Federal government warns Muslim haters of citizenship loss

Dual citizens who work to divide Australia rather than unite it should be stripped of their Australian citizenship, Treasurer Peter Costello said today. "If somebody is an Australian citizen and also, let's say, an Egyptian citizen and that person doesn't support what this country stands for... I think we'd be within our rights to say to that person, well, Australia's not for you," Mr Costello told Macquarie Radio.

The comments come after the uproar started by Australia's Islamic leader Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali who compared Australian women to uncovered meat and also claimed Muslim Australians had more right to live in Australia than Anglo-Saxons, the majority of which are descendants of convicts. "You get into a difficult situation if they're not dual citizens, because at that point, if you take away Australian citizenship they're not a citizen of anywhere, they've got nowhere to go."

But Mr Costello said burning the Australian flag should not be outlawed. "I hate people burning the Australian flag," Mr Costello told Macquarie Radio. "It makes me sick in my stomach but then you think to yourself, these people are disaffected people, some of them are just plain bad people, I wouldn't want to make them martyrs."

Source





Queensland lawyers squealing about damages cap

Insurance premiums will be reviewed to ensure that they have fallen in the wake of reforms to personal injury laws which capped compensation payouts, the State Government says. Premier Peter Beattie yesterday stopped short of endorsing Attorney-General Kerry Shine's claim that the laws were unfair, but said the Government was willing to check whether the changes made in 2002 were still working.

However, he warned lawyers they should not expect the laws to be significantly relaxed. "I just want to be really clear that ambulance chasers shouldn't get too excited," Mr Beattie said. "We are not going to go back to the bad old days when we couldn't get insurance to cover our doctors. "(But) the insurance industry had an obligation to reduce their premiums. I don't think it's unreasonable that we should actually have a look at that too, to make sure they have done that."

In an earlier interview with The Courier-Mail, Mr Shine had criticised the laws, saying they had unfairly blocked people with minor injuries claiming compensation, because their court costs could not be covered. He accused insurance companies of profiting from the crackdown, which was aimed at addressing the public liability insurance crisis when soaring premiums were sending community groups and charities to the wall. Under the changes, general damages were capped at $250,000 and court costs limited on payouts of less than $50,000.

Australian Lawyers Alliance state president Ian Brown welcomed the Attorney-General's comments and called for an immediate overhaul. "It is now widely accepted that the so-called insurance crisis was not the result of an increase in claims, but rather inherent problems within the insurance industry and external global financial factors," Mr Brown said. "Of course insurance companies must remain profitable, but not at the price now being paid by Queenslanders - and particularly our most vulnerable, the elderly and children, who have almost completely lost the right to fair compensation for injury caused by the wrongdoing of another."

Source






Arrogant police in South Australia

Read the complaint below and then the police response to it

Elderly residents in Coober Pedy are arming themselves with tyre levers when they do their weekly shopping because there is no local 24-hour police station. Coober Pedy Mayor Steve Baines last week wrote to Police Commissioner Mal Hyde and Premier Mike Rann to express his "extreme concern" at the "despair" of the isolated town's 3500 residents.

He said there was "ineffective" law and order procedures in place for the opal mining town, 850km north of Adelaide. "I am still fielding complaints from residents and visitors of anti-social behaviour and violence that is being experienced in our town after the local (police) station closes at night," Mr Baines wrote.

Figures from the Office of Crime Statistics and Research show Coober Pedy has the second-highest crime rate in the state. It had the most number of recorded assaults after the Adelaide CBD and Ceduna.

Mr Baines' letter calling for permanent 24-hour policing followed a morning of mayhem last Thursday when fights broke out in the main street about 7.50am as locals were doing their weekly shopping. Calls to Coober Pedy police were diverted to Port Augusta, about 540km south of the town, and residents were told they would have to wait for help until 8.30am, when the local station opened.

"An elderly lady in her sixties who was trying to do her weekly shopping had felt the necessity to arm herself with a tyre lever fearing for her own safety," Mr Baines wrote in his letter. "By the time the situation had defused and the main street had returned to some semblance of normality it was 8.30am and still no police had attended."

A police spokeswoman yesterday said police numbers at Coober Pedy had recently been increased by two. Current after-hours call-out service "provides satisfactory 24-hour coverage for the area," she said. Opposition police spokesman Rob Lucas said police had the capacity to provide an additional presence.

Source





Shifting stand will fail Federal Leftist leader

By Christopher Pearson

If Kevin Rudd hadn't committed to a policy of withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq, would enough of Labor's Left have supported him for his leadership bid to succeed? To raise the question is to confront its answer. Rudd's own sympathies may be with the more conservatively minded Laborites who attach great importance to the US alliance. But his backers in caucus included a disproportionate share of the inner urbanites who disdain George Bush and all his works and view the alliance as, at best, a very mixed blessing.

One of Rudd's main priorities between now and the federal election is to appease his colleagues on the Left, while trying to maintain his image as a safe pair of hands on the foreign policy front. That is why, when asked on ABC radio on Tuesday to say what the consequences of a troop withdrawal would be, he repeatedly refused to answer the question. Put on the spot and invited to conjure sweetness and light out of a policy with catastrophic consequences, he was reduced to embarrassed silence. His line that he was "not in the business of providing a rolling external commentary" was so much at odds with his media performance over his career as a shadow minister as to be laughable.

While resolutely refusing to answer the question on the consequences of troop withdrawal, Rudd would no doubt have been mindful of the intelligence briefings routinely given to opposition leaders. The latest, the US National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq of February 2 this year, covers the next 12 to 18 months and was cited in passing by John Howard in parliament last week. "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources and operations, remain an essential stabilising element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to an increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

"If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraq Security Forces would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighbouring countries - invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally - might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI (Al Qa'ida in Iraq) would attempt to use parts of the country - particularly al-Anbar province - to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiralling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion."

The Iraq Study Group Report in December 2006, which Rudd has claimed as something of a model for his hastily conceived "staged withdrawal" policy and likes to quote selectively, was just as bleak. "Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support ... the near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilisation and a threat to the global economy. Al Qa'ida would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United Stated to return."

Neither of these American assessments is an ideologically driven exercise in special pleading. Rudd can't afford to canvass the consequences of his policy because, if it were part of the wider withdrawal so many Democrats in Congress are now demanding, there is very little doubt about the likely outcomes.

Nor can he afford to engage in a forthright discussion of the immediate regional implications of an Al-Qa'ida triumph. There can, for example, be no doubt that if the West withdrew from Iraq with a view to focusing its energies in Afghanistan, the global jihadists would do likewise. Israel has offered no guarantees that it won't go to war against a resurgent Iran on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons. Radical Islamists everywhere would be immensely fortified in their resolve by our conspicuous lack of it and Southeast Asian terrorist networks such as Jemaah Islamiah would be doing their damndest to destabilise moderate, democratically elected regimes such as the present government of Indonesia and replacing it with proto-Islamist ideologues.

Howard has been accused of blundering in the management of alliance politics by all the usual suspects in the press gallery. Even when they conceded him the right to disagree with Barack Obama, they were united in deploring his widening of the reproach to include the Democrats as a party. It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them that Obama's winning the nomination and the Democrats winning the presidential election are both necessary preconditions for the disaster Howard was warning against.

If Howard still seems strident, consider what Senator Joe Lieberman told the Congress on the subject of a comparable kind of irresolution, debating the Warner-Levin measure on February 5. "The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their commander's orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.

"Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the President, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening. "What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al-Qa'ida terrorists, eager for evidence that America's will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing. "This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution. "For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity."

Lieberman, it will be remembered, was the pro-war Democrat who lost his party's Senate endorsement in Connecticut and nonetheless retained his seat at the recent elections. Is there anyone left in the federal Labor caucus with the courage and gravitas to take a similar stand?

OVER the past fortnight Julia Gillard has repeatedly claimed that it wasn't the Work Choices legislation but the mining boom which was responsible for the fall in unemployment. The shadow treasurer, Wayne Swan, who's generally credited with being more numerate and savvy than Gillard, has been saying the same thing. As recently as last Wednesday she told parliament: "When you look at the pattern of employment growth, it is abundantly clear that it is the resources boom that is driving employment growth. It is the states of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory that are leaping ahead."

On Monday the Reserve Bank issued a statement of monetary policy which flatly rejected Gillard's argument. It said: "Employment growth has been broad-based, with the goods and services sectors both making strong contributions to year-ended growth. While mining employment has gained much attention, over the past year employment growth was also high in construction, finance and insurance, and wholesale trade."

The RBA also expressly rejected Gillard's claim that the jobs boom was narrowly concentrated. "Employment growth has been firm across the states, and recently there has been some convergence in outcomes, with annual employment growth in NSW increasing and that in WA slowing as employers have found it harder to find suitable labour. There has also been a broad-based reduction in unemployment rates in recent years. Similarly, the composite measure of business conditions in the NAB survey - which reflects firms' responses on trading conditions, profitability and employment - shows that conditions in the non-farm economy remain above average in all the mainland states."

Joe Hockey, the new Minister for Workplace Relations, put it more succinctly in Wednesday's Matter of Public Importance debate. Of the 230,000 jobs created between February and November last year after WorkChoices was introduced, 46,000 were in wholesale trade, 43,000 in construction and 34,500 in finance and insurance. Mining directly accounted for only 14,000 new jobs.

Source

The progressive destruction of Australian medical education

By Dr Amanda Neill -- a former lecturer in anatomy and related disciplines

Medical education is in serious trouble, and has been for a number of years. Recently there have been several articles questioning the level of the most basic knowledge of the medical graduates, much of it coming from the new graduates and students themselves. Surveys - some of them initiated by medical students - have revealed that they do not feel they know enough anatomy, physiology and pathology; that they are not taught, but rather thrown into a "sea" to learn in a "self-directed" fashion, and that they do not feel prepared enough to go out to practise medicine. Never has a profession's education been so mutilated, mucked-about-with, or mucked-up.

It is obvious to anyone that to fix a human body one should at least know about its components (anatomy), how these components interact (physiology), and what can potentially go wrong with them (pathology). All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Yet the smoke and mirrors is all that the medical schools are teaching. Students these days can have remarkably good understanding of technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging, while remaining startlingly ignorant of the bones, fascia and other structures of the hand. No GP surgery will have an MRI scanner, yet every GP will routinely see patients with sore or injured hands.

One of the major reasons for the shift in what is being taught is that medical education is not being taught by doctors. Doctors are not teaching student doctors; rather science and other graduates with or without PhDs have gazumped university staff teaching appointments. It is very difficult to find a medical graduate on any university staff, and even rarer to find them in the medical schools. This is no accident.

In the 80s and certainly the 90s, medical schools started to rid themselves in a determined fashion of medical graduates on their staff and employ science graduates with strong research backgrounds to teach medical students - when they had the time. These researchers on the whole did not have any vocational training, had never been on a ward or treated a patient, and did not have a strong interest in teaching. Certainly they did not have, and were not required to have, teaching as their main priority, and still do not. Teaching of vocational degrees such as medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and veterinary science should never have been given to those in a research-focused environment such as the modern university. Neither teaching nor research is then done well.

When medicine and then other vocational courses first became taken over by this shift in thinking, initially medicine was taught by medical graduates, who knew what was needed, had been on the wards, and had a thorough knowledge of the human body. Gradually the art of teaching medical subjects and the need to teach them became lost as the ever-increasing number of PhDs grew and vied for positions on the university staff. After all as John Collins, dean of education for the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, wrote in Weekend Health (December 16-17, 2006), there has been an explosion of medical knowledge and technology.

Whatever explosion there may be, a leg is still a leg and a stomach still a stomach. Despite Darwin's theory of evolution, these are remarkably constant, and the structures are unchanging. To fix them (the leg and the stomach and all the other structures in the body), to understand them, the doctor needs to know where they are, what is above, below, in front and behind, and what common variations of these arrangements may exist. This knowledge should not just be the province of the surgeon and the radiologist.

We live in dangerous times. Universities are currently agitating to take over, or have already taken over, the teaching of other vocational courses such as for ambulance officers, paramedics, police, physiotherapists, chiropractors, occupational therapists and nurses - and in each case the pattern is the same. Less and less of the training is done by those who have been working in the relevant profession, and more and more PhD graduates with a research focus take on the teaching and designing of courses, with a view to teaching on the side and/or to protecting their area of expertise, no matter how irrelevant. They also have minimal teaching experience. Students learn more and more about less and less relevant material. They are less ready to take on their role as a doctor, or the work necessary to do this job.

Currently in many courses textbooks are no longer prescribed, but a recommended reading list and stacks of photocopied papers and hastily prepared lecture notes are given to the students. They are told to go and get on with it - and this is in the more structured courses. Others are completely self-directed and there is no actual teaching at all. This is lazy and cannot readily be evaluated. It is subject to change on a whim and leaves the student floundering in a sea of few definites. Facts, half facts, and fashionable views are weighted the same and it is difficult to gain an ability to determine what is true and what is "true for the moment".

Most doctors want to be doctors, and although many have open and enquiring minds and may want to go further into research and other developments, this is not what medicine is all about. It is about medicine, not the latest whiz-bang gadget, or the latest theoretical approach. By all means if this is the direction the student/doctor wants to take after graduation, so be it. But a lot of current research is too narrow, precisely because many researchers lack a basic comprehensive knowledge of the body's structures. For example, pathology of the liver can affect the eye, but research about the eye will be flawed if those conducting it lack this basic understanding of other organs and what relevance this may have.

Source





Museum DNA test proposal

Fake Aborigines (some with blond hair) who roll in affirmative action privileges fear exposure

The Natural History Museum in London wants to use the remains of Tasmanian Aborigines to develop a simple DNA test for Aboriginal ancestry. A report obtained by The Weekend Australian says research into the DNA of the remains it holds could provide a key to creating such a test. "DNA analysis of the remains and subsequent comparisons with (the) Tasmanian community may allow the establishment of Aboriginal descent in the absence of documentation," it says, provoking condemnation from Aboriginal groups. The report cites the development of such DNA testing as a key "benefit" of allowing the NHM to hold on to the remains.

Australian researchers said such DNA testing could be done, but suggested it would only demonstrate Aboriginal descent "on the balance of probabilities". They also expressed concern some right-wing commentators might demand DNA vetting of those claiming government-funded Aboriginal cultural and welfare programs. The number of Australians identifying themselves as Aboriginal in the census has risen sharply from 265,459 in 1991 to 410,000 in 2001.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough said he was not interested in the DNA test. "There is only one issue that concerns us and that is respecting the remains of indigenous people and rightful custodians of those remains," Mr Brough said. "The distress caused to indigenous people in Tasmania far outweighs any potential scientific gains."

Source




Huge uni expenses bill to be audited

Another low-quality affirmative action appointment exposed

MACQUARIE University has ordered a second audit of its accounts as allegations of poor administration widened to include the university's international office, which paid an employee's daughter-in-law $400,000 to design a brochure, and 74 trips to Melbourne taken by three staff members over nine months.

The Weekend Australian understands that auditors Deloitte have uncovered anomalies in entertainment and travel expenses worth several hundred thousand dollars over the past 12 months, incurred by staff in the international office.

Di Yerbury, whose 20-year administration of the university in Sydney is already the subject of one audit, stood down as vice-chancellor last February but was appointed the university's international ambassador, with responsibility for the international office.

Auditors have discovered that the office's taxi bill for the past 12 months is tens of thousands of dollars, about 40 times higher than at a comparable university, with some individual vouchers as high as $770. Three staff made personal trips to Melbourne at the university's expense and resigned when asked to explain the trips.

The second audit follows one instigated in September by the new vice-chancellor Steven Schwarz into the administration of Professor Yerbury. It was ordered after the discovery that university records were incomplete, particularly regarding Professor Yerbury's employment entitlements, and confusion over the ownership of artworks after her collection was mingled with the university's. The Weekend Australian understands the auditors were told that when the university's financial officer queried the expenses, her concerns were overruled by Professor Yerbury. The interim audit report in December, of which Professor Yerbury or her lawyers are yet to receive a copy, also alleges perceived or possible conflicts of interest in Professor Yerbury's position on several company or organisation boards with her job as vice-chancellor.

Professor Yerbury yesterday denied any wrongdoing or improper conduct and accused Professor Schwarz of conducting "an absolute witch-hunt". "I fiercely reject and refute any suggestion that I've acted improperly. I am extremely protective of proper procedure which may lead to a conflict of interest," she said. "He (Professor Schwarz) has engaged in all sorts of bullying, harassment, intimidation and highly discriminatory treatment toward me. "He has treated me openly and overtly at Macquarie as if I was a criminal and completely untrustworthy."

Last night Professor Schwarz said the issue was about public money being spent and it needed to be accounted for. "Consistent attempts to deflect attention from the main issue by defaming me aren't going to work because the issue remains, and that's one of poor record keeping and poor policy adherence," he said.

The interim audit report estimates the Theatre Of Image, a youth community group, received assistance worth about $200,000 in money, equipment or university staff while Professor Yerbury was its chairwoman. The university funds cultural groups such as the TOI as part of its community outreach program but the auditors "were unable to identify any policies or criteria how TOI was selected as a community outreach program or partner". "Payments were made to TOI from invoices initiated by TOI and send to the vice-chancellor's office," the report says. "There was some evidence (eg 10 October 2005 email from the TOI general manager to Professor Yerbury) that the quantum of some TOI invoices was discussed in advance between TOI and Professor Yerbury. "Professor Yerbury's position as chair of TOI may have given rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest through her competing duties as vice chancellor by signing grant applications/terms and conditions and approving payment of invoices to TOI."

The report raises another perceived conflict of interest with the appointment of Professor Yerbury to the board of private education company IBT Education in March last year, two months after signing a contract with the company to establish Macquarie University College, in the Sydney CBD, licensed to deliver Macquarie degrees. Professor Yerbury said she did not take up her appointment as a non-executive director until after stepping down as vice-chancellor last February and was always careful to signal any potential conflicts of interest.

The Weekend Australian also understands that an initial inspection of the Killara house, owned by the university on Sydney's north Shore, where Professor Yerbury has lived for the past 20 years, is in such poor condition that it has recommended demolition.

Professor Yerbury said she was unaware a second audit was being conducted and denied the expenses it was investigating were incurred by her. While she travelled extensively overseas in her ambassadorial role, Professor Yerbury said all travel was approved by Professor Schwarz and she had never entertained anyone at the university's expense, had paid for all her own taxis, and had not flown between Sydney and Melbourne or given such trips to non-university staff.

Professor Yerbury was on a salary package worth about $600,000, of which between $110,000 and $114,000 a year was taken out to cover the rent of the Killara house as well as utilities, maintenance and upkeep. She said she was not surprised the university might decide to demolish the house rather than renovate it, and said it was in such poor condition when she first moved that many of the rooms were only fit for storage. "It's not in good shape and it was a house that wasn't suitable for the purposes for which a vice-chancellor might use it, such as to entertain," she said. "Some rooms weren't carpeted, only two rooms had curtains, in some of the rooms the blinds were broken."

Professor Schwarz said he commissioned Deloitte to review matters pertaining to Professor Yerbury after gaps in the university's records became apparent, particularly related to its art collection and the employment details of Professor Yerbury. He said the issues arose when Professor Yerbury began negotiations for an early departure. The talks identified a number of questions about her accrued annual leave entitlements, termination payment and the ownership of artworks. "The matters are related to good record keeping and orderly governance. We've been presented with incomplete files, incomplete information and as a consequence we are obligated - because it is government money - to fill in those gaps," he said. Professor Schwarz would not comment on whether the audit had identified further anomalies, saying he was reluctant to discuss the details until the audit had been finalised.

Source





Dangerous decisions: Courts should steer well clear of the carbon debate

THERE are some decisions that are too important to be left to the judiciary. And a carbon tax is one of them. But while governments debate the issue and agonise about the details, green activists are working through the courts to bypass the democratic process and force such a tax on the coal industry. Unlike governments, judges and tribunal members cannot equip themselves with sufficient information to make an informed decision about how to deal with climate change. For this reason, they must be stripped of the power to intervene in this area before the environmental lobby persuades activist judges that they alone can save the world.

There is another reason why judges should bow out of this area. And it was spelt out as recently as last week by High Court Chief Justice Murray Gleeson. Judicial officers risk a loss of public confidence if their rulings are considered to be no more than the imposition of their personal social goals. The green campaign, which started in NSW, received a welcome setback in Queensland this week. A tribunal headed by Greg Koppenol exposed the flawed logic of those who wanted to use Mr Koppenol's tribunal to force a coalmine to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Had they succeeded, it would have had the same effect as a carbon tax: the cost of the mine's coal would have risen and consumers would have bought their coal elsewhere. And it would have been a tax that would have been passed without a single vote by a representative body. Mr Koppenol made the right call. But that's not the point. Unless the states prevent judges and tribunals from venturing into this area, the nation is at risk of being lumbered with an inconsistent network of court-imposed carbon taxes.

For proof, just look at last year's loopy decision by NSW Land and Environment Court judge Nicola Pain. She ruled that an environmental impact statement for the Anvil Hill coalmine in the Hunter Valley was invalid because it failed to consider the emission of greenhouse gases. Ms Pain was an environmental activist before she was appointed to the bench by NSW Attorney-General and Environment Minister Bob Debus.

On this issue, the NSW Labor Government has betrayed the coal industry. Coalmining jobs are now at risk because of the actions of the state Labor Government. Instead of legislating to overturn Ms Pain's ruling and seeking a consistent national approach, the NSW Government has embraced her mad plan. It has asked the mine to respond to a Greens suggestion that factor into its costbase $109 a tonne for carbon dioxide emissions. Such a tax, which was calculated according to data in the much-criticised Stern review of climate change, would render the mine economically unviable. The issue of climate change demands a national approach, not an ad hoc network of inconsistent state taxes. Despite what some governments might think, taxes are not the solution to all the world's problems.

Source

Muslim clerics push for flags to be flown on mosques

The Australian government's repeated insistence on assimilation bears some fruit:

Senior Muslim leaders have called for the Australian flag to be flown outside the nation's mosques as an expression of the Islamic community's "loyalty" and commitment to this country. Muslim clerics yesterday urged Australia's 300,000 Muslims to back the idea as a symbol of "integration" and pride. The former chairman of the Prime Minister's Muslim reference group, Ameer Ali, pushed the Australian Muslim community yesterday to adopt the flag. "Even in Muslim countries in the mosque they fly the national flag ... (such as) in Pakistan. If that can be done in a Muslim country why not in Australia?" Dr Ali said.

He said Muslims opposed to the flag being displayed outside mosques were religiously narrow-minded. "I think they are looking at it from a very narrow, religious angle," he said. Dr Ali said he spearheaded the initiative of displaying the flag outside Muslim schools owned by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils when he ran that organisation in 2002. He also ensured that students sang the national anthem during special functions. "We are Australian Muslims," he said. "And it (the flag) is a symbol of our national identity."

One of Australia's most respected female Muslim leaders, Aziza Abdel-Halim, said displaying a national flag outside mosques would not conflict with Islamic teachings. "Putting the Australian flag (outside mosques is) a good sign of integration, of being at one with everyone else in this country and our pride in being Australian," said Sister Abdel-Halim, also a former senior member of John Howard's Muslim advisory body. "I don't see anything at all that would contradict Islamic teachings in any way. It would be a nice gesture to have it, especially now that Muslims really need to underline the fact that they are loyal to this country."

Another respected imam, Amin Hady, said it would be especially important for the Australian flag to be flown outside mosques on special national occasions, such as Anzac Day and Australia Day. "That is to me a good idea to reaffirm the commitment of anyone living in this country, including the Muslims who are part of the population," the Indonesian imam said.

Islamic sources have told The Weekend Australian that the move to fly the flag was discussed by executive members of the Lebanese Muslim Association, one of the Islamic community's most prominent organisations. But the move, backed by several LMA board executives, to display the flag outside Lakemba Mosque, in Sydney's southwest, were staunchly opposed by some community members.

It is understood that the LMA's proposal came after a Muslim man tore down the Australian flag from the Lakemba office of the Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, last year and stomped on it to express his opposition to it. It is believed that Sheik Hilali - who recently labelled Westerners liars and oppressors and said Australia belonged more to Muslim immigrants who "paid for our passports" than Anglo-Saxon convicts - reprimanded the man before ordering him from the office, on the same premises as the mosque.

But Muslim leader Keysar Trad said last night some community members would consider the idea of displaying the flag as "politicising a place of worship". "I have no problem with the flag being at Muslim schools, but a place of worship is for all people to be equal and as such I believe places of worship should maintain the tradition of not raising the national flag," Mr Trad said. And prominent Sydney-based Islamic cleric, Khalil Shami, expressed fears yesterday that hoisting the flag outside mosques would lead to potential violence and further division within the community among factions opposed to the idea.

Source





Single parents told to work

Almost a quarter of a million single parents will soon be forced back to work or face an eight-week halt to their welfare benefits. In one of the biggest welfare shake-ups in years, about 233,000 single mums and dads will need to find work after July 1, Federal Government figures reveal. They must find at least 15 hours work a week when their child turns seven. Previously, single parents could wait until their youngest child turned 16 before facing a work test. No one will be spared finding work unless they have children with disabilities, are studying, already working, looking for work or have five or more children.

The Parenting Payment changes will affect the estimated 600,000 children with no working parent. They will also affect the estimated 15,000 single mothers aged 15 to 20.

Workforce Participation Minister Sharman Stone said yesterday that there had never been a better time for people to re-enter the workforce and re-skill. "Welfare dependency is not a recipe for a life full of participation in Australian society," Dr Stone said. "Children growing up in a home without a breadwinner are five times more likely to end up welfare-dependent themselves."

Every fortnight, Centrelink pays single parents $512.10 and parents with partners $379.80 if their income and assets are below set levels. Under Centrelink rules, the Parenting Payment would be stopped for eight weeks if a recipient: Refused a suitable job offer; Left a job on a whim; Was dismissed for bad behaviour; Failed to turn up for a Work for the Dole scheme.

But Dr Stone said there were checks and balances to the new system. "This is a very caring reform to help parents and their children have more choices in life," she said. Job-seekers would be required to find work only if it is less than 60 minutes from home, if child care is affordable, and where the job pays more than $50 over their fortnightly pension.If payments were stopped, Centrelink would still help out with essential items such as rent, food and medication, a spokeswoman for Dr Stone said.

Australia's single parents will be entering a buoyant labour market. The jobless rate is at a 30-year low of 4.5 per cent.

Source




PM Howard targets Australia's Leftist "Mr Bet Each Way"



Shades of "flip-flop" John Kerry! The cartoon above portrays Labor Party leader Rudd talking to his environment spokesman -- former anti-American rock singer Peter Garrett, who has now backed down on lots of what he once claimed to believe in. His former band was called "Midnight Oil"

DESPITE an embarrassing week, John Howard's tactic to nail Kevin Rudd is clear - he will depict Rudd as a political chameleon without conviction, being all things to all people.

Rudd's genius has been to project as a fresh and positive new leader playing both sides of most issues. But this has a limited shelf life.

The Government's big three - Howard, Peter Costello and Alexander Downer - are desperate to expose Rudd's dual messages. They have a growing body of evidence to help them. Consider the list: Rudd campaigns as a climate change believer who won't hurt the coal industry; as an opponent of Howard's industrial laws who will look after small business; and as the champion of withdrawing forces from Iraq who upholds the US alliance.

Downer tightened the chameleon noose around Rudd at the close of the parliamentary week. "His position, as usual, is every position," he said of Rudd's Iraq policy. "If you want troops in Iraq, yes, he can deliver that; if you don't, yes, he can deliver that. If you support the Americans, yes, he can do that. If you support the insurgents and the terrorists and so on, yes, he can deliver that as well. This country deserves an Opposition Leader with a bit of strength, a bit of commitment."

Downer and Howard only work in lockstep on political tactics. The latest Newspoll shows not only Rudd's high satisfaction rating, at 60 per cent, but also his very low dissatisfaction, at only 15 per cent. Rudd's success is that he doesn't offend. The goodwill factor is huge. Howard's tactic is to force Rudd into hard choices and, if Rudd remains elusive, then to depict him as weak and without conviction. The problem for Howard is that Rudd can second-guess these tactics. He knows what is happening.

The message from the first fortnight of parliament is that Rudd, the most formidable Labor leader Howard has faced since 1996, will be very difficult to dismantle.

Source





Victorian schools declare themselves 'war toy free zones'

Toy soldiers, model war planes and wrestling figurines have been banned in schools across the state in a politically correct crackdown. Primary schools and kindergartens have declared themselves "war toy free zones" and outlawed traditional toys and playground games that have even a tenuous link to war.

All schools contacted by the Sunday Herald Sun said they had a policy banning war toys. Principals said schools feared they could be sued by litigious parents if they allowed plastic weapons and war toys in the school ground. "The litigation is so rife you don't risk it," said Clifton Hill primary school head Geoffrey Warren. "It can take a bit of fun out of things. But there's such a wide range of views among parents and you don't please all the people all the time, let me tell you."

Children at primary schools and kindergartens are also forbidden from playing "war-like games" such as cowboys and indians and poison ball. "Obviously parents are going to be disappointed their children are losing the opportunity to do what children have always done," said Parents Victoria president Gail McHardy. "I think there would be much stronger parental support for a ban on video games at school." At one Melbourne kindergarten, children who bring in wrestling figurines are told to put them back in their bags until they get home.

Former RSL president Bruce Ruxton said the social engineers behind the ban on traditional childhood fun were misguided. "They think it's evil," he said. You won't stop kids doing that. It's a political correctness of some type, but misguided."

Child psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Greg said the war toy ban had no logical basis. "There is no evidence playing with toy soldiers or wrestling figurines in any way, shape or form has negative effects on the child's psychological development," he said. "I'm happy to embrace new research and see it filter down into policy. But really, show me the evidence."

The Government yesterday distanced itself from the toy bans. "It is up to the school community to determine what type of toy is acceptable at their school," said a spokesman for Education Minister John Lenders.

Source

Therapy plan for terror suspects

A bit bizarre but treating Islamic terrorism as a mental illness has much to recommend it

TERROR suspects could be given taxpayer-funded counselling for being angry or having low self-esteem. Under the proposal, the Federal Government would provide psychological counselling and anger management support to terror suspects and those subject to control orders. But secrecy surrounds the initiative because the Australian Federal Police has refused to reveal the specifics of its proposal.

Scant details were released through a Federal Government question on notice. "Some of the options considered include religious education, psychological support and assistance with issues such as anger management, low self-esteem, social identity and family separation," the AFP said, responding to a question on voluntary education programs for terrorists. "The AFP continues to examine how education and counselling may be used within the context of control orders. "Programs developed overseas in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia are also being examined as part of broader AFP considerations." The AFP refused to say how much the program would cost.

The Opposition has also demanded to know what research shows a link between terrorism and people with low self-esteem. The battle for answers started back in October when Opposition Justice Minister Senator Joe Ludwig asked about voluntary programs for terrorists. And during a Senate Estimates Committee on Wednesday, Senator Ludwig again demanded more details from the Government. "Labor was interested in whether there was a link between terrorism and these pathological and behavioural problems and we are looking forward to the AFP's response," Senator Ludwig said yesterday. "The other issue that Labor is interested in is whether or not these programs, which are constructed overseas, are appropriate for an Australian context."

It's understood counselling and education programs would not be forced upon alleged terrorists. In their answer provided last week, the AFP said it continued "to examine how education and counselling may be used with the context of control orders". "Any education and counselling which might be employed will need to be tailored to the individual circumstances of the person placed under the order." It said it would examine how education and counselling could be used within the context of control orders, which impose a range of restrictions and need the Attorney-General's approval

Source




Howard stands by Iraq policy

A defiant John Howard has refused to concede it was a mistake to invade Iraq as he battles political unrest over a war going from bad to worse. Speaking in Wellington, where Iraq has overshadowed annual talks with New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, the Prime Minister also defended his controversial attack on US presidential hopeful Barack Obama. "Do I have cause to withdraw or retract? No I don't," Mr Howard said yesterday.

Reflecting on his claim that al-Qaida would be praying for Senator Obama to be the next US president, the PM denied he had intruded upon internal US politics -- saying it wasn't as though he criticised the senator on, say, domestic housing policies for American cities. "I made an observation about a single view expressed by an aspirant for office in another country on an issue . . . which directly affects my own country," he said.

After a torrid week in which Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has accused the Government's policies of keeping Australian troops in Iraq for decades, Mr Howard refused to concede that continuing deadly bloodshed in Iraq after four years indicated the decision to send Australian troops was wrong. "I do not resile in any way from the decision that Australia took," he said. "Like any other democratically elected politician, I am accountable for it before the bar of public opinion in my country. If you are asking me do I recant the original decision, no I do not."

He said the size of Australia's troop deployment was "about right" but he reserved the right to make modest variations from time to time. While Iraq surfaced only fleetingly in their official talks, the issue dominated the two leaders' subsequent media conference. New Zealand has joined Australia in the US-led military presence in Afghanistan but Ms Clark again refused to back Australia's involvement in Iraq, saying only that she respected the Howard Government's decision. "I respect Australia's decisions. I don't always agree with them," she said.

Source




Arrogant Greenies want it both ways

Even very flexible tax rules are not good enough for some of them

FIFTEEN environmental groups have been warned they could be stripped of their status as charities and be forced to pay taxes for engaging in political activity, amid claims the Howard Government wants to silence its critics. The warnings follow an Australian Taxation Office investigation into complaints that groups masquerading as charities are devoting their activities to campaigning against the Government. Documents obtained by The Weekend Australian under Freedom of Information laws also suggest right-wing church group the Exclusive Brethren is facing ATO scrutiny over political activities.

The Wilderness Society, which has clashed heavily with the Government over Tasmanian logging, said yesterday it had passed its most recent tax audit. But national strategic campaign director Virginia Young said her group had been the subject of a campaign by sections of the Government to remove its tax-deductible status. "It would be such an assault on civil society and democracy," Ms Young said.

In 2003, a tax office review established that groups wanting tax-deductible status were not banned from political activity provided their dominant purpose was charity.

The FOI documents show that last year, after complaints to a Senate estimates committee and in newspapers, the ATO cross-checked Australian Electoral Commission records on political donations with its register of tax-deductible organisations. It found 59 organisations were worthy of further investigation over possible breaches of their status as charities, which makes them exempt from income tax and eligible for fringe benefits and state tax concessions.

ATO deputy tax commissioner Mark Konza said he could not breach privacy by naming the organisations reviewed. But he said one group had lost its status as a charity because it was "only engaged in political activity". "It (the review) has resulted in another 15 organisations modifying their activity," he said. The review was a response to the Senate estimates committee hearing, not an attempt to target particular groups, he said.

Ms Young said the Wilderness Society had received no warning. "My feeling was that there was a campaign last year run by some sections of the Government and the Institute of Public Affairs to attempt to remove the Wilderness Society's tax-deductibility," she said. "But I can assure you we do not donate money to any political party. We try to get attention for environmental issues and our purpose is charitable because we are focused 100 per cent on environmental outcomes for Australia."

Liberal senator Brett Mason called for a review of charities. "I don't care whether they are political," he said. "But if they are, they should play by the same rules on tax as political parties."

Australian Conservation Foundation director Don Henry backed the claims of a campaign against green groups. But he said the ATO had established that environmental work was charitable and that lobbying governments was part of the charitable work. "The ACF was audited last year and we came out with a clean bill of health," he said.

Source





Pro-American Stand from Australian Left

LABOR frontbencher Peter Garrett today backed plans for a new US military communications base in Western Australia after being targeted over his silence on the issue yesterday. The Opposition spokesman for Climate Change, environment and the arts had refused to answer journalists' questions about the unmanned base, approved after three years of secret negotiations between the US and Australian Governments.

In his previous life as a rock star, Mr Garrett and his band Midnight Oil railed against US military might with songs such as US Forces, Hercules and When the Generals Talk. But today, Mr Garrett said Labor had not received a briefing on the proposal at the time he was questioned. "Subsequently, the defence spokesman (Joel Fitzgibbon) has made it clear that the Labor Party supports the joint facilities," he said. "I 100 per cent support the defence minister on that issue. "I want to make it perfectly clear that when I joined the Labor Party I accepted and understood what the policy was for Australian joint facilities ... and that is a policy I unreservedly accept."

The Government yesterday went on the offensive after Mr Garrett refused to endorse the new shared facility with the US proposed for Geraldton. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Mr Garrett's silence betrayed his long-term opposition. "Let us be absolutely frank about this, (Mr Garrett) was always a supporter of the closure of American bases in Australia," Mr Downer told parliament. "There he was at Alice Springs in the 1980s with fellow travellers demanding that Pine Gap be closed - close all the joint facilities."

But Mr Garrett today said the Government was simply attempting political mischief by mocking him and was hoping to turn attention away from climate change. He said his position on the US military had changed from when he protested outside the Pine Gap base near Alice Springs in the 1980s. "Twenty-five and 30 years ago, like a lot of other Australians I was involved in actions and activities across this country," he said. "Of course you change your mind about some things over time. No one listening to this interview would expect otherwise."

Source

Limit Muslim migration, Australia warned

Good that somebody dares to say the obvious

Life can become untenable when the Muslim population of a non-Muslim country reaches about 10 per cent, as shown by France, a Jewish expert on Islam says. The Australian Jewish News yesterday quoted Raphael Israeli as saying Australia should cap Muslim immigration or risk being swamped by Indonesians. Professor Israeli told the Herald that was a misunderstanding. But he said: "When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems. That is a general rule, so if it applies everywhere it applies in Australia."

Professor Israeli, an expert on Islamic history from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has been brought to Australia by the Shalom Institute of the University of NSW. The Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council is co-hosting many of his activities. He said Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of Western countries, taking advantage of their hospitality and tolerance. "Greeks or Italians or Jews don't use violence. There is no Italian or Jewish Hilaly [a reference to the controversial cleric Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly of Lakemba mosque]. Why?"

Professor Israeli said that when the Muslim population increased, so did the risk of violence. "Where there are large Muslim populations who are prepared to use violence you are in trouble. If there is only 1 or 2 per cent they don't dare to do it - they don't have the backing of big communities. They know they are drowned in the environment of non-Muslims and are better behaved." In Australia, Muslims account for about 1.5 per cent of the population.

Professor Israeli said that in France, which has the highest proportion of Muslims in Europe at about 10 per cent, it was already too late. There were regions even the police were scared to enter, and militant Muslims were changing the country's political, economic and cultural fabric, and demanding anti-Semitic and anti-Israel policies. "French people say they are strangers in their own country. This is a point of no return. "If you are on a collision course, what can you do? You can't put them all in prison, and anyway they are not all violent. You can't send them all back. You are really in trouble. It's irreversible."

Professor Israeli said that in Australia a few imams had preached violence. "You should not let fundamentalist imams come here. Screen them 1000 times before they are admitted, and after they are admitted screen what they say in the mosque." He said some Muslims wanted to impose sharia (Islamic law) in their adopted countries, and when propaganda did not work they turned to intimidation.

Professor Israeli said his task was to describe, not prescribe. He also said his warning did not include immigrants, including Muslims, who simply wanted to improve their lot. As long as they respected the law and democracy, their numbers - Buddhist, Muslim or Jew - were immaterial. It became material when a group accepted violence. "The trains in London and Madrid were not blown up by Christians or Buddhists but by Muslims, so it is them we have to beware," he said.

Keysar Trad, of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, said "Not only religious clerics need to be screened before entering Ausralia but also academics . this type of academic does nothing but create hatred, suspicion and division. We should review not only what the man has said but also those who have sponsored him, to see if they endorse those comments."

Source





Leftist leader a cafeteria Christian

Is Kevin Rudd a serious Christian? Along with most observers, I've been prepared to take his professions of faith on trust. However, the more I read of what he's said to interviewers on the subject, the more I wonder.

Regular readers of this column will recall a bizarre remark he made in an ABC Radio Saturday Extra interview with Geraldine Doogue: "The starting point with Christianity is a theology of social justice." As I noted some weeks ago, orthodox Christianity's starting point is actually the Incarnation, God in human flesh. By comparison, social justice theology's concern with redistribution of wealth via taxes or industrial legislation is at best a second-order issue.

On the evidence of the Saturday Extra interview, the most charitable thing one could say about Rudd's take on Christianity is that it is partial. It owes less to the Apostles' Creed than to Keir Hardie, the Presbyterian activist who helped found the British Labour Party. Its focus is on this world, seen through a decidedly ideological prism.

Even more disturbing are Rudd's accounts of how he made the transition from cradle Catholic to his current affiliation, which Barney Zwartz, The Age's religious affairs correspondent, tells us is evangelically Anglican. In November 2005 he summarised matters for Peter Hartcher, for a feature article in the Fairfax press's Good Weekend. He alluded to his Catholic origins and his wife's Anglicanism and said of the marriage: "It's a unity ticket, but I never resigned from Rome."

Likening the two main Australian denominations to Labor Party factions was jocular enough to deter Hartcher from further probing. But Julia Baird, in a Sunday Profile on ABC Radio in March 2006, referred to the Good Weekend piece and asked: "Can you clear this up for us: what actually happened?" Rudd replied: "Well, having just voted for RU-486, maybe they will resign for me. I'm not sure. Well, no, I've never sought formally to separate myself from the Catholic Church because I married an Anglican and I just have a very simple view that families that pray together stay together, usually. And I've got to say that the big thing for me is that denominationalism means virtually nothing to me."

In the Baird interview he also described the year he spent in Sydney between school and university: "I knocked around a lot of churches and got to know a lot of people and discovered that Christianity was wider than Roman Catholicism and there were a whole lot of other Christian traditions to talk to and think about and so through that process I came to an adult view of faith."

Adopting your wife's denomination because "families that pray together stay together" can easily be defended on pragmatic grounds. But is it really what you'd expect of someone who took an intelligent interest in his faith? Of course, unlike the Labor Party, you can't just send in your ticket and resign, but there are various courses of action, including regular attendance at Protestant worship, that effectively exclude you from membership of the Catholic Church. What are we to make of a change of allegiance with no renunciation of a previous, profoundly different affiliation?

Technically the segue to Anglicanism is a fairly simple matter, because Canterbury recognises the validity of Roman baptism and confirmation. For ex-Anglicans, becoming a Catholic still involves a second confirmation. It used to mean conditional re-baptism as well, though these days the validity of the other baptismal rite is accepted. Reception into either church after confirmation in the other was once a very solemn event indeed, and is now treated with increasing formality - after a latitudinarian phase - by Catholic clergy. For Rudd in the early 1980s, joining his wife's congregation as a communicant member would have been an effortless business.

The ease of that transition is in marked contrast to the anguish felt by many throughout most of the past century who were involved in mixed marriages. Rome once insisted without exception on the children of such marriages being brought up as Catholics and, often enough, Protestant grandparents would threaten to disinherit everyone concerned if they were. Even those struggles were trivial by comparison with the earlier sacrifices of people on both sides, who endured beggary, torture and martyrdom for the sake of their faith.

Of course no one wants to go back to the sectarian hostilities of the recent past, let alone the Reformation. The reason why I mention them is to reinforce the point that there are persisting, intractable differences on weighty matters of principle that divide Anglicans and Catholics. Rudd can flatter himself that knocking about with other Christians has given him "an adult view of faith". But isn't his line that "denominationalism means virtually nothing to me" the sign of a theologically undernourished faith, one with no distinguishing characteristics? While we know he's read some of Bonhoeffer, where does he stand on the fundamentals?

For example, evangelical Anglicans regard a communion service as a memorial of the Last Supper, a symbolic community meal. Catholics believe the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, where the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ are offered up on the altar in a re-enactment of Calvary. It is hardly possible to overstate the difference between the two approaches or the understandings of the role of the church and the kinds of spirituality to which they give rise.

Evangelical Anglicans tend to a Calvinist view of the Bible as the layman's chief guide and ultimate source of religious authority. Catholic theology regards the Bible as a collection of books the early church chose and canonised, which Rome alone has the power to interpret definitively. It also places vastly greater weight on tradition as a source of authority.

Another great gulf relates to the question of the paramount power - and, in some circumstances, infallibility - asserted by the papacy. Some 40 years ago, when evangelical influence was in a relative decline and Canterbury's Archbishop Michael Ramsay visited Rome in the spring of 1966, it briefly seemed possible that Anglicans might one day see their way clear to accepting the pope as "first among equals" and that papal infallibility might be so narrowly defined that it ceased to be an obstacle. Those halcyon days have long since passed.

In the era when a reunion between Rome and Canterbury was widely anticipated, it was fashionable in some circles to trivialise the divisions between them and even in trendy circles to encourage occasional inter-denominational communion, especially at weddings and funerals. It's a practice that has been officially discouraged by the local Catholic hierarchy since at least 1998, when George Pell as archbishop of Melbourne created headlines by telling Jeff Kennett privately, and other non-Catholic mourners during the ceremony, not to come to communion at Bob Santamaria's funeral. But before then the clerical laxity of the times may, perhaps, have allowed even the evangelical Rudd to imagine he could continue to have a foot in both camps.

Canterbury decided in 1992 to proceed with the ordination of women as priests, an innovation categorically disallowed by John Paul II. This precluded any possibility of reunion and served to re-emphasise other irreconcilable differences over issues of faith and order. Notable among them is the present pope's ruling that the historic bull Apostolicae Curae (1896) declaring Anglican ordinations null and void was itself an infallible pronouncement. Another element is the fragmentation and impending collapse of global Anglicanism as an entity. Where once high church Anglo-Catholics were often doctrinally quite close to Roman Catholics, those Anglicans who rejected female ordination on principle have mostly crossed the Rubicon, leaving a more emphatically Protestant church behind them.

Practically anyone who'd regularly read newspapers over the past 25 years would be broadly aware of the state of relations between Rome and Canterbury. Churchgoing Anglicans, and people with an evangelical allegiance especially, could hardly help but be acutely aware of the turn of events. For nearly a decade in Australia it's been official: Protestants aren't welcome to communion at Catholic altars. It's always been obvious that you couldn't in good conscience be both a Freemason and a papal knight.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to pursue the Catholic vote - something the ALP has taken for granted far too long - he's perfectly entitled to do so. However he can't pretend that sometimes, when it suits him, deep down he's still a member of the tribe. Rudd likes to accuse the Howard ministry of hypocrisy, in selectively accepting praise from the Salvos for a tough stance on drugs while dismissing the Anglican primate out of hand for criticising them over Iraq or industrial relations. On account of this alleged cherry-picking, he calls the Government "cafeteria Christians", but it's a charge to which he himself seems at least as vulnerable.

Source





Police thugs in Victoria

An attempt to protect the fat Lesbian affirmative-action appointee who is presiding over a meltdown

A political storm erupted last night over a police hunt for the names of officers critical of Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon. Liberal MP Bernie Finn accused senior police of contempt of Parliament for setting "bully boys" on to him. Mr Finn said an ethical standards officer demanded a meeting with him after he quoted several police emails in Parliament this week, including one that described Ms Nixon as "a disgrace". He said Det-Sgt Trevor King wanted to meet him at 10am today to find out who wrote the emails.

The meeting was suddenly cancelled yesterday after the Herald Sun raised questions with the Chief Commissioner's office. Ms Nixon's staff said the meeting "had been set up in error". But Mr Finn said he rejected the excuse. "You can't can set up a meeting and demand a specific time by mistake," he said.

Det Sgt King also left a message for Mr Finn late yesterday stating he "no longer sees it is necessary to meet with him". Mr Finn said the ESD officer had been particularly interested in an email titled "(F)at beanbag". "He wanted me to tell him who it was from," Mr Finn said. He said the police investigator had stepped over the line in his bid to track down the author of the email.

The Upper House MP said he was seeking advice about laying contempt of Parliament charges. "My view is that this is attempting to heavy a Member of Parliament and may well constitute contempt of Parliament," he said. "I don't like her (Christine Nixon) and she doesn't like me, but is that any reason for her to send the bully boys after me."

The storm erupted on Tuesday when Mr Finn made a speech highly critical of Ms Nixon. He quoted from emails that were sent to him by serving and former police officers after an earlier speech in which he said she should be sacked. One email, from a serving detective-sergeant in the metropolitan area, said: "Never in my career (25 years of operational policing including stints at the homicide squad and armed offenders squad) have I seen morale at such a low ebb. "It is due entirely to the fact that an inexperienced academic was appointed to the top job." Another email read: "She has destroyed the morale of all members and is a disgrace."

Mr Finn said he was contacted by three retired superintendents who wrote: "The Victoria Police is being managed -- not commanded -- by Snow White with the Marx Brothers supporting her." A member of staff at Mr Finn's electorate office in Sunshine said Det-Sgt King tried to trick her into revealing the author of one email. "He tried to get me to give him a name, and said Bernie wouldn't mind," Christina Culliver said last night.

Source





LET THE GREAT DEBATE ON CLIMATE CONTINUE: Science must not become a slave to its own orthodoxies

An editorial in "The Australian" below:

There is every indication that rather than being over, the real debate over climate change is only now getting started. On the one hand, the Australian Labor Party is once again high-stepping away from its greener elements, promising that if elected, Labor would not pull the plug on Australia's $23 billion coal export industry and would be tolerant of new coal explorations - so long as high standards are met.

What exactly such standards will be is not yet entirely clear. But there are foreshadowings in the revelation that the NSW Government is forcing Centennial Coal to factor into its costs $109 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted when the coal from its proposed Anvil Hill mine is burned. This price, based on the rate proposed by the widely criticised Stern Review, would make the mine financially unviable.

But on the other hand there is a growing chorus of murmurs against the received orthodoxy of climate change - and especially the dogmatic attempts by some scientists and politicians to shut down debate. While the recent IPCC report was held up as the last word on the subject, many scientists have pointed out that the 90 per cent certainty ascribed to the report's findings is in scientific terms not very certain at all.

Meanwhile, more attention is being paid to other levers that may influence the weather. For example, at the Danish National Space Centre in 2005 an experiment successfully linked cosmic rays to the formation of clouds. The discovery was significant because it adds weight to the link between cyclical sunspot activity and the climate here on Earth. At the same time it provides a more satisfactory explanation for contradictory Antarctic temperature trends that cannot be explained by conventional greenhouse global warming models.

Whatever the ultimate validity of the Danish experiment, it is worth applauding the determined scepticism in the face of orthodoxy demonstrated by the scientists behind it. For while there are many valid reasons to cut unhealthy smog-creating carbon emissions, there are also many reasons to be sceptical about the near-religious fervour with which the simplistic carbon-equals-warming equation is too often defended.

It is profoundly unscientific to say the debate is over and that sceptics are not only wrong on the facts but morally unhinged - as demonstrated by the unsubtle and offensive epithet "denier". It was scepticism that led Copernicus to challenge contemporary orthodoxy and assert that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. Today's scepticism could well prove that man-made carbon emissions are not the sole, or even primary, driver of climate change - a conclusion radically unsettling to those who believe that humanity is a destroyer rather than an improver of the Earth.

The fact is that our climate is infinitely complex. The models climatologists use to predict the future are incredibly sophisticated, yet blunt instruments. Scientists can never account for all the variables involved - indeed, no one has successfully come up with a mathematical equation to describe the formation of a single cloud. And scientists are often woefully out of their depth in the real world.

History is littered with lives and regimes that were wrecked when science was allowed to drive policy with no thought to humanity. Tearing down the global carbon-based economy to - in theory - replace it at a later date with unproven and undeveloped technologies would be a similar folly. It is only by tempering science with economics and the market, which is the most efficient arbiter of humanity's wants and needs, that smart climate policy can be made. Thus the old bumper sticker's exhortation to "Think locally, act globally" becomes a practical guidepost: think locally, by preserving jobs and investing time and money in creating a new complementary export industry around clean coal technology. And think globally by exporting our clean-burning, high-energy content anthracite coal and the technologies to ameliorate the effects of power generation to countries such as China, allowing them to develop their economies, improving air quality along with the quality of life.

It will be interesting, decades from now, to look back on the climate change debate. There is every chance we will regard today's headlines with the same bemusement with which we view the apocalyptic predictions of Thomas Malthus or the Club of Rome. Bob Brown's economically illiterate calls to shut the export coal industry and Tim Flannery's attempt to use two scant years' worth of data to predict the demise of the Arctic ice cap already look silly.

And for all the disasters predicted at the extreme ends of the climate change models, the developing world is suffering daily disasters in the form of preventable disease that stem not from too much growth, but too little, and which cost millions of lives a year. Here it will be economic growth, not carbon restrictions, that ends the tragedy. To say there are "limits to growth", as the Club of Rome's old saw goes, is to say there are limits to human potential and imagination. By all means let us take care of the planet and work to cut carbon emissions. But in the process let us not kick the ladder of development out from under us and consign the world to the sort of misery predicted by the doomsayers.

AUSTRALIA'S POLITICAL CULTURE WAR

How Australians see themselves has become a theme for the coming election

The small town of Taylors Arm, in the rolling farmlands of northern New South Wales, was once famous as the setting for "A Pub With No Beer", an Australian country song. The customers who flocked to the pub for Australia Day on January 26th were displaying a fashion that has not been much in evidence in the 50 years since the song was a hit: many were carrying an Australian flag, or had one stamped on their bodies. Until recently, the flag was rarely flaunted. Now, few politicians risk a television statement without being seen to be standing next to it.

As Australia's federal parliament came back this week from its lengthy summer break, the flag's rebirth has become a symbol of the so-called "culture wars" that are likely to reverberate through the general election later this year. John Howard, the prime minister, who will be seeking a fifth term for his conservative coalition government, has successfully stoked these wars to win four elections since 1996. But this time he is facing Kevin Rudd, who took over as leader of the opposition Labor Party in December and who has staked out a tough response to Mr Howard's cultural definition of Australia.

An opinion poll on February 6th gave Labor a 12-point lead over the government, after the distribution of second-preference votes, compared with the two points it had just before Mr Rudd's ascension. Voters also rated Mr Rudd 16 points ahead of Mr Howard in their approval rating (compared with an 18-point deficit for Kim Beazley, Mr Rudd's predecessor). Despite these good showings, however, Mr Rudd faces a big battle to persuade voters to buy his picture of themselves.

The culture war stems from a bid, by the Labor government defeated in 1996, to redraw Australia's national identity. Labor's picture of the country focused on multiculturalism, closer ties with Asia, breaking the constitutional link with the British monarchy and making amends for past wrongs to indigenous people.

Mr Howard robustly rejected all that. On Australia Day last year (the holiday marks the British settlement of Australia in 1788), he launched a campaign to revive the teaching of Australian history in schools and to recapture the "values, traditions and accomplishments of the old Australia". This was code for the old British, pre-multicultural Australia.

In a speech last October the prime minister lauded certain historians who had rebuffed "the black armband view of Australian history". To Mr Howard, this mournful version paints the country's story as "a litany of sexism, racism and class warfare" and is a product of the "posses of political correctness".

Mr Rudd countered in November with "Howard's Brutopia", an article in the MONTHLY, a centre-left journal. He called the prime minister's culture war a strategy drawn from the American Republican Party, designed to raise fears and then offer voters what appear to be old certainties: "tradition versus modernity, absolutism versus moral relativism, monoculture versus multiculture". All this, pronounces Mr Rudd, is a cover for "the values debate...that Howard is desperate not to have". He defines the debate he wants as a battle between treating people fairly and the "market fundamentalism" of Mr Howard's economic policies.

The unfurling of flags in Taylors Arm and elsewhere suggests that Mr Howard's brand of inward-looking Anglo nationalism may still be doing rather well. But, come the election, Mr Rudd has other things on his side: relative youth (at 49 he is 18 years Mr Howard's junior), stability and drive. He has made the running with climate change and education, two issues that register strongly with voters. On the other hand, Mr Howard has the advantage of incumbency, a successful record as a ruthless political strategist and an economy that is humming into its 16th year of uninterrupted growth.

The opinion poll identified a large corps of swing-voters. No doubt it will be they who decide which way the election goes, and perhaps the culture war too.

Source





Big money in being a top Greenie

Australian of the Year Tim Flannery is cashing in on his top gong while accusing industrial giants of running a smear campaign against him. The climate change crusader confirmed he was charging up to $US50,000 ($64,600) to deliver speeches to American corporations - making him Australia's all-time highest paid public speaker. "If it's investment banks and that sort of stuff, you charge them, you know," Professor Flannery said yesterday. He revealed he received $US50,000 for a speech last year - before he collected his award - and will soon be paid the same amount for stepping up to the microphone on an upcoming speaking tour of the US.

But he said he charged "much less" for speeches in Australia and often gave presentations for free. Professor Flannery said he intended to donate 10 per cent of his earnings to a yet-to-be-nominated environmental fund as demand for his services skyrocket. The scientist, explorer and best-selling author said he was fielding up to 20 speaking requests a day from around the world since being named Australian of the Year on January 26.

But he said the honour was soured by a campaign to "blacken his name" and discredit his views on global warming. "There is a real attempt to marginalise me and what I say," he said.

Professor Flannery, 51, stressed that he did not charge for any presentations directly related to his duties as Australian of the Year. And he said $US50,000 was at the extreme top end. But the $US50,000 price tag puts Professor Flannery ahead of other Australians including Paul Keating, Steve Waugh, Shane Warne, Ian Thorpe and Lleyton Hewitt. They are believed to charge up to $A35,000.

Yesterday Professor Flannery told the Australian Workers Union biannual meeting - in an appearance he did not charge for - that claims he wanted to shut down the coal industry were untrue. But he admitted he had some reservations about the viability of clean coal technology.

Greens leader Bob Brown meanwhile said the economic cost of pursuing so-called "clean coal" technology was comparable with shutting down the coal industry. He controversially proposed last week to ban coal exports and coal fired power generation, a move which would cost an estimated 20,000 jobs in Queensland and cripple the state's economy.

Source




Meddling with families rejected -- so far

[Queensland] Premier Peter Beattie has rejected a call to close a legal loophole allowing parents to smack their children, saying it would make him a hypocrite. Former Education Minister Dean Wells yesterday called for a legislative ban on parents smacking their children, saying as it was "unlawful to hit your next door neighbour with a stick, it ought to be unlawful to hit your kids with a stick". Mr Wells, the member for Murrumba, said corporal punishment of children was not linked with better behaviour.

But the Premier yesterday said although he respected Mr Wells' view, he did not share it. "I have to plead guilty, I'm not going to be a hypocrite," Mr Beattie said. "I have smacked my three children. It's about moderation. "It's not about crazy violence in any way but I think that any parent has the right, in my view within reason - provided there's no permanent damage or injury - to smack their child." Attorney-General Kerry Shine echoed the Premier, saying there were no plans to change or appeal the laws on domestic discipline.

The issue will be discussed at a public forum on children's rights today at Parliament House. The forum, presented by Just Rights Queensland and Concerned Psychologists Queensland, will also include Children's Commissioner Elizabeth Fraser. Ms Fraser will tell the forum that parents have responsibility for raising children and encouraging their involvement in society, including discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

Section 280 of the code states it is lawful for a parent or person in place of a parent to use "by way of correction, discipline, management or control, towards a child or pupil. . . such force as is reasonable under the circumstances". A group of 12 Queensland psychologists lobbied the State Government in 2005 to repeal the law, which dates back to 1899. Dr John Reddington, who represents Concerned Psychologists Queensland - a lobby group opposed to the physical punishment of children - said smacking should be banned, just like capital punishment and drink-driving. He said the practice had been outlawed in schools and in the case of foster parents, creating an "absurd situation". "The whole thing is an illegal mess and needs to be sorted out quite apart from the ethical consideration," Dr Reddington said.

Source






Do-gooder reproductive tyranny

A leading Queensland IVF doctor says couples are being forced into "reproductive tourism" because they were no longer able to control the gender of their babies in Australia. A Brisbane couple is this week in Los Angeles, spending $40,000 to ensure they fall pregnant with a girl after giving birth to three boys. The treatment was available in Australia until last year when it was banned by a ruling of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Queensland Fertility Group director David Molloy yesterday called on the council to reconsider its decision before more couples chose "reproductive tourism". "Personally I am in favour of using IVF for gender selection," said Dr Molloy, who is also deputy chairman of the Australian IVF directors group. "Given that couples have been practising informal and unscientific gender-selection for centuries and we have a technique now that finally works, I think it would be reasonable to reconsider the ban."

The Brisbane couple - a 45-year-old businessman and his 37-year-old wife - now in Los Angeles have three young sons and are hoping to complete their family by using the hi-tech genetic process. The woman underwent treatment yesterday, with surgery to insert two of her fertilised female eggs at the Los Angeles clinic of Dr Jeffrey Steinberg, who has pioneered sex-selection technology.

"I've got three boys and I wouldn't swap any of them, but having a girl would be absolutely amazing," the woman told The Courier-Mail yesterday. "I have done my job for Australia - I've had three boys, can't I have one (girl) for me?" Her husband said that, while he would have been happy to have three sons, he wanted to give his wife the chance to have her dream of a daughter come true regardless of the cost. "We are probably above the average wage but it's still a lot of money - mind you, it's not about the money," he said. The woman said the couple had kept the treatment a secret from their friends and almost all of their family due to the controversy surrounding the issue of gender-selection.

Her husband said the couple had struggled with having to lie to Australian authorities when having their initial IVF treatment in Australia before flying to the US for a 10-day trip to have her eggs removed and fertilised in a laboratory, with the female embryos to be re-inserted three days later. The woman's Australian fertility treatment saw her last week produce four eggs, which were extracted in Los Angeles and then fertilised with her husband's sperm. After three days of growing in the lab, a cell was taken from each embryo for a test to determine the gender. Two of the woman's fertilised eggs were female, with those eggs re-inserted yesterday.

Source

Police corruption in Victoria

Despite allegations of corruption in the Victorian Police Force, no one seems to be taking them seriously, much less doing anything about it. Welcome to Victoria, the State of Denial. If you believe the bosses, the Police Association and the Bracks government, Victoria has the cleanest police force in the country. But Bluestone has been speaking to police who say otherwise. They say the media has been asking the wrong question. The issue is not corruption per se, but management incompetence and a lack of will to attack issues deemed as "too hot". Right now, you could easily mistake the Yarra River for the Ganges, so numerous are the sacred cows grazing on her verdant shores.

If the chief commissioner Christine Nixon covers her eyes and keeps reciting rubbery crime stats (which show crime is falling in most categories) she will only delay the moment when the depth of the ethical crisis facing Victoria Police dawns on the public. The collective efforts of government, senior police and the Police Association in avoiding scrutiny and controlling the pace of reform in Victoria -- that is the real corruption here.

The bent coppers selling dope, running guns and hookers, do so because their managers have been asleep on the job. What accountability was there for the senior managers of the the Drug Squad while corruption ran rife on their watch? Here's a typical example of the management culture. Former Ethical Standards Division investigator Simon Illingworth was having a Christmas drink in a pub while in the midst of an investigation of a senior AOS officer, former Detective Sergeant Glenn Saunders, when the officer walks into the pub in the company of a known gangland figure, Nick Ibrahim. (Ibrahim was later convicted of the murder of standover man Sam Zayat.) Ibrahim walked straight up to Illingworth and glared right in his face. Illingworth believed there was a message here - pull up Simon, if you know what's good for you. Illingworth makes a report on the incident to his superiors. Nothing happens.

The same cop and villain pair are pictured on the front page of the Herald Sun newspaper from CCTV footage socialising together in a pub and still nothing happens. Saunders was later acquitted of corruption charges, unrelated to Illingworth's allegations. The fact remains that in all cases the possibility of a marriage between police and organised crime is an insidious problem unless all such allegations are properly investigated.

There has been no copper over the rank of detective sergeant jailed for corruption or any other dirty deeds in this great state. Nor have there been any senior officers sacked for failing to address allegations of corruption.

It's hardly surprising that the state government, Force Command and the Police Association do not support any form of judicial review of policing in Victoria. Police want to handle any allegations of corruption themselves through the semi-independent Office of Police Integrity, which senior officers have consistently and laughably described as having the power of a standing royal commission.

The Bracks Government is perfectly happy to do nothing about corruption, particularly as it has indulged in its own ardent embrace with the Police Association. The Police Association, arguably the most powerful police body in the state has thrown its weight behind the government. The Police Association publicly backed the Bracks government in the recent state election and the Bracks government agreed to equip the force with semi-automatic Glock pistols and Tasers. This deal was reportedly done without reference to the chief commissioner. This was the same government that stood by as gangsters murdered each other in broad daylight on public streets and suburban footy grounds, the same government who has stood helpless as corrupt police flourished.

Unlike the force itself, the Police Association has no explicit statement in its articles of association committing it to ethics, professionalism and honesty in the conduct of its members. It has been reluctant to publicly condemn corruption.

Good luck to the Police Association's secretary Paul Mullett for romancing government; he has won significant victories on behalf of his members. But when Mullett speaks in the media now, he sounds like a management spokesman on behalf of Force Command, not the lobbying of a police union boss who is unrestrained by the ethical code guiding the chief commissioner.

It's arguable whether Mullett speaks for all officers anyway. Detectives have traditionally comprised about 70% of the executive of the nation's police unions, while only making up 10% of force personnel. Detectives have been over-represented in the small number of coppers prosecuted for corruption in Victoria so far. This is partly because of the nature of detective work but also because they have been poorly supervised, allowed to defend cultures at odds with the organisation as a whole. The Association has doggedly defended certain of these officers using its $16m war chest to fund their legal fees.

On the Nine Network's Sunday program this week, this columnist looks at what happens to officers who investigate allegedly corrupt officers. We also tell the tale of an executive member who dared to oppose the legal funding for one popular detective, himself a former union vice-president, who was charged with corruption offences. Just as in corporate collapses like Enron or HIH, there comes a point where management culture becomes so rotten that telling the truth is the greatest sin.

Victoria Police cannot and will not examine itself now, exposing its dark inner recesses. A standing crime and corruption commission must now take hold of its sturdiest proctoscope, flick on the high beam and have a long lingering look at the places in Victoria where the sun don't shine no more

Source





The Warming religion in Australia leads to amazing academic dishonesty

Scarier than global warming is that even -- even? -- our top academics exaggerate so wildly about it. No, I'm not talking again about Tim Flannery, our Australian of the Year, but of his former friend and colleague, Mike Archer. Read on, to see again how recklessly even our men of science now feed you hype.

Archer is dean of science at the University of NSW, where, you'd hope, he teaches students to stick to the facts. But this week he wrote an apocalyptic piece on global warming for the Sydney Morning Herald, warning of a Noah's flood: "For example, if the Greenland and Antarctica icesheets melt (which they are doing in spectacular fashion), sea levels could rise, as they have done many times in the past, by 100m. If that were to happen, forget the metre-in-a-century mantra, and forget half of Sydney, along with most of the world's coastal populations."

Got it? Forget the seas rising a metre by 2100. Says Archer, the melt of Greenland and Antarctica is so "spectacular" our beach by then will start at Eltham. Except for this. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has whipped up most of the warming panic, but even its latest report -- out today -- will challenge every claim Archer makes. As Reuters reported yesterday, a draft of that report, the work of 2500 scientists, concedes that, no, Antarctica may well gain snow cover, even Greenland may not be melting overall and the seas will rise not by 100m in the 100 years, but at most by 43cm.

It continued: "More snows could also offset any thaw of the vast Antarctic ice cap and the smaller cap on Greenland. If both melted over thousands of years world sea levels would be about 65m . . . higher . . . (emphasis added). "In a warmer climate, models suggest that the ice sheets could accumulate more snowfall, tending to lower sea level," the draft says. But "rapid thawing at the fringes has probably outweighed any such trend in recent years."

Confirming what I wrote on Wednesday, Reuters added: "The IPCC is . . . set to predict sea level rises this century of between 28 and 43cm . . . a lower band than forecast in the 2001 report." So, how could a dean of science at a top university exaggerate so recklessly? Answer: because global warming is a religion, so facts don't count. Beware.

Source






Snobbish Leftist "intellectuals"



Late last year that scholarly Stakhanovite Richard Nile surveyed expert readers of his Australian Public Intellectual websites for their pick of Australia's arguers and influencers. The result will confirm everybody's prejudices. For people who believe the Left long ceased its march through the institutions, having occupied all the best bits in the universities, there is ample evidence. Some of the founding Howard haters are on the list, such as Robert Manne, who is top of the pops.

Others will be upset that conservatives such as Geoffrey Blainey and Keith Windschuttle got guernseys. But there is no doubting the list leaned to the Left. Based on their writings, I counted 23 declared opponents of Howard Government policies and/or a market economy (often both), 12 who keep their politics to themselves and three likely to vote Liberal.

But what is interesting is the way some participants decided that the true mark of the public intellectual was obscurity. It demonstrates the way the academic establishment and its camp followers who write for websites and in small magazines are interested only in agreeing with each other. As one put it in commenting on Nile's project: "We live still in a deeply anti-intellectual culture, increasingly driven by the populism of politicians and the journalist (as) celebrity. The lack of intellectuals in the current crop of political leaders in Canberra is particularly noticeable. Apart from Kevin Rudd and one or two others, there would be more chance of starting a prayer group in Canberra than a discussion group. We also live in a time when nationalism (particularly Anzac) -- simplistic, feel-good and sometimes ugly -- is on the rise. In this climate, there is a great need for intellectuals."

Apart from the snobbery (why are ostensibly intellectual chitty-chats superior to prayer?) and the dishonesty (the times may be patriotic but, sport aside, Australians are not given to triumphalism), this sort of statement ignores the obvious question: Precisely what sort of intellectuals do we need? Those who interpret society through their own ideological paradigm, or experts whose disciplined expertise allows them to point to problems and suggest solutions across the spectrum of society?

That it seems we have an awful lot of the former and far fewer of the latter writing for general audiences illuminates a great deal more than the tyranny of academic orthodoxy, it demonstrates how the intellectual tastemaker dismisses all sorts of disciplines.

While there were a couple of economic commentators on Nile's list, there were no professional economists capable of interpreting a Reserve Bank of Australia bulletin for the rest of us. Certainly pediatrician Fiona Stanley got a go but there were no neuroscientists able to explain the way everything from psychiatry to economics is being revolutionised by new understandings of the brain. Most telling, although there were ample individuals who like to lament Australia's culture of consumerism and deplore the damage done to the planet featured on the list, which included 10 cultural commentators and three politicians, there were no actual scientists with an informed idea of what is going on.

Perhaps this is not surprising. As Drusilla Modjeska pointed out in her introduction to the modestly titled anthology Best Australian Essays: 2006, she had searched in vain "for the well-written, well-shaped essay with that personal signature by architects or astronomers, physicists or lawyers".

Modjeska has a point, of sorts. She is wrong to assume that because health economists and riverine ecologists are not writing finely crafted essays based on an 18th-century ideal of entertainment for an intellectual elite they are not contributing to the national life of the mind. In fact the commentary pages of The Australian and The Australian Financial Review demonstrate the state of debate on issues that matter is strong (although Modjeska could find only one domestic newspaper piece worth including).

But her argument demonstrates how narrow are the interests of the self-appointed opinion leaders, of the sort who responded to Nile. And how they do not much care that many of the people they think dominate debate do so from a stance that is uninformed by scholarship in fields on which they comment.

The debate over Windschuttle's estimate of the numbers of indigenous Australians killed by settler society is a classic case in point. Instead of just arguing over his evidence, some critics started from the assumption that because they did not like his politics in the present, his conclusions about the past were not only wrong, they were immoral. Certainly the various experts in cultural and postcolonial studies will say their research work qualifies them to speak as experts. But often what they offer appears as informed by personal politics as academic expertise.

To argue there is anything wrong with everybody who wants to having their two bob's worth would be absurd in a column of this kind. Thanks to the internet we are in a golden age of argument. The endless opinion pages in online magazines mean that for the first time everybody with something to say can tell the world all about it. The blog empowers all who want to be essayists, and in the real world the marketplace of ideas sorts out who is heard.

But in the protected economy of academe, public intellectuals can easily exist without appealing to much of a public. Of Nile's 40, only Peter Craven and Don Watson represent the freelance in the service of the republic of letters, writers who live by their ability to produce copy people will pay to read. However, many of the people doing the talking -- certainly in the ostensibly intellectual small-circulation print and online media, the sorts of places where participation earns an author's stripes as a public intellectual -- seem disproportionately drawn from disciplines that theorise about the way we live and largely dislike the way most Australians do it.

Certainly Noel Pearson, the epitome of the public intellectual -- a man who acts on his ideas -- is on Nile's list. But so are many others who only lament the state of the nation, mainly to other academics. As one survey respondent put it: "One of the really big problems in Australia is that the best and most important minds in the country are so marginalised, they don't have much influence! Influence is inversely related to the importance of what people have to say." As an explanation of intellectual irrelevance, this is lame. But it does demonstrate how supposedly smart people can talk themselves into anything.

Source






INDIA SHOWS AUSTRALIA THE WAY IN EDUCATION

But the Australian Left (like most Leftists worldwide) is still ignoring the obvious with their paradoxical belief in the magical power of money

In Thomas Friedman's bestseller The World Is Flat, he explains how India positioned itself to become an invaluable player in the global economy. It began in the late 1990s with the boom in long-distance fibre-optic infrastructure. This enabled American companies to outsource a lot of tedious code-cutting work in the lead-up to the supposed Y2K meltdown of the world's computers. India had an enormous pool of highly educated English-speaking people who could perform the work at rock-bottom prices. Next, multinational companies began outsourcing ever more sophisticated work to India. Reuters newsagency, for instance, outsources news bulletins to Indian reporters, and US accounting firms sent 400,000 tax returns to Indian accountants in 2005.

The Indian middle class has blossomed, and clever young Indians no longer have to leave their families and migrate to Western countries to make something of themselves. They can do that right at home. We have grown used to speaking to women from Bangalore when phoning Diners Club to report a lost credit card. India was so well poised to capitalise on the technology that enables the "flattening" of the world economy, Friedman says, because it had a huge pool of well-educated workers. For an impoverished country, that was no mean feat, shaming Australian claims that lack of money is the sole cause of our higher-education woes.

In 1951 India's leaders decided to make good-quality education a priority, establishing the first of the nation's seven Indian Institutes of Technology, which became "islands of excellence". "India mined the brains of its own people," Friedman writes, "educating a relatively large slice of the elites in the sciences, engineering and medicine."

But, as Gurcharan Das wrote in Newsweek last year, it's no longer just the elites getting a decent education: "Government-run schools are a mess . . . But private schools - which can range from expensive boarding schools for the elite to low-end teaching shops in the bazaar - are proliferating. "Even the poor now send their kids to private schools, which can charge as little as $1 to $3 a month in fees and are spreading rapidly in slums and villages across India." Two-thirds of children in India's three largest states attend private schools and their reading and maths scores are significantly higher than those of other students.

Which brings us to Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's education "revolution". He gets top marks for identifying education as his first election issue, crucial to economic growth. And while India's experience shows us resources aren't everything, Rudd's point that Australia's spending on universities has declined 7 per cent since 1995, while spending by OECD countries has risen on average by 48 per cent, struck a chord. In fact, the picture is worse than that, since the money is spread so thinly over a variable array of universities.

Rudd, who beavered through the summer break on his education policy, has already managed to convey a substantial message in a way his predecessors never could, with his clear link between the nation's future prosperity and the education level of its people. He argues that the way to boost Australia's flagging productivity is to invest massively in "human capital": education from preschool to university.

However, Rudd's first fleshed-out policy, a plan to offer universal preschool education, may backfire. While on the committee of the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in 2005, I became aware of a powerful desire by the education establishment to push formal education down into the preschool years. The thinking goes like this: if children are having trouble learning to read in primary school, it is not because the methods used to teach them are inadequate, it is because their families have not equipped them with what are called "pre-reading" skills - familiarity with books and the concept that the black stuff on the page has meaning.

While there is evidence that pre-reading skills are useful, especially for socially disadvantaged children, the evidence that intensive systematic phonics instruction is most effective in teaching most children to read is overwhelming. Yet there are still entrenched pockets of influential resistance to phonics-based teaching, in universities and various teacher associations.

As the literacy inquiry found, fewer than 10 per cent of course time in university teacher education departments is spent teaching teachers how to teach reading. But instead of fixing such problems, Rudd's early-education plan runs the risk of shifting responsibility for reading failures in primary school to preschool. That's no way to compete with India.

Source