Dear Sole Subscriber,

Labor strategists apparently want Kevin Rudd -- failed leader; potential rat -- back on the campaign trail. The vanquished prime minister's journalist-of-choice Peter Hartcher writes today of the ALP's "desperate plea".

That's how bad this election campaign has become. Even Rudd looks like a positively colourful intervention.

And then there's Bob Hawke, on the hustings in red-blooded Lindsay yesterday, stealing all the thunder from Labor candidate David Bradbury. As Bernard Keane writes from Sydney today: "Perhaps it’s nostalgia for a simpler age, a time when politicians were real leaders."

Certainly none of those in this campaign.

How did we get here? Gillard's smart and sassy, as good a parliamentary speaker as any, presumably with more complexity to her belief in the 'fair go' than she's letting on. Abbott is engaged and genuinely engaging -- with a book-full of personal narrative and political belief. There's enough different about Tony and Julia, and enough common ground, to inspire a worthy debate of ideas.

Yet Labor reaches for its yesterday's heroes. And the Liberals talk about knife-crime.

Keane reports the good people of Penrith have tuned out -- if in fact they were ever tuned in. Both sides have nobody to blame but themselves.

It’s a long way out to Penrith from most places in Sydney, even on the motorways that have sprung up to connect the sprawling west of Sydney. You drive at high speed for an hour and, not long before you think you’re about to hit the mountains, there you are.

I’ve come out to see David Bradbury on the stump in Lindsay, the seat he wrested off the Liberals in 2007. With Labor’s mid-year poll slump, it had been written off as likely to return to the Liberals, borne by, in Steve Fielding’s words, the “tsunami of boats” arriving at Christmas Island.

Since the Liberals preselected 33-year old marketing manager Fiona Scott, Bradbury’s chances appear to have improved. Scott stumbled in her initial public outings and has kept a low profile since. I don’t spot a single poster of Scott the whole time I’m in the area.

Unlike much of outer western Sydney, Penrith has history, 200 years of it, apparent even from driving down High Street, the main drag. The local Anglican church, 170 years old, is on the left. On the right, a row of old terrace houses seemingly cut-and-pasted from inner Sydney. Stay on High Street and eventually you get to a more recent institutional arrival, Westfield Penrith. But before you get there, you pass the creative destruction of previous retail conglomeration efforts -- half-empty malls, boarded-up shopfronts, empty shops run by cranky-looking proprietors.

It’s not the harbinger of a depressed economy, however; even though unemployment  in outer-western Sydney is higher than the national average, it’s still at levels that would have been marvelled at in the 1990s.

It’s into one of these retail battlefields that Bradbury comes, for a long-standing 'Pollies for Small Business' event -- he’s spending some time working behind the counter at Linda’s Broadwalk Cafe. The cafe is between two beauty salons and across from what used to be a third. Bradbury arrives, dons an apron and is straight into it, though he’s missed the lunchtime rush so he gets to clear tables, clean bench tops and have a lesson on working the coffee machine. The 'Broadwalk', being off the main drag, isn’t overrun with traffic, although Linda says she gets plenty of custom from people using the car park on the other side and heading through to High Street.

She and her partner, who runs a scrap-metal business, have done a two-year business basics course and have done better than they expected, possibly because they serve good coffee. Outside, another retailer wanders out of his shop and complains to Bradbury’s staff about people using a nearby cement plant holder as an ashtray. They get his details and promise to raise it with the local council, of which Bradbury used to be mayor. Retail politics, literally.

Heading back to his office, Bradbury gives his potted bio -- born and raised across in Fairfield, Arts-Law at Sydney Uni (the foundation for many a great career), into local governments politics at a young age, a rapid rise in tax law at Blake Dawson Waldron, serial goes at winning Lindsay.

A loitering retailer buttonholes him as we walk to complain about the GST and why it's levied on services. He agrees the administrative burden needs to be looked at but says the tax is 10 years old and earns vast amounts of money for the states. The retailer -- a hairdresser -- complains that tradesmen offer him a price “with GST” or “without GST”.

“The GST was supposed to stop the cash economy,” Bradbury says, the former tax lawyer coming to the fore in a flash. “Instead it’s just quantified the cash economy at 10%. If tradesmen do that, always ask for a receipt from them.”

He insists cost-of-living issues are real for people in Lindsay, and that the Liberals are being disingenuous with their company tax policy to both increase and decrease taxes. Next to us, a parking dispute briefly teeters on the brink of violence as two men demand that each get out of their face. A policeman intervenes, calmly endures some abuse from an enraged motorist, and restores order. Bradbury has to be dragged into his office by his staff, not due to Crikey’s charm but by his habit of appearing unwilling to stop talking to people, a handy knack for a politician, whether innate or acquired.

Lindsay was previously held by Jackie Kelly, splendidly described by Christian Kerr as “that tribune of Howard’s battlers”. Kelly was a deeply unpleasant piece of work, but seized and made the seat unshakably her own until Howard’s fading fortunes saw her retire in favour of her staffer Karen Chijoff in 2007. The leaflet affair and WorkChoices did the rest, giving Bradbury a handy win at his third attempt.

But the collapse in Labor's fortunes has left his hold precarious. Penrith is a tough town and, Bradbury says, very conscious of its marginal status. He is smart, articulate and engaging -- altogether smarter than a few Cabinet ministers -- but whether he’s got the mongrel that made Kelly a formidable local member is not clear.

And it may not be clear for some time yet. There seems general indifference to the looming election. “I know the date,” said one woman Crikey spoke to. “It’s … August 21. I know because some friends have a housewarming that night.”

“I liked Kevin ’07,” a small businessman says, perhaps ominously for Bradbury’s chances. “Most of my friends don’t vote,” a young woman says. Curiously, there’s little sign of the famed anger towards asylum seekers. But there are a lot of young families out here, at least judging by the plethora of prams you dodge as you move about. Both sides’ pitch on cost-of-living issues seems particularly well-targeted for electorates like Lindsay.

But today, at least, Bradbury has back-up.

Two hours later we’re down the road at St Mary Village shopping centre. There’s a Coles and a Woolies, a food court and sundry other shops; it could be any mall in the country. Bradbury arrives to meet-and-greet the after-school shoppers. He’s brought a friend -- Bob Hawke has joined him, like Hawke is joining many candidates in this election, defying his advanced years to hit the hustings. Blanche has joined him as well.

Hawke might be showing his age -- “CRIKEY!” says D’Alpuget when he fails to hear my introduction -- but He’s Still Got It. It starts slowly -- St Mary’s Village isn’t exactly chockers -- but within a few minutes Hawke is stuck because so many people want to have their photos taken with him. There’s lots of middle-aged women (several kisses from Bob) but plenty of young families, too. Perhaps it’s nostalgia for a simpler age, a time when politicians were real leaders.

Or perhaps it’s just that famous charisma, still fully-functional after all these years. “Vote for this bloke,” says Hawke, pointing to Bradbury, as people snap away. You can literally see Hawke’s still-strong instinct for working a crowd in action, the way he looks around for the next opportunity (eyes occasionally flicking to Blanche for assurance) and how he sums up how favourable a reaction he’ll get. Bradbury looks like a kid on work experience in comparison, but appears delighted.

“Can I help you, sir?” a young man asks me from behind an ice-cream counter. “Sorry mate, I’m just watching the celebrity go past,” I respond as Hawke moves past, having just spent a minute in conversation with a jeweler who rushed out from behind her counter to greet him.

“Celebrity?”

“That’s the former prime minister Bob Hawke,” I say.

“Really? It’s great to be 18 and have no idea who these people are,” the bloke says, watching the entourage move away.

Election Tracker: Crikey tracks each leader’s amazing race across the country via our Election Tracker. Each day we’ll plot the leaders’ movements, feeding in the key policy announcements and spending commitments, the best media coverage and social media chat, plus the campaign stunts and bloopers.

On Tuesday Julia Gillard made her first policy announcement on mental health. She's said on several occasions she understands the issues in mental health and has reminded us of her significant cultural capital in this regard.

I, like many in the sector, expected her to take a very different policy stance to her predecessor and to dig minister Nicola Roxon out of the hole she continues to dig for herself on mental health.

In her speech to the Committee for Economic Development in Brisbane, Gillard made much of Labor’s credentials in health reform, citing reform going back to Chifley and the PBS, Whitlam and Medibank and Hawke and Medicare. Fair enough.

She said "a nation’s health system is a measure of the nation itself … a test of a nation’s prosperity … and accessibility … a test of its fairness".  She set out the case that health reform is part of the Labor Party’s DNA. Seems reasonable.

Someone clearly didn’t point out to the PM that Ben Chifley actually signed a deal with the states to reduce funding for mental health in 1949 ('Mental Disease Benefits') that significantly reduced services and beds for mental health care. Following a wave of national concern about over-crowed and "sub-human conditions" in mental health institutions, PM Menzies commissioned a national inquiry. State Labor governments (in every state except South Australia) resisted meeting then federal Health Minister Earle Page to address the problems, which forced Menzies to set up the Stoller Inquiry in 1954.

It was the Menzies government who led the first national response to mental health, which led to a large increase in funding to the states, the updating of state mental health laws and the scrapping of such archaic institutions as the Lunacy Court in NSW despite resistance from the then Labor Premier John Cahill.

Of course there have been a dozen or more major inquiries or Royal Commissions into the state of mental health since the 1960s and all have had much the same to say about the sector -- underfunded, overcrowded, poor quality of care, inaccessible services, human rights abuses, etc, etc. The 1961 Royal Commission in NSW, headed by Justice McClements, even set out some fundamental human rights for the mentally ill: "the right to have his right to liberty balanced against community concerns; the right for the hospital to care and teat him and if possible rehabilitate him; and the right to work".

Regrettably nearly 50 years later, people with serious mental health problems still have these basic rights ignored or abused.

Quite correctly, as a nation we moved to reduce the number of beds in standalone psychiatric institutions from the 1960s but not until Burdekin’s report in 1992, and under Health Minister Brian Howe’s leadership, did we even attempt to have a planned approach to this extraordinary social change.  Only one state government, Victoria, under a so-called Thatcherite Jeff Kennett, fully implemented the agreement to close all standalone psychiatric institutions.

As of today, we continue to see these institutions in every state that happens to have had a Labor government over most of the past decade.

Since Burdekin, for nearly 20 years, Australians have been told that mental health is a national health priority. To show this commitment, every five years since 1992, all Australian governments have signed five-year National Mental Health Plans. Minister Roxon signed off, against the advice of the National Advisory Council on Mental Health, on the Fourth Plan in August last year. This is a plan that commits no one to anything; a plan that simply contains a range of suggestions for action; a plan that like the one before, contains no specific spending commitments. What I would call the "Fourth National Mental Health Deception".

Deceptions because the percentage of healthcare spending in mental health has remained largely unchanged since the First Plan in 1993. The only exception to this was in 2006 under the CoAG National Action Pan on Mental Health led by John Howard and Morris Iemma when $4 billion over five years (ultimately $5 billion) was injected in the sector. Howard and Iemma acted in the face of denial of any problems from the health bureaucrats, advisers and the ministers of the day, but fortunately Iemma and Howard listened to the voices of mentally ill and their families.

The national health priority on mental health for the past 18 years has been one long deception on the Australian community.  While there has been change, there has not been reform nor a response to the changing mental health needs of the community.  Just the same old rear-view mirror perspective of the state mental health directors and co.

Gillard knows that there is deep trouble in mental health. In 2005 at the time of the release of the Not for Service report, she stood outside the Brain and Mind Research Institute and called for national leadership and promised to "hold the feet of her Labor (state/territory) colleagues to the fire on reform".  She strongly endorsed the recommendations in that report that called for national leadership, national accountability, national infrastructure akin to that established by Neal Blewett in the drug research, and new investment in new innovative services.

Tuesday’s latest policy announcement on mental health is not about mental health reform. I’m not even sure there is a lot of suicide prevention in it when one sees almost all the funds directed to crisis intervention and the largest single investment for support services for those with severe mental illness.  Aside from the one investment of a woeful $9 million in building safety infrastructure at suicide hotpots, there was not one innovation in the announcement.

Gillard knows a lot about mental health but the policy announced on Tuesday is straight out of the top draw of Roxon and the bureaucrats at DOHA (Health and Ageing) responsible for this shambles and mirrors the same old scatter-gun, incoherent strategy we have seen for too long in mental health and suicide prevention.  Knowing Gillard and knowing what she knows of mental health and suicide prevention, this is not her work.

The history of mental health reform would suggest that as a test of political party values, as a test of fairness, the conservative side of politics in Australia has a greater number of reform DNA polymer chains than the ALP. I find this hard to explain when the Gillard government knows that it is people on pensions, on lower incomes and in minority groups that have higher rates of suicide, higher rates of mental illness and have even less access to care.

If, as Gillard purports, "health reform is in Labor’s DNA", then she had better find the genetic links to the likes of Morris Iemma, Neal Blewett and Brian Howe -- and not the chain linked to Nicola Roxon and Ben Chifley.

*John Mendoza resigned last month as chair of the National Advisory Council on Mental Health

Visit Croakey our health blog for more discussion of mental health reform and other health issues

One of the most powerful figures in the Australian media sector, Harold Mitchell, is going global. Yesterday, London-based media group Aegis announced it would pay acquire Mitchell's media buying and communications firm Mitchell Communications Group in a $363 million cash-and-shares deal.

Mitchell, who owns a 30% stake in Mitchell Communications (his immediate family owns another 10%), will get $120 million worth of shares in Aegis, making him the second largest shareholder in the global company.

Mitchell will stay on at the chairman of Aegis' enlarged Asia Pacific business and appears likely to take a seat on the company's board.

Based on the acquisition price of $1.20 a share, Mitchell's total fortune should rise to about $280 million.

It's an impressive jump, given BRW valued Mitchell's wealth at $180 million in May 2009. In just over 12 months, Mitchell has made about $100 million.

Mitchell is clearly excited about the prospect of going global. As he told the Herald Sun: "Our Australian dollar is at a 20-year high against the English pound and it's an opportunity to convert into a company which is exactly like us -- an independent, entirely media company."

There is little doubt the thing that made Mitchell Communications so attractive to Aegis was the company's dominant position in the Australian market. Since establishing the company in 1976, Harold Mitchell has grown his business to the point where it books an estimated 10% of all media advertising in Australia. It has $900 million in media billings each year, an impressing $210 million ahead of its nearest rival. That sort of dominant market position has made Mitchell very powerful and his company very valuable.

Another key to Mitchell's wealth creation is diversification, inside Mitchell Communications (where there are 21 separate businesses) and outside, where his wealth is spread across property, agribusiness (he owns a stake in a Western Australian cattle station) and even sporting teams (he part-owns Melbourne's new rugby union team, the Melbourne Rebels).

Mitchell was quick to seize on the growth in digital advertising. He was one of the first movers into this sector in 1999 and more importantly was able to come out of the other side of the dotcom crash. Mitchell Communication's projections estimate digital advertising will grow by more than 50% over the next three-to-four years, to the point where digital will account for more than 25% of the entire ad market. Given margins in digital are better than in traditional media, Mitchell's perseverance in this market will pay off.

This is a renowned negotiator; he’s overseen a string of deals in the past few years as Mitchell Communications has expanded geographically and into new areas of the media industry, such as PR. Perhaps his best deal, however, was selling Mitchell Communications to listed digital agency eMitch -- which Mitchell himself founded in 1999 and was a 30% shareholder -- in late 2006 in a $100 million deal. He and his family took $66 million in cash from the deal, and used it as a springboard for growth.

And the latest money-making strategy could be his smartest. While his company's operators are concentrated on Australia, the fact he has well-established connections with major global companies -- such as SingTel, Simplot and BMW -- and the backing of a global communications firm in Aegis could allow him to grow in a way not previously possible.

It is also worth noting that Mitchell now has direct exposure to European advertising markets. This could be very good or very worrying, depending on how the European economy recovers and how European advertising markets react to this.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

On July 10 this year Crikey received from a Michael Anderson a press release that made several serious allegations against the Indigenous Land Corporation (the ILC), a statutory authority created with the primary purpose of: "... assist[ing] indigenous people with land acquisition and land management to achieve economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits ..."

The press release, entitled "ILC accused of defrauding Aboriginal people" opened with a statement that:

"Aboriginal people across Australia are expressing great concerns and anger at the operations of the government’s Indigenous Land Corporation ..."

The email goes on to make several allegations of fraudulent conduct by the ILC, including in relation to a large property in western New South Wales known as Haythorpe Station and Roebuck Station in Western Australia, the ILC’s dealings with which were described as being "... corruption of the highest order". The press release also made allegations of conflict of interest and official misconduct against the chair of the ILC, Shirley McPherson.

The email is one of an irregular series of sprays Crikey has received from the pen of Anderson, who describes himself as the "leader of the 3000 Euahlayi living on both sides of the Queensland and NSW border". Crikey doesn’t know much about Anderson, other than that he usually makes the sort of wild allegations typical of the fringes of any political movement.

Crikey first heard of Anderson in August 2009 when we received an email from Diet Simon, a "retired journalist" who wondered if we might be interested in receiving press releases from Anderson. Simon told Crikey that he and Anderson had been friends for more than 10 years.

For the sake of prudence and our bank balance, Crikey will not republish the contents of Anderson’s press release here. Others were not so cautious. IndyMedia published Anderson’s piece in full on its website on July 10. As of this morning that site had received 946 views and one comment. That sole comment was published on July 16 and comes from David Galvin, the general manager of the ILC. Galvin says in part that:

The story above on the Indymedia website on July 10 is an inaccurate, untrue and misleading and is a personal attack on ILC Chairperson Shirley McPherson.

The story ... containing comments allegedly made by Michael Anderson, is factually flawed and probably defamatory and has to be answered in detail to set the record straight.

Which he then proceeds to do in the firmest possible terms.

The National Indigenous Times, whose recent editorial and administrative woes Crikey reported on earlier this month also ran Anderson’s spray -- in full in it’s print edition and with this teaser on its website.

Even in the modern world of online news and information it appears it's one thing to put out a wildly inaccurate and possibly defamatory spray on the web -- particularly on the fringes where only a relative few will ever read it -- but another to entirely to print it in a newspaper that, until recently at least, had a solid reputation as an authoritative voice and journal of record for the indigenous affairs sector.

The NIT published Anderson’s press release in a half-page spread on page six, in the "Early News" section, of its most recent issue 206. That issue hit the streets on July 22, six days after the ILC’s David Galvin posted his statement on the IndyMedia site.

Crikey understands that following the publication in the NIT officers from the ILC have been in negotiations with new editor Stephen Hagan over the terms of a comprehensive retraction of the assertions made by Anderson and an apology to McPherson.

When Hagan took over as editor he advised via press release from the University of Southern Queensland (the USQ), where he is employed as a lecturer in indigenous studies, that he intended taking the NIT in a "new direction".

Crikey attempted to contact Hagan but he didn't respond to phone calls or emails by deadline. Beverley Wyner, NIT’s general manager, thanked us for our call but hung up before we could ask about Anderson’s press release and any negotiations between the NIT and the ILC, telling us that she had "no comment".

Anderson told Crikey that he had held several discussions with Hagan about his views on the ILC and had provided Hagan with further allegations of corruption and maladministration in the affairs of the ILC. Anderson doesn't resile from his comments and maintained the ILC was corrupt and had continued to "act in a manner that was not in the best interests of Aboriginal people".

Anderson, who Crikey understands uses several surnames, said he had recently registered to run as a NSW Senate candidate as "Michael Eckford" in the upcoming federal election and would continue to voice his opinions about the ILC during the election campaign.

Visit The Northern Myth at Crikey blogs.

It's the question the Crikey inbox is inundated with every day: how does one become a Wampa? An American Star Wars geek with plenty of time on his hands walks viewers through the process. He must be a devil with the ladies.

View our Video of the Day gallery

The federal election has, in fact, become a battle of the s-xes. Polling shows s-xual discrimination among voters; commentators debate the messages in Tony Abbott campaigning with his wife against an unmarried, childless opponent. This is a different world. But has anything really changed?

Gender is a long way from irrelevant in this campaign. It only takes a minute with any national newspaper to knock this optimistic view out of the park. I know I’m not alone in this sense of disinterest. Friends, colleagues, children and conversations overheard on the train have all reinforced this sense of deflation. Even articles devoted to the subject of this great moment seem to have taken on a pep-talk edge.

Listening to Waleed Aly last week helped to unravel some of the puzzle. He spoke on ABC Radio about telling his young daughter that we now had our first female Prime Minister. With a delightfully clear sense of the truth of what was really at stake, she burst into tears, realising that she had lost her chance to win that title for herself.

This girl is a political analyst with serious acumen. In a heartbeat she realised that the arrival of a female PM does not necessarily mean we can get there too; instead, it may more accurately highlight that there is one brief moment of individual glory before it’s back to more of the same.

One of the sharpest tools in a patriarchal society’s toolbox is the individualisation of experience. We learn to separate our experiences from those of other people, and in so doing lose sight of crucial links that might lead to a consciousness of inter-responsibility and collective action. So Julia becomes a special first, Germaine becomes old, unruly and demented, we talk about boats as if they do not contain real people, and women search endlessly for individual ways to manage a balance between work and life within a structure where this is impossible.

As if work can ever be separate to life, old age to youth or the environment from what we put in it.

So I can’t feel proud that Julia is at the helm, I just can’t. Yes, she has a v-gina, I have one, many of my friends have them and my daughter has one, and this does link us in some way in our experience of the world. But that is not enough.

The list of prominent female political players of course includes among many,  Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin. Those of us who believed that simply more women in power would create fundamental social change will need to re-visit the history of emancipation. Transformative events invariably involve connection, in this case between gender, race, class and the environment.

Without this connection, we’re simply defining and re-defining an ever-shrinking guest list for social inclusion.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

There was hope for this campaign when the media pounced on the PM’s over-use of 'moving forward' on the day she announced the election date. Surely the reaction would have made the point that the public is sick of being spoken down to by robot-like politicians. But, alas, in this campaign we’re seeing plenty of repetition, as well as many other insidious aspects of pollie speak.

For repetition, take a look at Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan’s performance on the 7.30 Report on Wednesday. Throughout the interview he kept repeating Moving Forward’s utterly cliched cousin 'going forward', and in this little excerpt he fell into the nasty habit of repeating himself in the hope of making a mediocre line more memorable:

KERRY O'BRIEN: Well, he's reducing company tax for all ...
WAYNE SWAN: No, it's policy chaos, Kerry ...
O'BRIEN: And increasing company tax for some.
SWAN: No, it is policy chaos...
O'BRIEN: Well, increasing tax for some.
SWAN: It is policy chaos. He claimed he was having a company tax cut of 1.5 per cent, when he's got a company tax increase for a very large number of companies of 1.7 per cent, Kerry. This is simply policy chaos, and he couldn't detail to the Australian people how the two mixed, what the net outcome was. It was simply outrageous.

We get it, Wayne. We really do. We heard you the first time.

Politicians love a bridging phrase -- changing the subject away from the question that’s been asked and back to the key messages they want to deliver. Here Swan tried to move away from questions about disunity in the Labor Party affecting voters’ intentions:

O'BRIEN: You have been around politics a very long time, Mr Swan. You don't think this has any capacity to affect people's judgements?
SWAN: Kerry, it may. But there's nothing we can do about the speculation. What we can do is to get out there and campaign and to tell our very good story, particularly about our economic stewardship of this economy, and our plans for the future. That's what Julia Gillard has been doing and that's what I've been doing throughout the campaign.

"What we can do…" is a classic bridging phrase, like "but let me say…" or "the important thing today is…" The key message is the "very good story" about the government’s economic record. And yes, Swan repeated it several times throughout the interview.

Interestingly, Swan used the technique of initial agreement in order to help him change the topic quickly. I call this the Beattie Manoeuvre -- former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie was particularly adept at it.

In other parts of the interview, Swan used another tactic. He achieved the bridging phrase but didn’t follow through with the key message. Have a look at how he did this when O’Brien asked him about Mark Latham’s allegations that Kevin Rudd is a serious leaker:

SWAN: Well I'm not going to buy into that. You can go and interview former Labor leaders; critics of all of us if you'd like. What I want to do is talk about the issues; the important issues that your viewers want to know about in this campaign.

Swan could have easily changed the subject. But instead of going to a key message he saw mileage in making it look like he couldn’t change the subject because of the barrage of unimportant questions about leaks.

Another tactic Swan is adept at is picking the part of the question he wants to answer and leaving out the rest. This is easy to do when the questions are double barrelled or unwieldy. In this exchange, O’Brien might as well have read the first three chapters of War and Peace for all the relevance his question had to the answer Swan finally gave:

O'BRIEN: Kevin Rudd is not just a candidate for Labor in this campaign; Kevin Rudd is aspiring to be a senior minister in the Gillard government. Julia Gillard has made plain on more than one occasion that there is a senior ministry for him. I would suggest to you that it is absolutely relevant to people making their judgements about this government, in whether they vote for or against it, as to how coherent you would be in government, and in doing that I'm asking you whether you have had any contact with Kevin Rudd. You see, you've been a friend of Kevin Rudd's for a long time.
SWAN: That's right.
O'BRIEN: And when you were asked, I think, a few days after the leadership changed, whether you had seen Kevin Rudd, you said, "No, I haven't, but I intend to catch up." Why is it a sensitive issue for you to say whether you've even seen him?
SWAN: Because it simply feeds the sort of stories you're talking about. I have been campaigning right around Australia. In the last four or five days, I've been around northern Queensland, I've been to Darwin, I've been to Perth and now I'm back here. I will run into Kevin Rudd in the course of the campaign and I will be talking to Kevin Rudd in the course of the campaign …

Note how Swan only had to answer the last bit of the question. This is a weakness in O’Brien’s interviewing style. He sometimes resorts to tutorials, as if he thinks we all need the benefit of his analysis. This was on display this week in the interview with Tony Abbott when 14 of his 36 questions were more than 50 words long. In total (not including his introductory script) he used 1604 words, which was very nearly as many as the 1666 words Tony Abbot used for his answers.

I suspect nothing pisses off the public more than the worst of all politician traits; denial of the obvious. Most pollies seem oblivious to the public’s incredulity as they swear the earth is flat or that renovations to a school canteen are cheap at only $2.8 million. On this score, Julia Gillard used to be particularly culpable, although there are signs she’s changing slightly.

As we’ve already seen, Swan did not fall into this trap. He admitted that the ALP has a real problem with leaks and that the instability may hurt. Mind you, he also stretched credibility when he defended Rudd over the leaks and tried to argue that he doesn’t need to confirm that he has spoken to him about them.

For denial of the obvious, take a look at the Minister for Financial Services, Chris Bowen, on Lateline on Wednesday:

TONY JONES: Chris Bowen, we'll start with you, and on the obvious topic: Julia Gillard is now fighting battles on two fronts, against the Opposition and against rats in Labor's ranks. Are you starting to lose control of this campaign?
CHRIS BOWEN: Not at all. I thought the Prime Minister put in a first-class performance today explaining her support for two of our landmark policies: paid parental leave and the big increase in the aged pension.

The PM’s performance may have been first class, but without some acknowledgement that the leaks are hurting Labor, the answer lacked credibility.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

Got one of the oldest and world’s dirtiest coal-fired electrical power stations that should have been closed down five years ago?  Just like those clunkers rusting in backyards, this heap of industrial junk could just be worth a cool $1 (or $2) billion in "compensation" by the government to close it down.

This is the suggestion from the owners of Hazelwood Power Station and helpfully by the Premier of Victoria John Brumby. Actually the owners, International Power (IPRH), a London-based multinational company, would no doubt prefer the $2 billion suggested by Green Energy Markets, as IPRH would rather close all eight turbines than just the two proposed by the Victorian government.

Crikey readers will remember from last year Clive Hamilton’s report:

The 40-year-old Hazelwood power station is Australia’s largest single source of carbon pollution and symbolises everything that is wrong with greenhouse policy in this country.  An industrial relic, Hazelwood was due to be decommissioned this year. The owners applied for an extension of its life to 2031. In 2005 the panel appointed by the Victorian government to review the application concluded that, if Hazelwood’s electricity output were replaced by natural gas turbines, carbon dioxide emissions would be two-thirds lower.

But Big Coal won and the Victorian Labor government extended Hazelwood’s license to pollute to 2031. The extension of its life will add around 340 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. By comparison, in 2007 the whole electricity sector in Australia was responsible for 200 million tonnes of greenhouse gases.  Over the next two decades, the carbon emissions from Hazelwood will wipe out more than half of the emissions savings from the Rudd Government’s 20 per cent renewable energy scheme.

Hamilton suggested civil disobedience was justified by the complete failure of politics to do the right thing, to close, or in fact allow the long scheduled closure of this fantastically dirty polluter. Last year there were on-site protests but of course to no avail when the police outnumbered the protesters and against a remorseless government who in fact proposed new penalties to deal with this kind of protest.

Now perhaps we can see more clearly what the deeper story was all about. When International Power purchased Hazelwood at its privatisation by the Kennett government in 1996, paying $2.35 billion, it obviously knew of its limited life and must have factored that into its valuation. Unless there were nudges and winks from the vendors about that pesky issue of its closure in 2005. Now the original vendor has the nerve and chutzpah to demand that the federal government provide the "compensation" money less than a year after the antique was awarded a life extension!

Not only has the company had five more years of operational profit, it now expects to be paid to shut it down? Although it would seem unlikely to work, the announcement of all this three weeks from a federal election, and days after Julia Gillard announced her (pseudo) policy concerning climate change, seems a piece of pure blackmail.(Unfortunately the word 'greenmail' means something else but we need a word for this kind of extortion.) Is this the first sequelae of the near-total capitulation of the government to the miner’s advertising blizzard?

The ABC’s Jon Faine asked Brumby several times, why did the Labor premier chose this time, in the middle of a federal election, to announce this issue?  There was no answer except waffle about Victoria’s "best practice" blah, blah and responsible environmentalism. (Commuters caught up in Monday’s transport collapse and Myki debacle are forgiven for choking on their own tongues.)

It could be a simple c-ck-up, which is often a safe parsimonious explanation especially in the political world where competence and intent is overestimated by observers. The other obvious explanation is some kind of political vendetta/payback (in which case it was perfect timing) but this seems unlikely given the mentor/student relationship between Brumby/Gillard; though of course those things often go sour especially when the student outshines the teacher.

I favour the third possibility: a grand conspiracy. Brumby doesn’t seem to have any further political ambition (as he stumbled over his plans if he is returned for another term) and his managerialist style is in keeping with his peers such as Carr/Bracks/Kennett, and no doubt aims for a nice cosy and juicy niche in boardrooms and consultancies.  Since it was his government that awarded Hazelwood an extension to its licence to pollute to 2031 and now he is trying to blackmail the feds to bail out International Power, the corporate world will owe him big time if this veritable billion dollar heist comes off*.

At any rate, the extension of Hazelwood’s operating licence for another 25 years was the crucial piece of a fiendishly clever piece of carbon blackmail. Hazelwood emits 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. IPRH has proposed to replace it with various mixes of Combined Cycle Gas Generator Turbine (CCGT) combined with renewables, principally wind turbine. This concept may well be the sensible way forward (though solar-thermal or geothermal would be better), at least as an intermediate and flexible approach in Australia, however that is not the main issue here.

But, in a move reminiscent of the tactics of Big Coal, they say they cannot go ahead building it because of financial uncertainties, which they blame on the Rudd/Gillard inability to bring in an ETS. The "solution" is that if the federal government puts a minimum price of $20 per tonne CO2, they want to claim the $320 million from the 16 million tonnes pollution saved by closing down Hazelwood.  That’s $320 million per year though it is not clear if they would expect this until 2031 ($6.7 billion). But they’ll also take $2 billion cash up front. This is the recommendation of a report by Green Energy Markets paid for by the state government (Environment Victoria).  GEM is the consultancy recommending the feds buy out Hazelwood for $2 billion. These actions are supported by Environment Victoria in The Age this week. Of course they would, because it is the federal government (ie: all of us) who are being suckered here.

This is a horribly expensive mechanism to work towards clean energy. Here is another considerable cost of privatisation. For the past 15 years Hazelwood has returned profits to its private owners who are not even in Australia. Now they effectively want the state to pay for the replacement of Hazelwood but guess who will retain any operating profits? Brilliant business plan if you can bring it off: privatise all the profit while socialising the pollution costs. If the state still owned Hazelwood it would simply be building the new power stations and would have more clear cut motivations to reduce carbon output.

*Note that this conspiracy theory does not necessarily mean there is any illegality though there is a very good case for thinking this incestuous revolving door between government and the corporates they deal with while in government should be stopped by legal measures.

This is getting serious. For five days in a row by my assessment Labor has lost the media battle of words and pictures. The prime minister just cannot seem to get away from talking about Kevin Rudd -- a subject she would love to ignore.

Yesterday Julia Gillard continued her macho woman approach by making a threatening, but completely hollow, promise to sack from a future Gillard Cabinet any minister naughty enough to leak details of a Cabinet meeting to a member of the press. It might sound wonderful but the trouble about leaks is that ministers do not put their hand up for making them and do not confess if and when confronted.

Proof of disloyalty will be hard to get unless Gillard is prepared to resort to the good old days when the Country Party's Deputy Prime Minister John McEwen called on Prime Minister Harold Holt to have ASIO tap the phone of his Cabinet rival, Treasurer Billy McMahon, to get proof that Billy really was leaking to then newsletter publisher Max Newton for whom I worked at the time.

Billy was leaking, of course. It was a highlight of my Sunday afternoons to answer the phone to hear his squeaky voice calling in to give Max a weekly Cabinet meeting update. Not from his home phone, mind you, but from a Woollahra public phone box to because the Treasurer guessed he was under surveillance.

It didn't do the McMahon career any harm either. With the retirement of Black Jack, the leaker went on to achieve his goal of becoming Prime Minister after another act of political bastardry when he led the coup against incumbent Liberal Leader John Gorton before Gorton, like Kevin Rudd, had been allowed to complete his first term after winning an election.

Perhaps Tony Abbott would like to reflect, incidentally, on that little episode before again pretending that there was something unique about the deposing of Rudd when it just followed on in the grand precedent established back then by the Liberal Party. The only difference between the two Prime Ministerial assassinations that I can see is that in the McMahon/Gorton case the party room was equally divided whereas with Gillard/Rudd it was not a contest at all because the challenger had such a clear majority of the votes.

Not that such matters are at all relevant to this continuing election campaign where the great fear of the Labor campaign brains trust must be that another embarrassing revelation will be dropped by the phantom leaker. It is perhaps because of that apprehension that the Crikey Election Indicator continues to move slightly in the Coalition's favour.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

Getting depressed watching television. Early yesterday our time the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its 2009 State of the Climate report drawing on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Last night on ABC television's 7.30 Report the spokespeople on climate change for the Government and the Coalition waffled away about who was planning to spend how much on what and how well without giving the data the merest mention. If you need a reason to be depressed about our political system and missed the program live, catch up with it on the ABC website as Penny Wong and Greg Hunt avoid any discussion of the real issues.

And when you are finished with that, spare a moment to look at least at the summary of the NOAA report or to study these graphics that partly tell the story:

A blatant courting of popularity. Having noted that reality television is much more popular than political television I am stooping to expand the scope of the Crikey Election Indicators to encompass the next big ratings hit -- Dancing with the Stars.

An honourable man. You can choose your own Brutus, Marc Anthony and Caesar in the current Australian political play called Kevin Rudd is an honourable man. I suppose it is one of those occasions where, if the cap fits, wear it.

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

The true truth on moving forward overload. Everyone knows Julia Gillard hasn't been backwards in coming forward over the last few weeks, but has she uttered the infamous phrase more than a thousand times in a month? According to The Australian she has. Chris Pash, resident cliche expert at Rupert’s broadsheet, reckons Gillard has used 'moving forward' 1500 times in the past month at an average of 50 a day.

At first the figures seem improbable. But after chatting about it in the Crikey office, Pash could actually be pretty close to the mark. Pash's figures would mean Julia has been running at six 'moving forwards' an hour (if you assume she is on tape for an average of five hours a day). Not unreasonable when you consider Gillard once uttered the now immortal sentence "moving forward means moving forward". -- Tom Cowie

Election 2010, NT style. Here's one for those struggling to really get inspired by the 2010 federal election: a review of the Julia Gillard tribute drag show Primed Mincer!. According to the Ipswich Advertiser, the show -- snubbed by the PM herself when she was in Darwin recently -- has "blown audiences away" with its elaborate costumes and comic wit. Highlights include female construction workers interpreting the pitfalls of the BER, drag queen Shimmer serenading Gillard as Penny Wong and a glitter-covered couple travelling across the stage in a boat named SS Q-Jump. Drag show aficionados better get in quick, Primed Mincer! wraps up at Darwin's Throb nightclub this week. -- Tom Cowie

Kernot back from the dead. ABC News 24 are reporting this morning that Cheryl Kernot is standing as an independent senator for New South Wales in the upcoming election, nearly 10 years after she was voted out of the seat of Dickson. According to the ABC, the former leader of the Democrats plans to run under the banner 'Change politics'. A blast from the past, but there's just one small issue. As Lyndal Curtis noted today, Cheryl's slogan sounds a little familiar. -- Tom Cowie

Drawing of the AEC balls. In ballot paper news, the AEC has started the drawing of the balls for House of Representatives ballot paper positions. Greens candidate for Brisbane Andrew Bartlett was present at the Queensland draw and published his position on Twitter:

Campaign Crikey Leftovers are reheated for your dining pleasure each day. Email any morsels to boss@crikey.com.au.

For some time I have been trying to understand why Australia's wealthy give so little to charities when compared to their counterparts in the UK, US and Canada and when compared to normal, average Australians.

Just to be specific, from research our foundation has funded over the past seven years it seems that the average wealthy American allocates about 14.5% of their wealth to charity and the best guess we have is that the average wealthy Australian allocates less than 1% to charity. For Australians on the average wage it seems they allocate 2%-3% to charity ... So some nice, normal Aussie is allocating three times the amount of their wealth to charity when compared to our most wealthy ... Why is this so?

Below are the most often proffered excuses I have been given by wealthy people, justifying their appalling lack of generosity and complete lack of a social conscience. None of this is made up.

1) It's the government's responsibility

While our governments are responsible for providing a social safety net, blind Freddy can see that more needs to be done and governments can't be expected to meet the needs of all those in society that require help.

2) Our taxes are too high. If they were lower I would give more.

OK, so first our taxes are not high. When compared to the OECD average (including all levels of tax paid) you find (surprise, surprise) that Australians actually are not that highly taxed and in fact we are pretty much in the middle of the pack ... Further as net taxes have come down over the years we have seen no material increase in the general giving from our most wealthy. So this is a myth on two counts.

3) I pay my taxes, etc, etc (revert to point one)

Most of the very wealthy that I know do not pay anywhere near either the full marginal tax rate nor the full company tax rate. Their affairs are structure through trusts, locally and overseas thus minimising their tax dramatically ... So again the average Aussie is paying a higher tax rate than our wealthy.

4) Charities are so inefficient. If they were more efficient I would give more.

Charities are perhaps slightly less efficient than businesses. This is often due to a lack of funding available to fund the infrastructure of the charity. When money does come in the donors more often that not want the money to go directly to the cause and do not want money to go to "admin" or "infrastructure". Yet without well-funded administrative resources and services, charities will continue to be somewhat inefficient in their delivery of services ... So just give more!

5) I worked hard for this money ... and it is mine (this is one of my favourites)

Let me start with a quote from Warren Buffet.

"My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it services our country well ... I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws is wildly capricious"

I have worked hard all my life (OK, so perhaps not so hard the past few years) but I have never felt my effort was greater than that of the wonderful doctors or nurses I meet at the Children's Hospital at Westmead nor the many wonderful teachers I have met through our daughters' schooling, nor the shopkeepers whose businesses I interact with.

Specifically, can an investment banker that made $8 million (because he "helped" convince one large company to buy another large company) really believe this remuneration is justifiable compared to (say) the pediatric surgeon who just operated on (and saved the life of) a baby ... where the surgeon may be earning about $200K ... Does the "I worked hard" bullsh-t really hold water when you compare how financial rewards in our society seem to go not to those that provide society with the greatest benefits but rather to those who make money for others!.

You worked no harder than most of the population but ended up with more money than most. Just be thankful that this is how our society works, give more to charity and going forward perhaps be a little more humble.

6) I might need this money later in life

This came from a guy with investment assets of more than $500 million. Someone whose regular giving is of the order of $10,000 a year ... His specific concerns seems to be medical ... What if he gets sick when he is older ... Gee, tough one ... However I am guessing that you could meet your future medical needs with a lot less  than $500 million.

7) I do give but in a quiet way ...

This is the great urban myth of Australian philanthropy. Some would have us believe that our wealthy are backing the trucks up daily to needy causes all over the country, flooding their coffers with gazillions but only on the premise that nobody leaks information on the amazing acts of philanthropy ...

Some wealthy do give anonymously, however if there was this across-the-board flood of large donations (given anonymously) then the money would appear in the statements of the major charities ... Guess what the statements do not show that this is occurring? Why? Because it is not happening ... For the most part our wealthy are not giving large donations either quietly or with the accompaniment of a full orchestra, brass band and marching girls.

8) When I was on my way up, the press kept having a go at me ... Now that I have money ... bugger them ... I am keeping it.

So let me get this right ...

For whatever reason some journalists have at some time written pieces critical of you while you were building your career. Now that you have made your pile you feel the appropriate response is to not give money to charity. Where is the connection? It may well be that the journalists were not justified in their attack and you have been mistreated but this does not now give you a leave pass from your responsibility to give back to the broader society. OK. Make a stand. Do not donate to any journalists' retirement home but I am pretty sure there are other causes, not related to journalism or the media, that you could give your money to.

9) I already give to society. I run a business and employ people.

This little beauty is often trotted out by sycophants of the rich and powerful. Somehow in their twisted, parallel universe the building of a business (which requires the hiring of people) is a charitable act ... For most I am pretty sure that they built their business to make money and as part of the building their business they needed to hire people to do stuff. Employment was not a charitable act but rather a way for them to make (more) money. To suggest that hiring people is some form of social giving is really bizarre.

Most of the rich people I have met became rich either through (as Buffet suggests) being members of the "lucky sperm club" (i.e. having money passed down to them) or they have built businesses. The business builders have done so through a mix of smarts (street or intellectual or both), a strong work ethic, highly tuned competitive approach and focus. Generally they are people you would consider at best reasonably talented and at worst not stupid.

So why, when asked about their lack of giving to charity, do they come out with such a range of fundamentally flawed answers. Answers that are easy to bat back. Answers that do not bear up under the slightest scrutiny ... How can people who are so smart for most of their day seem so stupid when it comes to justifying their greed.

My sense is that for most of our wealthy money embodies everything they want to be. With money they now have access to people they would not previously had access to. With money people treat them as special (car companies. airlines, hotel, restaurants, shops, etc). With money people assume they have qualities such as wisdom, compassion and a level of intellect that may not in fact exist ... In short because they have a lot of money they are treated as special, better than the rest ... Therefore anything that diminishes the pot of money in some way diminishes how special they are ...

En masse our wealthy are not necessarily, smart, wise, compassionate, caring, clever, nice or worth spending any time with. They are just rich.

They do, however, have a responsibility to give back generously to the society that provided them the platform from which they made their pile. It should not be a choice but a responsibility and society should expect our most successful/lucky to contribute their fair share. Quite simple really.

This first appeared on the Irregular Rant blog site.

A week has passed so far without the sky falling in. A week, that is, since the international court of justice ruled that Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence was not contrary to international law -- a decision that might have been expected to open the floodgates to the numerous oppressed peoples who would like to have their own countries.

Probably the majority of the world's actual and potential armed conflicts centre on the question of self-determination, which makes it all the more remarkable that the question behind the Kosovo dispute had never before been considered by the court -- despite the fact that support for self-determination is one of the founding principles in the UN charter. This case was referred to the court by the UN general assembly at the request of Serbia, which claims Kosovo as its own and hoped for a judgement that its unilateral declaration of independence was illegal.

Although the decision received some media coverage last week, it's worth reading the judgement in full to see why that hope was disappointed, and also why impact of the decision looks like being relatively modest.

The court acknowledged that international law now recognises "a right to independence for the peoples of non-self-governing territories and peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation" (para 79). But it declined to bring Kosovo under that general description, or indeed any general description at all, insisting on treating the case in isolation:

"The Court is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position on whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence or, _a fortiori_, on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities situated within a State unilaterally to break away from it." (56)

In effect, the court reinterpreted the question it had been asked; first by limiting it to whether the declaration was actually prohibited, rather than whether it was legally justified, and then by finding that the declaration had not in fact been made in the name of the provisional institutions of Kosovo self-government, thus taking it outside of their treaty obligations: "the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between states." (80)

The four dissenting judges protested against this, and even a few of those who voted with the majority issued separate judgements in which they regretted the failure to consider the extent of the right of self-determination. But the broader questions were just what the majority judges were determined to avoid.

These narrowing tactics are one reason why the decision hasn't led to a rush of attempts to imitate Kosovo's success. But just as important is the fact that international law in this area has always tended to lag behind the facts on the ground, and those who are struggling for their independence are used to doing it without much help from the accepted legal framework.

Despite the lack of legal acknowledgement, self-determination has been making huge gains in the past two decades. Many countries have won internationally recognised independence (Eritrea, former USSR, former Yugoslavia) or autonomy (Catalonia, Scotland, Aceh), while even some of those without recognition have succeeded in building functioning states (Wikipedia, of course, has a handy list).

It's also become pretty generally accepted that when a secession movement succeeds in establishing itself in effective control of its territory, the parent government should not try to reconquer it by force but should negotiate peacefully. It was Georgia's breach of this rule that led to its brief and unsuccessful war with Russia in 2008, and Serbia shows no sign of repeating the mistake. (The contrast between Russia's enthusiastic support of self-determination on that occasion and its strident opposition in Kosovo and Chechnya is just one of the many hypocrisies on display on this issue.)

It will take time for the full implications of the Kosovo precedent to sink in, and when it does some of the language in the judgement may have wider effects than the court intended. But at best it will just give further impetus to a trend that has been going for two hundred years and continues to gather pace.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

Haneef, Andrews and the web of hypocrisy

Monday, 30 July, 2007

Greg Barns writes:

Federal Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews’ weekend media performances merely confirmed what must be becoming obvious to any disinterested observer of Mr Andrews’ conduct over the Haneef matter -- he lacks the insight and wisdom to be a government minister in a sensitive portfolio where he is dealing with people’s lives.

Mr Andrews can’t seem to acknowledge the fact that he, and his Cabinet colleagues on the National Security Committee, appear to have got it wrong a fortnight ago when they decided that Mr Andrews should cancel Dr Haneef’s visa.

Yesterday he made the extraordinary claim because Dr Haneef’s "lawyers indicated to my department … that he wanted to get out of Australia as soon as possible. If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions."

Boy Kevin, most Australians could think of some pretty sound reasons as to why Dr Haneef would want to get the hell out of this supposed land of the fair go after what he’s been put through over the past three weeks.

Let’s see now -- why would he stay, given his life has been trashed by the AFP and Queensland Police and his reputation torn to shreds by the still unapologised for Lincoln Wright story in the New Limited papers last Sunday week that suggested, without a scrap of evidence to back up the assertion, that Dr Haneef was part of a plot to blow up a Gold Coast building.

This statement also demonstrates that Mr Andrews disturbingly appears to have a similar political instinct to that other right wing Catholic legislator -- the infamous rabid anticommunist of the 1950s, US Senator Joe McCarthy.

Even when McCarthy’s accusation that someone was a communist were proven to be demonstrably false, the Senator just could not admit he was wrong. Mr Andrews is beginning to sound like that in the case of Dr Haneef.

And what should concern anyone whose file is on Mr Andrews desk awaiting his decision on their visa or other application to stay in Australia, is that if the thought process and modus operandi he has applied to the Haneef matter is indicative of his general standard of administration of his portfolio, they have cause to be very worried.

And what’s this about Mr Andrews’ wanting to release the "protected information" on which he says he based his decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa?

Presumably such a decision will enrage his colleague, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, ASIO and the AFP given the very dim view that Mr Ruddock and AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty took of Dr Haneef’s lawyer Stephen Keim to release his client’s first record of interview to The Australian.

But then probably not, given that hypocrisy is the Howard government’s stock in trade.

The theme of this year's Walkley Media Conference is 'What’s the story?' It’s about how we develop a powerful narrative and "make our stories sing and sell", a very contemporary theme at a time when social media allows us to become our own marketing machines. But it’s also possible to lose the plot -- which is what happened when the MEAA decided to invite Exxon Mobil to be the Golden sponsor of the Walkley Media Conference.

As Exxon Mobil public affairs told ABC PM’s Jess Hill, on Wednesday: "We're always very interested in hearing about how a powerful narrative can help." Public relations help is certainly what Exxon Mobil needs. It’s not easy to spin a story about being environmentally responsible when you are the world’s biggest oil corporation trying to live down the nightmare of the Exxon Valdez Alaskan oil spill at a time when oil spills suddenly shoot to the top of the news agenda.

As well, you have organisations like Sourcewatch and Greenpeace tracking your notorious history of funding climate scepticism as you try to negotiate your way through the shifting sands of climate-change politics. Only three weeks ago, the ABC reported that Exxon Mobil had reneged on its promise to stop funding groups such as the Heritage and Atlas Economic Foundations, quoting London School of Economics policy director Bob Ward as saying: "They are trying to mislead people and frankly we have seen these sorts of tactics before, for instance in the case of the tobacco industry, who for many, many years, funded campaigns and misinformation about the adverse effects of their products." Exxon Mobil’s response is that it is now funding different views within the debate.  Even News Ltd outlets, including The Australian, are onto the story.

All this explains why it was such a shock for many when they learned this week that Exxon Mobil was funding the Walkley conference. The first duty of journalists’ is to understand that even a good story should not stand in the way of seeking the truth. The difficult task of environmental journalists is to sort out the greenwashing from what is actually happening. The professional development arm of the union, The Walkley Foundation is supposed to be about promoting excellence in journalism and an ethical bulwark in times when many working journalists find themselves under pressure to bend their ethics to meet commercial and ratings pressures.

Sponsorship is about forming a public association that can enhance the credibility of the sponsor and provide economic benefit to the organisation being sponsored. This is why it was beside the point for federal secretary of the MEAA Chris Warren to tell the ABC PM program that journalists would not be compromised by joining Exxon Mobil for a cup of tea at the conference. It’s sadly ironic that as someone who has championed the public right to know, Warren, when asked to reveal the precise details of the relationship with Exxon Mobil, declined because it is "commercially in confidence".

An underling issue that may have led to this potential PR fiasco for the union may be the merging of public relations and journalism professionals into one union. However, in this case, the MEAA move is just as offensive and a conflict of interest for its members working in professional communications roles in research, government, universities, politics, big NGOs, environmental organisations and many other companies.

No one is denying the need for some sponsorship. Various universities and media outlets, including Crikey, had agreed to sponsor the conference. It is likely that many of them were not aware of the Exxon Mobil gold sponsorship. Qantas is also providing in-kind travel support.

Journalists, academics, public relations and other communications people, media students, environmentalists and many others are signing an open letter asking the MEAA to withdraw from the sponsorship.

Meanwhile, there is a big story happening in PNG at Lake Kutubu. It’s a hard one for Australian journalists to cover because it’s expensive to get there. Last year, Oilsearch, Exxon Mobil’s partner in the huge LNG pipeline carving its way through the once pristine World Heritage area, flew  The Age’s Jo Chandler up there where she reported on the complexities of development. Unfortunately, she missed the  "ecological disaster" caused by oil drilling in the area  that two weeks later SMH environmental reporter Ben Cubby discovered from his desk in Sydney. Since then the only major follow-ups have been by UTS student reporter Calliste Weitenberg in non-mainstream publications Reportage-enviro and NZ publication Pacific Scoop.

Maybe some Walkley media sponsors could band together to send a team of reporters  to Lake Kutubu to give the people there the chance to be part of a "powerful narrative".

*Wendy Bacon is the director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, which is the publisher of Reportage-enviro. UTS journalism was approached for sponsorship but could not justify the expense of a cash contribution (there is an agreement, however, for UTS students to contribute by videoing the conference and helping out with administrative tasks).

One of the things I see in guys is that they wish they could wear nice clothes. However, there’s not too much good info on this topic.

We men don’t want to spend hours and hours shopping for clothes that flatter us -- even the thought of walking into a clothing store makes us sleepy. However, if we know what to buy beforehand, we don’t have to stay in there a second longer than absolutely necessary.

OK, so the question is: what can you buy that would make me look stylish, confident and s-xy, all at the same time? The answer is simple: go for a men’s sports jacket.

If you’re familiar with the suit jacket then you have by now a pretty good idea what it looks like. It’s very similar to the more classy part of the suit but it’s designed entirely to be worn in casual situations.

What do I mean by that? Well, a sports jacket can be worn when we go to a restaurant for a casual dinner, to a club, bar or just for a walk downtown. You won’t look like you just got off from your corporate job and headed for some drinks. Sports jackets can make you look very relaxed and outgoing if you know how to wear them.

And they can be worn with jeans! Since I wear jeans every day, I rarely miss an opportunity to pair them with my sports jacket. Since I’m 99% sure you wear jeans at least three or four times a week, by buying a sports jacket you won’t have to buy anything else. Just throw your leather jacket away for a while and put on your sports jacket. So few men wear one (I have no clue why) that you’ll instantly stand out.

OK, now that I convinced you it is worth it, let’s see some actual outfits you can try:

• Jeans with a sports jacket, a dress shirt and leather shoes
• Jeans with a sports jacket, a polo shirt, or a T-shirt and sneakers
• Dress pants with a sports jacket (make sure the two are not of the same fabric and color), a dress shirt and leather shoes.

Anything goes with a sports jacket -- even a T-shirt. Pairing these two  will actually make a very refined mixture of formal and casual, one that’s hard to go unnoticed.

Fabric: Make sure the jacket you intend to buy is either made from wool or cotton. Stay away from polyester as it does not “breathe”.

Colour: If this is your first sports jacket, I recommend you to go for either black or navy blue. Light colored sports jackets (or regular jackets for that matter) are more appropriate for young people (under 25) or for those that have a very powerful personality. For the rest of us, a nice blue sports jacket is enough. The only thing to remember is that whatever we wear on the inside should contrast with it. For instance, if the sports jacket is black, a white T-shirt would work great.

Now you have all the details, go ahead and try a few sport jackets on. Don’t go for the first one you see, though. Try on as many as you can and pay particular attention to how they fit you. Make sure you can stretch your arms and that you can take it off easily.

If you can’t find something that’s exactly your size, choose a slightly larger number. Then, simply go to a tailor for adjustments.

Each day, Crikey will suggest one thing to do for the night ahead, once you've clocked off from work and free time beckons. It might be an opera to put on the mink stole for, theatre to see, a TV show to download. Got a Daily Proposition of your own? Email boss@crikey.com.au (First Dog merchandise for any reader whose piece gets published!)

Staerk is back in action. Surprise today as formerly dropped columnist Graham Staerk reappeared in the Gold Coast Bulletin’s Thursday edition. Crikey readers may remember the exclusive Crikey investigation revealing the hopeless conflicts of interest between Staerk, his lobbying clients and newspaper columns that led to some heated words to GCB editor Dean Gould from News Limited bosses. Gould defended his mate for a few weeks before succumbing to pressure from his Sydney overlords and suspended Staerk from his weekly column.

Seems the suspension has been lifted by Gould, however some new rules have been put in place for his mate. Staerk is to avoid any mention of his clients or their projects. And as Crikey has previously mentioned, his column now sports a prominent footer disclosing to readers that Staerk is a "corporate consultant and registered lobbyist". While there is still no mention of which clients he "lobbies for", here's a little reminder for readers, obtained from the Queensland state government’s lobbyist register:

• Corporate Scorecard
• Habitat Early Learning Centres
• Icon Energy
• Pearls Australiasia
• Ridong (Gold Coast) Development Pty Ltd
• SV Partners Accounting
• V8 Supercars Australia

Interestingly, he has lost some corporate gigs since losing his weekly column a little over a  month ago, most notably the Gold Coast Turf Club, major Gold Coast developer Nifsan and NRL footy team the Gold Coast Titans. Clearly Staerk needed his column back to stop the bleeding from his lobbying company Consultum. Some of his clients were apparently unaware that he was knocking on Queensland government doors on behalf of their companies until their names appeared in the lobby register.

His first column (below) carried on like nothing ever happened with no mention of the two months his regular column has been "missing in action". It focused on the mayoral race for March 2012 and specifically a call for the retirement of Mayor Ron Clarke due to his well publicised heart problems.  However, the column was totally based on faulty knowledge of the current Local Government Act. Staerk worries that if Clarke retires after March, councillors will select a new mayor themselves, rather than a by-election allowing citizens of the Gold Coast to pick Clarke’s replacement. But the new amendments of the 2009 Local Government Act came into force on July 1 and clearly states in section 164 that any vacancy in the mayoral position must be filled by the holding of a by-election. -- anonymous Crikey reader

Still the one for terrible photoshopping: And in more news from the Sunshine state, Channel Nine is broadcasting nightly from Ekka -- the Brisbane Show, for the non-Queenslanders among us -- from its "broadcasting centre". Except, Nine has been advertising pictures of the Seven News stand at the Sydney Show as if it was its Ekka broadcasting centre, just with some dodgy photoshopping on top, since the stand hasn't been set up yet.

This is the original Seven News Sydney Show stand (from the Seven News Sydney Facebook page):

This the badly photoshopped stand Nine News is trying to claim is its Ekka stand on the official Ekka website, saying "Don't miss your chance to walk through a real LIVE news studio":

Note the feet still visible under the banner on the left. The picture has now been removed from Nine's Ekka page, but luckily we've got a screen grab from an anonymous Crikey reader.

Obama on The View: a full blow-by-blow

Depending on you who listen to, Obama's debut presidential appearance on daytime telly is either another step in the inevitable destruction of the American empire – akin to Rome installing lead pipes for drinking water – or a media masterstroke. -- The Guardian

Shocking PSAs -- think WorkCover or Quit ads -- work in Oz but not US?

"Many of these shock ads, including 'Separation' and the texting while driving ad are made in Britain or Australia. According to Bob Molineaux, a partner in Venables Bell & Partners, an advertising agency responsible for similar ads, "They're a lot more open-minded in Australia and Britain than we are, so they're at home with that type of what you would call shock advertising." -- ABC News USA

BP are white-washing the media

"WASHINGTON (AFP) -- With BP's broken well in the Gulf of Mexico finally capped, the focus shifts to the surface clean-up and the question on everyone's lips is: where is all the oil?"

NEW ORLEANS (Mother Jones) – I don't know who the f-ck these everyones are, but I'm happy to help out them, and ABC, and this AFP reporter writing that due to BP's stunningly successful skimming and burning efforts, "the real difficulty now is finding any oil to clean up." -- Mother Jones

WikiLeaks told everyone how bad the war in Afghanistan is... for three seconds

"It took only a few days for the media to go from telling us that the pessimistic take on Afghanistan was the obvious, boring ho-hum "conventional wisdom" to restoring that point of view to the fringes, sandwiched between optimistic takes and war-cheerleading." -- Huffington Post

CBS comes out of the closet

"CBS is adding a trio of gay characters to the network's shows next season following a recent GLAAD report that gave the network a failing diversity grade for a second year in a row." -- The Hollywood Reporter

Hacker proves how crap Facebook's privacy is

"Security specialist Ron Bowes has once again proven how easy it is to glean valuable user information from Facebook, by spidering Facebook’s online directory and compiling it all into one neat little torrent that could be downloaded off his site, SkullSecurity.com." -- TechCrunch

A win for Chinese journos

"For China’s investigative journalists, who grapple with heavy-handed censors and accusations of bribe-taking, the case of a Shanghai-based reporter appears to offer a positive turn." -- NY Times

The true truth on True/Slant

"The May acquisition of True/Slant by Forbes Media turned out to be the death knell for the digital news site, as writer and reporter Neal Ungerleider said in a post on the site that operations would wind down at the end of the month." -- Media Bistro

The Winners:

Getaway enjoyed the departure of MasterChef and regained the million viewer mark, which set up Sea Patrol to win 8.30pm.

1. Today Tonight (Seven) (6.30pm) -- 1.319 million
2. Seven News (6pm) -- 1.312 million
3. Nine News (6pm) -- 1.219 million
4. A Current Affair (Nine) (6.30pm) -- 1.182 million
5. Getaway (Nine) (7.30pm) -- 1.109 million
6. ABC News (7pm) -- 1.093 million
7. Bondi Vet (Ten) (8pm) -- 1.088 million
8. Sea Patrol (Nine) (8.30pm) -- 1.049 million
9. Home and Away (Seven) (7pm) -- 1.037 million

The Losers: Ten's Rush at 8.30pm, 836,000 for episode two and no MasterChef as a lead in. It did better than it should have been because Seven has abandoned Thursday evenings. Lots of fast driving, fast editing and long meaningful stares.

News & CA:

A re-run of Wednesday. Nine was weak in Sydney and much stronger in Melbourne where it won both the 6pm news and 6.30pm slots. Seven won elsewhere in both timeslots. Seven News lost Melbourne by a rather large 100,000 viewers. ACA was under 300,000 viewers for the second night in a row in Sydney, 293,000, 88,000 behind TT.

ACA surprised with a very nice story bagging Jeremy Clarkson who was rabbiting on Top Gear (not seen in Australia yet) about women wearing burquas and juxtaposed that with some local interviews.

1. Today Tonight (Seven) (6.30pm) -- 1.319 million
2. Seven News (6pm) -- 1.312 million
3. Nine News (6pm) -- 1.219 million
4. A Current Affair (Nine) (6.30pm) -- 1.182 million
5. ABC News (7pm) -- 1.093 million
6. The 7pm Project (Ten) (7pm) -- 851,000
7. The 7.30 Report (ABC) (7.30pm) -- 788,000
8. Ten News (5pm) -- 762,000
9. Late News/Sports Tonight (Ten) (10.30pm) -- 292,000
10. Lateline (ABC) (10.25pm) -- 244,000
11. SBS News (6.30pm) -- 144,000
12. Lateline Business ( ABC) (11pm) -- 144,000
13. SBS News (9.30pm) -- 143,000

In the morning:

Sunrise on Seven was well and truly polished by Today which has closed the recently widening gap. Lots of problems appearing for Seven across the week's schedule, and no sign of repairs.

1. Today (Nine) (7am) -- 369,000
2. Sunrise (Seven) (7am ) -- 353,000

The Stats:

• FTA: Nine won with a share of 32.0%, from Seven with 25.8%, Ten on 19.9%, the ABC, 17.5% and SBS, 4.7%. Seven and Ten lead the week with 26.1%, from Nine with 25.9%.
• Main Channel: Nine won here with a share of 25.1% from Seven on 22.3%, Ten with 19.3%, ABC 1, 14.2% and SBS ONE, on 4.2%. Ten still leads the week with 24.9%, from Seven on 23.4% and Nine on 22.4%.
• Digital: A high 15.2% total share for the six digital FTA channels as viewers said a plague on some of your houses. Really, it was driven as much by Nine programming GO as a mini-main channel with recent episodes of Big Bang Theory and Top Gear. GO won the night with a share of 6.9%, from 7TWO with 3.4%, ABC 2, 2.6%, ONE and ABC 3, 0.7% each and SBS TWO, 0.5%. Adelaide and Melbourne were the best markets with a peak audience share of 17.7%.
• Pay TV: Nine won with a share of 26.2%, from Seven on 21.1%, ten with 16.3%, Pay TV was on 15.1% for its 100 plus channels, the ABC, 14.4% and SBS, 3.9%. The 11 FTA channels had a share of 84.9%. That was made up of a total share of 12.1% for the six digital channels and 72.8% for the five main channels.
• Regional: WIN/NBN won here with a share of 33.9%, from Prime/7Qld with 24.4%, SC Ten on 21.2%, the ABC on 16.4% and SBS on 4.0%. The main channels were won by WIN/NBN from Prime/7Qld and SC Ten. GO won the digitals easily (as in the cities) with a share of 5.8%, from 7TWO with 2.4% and ABC 2 on 1.8%. WIN/NBN lead the week with a share of 28.7% from Prime/7Qld with 26.3%.

Major Markets:

It was Nine from Seven and Ten in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide in both the overnight and the main channels. In Perth it was Seven from Nine and Ten overall, but Seven from Ten and Nine in the main channels. GO won everywhere quite easily. 7TWO was mostly second, or shared it with ABC 2. Seven leads Sydney from Nine and Ten, Seven also leads Adelaide and Perth. Nine leads Brisbane and Melbourne from Ten and Seven.

(All shares on the basis of combined overnight 6pm to midnight All People)

Glenn Dyer's comments: The 7pm Project was down to 851,000, but still solid and entertaining. No MasterChef and it was a boring night. Sea Patrol and Rush are really second tier Australian productions, as is Rescue Special Ops.

Thursday night is a good night for both programs. Viewing is low compared to Monday to Wednesday and at the moment Seven is giving away Thursdays in the hope of convincing the NRL that it is worthy of a few crumbs from the new TV rights deal by running The Matty Johns Show in Sydney and Brisbane, the two best NRL markets.

The Matty Johns Show streeted Nine's NRL Footy Show again. The Matty Johns Show airs at 7.30pm to 8.30pm in Sydney (290,000) and Brisbane (153,000). The NRL Footy Show averaged 153,000 in Sydney and 106,000 in Brisbane from 9.30pm to 11pm. Nine's The AFL Footy Show averaged 324,000 last night. No Jason Akermanis to talk to his mate, Sam Newsman, and there's 100,000 fewer viewers.

TONIGHT: NRL and AFL on Seven and Nine. Trial and Retribution on the ABC. Ten has the second of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution that started last week. And The 7pm Project.

TOMORROW: Black hole alert. Except for the final episode of Doc Martin on the ABC and AFL on Ten in the afternoon and evening in most markets it’s a rotten night for TV viewing. Australia is playing New Zealand in the rugby from Melbourne on Seven from 7.30pm in Sydney and Brisbane. NRL and AFL on Foxtel.

SUNDAY: Chats in the morning, lot's of politics. A good time for coffee outside, friends and or the papers. NRL and AFL in the afternoon and evening on Nine, Seven and Foxtel. Back to normal viewing in the evening. Dancing with the Stars on Seven from 6.30pm, 60 Minutes at 7.30pm on Nine, Modern Family on Ten at 6.30pm. Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation returns to Ten at 7.30pm. The Good Wife at 8.30pm. Sir David Attenborough's latest series Life on the ABC at 7.30pm. Dateline on SBS at 8.30pm.

Source: OzTAM, TV Networks reports

Check out Crikey's brand new TV blog, White Noise

The so-called global economic recovery doesn’t seem to be rubbing off on Macquarie Group, whose share price continues to founder as it announced a somber earnings outlook. While Macquarie managed to eke out a 21% increase in after tax net profit (and 3% rise in earnings per share) last year, CEO Nicholas Moore disappointed investors when the forecast that its capital, fixed income/commodities and securities groups would experience lower profit next year. Those groups account for the vast majority of the Macquarie’s total income.

Investors certainly didn’t appreciate the news. Within minutes, Macquarie’s share price was down 4% for the day to $36.81. The investment bank's shares had peaked at almost $100 in 2007 at the height of the bubble epoque, but fell to $15 in March 2008. Since then, investors flocked back to the bank, which out-lived imitators Babcock & Brown and Allco Finance Group. As recently as May 2010, Macquarie shares were trading above $50, in the two months since, its share price has fallen by 27% -- during that time, the S&P200 ASX Financial Index has dropped 10%.

While investors had been were quick to fall for Macquarie’s recovery, the story wasn't as positive as it seemed. As this column pointed out in early May while Macquarie’s share price was rising, it appeared that earnings recovery would be short-lived:

Not only did Macquarie’s income per share not really increase, but it benefited from "one time" break fee payments and management fees, which will no longer be paid. For example, by looking at MAp’s annual report, one can determine that in 2009, on top of the $345 million lump sum to internalise management, MAp also paid Macquarie "base and performance" fees of $26.7 million.

Over at Macquarie Infrastructure, the mother ship was paid fees of $46.3 million for management (as well as $100 odd million to give up management of Intoll, the "good part" of MIG). The MAp, MMG and most of MIG’s fees from will not be repeated and served to inflate Macquarie’s current year’s earnings.

Of course, the bank can’t be blamed for everything -- it remains highly leveraged to the global economy and events beyond its control. As Moore noted

It’s very, very difficult for us to make a forecast about where we’ll end up at the end of the year … there’s been a substantial decline in confidence. Europe is making people nervous. The U.S. is making people nervous. There are a lot of reasons for nervousness.

Nevertheless, the group’s recent performance casts further doubt about just how strong Macquarie’s alignment between pay and performance is. Macquarie’s remuneration this year appears to contradict claims in its 2010 annual report that it had "revised some specific aspects of its remuneration arrangements during the year [and had placed] an even greater emphasis on longer-term incentives". In fact, last year Macquarie CEO Moore received short-term benefits of $5.2 million while Macquarie Capital head Michael Carapiet and Fixed income boss Andrew Downes received $7.3 million. This is despite Macquarie’s share price falling by more than 60% in three years.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

The debate over whether the US central bank should step up its quantitative easing program and start buying more US government debt in order to stop the country sliding into a Japanese-style deflationary quagmire suddenly became a lot more heated last night after James Bullard, the head of the St Louis Fed, and a voting member on the US Federal Reserve’s policy-making committee, released a paper that argued forcefully that central bank purchases of government debt are the best way to stimulate a weak economy stuck in a low-inflation/low-interest rate trap.

Bullard’s comments come at a time when there is increasing nervousness among some US politicians that the central bank is turning into a quasi-fiscal institution that is loading its balance sheets with assets of sometimes dubious quality. Last week, Ben Bernanke, head of the US Federal Reserve, appeared undecided on the need for further quantitative easing when he appeared before US Congress. And the head of the Dallas Fed, Richard Fisher, countered Bullard’s remarks overnight by saying he considered there was little the central bank could do to buoy the economy.

In the paper, titled Seven Faces of "The Peril", Bullard warns that "the US is closer to a Japanese-style outcome today than at any time in recent history".

Bullard argues that when inflation and interest rates are at extremely low levels, conventional monetary policy becomes ineffective. Central banks aren’t able to cut interest rates to stimulate the economy because interest rates can’t be reduced below zero. And the markets know that interest rates won’t be increased if inflation does rise, because inflation levels are still too low.

Bullard argues that the US Federal Reserve’s current promise to keep interest rates near zero "for an extended period" is a double-edged sword. He says the policy is based on the idea that these low interest rates will eventually fuel inflation, and that this will release the economy from its current low inflation/low interest rate trap.

According to Bullard, as it recovers from the severe global recession, the US economy is extremely vulnerable to negative shocks that will dampen inflationary expectations. As a result, the economy could be pushed into a low inflation/low interest rate state. "Escape from such an outcome is problematic", he warns.

Bullard warns that the market fully expects the US Fed to react to any negative external shock by promising to keep rates low for even longer, "which may be counterproductive because it may encourage a permanent low nominal interest rate outcome". Instead, he argues "a better response to a negative shock is to expand the quantitative easing program through the purchase of Treasury securities".

Bullard argued that the US Fed’s quantitative easing program in 2009 was successful in pushing up longer-term interest rates. And the Bank of England’s quantitative policy managed to push inflation and inflationary expectations higher, "and for that reason the UK seems less threatened by a deflationary trap".

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

The market is down 23. The SFE Futures were down 17 this morning.

Wall Street closed down 30 having been down 110 at worst and up 87 at best. Initial jobless claims fell less than expected and company results rather flopped. The metal prices were up, Gold up $8 and the oil price up. The A$ at 90.07c is holding as the US$ hits a two months low against the Euro and falls 8.7% from the June high. Chinese officials declare inflation is under control. US 2nd Q GDP numbers tonight offer more fear than hope.

In other news…

• Macquarie Group have had another profit warning. The second profits "caution" in a month. They say results from Macquarie Capital, Macquarie Securities and the Fixed Income, Currencies and Commodities (FICC) divisions are expected to fall in 2011 unless market conditions improve. Price down 3.83% or 146c to 3692c.
• Graincorp (GNC) and AWB have announced a $2bn merger which is effectively a takeover of AWB by Graincorp at a small (10%) premium to the AWB price. For 5.75 AWB shares AWB shareholders get 1 GNC share. AWB have also announced a profits warning which perhaps explains the lack of a premium bid price. AWB is up 1.5c to 97c. GNC is down 10c to 592c.
• Mitchell Communications (MCU) has received a takeover offer from the UK’s Aegis Group via a scheme of arrangements valuing MCU at around $363m or 120c a share. MCU shareholders can take 120c a-share cash or receive Aegis shares. The offer represents a 15.4% premium to MCU’s last closing price of 104c. Harold Mitchell (owns 30%) is taking shares. MCU up 18.3% or 19c to 123c this morning.
• Programmed Maintenance Group (PRG) have announced a profit warning and have fallen 22%. The market is taking no prisoners on disappointment. A timely reminder ahead of the results season starting next week.
• Energy Resources Australia (ERA) down 4.6% on some weak results. They talk about the uranium market being well supplied in the short term.
• RIO and JV partner Chinalco have officially signed a deal on the joint development of the Simandou project. Chinalco will pay RIO $1.35bn over the next 2 to 3 years and will eventually own 44.65%, while RIO’s take will be 50.35%, down from 95%.
• In the private sector ASIC have banned the IPO of MyATM on concerns over their accounts disclosure and REDGROUP Retail (own Borders and Angus & Robertson) say they may breach debt covenants. They were expected to list sometime this year (owned by private equity).
• Stock hitting fresh yearly highs today include: Mitchell Communications (MCU) Reckon (RKN). New yearly lows include: Aristocrat Leisure (ALL, Fisher & Paykel (FPA), Programmed Maintenance (PRG), Tanami Gold (TAM).

For a free 5 day obligation free trial of the MARCUS TODAY newsletter (and no we won’t ask for a credit card number) please Click Here - you will receive our renowned and popular Daily email about the stockmarket with all the stuff you need to know ahead of the trading day including overnight developments, news, comments, rumours, broker stuff and Ideas from Marcus and his Team. You will also be given a password to the MARCUS TODAY website including access to our Recommended Portfolio which is actively managed on behalf of subscribers.…no “set & forget”. Everything you need to effortlessly managed your own long term investment portfolio.

It includes an Income Portfolio. And for the traders we monitor short and medium term trades on top of the portfolio. Members also get access to our Database – all the numbers with comments on the ASX 200 stocks and more. Members also get access to our Educational section which includes an archive of Marcus’s Educational and Entertaining articles. We are sure you will enjoy and profit from what we offer. Thousands of subscribers enjoy and profit from our services every day. We have one of the highest re-subscription rates in the financial newsletter industry.

For your FREE TRIAL — Click here

To Subscribe to MARCUS TODAY — Click Here

We also offer a FREE END OF DAY EMAIL — Click here — A free summary of the day in the market.

WikiLeaks and Afghanistan:

Harry Goldsmith writes: Re. "Whatever their motivation, WikiLeaks undermine international humanitarian law" (yesterday, item 10). Neil James tells us that:

"WikiLeaks is not authorised in international or Australian law, nor equipped morally or operationally, to judge whether open publication of such material risks the safety, security, morale and legitimate objectives of Australian and allied troops fighting in a UN-endorsed military operation. Nor should and can groups such as WikiLeaks be so authorised or equipped respectively, especially when they are unaccountable to any responsible authority or international humanitarian law (IHL) in a legal or moral sense."

I am pleased that WikiLeaks was able to show the Helicopter Gunship Massacre, so we could see the barbarism that is war, especially in the light of Hans Blix’s comments before the UK Inquiry into the Iraq War. I understand that US’s appetite for war in Vietnam was reduced because TV audiences could see what was involved, and maybe the Helicopter Gunship Massacre will have a similar effect. So, too, will the airing of atrocities in Afghanistan.

Does Neil James think that Daniel Ellsberg, who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers was similarly "not authorized" and should therefore be condemned? (For those not aware of the Pentagon Papers, Wikepedia  records that the "Pentagon Papers demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance."

At my local RSL club, members and guests hear the words each night "Lest we forget". I fear we do forget.

Have we forgotten that the Taliban are powerful in Afghanistan because the US assisted them to overthrow a previous government? The US action has come back to bite it in its metaphorical bum.

I wonder if these subversive words of mine will be interpreted by Neil James as words that "intentionally assist, by any means whatsoever, an enemy, at war with the Commonwealth".

Kevin Foster writes: A clarification regarding Neil James' addition (Wednesday, comments)  to Jeff Sparrow's piece. He observes that my 2009 edited book What are we doing in Afghanistan? "is meant to be the full proceedings of a sparsely attended one-day November 2008 Monash University symposium but ended up including only those contributions Foster agrees with."

This is risible. Sparsely attended? There were around 25 delegates there for the greater part of the day:  more than enough to generate plenty of spirited debate. As for the publication. The collection included all papers submitted for publication, with the sole exception of Neil James' ("one of those censored out"??).

Far from censoring out work that supported the ADF's media policy I had trouble sourcing it. Two speakers from the symposium chose not to submit a piece for the edited collection. I did, indeed, elect not to include Neil James' piece, but only after a lengthy email correspondence with him in which he refused any proposed edits.

I left the piece out not because I disagreed with what he had to say but because it was intemperate, insufficiently scholarly and, in its thinly veiled attacks on one of the journalists who attended the conference, possibly actionable.

This isn't bias, Neil, it's editing. Get over it.

Serco and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship:

Department of Immigration and Citizenship spokesman Sandi Logan writes: Re. "Why privatisation should be on the agenda" (yesterday, item 14). Let me assure Crikey readers the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) -- and its detention services provider Serco -- treats seriously its duty of care to all people in detention.  The safety and good order of all of our detention facilities is paramount.

Serco, our current detention services provider and the subject of your correspondent's report, was selected as the Australian Government’s detention services provider through a fair and transparent tender process. Where areas for improvement have been identified since Serco was contracted by DIAC, appropriate action has been taken to remed these issues.

If Loewenstein knows of anyone in detention who has complaint about the way they are being treated or the detention environment in general, he can advise them there are clear complaint-handling mechanisms in place to ensure their concerns are treated seriously, investigated promptly and resolved.

Finally, contrary to the tenor of your Loewenstein's report, and as Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young herself said in recent days, there is a community feeling among detainees at Curtin Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) as well as goodwill towards those in charge.  Clearly he was writing about Australian immigration detention arrangements without recent first hand knowledge.

Emma Needham, Communications Director, Serco Asia Pacific, writes: I write in response to Antony Loewenstein’s references to Serco in yesterday’s edition of Crikey.

Serco has grown to become one of the world's leading service companies by working in partnership with its customers, mainly governments, to manage change smoothly and positively. Citizens want faster and better services so we think innovatively to help governments improve services across a diverse range of sectors. Serco has been operating in Australia for more than 15 years, partnering with governments in the delivery of services in transport, health, justice, immigration and defence.

Serco began operations in 1929, known then as RCA Services Limited. In 1987, RCA Services Limited was renamed Serco Limited and in 1988, the company achieved a full listing on the London Stock Exchange as Serco Group plc. Serco has no connection or association with KBA or Halliburton as inferred by Mr Loewenstein.

Serco’s values-based approach and strong management capability are underpinned by a robust accountability framework in all contracts we operate, including immigration services. Serco is subject to closely monitored contractual requirements and the company will be penalised where it does not meet these requirements. Furthermore, governance and accountability is assured through a rigorous independent inspection and monitoring framework, which is often far more comprehensive than that to which the public service is subjected.

Serco aims to positively contribute to the communities in which we operate and has a strong history of high performance. We are working closely with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to deliver a humane and dignified service for the people in our care. Following a two day visit to Christmas Island last week, Professor Patrick McGorry spoke of the improvements that have been made, describing the centres as, "a more supportive and humane environment" where staff are treating asylum seekers as clients, not criminals.

The Greens:

Chris Hunter writes: Re. "Meet the Greens, Part Two: how will they fare on August 21?" (yesterday, item 2). I can't quite come to terms with Bernard Keane's rather optimistic outlook for the Greens at the upcoming election. The Green's worst enemy is increasingly staring them in the face -- polarisation. Squeezed out of the primary vote their power evaporates, all of which serves Tony Abbott.

I hope for Gillard's sake that her political sponsors have got their sums right. Perhaps Bob Brown could have signed the deal -- and tinkered with it down the track?

Roger Davenport writes: The other night we heard the deputy leader of the Greens on Q&A telling us one of their policies was to introduce light rail into the cities -- starting with Canberra. I would have though Donkeys would have been more environmentally friendly.

The only problem would be that when our four legged transport trotted up to Parliament house bearing our elected representatives, security might have difficulty trying to work out the difference between a donkey and an ASS.

Laurie Oakes:

Peter Wesley-Smith writes: Re. "This isn't your usual Cabinet leak" (Wednesday, item 1). In the old days, or perhaps it was just in some primary-school journalism course, an allegation wasn't publishable until it was corroborated by at least one other source.

Did Mr Oakes have any corroboration for the supposed leak from Cabinet? Seems unlikely.

Barbara Brady writes: Is it my imagination or is Laurie Oakes slowly morphing into a Piers Akerman?

Hidden inflation:

John Band writes: Re. "Our Goldilocks economy moment ... if you believe the CPI figures" (yesterday, item 21). Adam Schwab's article on 'hidden' inflation mixed up two very different issues.

Australia rose in the international cost-of-living rankings solely because they're measured in US$ and the A$ has appreciated against the US$. But, apart from people with savings or incomes overseas, that has absolutely no impact on the cost of living here (I do have savings and incomes overseas, so sucks-to-be-me, but I'm not representative of many Australians).

The point about CPI versus RPI is more reasonable, but exaggerated - especially because utilities price rises *are* included in CPI. They've been offset by the fall in prices of imported goods due to ... yup ... the strong A$.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name — we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.