Asylum seekers and immigration:

Tony Kevin writes: Re. “Abbott’s new Pacific Solution: ‘cruel’ treatment for asylum seekers” (yesterday, item 1). Thanks to Crikey for explicitly making the link between Howard’s cruel TPV policy which did not allow family reunion to TPV holders, and the 353 deaths mostly women and children on SIEV X.

This tragedy, related in my book A Certain Maritime Incident,  must not be forgotten  Something else to remember too — it was the shock 0f the 353 still unexplained deaths on SIEV X in international waters that were being patrolled daily by Australian aircraft supported by JORN radar coverage that stopped the demand for boat people journeys to Australian territories.

It terrified those people still in Indonesia when they saw the power and ruthlessness of the forces arrayed against their making these journeys in safety. It wasn’t the Pacific solution or the Navy  “turning back the boats” that stopped the flow;  it was the 353 people, who could have been saved,  left to die at sea by a border protection force that it seems did not want to find them, because they were not going to arrive.

That sent a message all right.

I am appalled at Abbott going back firmly and definitely to those cruel and discredited Howard policies. I was prepared to give Abbott the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. I hope he never becomes  Prime Minister of this country. We have too much at stake in terms of multicultural decency and relations with our Asian neighbours,  to risk this man’s “Howard Revisited” policies towards boat people.

Pamela Papadopoulos writes: Over the course of 24 years from 1947-1971, Bonegilla became Australia’s first, largest, and longest operating migrant reception centre and the first Australian home for some 320,000 post-war migrants from over 30 countries.

Where are these people now and their opposition to the current policies that have been placed forward by the opposition today? I would hope that as successful assimilated Australians now they would be sympathetic to the current cause and are in positions to lobby for a better policy outcome.

Janice Wilson writes: I agree with Tony Abbott. These immigrants have got to stop coming into our homeland (Australia). They are trying to make it into the same place as they have just left. No more Immigrants in Australia. Please.

I am in a constant state of depression, as to why the government has allowed these immigrants to take over our country. I am not happy with Australia now.

Keith Perkins writes: My wise old Dad, long departed, most certainly had the likes of the compassionless Tony Abbott in mind when he advised me never to involve myself with religion.

How can we trust Crikey?:

Sam Varghese writes: Re. “The inside story on Fraser’s resignation: Abbott appealed to him to stay” (Wednesday, item 1). I find it absolutely amazing that Crikey has had no reaction at all to the deception practised by Margaret Simons in the case of Malcolm Fraser’s resignation.

Cast your mind back to 2007; the same Simons wrote in Crikey: “The question Canberra journalists would like us to be asking today is whether we can trust  Peter Costello and his relationship with John Howard. The other urgent question  is whether we can trust the Canberra Press Gallery”

You know the incident I’m referring to so I won’t belabour the point.

Simons did not report a matter of considerable national interest when it suited her pecuniary interests. And she was out there — I heard her on 1377, Melbourne’s new AM talkback station — saying the matter of Fraser’s resignation was an event of little importance! This means one of two things — either she is no journalist and has no idea of what constitutes news or she was desperately trying to prevent the story from  gaining legs. Can you enlighten us, Margaret?

Imagine if, the day after Tony Abbott was elected Liberal leader, the story of Fraser quitting had been covered. Cause and effect — even before Abbott did a single thing, here was Fraser leaving the party.

Would Abbott have got the traction that he has? Judging by the intense interest shown in the story even at this late stage, it is extremely doubtful that that would have been the case.

Simons stands to gain financially from the sale of the Fraser book, so she has kept quiet. And, she is now being allowed to spin in the columns of an online newsletter which claims to carry “independent journalism” and says it is different.

The questions I am asking now are: how can we trust Simons? And how can we trust Crikey?

What does public infidelity have to do with me?:

Marcus Vernon writes: Re. “What does public infidelity have to do with me? Err, not a lot” (yesterday, item 9). Perhaps you’ll allow me as a voter and tax/ratepayer in NSW to reply to Leslie Cannold  who, I assume, does not live in NSW.

Golfer Tiger Woods is not an elected official. He has not sought elected office in Australia. To even mention him in the same sentence as David Campbell is beyond absurd. Likewise, the South Carolina governor.

When someone gets married they take a vow. That vow promises loyalty and honour and fidelity. If they can’t keep that vow, they should get divorced, and plenty of people do. If an elected public official can’t keep a promise of loyalty and honour in marriage, we as voters are entitled to suspect that they won’t keep their word in their official decisions.

It really is as simple as that. I would take the same view if he had been photographed coming out of a heterosexual orgy club. It’s not about the s-x. It’s about honour, loyalty, integrity and transparency. The fact that Campbell resigned and revealed he had deceived his family for two decades is proof that he did not have some “arrangement” or open marriage with his wife.

Whether you feel “embarrassment, disappointment or hurt” is up to you. I don’t, and unlike Leslie Cannold, I actually am a voter and taxpayer in NSW. But I do suspect Campbell’s integrity and decision-making powers on the basis of this furtive behaviour alone, and I am entitled to. It revealed a total lack of self-control on his part.

Neither Campbell, NSW Premier Kenneally, or the Seven Network reporter referred to “Christian standards” in their public observations on this issue. So why should you? I think you have a problem there somewhere. But then, Christians are a pretty easy target these days, right?

Finally, where exactly do you set the bar for behaviour? I didn’t hear you being similarly outraged when Chris Masters “outed” a well-known highly successful non-elected Sydney broadcaster; but then, that man was from the nasty conservative side of politics. Yes? And I’m certain that if it had been, say, Tony Abbott, coming out of Ken’s of Kensington, perhaps in his famous swimmers, you wouldn’t have written the same 800 words to Crikey yesterday in his defence.

Malcolm:

Martin Gordon writes: Re. “How the Liberal Party left Malcolm Fraser behind” (yesterday, item 10). With the resignation of Malcolm Fraser I expected endless media coverage and Labor Party opportunism to come to the fore. I was not disappointed.

The Liberal Party still has a long and proud liberal tradition and pedigree, including Fraser initiated measures. Recently when Malcolm attacked the Rudd Government for its incompetent management of sundry policies it was the first time in a long time he had criticised his political opponents rather than his own party. I was surprised.

Some years ago I attended a funeral and was astonished to see Whitlam and Fraser sitting together. They seemed to have more in common and reflected a different era. It ironic to see these misty eyed comments about Fraser from people on the left who despised/hated him and would have spat on him in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Losing former leaders is not unique, but Fraser is not the first. Labor seems to have forgotten that it has lost at least two PM’s to resignation, Billy Hughes, and one of their totemic ones, John Watson the first Labor national leader in the world. They both parted ways over policy differences. Nothing’s new is it?

ABC Open:

Ann Chesterman and Cath Dwyer, ABC Open Project Directors, write: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 7). In response to the tips and rumours about ABC Open on Wednesday:

… Jobs not so Open at the ABC. Is ABC Open being cut back before it begins? I applied for a position and was disappointed when I got an email suggesting I hadn’t got past the first cull. Recently I learned the position in my region was canned and wonder if others were too …?

There are no cutbacks and none of the ABC Open positions or locations have been canned. Interviews for ABC Open Producers are being held in rounds due to the number of positions and interviews needed to fill the jobs, and the fact that the funding is phased in over three years.

The email to shortlisted applicants who are not being interviewed at this stage, clearly states that interviews for their region will be part of a second or third round later in the year or in 2011, and that they are still in the running for those jobs.

Over 550 applications have been received and we are really pleased with the high calibre of candidates. The first groups of ABC Open producers will be announced shortly.