Is Bin Laden like Ned Kelly?

Dear Stephen and the Gang

I was listening to the repeat episode of Radio National’s Late Night Live
program hosted by Philip Adams on Wednesday afternoon 26 Sep 2001. Philip
had an Islamic commentator on who writes for the largest English language
paper in daily circulation in the Middle East. This very astute man made an
analogy which really made me stop and think. He likened the American
pursuit of bin Laden with that of the police pursuit of Ned Kelly.

I accept that it is a long bow to draw (there are a lot of differences
between Ned Kelly and bin Laden – and also of course similarities), but when
you think about it and how WE now think of, and celebrate, Ned Kelly, what
does this action hold for our future perceptions of bin Laden and the
Americans?

Makes you pause for thought doesn’t it?

I’m all for those who protest against greed and exploitation but there is no
way I can condone the flying of planes into buildings, suicide bombings, and
in fact most acts of violence. I am by no means a terrorist. But I find it
hard to fully “be with” George dubya on this one.

As to those who would protest against globalisation, my experience is the
best way to protest against something is to get inside the system and change
it from within. Flapping your arms on the outside just gives you sore
muscles. You might as well bury your head in the sand as it ain’t going
away and the alternative (communism – and lets face it, that is the only
alternative) has been jettisoned by the vast majority of those nations that
took it up. Globalisation IS the natural order of capitalism and a protest
against globalisation is a protest against capitalism. Communism is far
worse for the environment, labour relations and human rights than
capitalism – just look at Chernobyl, the poverty of the Cuban’s and the
human rights record of the Chinese. Lets work within our liberal
democracies to protect the environment, human rights and labour rights.
Lets do this in a reasoned compassionate way giving assistance to those who
need it. I subscribe to the “help your brother first for one day you may
need him to help you” approach.

For me from a (recent) historical perspective, it is very interesting to
ponder those demands placed by the Americans on the British at the end of
WWII which led to the end of the British Empire and the weakened financial
position of that nation, and consider they may well now be appropriately
applied in the reverse order. Now faced with virtually the exact same
situation as that which led to WWII (disproportionate distribution of world
wealth) America seems unwilling to even hear the cries let alone swallow its
own medicine. Isn’t there some saying about the circular nature of ultimate
power and corruption?

Those who assisted the perpetration of the offences (for they are offences)
in Washington and New York need to be brought to justice. Nazi war
criminals were tried by a jury – the allied victors didn’t bomb the crap out
of an already defeated and emaciated people. The vengeful response to the
end of WWI in contrast is exactly what led to the situation which gave rise
to WWII. Perhaps George dubya and those who are “with him” could take a
lesson from history.

As to whether bin Laden and the Taliban are to blame, I’d like to see the
evidence, or know that it has been determined by an impartial justice
system, but they sound pretty unsavoury to me from what we’re hearing in the
respectable press (give up on the commercial mass-media).

The other thing which has got up my nose in the last couple of days is
thinking about Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech 5 years ago, which was
resoundingly condemned by both sides of parliament and to now appreciate
that for the most part she has got everything she asked for with the support
of both the Liberal National coalition and the Labor Party opposition.
Whilst the Democrats and Greens are a side issue in Australian politics, who
else is there for a thinking adult to vote for? Working on the philosophy
of fixing things from the inside, its pretty hard to see how you can make a
difference.

Thanks for the balanced viewpoint.

Colin

CRIKEY: The encouraging thing is that the Americans haven’t bombed anyone yet. And it is hard to argue against toppling the Taliban
given the repression, poverty and fanatacism they promulgate.

More people equals more government services

Dear Crikey,

Re Refo Myth #8 – Refugees and migrants create a demand for goods and
sevices – Very True

But why didn’t they mention that refugees and migrants also create
demand for government services. Gaols, courthouses, aged care beds,
public hospitals, schools, kindergartens, universities, welfare etc?

What the immigration lobby want most is more demand for multicultural
groups, immigration lawyers and others who suckle on the public teat.

I would have thought the success of Luxemberg and Switzerland would be
enough to end the more people = more wealth charade.

yours, dale

CRIKEY: This is true. Huge numbers of refugees would probably cost more than they benefit initially, but if a few of them become the
next Frank Lowy or Dick Pratt it is a different question altogether.

Who can Barns call a self-promoter?

I notice in the Australian today that Republican and media chatter box,
Greg Barns has been having a go at Monarchist, Sophie Panopoulos who is
running for a Victorian rural seat in Federal parliament. Mr B is hopping
from foot to foot ranting that she is a ” opportunist and total self
promoter and has gone up there for one reason, so she can get to Canberra”.

Excuse me? Did I hear that right? While I don’t support the Monarchist
argument and personally find Panopoulos severely irritating I do find
myself choking on my cornflakes this morning at what appears to be a two
faced tantrum from foghorn, Barns.

I understand that this confessed self promoter and media junkie has just put
his hand up for pre selection in Tasmania. I gather his motivation in moving
“down there ” is to make Denison and Tasmania a better community. Another
view of his motivation could be that he is planning a fast track to
Canberra on the left liberal banner so that he can bathe in his reflected
image in the Aus media and ultimately do Paul Keating impersonations from
the Lodge.

Anne

CRIKEY: Hmmm, that would be bit like Crikey accusing someone of being a self-promoter. Barns and I often joke about how we
are media tarts so it’s a bit rich him attacking someone else for it. Barns really took the Republican defeat hard and still
gets stuck into anyone who was a visible Monarchist. Anyway, Barns has not sent in this response:

“Anne

Unlike ms Panopoulos, i have no interest in going to Canberra. I beleive that State government is a very effective form of government that is increasingly relevant to people’s lives in a globalised world. And futhermore, I have never said ‘don’t trust politicians’ the way Ms Panopolous and her cronies did two years ago.

Secondly, because i happen to have an interest in contributing to public policy debates I am suddenly a self-promoter. I assume that this criticism applys to any comenators who have been involved in politics. What a boring world it would be if one feared putting one’s head up on issues just because people like you want to snipe!

Greg Barns

Can I offer my services from Singapore

Dear Crikey,

Have just read with interest Ray Marcelo’s story from India and would like to offer my own humble services from Singapore. There is heaps of juicy stuff that comes out of this place but fails to see the light of day in the domestic media (for obvious and well documented reasons). As you know, Singapore has played an increasingly high profile role in corporate Australia in recent months. Being an Aussie on the ground here, I have often had cause to shake my head in wonder at what the Singaporean public get fed (and gratefully swallow) that is passed off as journalism.

Australia copped an absolute bucketing in the local press over the SingTel takeover of Optus. We were squarely pilloried not only in the (free) morning tabloids, but also by
the major broadsheet – The Straits Times. I think Australia should have fine tuned their argument to make the point that it was myopic organisations plagued with nepotism
such as SingTel that Australia objected to.

Then when the Tampa (en route to Singapore) sailed into the world’s attention, there was a deafening silence on the issue in the media here – except to re-produce the bare
facts off the wire reports. No one dared to raise the question of what the case would have been, supposing the Tampa’s captain had decided to continue his voyage to
Singapore – however hypothetical that might be. The fact is, people who come and stay in Singapore illegally are routinely jailed and caned before being returned to their
place of origin. Singapore, which is not a signatory to either the UNHCR Convention on Refugees or the Protocol, suddenly adopted a very neutral position to Australia.

The other thing that gripes me with regards to the media here is the shameless self-promotion that goes on. The Straits Times regularly features front page stories about
its latest service offering or money spinning venture. It then has the gall to call it NEWS! Where the media is owned and / or controlled in the way that it is here, it is little
wonder that the PAP have such a stranglehold on Singapore. They have today announced that contrary to what they had been promising as recently as two days ago,
Singaporeans living overseas will NOT be able to vote at the soon to be called General Elections. The reason given: Heightened security concerns for their overseas
Missions following the events of Sep 11th in the US! It reeks of a quick count of the possible damage that O/S Singaporeans could have inflicted on the PAP in a
globalised world.

If Crikey evers decides to open an office here in “Swingapore” (and supposing you could avoid a mandatory stay at the Changi Hilton), there would be enough material to
keep you going for a very long time.

Cheers and keep up the good work.

Name Withheld

CRIKEY: This gentleman has been signed up (not that he gets anything) as a new columnist and should be an inspriration to all you other
expats scattered around the world to become Crikey contributors in this globalised world.

I don’t celebrate murderous Ned Kelly

‘Colin’ wrote that Bin Laden has been compared with Ned Kelly whom ‘we celebrate’.
Hang on, pal. What’s this ‘we’ business? One of ‘us’ (me) regards Kelly as a murderer who was responsible for the deaths of 3 Australian workers (leaving nine children
fatherless). There are 8,000 members of the Victoria Police who, I suggest, are also unlikely to regard Kelly as someone to ‘celebrate’. And I don’t think that Ah Fook,
the Chinese migrant who was beaten up by a young Kelly, would have regarded him as worth celebrating.

I suppose there is some logic, though, in comparing Bin Laden with Kelly. There seem to be a growing number of left-wing political professional US-haters who cannot
accept that Bin Laden is a murdering terrorist (whether or not he was responsible for Sept 11). These oh-so-compassionate ‘good’ people ignore the fact that 6,000 Yanks
were murdered, and instead seek to blame the issue on the US’s stance in the Middle East. And there are certainly many Australians who say Kelly was forced into
being a naughty boy, a ‘larrikin’, because of the nasty British imperialists. (Why is that nobody seems to mention that those 3 coppers he and his gang killed were born
Ireland?). So Bin Laden is destined to be the Arab’s bold colonial boy? Forced to defend the poor and take up arms against the capitalist running dogs? Bullshit. Like,
Kelly he is a self-centred murdering thug. And, like Kelly, he will get his desserts.

Regards, Michael

CRIKEY: Good strong stuff Michael. Very well said indeed

Don’t forget the rule of law

I am amazed at the number of people who suddenly want everything done legally.

Where’s the proof that it was x, y or z who did or directed the terrorist act?

How can the US declare war legally on a country when the acts were done by …?

How can we (unlike them?) contemplate civilian casualties?

Why do we not give legal representation to illegal immigrants?

Why do we not let the UN look after the terrorist problem?

Could someone point out a few home truths to these people:

1. Those sheets of paper fluttering down to the street out of the WTC windows included The Rule Book.

2. The USA wil be blamed whatever it does. If it engages in direct reprisal or if it aids the counter-taliban forces it will still be wrong.

3. There is no solution to the Palestinian problem short of either (i) recognition of Israel’s right to exist, or (ii) the destruction of
Israel. Which do they want?

4. In a rational world a vote at the UN would only be available to those countries who allow their citizens to vote at home.

5. As long as we continue to use oil we will fund more trouble, and stuff up the biosphere to boot. Alternative energy should be
the next frontier for the western world.

I could go on.

Regards, Geoff

CRIKEY: These are all good points but the real politic is that the Yanks are a super-power like no other and no-one is going to stop
them dishing out a bit of summary justice to the worst act of terrorism we’ve seen.

Time for Yanks to review Middle East policy

Dear Stephen,

I must add my voice to the growing list of dissidents who must protest at the US response to the massacre in New York.

I am not surprised that the USA has launched into a macho, chest beating exercise to articulate its’ rage. I would, too, if one of my own were killed. But so might a Palestinian who has seen his country stolen inch by inch, and then sees one of his own killed as part of the “collateral damage” inflicted by a belligerent Israel.

Furthermore, I am not surprised that the USA has failed to publicly analyse its Foreign Policy in relation to The Middle East. If it were to undertake such a task, it might
find the truth extremely unpalatable, for the USA has consistently supported Israel, and bowed to influence from American Jews, and in doing so has marginalised the rest
of The Middle East. Much of US Foreign Policy is an act of political and economic terrorism, and the sooner Americans understand this point, the sooner we can move
away from the warmongering insanity that is currently prevailing.

Certainly, root out Bin Laden, for he is a psychopath, and those who follow him are not true Sons of Islam – the Qu’ran does not teach such contempt for life. But let Islam
deal with him in their own way, the world stands a far better chance of emerging from this crisis if we can prevail upon the Arab world to deal with him. And while they are
rooting out Bin Laden, as a show of faith, root out those US Military Leaders who wanted to strike first and ask questions later, for they are simply terrorists with uniforms,
too.

David Burne

CRIKEY: I’m sure this is what the terrorists want to happen and it will be interesting to see if the Americans to buckle.

Let’s name and shame the dud directors

Good Day

I’ve had an idea and thought i would run it by you. Here goes…

Last nite i watched John Singleton on the sbs business show state
that the majority of directors had no idea what they were doing and
were merely on the earn waiting to die. This seemed to me to be a
truthfull statement borne out by plenty of recent corporate failures
in what appeared to be solid companies – pasminco, one tell,-
i could go on.

How do we make them more accountable, prevent the old boy network
sucking more corporate loafers into the system and lastly evict
those no hopers presently on boards?

Perhaps a start would be some kind of Corporate grave yard or
knackery where directors of failed companies could be sent to
account for their sins and recieve the recognition that their
failures deserve.

This could be a web site or even a book or magazine publication,
say once a year that names them, their backgrounds and all their
other Board positions. Anything that links them with their failures.

It appears the majority seem to regard investors with contempt.
Here is an example: This is in a letter from pasminco chairman Mark Rainer dated
23-11-00 after the agm:

“The board is confident of a return to dividend payment in
the current year as the benefits of our investments in Century
and Savage resources are realised”” What a load of crap.

They seem to have the attitude that if their incompetence
results in failure and loss of billions of dollars in shareholders
funds thay can simply wash their hands of it and move on.
They need to be made to understand that their incompetence
will be recorded and their reputations held accountable.

Just a few thoughts….

Regards, anon

CRIKEY: All in all a very interesting suggestion. I’ve long backed a form of skeleton watching and just don’t have the time to do
it separately from Crikey.

This Evangelical Christian is not happy

Dear Crikey

A number of things disgusts me about wehat has happened in America, apart
from the actual acts of terorism themselves.

One is George Bush’s rhetoric, and his apparent determination to go to war.
His responses go way beyond wagt might be considered appropriate in these
circumstances. This is esprecially so when one considers the number of
corrupt and violent governments the US has supported merely becuase they
were either pro-US or anti-communist. I get the feeling that Goerge wants to
be a wartime leader like his daddy.

Another thing has been the sight and sound of our politicians exploiting
this tragedy for thier own political advantage. Reith claims thses acts
ptove that the government was correct in treating the Tampa refugees as it
did; and Howard uses the reaction of the US government to bolster his
position in the polls. how can anyone believe that he appeared
“statesmanlike”? The polling results (if accurate) only prove how truly
xenophobic we Australians are.

If, as Mr Bush describes it, these acts were acts against humanity, acts
against freedom, why does he not go and bomb China, since it abuses and
terrorises the Tibetans? If he is after justice, wht does he not do
something to recompense the American indians for the treatment they have
recieved?

Crikey, I am an Evangelical christian. This means I believe in the Bible as
the word of God, and that scripture is the highest authority. This does not
make me a fundamentalist (for those who think they are the same!). This
means that I deplore anyone, or any country, that cliams for itself the name
‘Christian” to go about seeking revenge, and to claim that they look for
“justice”, hwen a good look at themselves will reveal they themselves have
failed to be just. Perhaps the acts of terror, though not right in
themselves, have been provoked by American injustices? Perhaps the west
needs to examine the way it relates to the middle east. It certainly needs
to examine the way it flaunts it’s wealth – one of the aspects of “our way
of life”, as George Bush puts it.

To clarify, please read Romans 12:17-21 :-

Rom 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right
in the eyes of everybody.

Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace
with everyone.

Rom 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath,
for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.

Rom 12:20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is
thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning
coals on his head.”

Rom 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

David Ashton

CRIKEY: Some interesting points here and certainly agree that the West needs to rethink its approach to the Middle East.

Prove the Ansett sick roster

Crikey, I don’t have the paper handy, but didn’t the story in the Oz say
that the bin Laden poster was put up in response to a pro-US poster? Not
that either action is particularly clever, but isn’t it a relevant fact in
the reporting?

And while I’m bitching, it’s easy to run urban myth-sounding items about
the Ansett staff like the Sick Leave Roster. Do you have any substantiated
facts about the comparative staffing costs between Ansett and Qantas? I
haven’t heard any apart from the over-generous redundancy provisions, which
wouldn’t, I’d reckon, have much effect on the day-to-day running costs?

Regards, Bruce H

CRIKEY: The sick leave roster first came from an emailer and then a mate mine confirmed that his flatmate was a hostie
for Ansett and she regularly telegraphed her rostered sick leave days when planning responsibilities around the house.
Agree with your point about the Bin Laden posters.

Give Qantas a fair go

Mayne-man

Now I’m a big supporter of your Don Chipp style “keep the bastards honest”
approach and you so often criticise others for not providing a balanced view
but even a dumbo like me can see more to this issue than you paint.

Two points in particular here:

1. Re availability of regular seats on a flight when all the FF ones are
gone. I am regularly annoyed that the number of FF seats seems low but you
cannot expect to get one in these times for “tomorrow or the next day.” And
why shouldn’t the seats be limited?

2. Re price gouging:

Are these “high” prices not fair? Isn’t the problem that the low prices we
consumers desire are not sustainable? I’d rather pay a higher price but have
the airline survive to honour it than a lower price and they go bust.

But, what you don’t mention is that.

1. Qantas provided free (to my knowledge) flights to many people stranded
when Ansett initially went bust.

2. They are providing discounted fares to many others who are due to fly
soon.

As far as I can see it, they do not owe this to anyone, least of all the
competitor’s customers with whom they have no commercial arrangement. But
they have not received much positive coverage for this.

Give them a break – or at least provide a balanced view of the positives and
negatives.

Most of all, keep the pressure on!

Stepping down off my soap box now …..

Best Regards, Paul W
PS – I am a victim of Ansett too. It has cost me and my wife a trip to Ayers
Rock.

CRIKEY: I guess when you see the analysts tipping profits back above $300m a year for Qantas you get a bit suspicious. The email you’re
complaining about was simply one subscriber’s experience and we’ve had others with similar stories coming in and can only hope that
Ansett Mark II stays in the air for the sake of competition.

Screwed by Hyundai

I realise that this may be a minor story & one which your publication may not have time to address, however I would like to highlight the plight of my sister, who has received the rough end of the stick from Hyundai.

My sister recently purchased what she believed a to be new S Coup from the dealer in Lilydale. One week after the purchase, she discovered that the car she had received was actually over 12 months old. She has sought redress through the Office of Fair Trading, but their backlog is prohibiting them from taking immediate action.

My sister is not a wall flower & is planning a one person protest outside the Nunawading Hyundai dealership.

Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated, even if only moral support.

Thanks, Patrick

CRIKEY: Happy to assist by publishing!!

Don’t follow Michael Moore

Stephen,

I was worried about you for a while there. But thank God you have at last seen thru that fat slob Michael Moore. Take a closer look
at the program you compare Crikey to. He is very selective on who he attacks. One would have expected him to have used the misdeeds
of the Clintons for show after show but he seems to have not noticed. He has never tried to clean up any corporate board as you have
done, his game is shallow. For your own sake don’t compare yourself to him, ten minutes spent in the US would stop you doing that. Keep
up the good work, don’t get sidetracked.

John Delaney

CRIKEY: Some of his stuff is great but he is really too far left and obsessively anti-Bush to be taken that seriously in the month ahead.
That said, the mainstream US media should not blackban him totally and we’ll not censor his opinions from getting out.

How TWU bosses sold out to Virgin Blue

I enjoyed Stephen Maynes television spot about the benefits available to
former Ansett Airlines employees secured n their behalf by their respective
unions.

There is a piece of trivia that has not received an airing in this complex
debate which should come out of its closet.

The same Transport Workers Union (TWU) which has been beating its collective
chest over securing workers entitlements, is the same TWU which signed an
agreement with Virgin Blue which allowed that company to start up with wage
rates and benefits far less that those being paid to Ansett or Qantas
employees.

The deal the TWU struck allows Virgin to operate at more than $100 per
person per week cheaper than its rivals !

An enquiring mind would have to ask why a Virgin is worker worth so much less
the his or her counter-parts at Ansett and Qantas? This is a little bit hard
to reconcile particularly since all three airlines operate the same aircraft
(737’s) and operate next to each other at the airport.

Perhaps it is because the TWU covers the Virgin operation exclusively
whereas Ansett and Qantas has multi union coverage particularly in the
clerical areas so membership fees have to be shared with the ASU?
Or perhaps it is that all the Virgin Superannuation funds are paid into a
fund managed by the TWU?

It galls me to hear the rhetoric from the TWU about workers entitlements
when they have been party to an agreement which may well have been one nail
in the Ansett coffin which was being assembled by Air New Zealand!
Maybe we don’t need economic rationalism but some sections of the TWU
certainly needs to cultivate some economic reality.

These facts are easily checked and are matter of pulic record. Both the
Qantas and Virgin Enterprise agreements are available throught the AIRC
website.

I apologize for using the anonymity of a hotmail address, but I work in the
industry and wish to do so for a few more years! Keep up the good work.

Anon

CRIKEY: Very interesting letter indeed. We’re looking forward to hearing from the TWU bruvvas to explain themselves
over this one.

Justice North was certainly not “picked”

Dear Crikey

I have been a bit distracted of late, and just got around to reading your note from the prolific Anon suggesting that I managed to “pick” Justice North to hear the Tampa refugee case.

I know conspiracy theories are terribly popular: they are a life raft on which the shipwrecked mind can paddle to safety, but the fact is that the matter was listed in front of the duty judge. He was the duty judge. I did not know who we had until he came on the bench.

More to the point, it would not have mattered to me who we got. Like most members of the community, I expect judges to do their job: administer justice according to law. I would be appalled if I thought any judge swayed from the right result because of what they, or Anon, imagines my political views to be. I can not think of any case I have done in my 25 years at the bar where I thought the judge favoured me, or favoured the other side, on account of the imagined political views of counsel in the case.

In Australia, cases are won or lost on the merits, not on the politics of counsel.

Very best wishes
Julian Burnside QC

CRIKEY: Well said Julian. A Liberal subscriber pointed out the coincidence that Justice North heard Burnside present argument on both the docks dispute
and the Tampa, but he’s dealt with that one effectively here.

Media distorts war claims

Hi Stephen

Once more unto the breech… 🙂

After 25 years or so of profound deafness, and having not so long ago
been granted the luxury of pretty good hearing (courtesy of Professor
Bill Gibson and his cochlear implant team up in Sydney), I have been
paying pretty close attention to the actual words being spoken by the
likes of George W. Bush, Colin Powell and other senior members of the
US Administration in the wake of the World Trade Centre disaster.

I am appalled by the apparently wilful determination of many in the
Australian media to distort every statement by Bush and his people in
an attempt to draw the worst possible conclusions from what has been
said and/or to paint Bush in the worst possible light. Like millions
of people around the world, I have been glued to the television since
this thing started. Like millions around the world, I actually heard
the exact words Bush said when he made the statement that the ABC,
Prime and other Australian news media are interpreting as meaning that
he wants Bin Laden ‘dead or alive’ and that this indicates a
significant change in rhetoric.

What Bush actually said was that in the past in the old West people
used to post signs saying “Wanted Dead or Alive”, or words to that
effect. Then he said, with a big implicit BUT, “All I want, and all
America wants, is him brought to justice”.

Now, I think that most reasonable people would interpret that as
meaning pretty much what he said. In the past, rough justice was the
normal practice, BUT NOW all he wants is that Bin Laden be brought to
justice. For the media to run off with that saying Bush wants him
‘Dead or Alive’ is a gross distortion of what was actually said and,
I’m sure, of what was actually meant.

The only warlike rhetoric that I am actually hearing or reading is
coming from the media, not from actual authoritative sources. Nor has
Howard given Bush a blank cheque as so many reports claim.

The print media, in particular, has been very disappointing thus far,
preferring hysteria to reasoned debate, and grossly offensive
anti-Americanism has been given too free a rein. Any chance of you
doing a dispassionate analysis?

Mike

CRIKEY: The rhetoric has certainly been getting stronger from Bush but your point about the media not carrying the full Bush comments on
“dead or alive” is well made

Socialist Beazley wants to waste our cash

Crikey,

has there ever been a more ludicrous image than Fart Boy Slim demanding the Australian taxpayer cough up hundreds of millions of dollars to rescue Ansett for just a couple of weeks? The owner of Ansett is the New Zealand Government (through Air New Zealand). If he wants to keep the airline going, why doesn’t Fart Boy ask his fellow
socialist Helen (NZ PM) to keep the airline awash with Kiwi taxpayers money rather than Aussie taxpayers money? If Fart Boy loves taxpayer investment in airlines, why did he vote to privatise Qantas? The Ansett saga and the Tampa saga show that Fart Boy really struggles badly when the pressure is on. Have the ALP got anyone to
replace Beasley before the next election?

Anon

CRIKEY: Well said, the taxpayer bailout proposal is just pure madness. And why waste all those Sydney Airport proceeds.

This Green is no greedy double dipper

Dear Stephen and Charles,

No, six years in the Senate does not qualify me for “one of those fat
pensions”. I did use up my own contributions to my superannuation plus
some more from the unretained portion in order to live in the two years
whilst I workerd on my MPhl with no other income. I also spent some of
that money to install a PV power system at my house and purchase an
energy efficent refrigerator, for my modest wood and fibro house in East
Vic Park, but all this may ruin your assumptions about “double dipping”
greedy politicians.

Dee Margetts

CRIKEY: This Green certainly practices as she preaches. Dee is now in the WA Upper House.

Eddington punted whistleblowers

In late 1999 the heads of safety and corporate risk at Ansett had been
ringing the alarm bells internally at the state of the airline. Both had
become quite agitated at what they saw happening. Eddington’s response was
swift – both made sudden resignations.

CRIKEY: Very interesting. There’s no doubt that News Corp must have known how troubled Ansett was before the sale to Air New Zealand.

Howard exploiting WAR and fear

Dear Crikey,

Strangley, I have not heard the popular press express the view that Howard
is using the horrific terrorist attacks on the US to improve the liberals
chances at the next election and to divert attention from the Ansett
debacle.

War!!!! hardly the solution to this incredably complex idealogical problem –
you would need to kill every Muslim fundamenatlist to a man to have any
change of “success” with this strategy.

Howard is milking the “terrorist threat” for all it is worth and is taking
every opportunity to insist that Australia is under just as much threat as
the US. The the truth is that Osama bin Laden or who ever is responsible
wouldn’t even know where Australia was on the map. On morning TV, I heard
Howard say that Australia is in just as much danger as the US at the moment
– this is absolute rubbish and to say the least , irresponsible.

Yes, being in Washington at the time of the attack and almost witnessing the
carnage first hand must have had a profound effect on him but one can’t help
but be very cynical about his motives.

Unfortunately, as Beazley knows, it would be political suicide for him to
attack Howard on this one. Howard is in a win-win situation – he must be
quietly rubbing his hands together. The connection between the Muslim
illegal immigrants and the Muslin terrorists is an added bonus. Actually
when you think about it, Beazley would be doing the same thing, he has
already elaborated on his “defense” credentials – very handy in times of
war!!!

Regards, AR
Crikey Subscriber

CRIKEY: Interesting points but I’m not sure there is much more Howard can do. We are one of the closets allies to the US and our troops
could end up in Afghanistan and Bin Laden has talked about a war against the US and its allies. Howard certainly was milking the
refugee issue cynically but the terrorism is something else altogether.

Thanks for the Ansett facts

Thanks for some facts. Or at least opinions that
aren’t confined to cheerleading the bashing of our
smaller and weaker neighbour.

I’m really disappointed with the ABC presenters
including Virginia Trioli and Tonya Roberts. I have
heard both cheerleading anti-New Zealand business.
They might have been only throw-away lines but in my
opinion they were very unprofessional and shallow.

So are we still boycotting Campbell Soups over
Arnotts? Or is all forgiven?

While I have total sympathy with the victims in the
USA, it now brings to my mind Srebrnica, Rwanda,
Burundi, earthquakes in Turkey, Armenia, India and all
the other great tragedies that ruin people’s lives.
Most of us have very comfortable lives in Australia
and a little less hatred and hypocrisy would go a long
way.

Marianne Gardner

CRIKEY: There is certainly an excessive propensity to blame governments for the Ansett debacle but as we explained
there are a lot of contributing factors at work.

Government knew about Ansett problems

At Easter, I had an ‘animated discussion’ with a senior Federal Government
staffer (who shall remain nameless) when I expressed my opinion that I
thought Ansett would go broke within 18 months.

Why? Any airline that can’t get its planes in working order is not taking
care of core business.

Any person who is crying foul over the demise of Ansett has been turning a
blind eye to the problems which have been evident for months. That includes
the unions who will no doubt use this as leverage for Beazley in the Federal
election.

From my point of view, Beazley (former finance minister) and Labor are
responsible for Ansett’s problems. They poured millions into Qantas during
the 1980s and early 1990s before the privatised it. This funding created a
huge and unfair advantage for Qantas, which was released from the shelter of
the government with a newly upgraded, government-funded fleet.

I wonder what’s stopping the govenrment from owning an airline again? It
sounds like a contradiction in dry economics, but if government ownership of
Ansett preserves competition in the airline industry, then such a concept
could sit well with the economic dries.

They can build it up and sell it off.

Before they do that, however, they ought to clean out CASA. I don’t like
Dick Smith, but he’s probably right that CASA is a culturally corrupt
organisation.

And yes, yes, yes to what you said about that Clark woman and the directors
of Air New Zealand.

Scumbags the lot of them.

Tom Payne

CRIKEY: Good letter Tom. You have to wonder if CASA would have thrown the book at Ansett if Rupert had still been a
50 per cent shareholder.

Why isn’t Rupert’s mate Eddo copping it over Ansett

Dear Crikey

I am rather amused at the current press treatment of where Ansett is at and
how it got there. Whilst all of the journalists concerned seem to have got
the basic elements of the story right (too many different aircraft types,
owners not really interested in the airline industry, Air NZ paying too
much for Ansett, weak balance sheet, loss of market share, etc) they have
laid the blame for Ansett’s state at everyone from Peter Abeles management
in the 80s to the Air NZ board over the past year. This amuses me because
they seem to have studiously avoided blaming the management of Ansett over
the years when Ansett went into the spin – from 1997 to 2000. During this
period Ansett was controlled by News Ltd and in particular managed by Rod
Eddington, now head of British Airways. When Eddington arrived at Ansett
their market share was around 55%, after three years at the helm he had
dropped this down to 42%. He had also introduced an additional aircraft
type to an already ridiculously mixed fleet. “Eddo” took three years to
implement a restructure which was supposed to focus on the business market
– the result of this wonderful effort was that over the three year period
Ansett’s share of the business travel market fell from 60% down to 30%.
Eddo also had Singapore lined up to buy half of Ansett – but Singapore
backed away after they completed due diligence in early 2000. Air NZ
desperately wanted to buy the second half Ansett, but unfortunately for
them Eddo was leading them astray at board meetings – cooking the books to
make it look as if he had turned Ansett around from the small loss it had
made in 1996/97. Of course the turnaround he claimed as his own was the
result of fuel and US$ hedging put in place by his predecessor when the AU$
was at 80cents US in early 1996. When the hedging ran out after two years,
Ansett’s losses began, in 1999/2000. But Ansett declared a profit of $120m
in 1999/2000, didn’t it? Truth is the real result for 199/2000 was close
to zero, which means about $120 million of the 2000/2001 loss for Ansett
belongs to the previous year. Yes, the AirNZ boardmembers should have
knwon better, but News/Eddo had executive control and the casting vote on
the board for all decisions. And now for something really amusing – a
couple of the senior management team involved in the Ansett debacle are now
running the two main airlines in the UK. God help them.

So why hasn’t Eddo copped any bad press? He is a News director?

Rebecca Cooper

CRIKEY: Excellent points Rebecca. Rod should be in Adelaide for the News Corp AGM on October 11 and this is a point that
should be made.

Letter of the week: Howard’s game plan

Dear Crikey

It’s nice to see some passion in a journo, ie the Tampa refugees, but it is
a complicated issue which requires cooler thought and will not be resolved
by ranting (as it was late at night, you hadn’t been having a merlot or two
by any chance?). I don’t have the solution and whatever the outcome, both
short and long-term, will be complicated and not universally acceptable.
Such is life. My own inclination is to let them in, but the underlying
issues are perhaps more interesting and this is where I think Crikey could
have done better.

While it is good for your subscribers to know your editorial policy, you do
not need to overstate it, or make it the centrepiece of the product. You
need to play to your strengths, and Crikey’s is getting some inside goss,
spelling out what the papers won’t say, and providing incisive analysis.

After some temporary discomfort, the refugees will ultimately be looked
after one way or another. They have received enough global publicity for it
not to be otherwise. The real story for Crikey behind the issue is John
Howard’s determination to deliver a third victory to the Coalition, whatever
it takes. It informs everything he says and does. In spite of attempts by
the media and party apparatchats to make the impending election sound like a
contest, until last week the govt can have been in no doubt it was on the
electoral nose, holding too many marginal seats and spurned in the bush.

As ever, Qld remained a problem. And as if One Nation was not enough, the
Qld libs were fighting amongst themselves (as regularly updated by Crikey
and today’s Fairfax press) while the ALP sprung the Macfarlane/GST/Groom
ambush. A very unlovely set of numbers. Then along came the Tampa.

John Howard has always been a three dimensional pollie – and his dimensions
are industrial relations, tax cuts, and immigration/race. His actions over
the past year illustrate it. Abbott the zealot was brought in to kick union
heads, Costello and Howard have played the tax cuts card, and now the
trifecta is complete with immigration (read xenophobia and religious
bigotry), dressed up as national sovereignty. They’ll love it in the bush.
(Wonder if Howard will award SAS diggers with campaign medals for this one.)

CHOGM has now become a nuisance. There isn’t enough time for an election
before HM QE2 comes (don’t forget Hyacinth is so looking forward to hosting
tea and scones) and it would be unseemly to be actively campaigning during
CHOGM, so the earliest they can go to the polls will be 17 November. Let’s
see how they spin the reffos out until then.

Was it Keating or Hawke who said “Always back self-interest, it’s the only
horse with an honest jockey”. Traditionally, the pundits reckon the
hip-pocket nerve is the touchiest one in the electorate, but really it is
only a symptom. The underlying condition is self-interest (aka “wedge
politics”) and, in a conservative electorate exhausted by change and afraid
of the future, self-interest will be nurtured with all available fertiliser.

The stakes are high, the egos rampant, and electoral memories short. I
can already hear the approaching cacophony of non-core soundbites. Howard
is going to play very hard ball for the next 3 months – Beazley (as Peacock
was unable to do) is going to have to ask himself how much he really wants
the job. Paul Kelly was on the money on the “Insiders” last week – Beazley
has to stay focussed and disciplined.

So how does he counter the “Muslims under the bed” campaign? Tough call,
but he has to remember self-interest is the key. He was on-message with
health and services, he has to stay there and remind the electorate not to
let the last week wipe out the memory of the last six years. He has to make
Howard and Costello scarier than Muslims.

Meanwhile, I hope the professed Christians in the Coalition, especially
Kevin Andrews and his mates in the Lyons Group, pray very hard for goodwill
to all men this December. If he is still Prime Minister come December, it
will be Merry Christmas Island, Mr Howard.

signed, Anonymous Subscriber.

PS This was drafted before the Saturday papers, which cover much of the
analysis in similar fashion, and also before the announcement about Nauru.
Talk about a win-win on that one. Honest Howard keeps the Muslims from
under the beds in the bush and Qld, and Nauru, which is broke, gets
Australian dollars pouring in once again. Wait till the taxpayer finds out
how much it is going to cost. And from where will the money come –
Immigration, AusAID, the Govt advertising budget, Sneaky Pete’s surplus?
The charter of Budget honesty, or whatever it is called, that must be
released at the start of the election campaign, is going to be a must-read.

CRIKEY: Very incisive analysis here and fair criticism of Crikey as well. The three dimensional stuff on Howard is very
interesting and rings true. The comments on Asian immigration in the 80s were from the heart it would seem now.

The Price of refugee success

Folks,

I picked up a piece of intelligence yesterday which I find fascinating. We are getting a
large influx of refugees from the Middle East partly because Minister Ruddock’s publicity campaign
highlighting the length of detention and the horrors of the centres has been too successful. The people-
smugglers have had to halve the cost, and we are now the least desirable, but most affordable,
destination, hence the increase in the number coming. Preferred destinations such as Germany
and the UK are twice the cost. The harshness of the system is having precisely the opposite
effect of that intended. While the smugglers get less per head, now, thanks in part to Minister Ruddock,
there are more heads!

JC

CRIKEY: Interesting analysis. I still reckon anyone who makes it all the way to Australia from Afghanistan deserves a medal for
ingenuity. They’ll be the next Frank Lowy, sir Arvi Parbo or Dick Pratt if we just give them a chance.

We’re not detaining them claims the government

Crikey,

Went to the Federal Court today to hear the Tampa case. The government
is arguing that the people on the Tampa are not being detained!

The government argued that the reason the rescuees do not leave the ship
is not because they are being held on the ship and not allowed to leave,
but rather because a) the ship is high in the water; b) the water is
shark infested; and c) they are 4 miles from the shore. The lawyer for
Eric Vodarlis called these reasons “something out of Monty Python”.

The Judge said the question of their detention could be tested by
offering them other transport. The government replied that the issue of
another way off the Tampa hasn’t arisen. This caused laughter in the
gallery, since, as the lawyer for Liberty Vic pointed out, the SAS has
closed the port at Christmas Island and no other ships have been allowed
to approach the Tampa. The question hasn’t arisen because the government
has stopped it from arising.

The other laugh came when the government lawyer tried to claim
diplomatic privilege for the letter from the rescuees to the PM that was
passed on via the Norwegian ambassador. The government lawyer said he
“wished people in court would not gasp in horror whenever I say
something”.

If you want to see more of my report look at:
https://melbourne.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=15683&group=webcast

Cheers, Paul Dyson

CRIKEY: Hmmm, armed troops stopping them from getting off at Christmas Island is certainly some form of detention.

Just call yourself an asylum seeker

I had lunch with a fed MP today who suggested that all that was necessary for any of these people to claim refugee status was for any one of them to tap one of the SAS meatheads on the shoulder and say “Hey buddy I seek asylum,” and that was under Australian law. She also said that the dropping of leaflets onto the boat explaining this to the refugees was illegal, funny thing the law, but it might explain why communications between the vessel and the outside world have been cut since the SAS boarded the ship.

CRIKEY: Interesting, I wonder how many knew how to say this in English to gun-toting troops.