small fact that Connex should have thoroughly tested the trains before putting them into service.

So, should we conclude that Connex is to blame? As tempting and satisfying as it might be to lay all the blame at Connex's feet, it would still be mistaken. While Connex certainly bears a good deal of the responsibility for the crisis in Melbourne's train system, the real problem isn't Connex — or any other private operator, for that matter. Rather, the real failing is privatisation itself.

The problem with privatisation, as many opponents foresaw, is that it permits — even encourages — shifting the blame between different parties. This is the great unspoken benefit of privatisation: it allows governments not only to outsource the delivery of a service, but also to outsource the blame if and when anything goes awry.

.....

If Victoria's experience is anything to go by, the lesson of privatisation is that it puts the State Government at the mercy of the private operators who can leverage more and increasingly generous subsidies from the public purse by threatening to walk away from running the public transport system.

The record shows that private operators are quite happy to use this leverage. As University of Melbourne transport expert Paul Mees has documented, in February 2002 the State Government forked out $1 million in extra subsidies to the three private rail and tram franchisees when they threatened to walk away from their franchise agreements.

The extra money still wasn't enough to keep National Express, the UK company that formerly operated three of the Victorian franchises, from walking away in December 2002. In 2004, the two remaining private operators, Connex and Yarra Trams, negotiated a further deal to run Melbourne's train and tram network for five years, receiving about $1 billion in extra subsidies.

When the Bracks Government came to power in 1999, it reviewed the contracts signed by the previous Kennett government with contractors for privatised services. The report outlined a series of objectives that the Government would hold private transport operators accountable to. These included improving the quality of services, ensuring high safety standards were met and, crucially, transferring the risks involved in operating a public transport system to the private operators.

Recent years, and the last month particularly, have shown that the private operators have failed to deliver on these objectives — even with massive injections of public money. As much as commuters might love to hate Connex, though, the private operator is not the problem. Rather, Connex is being used as the whipping boy for the State Government's unwillingness to sort out the dog's breakfast that is Victoria's expensive experiment with privatising public transport.

Unless Connex's franchise is extended (or another party takes a turn at being the whipping boy), at 3am on November 30, 2008, Melbourne's trains and trams will revert to public ownership without the State Government having to pay a single cent of compensation to private operators. It's time for the Bracks Government to admit that privatisation has been a failure and begin preparing to once again run a public transport system.

Sound familiar? Remember this?

Advertiser takes strong stand against pokies

Yesterday's Advertiser came out with a strong editorial against poker machines: "The pokies gamble has failed SA"

For more than a decade, poker machines in hotels and clubs have been the antithesis of Robin Hood – taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The major losers are people in lower socio-economic areas of the metropolitan area and country districts where, coincidentally, the largest number of poker machine hotels and clubs are concentrated. The winners are a select group of multiple-hotel owners – individuals and corporations – and the State Government.

Gambling Minister Paul Caica must begin a serious program of initially reducing the number of poker machines in hotels, and ultimately phasing them out. If the Government fears that people will flood across state borders to feed their craving to gamble or that bans will trigger compensation claims, then perhaps the Federal Government should take national control of poker machines in the same way it is seeking to control the Murray-Darling river system.

.....

Figures obtained by The Advertiser this week suggest that in the current financial year, South Australians will lose more than $800 million on poker machines. The State Government's tax take is likely to exceed $300 million for the first time, while poker machine operators will pocket almost $500 million. These are shameful, reprehensible figures. In a community which has unacceptable levels of poverty, deprivation and homelessness, they are unconscionable...As a community, we have a clear choice – live with the appalling social and economic damage caused by poker machines, or take radical and perhaps politically painful steps to eliminate them. In the end, there is no choice.

These are strong words, with which it's tempting for me to concur as I don't patronise pokies. However, I'm not in favour of removing all pokies unless it can be proven to me (beyond reasonable doubt) that such a step is necessary to reduce problem gambling. There's also the likelihood that reducing gambling outlets will drive the problem, like others, outside the law and thus create another set of problems and consequent need for resource allocation . I'm old enough to remember the days when SP bookies were common.: they were generally considered to be harmless, but the spotlight in those days was rarely turned upon the consequences of their activities.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see if there's much of a debate on the topic. The winners mentioned in the editorial would be a formidable collective adversary to significant attempt at reform.

Fresh charges against Hicks "drafted"

Fresh charges against David Hicks have been drafted by the US Office of Military Commissions as The Age and News.com.au report. The charges are (1) attempted murder and (2) material support for terrorism.

They have to be approved formally and a hearing date set, all of which will take time, so we shouldn't expect much movement for a while, even if, in a Press Conference yesterday Prime Minister Howard has claimed that his "deadline" has been met :

JOURNALIST:

Details of the charges against David Hicks have now been released how are you responding to that?


PRIME MINISTER:

Well they are welcome. I’m glad that the charges are being laid and that the deadline I set has been met. They are very serious charges and that is why we believe they should be dealt with as soon as possible. The delay of the last five years has been very regrettable. Some of that has been due to objections by people including Mr Hicks’ advisers, but a lot of it has been due to the slow process in the United States and I am glad that it has finally come to a situation where charges are being laid. And I would encourage, in a very public way, and we’ll be doing it privately, for the trial to be brought on as soon as possible so the serious charges against Mr Hicks, and they are serious, they allege that in the full knowledge of what happened on the 11th September, he rejoined the Taliban (inaudible) involved through Al Qaeda of course in the attack on the 11th September.

JOURNALIST:

But the charge of attempted murder when it’s been acknowledged by the prosecution that he didn’t fire a gun, isn’t that extraordinary?

PRIME MINISTER:

Look you and I can’t try it, we can only observe they are serious charges, and that is why it should come on and I don’t intend to get into a debate about the substance of the allegations.

[ends]

Not everyone, for example Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy and me, agree with him.

This morning the Kelvin Thomson, the Shadow Attorney-General challenged the validity of the second charge, claiming that it is retrospective. This afternoon the PM appeared to have reverted to washing his hands of the matter:

Mr Howard says what America decides to do is a matter for them.

"I don't equate what the US is doing with the passage of a retrospective criminal law in Australia, making offences that were not criminal offences at the time David Hicks did the things he's alleged to have done, crimes when they weren't at the time," he said.

There has also been speculation that the matter could be resolved by a plea bargain. Another possible solution suggested by Neil James Executive Director of the Australia Defence Association is for Hicks to be brought back to Australia and placed under a control order:

Mr James, a former army interrogator, says everyone in the Hicks debate in Australia had lost track of the reason he was being detained in the first place - "to make sure he does not rejoin the war".

"Because of the constant delays, bungling and breathtakingly bad record in explaining their position, the US authorities have effectively forfeited the option of trying Hicks by a military commission and probably even by a standard court-martial or civil criminal trial," he said.

Releasing the Adelaide man under a control order was the most practical solution, Mr James said.

"It's a win-win situation. Hicks comes home, the Americans get off the hook, the (Australian) Government gets off the hook, the Opposition gets off the hook, the lawyers shut up. There are no losers in this option."

BTW the ADA website has a detailed (if maybe not up to date) summary of how it sees many of the legal issues relating to Hicks' status.

And of course, as Mike Steketee in yesterday's Weekend Australian reminds us, there is also the issue of Hicks' mental health to be considered.

Despite Mr Howard's claims I'm sure that we'll continue to hear more of the issues.

PS I find it interesting that of all the Australian media Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman (the latter only on the Adelaide Now website) seem to have received the most detailed information about the charges. They both refer to, and Bolt quotes at length from, them. I'll wait to see if anyone else makes much of them.