Political appointments:

Michael Kennedy, Director, Humane Society International, writes: Re. “The Howard Government’s record of political appointments” (29 November, item 20). It’s rather strange to be slandered for being successful at doing the job you are paid to do, and to be painted as some sort of government lackey. As professional lobbyists, our organisation pursues the development and implementation of effective environmental management without fear or favour – if we want to be effective – and we are – we have no choice. We work as closely as we can with any Minister’s office, Labor or Liberal, or with the minor parties, to achieve our conservation aims – pure and simple. I also have “close ties” to the Labor Party, as a one time senior Ministerial adviser in the Hawke Government. My organisation has also sued the Howard Government over environmental mismanagement more times than any other conservation NGO in the past 10 years. Perhaps this is what you mean by “close ties…” Oh, and while we may lobby in favour of some Coalition Government environment measures (shock horror) we mostly sell them our own…

Alistair Graham, Biological Diversity Advisory Committee, writes: For Crikey to have identified us as “close to the Howard Government” is flattering but to allow it to be inferred that we are, in some way, inclined to support one government or party more than any other government or party is offensive and inaccurate. We pride ourselves in having managed to become close to every environment minister Australia has ever had, with absolutely no regard for his or her party affiliation. It is the electors of Australia who elect MPs, some of whom get to form the government of the day, and it is our responsibility to work with whoever gets a Guernsey – in any role- to help them do their job. This, it has always seemed to us, is part of the job of any national environmental group with an advocacy role. As to the specifics, BDAC was actually set up by a Hawke Government – at the behest of ourselves and others. Similarly, the AHC was set up by the Whitlam Government – a bit before our time. We have dedicated our professional lives to the cause of improving the protection of wildlife and the health of natural ecosystems not only in Australia but across the world – and we are sufficiently good at it to have been called upon to give advice by every government Australia has had in the last twenty-five years – the last four Howard governments being no exception – and we look forward to doing exactly the same for the Rudd Labor government and those that come after it. Insofar as our professional success rests upon decision-makers of all persuasions trusting that our advice in untainted by partisan considerations, Crikey might like to clarify its intent in identifying us as “close to the Howard Government”.

Conservative warriors unite to sink Turnbull:

David Havyatt writes: Re. “Conservative warriors unite to sink Turnbull” (Friday, item 3). It must have been tough for Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott to choose between the Republican and the former ALP member. But then again the conservatives have had the latter before – in fact the very first member of Brendan Nelson’s seat of Bradfield (in 1949) was the greatest Labor rat of all, W.M. Hughes. And a trivia question: is this the first time a party has changed leader for a member in an adjoining seat? (Not counting the artificial outcome of Gorton succeeding Holt in the same seat).

Jeff Barker writes: Many have made the observation that it’s bad for the Liberal Party that Malcolm Turnbull wasn’t elected leader. As a swinging voter, I believe it is bad for Australia. The country needs a strong opposition lead by an intelligent leader who knows we’re in the 21st century, not a leader who remains entrenched in the 20th century.

Peter Shaw writes: Given the large number of Crikey commentators saying the Liberal Party needs to move to centre, it’s time for some perspective. Kevin Rudd is already there! During the election he ran a platform indistinguishable from the Liberal Party on every issue except WorkChoices and Kyoto. I suspect Kevin will govern from the centre so a me too approach by the Libs would mean they’d need to wait until the electorate gets sick of Rudd (because its hard to criticise policies you agree with). And these things usually take at least three terms. John Howard was never right wing. He is the man who confiscated guns, ruined federalism, and entrenched middle class welfare churn. The liberal party needs to abandon his legacy by moving to the right. Introducing policies on; scrapping taxes, reforming welfare, ending the vertical fiscal imbalance, cutting government, reforming immigration, and rebuilding infrastructure, would be a start. By showing leadership to create an agenda for reform in time Australia might come to elect a real Liberal government.

Rudd’s new Ministry:

Martin Gordon writes: Re. “Rudd’s new Ministry sticks to the Howard mould” (Friday, item 11). The new federal Labor government despite apparently having an affirmative action agenda to promote women is remarkably light on for women. Of 20 Cabinet Minister only 4 (20%) are women, of the 10 junior ministers only 3 are women and of the parliamentary secretaries only 3 out of 12 are women. Overall only 24% of the top office holders are women. Also marked is the fact that women dominate 4 portfolios, but that 14 have no female influence at all at or near the top. All the industry, economic, trade portfolios are completely male dominated. The factional balance is remarkably reflective of the Labor party room too, despite claims of promotion on merit. Remarkably probably the dullest ALP male Senator Kim Carr is the Minister for Innovation etc! Surely there is one woman that is brighter than he in the ranks of the federal ALP?

The Monk’s not mad:

Adam Rope writes: Re. “The Monk’s not mad” (29 November, item 17). I find myself broadly in agreement with Christian Kerr – and Tony Jones – about Tony Abbott. Although I generally detest the man’s politics, I do find myself liking him as – for want of a better phrase – “old style” politician. And by that I mean that he is definitely not one of the pre-programmed, poll-driven, bland, empty shell of a talking head that seems to be the norm these days. I do admire his willingness to do the hard stuff, to return to the debate even when he knows he has already lost. I thought Tony Jones’ sign off on last weeks Lateline chat was a fine acknowledgment of Tony Abbott, and it rose above the petty squabbles of everyday politics. The political scene would be far, far poorer in his absence.

Flint on Nelson:

Ray Edmondson writes: Re. “Flint: Republican cause no closer to fruition” (yesterday, item 17). So David Flint thinks Nelson “performed very well” in his first interview on The 7.30 Report? Instead of using the opportunity to enlighten the electorate and demonstrate that the Libs have a visionary leader offering a new beginning, he waffled on, fending off Kerry O’Brien’s questions and managing to say nothing of any consequence during the entire 14 minutes. Indicating a party still in denial, and disregarding the views of many of his colleagues already on the public record, Dr Nelson was merely offering the mixture as before. His performance was oddly reminiscent of Alexander Downer’s commencement of his brief, pre-Howard manifestation as Opposition Leader. Referring to the instability which had preceded his elevation, Downer declared “today we have put all that behind us”. Not for long, as it turned out. Nelson’s performance also put me in mind of “Party Games”, the transitional episode of the “Yes Minister” series which led to Jim Hacker’s assumption of the Prime Ministership, thanks to the manipulation of Cabinet Secretary Sir Arnold Robinson and Departmental Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby. After hatching the plot over lunch, Arnold and Humphrey instruct Hacker’s private secretary, Bernard Woolley, to ensure that, during the coming weeks, Hacker does nothing controversial and expresses no views on any subject at all. Woolley responds “I think that’s what he was planning to do anyway”. It worked for Hacker, but I doubt it will work for Nelson. Kevin Rudd has nothing to fear.

Ron Kerr writes: As the readers of the Canberra Times want David Barnett kept on as a columnist, so too can I put in a plea that David Flint is kept on by Crikey – just for amusement value.

Alexander Downer:

Moira Smith writes: Re. “What Alexander Downer really thinks of Penny Wong” (Friday, item 1). Thanks for the interesting additional info about Downer’s “off camera” remarks on the ABC Insiders program on the morning after the Coalition’s election defeat. I thought that what he actually said *on* camera, re. Penny Wong’s “party political pap”, was graceless enough. I almost agree with the commenter who feels that of all the odious former front benchers, Downer is the most loathsome. Really though, it’s a close contest. I was so sick of the sneering, duplicitous, rude – and often misogynist – remarks of Heffernan, Costello, Ruddock, Abbott, Hockey and co. Not to mention the way Vanstone used to carry on, before she was translated to Rome. I do hope that Kevin Rudd’s new team can restore civilised behaviour and decent standards to the conduct of Australian politics. Getting rid of the idiotic culture of “Dorothy Dixers” during Question Time would be a good start.

Record high inflation rates:

Sinclair Davidson writes: Re. “Peter Costello: a legacy” (Friday, item 19). In our tribute to Peter Costello we made the point that Gough Whitlam “presided over a record high 17.6 per cent inflation rate in early 1975”. It has been pointed out to us, by Homer Paxton, that 17.6 per cent is not a record high. He points to the early 1950s when inflation peaked at 25.6 per cent in December 1951. We had relied on data from the Reserve Bank of Australia that goes back to September 1970. The ABS provides CPI data back to September 1948. We apologise for the misleading term “record high” in describing Mr Whitlam’s inflation record in office. A more accurate description of Mr Whitlam’s economic record would be that his policies led to disastrously high inflation rates that had not been seen for 20 years before he took office, and have not been seen since.

The low informal vote:

Shay Gordon-Brown writes: Re. “Too close to call? The count continues” (Friday, item 15). I am interested to find out what the psephologists think of the low informal vote in election 07. In this election the informal vote is down approximately 25% on the previous result; 2007 approx 3.84%, 2004 5.18%, 2001 4.81%. I was handing out HTV in Dickson (Qld) and I was amazed at the increased number of people in this election who would not take a HTV card from any of the parties often with the disclaimer ‘I know who I am voting for’. Since Queensland has an optional preferential state system and the electoral campaigns were based upon the John Howard vs. Kevin Rudd contest, I was expecting an increase in informal votes. However, this was not the case. Also from a scrutineer’s perspective, in Dickson both the donkey vote and the deliberate informal vote were seemingly very rare. The majority of the informal votes were people placing a 1 or a tick or a cross in only one box. There didn’t seem to be any correlation between voters preferred party and the informal vote. I’ve pretty much worked the same booths for the past 10 years and the difference in this election to the previous federal and state campaigns was significant in terms of people demonstrating their intent both in public and in private. From a numbers game it seems to me that 1% of the population is a pretty significant number considering the swing required to change government was only 5%.

The road to Egypt:

Mark Edmonds writes: Re. “Meanwhile, on the road to Egypt …” (Friday, item 22). Against, my better judgement, I’ll respond, on behalf of Bible believing Christians. The Bible has much to say about false prophets. Not much of it is pretty. You don’t have to be a scholar of the Old Testament to figure out how a false prophet is to be identified. If a person claims to prophesy on God’s behalf, and the prophesy doesn’t come to pass, well, you can imagine how they would have dealt with such people in days of old (and at the risk of starting a bible passage war, I’d refer you to Deuteronomy 18:14-22). Thank God such practices have no place in our society these days. Most moderate Christians understand that we live in a democracy. I would no more expect a Muslim, for example, to live by my values than I would be prepared to live according to that Muslim’s beliefs. All Christians ask, like Muslims or indeed even politicians, is that we be allowed to say what we believe. This is, after all, not only what Jesus models, but what he commands. Jesus’ political commentary extended no further than. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”. When invited to comment on the authority of the despotic upstart Herod, he declines. Instead, Jesus preaches the need for all people to repent and return to their God, irrespective of race, class, language or political affiliation. There is no going back to Egypt for Christians who love their Lord. We have nothing to fear from Labor, or Liberal, or Green, or Atheist or Muslim, or any Pastor or prophet. Keep on reading that passage in 2 Timothy that Danny quotes: “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word.” Crikey readers of any or no religious persuasion should not concern themselves with Danny’s “prophecies”, and should feel free to vote as their consciences dictate. They might also look to their consciences when considering the claims of Jesus.

Sally Goldner writes: Thanks for Danny Nalliah’s article. Will comic relief from this writer be offered every Friday as a way to start unwinding after along week?

Therese Rein:

Philip Woods writes: John Bevan (Friday, comments) fails to see where public accountability must lie. Therese Rein’s organisation won from the government, contracts that were openly tendered and transparently awarded. Kevin Rudd had no ability to influence the selection; in fact his role as the Labor leader was possibly a hindrance to her success. On the other hand, Peter Costello’s wife Tanya was given a $150K per annum position with the ANZ bank whilst her husband was the Federal Treasurer. Mrs Costello went into ANZ’s charities area, an area that directly benefited in her husband’s decision not to set up a NZ style Charities commission that would better regulate the sector. Now if that is not a conflict of interest then Santo Santoro will be popping around to sell you a few shares in an aged care facility that he managed to pick up from a would-be charity for next to nothing. In fact it was reported in the SMH that the head hunter who put Tanya Costello forward for the placement (and picked up a 5 figure fee) failed to disclose to the bank that he was a good mate of Mr Costello’s for 20 years, is a senior figure in the Treasurer’s local Liberal branch, and remains a paid-up member of his electorate fundraising body, the Higgins 200 Club. As the Chinese say “money is the ‘exulted grease’ that aids business”.

Islamofascism:

Tamas Calderwood writes: Guy Rundle (Friday, comments), in responding to John Carroll is right about Spain’s government being pro-American prior to the Madrid bombings but wrong about it being “the only European one to participate in the actual invasion of Iraq”. In fact, the only European countries that did participate in the invasion were Britain, Poland and Denmark. Diplomatic support was given by Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary and Czech Republic. Also, Guy’s implication that Islamofascism is only a threat to pro-American countries is bizarre. Tell that to the Argentineans (Buenos Aires Israelite Association bombing, 1994: 85 dead), the Panamanians (Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901, 1994: 21 dead), the Swiss (Luxor massacre, 1997: 62 dead), the Indians (Mumbai train bombings, 2006: 209 dead) and so on, and on, and on… John Carroll, like Guy, may have made a small error about Spain but John’s broader argument about Islamofascism has the facts heavily in its favour.

The Walkleys:

Chris Hunter writes: Re. “The Walkleys: pleasanter than last year ” (Friday, item 26). Unlike last year’s performance, which I didn’t watch anyway, I got pretty bloody bored. Australian journalism is at an all time boring low. Wealthy dead men dying. Cognac, creme de la creme, predictable, predictable, predictable. You’re such a precious bunch. It’s not like you sprung David Hicks or saved just one of the bloody whales is it? Dead serious. It’s coming up to subscription time — Crikey or the gas bill? And the winner is — pleasanter than last year!

Disappointed:

Mikaela Power writes: Re. “That was the week that was…” (Friday, item 24). I’m extremely saddened to read that some idiots from Sydney decided to “welcome” a proposed mosque with two pig heads. It bothers me though, that Crikey published a slip into an old cliché that one incident should forever represent a town. The actions of one person who briefly lived in Moe more than ten years ago are no more representative of a town of nearly 20,000 people than the actions of Spring St or Canberra politicians are of people living in the Melbourne 3000 postcode or the nation’s capital. I’ve been impressed by Crikey’s reliably good writing despite tight deadlines. This time it wasn’t clear who the author was and that’s disappointing.

A new ring-tone:

Carol Lockyer writes: Dear Crikey, could you get Red Symons to make us a new ring-tone. I’ve had that wonderful Keating ring-tone and I just loved it. Keating and Little Johnny araldited to his seat, and happily, it’s now out of date!

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.