Crikey Bias-o-meter:

Courier-Mail editor David Fagan writes: Re. “Crikey Bias-o-meter: The newspapers” (yesterday, item 2). A few of my staff who subscribe to your newsletter have passed on your analysis of newspapers. They should ask for their money back. It’s lazy and hackneyed and reads like it was knocked up between afternoon tea and scones. Its analysis of The Courier-Mail, for instance, is based on what the writer thinks happened 30, 20 and 10 years ago. It overlooks the fact that The Courier-Mail has led the debate on the big Queensland issue — how we handle growth for the past four years. It ignores that we broke one of the best national political stories of the year — the Santo Santoro shares scandal. The analysis would not make it into reputable publication. As to the alleged cosiness between The Courier-Mail and ABC Radio: I’ve been on air once in the past two years — the day on which we made the historic change from broadsheet to compact, an issue of some interest to ABC listeners. Your correspondent was once a good gardening writer. Out of charity, I will judge her on that.

Tamas Calderwood writes: It’s always interesting to see how people view themselves. If I were to sum up Crikey it would be thus:

Conspiratorial, obsessed by power and power relationships, deep green, oddly suspicious of free markets given its entrepreneurial pedigree and firmly anti-Howard. Nonetheless, redeems itself with some quirky takes on a broad range of issues and has a lively, if somewhat rabid, comments section.

Narelle Douglas writes: Please tell Meg Simons that Melbourne’s Herald Sun dropped the hyphen from its name 14 years ago (she used it three times, so it was not a typo) and that it is not Australia’s biggest-selling paper. It is Australia’s biggest-selling daily paper. (The biggie is the Sydney Sunday Telegraph, which outsells the Herald Sun, albeit weekly and not daily, by almost 150,000.)

Media Watch and Kohler:

Misha Ketchell writes: Re. “Media Watch does Alan Everywhere” (yesterday, item 22). I’d just like to quickly correct Stephen Mayne’s claim that “ironically part of last night’s package was put together by Misha Ketchell, the former editor of Crikey, who is now the Melbourne-based researcher for Media Watch.” I actually didn’t play any part in Monday’s MW story examining potential conflicts between Alan Kohler’s business, The Eureka Report, and his presenting role on the ABC. Having worked pretty closely with Alan and the Eureka Report team when they shared offices with Crikey, I had a conflict of my own and it wasn’t appropriate to be involved.

Simon Rumble writes: Media Watch’s examination of Kohler’s activities with the ABC was timely and well-researched. That said, Kohler is an excellent economic commentator. His spots on the 7pm news are an excellent balance between dry reportage of the facts and getting behind the numbers a little. He actually makes economic news interesting.

Howard’s NT plan:

Matthew Campbell writes: I am surprised at the vitriol directed at Guy Rundle as a result of his article (yesterday, comments), and that he, by making some valid observations, is basically on the side of the abusers. I don’t know the experience of those who wrote in but it seems like it might be less than mine. I currently live in Alice Springs and previously lived in four Aboriginal communities in northern Western Australia. I have been working in indigenous communities in the NT for the past eight years and can attest that there are things in most of the communities I have visited that are working. These ventures are the product of a lot of hard work between well-trained professionals and Aboriginal people who together are developing and implementing innovative solutions to issues in these communities. They are, by their nature local initiatives, and where adequate time and resources have been invested continue to be successful, in some cases employing people, and in most leading to noticeable increases in self-esteem ownership and increased ability to develop new solutions to other issues. These sorts of things of course do not get reported on, meaning that in a situation like we have today, they are overlooked while non-indigenous Australians pronounce “nothing else has worked so this is worth a try”. This latest plan will fail no doubt. However, don’t think that this means that attention should not be drawn to Aboriginal communities. It should be, but if we based the response on building on what works, engaging in partnership with Aboriginal people we might have a chance. We need the spotlight turned on, but lets turn it on together so that in a few years all those saying currently “this is worth a try” won’t have to acknowledge that solutions imposed from the outside don’t work.

John Craig, Centre for Policy and Development Systems, writes: Re. “Make no mistake, Howard’s NT plan is a new apartheid” (Monday, item 1). Might I respectfully suggest, in relation to your article, that: there is no doubt (as your article suggested) that making new special laws for Aborigines does not end “Aboriginal exceptionalism”. However: apartheid means living apart (ie. as separate communities). It is not a term that strictly can be applied to preventing anyone from exercising legal rights they would otherwise have in particular places — which is a quite routine effect of government regulations on land use (for example); special laws for Aboriginal people (and thus inequality before the law) were made possible by the widely supported 1967 referendum; inequality before the law was cited most vigorously by One Nation (whose name suggested their opposition to the idea of separate communities, but whose policy ‘solutions’ seemed unlikely to be particularly beneficial). As far as I can tell the position of Aboriginal Australia has not improved over the past 30-40 years — arguably because the focus has been on gaining “benefits” (eg. native title to land, government funding) through political pressure, with virtually no attention to what is required for indigenous people to be economically successful. The real requirement to improve their situation is not to further force the Australian community to “cede power”, but to gain economic power by participating in enterprises that entice consumers to part with hard-earned cash to pay for attractive products and services. Boosting any other form of power will simply leave Aboriginal people worse off through increasing their dependence on government handouts. While I have not yet studied the PM’s proposed “solution”, if it contains steps along the lines your article mentioned, then your article’s suggestions about its likely failure and parallels with Iraq are (unfortunately) likely to be valid. In the case of Iraq also, the cultural and institutional preconditions for democracy and economic prosperity (and their absence in Iraq) were simply ignored. The Federal Government has “shot itself in the foot” by creating an organisation so politicised and centralised that it is virtually incapable of generating practical initiatives in relation to any problem (see the CPDS article: Decay of Australian Public Administration); The initiatives being advanced on both sides of politics seem equally insubstantial (On Populism in 2007); The problems facing indigenous communities are unlikely to be resolved as long as the practical effect that cultural assumptions have on any people’s ability to be materially successfully continues to be put in the “too hard” basket and officially ignored (The Challenge of Aboriginal Advancement).

Shane Hearn, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, writes: The process of defining problems and selecting the right solutions is one of major importance and a skill that offers politicians a real opportunity to make a difference to citizen’s lives. One of the fundamental rules in identifying solutions is that they match the problems, and don’t repeat the same mistakes. Time and time again the current Government has not defined the problem well in regard to indigenous people’s affairs. One reason is they have shown little regard to engage key stakeholders in the discussion. This has resulted in a failure to determine just what the issues are and what crucial activities are working to bring about positive change to enhance indigenous people’s right to a quality of life. Martin Luther King proposed that in order to answer the question, where do we go from here, we must first honestly recognize where we are now? The fact is that the Howard Government doesn’t have the answer. They continually ask the wrong questions and as a consequence miss the opportunity to provide real solutions on this issue. The approach to control, intimidate and restrict people rights is the reason Aboriginal people experience lower quality of life today. In fact are the reasons any population group will experience lower quality in life. It’s like saying the antidote to peace is to wage war. Unless the Howard government realise the causes of the problem that are at its roots they will continue to make rookie mistakes and continue to create deprivation in our communities. The purpose of a plan should be to protect against increasing deprivation, poverty and to safe guard liberty of life. A plan in brief that increases understanding of the issues and describes factors that contribute to a higher quality of life. Possibly a multi-dimensional plan free of Howard’s and Brough’s formulaic and clichéd thinking. Such a plan would need time to develop, not just appear because a government is feeling the pinch in an election year and in desperate search of a political angle to win the next election. Real solutions exist when a concerted effort is made to find them; solutions rarely are sustainable from sloppy analysis. 

The ‘left’ fail to respond:

Chris Hunter writes: Re. “The left defend failure – and fail to respond” (yesterday, item 13). Yesterday Christian Kerr certainly showed us why he warrants two entries on the Bias-o-meter. His statement: “At least Rundle must be pleased that the biggest apartheid institution of them all, ATSIC, has been dismantled,” could be taken either way — hard-left or hard-right — ultra-Karl or manic-Maggie. Christian, is the Aboriginal Nation a nation? Do you support their flag? By creeping into this country over the last two centuries and setting up our version of government it is us (non-indigenous) who have created the apartheid! ATSIC was a valid institution, no more, no less so, than the Commonwealth Government of Australia. Should that have been “dismantled” too? Why stop at ATSIC? You got it wrong Christian — the biggest apartheid institution of them all is white Australia!

Judith Gamper writes: Christian Kerr, hadn’t Labor committed a sizable sum ($261 million or was it billion?) some weeks ago to target the education and well-being of very young indigenous children. This to me was a very good starting point. Of course, health, housing and community support etc. have to be there too. But I agree with most of what you’ve written, though.

Doug Clark writes: Hey — I’m as right-wing as the next Liberal voter (and a great fan of Crikey!) but I felt an almighty twang when I read Christian’s reference to “…a few boong kids…” in item 13. Not a good look, whatever the context was. Too many clarets at the club, Christian?

Compulsory medical checks in the NT:

Nick Smith writes: Re. “What are Howard’s compulsory medical checks going to cost?” (yesterday, item 7). Your NT observer raises many good points, but to take things further — what happens if definite evidence of child abuse of any type is found upon examination? Are the affected children returned to their potential abusers? If not — where do they go from the consulting room? This exercise appears not to have been planned adequately, if at all. Federal politicians throwing pre-election money around need to do some thinking too. One hopes this initiative does not simply unravel, but the signs are not good.

Ange Kenos writes: I have the perfect solution to stop the expenditure of money on health checks for Aboriginal kids. All the MPs now forego their pay rises … Sorry I cannot hear any response from any MP. I said that MPs could ensure that the thing is costed by giving up their latest undeserved pay rises. Still cannot hear anything from any MP.

Bureaucrats and Aboriginal funding:

Kevin Cox writes: Re. “Will the bureaucrats be happy to let Aboriginal Australia take over?” (yesterday, item 9). A long term strategy towards funding Aboriginal – and other disadvantaged groups — could go something like this. 1) The Government allocates an amount of money earmarked to address the problems faced by these groups. This is guaranteed for a rolling three years. 2) Money is assigned each year to any citizen who volunteers to take the time to decide how to allocate it. Thus if 1,000,000 citizens decide to sign up then the money is divided equally between them all. 3) Community groups, and other groups propose projects that address the problem as they see it. These projects are submitted to a vetting group that does not attempt to evaluate its desirability only whether it appears to meet the general objectives of the fund. The people who are meant to be the ones who will benefit from the funds are nominated in the project and they agree to be part of the project. 4) Groups who think they can select from different projects will be allowed to register and are like fund managers. They can do the work of evaluation for citizens but for a fee. 5) The citizens now select each year the projects to which they want their funds to go. They cannot select a project for which they are nominated as a beneficiary. 6) Projects have a maximum amount of funds they can receive and it is related to the number of people benefiting from the project. Projects that do not get a “minimum” amount are not funded at all. 7) Citizens who allocate their funds get six monthly reports on the progress of the projects or schemes. While this might sound complicated it is not nearly as complicated as the way governments normally spend and account for funds because there is no judgment made on the whether the money is being spent wisely or not. Importantly projects are allowed to fail by not getting enough funds. The scheme will create a market where the projects are the things being sold and the buyers are the volunteer citizens. This is not a replacement for regular civil services like police, health, social security but it is more for infrastructure and development and to supplement the normal services that are provided.

Lawyer up and sue:

Stephen Magee writes: Alan Kennedy (yesterday, comments) advocates “lawyering up and suing the relevant authorities” if your daughter is faced with mandatory gyn-cological examination. That really says it all about the god-awful mess we’re currently in. Get drunk and injure yourself? Lawyer up and sue! Make a bad investment decision? Lawyer up and sue! Overstayed your student visa? Lawyer up and sue! A genuine attempt to break the omerta of child abuse in Aboriginal communities? Lawyer up and sue! There’s a whole world of possibilities there. Now that the “Not happy John” bumper stickers are starting to fade, perhaps there’s a market for “Lawyer up and sue” stickers. Why stop there? Why not a “Lawyer Up and Sue” candidate to run against Howard in Bennelong? I look forward to lawyerupandsue.org, the Lawyer Up and Sue Quarterly, the Annual Lawyer Up and Sue Award (“the judges rejected criticism that the award to Osama Bin Laden was wrong, describing their critics as Australian-reading neofascists who are out of touch with Australia’s obligations under international Sharia law”), Fran Kelly’s interviews with spokespeople for Lawyer Up and Sue (“which one of you is Sue?”), etc, etc.

The failed State of East Timor:

Stephen Luntz writes: Re. “East Timor: Our very own failed state” (yesterday, item 15). The situation would be similar in West Papua — independence would bring much suffering, but the people would overwhelmingly prefer it to the brutality of today. The key thing that unites the left position on these issues with those on remote indigenous communities is support for self-determination. Let the affected people decide what the best solution is. Choices will probably vary from community to community, but that will work a whole lot better than Howard and Kerr’s view that they (and two Aboriginal leaders from other parts of the country) have all the answers.

Mark Robinson writes: Christian Kerr wants to blame “the left” for creating the “failed state” of East Timor. So presumably Christian, Timor was better off being ruled by the invaders and occupiers who killed 200,000 people in 25 years? Once again Christian comes up with a simplistic rant but offers no alternatives. And the same goes for his views on West Papua — are we supposed to sit back and allow the TNI to kill and torture people for years to come? Is it not completely fair and understandable for the West Papuans to seek an end to the brutal occupation that currently treats them as slaves?

Roger Philp writes: Failed states. We program them to failure so we can continue to strip them of their natural wealth whilst appearing to rehabilitate them. We would not be interested in Timor were it not be for the oil reserves. We are quite happy to see Indonesia trampling Papua as the copper at Tabubil is drying up. NZ is trying to rid itself of Tokelau under the guise of UN approval, when Tokelauans are quite happy to remain a colony, just as the Fijians were in 1962 when they were forced into independence — the end result four coups. Independence is all very well, but there has to be allowance for periods of adjustment while the new elites sort themselves out — sometimes by the “rule of club”.

Conferences and tax dodges:

Peter Hill writes: Re. “Trauma conference, or tax dodge piste-up?” (Yesterday, item 5). Thomas Hunter asserts “The really good news for attendees is that their flight and accommodation expenses could be covered by the Australian taxpayer, courtesy of some neat tax deductions.” This is not correct. Even if the entire conference time was focused on professional learning, and thus fully tax- deductible, the attendees would still be “covering” most of the cost, not the Australian taxpayer. Tax deductions reduce taxable income, not tax. In any event, last year’s same event at the same location was officially approved as Continuing Medical Education for the Maintenance of Professional Standards for Anesthetists, so why pick on anesthetists? The issue, as with any such conference commonly held offshore, is the extent to which the attendee’s expenditure is of a private or domestic nature, because that’s the part for which there is no tax deduction.

A health industry insider writes: Four hours a day is pretty good for a conference. I’ve been to many conferences where I am lucky to stay awake for four hours, let alone remember any of it.

What next? Chicken entrails?:

Peter Hogan writes: Re. “Numbers game: Crikey’s numerologist rates the election dates” (yesterday, item 16). Is this meant to be serious? Crikey using a numerologist? What next, an astrologer, reading chicken entrails? Clive Marshall may have impressive credentials but that doesn’t mean numerology has any credibility. Could you at least add a disclaimer such as “For entertainment only”.

John Arthur Daley writes: As a numerologist with over 35 years on radio all over Australia I would like to give my input into predictions for the coming election. Kevin Rudd’s chart reminds me of Gough Whitlam’s which was so bad that I knew he would have to be elected so that he would have a height to fall from. Likewise this is a very disappointing year for Kevin and there will be a major disappointment coming to him before the election. The mood of the Australian people is for change just as it was when Gough was running. People also know that John Howard would not stay at the helm for long if re-elected. John Howard’s chart indicates that he comes into money next year and this would point to resignation and the collection of his retirement benefits. A government led by Kevin Rudd will be very disorganised and full of divisions. No matter who wins I believe that we are heading into a major world financial collapse and the good times will come to an end in a spectacular way. The difference between 1931 and 2008 is that young people will not queue looking for work as they did in my father’s day, but will riot and become very lawless.

How to avoid mortality:

John Bliss writes: Re. “$1.1 billion chance to change health care” (yesterday, item 19). Jennifer Doggett reports that there is “a wealth of international evidence that a health system focused on primary care achieves … lower rates of all causes of mortality”. Now pardon me if I’m sceptical. Everyone dies of something, so if there is a lower rate of mortality associated with some causes, surely others must rise to compensate. Perhaps we could be enlightened as to which ones will get worse so that we can avoid them.

Rove is not a gopher:

Dave Graves writes: Re. “Xzibit disses Rove, aka the gopher, on MySpace” (yesterday, item 24). Not sure whether your writer was being deliberately ingenuous re “aka the gopher”, but clearly Xzibit was referring to a person on Rove’s staff, rather than Rove himself, in his MySpace rant. “The gopher of the show” — ie., the person appointed to run around (“go for – “) doing errands for Rove.

Oops:

Yesterday’s typos (house pedant Charles Richardson casts an eye over the howlers in the last edition of Crikey): Item 14: “Malcolm Fraser says he admires Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand says she admires Malcolm Fraser. Neither has a clue what they are talking about.” A perfectly acceptable paraphrase, but since it’s in quotes it would be better if it were the actual words: “Malcolm Fraser has expressed his fondness for Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has expressed her fondness for Malcolm Fraser. Obviously neither knows what the other is talking about.” (Rip Van Australia, 1977, p.50).

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.