Closing the door on Africans:

Robert Johnson writes from Namibia: Re “Kevin Andrews prods the Sudanese in the woodpile” (yesterday, item 1). It’s not just the Herald-Sun with headlines like “We close door on Africans”. Here (in Africa) I’ve been seeing similar reports in the headlines passing across the bottom of the TV from both the English-language “France24” news channel as well as the South African Broadcasting Corporation TV news service, through much of the day. (I’m in Namibia, and both services reach into a number of countries in the continent.) “France24” has also today screened Downer calling on the UN envoy to sit down with Aung Sun Suu Kyi to plan a transition to democracy, rather than talking to the military junta. Maybe this plays well in Australia, but it sure seems either naïve or paternalistic lecturing from over here; as if that’s all that’s needed. I hope that’s not a(nother) colour wedge I feel coming on.

Vern Hughes, Director of the Centre for Civil Society, writes: Hands up all the Crikey writers who send their kids to schools with large numbers of Sudanese kids? Funny that, the Sudanese and Somalis tend to not live in the fashionable suburbs. At my kids’ schools (Footscray City Secondary and Maribyrnong Secondary) the cultural issues and educational challenges facing all kids dealing with this mix are very, very difficult. Too difficult, I think, for young kids who are being experimented on by policy makers and their barrackers who, by the way, mostly send their kids to schools in leafy anglo/asian enclaves. Does race play a part in choice of schools by the politically correct? You bet it does!

Hockey channels Yes, Prime Minister: 

John Parkes writes: Having seen part of Minister Hockey’s comments on the latest report on AWAs I could only think of the classic Yes Prime Minister. Hacker was taught how to rubbish a report by criticising the author’s background rather than the report, especially if the report seemed accurate. And we saw it all the other night. I guess that at least may suggest Mr. Hockey is well read. Of course it may just suggest that Yes Prime Minister’s authors were accurate when they pointed out the methods used by politicians to hide the truth from the public.

Ministerial defamation protection:

Dave Liberts writes: Re. “Time to end ministers’ defamation protection” (yesterday, item 16). Richard Farmer’s article on ministerial defamation laws picks up where Stephen Mayne left off a couple of years ago. I earned myself a free 6-month Crikey subscription for an article which Crikey ran on 18 October 2005, telling the awful tale of how South Australian taxpayers picked up a massive bill when former SA Liberal minister Wayne Matthew defamed SA state MP Kris Hanna. (Matthew was indemnified by the Olsen Liberal Government despite Matthew’s defamatory comments having nothing to do with his mines and energy portfolio and Crown Law advice that the indemnity was not appropriate.) But just because these indemnities are abused is not a reason to throw them out altogether. Ministers sometimes need to make and explain decisions which upset certain people – say, an environment minister explaining that a development application has been refused because the developer is dodgy. Ministers need protection from vexatious litigation in these cases. Interestingly, another South Australian case involved independent Nick Xenephon appealing a court’s decision that taxpayers pick up the bill for a defamation against Xenephon by former SA Treasurer Rob Lucas – the court rejected Xenephon’s appeal, saying that governments have the right to grant such indemnities, and if taxpayers don’t like it, the remedy is to vote for someone else. I’d rather see a compromise solution, where the courts or an ombudsman can determine if the indemnity is warranted rather than leave it up to dodgy governments.

AIJAC, Israel and Ahmadinejad:

Rodney Sewell writes: Bren Carlill, Policy Analyst with the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, wrote (yesterday, comments): “Ahmadinejad regularly calls for Israel to be wiped off the map…” I know of one (allegedly mistranslated) quote from Iran’s President where he said that Israel would, according to an allegedly correct translation “disappear” from the map. Could Bren Carlill please quote any of the “regular” occasions when Ahmadinejad has called for Israel’s destruction?

Matt Longworth writes: Bren Carlill, Policy Analyst with the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, yesterday wrote of “the fact Ahmadinejad regularly calls for Israel to be wiped off the map” yet makes no reference to any authority to establish this regularly made assertion as fact. Indeed, one is entitled to ask “which map”? The ongoing demonisation of Ahmadinejad is used to assign intent to Iran’s nuclear program and position possible responses as justifiable yet Ahmadinejad’s own website doesn’t make any reference to maps among the many it makes to Israel, a fact at the very least inconsistent with the regularly made assertion. I am always cautious of the casual use of “wiped off the map” and the implication that it is common knowledge or should be accepted as fact.

Mark Davis writes: As a two year subscriber I am getting really pissed off that Loewenstein is the main contributor with regards to any issues relating to Jews/Israel. His views are only representative of an extreme minority of Jews & borders on anti-Semitic (even though he professes to be Jewish) so as to render your publication totally biased. He never gets the facts correct and you are fooling your readers by not having a regular contributor who knows something about Israel. I am not saying they need agree – just start by getting the facts right. There are many commentators both on the left and right who can make a better contribution. Get rid of his drivel!!!

Harry Butler and Green Stalinists:

Philip Branch writes: Re. Harry Butler and Green Stalinists (yesterday, item 13). Hmmm… I think you are wrong about Harry Butler. He may well have described parts of Kakadu as “clapped-out buffalo country” (although I thought that was Gareth Evans). But if Harry is no longer remembered today, it’s not because of Kakadu but because in 1982 he managed to get embroiled in the Tasmanian Dams issue. He took a $600 a day consultancy with Harry Holgate’s government which wanted to build the dam. He was (perhaps wrongly) seen as selling out to the dam builders. If he was sent to Siberia, it was because of that, not because of Kakadu.

Australia’s space history:

Ian Redpath writes: Re. “Sputnik 2: The space age Australia never had” (yesterday, item 20). The moonwalk mumbles were received by the radio telescope at Honeysuckle Creek, not the one at Parkes (regardless of what they say in the movie).

Climate change report shock:

Nathan Quigley writes: Re. “Climate change report shock: We’re doomed!” (yesterday, item 14). If the CSIRO is correct, and climate change has actually exacerbated this drought, I look forward eagerly to hearing the same smug voices who would deny drought assistance to our farmers complaining when Pacific Islanders receive aid after losing their homes to rising sea levels. Surely the silly beggars shouldn’t be living there in the first place?

Mayne’s idiotic obsessive campaigns:

Ian Mence writes: Re. “Exclusive: ISS turns the big guns on Rupert” (yesterday, item 5). I am sick and tired of reading about Mayne’s idiotic obsessive campaign against Australia’s most successful businessman Rupert Murdoch. Give it a rest or pump some more serious rational into it. It is pointless and unfounded and does your newsletter no good.

Farming business:

Farm Radio’s Chris Brown writes: Re. Ian Farquhar’s comments (yesterday, comments). How can legislating against the big supermarkets owning our farms help family farmers through a drought? Someone has to own the farms – if not the farmers, then who? Perhaps the boss at Crikey should invite Ian Farquhar to explain how legislation would stop the emergence of inefficient corporate agriculture and higher food prices as he suggests. Ian (or Farquhar if you prefer) can you please point to any entire small business sector that can face catastrophic failure at one particular time due to forces beyond their control? If you can and it ever occurs, I will be the first to argue for government intervention in the form of assistance. You clearly would not. Sure individual businesses fail all of the time, including individual farm businesses. But that’s in the main due to forces well within the control of the individual operators (low business capital, unsustainable growth, unreasonabl expectations, poor planning etc.) That can’t be compared to a sustained drought (have you been out to see it Ian Farquhar? Maybe that’s a new business opportunity – arranging drought tours for people who don’t believe farmers need help at this time). Rather than trying to score idealogical points against me, perhaps you can come up with some well thought out solutions. Please start by elaborating on how you would legislate against corporate agriculture in Australia and how that would help retain our very efficient family farmer base.

Chris Hunter writes: The critical point being missed in the “farming business” debate is the mental health factor. Ian Farquhar treats the issue solely as an economic one, ultimately equating and crunching numbers with scant regard to other costs. People’s fear is not a simple equation.  Proven sufferers of  claustrophobia can have this illness taken into account should they face jail. Orwell made a marked point  in his novel “The Road to Wigan Pier.” In probing the new socialism he admitted that “levels” of suffering had to be acknowledged. In terms of mental anguish, during the depression, the middle class suffered the most. Their suicide rate was well up. This is my question. Imagine. Your remote area farm has failed. You are now an official bankrupt. You have worked yourself to the bone. You are jaded. You have a faraway look. You stand in a queue in Melbourne. You are looking for work. You are in protracted shock. But you don’t understand it yourself, you were the fourth generation — you lost the farm. But you still have a gun license. You won’t tell anyone. Say nothing. Just bugger off. Shouldn’t be too hard. Bill did it. And Stan’s talked about it…

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.