Australian Crime Commission:

An ACC spokesperson writes: Re. “Crime Commission plods off the pace in Hoges dispute” (Wednesday, item 13). The Australian Crime Commission (ACC) does not propose to comment in detail about this matter while it is before the Court, but does wish to correct two of the inaccurate statements in Mr Seage’s article of 10 December 2008.

The ACC rejects the assertion that it has acted improperly in the conduct of its investigation into the affairs of Mr Hogan and Mr Stewart. Contrary to the article, there has been no finding that any documents were “illegally seized” and no suggestion that the ACC is unaccountable. On the contrary, Mr Hogan’s Senior Counsel has conceded that there was no impropriety in the ACC’s conduct.

Further, in the related case of Stewart & Hogan v ACC, the Court rejected Mr Hogan’s assertion that a number of Wickenby notices and summonses were invalid. This litigation is in furtherance of an ACC criminal investigation. Contrary to the suggestion of your correspondent Mr Seage, neither the Tax Commissioner, Michael D’Ascenzo, nor the Tax Office, are parties to these proceedings.

The economy — the empty office and pizza index, negativity and optimism:

Scott the office watcher writes: Re. “Job losses a part-time trickle not a full-on flood” (yesterday, item 1). There’s another interesting way to look at job losses. The average space allowance in an office building per worker is approx 17m2. Assuming an average floor plate size of 1000m2 for a CBD office building (the range is about 600m2 in older building to 1500m2 in newer building) and the fact that usually 20% of a floor plate is non-usable space (i.e. lift core, service, fire stairs etc) then the usable office area of a 1,000m2 floor plate is approx 800m2 and would hold 47 (800/17) office workers say 50 for the purpose of this discussion.

This effectively means that every 50 “white collar” workers laid off is equivalent to an empty floor of an office building (obviously redundancy are scattered but the effect is cumulative). This would mean for example that ANZ sacking’s of 800 workers recently is equivalent to a 20 storey building being vacated. Fair to say that the 1% office vacancy rates in Brisbane and Perth are likely to be a thing of the past.

Walking down Queen Street Brisbane this is evidenced by the amount of building with sublease and leases advertised. The interesting flow on effect is what this does to building values as rental increases stop, capacity continues to increase with new stock coming online, capitalisation rates increase, incentive increases and occupancy levels fall and also with the state government raising land taxes and transfer duties.

Geoff Coyne writes: Re. “Keen: Of confidence and debt” (yesterday, item 25). The McDonald hamburger index has been doing valiant service for years, as an indicator of the real value of world currencies by comparing the price of a Big Mac around the world. We now have the pizza economic indicator. My local pizza shop provides, once a week, pizzas at almost half price. This week I called in the day after the special price and was the only customer. “How was yesterday’s special pizza deal?” I inquired? “Shop was packed, we ran out of pizzas” was the reply. Signs of the times?

John Taylor writes: Re. “Kohler: China cracks” (yesterday, item 24). If Kohler intends to be as negative as he was in today’s item (25), I suggest you ditch him and get someone with a more positive attitude, say Charlie Aitken, for 2009.

Justin Templer writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 7). Your tips and rumours column is the bee’s knees. I was at Westfield Mount Druitt the other day and I saw an empty disabled parking space and a woman carrying a very small bag. I think the recession has struck big time. I parked in the disabled space to make the joint look fuller and cheer everyone up. Hooroo.

A Bill of Rights:

Joe Boswell writes: Re. “Bill of rights debate: Scare mongers vs self-loathing liberals” (yesterday, item 11). Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane wrote: “The best way to protect rights is to prevent laws that breach them in the first place. A genuine parliamentary review process that scrutinises legislation” How true. How very true. I wonder why nobody has thought of it before. It would be a wonderful thing if someday our representatives in the legislature could stir themselves sufficiently to actually read, think about, debate intelligently and seriously attempt to improve the vast mountains of stinking half-baked tripe that is enacted or made into legislation each parliamentary session.

Dr Harvey M Tarvydas writes: Re. Patrick Cross (yesterday, comments) . A layman’s understanding can be valuable when correct and /or accurate. Whatever came first, you are right about the value of parliaments but they have changed the ownership of courts and judges. In fact the later have become specialist agents for upholding (not owning or running off with and cross breeding) the laws that parliaments write. Like for example the ‘Human Rights Bill’.

Both pregnant women and doctors can easily have their rights protected and upheld today and tomorrow because while we may have a claimable right we will never have the right to nominate another individual to forgo their right to not to personally grant our perceived right.

Even such a catastrophic compendium of sinister stupidity as the NT intervention bill passed without a smidgeon of scrutiny by anyone, government supporter or opposition. They all cheerily and respectfully waved the damned thing through like a loyal forelock-tugging holiday crowd watching a royal procession. While I like Mr Keane’s novel proposal, I doubt any of us will live to see the day, so perhaps a Bill of Rights would be not be so bad, while we are waiting.

A car czar:

Julian Gillespie writes: So are you wondering why US law makers are flip-flopping over the Detroit carmakers bailout package after so many decades of easy loans and free money? Well Alan Kohler probably hit the nail right on the head with his insightful examination of the pending possible financial boom-time for holders of synthetic Credit Default Swaps (CDSs). As Alan noted, synthetic CDSs “are contractual bets between two parties about whether a third party will default on its debt”, where CDSs don’t involve or require any underlying physical asset as is the case with mortgage backed securities, (those other “toxic securities” that have been bringing Wall St to their knees).

So what does this mean in the context of Detroit? Why money of course, and lots of it. As Laura Mandaro wrote a couple of days back, the proposed bailout package (“bridging loans” or whatever else Congress ends up calling it) stands to make private holders of Ford and GM CDSs a cool US$6.1 billion dollars — and who are holding these bets on Detroit — why plenty of the gang on Wall St of course.

The proposed bailout package contemplates the appointment of a new Car Czar to oversee the distribution and use to which Detroit makes of the loan monies on offer by Congress. Now by the devilish details of a CDS’s terms a “bankruptcy credit event” that would trigger the obligation for counterparties to pay-up the $6.1 billion, includes broadly “the appointment of an administrator, trustee or similar official to oversee all or most of an entity’s assets” — aka, a Car Czar.

So there we have it… where kick-back taking, lobbyist funded Congressmen and women have been more than happy to feed Detroit greenbacks like the money pit it is for the last few decades, we now have mostly departing Congressmen and women who have suddenly started to be concerned about whether the bailout package is such a good idea. It really doesn’t take much imagination to appreciate what other packages are being negotiated by those being tossed out. And you can just imagine how far the Wall St holders of these CDSs are willing to go to insure the Car Czar becomes a reality in some form or another — there’s money to be made folks, and there’s plenty to go around.

Meanwhile faintly blowing in the wind can be heard softly those immortal words of… “one for you, two for me, one for you, two for me…”

Airport traffic:

Private pilot Richard Morris writes: Re. “One man with a radio: CASA’s Newcastle airport gamble” (yesterday, item 16). The operational procedures of Williamtown Airport no different to many other airports in Australia (and the world) where it is standard procedure for pilots to monitor the airport frequency, arrange separation for takeoff, landing or circuit operations, or to traverse the airport’s airspace.

To clarify a few things:

  1. Williamtown Airport air space (WLM) is still controlled and monitored by Air Traffic Control based in Brisbane (Brisbane Centre) and they have radar coverage to about 3000 feet above the airport. All aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) which includes all passenger aircraft flying into and out of WLM air space, receive detailed traffic instructions from Brisbane Centre who can see it all on their radar and/or are in contact with them by radio.
  2. Not all aircraft operating in the area may have TCAS but all aircraft must have a Transponder; a device that transmits altitude and the position of the aircraft. This can be seen by Air Traffic Control on their radars and by other aircraft equipped with TCAS.
  3. The procedures of Williamtown Airport air space are no different to what is currently happening at Port Macquarie or Coffs Harbour, and those airports do not have radar coverage.
  4. It is no big deal that there is no radar coverage below 3000 feet at Williamtown. 10-20 jets land and takeoff there per day, all equipped with TCAS, the only one who doesn’t have it is Pelair who comes in few times a day.
  5. Without the military traffic around, it will actually be safer!

Aviation is an easy target to sensationalise and get headlines. It seems that even the most mundane incident at Qantas receives full front page coverage. If other transport sectors including shipping, ferries, trucking, trains, etc received the same level of attention scrutinising every single event, then the papers would be overflowing.

Give the travelling public a fair go and report on actual facts rather than exaggerating what is essentially standard operating procedure worldwide. A headline such as this would have been more accurate: “One man with a radio: CASA’s Newcastle airport gamble (just like about 50 other airports in Australia such as Avalon, Launceston, Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Ballina, Rockhampton, Hamilton Island, etc, etc.”

Wilfred Burchett:

Nick Shimmin writes: For the benefit of Stephen Magee (yesterday, comments), yes actually, I am perfectly sure that Mark Aarons, Bob Gould and Tibor Meray are envious of Wilfred Burchett, whose “legitimate claims to fame” include some of the most important reportage in the history of 20th century journalism, a fact acknowledged by such minnows as Bertrand Russell, Harrison Salisbury, Peter Ustinov, Sir Joseph Needham and even Henry Kissinger. I think I’d probably accept their assessments of his work over Mr Magee’s heroes.

Niall Clugston writes: Stephen Magee asserts that Burchett’s “crimes, lies and betrayals in the service of Stalinism are now his sole legitimate claim to fame”. Burchett remains the first Western journalist to report Hiroshima and a number of other events. That he followed a Communist line should never have been in doubt. Nevertheless depriving him of the right to visit his dying father should always have been considered as a human rights violation by people of any political persuasion. As for those opponents that Magee promotes, perhaps they should explain why they are pursuing this supposedly discredited hack beyond the grave. And what about crusaders for truth like Robert Manne who now admits that Burchett wasn’t a KGB agent or even a regular Communist Party member…?

Global warming:

Michael, then open-minded sceptic, writes: Re. “Clive Hamilton v. Paul Kelly: climate death match” (yesterday, item 4). If, as many believe probable, science establishes that carbon is not a pollutant and that emissions of carbon dioxide (whether anthropogenic or natural) have little influence on the inevitable process of climate change, is it your intention to publish apologies to Paul Kelly and others who have been chastised in your columns for raising credible questions about the wisdom of costly responses to theoretical Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Tim Marsh writes: Crikey, although I don’t wish to engage in a slanging match on your pages, I really must take issue with Tamas Calderwood (yesterday, comments) either cherry picking or misquoting people/facts/stats, or being slightly unclear. Tamas, on Dec 9 you said (my highlighting): “Furthermore, the GW theory has no explanation for the cooling trend between 1945-1980. Finally, if recent chilly temperatures are not evidence that global warming may be slowing then what standard of evidence is required?” Firstly, I don’t see a cooling period on trend-terms between 45-80.

Moreover, although I will acknowledge you did mention 1945-1980 (you did not mention eight years anywhere as you claim on Dec 11), you clearly seek to link the recent chilly temperatures to support your beliefs. I inferred, by the use of the term “recent”, that you meant December or some similar timeframe. Perhaps my mistake, but again I make the point that on a pure statistical basis there is a trend upwards.

This link shows data beyond the 30-year period you mention, and regardless of a temporary decline, the trend is:

  1. clearly upwards on a statistical basis, and
  2. has accelerated as the emissions from the past 100 years have begun to create a feedback loop.

More information (amongst a raft of it) here.

Tamas, I again state: I would MUCH rather be wrong about this, having acted (and created a new world of non-fossil fuel based jobs, products and services), than be on your side of the fence, and not act (waiting, waiting), because that would be disastrous. The train of ecological destruction, once past tipping point, is not a simple switch to turn off.

From a purely business-risk point of view, I am firmly of the belief that we should act regardless. You, it seems to me, see risk/costs/job loss. I, as an innovator, see many opportunities for new job creation and smarter, better and more efficient ways of doing things, so my kids can surf, snowboard and enjoy this Earth (still the only habitable planet we know about for now) well beyond my death. Think about it. What are you so scared of?

Matt Hardin writes: I do not have enough time to go into all the fields of science supporting the global warming hypothesis. I will mention one. I have designed and conducted experiments done that show that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The results of these were in line with literature values. The changes in observed radiative forcing are in line with the known chemical properties of carbon dioxide. To deny global warming means that this basic chemistry needs to be explained away. Until that is explained I will continue to support the global warming hypothesis.

Adam Rope writes: Ah, Tamas, Tamas, you’re being cheeky again. So you’ve “yet to see convincing evidence” that “man made CO2” is a major factor in climate change, and that “natural factors are more important”. Oh, and that “the only “evidence” in support of GW is a slightly warmer planet over the past 150 years”. Well, I guess it really depends on where you source the material for that “evidence”
, Tamas, and how widely you read.

Maybe I’m daft as well, but I hope that if you expanded your horizons, and took a brief tour of some scientific websites — such as the New Scientist’s 18 month old “Guide to the Perplexed“, the Hadley Centre’s FAQ site, or The Goddard Institute at NASA’s, or GISS, page of data — you might find some respected scientific views that disagree with you. BTW New Scientist also has a page devoted to your previous “The world hasn’t warmed for 10 years“, and The Hadley Centre reports on your “The planet keeps cooling“, arguments as well. Basically, try to look for some evidence behind the science of climate change, Tamas, and you might even find it.

Harold Thornton writes: Tamas Calderwood’s contributions to Crikey over the last two years have set forth the following arguments:

  1. The war in Iraq was really all about WMDs and has been both a military triumph and a blessing for Iraqis.
  2. David Hicks is a dangerous terrorist who deserved everything that happened to him, and more.
  3. Global warming does not exist, and human beings aren’t responsible for it anyway.

Alone, each argument suggests Tamas’s ideological blinkers give him some difficulty in coming to terms with objective reality.

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