Speech to American Jewish Committee by The Hon. Alexander Downer MP, Member for Mayo, on the occasion of the conferral of the Ramer Award for Excellence in Diplomacy

The speech was delivered Thursday May 1 2008 at the 102nd annual dinner of the American Jewish Committee. Mr Downer is a former Australian Foreign Minister in the Howard government. I think the speech is comparable with the excellent speech to the Knesset recently delivered by George Bush.

The speech contrasts greatly with the outpouring of dishonesty and pure venom emanating from the Leftist end of the mainstream Australian media. See here, for instance. And our public broadcaster bewailed the fact that the venom concerned was not published more widely! Yet the reporting in the article concerned is so unbalanced that it is not even good propaganda.

"It is a great honour to be presented with this award by the American Jewish community. Indeed, I feel humbled that you have chosen me to be the recipient of an award which commemorates the extra-ordinary contribution to the American Jewish community by the Ramers.

The Australian and American Jewish communities have a lot in common. In both cases Jews have found in our countries the peace and tolerance which was denied them over the centuries in Europe and the Middle East: but they have not only found freedom and tolerance in Australia and America , they have contributed mightily to our two societies.

You haven't yet elected a Jewish President whereas we have had two Jewish Governors' General, the Governor General being the de facto head of state in Australia . But in both our cases the contribution Jewish people have made to science, academia, literature the arts and business has been magnificent.

An embattled, denigrated and persecuted people has come to our shores and in finding freedom has said 'let's build this place'. It's part of what makes our societies great.

In 1918, Australians and Americans went into battle together for the first time. We've done so many times since. It was at the Battle of Le Hamel, this being the first major American military action on European soil. Those of you with a sense of history may think the Americans fought under the redoubtable General Pershing but in this their first major battle in Europe they fought under the Australian commander, General Sir John Monash. Monash by the way was Jewish - so you won't be surprised to learn we won the battle!

In many ways, Australians and Americans are the most natural of allies. Our countries were settled by peoples fleeing persecution and discrimination and who sought the opportunity to achieve prosperity away from the class based elitism of the old world. We grew to love a life of individual freedom and to place equal value on every person.

We confronted and still confront three great adversaries over the last 100 years. We fought the bloody and heartless totalitarianism of fascism and we won. We fought the intolerance, cruelty and incompetence of communism and we won. And today we fight the fanaticism and ideological insanity of Islamic extremism - and we must win that fight as well.

Islamic extremism has several manifestations. There is Al Qaeda and its Asian variant, Jemaah Islamia. There is the Iranian theocracy. There is the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan .

These people are haters and many of them are killers. They hate our open, free societies that respect men and women equally. They want to destroy democracy and equality of opportunity in Iraq , in Afghanistan , in Indonesia and in Israel . They want to destroy modernity and plunge the world back into the Middle Ages. They want Taliban-style regimes not just in Afghanistan but throughout the world, particularly the Muslim world: regimes where girls are denied schooling, where the most powerful are chosen by a few zealots not the people, where the tools of modernity are disbanded and poverty becomes endemic.

Our great countries stand in their way. This is a tough fight because we are confronting people who have no concern for human life. No act of barbarism is beyond these people. To win we need to be clear eyed. This war is not popular with everyone, it's expensive and it's costing the lives of our young men and women.

But please, I implore you, contemplate the alternative: Victory for Al Qaeda in Sunni Iraq, the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan , Hamas in total control of both Gaza and the West Bank, a Hezbollah-dominated government in Lebanon and what then? The Moslem Brotherhood taking control in Egypt, the Gulf States swept up in the euphoria of a resurgent, extremist Wahabiism. Would newly democratic Indonesia - the world's largest Islamic country succumb to extremism? Would New York again and Sydney become front line cities in the great ideological battle of our time?

And let's think about democratic, freedom-loving Israel . For those of us who live in Australia or America it is hard to conceive of life in a tiny country a fraction the size of our own, living cheek by jowl with people who want to destroy you.

It is easy for Australians, Americans and Europeans in the relative security of our homes to lecture the Israeli government to be more accommodating with its enemies, to criticise Israel for erecting a security barrier, to complain that Prime Minister Olmet won't hug a Hamas leader, to deplore Israeli attacks on rocket bases in Southern Lebanon and Gaza and Israeli attacks on Hamas terrorist leaders in Gaza and the West Bank. It's easy to lecture. But it is harder to understand.

One of the lessons of history is to understand your adversary. The West professes with genuine sincerity to believe in Israel 's right to exist within secure borders. It argues for the two state solution as the only viable option for peace in the Middle East . They are right to do so. It is the only option.

But what some in the West, including a good number of Americans and Australians, don't understand is there are many in the Middle East who don't accept the two-state solution and Israel 's right to exist as a separate State. Hamas and Hezbollah believe in the destruction of the Israeli State . That is bad enough. But behind them lies the power, the finance and the weapons of Iran . When President Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, he means it. He believes there should be no Jewish State of Israel.

Demands that Israel negotiate with those who wish to destroy it are unreasonable and worse: those demands weaken Israel 's diplomatic strength and help to undermine community support for Israel in Western countries.

Indeed I will go further: there has been a constant stream of criticism of Israel particularly from Europe and elements of the United Nations for each and every one of the defensive measures it takes. Building a security barrier is wrong, destroying terrorist bases is wrong, attacking terrorist leaders and planners is wrong, trying to stop missile attacks on villages in Northern and Southern Israel is wrong. It doesn't leave Israel with too many options.

These criticisms have been particularly vehement in much of the Western media. That has had an effect on public opinion which has become increasingly hostile to Israel. But Israel is a democracy. No Israeli leader can turn his or her back on the struggle against those who wish to destroy Israel . The world needs to respect that.

We also need to send out again and again a simple and clear message to the international community that peace in the Middle East can never come until Israelis are allowed to sleep in peace. That message needs to be transmitted not just in Europe and America. Asia needs to hear and understand that message as well.

Today, as the balance of global power shifts to the Asia Pacific region, your campaigns to ensure people understand the truth of the Middle East conflict must extend to China, Japan, India, Korea and Indonesia. Those countries are going to count for a great deal more in international fora in the future. But at present they are hearing just one side of the argument. When I have spoken about the Middle East in Asia I have felt somewhat lonely!

When I first heard last year of the destruction of a North Korean-built nuclear facility in Syria , I thought its destruction was a triumph. It was a blow for peace. What horrors would have occurred years from now if that project had survived? But the existence of this project, discovered only at a relatively late stage of development, reminds us of the immense dangers Israelis live with day by day.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are tough times.We have to prevail over Islamic extremism. Liberal democracy has, once more, to triumph. But it won't happen by wishing and hoping: it will only happen through courage and action.

I know what your public are saying, I know there is pain at the costs both human and financial. But the true test of the statesman is to do the right thing by a troubled world, not play to a gallery.

Thank you again for this great honour: whether our political leaders are popular or not, our two great countries will always be the great beacons of hope to billions of people around the world who crave the liberties we are blessed to enjoy. And make no mistake, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Israel in its struggle to secure peace and freedom".

Source





Farce as NSW firefighters act as ambulance officers

FIREFIGHTERS say they are acting as ambulance officers and treating the sick at crash scenes and other emergencies in a growing trend aimed at plugging holes in the health system. The Daily Telegraph can reveal NSW Fire Brigades crews last year responded to 5583 medical emergencies. And the number of firefighter call-outs is climbing, up by 1200 since 2005, documents obtained under Freedom of Information show.

But the NSW Fire Brigade has rejected claims firefighters are propping up the health system. The brigade's assistant public affairs director Kate Dennis said there were a very small number of first-aid interventions. Firefighters provided CPR, oxygen and other medical assistance in hundreds of non-fire related cases last year.

The Ambulance Service last night admitted it does rely on firefighters to respond if its crews are unavailable. Documents show many of the medical emergencies involved people trapped in car accidents, which are mandatory for the fire brigade to attend. But on 528 occasions last year firefighters performed first aid at non-fire emergencies.

Ambulance officers said they were concerned about the increasing reliance on firefighters responding to medical call-outs. "There are times when we are tied up at another job and the fireys are the first to get there, so they have to start treating the patient," a 30-year ambulance veteran said. "We aren't knocking our comrades but we are concerned that the Government will use fireys to respond to jobs. All three emergency services are covering each other's tail."

Maianbar artist Julie Mellae didn't care who turned up to help her 70-year-old father during a heart attack last year - as long as someone responded to her call. A fire crew was dispatched to her home to offer medical assistance to her father Albert Cosgrove. "Probably in the suburbs it would sound a bit quirky to have fire brigade people help out with a medical problem," she said. "But out here when there is a tragedy everybody helps out where they can."

In the latest example of the overstretched system, ambulance officers in the Hunter have also taken industrial action over one-person crews attending emergencies. They have rejected a plan to man the ambulances with a volunteer firefighter or SES worker.

Fire Brigade Employees Union state secretary Simon Flynn said there was a growing "overflow system" where fireys were propping up the health system. The union is taking its concerns to the Industrial Relations Court next week. Under changes within the brigade in 2003, fire engines were equipped with defibrillator and trauma kits while getting the equivalent to graduate ambulance officer training.

However, an Ambulance Service spokesman said firefighters would never replace paramedics. "First-aid skills are important for any emergency service operative and we support firefighters being trained in life-saving interventions to assist paramedics," he said.

Source





Serious ambulance problems in Tasmania too

COUNTRY ambulance stations are closed up to nine hours a day - sometimes three times a week - because paramedics are seriously fatigued. Some paramedics are on duty for 96 hours straight, Australian College of Ambulance Professionals Tasmanian branch chairman Tim Rider said. When paramedics took nine-hour fatigue breaks, there was no one to cover for them and stations were unmanned. As a result, Mr Rider said people near Huonville, New Norfolk and Sorell were at risk in an emergency.

"Fatigue is a significant issue for paramedics when they're on the road driving and it can affect their clear, cool judgment," he said. "It also places the community at risk because they have to put up with a longer response time if we can't back-fill (the fatigue break), which is usually the norm."

The Health and Community Services Union put a staffing plan for Huonville, New Norfolk and Sorell to the Government three years ago. But HCSU assistant secretary Tim Jacobson said the plan was not acted on. "People are sick of working overtime," Mr Jacobson said. "Outer-urban stations operate on a model that doesn't have a full complement of full-time staffing. "It's becoming more problematic because of urban sprawl and increasing case loads. There is no fat in the system to provide cover when there are absences or vacancies."

Fatigue was a serious issue for paramedics at outer-urban stations, where a four-day-on, four-day-off work roster meant they were on call overnight after working more than 11 hours. Paramedics were increasingly taking nine-hour fatigue breaks.

Mr Rider said outer-urban services required more resources, including full-time staff, and a new work model. "The four-on, four-off roster is very well liked by paramedics in town. But the fact is the days of the single branch officer is way outdated in today's environment, given the workload and the OHS issues," he said. "They're basically on duty for 96 hours straight, and their clinical judgment can be impaired." Mr Rider said the Tasmanian Ambulance Service was aware of the problem and would advertise for more qualified paramedics this year.

Source







Amazing: Australian schoolkids to do a serious study of Australian literature

But only in NSW -- and even there the "greats" (Henry Lawson, Banjo Paterson, C.J. Dennis) seem to be missing

HIGH school students in NSW will have to study at least four works of Australian literature by the end of Year 10 under changes to the English syllabus. The NSW Board of Studies has reworked the English syllabus for primary and secondary students to promote Australian literature in the classroom. The changes specify the study of printed literature - books, poems and plays - over multimedia forms such as film, television shows and websites.

The move follows a directive last year from NSW Education Minister John Della Bosca to strengthen the study of Australian literature in schools. Mr Della Bosca yesterday said a study of Australian literature was important in providing a sense of identity and insight into our national culture. "While Australian literature is already featured across the primary and secondary English syllabuses, these proposals will help to ensure that all students experience the wisdom, knowledge, and talent of our authors," he said. The board will start consultations with teachers later thismonth to draw up lists ofsuggested books and writers for study. The changes could be phased in as early as next year.

Books currently recommended for primary school students include Animalia by Graeme Base, Snugglepot and Cuddlepie by May Gibbs, Five Times Dizzy by Nadia Wheatley, and Father Sky and Mother Earth by Oodgeroo Noonuccal. In high schools, suggested books for Years 7 to 10 include Storm Boy by Colin Thiele, Playing Beattie Bow by Ruth Park, My Brilliant Career by Miles Franklin and The Getting of Wisdom by Henry Handel Richardson. Senior students already study Australian literature including Peter Carey's The True History of the Kelly Gang, David Malouf's Fly Away Peter, Patrick White's The Aunt's Story and Tim Winton's Cloudstreet.

But the board is proposing a new Year 11 module for Extension English students in Australian literature, covering traditional and contemporary writers. In primary schools, the new syllabus directs that students are given "a substantial experience of Australian literature". This includes regular reading, with the teacher, in groups or independently, of Australian picture books as well as extended study and close study, either as a class or in groups, of novels and poetry. The syllabus also suggests units of work that cross other subject areas, using a detailed study of Australian literature as a link into teaching history, for example.

High school students in Years 7-8 and 9-10 are already required to study at least two works of fiction, films, non-fiction books, drama and a wide range of poetry for each two-year period. The syllabus will now be changed to require that at least two works covering all the genres be "drawn from different types of Australian literature in the print medium". "The selected texts must include Australian literature and other Australian texts including those that give insights into Aboriginal experiences and multicultural experiences in Australia," it says.

Source







End to Howard's era of choice

Kevin Rudd is quietly tearing up John Howard's blueprint for running the country, replacing the mantras of private choice and reward for effort with old-style Labor values of public funding and tax equity. He is doing it with the same tool that the former prime minister exploited - government spending. Howard camouflaged his social engineering with the term "choice". Rudd conceals his rollback of the Howard years with words such as "equity", "future" and "long-term".

Wayne Swan's budget speech on Tuesday talked of "redirect(ing) welfare payments to where they are needed most". Let's play follow-the-bribe to see how Rudd is changing the hip-pocket conversation, and with it, perhaps, the nation.

Howard used taxpayers' money to reward people for consuming private services such as schools and hospitals. Rudd has begun to reverse this order by talking up public schools through his education revolution and by talking down private health insurance through the changes to the Medicare levy surcharge. Without that 1 per cent levy to pay, upper-middle earners on between $50,000 and $100,000 have one less reason to take out private health cover. Leaders tell a lot about themselves by the voters they pamper. Howard favoured the stay-at-home mother. Rudd prefers the working woman.

Howard had placed a means test on Family Tax Benefit (Part A) for the majority of families in which both parents worked. But the minority of couples that had the mother at home, or working a few hours a week, received Family Tax Benefit (Part B) regardless of what the father earned. Tuesday's budget ended the distinction between working and stay-at-home mothers by denying FTB (Part B) to households on more than $150,000 a year.

Yet Rudd is no means-test puritan. Labor's expanded childcare tax rebate is the post-Howard equivalent of middle-class welfare. All families get it, regardless of income. Rudd explains that the childcare tax rebate is designed to help women return to work, although he might be surprised to learn that many well-off mothers at home also use childcare. Perhaps he meant to console them for the loss of FTB (Part B)?

Howard saw the early years of a child's life as a family affair, with no role for government other than to help the mother stay at home to raise the child. Rudd, on the other hand, is a fan of early intervention in childhood development, so the Government must play a role before the child reaches primary school. And when that child reaches primary school, Rudd would like to see the state system compete more successfully with the private sector.

He never couches his policies this way, because he hasn't repeated previous Labor policy of cutting funding to elite schools. But there are other ways to tilt the playing field. Rudd's education tax refund has a means test. No point giving wealthy families money to defray the cost of sending their pampered kids to private schools. Tuesday's budget even increased the tax on the luxury people-movers these parents use to chauffeur their children to the school gate.

The most important difference between Howard and Rudd is the role of the budget surplus. Howard wanted to return the excess revenue to voters directly - as a tax cut or handout, or both. Howard's mantra of choice boiled down to the idea that individuals should be free to consume their bracket creep in the private sector. Rudd sees the surplus as public funds to be invested by government on behalf of the public. It is up to the voter to read the sign language.

Source