Ark Tribe case update

Ava Hubble writes: The office of the Federal Director of Public Prosecutions in South Australia has confirmed that three days of hearings before Magistrate David Whittle concluded yesterday. Written submissions are now expected to be filed.  A decision is not expected to be handed down for some time.

As reported in Crikey on June 18 and July 14, Ark Tribe, a rigger and CFMEU member, has been charged with failing to attend an Australian Building and Construction Commission inquiry.  If found guilty he faces six months imprisonment.

Queensland abortion law

Alex Fishburn writes: “Queensland abortion law — entrenched in the 19th century” (yesterday, item 15) Professor Caroline de Costa tries to denigrate Queensland Abortion law by tracing it to the English Offences against the Person Act 1861. Surely if something is wrong it does not matter how old the act is?

De Costa thinks the 1861 act has been “abolished”. It has not. It is still the basis in England for charging of offences of bodily harm and yes it still forbids abortion. Under the Abortion Act 1967 there is a licence to perform abortions in the UK. As a matter of legal principle, there can only be a licence if the behaviour concerned is otherwise forbidden — hence OAPA 1861 is still in force.

By the way it is also still in force in the Republic of Ireland but we don’t usually go after the Irish do we?

In the UK the requirement of the law is concurrence of two doctors that certain specified conditions (actually heaps and heaps are available) are met. If what Professor de Costa says were true then anybody could perform an abortion if the mother consented. Either abortion is wrong or it isn’t. The date and provenance of the law forbidding it is irrelevant. Professor de Costa is just trying to get  some oogedy boogedy going against the olden days (yikes the wicked 19th century and aargh the evil Poms) to support her own contention that the law of Queensland should be changed. Premier Bligh agrees but thinks Parliament might use the opportunity to tighten up the law. You know what, maybe Parliament would be right.

Cabinet leaks

Grant Dewar writes: Normal cabinet rules allow disclosure after 30 years, I would imagine sensitive defence related issues would have a 100-year rule — and I am sure there are some never to be released.

How is it  then that the caretaker government has leaked against the former Prime Minister Rudd in such a way as to have another free boot to denigrate his reputation and legacy  with Rudd having no ability to reply?

Despite  the alleged behaviour — the non-elected Prime Minister Gillard has already confirmed Rudd’s continuing suitability for high office — does this not damage the credibility of herself and all other cabinet minister’s involved?

If the leak has come from defence personnel or public servants — should this leak be the subject of a judicial level enquiry?

Will someone kindly point these issues out in Crikey’s analysis?

This is the most egregious and disgusting junta that has ever  raised a head in Australian politics.

Australian values

Peter Crowley writes: Re. “Crikey patriots pipe up about Gillard’s Australian values” (yesterday, item 3). W-nkers and bigots love to use the term “Australian values”.

Politicians (who are nearly all -ankers) often use it, especially as a cover for bigoted remarks or to appeal to the bigoted.

Mark Putland writes: The whole thing is a load of codswallop. The set of values listed are about as specific to Australia as the Herald Sun Sagittarius horoscope is to me. Hard work? What nation in the world admits that they don’t work hard? Education? Who is not a fan?

As for why Gillard scores better than some? I suspect “plain speaking” puts people in mind of her strine accent. Also, I suspect most of the people who convinced by the concept of Australian values enough to try to work out which pollie embodies them the most are the sort of people who don’t hold much with greenies, especially ones who have been to university. And who honestly likes Tony Abbott anyway?

My Australian values? How about win at all costs no matter what consequences for decency, sportsmanship, loyalty or compassion? Maybe racism. And anti-intellectualism.

At least mateship is getting a rest.

Lorraine Bochsler writes: My experience is that “hard work and education” is more like the value system of migrants.  Regarding everyone as equal: a value that is often declared, rarely meant — especially when it comes to the homeless and those suffering mental illness.

Respect: again something I have noticed strongly held in (newer) migrant families, far less so amongst those who consider themselves proudly Australian and “plain speaking” I find is an excuse for lack of basic language skills. You have to have good language skills to be able to communicate simply and clearly.  Swearing and repetitive language is not plain speaking.

Jenny d’Arcy writes: I’ve never considered myself to be typical of anything, having always been an outsider both at school and at home*, so I’ve tended to conclude that anybody who isn’t me, or isn’t like me, must be typically Australian.

(* I’ve since met quite a few people, through work and membership to various environmental organisations, who are of a similar mindset)

After hearing that the debate between the PM and the leader of the opposition is going to be scheduled around MasterChef I’ve decided that I don’t want to know what “Australian values” are since this decision is apparently a reflection of what the majority of Australians think is important.

I’ve stopped reading newspapers (aside from the excellent Guardian Weekly) and watching commercial television for the same reason.

Philip Knight writes: Why does our new PM keep talking about our “birthrights”, when so many of us were not born  here, but berthed later in Oz?

No innovation

Robert Tulip writes: Re: “Climate spending promises: beware of cashed up politicians” (yesterday, item 1) Australia lacks an innovation culture.  This helps to explain the persistent under-spend on climate innovation.  For excellent cutting edge global debate on innovation, see the magazine of the World Bank Institute The Power of Innovation

Immigration

David Havyatt writes: In your editorial (yesterday) you suggest that the PM is being “evasive” on immigration levels.  I respectfully submit she is just being rational.  The population discussion and hence immigration needs to be linked to infrastructure — you need to balance the two.  I could note that the Liberals seem to have an equally balanced view — but theirs is cut immigration and don’t spend on infrastructure.

Meanwhile, in Campaign Crikey Leftovers (yesterday, item 13) you (understandably) struggle with how Kevin Rudd saying “If elected, Mr Rudd intends to serve a full term” can be criticised for not being a guarantee.  Perhaps he could use the line I’ve previously told Crikey that John Howard used with me before the 2004 election to the same question.  He said “I will always do the right thing”.

Flight paths over WA

Louise Bettison, journalist for the Joondalup/Wanneroo Times, writes: Re. the Steve Irons tip (item 6, yesterday). As someone who covered the flight path issue here in WA, I can advise that part of your “tip” was false. The most recent flight path changes in 2010 were indeed associated with a temporary runway fix.

However, what I believe Mr Irons referred to was the change late 2008 continuing to adversely affect many Perth residents today, in his electorate and others.

These same problems prompted a federal inquiry, completed just this month, so seem hardly to fall into the category of “misinformation”.

To be clear, I do not have any ties to Mr Irons, and share the tipster’s disgust over the alleged misuse of taxpayer-funded postage and stationery.

I enjoy Crikey and usually trust the content, but perhaps the “tips” need a little more investigation (especially during the election period, when comments about one candidate or another can become far more powerful) before publication.

Branding Brandis

Lawrie Colliver writes: Re. Michael R James on George Brandis (comments, yesterday). You obviously don’t see Emerson and Brandis go head to head regularly on Sky News. Emerson is one of the great interrupters of all time — and captain of the moaners XI. Unbelievable and unlistenable when he makes his appearances on Sky News. One of the greatest denialists of all time — you’d think this Labor hadn’t wasted any money or done anything wrong in the past three years. Reminds me of whingeing high school student or a Collingwood supporter.

Anyway, all pollies interrupt each other all the time so get over it!

Crikey hearts Kim Lockwood

Kim Lockwood writes: Re. “Tips and rumours: only full-fat ice-cream at Risdon … Gary hearts Callum” (yesterday, item 6). For the second time recently Crikey has used “heart” as a verb. Why? The heart symbol denotes “love”. “I love New York”, not “I heart New York”.

Yes, the people of Gen X or Z or whatever the latest gen is do use it as you have, but more, I suspect, out of ignorance than anything else. If it’s shaped like a heart it must stand for “heart”, mustn’t it?

That’s not the way pictographs work. C’mon Crikey, heart your readers.