February 2002

Nonetheless, Barrie's performance was only marginally less bizarre than his appearance in front of the Senate Estimates Committee last week. Virtually everyone else in the military chain of command ..had come to the conclusion that no children had been thrown overboard.

Let's be blunt. Barrie's evidence last week - that he still thought children had been thrown overboard - was simultaneously incredible and of enormous benefit to the Howard Government, which then simply hid behind Barrie.

The Prime Minister's rhetorical use of Barrie's statement was demeaning to the ADF and to the politically neutral and respected position it holds. For the PM to mock that the Opposition may have thought they had an Exocet from the Air Marshal, but that this had been harpooned by the Admiral, is a frankly disgraceful way to deal with senior members of the armed forces.

It betrays a willingness to use the ADF as a political plaything. This is very dangerous. The good name the ADF enjoys is a precious flower in Australian life. There is nothing inevitable about it. It didn't exist in the same way in the late 1960s to the late '70s.

..The simple contradiction for Barrie now is that there is no possible excuse for his not knowing what he was talking about at Senate Estimates last week. Anything Barrie knows today he should have known then, as Houston, Brigadier Gary Bornholt, Banks and almost every other uniformed person in Australia did know.

Barrie offers two lines of defence on this. One is that he had only been back in the country 26 hours when he gave evidence to the Senate Estimates Committee. But he had previously commissioned his own inquiry on this. There had been storms of controversy about it.

Most tellingly, a single morning's review of the evidence had shown Houston the truth. How is it possible that Barrie had not reviewed the evidence before going to Senate Estimates?

The other even feebler excuse was that, until he had conclusive evidence, his inclination was to support Banks. This is really an extraordinary proposition because Banks himself was saying no children had been thrown overboard. Banks had sent a cable a couple of days after the incident, fully reconstructing it and making it abundantly clear no child had been thrown overboard. Thus, Barrie's logic has him standing by Banks against . . . Banks!

What are the consequences of all this? Defence is not only damaged in its reputation but seriously split internally.

..The excessive culture of secrecy and information control that pervades Australian national security organisations, and has been exaggerated under the Howard Government, makes this kind of debacle much more likely.

And it's all so unnecessary. The media, like the public, generally supports the ADF. Whatever momentary embarrassments might come from a policy and a culture of being as open as possible are as nothing compared with the dangers of excessive secrecy.

- Greg Sheridan - Aust (Feb 28)

Honourable Hollingworth Should Resign
Peter Hollingworth has made much of the Christian notion of forgiveness in his attempts to avert the escalating crisis of his governor-generalship. But what would an honourable person, a person truly worthy of exalted rank and distinction, do in his circumstances? An honourable person would quit.

John Howard is acting correctly by not sacking the Governor-General. Public opinion is against him but Mr Howard knows Dr Hollingworth has committed no crime. In his view, he did not cover up sexual abuse in the past, nor has he done anything fundamentally wrong in the discharge of his new duties. This defence is growing shakier. However, the Prime Minister also knows there are no established conventions for a Prime Minister to sack the Governor-General for things he supposedly did in a previous working life or simply because he has become unpopular. In the current frenzied atmosphere, it is unclear where this constitutional precedent would lead.

The ball is, as Peter Costello has said, in his court. Yet Dr Hollingworth should not take advantage of both Mr Howard's willingness to defend him and the constitutional delicacy of the situation by stubbornly remaining at Government House. His position has become untenable. There is a bitter political divide in the country over his governor-generalship. And the criticism does not relate only to his actions as Archbishop of Brisbane. His statements as Governor-General, such as the widely condemned suggestion that a 14-year-old girl enticed a priest into sex, displayed an alarming lack of understanding of the nature of sex abuse and the laws against it. His retractions and apologies have not satisfied. As Governor-General, Dr Hollingworth has, moreover, been less than transparent in explaining his past behaviour, despite multiple public statements. As The Australian reports today, he wrote a character reference for Anglican priest Ross McAuley recommending him for the Catholic priesthood. This was after the Brisbane archdiocese sexual abuse committee had recommended he be stood down and accept counselling.

Amid the political controversy, the Governor-General's impartiality would have to be questioned. If he were to exercise his considerable constitutional powers, he would be seen to be acting to preserve his position. A good test to apply is that of ardent constitutional monarchist Lloyd Waddy, who says it is essential a governor-general "remains above the political fray and is free to uphold the constitution". It is difficult for the Governor-General to fulfil that role when he has become such a divisive and partisan figure. He no longer retains the confidence of the public, and reportedly the federal ministry. The federal Labor opposition, most premiers, community groups and even members of his own church have called on him to be sacked or to resign.

Try as he might, Dr Hollingworth can no longer unify the nation. Even a "minimalist" exercise of his constitutional role is difficult if not impossible. Yet the Governor-General is not merely the Queen's representative. He does have a larger role in public life that has evolved in recent decades, although whether it necessarily extends to the "healing" role William Deane advocated is questionable.

Dr Hollingworth apparently has decided he won't resign for the sake of the office or even the Anglican Church. "It is not so much that he is determined to stay because that sounds like he is taking an arrogant or a high-handed approach," his daughter Deborah said yesterday. "But he is currently in that role and I certainly hope he hangs in there." Rather than obstinately hang in there, Dr Hollingworth should re-examine his conscience, do the right thing, and quit.

- The Australian - Editorial (Feb 27)

Hollingworth And His Identity Crisis
[It is] apposite to point out that the discontent surrounding the Queen's representative in Australia goes back to the appointment. Howard should not have offered the position to a bishop - any bishop. And Hollingworth should have declined the appointment.

Traditionally, the Queen's representative in Australia has come from such groups as the judiciary (William Deane, Ninian Stephen, John Kerr), politics (Bill Hayden, Paul Hasluck, Richard Casey), education (Zelman Cowen) and the military (William Slim). All are public institutions and, as such, all are subject to a degree of transparency.

Hollingworth's background, on the other hand, was within a privately funded Christian church. In this sense the Anglican Church is no different from, say, the Catholic, Uniting or Baptist churches, or to a Jewish synagogue or an Islamic mosque. The point is that religious leaders, at any given time, preside over institutions which have an accumulated history of which they may, or may not, be aware.

From the time Howard announced Hollingworth's appointment it was apparent that neither man had thought through the implications of a bishop taking up the position of Governor-General in what is, constitutionally at least, a secular society. Asked about this issue last year, Howard replied that Deane "is a devout practising Catholic" and Hayden "a self-declared atheist". This missed the point that both men's private beliefs were precisely that, private.

Not so the then Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane. Hollingworth was a non-elected delegate to the 1998 Constitutional Convention. Addressing delegates that year, he acknowledged that, when "consecrated" a bishop and "ordained a priest" he "swore an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II". He asked delegates "whether or not those oaths continue to be legally binding". According to the Hansard report, there was no response to this plea for advice.

The confusion continued after the announcement of Hollingworth's appointment. At the April 23 media conference, he said that he "shall, of course, be a bishop for life because that is the nature of holy orders" but recognised that, as Governor-General, he would "not be able to exercise that function in a public way".

..Hollingworth's blurring of the church/state distinction continued in office. On Australian Story he elected to be filmed at prayer in the room at Yarralumla which has been set aside for the saying of his daily office.

The Governor-General is the representative of the Queen for all Australians. Yet a glance at the Vice-Regal News (www.gg.gov.au) indicates that as Governor-General, Hollingworth has chosen to publicly worship in Anglican cathedrals (in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Canberra) and, on occasions, Anglican and Presbyterian churches. That's all.

Compare and contrast the Queen. Despite her position as head of the Church of England, she has made clear gestures to the Catholic Church. In 1995 on a formal visit to Westminster Cathedral, she became the first monarch since the Stuarts to attend a Catholic service. Last December she invited Cardinal Gormac Murphy-O'Connor to preach to the royal family at Sandringham. Another first. In October 2000 the Queen visited the Pope in Rome.

In Australia, where there is a separation between church and state, it makes little sense to appoint religious leaders as governors-general. To succeed in the position, appointees would need to have few (if any) links with their religious past and demonstrate an intention to reach beyond their religious allegiance when in office.

Hollingworth is in difficulties today primarily due to his apparent inability to properly manage issues. However, his ultimate problem stems from the fact that his appointment was not a good idea at the time.

- Gerard Henderson - SMH (Feb 26)

Crean's Lesson In Leadership
When John Howard and Simon Crean held their unprecedented meeting to consider the future of the Governor-General on Thursday morning at Parliament House, the critical moment came with a question from Howard.

After listening to the Opposition Leader's constitutional case against Peter Hollingworth, Howard asked: "I suppose your resolve is to get him to resign?"

"No, John," Crean responded. "My resolve is that he won't resign."

Howard was taken aback, the flicker in his eye betraying the fact that, at that moment, the Prime Minister realised the only way out of this crisis might be for him to sack the Governor-General.

Crean, according to those close to him, believes that was the instant when the reality of what lay ahead crashed on Howard; Hollingworth was not going to make it easy for the Prime Minister who had appointed him.

As a leitmotiv for the constitutional drama now gripping the country, it was apt. It's been Crean, alone among the principal players, who has been enhanced by these events.

After talking to Hollingworth on Thursday, before he spoke to Howard, Crean was already convinced the Governor-General had made up his mind to stay and fight the allegations against him. So when, at the Labor leader's initiative, he and Howard talked, Crean had already made an accurate assessment of Hollingworth's frame of mind.

..Although Howard has performed well under immense pressure, he has been diminished by the very fact that his constitutional defence of Hollingworth – which has its merits – has necessarily meant that he's also been seen to defend the morally indefensible: the Governor-General's attitude to sexual abusers of children.

Hollingworth's moral reduction continues apace. The picture that now emerges is of a man who, when he was in a position to strike a blow against child abuse, chose to do nothing.

..Crean understands this. Howard, as of last night, does not. Some of Howard's supporters are aghast that a Prime Minister who's previously read the public mood so accurately could now get it so badly wrong.

That's a crude political judgment. The fact is, Howard's moral compass is awry on Hollingworth and Crean's is pointing true.

But the quality of Crean's behaviour during this crisis has run deeper than that. Crean has managed almost seamlessly to marry politics, propriety and process.

..It was Crean who made the first call to Hollingworth from Ballarat on December 8. He told the Governor-General personally what he'd said at a media doorstop; that, in light of the original allegations against the Governor-General, it would be in everybody's interests if he made a statement clarifying the issues.

..Crean advised Hollingworth to engage in some symbolism; to offer, for example, to set up a foundation for the victims of child abuse and head it himself. In other words, make a national gesture of contrition.

The advice was ignored.

..[Crean] had behaved impeccably both constitutionally and personally. His dealings with Hollingworth and Howard had been open and proper, and he weighed, in a considered manner, his initial compassion for Hollingworth against the growing weight of evidence against him.

This was the week Simon Crean first looked like an alternate prime minister.

- Glenn Milne - Aust (Feb 25)

This Unseemly Row Is Tainting An Important Office
Peter Hollingworth has refused to fall on his sword and has not been dismissed by John Howard. A decision has been made to ride out the storm. However, unless public confidence is restored, the office will be damaged and support for the role weakened.

..Most of the functions of the governor-general are symbolic and do not involve the exercise of political or legal power. However, he or she does hold vague and undefined reserve powers. These include the capacity to dismiss a prime minister and to determine who should form government after an election. The latter power is now in issue in South Australia, where the governor of that state may act as a result of a hung parliament.

The exercise of the reserve powers propel the governor-general into the role of umpire in times of constitutional crisis. Sir John Kerr took such a role on himself in 1975, when he dismissed the Whitlam government.

The symbolic functions of the office, which often involve representing the nation, as well as the role of constitutional umpire, mean that the governor-general requires the support and confidence of the Australian people as well as our political leaders.

To be above politics, the governor-general relies on bi-partisan support. Indeed, one of the primary concerns during the republic debate of the 1990s was that any Australian president be similarly above politics and not beholden to any one political party.

Recent events have resulted in the Governor-General becoming embroiled in politics rather than being separate from it. It is unfortunate and unfair that this has happened as a result of a trial by media.

It is not the way such issues ought to be resolved. The process of allegation and rebuttal across television networks and programs has proved an undignified and unlikely means of determining the truth of the matter.

Significantly, this has occurred without any real discussion of whether the past matters for which Dr Hollingworth has been criticised are relevant to his current office.

..The call by Simon Crean for the dismissal of the Governor-General .. means the Governor-General now lacks bi-partisan support. This will make it difficult for him to be seen as a suitable umpire in any future constitutional crisis, such as if there is a hung parliament at the next federal election and he is required to play a role in the selection of our next prime minister.

..Unless further substantial allegations come to light, we may have reached a stalemate. Our nation will be poorer for this. Either the air must be cleared or a new governor-general appointed.

..In the longer term, we should reform the office and the rules surrounding it so that, if a question of the suitability of a governor-general arises again, we can deal with it differently - and better - next time.

- George Williams - Age (Feb 22)

Who Should Replace The G-G Whose Race Is Run?
Surely, even to the Governor-General, his certain fate must now be coming into focus. While he might, just might, get through to sundown, one more Sunday program will surely see him out. At the very latest, it is unthinkable that the nation will continue to be dragged through this whole catastrophic affair while the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting takes place in Queensland the week after next.

And while it is a wretched thing to see someone of his ilk rise to such a station and be torn apart by the pressures that go with it, let us equally be in no doubt that he must go.

If not for the weight of evidence which continues to build that as a prelate he provided protection rather than prosecution to those preying on his own flock, then for the sake of the office he holds and the duty he bears to act in a manner which preserves its function.

For the key pillar of the governor-general-ship is widespread respect and, rightly or wrongly, Dr Peter Hollingworth no longer enjoys that.

..The nation needs a "healer" of absolutely impeccable integrity, noted compassion, who, as a people, we implicitly trust and respect.

Could we do better than Sir William Deane? We quite simply have never had a more loved nor inspiring governor-general, and he could take over at five minutes' notice and still know the ropes better than the man he replaced.

..Tim Fischer would have to be a good chance. He enjoys the Prime Minister's trust and admiration and is generally well liked by most of the rest of us, regardless of our political views.

..Jocelyn Newman springs to mind as a good choice, as perhaps our nearest equivalent to the former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson.

As a final nomination, why not Lowitja O'Donoghue? (Apart from the fact that Howard would probably rather put hot knitting needles through his eyes.) She is a fine and deeply respected woman, who could fill the role admirably and help to heal many of the nation's wounds.

And on so many levels that is exactly what we need right now.

- Peter FitzSimons - SMH (Feb 21)

You Sense That Now Even The PM Is Losing Faith
Yesterday [the Governor-General's] political benefactor, the Prime Minister, was still standing by his man, but not, you sensed, with the same unshakable commitment he'd shown when the scandal became public two months ago.

Three times yesterday, during an hour-long press conference mainly to do with the frenzied boat people serial, John Howard was invited to comment on Hollingworth's interview on Monday night. Three times he refused the bait. The Governor-General intended putting out a detailed, written statement, Howard said. "I'm not going to make any further comment until I've seen that statement."

But when someone asked if Hollingworth still had the Prime Minister's confidence, he responded: "Of course he enjoys my confidence." And then, despite his reluctance, Howard did what he'd said he wouldn't do: he got drawn into a discussion about Hollingworth's ABC defence.

Nine's Laurie Oakes asked: "Leaving the Governor-General aside, may I ask your views on a moral question? Firstly, is it a crime for an adult male to have a sexual encounter with an underage female? Secondly, if that happens is it an excuse on the part of the adult male that the child led him on?" Earlier, when a reporter said Hollingworth, in the ABC program, appeared to "condone a priest having sex with an under-age girl", Howard refused any comment.

This time Howard responded to Oakes, whose Nine network colleague John Lyons had put together the weekend program Hollingworth thought such a "disgrace", even though Hollingworth had refused to appear on it to answer various allegations. Howard gave Oakes a legalistic reply. But then he added: "I find anything to do with the interference of children abominable, disgusting, and it's something that repels and is repulsive to all Australians. And I deplore breaches of trust that occur whether in a church organisation or any kind of school. So I mean, it makes my flesh creep."

..John Howard will have to get used to such press conferences. No Governor-General before or since Sir John Kerr has been such a focus of contention and controversy, however different the reasons. By early last night there was still no sign of the detailed, written rebuttal promised by Hollingworth's office yesterday as a follow-up to his ABC interview.

The controversy drags on. Peter Hollingworth cannot shake it, nor will he. His lame if not shameful defence on Monday night will not satisfy his critics, least of all those accusers still lining up to point the finger at his accommodating behaviour as head of the Anglican Church in Queensland and thus his unfitness to remain at Government House.

Hollingworth can insist all he likes he won't be driven out of office. Yet it will only be a matter of time before the smell that surrounds his tenure in Brisbane proves otherwise.

- Alan Ramsey - SMH (Feb 20)

What If The PM Has Lied?
What would have happened if the truth about the children overboard incident had been exposed during the 2001 federal election? We'll never know, to be sure, but it is worth pondering that, had 7657 electors in 11 marginal seats voted the other way, Kim Beazley would be prime minister today.

The retrospective, however, is less important than what lies ahead and whether any concept of accountability can be imposed on this increasingly sorry scene. Such cases reveal the inadequacy of the Westminster system as it has evolved in Australia, thus ensuring that the executive is answerable to the legislature, and through that process, to the Australian people.

..Because the Australian party system is so inordinately and dysfunctionally disciplined, there is no prospect of the majority in the lower house doing other than closing ranks and supporting a prime minister and any of his colleagues who may be found to have lied or to have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid learning the truth.

Main party discipline extends also to the Senate. The days when maverick Liberal senators (such as the late David Hamer) could cross the floor and still secure entry to the party room are long gone. This means that any Senate inquiry won't be free from charges of partisanship. But in the absence of any independent inquiry, it is the best we're likely to get.

Where might it go and what might be its political consequences?

Let's assume the inquiry discovers that the Prime Minister knew - or could reasonably have been expected to know - before election day that the children overboard story was false, yet made no effort to inform the electorate, preferring to have this misconception advance his re-election chances.

Armed with this finding, what can the Senate majority do? First, it could pass a censure motion against the Prime Minister and call on him to resign. But this would have nil effect. Without the threat of any sanction, it will be the same flick with a piece of wet spaghetti, as on previous occasions when ministers have been "censured" by the Senate. Political life will go on and no blow of any sort will have been struck for accountability.

Alternatively, the Senate majority could adopt a more dramatic and decisive posture.. It is within the power of the Senate to make passage of the May Budget dependent upon anything it demands. But we suggest the following (depending upon the gravity of any findings against the PM):

..What does merit consideration is for the Senate to demand the resignation of John Howard as leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party, as a condition for consideration and passage of the Budget. This would have the effect of censuring the current Prime Minister without requiring an election and without occasioning a 1975-style "constitutional crisis" by blocking supply.

..A second option is for the Senate majority to decline to deal with the Coalition Government until Howard is replaced as Liberal leader. There would be no co-operation with the Government's general legislative agenda and there would be a cessation of the normal conventions and civilities. It should be stressed that such a strategy does not constitute a rejection of supply and poses no threat to the routine business of executive government.

..To those cynics who claim that all elections are full of lies and that this is all much ado about nothing, we would say this: There is a considerable difference between dubious promises (no child in poverty, lower inflation or lower unemployment) and an outright, blatant untruth, where ample opportunity exists to correct that untruth. If we don't make that distinction, then our polity is very sick indeed.

- Brian Costar & Paul Rodan - Australian (Feb 19)

Whatever It Takes To Keep Them Out
Years ago in Bjelke-Petersen Queensland, a voter was asked about the performance of her representative in State Parliament.

"I know he's corrupt," she replied, "but he's such a good local member." That's the type of attitude that ensures John Howard will survive political squalls from the children-overboard debacle.

There's no suggestion Mr Howard is corrupt.

However, a large chunk of the national electorate is prepared – even keen – to accept the government did some dodgy things to keep out boat people.

These voters don't see the current debate for what it is: About the credibility of the government following revelations that boat people did not toss their children into the water on October 7.

In their view it's all about the border protection policy, and they believe it's under attack and they don't want it changed.

Some think the Government was indeed a bit dodgy – and they think that's terrific. Anything to keep out the boats.

At least one voter, and probably there are more, argues the government would not have had to lie if those people hadn't tried to get here illegally.

[The Liberal Party] is being reassured that many voters are not bothered by the claims that the government has been meandering with the truth, or didn't break records confirming the information.

And the Liberals know one overriding fact: It will be three years until the next election, by which time voters will be even less fussed about the current issues.

Prime Minister Howard has attempted to play down the impact of the child-overboard story on the election campaign. He wasn't asked about it by reporters for 16 days after October 10, he says, as if this established it was a piffling matter.

He is being disingenuous.

Back on October 7 the government still was not confident about the acceptability of its border protection policy in the electorate. Would it be managable? Would voters adopt it in the long term?

Then came the story of babies being fed to the sharks – well, almost – and ministers fell on it like ravenous dogs on a T-bone. It was just the emotive, emblematic account they needed to endorse their policy.

It no longer was a matter of keeping people out. It was now a matter of keeping THESE people out.

- Malcolm Farr - Daily Telegraph (Feb 18)

Lies, Smirks And A Nation Deceived
One of the most disgusting things I have seen on television recently is the statements John Howard and Phillip Ruddock have been making to Parliament. Both deny any responsibility for the children-overboard deception, apparently without any shame.

At some level, this Government is guilty of lying to the Australian people in the most disgraceful manner. Yet John Howard apparently proposes to punish nobody and not even to apologise.

I can recall vividly how sensational the story was last October, and how sceptical many people were. I can recall how the Government stood by the story in the most unambiguous terms, despite being fully aware of the doubts.

For the Prime Minister to now claim he acted in a proper manner is an insult to the nation's intelligence.

We are expected to believe ministerial staff knew the truth but did not tell their ministers.

If this is so, presumably it is because Howard and his ministers have made it known this is the way they want to approach issues of truth and accountability.

At the very least, all the staff involved should be dismissed immediately. In 1997, John Howard sacked his chief adviser, Grahame Morris, and another staffer, Fiona McKenna, for failing to tell him one of his ministers had rorted his travel allowance.

Morris denied being told about the rort, yet he still went. In this case, an investigation has revealed that staff knew the truth and yet said nothing. They must go.

If they do not, John Howard is effectively admitting he and his colleagues pay their staff to help them lie to the Australian people.

..Opposition Leader Simon Crean has said that as a result of the lies, the Government's success on November 10 was a "dirty victory". This is only fair.

Thanks to the Tampa, the Coalition had the election in the bag but it got greedy and went too far, just as it did back in 1975.

John Howard, like Malcolm Fraser before him, won a victory whose moral legitimacy will forever be open to question – and in both cases it was all so unnecessary.

The hard-heads in the Coalition will read this with their habitual smirks and tell each other that it's tough at the top, the end justifies the means and voters will soon forget.

But they are wrong. History shows the voters will ignore arrogance for awhile, but eventually grow impatient and chuck the Government out.

This Government is showing some of the arrogance that brought down Paul Keating.

..the Government appears to be using the defence forces to spy on Australian citizens and is trying to pass legislation that would jail public service whistleblowers.

It even has banned taking photographs of politicians in the House of Representatives after a photograph of Alexander Downer was published pulling ridiculous faces from the front bench.

Each of these activities in itself ought to be repugnant to an allegedly liberal government. That Australia is now governed by a gang of liars behind all of them is deeply disturbing.

- Michael Duffy - Daily Telegraph (Feb 16)

Howard's Government Has Lost Its Moral Legitimacy
So the truth of the overboard children is now coming to light. Leaving aside the overall issue of the treatment of asylum seekers, itself indicative of the erosion of the liberal underpinnings of Australia's system of government, these revelations have a number of implications for democracy.

First we have an election now clearly seen to be won on the back of misrepresentation, vilification and appeal to prejudice. The historical parallels are unfortunately many, and some are more infamous than others but they don't come from stable developed democracies and many come from democracies in serious decline.

Second, the cover-up for political advantage by ministers and their senior staff was a perversion of the duty of the public service (including the defence forces) to the Australian people. At any time this would raise serious questions. However, what makes it particularly significant and heinous is that it was done during an election campaign by a government in caretaker mode.

Thus the Coalition's actions have again broken a fundamental underlying precedent and principle of the Westminster system. By continuing to (ab)use the levers of power for advantage while in caretaker mode, the government has established a precedent for governments in directly using the power of government to win elections.

..During an election campaign, executive power is effectively vacated while the people choose who will hold office in the next term. Thus caretaker mode is a fundamental aspect of the legitimacy of the Westminster democratic system.

However, this government appears to have (a) used its executive power to suppress information from public servants, and (b) presented a lie as something verified by that public service.

Thus the Coalition has set a precedent that shifts the conduct of the election contest even further in the incumbent's favour. This is a pattern we might see in weak or tottering democracies in Africa or Latin America; for Australia it represents a tumour on the body politic.

Third, apart from revealing that John Howard would apparently be prepared to do anything to stay in power, the lack of remedy within our political system for this fraud is disturbing.

In many other democracies it would not be unreasonable that impeachment of the chief executive would now be being considered.

..Finally, at the very least, the public and the opposition parties must conclude that the government should not be considered to have a "mandate" for any of its policies.

It won office by less than 1 per cent of the two-party vote and even the most conservative estimate would put the vilification of refugees, of which the overboard children was a centrepiece, and the manufactured Tampa crisis as worth at least 3-5 per cent of the vote. Without this fraud the opposition would probably be in power.

By the standards of a liberal democracy, the Howard Government has lost its moral legitimacy.

- Tony Phillips - Age (Feb 15)

Misuse Is Damaging Our Spies
The Howard Government is not really a conservative Government at all. A distinguishing characteristic of a genuine conservative is an appreciation of the value of the great institutions of state and society, whereas the Howard Government has relentlessly politicised, and therefore damaged, the defence forces and now intelligence agencies.

The Defence Signals Directorate is one of our most important institutions. It is the crown jewel of our intelligence network, as big and important as all the other intelligence agencies combined. Although we have been doing signals intelligence since the 1930s, the DSD was formalised shortly after World War II. It is built on a great network of listening posts around the perimeter of Australia..

..The basic rule of the DSD is that it spies on foreigners overseas. The Daily Telegraph this week broke a story that the Government intercepted communications between the Tampa and Australians, and used the information for political purposes.. ..Australia has an excessively secretive culture about all this. The US National Security Agency has released thousands of transcripts of intercepts several decades old. Our governments have never released one DSD intercept.

..Defence Minister Robert Hill saying that communications from the Maritime Union of Australia were not "targeted" leads us to assume that such communications were intercepted because it was the Tampa, rather than the MUA, that was being targeted.

Was such information then used for political purposes? Can you imagine Peter Reith, the then defence minister, doing such a thing?

..One problem is that this Government has a lot of form. The Prime Minister, the Immigration Minister and Reith all slandered the boatpeople last year with the most shocking allegations that they had thrown their children into the sea. It now seems that this was complete rubbish. When Howard was challenged on it, he said only that these statements were based on advice from the defence forces.

This is symptomatic of a wider problem. Partly because of the war against terror but also for many other reasons, the defence forces and the broad concept of national security enjoy overwhelming public support. What the Government constantly does is misuse that support for short-term political ends .. if you constantly politicise them, eventually you alienate significant sections of the community, which turn against defence and national security. This is what the US and Australian governments did during the Vietnam War..

The people who suffer in the long run are the decent men and women of the defence forces and the intelligence agencies. You can see it already in the disgust so many navy personnel feel at being tasked to persecute refugees. More generally, using defence forces as police changes the relationship between the citizen and the military.

- Greg Sheridan - Aust (Feb 14)

Indefensible Breach Of Privacy
The revelation that the Howard Government deployed the resources of the Defence Signals Directorate during the Tampa crisis last year to confer upon itself a political advantage constitutes much more than a breach of public trust.

The first effect will be to undermine the integrity of the DSD, which is only supposed to pass on the details of the signals intercepts of Australians (including phone calls, faxes and email) in cases of a serious criminal offence, a threat to the life and safety of Australian citizens, or if there is a suspicion that an Australian is acting as an agent of a foreign power.

..In the intelligence world, a distinction is preserved between agencies that spy overseas (the CIA and ASIS, for example) and those concerned with domestic counter-intelligence (such as the FBI and ASIO). The use of the DSD to spy on Australians engaged in legitimate legal activities breaks down an important Chinese wall that most Western governments believe is a vital ingredient of personal liberty and public confidence within all liberal democracies.

Citizens in free societies only agree to surrender their privacy and freedom under the most exceptional circumstances, and only then with appropriate guarantees and safeguards.

..Surely no one seriously believes that some of the world's most wretched people, who found their way to the Tampa in a desperate state, constituted a threat to Australia's national security. The revelation of DSD surveillance begs the question of why it was necessary at all. The captain of the Tampa was happy to explain his dilemma to anyone who cared to ask. His shipping company, the Harbour Master of Christmas Island, the Australian Government and anyone else who had the ship's phone number could have discovered his intentions and situation.

..Clearly the privacy of a number of Australians has been breached, which suggests that laws supposed to protect us all from illegal electronic surveillance by governments are grossly inadequate. Retrospective inquiries by a hamstrung Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will do little to assuage well-founded community concerns.

DSD has a special responsibility to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law because of its extensive powers and the fact that its work is almost entirely concealed from the public. It can only exist as long as the public trusts governments to use its powers ethically and legally. This trust has now been broken.

- Scott Burchill - Aust (Feb 13)

After This Disaster, Everyone Plays The Blame Game
The Democrats' result on the weekend represents more than just a hiccup. That the party suffered a decline in support of something like 50 per cent is serious. That it suffered a collapse of such magnitude in its heartland, South Australia, is very serious indeed.

..After the federal election, the South Australian Democrats realised that electoral success does not necessarily follow celebrity. Some risks were taken, particularly with regard to media stunts, but candidates worked long and hard, especially in those seats identified as possible wins. If people want to blame Stott Despoja for the federal result on the basis of presidential campaign style, they can hardly blame her low-profile approach in South Australia. Whatever the reason, though, the campaign didn't work.

..Some have suggested that the slide in Democrat support in recent times is due to the party being seen as too "professional", and as having surrendered some of its moral legitimacy to the Greens.

..Stott Despoja's response to the South Australian collapse, in a media statement on Sunday, was a curious blend of revisionism and an admission of confused identity.

..Under Lees the party was clear that its role was to negotiate Democrat policy into legislation via its numbers in the Senate. Stott Despoja has been at the helm for nine months and I can't think of a chief executive who would be content to lead an organisation for this long without a firm understanding of its core business. Her call for a "strategic review" would have made more sense had it come immediately after her assumption of the leadership.

The national executive, the parliamentary wing and all divisions must now conduct a fearless and rigorous review of the federal and South Australian elections. Absolutely everything must be on the table, including the possibility that the membership erred in changing leaders on the basis of two election results that, in hindsight, were only mildly disappointing. There are also serious constitutional matters to address including the capacity of the membership to force a leader upon a reluctant party room.

The Democrats have been in dire straits before. They've always bounced back and there is nothing to suggest that they can't do it again. This time, though, they're going to have to make some tough decisions - sooner rather than later.

- John Schumann - Age (Feb 12)

Southern Decline Won't Ruin The Party
Amid speculation about the Australian Democrats leadership and some unseemly gloating from senior Liberals following the South Australian election at the weekend, bear in mind several facts.

South Australia is still the Democrats' best state, where their vote and parliamentary representation has been consistently highest and from where four of their seven leaders have come. Their stellar 16 to 17 per cent vote in the 1997 election was a high point never likely to be replicated, the result of a combination of factors no longer applicable. Its legacy – the second legislative councillor on the ticket – means that, with Sandra Kanck's return on Saturday, the party retains its complement of three in an upper house of 22 for the next four years. As in the Senate, the South Australian Democrats are cushioned against immediate electoral retribution.

..A state-wide vote of about half the 1997 tally (and much the same as in November's federal election) is disappointing. Still, it does not spell disaster.. Given that neither Labor nor the Liberals have an upper house majority, the three seasoned Democrats there will still wield constructive influence.

Nevertheless, the fact that the Democrats were once again reduced to their core of about 7 to 8 per cent in their key state does have some worrying implications. But calls for leadership change at the national level would be premature. After all, this was an election in which federal issues played little or no role.

..As a party always heavily reliant on the votes of the uncommitted and protest voters, the Democrats appear to have lost out in first-preference votes to the positive smorgasbord of alternative parties and individuals that stood on this occasion.

..Although the Democrats are the original environmental party in South Australia, as a more mature and more mainstream party, there are signs that they may already be losing some of the youth and activist vote to the emerging Greens.

Finally, if this election has illustrated anything, it is that voters need a clear idea of what a party stands for – and to have confidence that, once elected, its members can deliver. For small parties, policy promises mean little, as their power is confined to exerting influence, but their willingness to speak publicly for their causes and work behind the scenes to achieve them is vital.

Over time, the public perception of the Democrats could become a little blurred, as they are accepted as a significant minor party, rather than a radical alternative.

The Democrats have generally been excellent parliamentarians in the best sense of the word. This will continue to be the case in South Australia and in the Senate. In contrast to rumours about personal rivalries and power plays, such work seldom makes headlines.

- Jenny Tilby Stock - Australian (Feb 11)

The Cancer Of Distrust That's Consuming Labor
Wayne Swan, federal Labor frontbencher, prominent member of the party's right in Queensland, and a member of Kim Beazley's inner circle when the latter was opposition leader, made headlines recently by urging the ALP to adopt US-style primary elections for the preselection of parliamentary candidates. This would demolish the factional system, of course, which is why the responses from the factional godfathers ranged from a terse "No" to "It ought to be debated", which is faction-speak for "No, and what's he really up to, anyway? He knows we've got the numbers to make sure it can't happen."

..Swan is correct in seeing the factional system as a far graver threat to Labor's electoral prospects than the party's relationship with the unions.. The notion that someone might turn up at a polling booth, poised to place 1 next to the name of the ALP candidate because of the appeal of Labor's policies on education, health care, tax credits or whatever, but then decide not to do so because the unions control 60 per cent of votes at party conferences, is utterly risible. People may answer "Yes" when opinion pollsters ask them if the unions exert too much influence over the party, but this answer is an unreliable indicator of electoral choices.

The factions, on the other hand, are the instruments by which rank-and-file ALP members, and the considerable number of people who identify themselves as Labor voters, have been progressively excluded from any say in the formation of policy or in choosing the party's leaders.

The factions are a reflection of the deepest malaise afflicting the practice of democratic politics, and not only in Australia: the sense of powerlessness among voters that expresses itself in cynicism about representative institutions, and that makes people susceptible to the rhetoric of xenophobes like Pauline Hanson and the anti-political movements they lead. The same sense of powerlessness also makes possible the wedge politics of conservatives like John Howard and Tony Abbott, with its demonisation of ill-defined "elites".

..The continuing power of the factions .. is one means by which Labor sends voters a message that it is not really committed to the implementation of its social-democratic creed. They have got used to hearing that message in many ways in the past two decades.

Swan .. noted that he joined the ALP because of its long tradition of "promoting and delivering fairness and justice for average working people and a hand up for those who have fallen behind".

Small wonder, then, that in the catalogue of Labor achievements he includes in the speech, only one, Medicare, can be dated after 1975. I doubt that we will ever hear someone say without irony, "I joined the ALP because it deregulated the financial system, eliminated protection for Australian industry and abolished free tertiary education".

And there was that great instance of distrust for the judgment of ordinary people, Labor's refusal to countenance a republican constitution in which the people themselves choose their head of state.

- Ray Cassin - The Age (Feb 10)

Hollingworth Has Nowhere To Hide
Peter John Hollingworth spent all his working life in the service of the Anglican Church until John Howard made him Governor-General 10 months ago. Hollingworth was a bishop, then an archbishop, before ever he was the Queen's man. His church, like any church, is nothing if it does not offer faith and moral leadership. And on the eve of his 67th birthday (in April) faith and moral leadership are what Hollingworth has represented for the better part of half a century. Now that image is grievously tainted. The squalid revelations of a squalid court case that ended, ironically, just before Christmas say so. Yet few seem to realise how grave the issue is for the Governor-General and his political benefactor, the Prime Minister.

Here was an Anglican Church school, the prestigious Toowoomba Preparatory School, accused during four weeks of evidence by former students, staff and parents of having sought to cover up the pedophile behaviour of a teacher, Kevin George Guy.. And not just covered up by school authorities.. By the church itself. 1990 was the very year Hollingworth was appointed .. to be the Most Rev Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane.

That is the period Hollingworth became complicit in events mishandled by the Toowoomba school authorities and the Anglican diocese of Brisbane in hushing up, for legal reasons and the school's reputation, Guy's suicide and the detail of his predatory behaviour.. The day police charged Guy, on November 30, 1990, was the day Hollingworth was first told of the scandal. He had been archbishop only a matter of months. And although the 12-year-old girl's anguished parents later wrote to him, as did a school nurse on Christmas Day horrified that school authorities were seeking to "cover up" the reasons for Guy's suicide, Hollingworth, to his later professed regret, did nothing that conflicted with church legal advice that the school admit nothing, apologise to nobody and inform only the parents of the 20 girls named in Guy's suicide note.. ..the whole sorry business went into open court on November 13 last year - three days after the federal election - and Hollingworth's name was publicly linked in questioning terms.. it is difficult to imagine Howard would have gone ahead with Hollingworth's appointment to Yarralumla had he been aware of the pending civil court action and the squalid, tragic detail it would set loose around the archbishop's name and behaviour 11 years ago.

..In the end, Hollingworth insisted on defending himself.. Yet in defending himself, Hollingworth could only fall back on legalisms and grubby matters of money.. There is a great deal of unhappy detail unearthed by the court case that will bedevil Hollingworth for a long time to come. Almost two months after Guy's suicide, Hollingworth met for three hours with the then school headmaster who, at one point, offered to resign. Hollingworth rejected the offer. From that point of direct personal involvement, irrespective of his moral obligations to the school's students, there was no way from there on Hollingworth could ever argue the affair had nothing to do with him. None at all.

..The Anglican Church and its servants grossly mishandled the repercussions of one predatory teacher's rampant pedophilia 11 years ago. Yet they have only just begun to reap the whirlwind. It is inconceivable that Hollingworth can survive, however long it may be before he inevitably resigns as Governor-General.

- Alan Ramsey - SMH (Feb 9)

Shooting The Messenger - And Loving Every Minute Of It
For young Australians in particular, this week's duping of two current affairs programs by cultural-jammers was a classic moment in television. Irreverence and payback all rolled into one delicious con. The jammers revelled in using the tools these shows employ to give them a taste of their own medicine. That they did so on the program's turf and in prime time made this a true highlight. If my discussions with young people are any guide, you can expect to see a lot more of this happening. Theirs is a generation that does not believe in sacred cows and hates condescension even more.

For those who missed the fun, a group calling itself the Dole Army fed a bogus story to A Current Affair and Today Tonight. The Web site it offered as proof of its supposed activities described it as "an independent collective existing solely to give unemployed and other Australian welfare recipients a voice". They were dole advocates who lived a secret life in hidden drains surviving on taxpayer handouts and encouraging others to join. The programs ran their stories simultaneously and in a manner befitting their trademark outrage.

"We approached them with exactly the kind of story they love and they lapped it up like dogs," said the Dole Army's Emma Goldman. "They enjoy nothing more than victimising the poor and unemployed. We did it to avenge the Paxtons [referring to an infamous A Current Affair story about three unemployed siblings]."

Speak to young Australians and the depth of their media and advertising nous is quickly apparent. Their constant exposure has enabled them to easily deconstruct the media, understand the devices the media use and the ratings forces that drive them. It is not that they do not like the media; they love them and admit being addicted to them. What they hate is having the wool pulled over their eyes - in this case, the feigned outrage on behalf of taxpayers. And they despise hypocrisy.

..They desperately seek credibility from the media. They love shows such as Media Watch for exposing media fakes and for keeping journalist on their toes. They loved Frontline, The Election Chaser and The Games for telling it like it really is. And they love South Park and The Simpsons for their no-holds-barred mocking of social hypocrisy and political correctness.

..Young people's adeptness with new technology gives them a power to communicate just as effectively as the institutions they are targeting.

- Neer Korn - SMH (Feb 8)

Time And Tide Against The Border Patrol
How long do you reckon it will be before a Liberal government is awarding honours to distinguished businessmen who began their entrepreneurial careers as people smugglers? It won't happen next week, but the idea's not nearly as fanciful as you may think. If it shocks you, that's because you're not seeing our present preoccupation with asylum seekers in a wide enough context.

..What many people are missing is that it's really the latest episode in a much bigger and longer-running story: our old friend globalisation.. Regardless of how this batch of boat people is eventually categorised, it's the economic motives for migration that are more significant. Doubtless, refugees will always be with us, but it's economic migration that's on the rise.

We're not the only country beset by unauthorised immigrants; most countries are. And our barriers to immigration are no higher than most. That's the point: these restrictions on immigration are globalisation's last frontier - the last remaining barrier to free flows between countries.

And the same pressures that have broken down the barriers to the free flow of information, ideas, goods and services, capital investment, technical know-how and money are now working to bring down barriers to the free flow of people.

..There's nothing wrong with economic migration - and certainly nothing new. After the world's first experience of globalisation - in the 50 years or so leading up to World War I - about 10 per cent of the world's population had moved permanently to a new country.

..So we can expect the forces that are driving globalisation to keep up the pressure for easier immigration. There'll be ever-growing crowds of workers from developing countries seeking admission to all the rich countries - with plenty of the more desperate ones arriving on our doorstep unannounced. But that's just the half of it. The forces of globalisation will be reinforced by the consequences of the rich countries' aging populations.

John Howard came out of the closet in New York, declaring that "we have to push ahead with globalisation". He didn't express any such sentiment during last year's election campaign. Indeed, I don't believe he allowed that wicked word even to cross his lips.

Rather, he whipped up public resentment of the boat people as a way of distracting voters' attention from their discontent about globalisation and competition policy, and uniting them against a supposed external enemy.

He cast himself as the leading opponent of this latest of globalisation's depredations, standing on our shore, shaking his fist in the face of the foreign invaders, shouting: "WE decide who comes to this country!"

Time, I fear, may render that an utterance in the long tradition of Canute.

- Ross Gittins - SMH (Feb 6)

Inhumane Mood Betrays The Golden Rule
Since September 11 some disturbing tendencies have risen throughout the Western world, one might say especially in the United States and Australia. Nothing can ever justify what was done to the World Trade Centre and to the Pentagon. They were barbaric acts and certainly deserve the heaviest penalties. War against terrorism needs to be pursued but the horror of the events and the damage those events caused should not preclude a debate about how we go about our business.

A matter of concern seems to be that people involved in such things are now seen as so terrible, so outside the civilised world, that we no longer need treat them as people. Behaviour on our part, which we would otherwise condemn, is thus accepted and condoned.

The world has had a long march, through some two centuries, to try to create civilised behaviour. The Geneva conventions were a landmark.. There is no part in the convention which says: "If my enemy does not treat me decently, I need not treat him decently." There is nothing in the conventions that suggests condemnation of a particular act provides justification for unreasonable, alien or unjust behaviour. The conventions do not allow exceptions on the grounds of necessity or self-defence. People detained as war criminals from the last World War, from wars since, the wars in the Balkans, were all treated according to these conventions.

It would appear that some alleged war criminals in the Balkans were responsible for more deaths than Osama bin Laden in relation to the World Trade Centre. Nobody has said that therefore justifies that they may be held in unusually harsh conditions or that they do not deserve basic human treatment. But now there is a subtle acceptance in the air: these terrorists are so evil that we ourselves do not need to behave with common humanity. In the minds of many, they are judged guilty without trial, without "due process".

I also read into this a strong element of racism, because it is easier for people to move into that thought mode because the people concerned are Iraqis, Afghans and Muslims. If they were Caucasian and Christian, would that alter the judgement?

..There is a golden rule that should govern the behaviour of all democracies, indeed all people, if we want a civilised world. That golden rule proclaims that all people, endowed with reason and conscience, must accept a responsibility to each and all, to families and communities, to races, nations and religions in a spirit of solidarity: "What you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to others."

- Malcolm Fraser - SMH (Feb 5)

Who Says We Are In The Doghouse?
In the eyes of much of the world, the Australians of today are a relaxed, self-confident people, at ease with themselves. Which makes it very strange that many Australians – and in particular those who take it upon themselves to represent the country's conscience – spend much of their time agonising over what the world thinks about us, and convincing themselves that we are in the doghouse.

..A recent editorial in Sydney's Sun Herald was expressing the current orthodoxy in those circles when it declared: "Once again, we are being condemned at the court of world opinion as callous and inhumane."

At one level, this sort of obsession may represent a form of vanity, in that it assumes that the world is constantly scrutinising and reacting to events in Australia. As anyone who has lived abroad knows, this isn't so. Indeed, in many parts of the world for long stretches of time good peripheral vision is required to be aware of Australia at all.

..Has the refugee issue really changed all this? Who is it exactly who regards us as "callous and inhumane"? Who is it who sits in that "court of world opinion"?

Is it perhaps Japan, which is notoriously hostile to accepting immigrants? Or is it China, with its improving but still very bad record on human rights? Or India, which operates an informal caste system and has made a practice of burning villages in Kashmir? Or again, it might be Indonesia's shock at our behaviour that we have to worry about, now that it has stopped killing people in Timor and only occasionally indulges in assassination.

..But, of course, these are not really the countries that Australia's intellectuals have in mind when they talk of "world opinion". In so far as they have countries in mind, they are talking about those of the West, that is of Europe and North America, which together account for only about 13 per cent of the world's population. It is before the West, in particular, that Australia should feel ashamed.

The truth is that there is no such thing as "world opinion", let alone a "court" of the same. What we have is a variety of contending and shifting opinions, reflecting different values, interests and states of knowledge. To try to elevate one, or some combination, of these to the status of "world opinion" simply represents an attempt to gain advantage in debate on the cheap. It clarifies nothing and validates nothing. And note that those who appeal most readily to its supposed moral authority, as representing a sort of global majority verdict, are the same people who are most reluctant to grant any such authority to the expressed views of a real majority in their own country.

- Owen Harries - Australian (Feb 4)

The Dirty Deeds That May Bring Dubya Undone
George W. Bush is overseeing an unprecedented expansion in the projection of American power, not a retreat. He is contemptuously dismissive of the notion that the US should be bound by international treaty obligations. He warns world leaders that if they do not stand with him in his open-ended war against terrorism he will presume that they are against him, and treat them accordingly. His administration is the beneficiary of an economy that, although it had begun to slow even before September 11, drives world trade and capital flows. And, far from being mired in a land war with a small country it cannot defeat, the US possesses such overwhelming military superiority that it can defeat small countries such as Afghanistan by air power alone.

..Bush .. faces a domestic crisis that, when historians write their accounts of his administration, may well overshadow the aggressive, confident mood flowing from the attacks of September 11 and the war against terrorism. Bush did not mention the failed Texan energy corporation Enron in his State of the Union address to Congress last week, although, in between the diatribes against "rogue states" such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea, there were some remarks about the need for greater probity in American business.

..The 250 members of Congress who have also received donations from Enron, including members of both parties and 71 of the 100 senators, were no doubt gladthat the President had so little to sayabout a scandal that is steadily pushing war-on-terrorism stories aside on America's front pages.

..The fallout from Enron is descending upon both branches of government, and upon an entire generation's enthusiasm for the alleged virtues of unregulated markets as well. Dubya has already demonstrated his indifference to the separation of powers proclaimed by the constitution: the establishment of secret military tribunals to try and execute terrorists is scarcely compatible with the notion of an independent judiciary. The Enron saga may teach him, too late, why constitutions set limits to power, and why those who wield power are expected to account for their exercise of it.

- Ray Cassin - The Age (Feb 3)

Government Power Is The Big Media Threat
When Guglielmo Marconi sent his first radio messages across the English Channel in 1899 .. he gave politicians what they had always wanted: the power to control the media. The Howard Government's proposals for new media ownership rules, like those of the Hawke-Keating government 15 years ago, will be part of the continuing attempt by politicians to work out how they can best use that power to their own advantage.

..To maintain order instead of potential bedlam in the air, governments allocated bands of the radio spectrum for specific uses and issued licences to operate within those bands. These included licences to operate radio and TV broadcasting stations.

..Licensing is an exercise in power. It tends to corrupt. It encourages patronage and preference for private over public interest. The Howard Government has already dispensed with the public interest. Its filibuster about the introduction of new digital technology, used as an excuse to prohibit the establishment of new TV stations until 2007, is a blatant preference of private over public interest. It protects the interests, including the capital values, of existing TV broadcasters - the Packers (Nine Network), Kerry Stokes (Seven) and the Canadian Izzy Asper (Ten).

The emergence of aggressive new forces in radio appears to anticipate opportunities for further concentration of ownership... The great diversity and immediacy which were radio's unique qualities are disappearing. During and after the recent Sydney bushfires this was a criticism made of 2WS FM which stuck to its pre-programmed music instead of broadcasting fire reports. The station is half owned by Clear Channel.

..But further cross-media takeovers should not be allowed. If the Packers want a newspaper in Sydney or Melbourne, let them start one. They don't need a licence. That makes it a dim prospect. Apart from their magazines, the Packer companies thrive on government licences.

..The Internet is the white hope for the future. It offends important people. Politicians don't control it. But they're working on it.

- V.J. Carroll - SMH (Feb 2)

Stop Mandatory Detention. It Has Failed
The demonisation of asylum seekers proceeds apace with the new assertion by ministers, trumpeted around Australia, that we don't want people in Australia who would sew their children's lips together.

This is part of a consistent pattern of demonising through untruths and half-truths so that, as Australians, we can justify treating asylum seekers as less than human. If they are sub-human, they do not require of us respect and compassion.

..It is no excuse for the Prime Minister and ministers to wash their hands and say they are merely responding to public attitudes. They deliberately created this hostility and xenophobia for political advantage. They succeeded in doing what Pauline Hanson failed to do.

It is one of the oldest and most disreputable tricks in human history to focus fear on the outsider and the foreigner. In our history we have done just that to Irish Catholics, Germans in South Australia, Jews and Asians. In time we came to congratulate ourselves what great citizens they became.

Scapegoating foreigners appeals to the worst in each of us. But we each have a better part waiting to be appealed to.

..Australia is the only western country that mandatorily imprisons asylum seekers. In the end this policy will have to be abandoned, as other countries have done. Releasing women and children into the community is only a face-saving half-measure.

..An undertaking should be given to close down Woomera - that "hell hole" as described by Malcolm Fraser. Or, if not closed, it could be run by a consortium of voluntary agencies.

..But in the end the government must abandon its xenophobia and punishment of the vulnerable and traumatised. It must abandon mandatory imprisonment. It doesn't work.

- John Medadue - The Age (Feb 1)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------