COAG
Andrew Herington, a former adviser to ex-Victorian premier John Brumby, writes: Re. “Brumby as COAG reformer? The last person you’d want” (Friday). Bernard Keane’s over-excited attack on the appointment of John Brumby to chair the COAG Reform Council fails to recognise Victoria’s successful role in pushing the national economic reform agenda over the last decade — winning the support of both John Howard and Kevin Rudd. An early milestone was a speech by Brumby in 2005 calling for a third wave of reform.
In Keane’s view the Commonwealth’s original Murray-Darling Basin plan was self-evidently good and any state efforts to achieve the same goals with less social disruption were “outrageous, anti-competitive” resistance. This is simply wrong.
Victoria led the way on water reforms implementing its own schemes to replace inefficient water technology. The 4% cap on trading between catchments prevented rural communities being killed off and curbed water barons profiting at the expense of farmers. It took public protests and report burning for the Commonwealth to wake up to the social issues.
Keane also backs Rudd’s original hospital plan, one of his more manic schemes as PM. The amendments Victoria sought were close to those finally agreed when Julia Gillard took charge and are now being implemented. This was a victory for common sense — not anti-competitive behaviour.
Royal phone prank
Ray Sangston writes: Re. “How prank call DJs played it by the book in TV tell-alls” (yesterday). Toby Ralph misses the point. These people are no Alan Jones or “Vile” Kyle who call their own shots. They’re very low in the food chain on a low-rating shift. They’d be working with producers, a program director and the station manager.
Where are these worthies hiding? And who was really making the decisions? And what about the hospital’s responsibilities? As usual the media is carelessly telling only half the story.
But isn’t it nice station management has cancelled the staff Christmas party. That’ll save them a bit of money just when they need it.
Russell Hawkins writes: It was only at the end of Toby Ralph’s piece on the royal prank call that we learn he has worked as a spin doctor for British American Tobacco and other slime.
Toby Ralph is playing the same game of self-promotion that he accuses shock jocks of playing. If someone is going to assume the high moral ground they should be worthy of it.
Maybe Crikey should commission Toby to write an expose on all the dirty lies and scams he promoted for the tobacco industry.
It pisses me off that people who have made a very nice living from lying and exploitation can get away with suddenly reinventing themselves as caring, considerate human beings in apparently progressive publications. Why allow these people to consume oxygen?
China
Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Following in Deng’s footsteps: meet China’s new cabinet” (yesterday). Michael Sainsbury is rewriting history in suggesting Deng Xiaoping wasn’t responsible for the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Underlying this is a crude analysis of Chinese politics as good “reformers” versus bad “hardliners”. Deng and the Tiananmen Square protesters were on the same side, “pro-reform”. The massacre must have been the work of unnamed “hardliners” opposed to “reform”. “Reform” always means market reform, even though this largely wasn’t what the protesters were pursuing.
This continues in Sainsbury’s portrayal of current events. Former leader Jiang Zemin isn’t a “hardliner”, he’s a “reformer”, triumphing over Hu Jintao in the recent party congress. Hu’s “stability and harmony” might sound good, but if they lead to “slowing of reform” they’re bad.
Economic reform is all that matters, and nothing, not even the facts, should get in the way.
Asylum seekers
Clive Lehmann writes: Re. “Rintoul: challenging bipartisan myths on asylum seekers” (yesterday). Ian Rintoul is correct in his article about refugees. In fact, the Sri Lankans are fleeing genocide and are not economic refugees. I fail to see why the humanitarian concerns are labelled Left as concern for fellow human beings should be non-political.
It would seem that the loony Right are free to say whatever they wish and the rest of the populace has to wear it. I expect better of a major Crikey journalist.
John Kotsopolous writes: Ian Rintoul is having us on. Why doesn’t he make any mention of the illegal role of people smugglers who are taking in millions of dollars and putting the lives of so many people at risk.
His attacks on the government coupled with those of the undergraduate elements among the Greens and others on the Left have created the worst of both worlds. The extreme Left on one side and the extreme Right through Abbott and his shock jock cheer squad have Labor in a political pincer movement. What an unholy alliance. The people smugglers must be rubbing their greedy hands with glee in anticipation of continuing their deadly trade given the absurd mixed messages coming out of Australia.
I recall reading a quote recently from a person on the Left who tried to excuse the loss of lives by referring to number who drowned as constituting a relatively small percentage (5%) of those who have made it to Australian waters. As if the loss of 300 lives over the past 12 months alone was a small price to pay for policy purity. Imagine the carnage if Rintoul and his mates’ lame-brain open slather approach was to be adopted.
@ John K Absolutely agree. Until the Greens and their hangers on dispense with what you call “policy purity”, any solution to that very complex problem is going nowhere.
What I cannot abide is the refugee advocate industry’s selective compassion. In other words, people with money who get on a boat and DO arrive in Oz, should get everything. Those who have been forced to stay in detention camps around the world, have no money or means of getting on a boat, are unworthy and don’t deserve anything.
Never fails to amaze me, that those who arrive by boat are “too good” to stay in detention camps in Malaysia and Indonesia (poor darlings), but it is okay to leave whole families, (who have no money) there for generations. There is something wrong with this scenario.
I would like to send the poor darlings back via the Malaysian solution, and spend every last taxpayer dollar on transporting those long suffering people in the camps over here to Oz as refugees. At least most of these camp dwellers are genuine refugees, and they deserve a fair go!
If people really cared about deaths at sea, they’d campaign to stop the policy of destroying vessels carrying asylum seekers.
In one easy stroke, costing no money, we could save countless lives.
Modern-day Oskar Schindlers would be able to engage transport providers who would be willing to use seaworthy vessels – under the present policy of destruction, no-one would send any but the most decrepit and valueless vessel to Australian shores.