Stephen Mayne writes:

Whilst the corporate plod has received the mother of all beltings in today’s papers for the failure to string up former One-Tel CEO Jodee Rich, more attention should be focused on the role played by Australia’s politicians and the Murdoch and Packer families.

The sophistication of any democracy is usefully measured by the ability of the judicial system and so-called independent regulators to independently prosecute the rich and powerful.

For at least 15 years before the One.Tel collapse, the Murdochs and Packers were the two richest, most powerful and most politically connected families in Australia.

When One.Tel fell over on May 20, 2001, James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch teamed up to release this remarkable statement claiming to have been “profoundly misled” and vowing to “explore all remedies available to us”.

Being directors of One.Tel, the most obvious remedy was to brief the corporate cop that the non-executive directors had been lied to by the management team.

Showing remarkable alacrity, ASIC issued this press release on December 12, 2001, trumpeting that proceedings against the three executive directors Jodee Rich, Brad Keeling and Mark Silbermann had commenced.

However, the non-executive directors were divided into two camps. Non-executive chairman John Greaves was pursued whilst the three long-serving NEDs, James Packer, Lachlan Murdoch and Rodney Adler, were left alone.

Then ASIC enforcement chief Jan Redfern gave evidence in the case that Australia’s two richest heirs weren’t pursued for “strategic and legal reasons”.

Was this another way of saying they were too rich and powerful?

Brad Keeling was the first to roll over in March 2003, agreeing to a 10 year ban, a $92 million compensation bill and liability for ASIC’s $750,000 in legal costs. He eventually handed over less than $1 million to ASIC in a settlement with his creditors.

John Greaves also didn’t have the resources to fight and rolled over in September 2004, settling for a 10 year ban, a $20 million compensation bill and ASIC’s $350,000 legal bill. In a later settlement with creditors, Greaves also handed over less than $1 million to ASIC.

Jodee Rich yesterday revealed that he twice offered to settle with ASIC, but the plod rejected his terms. He also claims that John Howard’s brother Stan, the long-time Rich family lawyer, urged his now deceased father Steven Rich to encourage his son to settle.

Now whose interest would such a settlement have been in? The three most obvious parties are Lachlan Murdoch, James Packer and ASIC – the triumvirate which co-operated ahead of the original proceedings being launched.

We all know that John Howard was very close to Kerry Packer – look no further than that taxpayer funded memorial service in January 2006.

Similarly, it has been widely reported that James Packer was one of the few Sydney business figures who was close to Peter Costello.

As Treasurer, Peter Costello personally selected the ASIC chairs who had carriage of the matter: Melbourne lawyer David Knott until 2004 and Adelaide accountant Jeff Lucy until 2007 when the judge retired to consider his findings.

Now that Justice Austin has released his damning judgment criticising both James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch as witnesses, the reputation of Australia’s regulatory system is under threat.

In my opinion, James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch got special treatment from ASIC because of who they were.

Given ASIC’s more recent tactic of pursuing entire boards in the James Hardie and Centro Properties Group matters, you have ask whether the approach would have been different if a Murdoch or a Packer was a director of one of those companies?

Surely a Senate inquiry is now warranted to investigate whether ASIC treats all citizens equally when applying the law.

There are a number of other interesting factors at work. The caning of ASIC by the judge and the press means it is less likely to appeal.

Similarly, the judge’s criticism of James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch makes it much more likely they will settle with One-Tel’s liquidator Paul Weston over the aborted $132 million rights issue.

Finally, as Jodee Rich flies off to America today to pursue his latest venture, social media dashboard Peoplebrowsr.com, it is worth considering who stuck by the controversial One-Tel founder during this ridiculously long 8 year ordeal that cost him $15 million.

Rich’s legal team led by David Williams SC clearly did a superb job, wife Maxine was there in court with him most days and even PR man Tim Allerton was there from beginning to end when it would have been easy to walk away given the forces they were all up against.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Margot Saville writes:

Jodee Rich woke up this morning "knowing how lucky I am to live in a country where an individual can climb a v big mountain and win against Govt and Big Biz,” he said on Twitter. Then he got on his bike and went back to work.

Although the ASIC judgment has been hanging over Rich’s head "like a sword of Damocles", as one of his friends told me yesterday, he has not been sitting around waiting for it to fall. An early adopter of new technology, in early 2007 he started a new business, a social media networking tool called Peoplebrowsr, which started invoicing clients two months ago.

For Rich, however, the One.Tel issue does not end with yesterday’s judgement. In his capacity as a One.Tel shareholder (with 40% of the shares) he has filed, but not served, a lawsuit in the NSW Supreme Court against News Corp, PBL, One.Tel, Freehills and Ernst and Young. In it, he is seeking the payment of the $132 million that PBL and News had originally committed for the rights issue, plus interest and damages.

In the judgement, Justice Austin says that "a fundraising of $132 million accompanied by continuing support by the major shareholders would probably have been enough to address the company's cash requirement until November 2001, by which time, according to the business plans, the company's businesses would have been generating more healthy group cash flow. The withdrawal of that support, and the abandonment of the rights issue, may well have ensured that the company could not survive." This part of the verdict will give that lawsuit some impetus.

In addition, Jodee said yesterday that in June 2001, his father had been telephoned by Stan Howard, brother of the PM, with a request to settle the case, which he believed had been made at the behest of Kerry Packer. Both Howards yesterday denied this.

But it was a big day, with half of Sydney turning up to hear Justice Robert Austin deliver his long-awaited judgment. Journalists, lawyers and hangers on packed the court to hear the verdict on one of Sydney’s longest-running and most complex commercial trials.

As befitting a judge who had just written a 3100-page judgement, Justice Austin was brisk, delivering a few words of housekeeping before coming to the point.

I find that ASIC failed to prove any facet of its pleaded case against either defendant," he said. There was a long, long pause, as everyone in the courtroom held their breath, waiting for the qualifier. After two long seconds, we exhaled, staring at each other. “Was that it? Jodee has won and ASIC has lost every single point? That’s it?

In just 16 words, Justice Austin brought to an end a case involving almost $40 million in legal costs, 232 hearing days, 16,642 pages of transcript and 4384 pages of written submissions. To say that everyone in the courtroom was stunned would be an understatement.

As the room cleared, Rich and his wife, Maxine, embraced, both with tears in their eyes. One.Tel collapsed in May 2001, and ASIC started civil proceedings against Rich and his fellow directors Mark Silbermann, Brad Keeling and John Greaves in December of that year. Eight years is a very long time to live with a court case, and many people had advised Rich and Silbermann to do what  Keeling and Greaves subsequently did; settling with the regulator, paying a fine, moving on with their lives. But Rich always wanted to fight the case, no matter what the cost.

And the cost has been extremely high. At the beginning of her career, Maxine Rich had been a very successful corporate lawyer at Freehills, working with David Gonski and the late Kim Santow. Post-children, she was appointed to the prestigious Takeovers Panel and served as a director on several public company boards, but once Jodee was charged she chose to step down and support the family. However, Maxine soon become the cornerstone of his legal team, giving crucial early advice and going with him to court. In the past few years, however, she has stepped away to resume her professional career. Jodee has stayed his usual irrepressible self, but the case has taken its toll; he has aged.

James Packer, of course, has also suffered. Packer and Lachlan Murdoch, both non-executive directors of One.Tel, first approved the $132 million rights issue and then changed their minds, claiming they were "profoundly misled". PBL and News Ltd together lost about $1 billion when the telecommunications company went under. Rupert Murdoch has said publicly that he had been part of the decision-making, that it had been a mistake, and the company was moving on. For the Packers, however, One.Tel proved to be yet another weapon in the ongoing psychological war between father and son over the only thing that appeared to count in that relationship -- money.

According to Paul Barry’s book, Kerry, despite being extremely sick at the time, used the collapse of One.Tel to come back to the office, telling people he was "back in charge". In the fallout, James got divorced, turned to Scientology, lost his way. Meanwhile, there was much speculation in corporate circles about the reasoning behind charging some of the directors of One.Tel and not those with the surnames Packer and Murdoch.

During the court hearing, in 2004, Rich’s barrister, David Williams SC, cross-examined ASIC’s head of enforcement, Jan Redfern, about this.

Q. You took the view in late 2001, didn’t you, that it would
potentially damage the ASIC case against the other directors if Messrs Packer
and Murdoch were added as defendants?
A. I took the view that we didn’t have sufficient to warrant
commencing proceedings against them.

Q. You took the view that joining them as defendants would damage
the case against the other directors, didn’t you?
A. We were seeking disqualification proceedings and the issue was
that we were saying as part of our case that the executive directors had misled
or not informed the board about a whole number of things.

Q. You perceived that joining those directors - that is, Messrs
Packer and Murdoch - would undermine that case, didn’t you?
A. The issue is that our case would really have undermined any
possibility of a disqualification order against the other directors, against
the directors you’re talking about, Mr Packer or Mr Murdoch. If you’re arguing
they were misled, it is hard to then argue they should be disqualified.

Q. You had taken the view that they had been acting negligently,
hadn’t you -- that is, Messrs Packer and Murdoch?
A. We’d taken the view they should have done more to discover the
true position, certainly.

Q. And that that constituted a breach of their duties under section
180 of the Corporations Act or Law, didn’t you?
A. Yes, there was certainly that possibility.

Q. That was the view that you had at the time, wasn’t it?
A. Our view was that they could have done more to uncover the truth.

Today’s newspapers have exhaustively covered the judge’s opinion about the conduct of Packer and Murdoch as witnesses. But his findings about long-term Packer loyalist Geoff Kleemann have gone unremarked. Kleemann, the PBL CFO, was ordered by Kerry to keep a close eye on One.Tel’s finances and as such, his evidence was crucial. He is now a non-executive director on the board of Asciano.

The judge found that "there were five topics on which I found his evidence problematic. I agree with the defendants that the cumulative effect of these matters is that it is necessary to treat Mr Kleemann's evidence with caution and circumspection as to matters touching on the interests of PBL and CPH (Consolidated Press Holdings)".

One of those areas was "his extraordinary claim to be unable to remember events in the period from 17 May (2001) onwards. He said in cross-examination that he had "strong recollections up to 8 May", but "barely any recollection of anything to do with One.Tel thereafter"… He seemed to me to be seeking to avoid a situation in which he would have to give the court a personal opinion held by him that was at variance with the revised PBL/CPH view."

So there are no winners from yesterday’s judgement, apart from the lawyers. We taxpayers have lost about $40 million, the Riches (and to a lesser extent, the Silbermanns) have lost eight years of their lives, and many, many reputations have been damaged. The two chairmen of ASIC who had carriage of the case, David Knott and Jeff Lucy, have since moved on. Who will now put their hand up and say they were responsible for making this mistake?

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

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Andrew Crook writes:

The scarcely believable revelations in parliament yesterday that Anna Bligh's former chief-of-staff and convicted vote rorter Mike Kaiser had been gifted a $450,000 per annum parachute in his new role as the National Broadband Network's "government relations" officer has distracted attention from the rumblings inside his old office over a successor.

Crikey understands that the two obvious internal candidates, Nicole Scurrah and Stephen Beckett, were believed to be angling for the prize gig that pays more than $200,000 a year, but that Bligh remains keen to recruit an outsider to halt the destabilisation campaign that has seen nearly every member of her inner circle linked to a mutiny attempt.

The confusion last Friday, when just hours before Kaiser's departure, a Bligh spinner told Crikey that the rumours of his departure were false and had been "put about by the opposition", has done little to restore confidence in the fractured office.

Kaiser's Labor Forum colleague Cameron Dick has been slugging it out with the old guard's Andrew Fraser for the poisoned leadership chalice, but 27 long months out from polling day, Bligh is keen to lock in a loyal headkicker and dispense with any lingering threats from the all-powerful AWU.

Kaiser, who before the Ruddband announcement was widely expected to return to his former state seat of Woodridge to succeed Desley Scott in 2012, clearly decided that the inner circle had turned gangrenous and that two-and-a-half years of hard slog wasn't worth it.

Better to plump for a cushy NBN "liaison" role, which will apparently involve stitching up deals with state-based utilities and dealing with media inquires, although the job description so far has been vague to say the least.

Nick Minchin, taking time off from his crusade against deep green cryto-communists, put it best yesterday when he observed that Kaiser is "to promote a company that generates no revenue, has no customers and provides no services to anybody".

The document revealing Kaiser's fat salary, humorously tabled by his close Queensland AWU mate Joe Ludwig, seems out of whack with market and public expectations, and will be funded almost entirely by the taxpayer with the NBN unlikely to ever realise anything resembling a profit.

The timing of Kaiser's appointment is also interesting. Tasmanian sources have twigged that the veteran dirt digger's presence in Tasmania to supervise the first stage of the broadband roll-out next year corresponds conveniently with the March state election. Just as Kaiser flipped the campaign switch to negative in an attempt to skewer Queensland LNP leader Lawrence Springborg in the dying days of the Queensland poll, Tasmanians fear Kaiser could easily reprise his role if things get desperate.

Liberal leader Will Hodgman, who is currently coasting with an approval rating of 40, will almost certainly fall victim to a desperate assassination attempt and conservative sources are said to be wary of Kaiser's presence in the state as polling day nears.

The latest ructions come as the $43 billion NBN begins to resemble an increasingly costly white elephant, with AAPT chief Paul Broad hammering the project yesterday as "absolute rubbish". With basic line rental set to skyrocket, and high-speed internet hurtling towards wireless and satellite services, Kaiser's millions could end up being syphoned deep into the project's under-utilised intertubes for decades to come.

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

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Margaret Simons writes:

Journalists covering the Black Saturday bushfires earlier this year lacked ethical guidelines, and were left to find their own way through the dilemmas and traumas of reporting Australia’s worst peace-time disaster, according to an extraordinary and moving research study that gives a close-grained view of how journalists work under pressure.

The report, by the University of Melbourne Centre for Advanced Journalism, is based on 28 extended and anonymous interviews with media professionals who were directly involved in the coverage. For a sample of the extraordinary case studies from the research report, see The Content Makers blog.

The report, which was released this morning, says: "Not one of the respondents in this research said they had received any kind of briefing on what to expect, how to behave or what was expected of them. They were just told to go. Sometimes they were not even told where to go. Just to go."

As a result journalists, editors and producers were left to follow their own moral compass -- and it guided them in many different directions.

Contrary to the stereotype, many reporters chose not report material they judged to be distressing to victims and their families, and made careful judgements about what was in the public interest, and what was not.

The report says:

There is a rich irony here. The media create many stereotypes, and by their own hand they have created a stereotype of media behaviour: jostling scrums of voracious bodies thrusting cameras and microphone booms in people’s faces, chasing people along the street and shouting inane questions. But all stereotypes are unjust and so is this one. The media do sometimes behave badly, hysterically and like a primeval herd but, as this research shows, it is a small part of a much bigger and more complicated story.

The report, researched and written by Dr Denis Muller with the director of the centre, former Age editor Michael Gawenda, raises a variety of ethical and practical issues for journalists and the authorities who handle media relations in disaster zones.

It finds that there is an insufficient agreement on ethical standards among journalists on issues including what is permissible in gaining access to a disaster scene. At the Black Saturday fires, some journalists respected road blocks and others regarded it as acceptable to practise to use deception to get through.

This is a vivid illustration of the state of mind many journalists bring to their work. They genuinely believe that they are acting honourably and for the greater good. For a person in this state of mind, those who seek to hinder them are hindering the greater good. It is important to understand the sincerity with which this attitude is held, and its importance as a driver in some of the best journalistic work.

But it is also the case, the report says, that journalists are often not trained or equipped properly to weigh their understanding of the duty to disclose against other public interest considerations.

These are concrete ethical questions to which the media’s codes of ethics give only the most abstract – and sometimes ambiguous – attention.

The report also suggests that authorities are sometimes misguided in trying to protect victims from the media in the first aftermath of a disaster. Telling their stories can be helpful and cathartic in the first 48 hours. But later, grief sets in and more care is needed, the report suggests.

The report found a large amount of journalistic consensus on how traumatised people should be treated, including that they should not be harassed, that refusals to be interviewed should be accepted, that quotes should be able to be withdrawn, that close-up intrusions on grief or moments of intimacy should be avoided and that it was a betrayal not to keep in touch with interview subjects. There were some breaches of these standards, but most journalists observed them even when under pressure from their newsdesks..

The report shows journalists showing a great deal of sensitivity in their dealings with victims and survivors, sometimes dropping their professional responsibilities altogether to help. There are also frequent accounts of journalists in tears as they struggled to come to terms with what had happened. The report says:

A lot of material that was in the possession of media people was not published -- for excellent reasons: to spare the feelings of survivors; to spare the sensibilities of the public at large; to preserve the dignity of the dead. Some aspects of the story, such as the performance of the authorities and the causes of the disaster, were not pursued by some parts of the media until an editorial judgement had been made that the time was right. It provides a good example of the difference between editing and censorship.

The media in many cases held back on asking the legitimate questions of the authorities, out of concern for the effect on victims. This meant that in some cases, issues journalists were aware of from an early stage, including the lack of timely reports and warnings, were not aired until days and even weeks after the disaster.

The study includes an extraordinary case study of a radio presenter faced with trying to give accurate information when faced with telephone calls from listeners saying one thing -- including that the bushfires were in Kinglake -- when the official information from the authorities was entirely different. In some cases, her producer was the last person to talk to people before they died.

The presenter still struggles with the impact of what and how she chose to broadcast on the day, as flames engulfed whole townships that were, according to the authorities, not even at risk.

The report says that while news organisations have "come a long way" in recognising trauma among their staff  "they still have a long way to go". Offers of counseling were made in impersonal fashion, often by email. Management saw this as respecting privacy, but it was interpreted by many staff as a sign that management did not think counseling was important.

The report says that there are "big lessons" to be learned about trauma management for reporters, including the way help is offered, and the need to use specialist trauma counselors.

This report is the first major research project of the Centre for Advance Journalism.

There is more meat in it than can possibly be reflected here.

One can only hope that the issues it raises will form the basis of journalism training courses, and will be picked up and considered by the media organisations involved.

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

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Crikey Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes

The spruikers for nuclear energy never say die. Climate change has given them a whole new lease of life. No-emission nuclear power should, they say, be part of Australia’s response to climate change. This week ANSTO chief Ziggy Switkowski said we should aim for 50 nuclear plants by 2050.

It won’t happen until the ALP fundamentally changes its policy on nuclear power. The Coalition is too scarred by their experience in the last election, when John Howard’s flirtation with the debate led to a Labor scare campaign about nuclear reactors in every backyard. Alas, that wasn’t quite how the right-wing media hoped the issue would play out when the Switkowski Report was released in 2006.

Still, hope springs eternal in Liberal hearts. In Tuesday’s joint partyroom meeting, Julie Bishop pointed out that “19 out of 20” G20 countries are pursuing nuclear power. Australia, self-evidently, is the nuclear laggard.

Tomorrow we’ll look at just how much it would cost for Australia to seriously embrace nuclear power as a response to climate change. Today, let’s consider whether the rest of the world is going nuclear in the way that proponents suggest.

First, some bald numbers taken from the German Government-commissioned World Nuclear Industry Status Report from August this year.

There are currently 435 reactors operating worldwide, nine less than in 2002. There are 52 reactors listed as “under construction” (more on that later), down from a peak in 1979 of 233 and 120 in 1987. No new plants were connected anywhere in 2008. The last plant to come online was the Romanian plant Cernavoda-2, which took 24 years to build. Reactors now provide slightly less power worldwide than they did two years ago.

By way of context, the 2 GW of nuclear power connected in 2006-07 was equal to one tenth of the wind power installed globally in 2007. More than double the amount of wind power was installed in the U.S. alone in 2007.

Clearly the nuclear industry is yet to begin recovering from the slump in reactor building worldwide after its peak in the mid-1980s.

That poses two problems for any “nuclear renaissance” and its capacity to provide a legitimate, timely response to climate change.

Firstly, the global “fleet” of reactors is ageing. The average age of plants worldwide is 25 years. The industry maintains that reactors have a lifetime of 40 years (and that of new generations of reactors 60 years), but the average age of the 123 reactors that have been closed across the world has been 22 years. Even assuming a lifetime of 40 years, and assuming all 52 reactors “under construction” proceed, 42 reactors need to be planned and built between now and 2015, and a further 192 built out to 2025, to replace the current nuclear power capacity.

It is highly unlikely that nuclear power will therefore play anything other than a declining role in the provision of the world’s power supply in coming decades.

Then there’s the second, and more problematic issue: nuclear power plants take an extraordinarily long time to build. The 24-year gestation of the Romanian plant was unusual – plants have been built in five years in China, Russia and South Korea. The global average construction period for recent connections in 9 years. This means that even if Australia adopted a crash course of nuclear reactor building, there wouldn’t be a single watt of power available until late next decade at the earliest.

However, reactor construction is subject to costly delays. Some reactors are listed as “under construction” for decades and then simply abandoned. The Generation III Olkiluoto-3 reactor in Finland – the flagship of the nuclear renaissance in Europe – has been under construction for four years. It is currently three years behind schedule, E1.7b over its E3.3b budget and mired in litigation. A new plant under construction in Flamanville in France was halted last year by safety authorities and is scheduled to start in 2012-13, with the cost likely to finish at E4.5b, up from its initial E3.3b cost.

The industry faces other problems. The long downturn in reactor construction and operation has created bottlenecks and skill shortages. For example, there is only one facility in the world, in Japan, that makes the large forgings required for reactor pressure vessels. And the ageing of the western workforce has particular implications for the nuclear industry, which has failed to attract many graduates in recent decades. In France, there are currently more than 1200 positions available within the industry and only 300 nuclear science graduates a year.

There will also continue to be problems accessing capital for the industry. The long lead times for construction and uncertain economics of nuclear power prompted ratings agency Moody’s, in a bluntly-titled release in July, to declare that it would take “a more cautious view toward issuers that are actively pursuing new nuclear power generation. In a post-GFC world of constrained credit, nuclear power looks far riskier than it used to.

“Once operating, nuclear plants are viewed favourably due to their economics and no-carbon emission footprint,” Moody’s said, “but history gives us reason to be concerned about possible balance sheer challenges, the lack of tangible current efforts to defend the existing ratings, and the substantial execution of risk involved in building new nuclear power facilities.”

It’s not radioactivity or scare campaigns that are the nuclear industry’s biggest problem, it’s the maths. The numbers show that for decades to come, it will offer less and less of a solution to climate change, and it simply takes too long and costs too much to develop.

Tomorrow: what it would cost for Australia to go nuclear.

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

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Hume. From an inside source. The notion of requesting early Liberal Party nominations for Hume and Macarthur was not only to flush out Farmer and Schultz but to dissuade the Nationals from entering the contest under their Nationals for Regional Australia banner and their newly formed Wollondilly branch.

It is understood that the Libs are planning a war of attrition as under the coalition federal agreement each party cannot challenge a coalition incumbent. The hope being that by delaying the actual preselection the Nationals will be unable to catch up financially; allowing Alby to bow out graciously but leaving only a viable Lib as the candidate.

It is our understanding that the Nats have cottoned on to this ruse and under their new chairman, Alan Hay, are secretly co-ordinating the party faithful and finances for a challenge in Hume. It should be noted that the coalition discussions, although previously scheduled, have yet to be undertaken and that  Hay has been seen with Senator Fiona Nash and Katrina Hodgkinson all over Hume.

Is this a hint at the Nationals candidate? And is Alby going to retire at the last minute or be ousted at the Lib preselection? Oh it’s all so exciting. Yawn!

After weeks of screaming that the Blue Mountains Macquarie pre-selection should be rank-and-file, so called "left" candidate Adam Searle has got his right wing mates to call on the National Executive to N40 him into the seat. So much for Searle running up and down the Mountains telling local branch members that Sue Templeman was ignoring the wishes of the rank-and-file.

We have heard that the National Archive facilities in Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin, etc, are to be closed. They contain records about the NT going back to 1911, including war time, Stolen Generations, Aboriginal health and Cyclone Tracy. It is not appropriate in a democracy, and certainly not a move we would expect of an ALP government.

What is happening at RMIT University in Melbourne!? Rumour has it that retrenchments are currently under way in a particular area of the university but with a short-cutting of the established provisions of the existing enterprise agreement. And this occurring just as negotiations have entered a delicate phase for a new EBA with the unions. The irony of this will be fully realised when it becomes known which area is proceeding down this path.

Is there any truth to Alan Jones interview with this guy? Hope you guys might shed some light on this.

Richard Leupen at United Group just can't seem to get anything right lately: First, he faces a near revolt at the AGM when it’s announced that he will get his multimillion dollar bonus for putting together a succession plan (something most CEOs do as a matter of course).

Next, after deciding to pursue one of his largest clients (Rail Corp) on the advice of his lawyers, he is spectacularly unsuccessful in trying to be paid approximately $50 million for "out of contract" work that had already been built into the 2009/2010 budget as income. Then he chose not to make a profit downgrade statement, instead deciding that his businesses would have to find the savings through internal efficiencies. The major component of these savings was to be found through a large number of redundancies in the rail business and an amalgamation of the back-office functions of the rail and infrastructure businesses.

Now that chief executives in the affected business have completed the horse trading and gone through the process of making a lot of experienced and valuable middle management and senior professionals redundant, comes the news that most of their major competitors are going on poaching raids on the best-performing staff that they have left in a climate of fear and uncertainty. On top of that, the organisation’s order book for 2010/2011 is a lot slimmer than it has been for years, with nothing new in infrastructure, losing contracts in services, a pissed-off client in rail and a very slow climate in resources.

And to cap it all off, the "no poach" condition imposed on one of his former chief executives is due to expire in less than three weeks and one of his major corporate partners is looking lustfully at an entire division of his transport business.

We won’t even mention the cost of changing the company’s name from "United Group Ltd" to "UGL Limited" (yes that would seem to be United Group Ltd Limited).

Re. Crikey's story on the bushfire Code Red register. I know Panton Hill Primary School is not on the register. Madness, given it's definitely further out into the sticks than Hurstbridge etc.

Re. Yesterday's tip regarding the Myer friends and family sale. I thought the same thing last night when I opened my free $10 voucher for Northland shopping centre, and another $10 voucher for a friend. But why boost the sales of a company that's already floated? TPG has made its money and run.

When I flew in from LA to Brisbane last week, I duly declared on the quarantine/customs incoming passenger card that I was bearing "food". I explained to the customs officer that it was packaged chocolate and she said that was fine. Then she asked if I happened to still have the snack bag that Qantas hands out to its passengers. I'd forgotten about the bag, which includes a tiny toothpaste and brush, a bottle of water, peppermints, a small packet of M&Ms and a bag of trail mix.

"Do you still have the bag of crap?" the customs officer asked.

Turned out she was referring to the trail mix, and that quarantine authorities are concerned about the foreign dried banana not being dried out enough and possibly posing a threat to Queensland's banana industry.

I handed it over, wondering how many other "bags of crap" passed through Brisbane airport unconfiscated and whether it might be easier if someone from Quarantine has a word in the ear of someone from Qantas and the trail mix gets replaced with some non-threatening dried fruit ..?

This is a US ad for very cheap Qantas fares. I particularly like Adelaide being described as the "gateway to Kangaroo Island":

Featured Pick: Fly to Australia from $399 Full Deal Review

Qantas Vacations just reduced ticket prices to Australia to as low as $399 one-way for flights May 1 through June 8. Plus, for only $100 more, travellers can add flights to three additional cities in Australia.

With this Qantas "Aussie AirPass" offer you'll get flights to four cities, including Adelaide (the gateway to Kangaroo Island), from $898 round-trip.

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

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

“All the excitement of a round of golf AND a game of baseball, stretched out over five days…”

<br>

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Climate Institute's John Connor writes:

In the next week or so, the carnival of climate carpetbaggers is about to fold its tents on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), at least for this year. How it ends up is still anyone’s guess -- making predictions is like nailing jelly to the wall.

It hasn’t been pretty. Various commentators have described this as one of the worst examples of public policy making. Professor Garnaut accurately paraphrased Winston Churchill to say "never in the history of public policy has so much been given to so few for so little reason".

There’s been a lot of criticism and cynicism about the intentions of our political leaders and of the effectiveness of emissions trading schemes and the CPRS itself. Much of this has been justified and much misdirected and/or misinformed.

The Climate Institute and others have backed an emissions cap and trading scheme over other methods of applying a carbon price because, well designed, it gives greatest certainty that emissions will actually be reduced. The emissions cap is quantifiable, can cover large portions of the economy and, with appropriate targets, sends a clear signal to medium- and long-term investments. It can minimise the need for industry-by-industry regulatory battles that would be otherwise necessary and allow for cost-effective reductions across the economy.

Such schemes need to be part of a toolkit alongside energy efficiency, renewable energy incentives and more but they can be a major tool in that kit.

Notions that a carbon tax would be simpler and less politically controversial ignore all the history of taxation policy here and abroad. It gives little certainty of medium-to-long-term emissions reduction and is less responsive to economic cycles. For all its faults, the European ETS demonstrably had a stabilising effect for some industry during the worst of the financial crisis.

There’s also been a lot of analysis and commentary of what would happen for Australian emissions should a 5% reduction target be adopted for 2020. This government target assumes a complete collapse of international action and negotiations, leaving the world with little or no prospect of peaking global emissions before 2020. Achieving that peaking is vital if we are to keep global warming increases under 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The Climate Institute has focused on the prize that counts. Australia doing its fair share towards an effective global climate effort while increasing our carbon competitiveness in the emerging global low-carbon economy.

The question then, is whether the CPRS is well designed and able to achieve appropriate targets? The CPRS under the White Paper of December was failed these two key tests. It had excessive assistance for big polluters with little conditions or reviews, and it had an insufficient maximum target of 15% reductions.

In May we, along with welfare, union, environment and industry groups, backed key changes that increased the potential target to 25% and added transparency and reviews. This is a much more credible target, according to our and other analysis, and was described by Professor Garnaut as our fair share. Additional transitional assistance in the form of a "global recession buffer" of extra permits was hard to swallow, and now unnecessary, but not fatal to the overall design of the CPRS whose foundations, with protection against windfall gains for generators and other differences, are much more solid than Europe’s original scheme.

To assist our examination of what may result from the current coalition and government negotiations on the CPRS we engaged the modelers, used by both, at Monash University to analyse the 15% scenario.

We chose this target because, as we recently reported, with significant domestic action from many developed and developing countries this is now a more likely target, and because the agreement for a 25% target would see a review of all exporter assistance on the grounds of significant international action. It lets us get a handle on the fiscal and political risks.

The research examined the amended White Paper scenario and proposed coalition changes. It found, despite all the hype, under both scenarios Australia’s 2009 trillion dollar economy grows to $1.2 trillion by 2020, creating about 800,000 new jobs.

It’s perhaps unsurprising, once you think about it, that the coalition’s big spending approach would have the bigger impact in slowing short-term jobs growth with between 10,000 and 30,000 fewer jobs created each year between now and 2015. This is because personal and corporate tax rates are increased to cover the shortfall.

The larger handouts for big polluters and exclusion of coal mining and agriculture, turns a revenue positive scheme, at this 15% target, into a deficit of more than $36 billion to 2020.

By far the biggest impact comes from changes for big polluting exporters and the exclusion of coal mines. Exempting agriculture without other actions puts another $7 billion on to taxpayers or business to purchase the extra permits.

At this 15% target domestic emissions for coalition and government proposals peak about 2011, as opposed to after 2030 under a 5% target, but the coalition scenario increases the amount of international permits needed from 12% to 44%.

Of course, models can vary according to assumptions but these different estimates underscore the budget risks faced by governments if they lock in high levels of assistance in an uncertain world. Unless the government maintains the ability to modify assistance and drive emission reductions in uncovered sectors such as agriculture it is locking in fiscal risk not managing it. To the extent changes threaten the ability to achieve at least 25% reductions they are unacceptable.

Locking in excessive financial support also potentially further undermines Australia’s ability to help achieve an effective, binding and fair global agreement by constraining investments in national and global climate-change solutions.

So as the carnival comes to its conclusion, there are clear limits to changes to the CPRS. There should be no further unconditional handouts or windfall gains. Instead, as The Climate Institute and others made clear in October, there needs to be sustained efforts and additional commitments to help Australia become competitive in the emerging global low carbon economy and co-operative in achieving an effective global climate agreement.

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

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Ben Sandilands writes:

Jet crashes are rare in Australia, but one happened last night at Norfolk Island and no one in the media noticed.

All six people on board a CareFlight medical evacuation jet have survived a ditching in the sea near the island.

The jet was a Pel-Air Aviation Westwind, flying from Apia in Western Samoa to Melbourne, via a refuelling stop at the often weather-affected Norfolk Island strip.

After making three missed approaches in deteriorating conditions and with fuel levels close to empty, captain Dominic James declared that a water landing would be made close to the island.

The small jet’s occupants, two pilots, the patient and accompanying spouse and two medical crew were retrieved by rescue boat and taken to the island’s hospital for observation.

Pel-Air Aviation is owned by REX, the regional airline.

John Sharp, chairman of Pel-Air Aviation, issued a statement that says:

They performed an intricate landing on water in darkness resulting in the evacuation of everyone safely and quickly.

The training of both the Pel-Air and CareFlight crew came to the fore as everyone kept together and remained calm. Their professionalism stood out on the day and made a substantial difference to the outcome.

CASA is understood to be examining the regulations concerning the alternative fuel requirements for operations of this nature, and the ATSB has launched an investigation looking at the safety rather than regulatory issues.

For airliner operations a flight to Norfolk Island without fuel reserves that allowed for a missed approach and a diversion to an alternative airport such at Auckland or Noumea would be illegal.

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

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Crikey intern Michelle Loh writes:

Tom Cruise is their most famous recruit, Wikipedia has banned them from editing its pages, and they’ve even inspired their own episode of Law and Order. So who exactly are the Scientologists and why have they suddenly come up in the news? Crikey waded into the morass…

What is Scientology? According to the ABC: “It’s a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals originally established as a secular philosophy by L. Ron Hubbard. His 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, provided the core principles of what would later become Scientology.”

What do Scientologists believe? According to Time magazine: "Hubbard argued that unhappiness sprang from mental aberrations (or "engrams") caused by early traumas. Counseling sessions with the E-meter, he claimed, could knock out the engrams, cure blindness and even improve a person's intelligence and appearance. Hubbard kept adding steps, each more costly, for his followers to climb. In the 1960s the guru decreed that humans are made of clusters of spirits (or "thetans") who were banished to earth some 75 million years ago by a cruel galactic ruler named Xenu. Naturally, those thetans had to be audited”.

How do they operate? Time magazine reports that the Church of Scientology runs consulting, education, healthcare, drug treatment and book publishing operations to generate income and build influence. In addition, Scientologists also subscribe to a number of controversial operational tactics:

Fair game: According to L. Ron Hubbard: “Those who seek to damage the church may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.''

Aggressive litigation: According to L. Ron Hubbard: "beware of attorneys who tell you not to sue . . . the purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

Why are we suddenly talking about it? This week South Australia Independent Senator Nick Xenophon tabled a speech in Federal Parliament calling for Scientology to be stripped of its tax exempt status. According to Xenophon:

Scientology is not a religious organisation. It is a criminal organisation that hides behind its so-called religious beliefs.

...

I also believe the activities of this organization should be scrutinised by parliament because Australian taxpayers are, in effect, supporting Scientology through its tax-exempt status.

How wealthy is the Church of Scientology? As The Australian notes: “Its net worth is almost impossible to measure due partly to its tax exempt status in the US and elsewhere and the labyrinthine structure it operates under but Scientology is worth billions and turns over hundreds of millions every year”.

In addition, a Time magazine investigation found that: “In a court filing, one of the cult's many entities -- the Church of Spiritual Technology -- listed $503 million in income just for 1987. High-level defectors say the parent organization has squirreled away an estimated $400 million in bank accounts in Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Cyprus.”

Why is the Church of Scientology exempt from tax? In Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Payroll Tax (Vic) 1983, the High Court of Australia ruled that:

Regardless of whether the members of the applicant are gullible or misled or whether the practices of Scientology are harmful or objectionable, the evidence, in our view, establishes that Scientology must, for relevant purposes, be accepted as ‘a religion’ in Victoria. That does not, of course, mean either that the practices of the applicant or its rules are beyond the control of the law of the State or that the applicant or its members are beyond its taxing powers.

What makes it a religion, not a cult? That’s a good question. The Australian argues that:

Scientology is a cult because it practices what it calls “disconnection”. Scientology members are directed to stop all contact with family members who are critical of its methods. This type of enforced alienation provides a textbook definition of a cult.

But then again, why pick on Scientology? After all, haven’t Hillsong, the Anglican church, and the Catholic church all done terrible things with their tax breaks too?

What have ex members said? Under protection of parliamentary privilege, Senator Xenophon has told the stories of several former Scientology members:

I have also received correspondence from Carmel Underwood, another former member and another victim of Scientology. She says that while she was working for the organisation in Sydney she fell pregnant and was put under extreme pressure to have an abortion. When she refused, she was put on a disappearing program...

I have received statements from Anna and Dean Detheridge who claim to have been subjected to physical and mental abuse during their time with the organisation. Anna says she was instructed by the organisation to disconnect from her sister because her sister was gay and therefore, according to Scientology, dangerous, perverted and evil. Anna and Dean also provided evidence where information they and others have revealed to the church have been used to blackmail and control...

Another victim of Scientology, Peta O’Brien, wrote of being discouraged by the organisation from seeking treatment for cancer. She has also provided evidence of being assaulted and cut off from her son while they were both part of the organization.

In addition, the St Petersburg Times recently published several interviews with high level defectors who allege that they were physically assaulted by Scientology leader David Miscavige.

How have the Church of Scientology responded to this? The Church of Scientology have criticised Xenophon’s statements for being:

"…an outrageous abuse of Parliamentary privilege from a Senator who would not even meet with Church representatives several months ago to discuss his concerns." Scientology spokesperson Cyrus Brooks has also defended these claims to 2UE.

The Church of Scientology has also denied many of the claims made in the St Petersburg investigation.

Are Scientologists litigious? Well, as The Australian very succinctly puts it:

"So what is Scientology all about? Well, I can’t quote from its texts as these are all under copyright and trademark protected. The organisation has been known to sue anybody who quotes from its texts or uses its emblems without permission."

In fact, the Church of Scientology has been spending plenty of time in the courts of late: SBS reported that: “A French court convicted the Church of Scientology and one of its leaders of defrauding vulnerable members on Tuesday, but stopped short of banning the group's activities in France.”

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the French case is the latest in a series of legal cases that Scientology has become entangled in, including "Lisa McPherson, an American member of the Church of Scientology, died while in the care of the church, which led to felony charges filed in 1998 and a civil suit filed against the church by Ms. McPherson’s parents in 1997. The felony charges of abuse and unlicensed practice of medicine were dropped in 2000 after a government medical examiner updated her initial finding that the death was “unexplained” to “accidental.” The church settled out of court with McPherson’s parents for an undisclosed sum in 2004. The medical examiner later resigned in the face of a public outcry.

The church has also been on the offensive side of court action. In 1991, about 50 Scientologists from around the United States filed a series of lawsuits against the Cult Awareness Network, a leading critic of the church at the time. The Scientologists had all applied to join the network and after being rebuked, argued in their separate legal actions that this constituted unfair discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs. The church described the network as a “hate group” and the organization eventually filed for bankruptcy under the weight of its legal fees and problems associated with its practice of kidnapping alleged “cult” members for a process it called “deprogramming.”

Further reading:

1991 Time magazine investigation into the Church of Scientology.

2009 St Petersburg Times interviews with high level Scientology defectors.

*View our Crikey Clarifier archive

<br>

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Datapig David Gillespie writes:

There’s a lot of rhetoric about boat people at the moment. Here are the facts on the numbers of people arriving by boat since 1989, graphed for your pleasure:

2001–02 data includes arrivals at excised and non-excised places.

2008–09 figures include crew members and the five people killed following an explosion on board a boat on April 16, but do not include the two men found drifting in an Esky in the Torres Strait on January 17, 2009, or the four people found on Deliverance Island with no sign of a boat on April 29, 2009.

2009–10 figures include the 12 people who died during the boat sinking of November 1, 2009, but do not include the asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking intercepted in Indonesian waters.

Source: Phillips and Spinks, Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976, Parliamentary Library, last updated 18 November 2009: accessed 19 November2009.

Data Pig will be filing his graph pr0n for Crikey once a week. If you have any news issue that you think could do with some graphical clarification, number crunching or statistical analysis, email boss@crikey.com.au with 'Data Pig' in the subject line.

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

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Richard Farmer writes:

Tasmania going Green. Australia is on the verge of getting its second minority Labor government that must rely on the support of Greens to govern. On the figures in the latest opinion poll from Tasmania, the Liberals will end up with 11 members in the House of Assembly to Labor's 10 and the Greens with four. You can get details of the EMRS polls from Anthony Green's ABC website.

As the Liberals say they will not countenance any deal with the Greens to gain office, presumably Labor will do the same as it has in the Australian Capital Territory and make an agreement although that will be much harder to finalise than it was in Canberra because of the nature of the issues the Greens consider vital.

I certainly would not fancy the chances of Gunns getting any decisions it might need from a government next year to ensure that its pulp mill goes ahead.

Keeping Australia's boat people in perspective. Presumably the political shouting and posturing over boat people policy will decline a little now that the asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking are back on terra firma. That should help make it an appropriate time to contemplate just how fortunate it is for Australia that ours is a difficult country for would be illegal settlers to reach.

Not so lucky is Greece, where I noted from the International Herald Tribune this morning that 7745 illegal boat people have made it to Lesbos this year after navigating the seven kilometres wide straight separating the island from the Turkish mainland.

New Zealand purest of the pure. New Zealand has gone to the top of the annual Corruption Perception Index published by Transparency International and is now rated as the country with the least public corruption in the world. Australia comes in eighth on this year's list, one place better than last year although the rating is marginally lower at 8.6 compared to NZ's 9.4.

Transparency International says the vast majority of the 180 countries included in the 2009 index score below five on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 10 (perceived to have low levels of corruption). The CPI measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in a given country and is a composite index, drawing on 13 different expert and business surveys. The 2009 edition scores 180 countries, the same number as the 2008 CPI.

Fragile, unstable states that are scarred by war and ongoing conflict linger at the bottom of the index. These are: Somalia, with a score of 1.1, Afghanistan at 1.3, Myanmar at 1.4 and Sudan tied with Iraq at 1.5. These results demonstrate that countries that  are perceived as the most corrupt are also those plagued by long-standing conflicts, which have torn apart their governance infrastructure.

The power of gold. You only have to glance along the shelves at your local wine merchant to see the importance of wine show medals for the wine company marketing people. Those little gold, silver and bronze circles festoon all kinds of labels announcing performance at all kind of shows from the capital city agricultural society main events to little regional efforts. Goodness knows how much the industry invests in entering these competitions but must run into the millions when the entry fees, effort and energy are taken into account. As such wine shows are major part of wine's promotional budget.

But, alas, I have to report yet another piece of evidence to suggest that for consumers the medals are nothing more than a misleading nonsense. Robert T.Hodgson, professor emeritus, Department of Oceanography, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California and now proprietor of the Fieldbrook Winery, has sat down and analysed the results of more than 4000 wines entered in 13 US wine competitions.

In a paper published by The Journal of Wine Economics Prof Hodgson's analysis shows little concordance among the venues in awarding gold medals. Of the 2440 wines entered in more than three competitions, 47% received gold medals, but 84% of these same wines also received no award in another competition.

It is clear that many wines that are viewed as extraordinarily good at some competitions are viewed as below average at others. An analysis of the number of gold medals received in multiple competitions indicates that the probability of winning a gold medal at one competition is stochastically independent of the probability of receiving a gold at another competition, indicating that winning a gold medal is greatly influenced by chance alone.

When he takes off his professorial hat and becomes winemaker Bob, the attitude to gold, silver and bronze takes on the marketing man's viewpoint. As he says on his website, Fieldbrook "enters some of the most competitive wine tastings in the state. Because of the relatively small size of the winery, we feel this is our best opportunity to promote the quality of our wines."

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

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Some Australian breast cancer consumer advocates have been critical of a recent study suggesting that breast cancer screening leads to significant over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment. But Hazel Thornton, an independent advocate for quality in research and health care in the UK, and an Honorary Visiting Fellow, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, has another perspective. Thornton describes herself as having being “given the breast cancer label” as the result of undergoing mammographic screening in 1991. She writes:

It is unsurprising that women find it hard to accept the facts from papers such as that by Stephen Morell and colleagues from the University of Sydney, and from robust systematic reviews of screening by mammography, or of breast self-examination. Twenty years of being told what to do in paternalistic promotional literature extolling the benefits of ‘finding it early’, and being frightened by being told that ‘it could save your life’, are difficult to reverse.

As we see, many women’s support and information groups are still encouraging women to disbelieve good evidence of over-diagnosis and over-treatment. They assert that it is acceptable to accept unnecessary lumpectomies, mastectomies, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormonal treatments "just in case".

Promotion and arguing that this utilitarian ethic is acceptable by those in authority is unethical and harmful: it denies those women who trust them proper respect and the right to be properly helped to make up their own minds by neutral presentation of balanced facts. For more information, see the English version leaflet that can be downloaded here.

For too long "The Facts" that women have been provided, e.g. by the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme, have been short on fact, short on evidence-based data, but full of persuasion, estimates, promise of benefit -- but silent about harms.

Until this year, that is, when they at last capitulated to exposure by a letter in The Times 19th February 2009 signed by 23 international experts, stating that their invitation leaflet was short on the truth and totally inadequate for the purpose of enabling women to make an informed decision about whether to attend.

Many women were and still are unaware that they have any choice in the matter -- and, as Iona Heath entitled her paper in the BMJ: "I's not wrong to say no!" (abstract here).

Strenuous objection had repeatedly been made to informing invited women about pre-invasive cancers such as DCIS.

Yet, in the UK, on Sunday 1st November 2009 it was reported in The Sunday Times that: "The Government has been forced to rewrite its advice on breast cancer screening after research showed that thousands of women have been misled into having unnecessary surgery."

Joan Austoker (who is leading the revision of the invitation leaflet) "had admitted it had been a mistake to withhold information about unnecessary treatment for DCIS". It was also reported that they "want to make sure that all the risks of breast screening are referred to in appropriate detail."

Only this week, 17th November 2009, the US Preventive Task Force has published guidelines with the following recommendations: "The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation)."

Quite a turnaround!

This month in the UK, Sense about Science, addressing poor public understanding about what screening can and cannot do, launched a booklet: "Making Sense of Screening". Little by little, reason is beginning to prevail over blind belief!

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

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Charles Richardson writes:

Here's the scenario: a country with a long-running ethnic insurgency faces a choice between escalation and conciliation. The government bravely chooses the latter, unveiling a package of reforms to address separatist concerns and try to calm tensions, with a view to a negotiated settlement. The opposition plays the populist card, accusing the government of giving in to terrorists and betraying national unity.

It could be any number of places -- Spain, for example, where the Basque separatist campaign has played out in much this fashion. But this week it's Turkey, and the government is pursuing peace with the Kurds, whose very existence was long denied by official policy.

But in Turkey there's an added twist to the story: the government that's defying nationalist sentiment in the interests of peace is no band of leftist peaceniks but the Justice and Development Party (AKP), an "Islamist" party whose opponents accuse it of threatening Turkey's secular status.

It's an interesting week to have been visiting Turkey. I've pointed out before the way that an "Islamist" party -- in the original sense of politicised Islam, not the mad Pipesian sense -- can become a force for democracy and progress, but it's worth repeating, because it runs against so many of our usual assumptions about Muslims, terrorism and the Middle East.

Announcing the peace package on Friday, AKP interior minister Besir Atalay promised parliament "an open-ended process" to "end terrorism and raise the level of democracy". Measures will include allowing Kurdish-language television, ending a ban on campaigning in Kurdish and overturning the forced Turkisation of Kurdish place names.

It's sad that measures such as this should be controversial, but the AKP's opponents seem determined to pander to ethnic prejudice against the Kurds. The AKP is usually categorised as somewhere on the "right", while its chief opponents, loyal to the ideas of Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey's founder, are labelled as "left-wing" due to their aggressive secularism and etatist economics. But this sort of peace versus racism debate is hardly the way the left-right dynamic is supposed to play out.

AKP Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is determined to make Turkey a modern democracy, fit for membership of the EU, and peace with the Kurds is part of the equation. Diehards can continue to maintain, of course, that it just shows how "Islamists" are pro-terrorism -- except that the Kurdish independence movement, the PKK, is based on revolutionary socialism, not Islam.

None of this is to say that there aren't legitimate concerns about politicised Islam: there are, because there are concerns about politicising any sort of religion. But the belief that Islam is somehow uniquely dangerous in this respect has done far too much damage already. The example of Turkey should help us to put it to rest.

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

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Greg Barns writes:

Since when has News Limited been propaganda machine for law enforcement agencies in this country? At least since this morning, it seems. The Brisbane Courier-Mail, The Sydney Daily Telegraph, The Melbourne Herald Sun, the Adelaide Advertiser and The Townsville Bulletin have all given over their front pages to what is essentially an unpaid advertisement for the police forces.

These papers all carry a story that announces that police commissioners around Australia have decided that on the weekend of December 11-12 they will unleash a full-scale attack on street violence. There will be thousands of coppers in riot gear with weapons, police dogs, undercover police and hundreds of officers roaming the streets for 48 hours. This is designed, apparently, to stop drunken street violence.

What is disturbing about these front-page splashes is that the image they project is of an aggressive police force whose members will resort to acts of violence themselves if the need arises. The atmospherics created by this propaganda exercise are not subtle -- the use of the phrase "reclaiming our streets" by News Limited and police media units today is clearly designed to let the community know that on December 11-12 our downtown areas will be battlefields.

The message that emanates from Operation Unite, as the joint December 11-12 exercise is called, is that we need to meet violence with violence. The language used by newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun in particular on the issue of street violence is already aggressive and provocative. It is designed to engender revenge. A report in this morning’s Herald Sun, for example, refers to the three young men jailed yesterday for serious assaults "gutless thugs". And the same newspaper has on its front page, a photo of a police officer equipped with all manner of weaponry and looking as though he is about to have a shoot out with the Taliban.

Operation Unite is essentially a variant on what might be termed "zero tolerance" or "quality of life" policing. It was used extensively in the US in the 1990s, most notably in New York where mayor Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner Howard Bratton set about making Manhattan’s streets safer.

But this style of operation also leads inevitably to police brutality. In New York, complaints about police brutality skyrocketed after the introduction of aggressive operations along the lines of the proposed Operation Unite. This is because police chiefs, working hand in glove with selected media outlets, provide front-line officers with the message that they should do what it takes to clean up the streets.

The problem, of course, with Operation Unite is that it is a quick fix and will do nothing to reduce street violence. It is a one-hit wonder in which some people will be charged with offences, other people will suffer physical and psychological damage as a result of overly aggressive police actions, and News Limited will have a field day running mug shots of police officers holding arrested individuals in a headlock.

Meanwhile, the root causes of street violence, which are myriad, remain unaddressed. In fact, come to think of it, if News Limited is so concerned about street violence then perhaps it may like to examine its own reporting of the issue and consider running stories that address the root causes of this form of social ill.

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

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

The Crawford report has succeeded, at the very least, in opening up for debate whether the government gets "value" out of the money spent on sports programs.

It has been painted in the media as a debate that pits the Olympic sports against the mass-participation sports, but maybe it doesn’t have to be.

The AOC feels aggrieved that it may lose funding in favour of mass-participation sports, despite having met their current KPIs (i.e. win lots of Olympic medals).

A simple compromise: why not change the KPIs for the Olympic sports? Make medals a secondary KPI but throw down the gauntlet that the major KPI for all Olympic athletes is to improve the disgraceful figure that only 49.3% of Australians participate in regular physical activity.

Then you would see a concerted effort on behalf of the Olympic heroes to get ordinary Australians off the couch. In addition to "thanking my sponsors Coca-Cola, KFC and Uncle Toby’s", medallists would remind our population that if they don’t start exercising, more that Olympic funding would dry up.

Just as the AFL teams have successfully marketed membership of their clubs, Olympic athletes could market membership of the Australian Olympic family, open to all Australians who exercise three times weekly (irrespective of the sport/activity they do).

If their livelihoods depended on it, Olympic athletes would stop giving banal interviews and start actually preaching a message that would save lives, because the population’s livelihood depends on getting more active. But one small caution is required.

Although you can guarantee fewer heart attacks, strokes, cancers and cases of diabetes and depression if the population exercises more, you can also guarantee more injuries. When overweight, unfit people start to exercise, they will get sore knees, feet, shoulders etc. and, believe it or not, this might actually make them stop exercising.

Unfortunately, the Federal government doesn’t have any plan to make treatment of sports injuries publicly accessible, a situation that exists in New Zealand.

I made a submission to the Crawford panel that the federal government was ignoring the problem of sports injury.

And guess what? The Crawford report ignored it.

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

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Peter Craven writes:

So the who man who played Callan and Breaker Morant is dead.

I think I first saw Edward Woodward in some simulation of chainmail, speaking Shakespearean blank verse, in some BBC version of one of the Bard's histories. He could do the lot -- the crumpled spy, the Shakespearean hero, Bruce Beresford's court martialled tough guy. He toured this country in Noel Coward's Private Lives -- on the back of Callan. I have a DVD of him, directed by Zeffirelli in Eduardo De Filippo’s Saturday, Sunday and Monday with Olivier and Joan Plowright. Only a month ago you could see him on the ABC playing Penelope Wilton's old bastard of a father in Hunter. There is a recording of the him reading Kipling’s ballads which showed Banjo Paterson how to do it, and Woodward brings out everything which is wry and world-weary, everything fierce and democratic, everything that salutes the common person, in those late, great poems of Empire.

It stands to reason that he should be honoured in Australia for playing a wronged anti-hero of the Boer war. As an actor Edward Woodward always represented a best of British that even the land of larrikins and bushrangers had to respect.

Think of the revelation that Callan represented. It was as if Edward Woodward's Callan had been put on earth as an antidote to James Bond. The series gave the finger to everything that was shaken, not stirred, everything that glided glamorously in an Aston Martin.

Callan was hectored, he was put upon, he was constantly betrayed and patronised by his oily establishment boss (played by William Squire) and he took it hard just as he played it hard. He was the popularisation of all that anger and wryness and pain that had risen up like the revolt of the masses in kitchen-sink drama, in the films of Lindsay Anderson, in the plays of Pinter and Osbourne.

And here in Australia we cheered Callan on as if his cut-price existentialism, his Len Deighton greyness and abiding sense of doom, were parts of the British heritage that we claimed as our own. It was like Freddie Truman's sense of style or the comedy of Pete and Dud: we secretly thought it was wasted on the land that produced it.

Of course the British television of the 1960s produced every variety of grit and ghastliness: Z Cars was not populated by glamour cops, Steptoe and Son could make you weep at the meanness of it all, and Ricky Gervais had nothing on the wobegone comic grandeurs of Tony Hancock. Maybe it took the death throes of the class system to produce such a simmering drama of social unease. Of course it also produced Diana Rigg in The Avengers, that bombshell of aristocracy for which generations of fantasists and feminists are grateful.

But we are right to claim Edward Woodward's Callan as an Australian under the skin. He represented the side of Britain which Barry Humphries remarked, with regret, was getting more Australian by the day.

And we have always had the deepest kind of affinity for one strand of the British genius. We were settled, by and large, by the humbly born and down and out and we get a shock of recognition when we hear the voices of Dickens’ Londoners like memories of our ancestral souls. (Mr Micawber even settled here and became a magistrate.)

Callan belonged to that company and the kind of identification Edward Woodward's incarnation of him provoked made perfect sense whether you felt persecuted at school or patronised at the office. What Australians recognized in Callan was their most ancient mythology: the belief, as Russell Ward says in The Australian Legend , that Jack is not only as good as his master but likely to be a damn sight better.

Blessed be the poor in spirit and the downtrodden spies of the world. And may the earth lie light on Edward Woodward, a superb actor, who brought Breaker Morant and Callan and The Wicker Man to life.

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

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Now, you too can be a prize-winning author! Are you the next break out success story? Written an obscure book? Can’t find anyone to buy your book even after you’ve published it yourself? Don’t understand why no one will touch your magnum opus with a ten foot pole? Never fear, thanks to the National Best Books Awards 2009, you too can win an award for your previously unpublishable tome! For the low, low price of $69.99 (per title/per category), you too can enter your book in the National Best Book Awards (2009).

This year’s winners include:

• Fiction (unabridged): Under the Black Ensign by L. Ron Hubbard, Galaxy Press;
• Audio Book (Non-Fiction Unabridged): Fly Little Bird, Fly! & Beyond The Orphan Train: The True Story of Oliver Nordmark and America's Orphan Trains by Donna Nordmark Aviles, Donna Nordmark Aviles, Publisher;
• Best Self-Help Book: Living Like You Mean It: Use the Wisdom and Power of Your Emotions to Get the Life You Really Want by Ronald J. Frederick, Ph.D;
• Business: Talk Radio Wants You: An Intimate Guide to 700 Shows and How to Get Invited, by Francine Silverman, McFarland & Co.;
• Animal/Pets: Moments with Baxter: Comfort and Love from the World's Best Therapy Dog, by Melissa Joseph.

Now, you too, can be an also ran! -- Crikey Intern Michelle Loh

Issue of the day. It's not the Crawford Report into sports funding and it's not the ongoing tribulations of the Oceanic Viking. If you think it's to do with a nationwide crackdown on street crime you'd be mistaken. It's also got nothing to do with vampires. Nothing. According to today's NT News the issue of the day is smuggling drugs in poo. Poo...

With friends like these… It has taken Venezuela by storm, but it seems that Facebook and other social networking sites also come with their perils. Police here revealed that a pair of students at a private university in Caracas had been robbing their virtual friends’ homes using information they had compiled using Facebook. -- Global Post

Coca-Cola wants you for a sunbeam. Coca-Cola is gearing up for its largest social-media project ever, one that will test its own internal flexibility and force a number of its global markets into the digital and social-media space. Expedition 206 will send three 20-somethings to 206 countries and territories where Coca-Cola is sold in 2010. The trio sets off on their 275,000-mile tour from Madrid on Jan. 1, stocked with laptops, video cameras, smartphones and plenty of other gadgetry, in order to document for the masses their search for happiness. -- Advertising Age

LinkedIn hits Australia. LinkedIn, the social networking site for business professionals, has expanded its operations into Australia and New Zealand, headed by former Yahoo managing director, Cliff Rosenberg. He will oversee the growth of the business in the two markets where the site already has more than 1.1m members. -- Mumbrella

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

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

The Winners: Today Tonight topped the list with 1.343 million, from Seven News with 1.325 million. The 7.30pm repeat of Border Security on Seven was third with 1.271 million and the 8pm program on Seven, Medical Emergency was 4th with 1.153 million people. The outtakes episode of Spicks and Specks averaged 1.135 million at 8.30pm for the ABC and Nine's 7.30pm fresh episode of Two and a Half Men averaged 1.100 million for 6th spot. Home and Away perked up and ran 7th with 1.090 million and won the 7pm slot. 8th was Celebrity MasterChef Australia on Ten with 1.064 million people. The 7pm repeat of Two and a Half Men on Nine averaged 1.044 million in 9th, with Seven's City Homicide next at 8.30pm with 1.021 million. Nine News was 11th with 1.017 million, A Current Affair was 12th with 1.003 million and Ten's 8.30pm program, NCIS Los Angeles also averaged 1.003 million.

The Losers: Well, it's closing in on the end of ratings and viewers are tired. So is it fair to argue that RPA Where Are They Now on Nine at 8.30pm for an hour with 835,000 and What's Good For You Summer on Nine at 8pm, were losers? And Crime Investigation Australia at 9.30pm on Nine with 643,000?, As well as the repeat of NCIS on Ten at 9.30pm with 778,000?. Well, let's be charitable and describe them as merely filling a timeslot in an undistinguished manner.

News & CA: Seven News again won nationally and in every market as did Today Tonight. Both beat Nine by more than 300,000 viewers, an unusually large margin at this time of year. In Sydney Nine News averaged 273,000, the 7pm ABC News, 279,000 and Seven News, 311,000. The 7pm ABC News had a national audience of 921,000, The 7.30 Report, 654,000, Lateline, 205,000, Lateline Business, 82,000. Ten News, 750,000, the late News/Sports Tonight, 445,000. SBS News at 6.30pm, 163,000, the 9.30pm edition, 171,000. 7am Sunrise, 351,000; 7am Today, 317,000.

The Stats: Seven won 6pm to midnight All People with a combined share of 30.2% (30.4% a week ago). Nine was next with 25.6% (25.4%), Ten was third with 23.5% (23.4%), the ABC finished with 16.2% (17.1%) and SBS was on 4.5% (3.7%). Seven won All five metro markets and leads the week 31.5% to 27.2% for Nine.

In regional areas a win for Prime/7Qld with 30.5%, from WIN/NBN with 27.4%, Southern Cross (Ten) on 20.8%, the ABC with 15.3% and SBS with 6.2%.

Digitally: Nine's GO won with 2.220% (leaving Nine's main channel on 23.40%). 7TWO was next with 2.00% (Seven's main channel was on 28.20%), ABC 2 was on 1.70% (ABC 1, 14.50%), Ten's ONE was on 0.80% (22.70% for Ten's main channel) and SBS Two was on 0.40% (SBS ONE on 4.10%).

Glenn Dyer's comments: Seven won and again won by a surprisingly large margin. Nine's schedule suffered from being tired. Seven might have won All People, but MasterChef meant Ten won 16 to 39s, 18 to 49s and 25 to 54s. Nine was left with nothing.

Today Tonight did over the Scientologists with a very solid expose, based on former Australian members. ACA tried to "me too" story that was American-based and just failed.

TONIGHT: The Beauty and The Geek Australia (believe it or not but Seven is casting for a second series of this one in 2010). Merge it with Nine's Ladette To Lady and go right down market. Ten has Glee and Rush. Nine has three hours of CSI. Watch Getaway at 7.30pm and go to bed. The ABC has the third and final part of Addicted To Money, which will tell more of what we already know.

Source: OzTAM, TV Networks reports

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Glenn Dyer writes:

While America was having last weekend off, the country's public debt ticked over to the impossible to comprehend figure of $US12 trillion, or over 80% of the country's annual GDP, and set up a possible big brawl between the Obama Administration and the loony right in the US.

The debt bill rose from $US11.99 billion last Friday to $12.031 billion on Monday -- that's around $US100 extra for every one of the 300 million or so Americans.

The figure makes our argument about our Federal Government debt burden look insignificant, which it is. Its growth is remorseless at the moment as the economic slump slashes tax and other revenues and spending rises for stimulus, unemployment, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the myriad other things that the country's voters and their congressional representatives demand (while complaining about the size of the deficit and all the debt).

Seeing public debt only topped the $US10 trillion mark in September of last year, the $US2 trillion rise in just over 13 months has been nothing short of astounding, confirming the enormous damage done to US Government finances by the deepest slump since the 1930's.

It also adds to pressure on the economy from weak bank lending, poor growth and high levels of unemployment, as Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke reminded Americans once again in a speech on Monday. The debt is quickly approaching the statutory limit of $US12.104 trillion, meaning Congress will have to raise the ceiling to prevent a shutdown of government operations. That will have to happen sometime in the next week. Could this be the next big brawl between president Obama and the right wing of American politics, including Rupert Murdoch?

But contrary to claims from conservatives and others that the rise in spending and the huge surge in debt would make buyers (especially foreigners) of that debt unhappy, or unwilling, nothing has been further from the truth. US Treasury bond auctions have gone off like clockwork: over $US80 billion of debt was sold last week, over $100 billion late last month. Demand remains solid, especially from foreign buyers, as figures from the US Treasury overnight revealed.

In fact the figures showed stronger than expected demand for US Government debt and for non-government US dollar denominate investments. So much for all that talk about how the weakening US dollar would see foreigners, especially Governments, like China's, shy away from investing in the US. The Treasury figures show that net long-term capital flows to the United States climbed to US40.7 billion in September from $US34.2 billion US dollars the prior month.

On the whole, foreigners bought $US133.5 billion of US securities in September, the most since October 2008, up sharply from the inflow of $US25.3 billion. China, which this week attacked the current stance of US monetary policy, the deficit and the weaker dollar, raised its Treasury bond holdings in September to $US798.9 billion US dollars from $US797.1 billion in August.

Foreign private net purchases of Treasury bonds and notes rose to $US25.7 billion in September from US14.8 billion in August and net foreign official purchases rose to nearly $US19 billion from $US13.1 billion.

"Net foreign purchases of long-term US securities were $55.7 billion. Of this, net purchases by private foreign investors were $44.8 billion, and net purchases by foreign official institutions were $10.9 billion," The Treasury said.

Britain, Japan and Canada were the biggest buyers of US bonds for the month of September.

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

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

The market is up 18. The SFE Futures were up 8 this morning.

Wall St. fell 11 overnight. Down 5 at best and down 77 at worst. Housing Starts and Building Permits for October disappointed. The S&P 500 has been up as much as 64% from the 12 year low in March. The historic PE on the S&P 500 is now 22x, the highest since 2002. Oil up 44c to $79.58 and Gold finished $1.90 higher. The Aussie dollar closed down 92.96c versus 93.08c yesterday morning.

In the news today...

• ANZ Bank is loaded up with further funds for acquisitions, announcing it has doubled its $750m hybrid capital raising to $1.7bn. Rumour is that it will launch a takeover bid for AMP Ltd (AMP) now that is has a wealth management platform.
• Moly Mines (MOL) up 9.8% to 112c after the FIRB approved a $US200m investment in the company by privately owned Sinchuan Hanlong Group. The deal now remains conditional on Moly investors.
• Mirvac Group (MGR) tells its shareholders it is well positioned to pursue growth opportunities and its cost savings program is set to cut $25m a year. It raised its bid for MRZ yesterday to the equivalent of 59.4c a unit, still well below its NTA of 85c. MGR down 1.5c to 156c.
• Sonic Healthcare (SHL) -- AGM -- reiterates 10-15% net profit growth guidance for FY10. SHL unchanged at 1418c.
• Iluka Resources (ILU) says its Jacinth-Ambrosia zircon mineral sands mine in South Australia has began production ahead of schedule. ILU up 3c to 343c.
• Goodman Fielder (GFF) says it is close to selling its fats and oils division and is in talks with a potential acquirer. GFF up 0.5c to 155c.
• Eircom Holdings (ERC) says it doesn’t know which parties are involved in a large parcel of its shares. ERC is subject to a friendly takeover from Singapore Technologies Telemedia. ERC up 1% to 53.5c.
• AMP Ltd (AMP) is offering 5 yr, senior secured notes backed by office properties. Price guidance is capped at $250m and is 250 bps over swap.
• Australian Worldwide Exploration (AWE) -- AGM -- tells investors it continues to assess acquisition opportunities. AWE up 5c to 282c.
• Monadelphous Group (MND) has been awarded $60m worth of contracts for the Gorgon Project. MND up 19c to 1364c.
• Amcor (AMC) is planning to raise $US850m in debt from the US private placement market. AMC up 4c to 565c.
• Incitec Pivot (IPL) goes 2.3c ex dividend today. IPL up 5c to 290c.
• Stocks hitting fresh yearly highs include: Cape Lambert (CFE), Macquarie Media (MMG), NIB Holdings (NHF).

The Dow Futures were down 8 at midday.

MARCUS PADLEY is the author of the MARCUS TODAY Daily Stockmarket Newsletter.

For a free 21-day obligation free trial of the MARCUS TODAY newsletter (and no we won’t ask for a credit card number) please START A FREE TRIAL -- you will receive two daily emails about the stockmarket, our MORNING EMAIL with all the stuff you need to know ahead of the trading day ahead and a DAILY EMAIL with all the midday events, news, comments and Ideas from Marcus and his Team.

You will also be given a password to the MARCUS TODAY website including access to all the emails as well as Educational, Entertaining and Researched Articles from Marcus and his Team and an archive where you can catch up on a whole week or month in just a few minutes. Or Browse at length. We are sure you will enjoy and profit from what we offer.

.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article

Scientology:

Mark Edmonds writes: Re. "Xenophon didn't go far enough, no religion should be tax free" (yesterday, item 12). Jane Shaw's article is yet another of those not very subtle appeals to prejudice that is common from anti-religionists (not genuine secularists, who are content to let people believe what they will). Knowing full well that knowledge rarely disperses prejudice, I will reluctantly engage.

Yes, there are some religious organisations that look a lot like businesses. I can make no claim in defence of the Seventh Day Adventists, Hillsong, or others. I would merely observe that the Anglican Diocese of Sydney directs its parishes (one of which I am a warden) to ensure that ministers "salary sacrifice" no more than 30% of their stipends. The rest they are to pay tax on. GST is to be collected and paid to the ATO on all events which are not designed to support specifically ministry activities, or upkeep of community property.

All giving by Christians in our parish is after-tax -- it's not deductible, it's a demonstration of their commitment to ensure staff are adequately remunerated for their work serving the Parish, the community, and of course, the God we believe in. And for this, our staff get paid the princely sum of between 40K and 50K p.a. -- six days a week, on call, vesting the sick, the elderly, teaching people about Jesus, supporting the local schools, helping collect for Anglicare. And so on. There is no profit in this, Ms Shaw, I can assure you of that.

The truth is that some people do become religious to make money. Some people become bankers to make money -- some of whom, dare I say, may break the law to avoid paying taxes. I think even the odd member of parliament has been charged with tax evasion. This proves nothing other than that people are fallible, even greedy, wherever you go.

Ms Shaw is correct when she says "taxing business activities is not going to interfere with any religious activities", which is why many religious organisations, including my much maligned brothers and sisters in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, happily pay taxes on activities which are not specifically religious, and happily contribute to the work of the church from what remains of our wealth after taxes have been paid.

Justin Templer writes: Jane Shaw writes of Nick Xenophon's attack on the tax-free status of the church of Scientology that "Scientologists really are fish in a barrel though: they owe their beginnings to a not-terribly-good science fiction writer, they believe in aliens and they have couch-jumping Tom Cruise as their mascot."

This implies a difference between the "craziness" of Scientology and the "craziness" of the more formalised religions. Why is Tom Cruise necessarily more crazy a mascot than the Pope? At least the Scientologists don’t follow a book that suggests stoning our sons to death for being stubborn and rebellious. Or treat women as second-class citizens.

Jane also suggests that Australia is blessedly secular. How can this be so when taxpayer funds underpinned the Pope’s visit to Australia and NSW passed special legislation to outlaw insult to pilgrims? There are votes in the mainstream churches but not in Scientology -- but if they sign up enough members in marginal electorates they’ll be safe as houses, science fiction and couch jumping notwithstanding.

Gil Elliot writes: My understanding is that religions are not only exempt from "income tax", but are able to rort the system by paying their salesmen -- oops, sorry, clergy -- a small "stipend", and providing them with "free" housing, transport etc. Neither the religion nor the clergy pay either income or fringe benefits tax. Keeps the cost of the sales force low, courtesy of the taxpayer.

And -- secular society? Check the history of the Biran Harradine amendments on RU486 and funding for overseas aid organisations to see how "secular" we really are. One man, a follower of an ultra-conservative religious institution, was able to abuse his position to impose his beliefs on millions of others in Australia and overseas.

Tanya Smith writes: Jane Shaw is absolutely right -- it is time to remove tax concessions and exemptions from religion. All of us who pay taxes are indirectly supporting a wide variety of organisations, none of which are required to have any basis in logic, sense or fact. The only common theme of the various religions is that they believe in something for which there is no credible evidence!

Since they all claim to be the "one true religion" clearly a whole lot of people out there are wrong. People can believe whatever they like but there’s no grounds for their current special treatment.

Sport:

John Taylor writes: Re. "Olympic establishment mobilises to shout down Crawford Report" (yesterday, item 3. I agree with your general thrust that the Crawford Report is pointing in the right direction, regardless of the bleating by John Coates (and for those who aren’t blessed with Sydney talkback radio, Ray Hadley). So, as this report was commissioned by the Federal Government, why haven’t any of your commentators told Kate Ellis to "shut up, you’re making a fool of yourself".

Gabriel McGrath writes: Re. "Richard Farmer's chunky bits" (yesterday, item 11). I’m with you Richard. How dare the government give grants of $14-25k to events aimed at getting people involved in performance arts... or preserving indigenous traditions?

Sure, it’s a tiny amount, but that’s not the point. Taxpayers money should only be allocated, in much larger quantities, to carbon polluters so they can keep screwing our children’s future.

A sports lover writes: I am heartily in support of the idea that huge subsidies for Olympic sports which are largely elitist is totally wrong. However could we all bear to go through that cycle again? Remember 1976? That was the year Australia tied with the Virgin Islands (I blame Raelene Boyle). At that point Australia went into deep angst and we got the Institute of Sport.

Peter Hartcher:

Peter Hartcher writes: Re. "Israel lobby funds another media tour. Read all about it" (yesterday, item 16). Antony Loewenstein, thanks for putting the questions to me and for giving me a chance to respond.

I don't intend to debate the minutiae of how I do my job. Please allow me to make five points:

1. I have accepted paid travel to a number of countries over the years. I have always disclosed the fact when I have written anything as a result. It is routine for journalists to take paid travel. The question is not so much whether journalists take paid trips; it's whether they disclose the fact. This allows readers to take this into account in forming a view.
2. I am not a partisan in any war. Indeed, a Crikey survey of the Australian political "punditocracy" found that there was no more balanced commentator in Australia.
3. Every paid trip always has an inbuilt viewpoint. The journalist's job is to take information from a trip, assess it in the usual way, and to draw on it as one input among many, as we do with every subject, every day.
4. My column, on the Opinion page, does not purport to be an encyclopaedic treatment of the history of the conflict between Israelis and the Palestinians. It presents, as it says in its opening, a view from within Israel, with an explanation of the Australian Government's position, and a comment from the Palestinian delegation. I should have thought that to be self-evident. There is no hidden agenda.
5. You, by contrast, are a declared partisan in the conflict. You are not in any position to act as a neutral analyst or objective commentator. If you critique my piece, you should disclose your interest, as I have mine.

Video games:

Randolph Ramsay, Site manager and Editor, GameSpot AU, writes: Re. "Why we need an R18+ classification for video games" (yesterday, item 15).While Joel Vaughan makes plenty of valid statements in Why we need an R18+ classification for video games, in singling out SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson as the sole reason why we don’t have an adult rating for games he makes the unfortunate (and common) mistake of playing the man rather than the ball.

While it’s true Mr Atkinson has been the only AG to publically voice his opposition to the introduction of an R18+ rating (and thus predictably focusing all of the gamer rage in this nation on himself), there’s been a general lack of political will from both the State and Federal level to get this debate moving forward.

In April this year, then Federal Minister for Home Affairs Bob Debus boldly announced that a national consultation process would be undertaken to gauge public views on this. The original deadline for this process was 31 July 2009, but we’ve heard no word at all of when -- and even if -- the public consultation will begin.

If we as gamers are serious about the introduction of an R18+ rating, then we need to get beyond finger pointing at one individual and ask our political representatives at both the State and Federal level exactly why they’re not listening to the majority public view on this issue.

Sam Spackman writes: Joel Vaughan is looking at this whole debate the wrong way 'round. If unsuitable titles are sneaking into the M and MA15+ classifications, then the obvious solution is to get rid of those classifications altogether. Then the only classifications left will be G and PG13 and we will never have to worry about kids playing violent games and there will be no more violent crime ever.

Climate change:

Mark Byrne writes: Re. "The science of climate change is only a small part of the discussion" (Wednesday, item 4). Sinclair Davidson rightfully points out how bad the NAZI holocaust was, "an industrial scale slaughter". Davidson recognised that this was an intentional massacre, but fails to recognised that as bad as that was, the deaths from climate change are anticipated to be two orders of magnitude higher. It is hard to top this comment from Davidson: "...it is previous generations that caused the problem and future generations that will benefit, so why should current generations bear all the costs?"

The minor problem with this statement is that it is pretty sloppy accounting from a professor of economics. Previous generations have pushed our atmospheric CO2 concentrations 75 ppm (from 280 ppm to 355 ppm in 1992, the year of the Rio Earth Summit). We’ve carried it through to 390ppm and the science warns of calamity if we don’t take concentrations back to 350ppm.

We’ve basically got to take concentrations back to the levels of the time at which we discovered the serious risks of the problem. I think Davidson better reallocate some part of the responsibility from his current position where he thinks "it is previous generations that caused the problem".

However, the major problem with Davidson’s statement is this part: "[it is the] future generations that will benefit, so why should current generations bear all the costs?"

This is the moral equivalent of saying that if we don’t dump all our toxic waste in Africa its Africans that will benefit, so why should rich Western nations bear all the costs of the waste they create?

Sinclair, the solution is a system to reward genuinely good behaviour and putting a cost on bad. Currently with our externalised cost accounting you often get the opposite feedback, a chilling effect with the promise of being pushed out of business if you internalise costs by those who externalise costs, under cut competition and foist cost on the commons. We now need better accounting and systems of internalising costs for further progress, improvement, and advancement.

Simon Mansfield’s double strawman attack (Tuesday, comments) on Clive Hamilton was ridiculous. Mansfield accuses Hamilton of wanting to bring down civilisation, then attacks Hamilton for not giving up the benefits of civilisation. Simon, ever stop and wonder if Hamilton and his fellow travellers are trying to preserve civilisation?

Perhaps Mansfield could sit down with Sinclair Davidson and read the IPCC reports by Working Groups Two (on Impact) and Three (on Mitigation), from Davidson’s comments I don’t think he is aware of these either.

Melbourne Uni:

Christina Buckridge, Corporate Affairs Manager, University of Melbourne, writes: Re. "The Melbourne Model” (yesterday, comments). At the risk of boring Crikey readers such as Ray Quigley (10 November, comments) who must really wonder at the obsession with the University of Melbourne, may I ask Adam Schwab whatever happened to evidence-based reporting? While Mr Schwab has confided that he was not successful at getting in to Law at Melbourne and it is exemplary that his loyalties lie with his alma mater Monash, that is no reason to make unsubstantiated claims about the study of Law at Melbourne and the Melbourne Model.

For instance, on what does he base his claim that Melbourne is allowing wealthier, but less elite students to undertake a Melbourne University law degree when the Melbourne JD offers CSPs, just as the former undergraduate program did, and the entry to the JD is not just based on an ENTER score but on a rigorous selection process including exceptional undergraduate results in non-Law courses and the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) used by most leading North American law schools.

Your readers might be interested to know that students who have not done well at VCE because of disadvantage can perform outstandingly on the level playing field of undergraduate studies. Would Mr Schwab deny these people a place in graduate Law at Melbourne?

He talks alarmingly of fees. All places in Melbourne Model undergraduate programs are Commonwealth-supported places (CSPs) and Melbourne is no different from other universities in offering CSPs in all graduate programs and, in some, also full-fee places.

If Mr Schwab bothered to investigate he would find that the drivers for the Melbourne Model were not financial but the desire to offer students an outstanding education. It is being followed -- albeit, in their own style –– by other universities within Australia and overseas. e.g., the University of Western Australia and the University of Aberdeen, and widely-admired internationally -- The Guardian and The Independent. It is a model that has drawn approval from Professor James Wilkinson of Harvard’s Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning and Lord Broers, the former Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University.

As to quality of students -- with a median ENTER of around 94 for undergraduate courses there are still plenty of high-achieving 17 and 18-year-olds choosing to study at Melbourne.

And on another two points Mr Schwab is ill-informed. The Melbourne Model was developed by a 25-member Curriculum Commission led by the then Provost Professor Peter McPhee with many other academic staff across the University contributing to course and subject content. And not one senior executive salary at the University has risen in the past year where senior executives have collectively agreed to forego any salary increases, including one enjoyed by all other staff in April this year.

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.

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.

Back to the top  |   Forward this article to a friend  |   Comment on this article