World Youth Day:

Jim Hanna, Director of Communications, World Youth Day 2008 writes: Crikey’s piece on World Youth Day (yesterday, item 17) was almost accurate, but I understand Emma Rugg had trouble contacting us yesterday. Which is a pity because we would have made it clear to her that it’s incorrect to write: “Entry to the pivotal final mass at Randwick Racecourse will be restricted to registered pilgrims only.” Those who register and pay to attend World Youth Day events will get priority seating ahead of those who turn up on the day. But Randwick Racecourse can seat more than 300,000 people and we are expecting around 225,000 registered pilgrims. So quite a large number of Sydneysiders should be able to see the Pope in person without paying for anything more than their train fare. Most people would regard a priority seating system as reasonable and sensible when you consider we’ll have to accommodate up to 500,000 people (including 125,000 from overseas) at Randwick Racecourse and nearby Centennial Park. Just like any other major event, we need to allocate and reserve spaces for those who pre-register to avoid unnecessary delays and confusion. These are some of the lessons we learnt from past World Youth Day host cities. There will also be other opportunities to see the Pope for free while he’s here. The best will be during his official arrival and welcome on Sydney Harbour and through the streets of the CBD. Everybody’s welcome!

Cricket fiasco:

Steve Johnson writes: Re. Cricket fiasco; The commentators have got it wrong (yesterday, item 19). No, Adam Schwab, the scribes yesterday got it as close to right as possible, and bless the SMH for running it front page, too. It was a case of Harbharjan’s word against three Australians, and you have no proof otherwise. Peter Roebuck, while colourful in the extreme in his criticisms of the Australian team and its behaviour, has it close to right. Without the perceived poor sportsmanship and thin-skinned behaviour, none of this would be news, and the Indian Team and ICCB would not reacted in this manner. The Indians were treated with great disrespect. As hosts, we must accept responsibility for the failure of a Test because of poor umpiring decisions and pathetic little name-calling sideshows. While we may not control the quality of umpires, we do control our reaction to winning a game when the rub of the green as gone our way for five days. But no, instead we get triumphal posturing and prancing, and no acknowledgment that luck played a big part in our win. This primal chest-beating will not earn Australia the international respect we seem so desperately to seek as a young nation. As reactionary as Peter Roebuck’s claim sounds that Ponting resign as captain – and it will never happen – it may be the only action that can prevent years of hard work for Australia to regain the respect it arguably earned under Chappell, Border and Taylor as tough and competitive and fair-minded. It may well be goodbye to meaningful Test cricket for Australia, otherwise. Pontings next utterance will determine it.

David Hand writes: Whatever views people are expressing about umpires’ competency, the nature of “monkey” as a racial slur and the politics of the international cricket community, one thing has been patently proven. The greatest sledgers in world cricket can’t take it.

Christopher Ridings writes: It’s a great pity some great performances from both sides in the Sydney Test has been obscured by gamesmanship dominating over sportsmanship. There are no heroes in this off-field controversy and the longer it goes on the worse it is going to look. I think everyone involved has been sufficiently damaged. It is time, as Jim Maxwell said on Monday night’s ABC’s 7.30 Report, for some graciousness to emerge. A few mutual apologies all round and an umpire’s voluntary retirement should prick this cancerous bubble before cricket becomes the loser.

Income management in Aboriginal communities:

Bob Durnan, Health Services Development Officer with the Western Aranda Health Aboriginal Corporation, writes: “Government’s bargain basement apology to stolen generations” (yesterday, item 4). Graham Ring in his comments critical of the Rudd Government’s experiments with Income Management (of welfare income) chooses to ignore the fact that there are overwhelming levels of violence and child neglect associated with excessive alcohol and illegal drug consumption on the Alice Springs town camps (and in most remote Aboriginal communities). The fact that some more responsible town camp dwellers choose to voluntarily use food vouchers to buy from the Tangentyere-owned shop rather than carry cash simply attests to the extremely problematic environment in which they are forced to live. The “self-quarantining” by the few does nothing to obviate the government’s ethical and political responsibility to act and act quickly, given the seriousness of the problems and the failure of other measures over three decades.

Questions for Eslake:

Deborah Hurst writes: Yesterday’s editorial was something of a teaser. You quote ANZ chief economist Saul Eslake as saying that “The main reason why banks haven’t moved before this point is because of the extraordinary political pressure exerted on banks by the previous government, and in particularly by the previous treasurer Peter Costello.” Surely Mr Eslake can’t leave it at that. We need to know: What kind of pressure? What did the former Treasurer threaten to do if the banks put up their rates? How were those threats conveyed? And with the Labor victory always looking a sure thing, why were the banks spooked by a lame duck Treasurer? Any answers, Mr Eslake?

US 08:

William Fettes writes: Re. US 08: Obama the next JFK? An audacity of hope (yesterday, item 11). David MacCormack’s labelling of Obama as paper-thin is a superficial analysis. MacCormack completely ignores the role Obama has played on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in regards to arms control and proliferation, as well as his co-sponsoring efforts in good governance and campaign finance reform legislation. He also discounts Obama’s significant achievements prior to coming to office as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, and as a state Senator and community organiser. MacCormack seems to take umbrage at Obama’s lack of executive experience in foreign policy matters, but apparently accepts uncritically that a flyspeck governorship, a large mayoralty, and a stint as first lady somehow magically grants this experience. I would suggest a far better guide than such rule-of-thumb punditry would be to actually look at the foreign policy advisers of the respective candidates. In this, I would say that the Obama camp having people like Samantha Power and Zbigniew Brzezinski is a clear win over the Republican field, who still overwhelmingly embrace neo-con crazies like John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz. Finally, speaking as someone who is sad enough to have actually read every candidate’s foreign policy platform in the Foreign Affairs journal, I would say, far and away, that Giuliani and Romney would have to be the most light-weight foreign policy candidates by far.

Sandra Kanck writes: Re. “US 08: Hillary Agonistes” (yesterday, item 2). What a surprise. One female candidate in the whole presidential race in the US, and it is this candidate only that Guy Rundle evaluates in terms of age and looks.

Air quality and lawnmowers:

Jelena May writes: Re: Air quality and lawnmowers. I am responding to an article by Alex Mitchell in yesterday’s Crikey (item 14). I sympathise with Alex’s desire to see real information about and analysis of government programs. However, in this article he is not really correct. We have seen a big improvement in ambient concentrations of many pollutants in urban areas in the last 10 to 15 years, largely as a result of improvements in engine efficiency, government standards and removal of fuel additives. This effect can still be seen even though the number of people and cars is increasing. So, there are two issues: 1. air quality has generally improved and 2. a study reported damage to foetuses in areas of relatively high pollution compared to areas of relatively low pollution. These are not mutually exclusive statements, and even a highly polluted area could be better relative to 15 years ago but still remain highly polluted. I am more familiar with air quality issues in WA, but issues faced are similar across Australia (and the world).

Big Coal:

Mark Byrne writes: Ralph Hillman, head of the Australian Coal Association, avoids the tough question (yesterday, comments): “What part, if any, can coal play in our ‘war footing’ against climate change?” Yes, there is a possibility that CCS (carbon capture and storage) will be commercially viable (in limited locations) down the track but as Hillman himself previously indicated commercial demonstration of CCS is not expected before 2015 and fully fledged industrial scale operation not before 2020. The industry establishment at the International Energy Association agrees that CCS is decades away. It has already conceded that growth in renewables will play a greater role than CCS in reducing CO2 emissions until at least 2030. The IPCC has calculated that if we want to have a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous (runaway) climate change, we must stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations below 450ppm CO2e. To achieve this, emissions must start to decline by 2015 and then follow a trajectory of cuts of approx 50% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Hard yakka is needed between now and 2030. But like nuclear, CCS is unable to make a significant contribution over this time. Big Coal has done very well with subsides. We now need a war-type effort for the roll-out of existing low-carbon technologies (renewables) and a program of demand reduction.

Not the Scott brothers:

Stephen Mayne writes: Centro CEO Andrew Scott, a former Coles Myer property boss, and disgraced former Coles supermarket chief Peter Scott are not brothers, as I wrote on December 18. Peter Scott did have a brother working at the Coles headquarters called Alan Scott, but he has since joined The Warehouse group. The bum information came from a respected retail recruiter, who apologises, as do I.

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.