The Voice of Australia

I never thought the day would come when I would post the text of a John Howard speech to my own website. Yet the Prime Minister's website is currently carrying a speech he allegedly delivered to the Deakin Society in Melbourne two days ago. If this speech is authentic, it represents the bravest statement by an Australian prime minister on American foreign policy ever made, even if Howard states that he is speaking as 'private citizen' rather than in his capacity as prime minister. (Let's face it, he IS the prime minister. Whenever he appears in a public forum he is surely present AS prime minister.)

Anyway, back to the speech: Howard is saying, effectively, that the Americans have lied to him all the way. He also implies that British PM Tony Blair shares this view. Now I find myself wondering if the Prime Minister's website has not been hacked. I for one find it almost impossible to imagine that Howard could say such things, and that even if he did hold such views that he would also make public Tony Blair's own misgivings. Also, the text incorporates a spelling mistake and a non sequitur - both elements that make it unlikely that the speech is genuine.

However, until it is removed from the PM's website, the only rational thing to do is treat it as genuine. If so, one thing is even more surprising about this speech than its candour, and that is something that is actually very disturbing. Howard (if indeed it is Howard) implies that the U.S. is going to be doing something pretty dreadful in the next few weeks. (I have put that passage of the speech in bold so you can see what I'm referring to.) If Howard is privy to what the Americans are planning to do, then this speech looks like an attempt to distance himself from it as soon as possible. Could he be alluding to a decision to drop a nuke on Iran?

All I can say is that I am literally stunned by this speech. Here it is so you can make up your own mind:

Speeches

12 March 2006

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
ADDRESS TO THE DEAKIN SOCIETY, MELBOURNE
"REFLECTIONS ON THE SITUATION IN IRAQ"

E&OE…

During our recent celebrations of the Coalition's ten years in power, I have, as Prime Minister, been publicly reflecting on our Party's many great achievements, as was appropriate to do. But on this occasion, among old friends and senior colleagues, I wish to share some unsettling thoughts about the situation in Iraq.

Three years ago in Sydney, when I spoke to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, who were gathered on the deck of HMAS Kanimbla, I felt that above all other Australians, they were entitled to know from me why it is that the Government had asked them to go to the Persian Gulf and face the armed forces of a dangerous dictator.

I said then that all the intelligence material collected over recent times, to which Australia had contributed, proved overwhelmingly that Saddam Hussein had maintained his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and that he was on the brink of nuclear capability. This posed a real and unacceptable threat to the stability and security of our world. I said that unless Iraq was disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction ­ totally and permanently ­ then the Middle East would remain a powder keg, waiting for a match.

I sincerely believed that was true - on the best intelligence and advice that was available at that time. On February, 2003, I told Parliament, that disarming Iraq would bring enormous benefits to the Middle East and be widely welcomed throughout the world. Unfortunately, our expectations in this matter have not yet been realised. Even so, I have continued to hold firm to our commitment, despite the ups and downs of the occupation, because our alliance with the US is vital to the security of Australia.

On May 19, 2004, after my return from a visit to Baghdad, I told the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne that the situation in Iraq was rapidly improving. That the north of the country was relatively peaceful and most of the south was reasonably stable. I pointed out that Iraq was 'no longer ruled by a loathsome and homicidal dictator, and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved'. I sincerely believed that at the time.

There had been so many encouraging signs of progress. Let me re-iterate some of the signs I mentioned in 2004, and reflect on the situation from today's perspective, as we approach the third anniversary of the occupation.

I said then that electricity, water, telephone and sanitation were gradually being restored to pre-war levels or above. Sadly, this did not happen. As of February this year, 125 projects to provide electricity have been cancelled. Of the 136 projects that were originally pledged to improve Iraqi water and sanitation, only 49 will be ever finished.

I said then that six major water treatment plants had been rehabilitated. Perhaps I should have pointed out that these plants had previously been destroyed by British and US bombs during the 12 years of UN sanctions against the Hussein regime. Today, the water situation in Iraq is dire. Billions of dollars have been shifted from rebuilding vital infrastructure to guarding the borders of Iraq.

I said that all 240 hospitals as well as 1,200 health clinics were fully operational, which was the advice we had received from the then administrator, Mr Paul Bremer. Unfortunately, this turned out to be overly optimistic. On November 2004, at the start the coalition¹s pacification of the city of Falluja, the city's General Hospital was occupied by US troops and - I am sorry to say - that hospital staff were handcuffed and some patients were dragged from their beds; perhaps for good reasons. Snipers were posted on the roof of the building and ambulances were strafed. On November, 6, the BBC reported that US air strikes had reduced the newly built Nazzal Emergency Hospital to rubble.

One doctor reportedly told Reuters, and I quote: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja. We had one ambulance hit by US fire and a doctor wounded. There are scores of injured civilians in their homes whom we can't move. A 13-year-old child just died in my hands." Now I do not wish to labour the point. But it should be conceded that an impartial examination actions of the Coalition of the Willing during operations in Falluja has raised uncomfortable issues for our Government. On the face of it, the Geneva Conventions and core articles of the UN Declaration on Human Rights have been ignored. During the siege of Falluja, many Iraqi women and children were caught in the line of fire and some civilians were shot as they tried to swim across the Tigris. It has even been reported that weapons of dubious legality were used in Falluja, such as cluster bombs, napalm, incendiary white-phosphorus and thermobaric, or "fuel-air" explosives, which can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation.

The International Red Cross estimates that at least 60% of those killed in the assault on the city were women, children and the elderly; a pattern of destruction that has persisted throughout the occupation of Iraq, and, as much as we would like to shut our eyes, this has served to boost the recruitment of insurgents and harden their resolve. In May last year, the city of al-Qaim near the Syrian border was the target of a major offensive known as Operation Matador, which resulted in hundreds of Iraqi casualties. This operation also displaced thousand of civilians, destroyed entire neighborhoods, polluted water supplies and put one hospital out of action. Six months later in al-Qaim, Operation Steel wiped out the General Hospital, other medical centers, some mosques and schools, even the electricity station.

These are the facts. There are many more examples. And they raise serious concerns for the future predicament which our Government and our party may find ourselves facing. We have been lucky up to this point, because the full extent of the mayhem resulting from our U.N sanctioned occupation has not been dwelt upon by the Australian media. You can draw your own conclusions why this is so. However, having been kept well briefed on the conflict by our intelligence agencies, and I can assure you that many unpleasant details are still to emerge.

Also, on a personal note, it would be inaccurate for me to maintain that the events unfolding during course of the occupation have left me unmoved. It has long been my habit to keep aquainted with opinions opposed to my own, and to canvas a wide range of views. If an edited version of this talk is made available, it may reference sources from the internet.

Under international law, all military forces owe a 'duty of care' to the civilians of an occupied city. And I am starting to ask myself if this is a commitment we have betrayed. In fact, I dare to wonder if we have betrayed the very ideals that I invoked in my support of the invasion.

In my 2004 speech to the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, I said that, 'Iraq now has a growing and robust independent media, which is absolutely essential for the development and maintenance of a healthy democracy'. Well, I am afraid that was a little premature. Our US partners thought it necessary to suppress the more irresponsible organs of opinion. Several editors were arrested. And while I accepted assurances from our allies that the bombing of the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera in 2003 was an accident, I must say, that in light of the recent unearthing of the Downing Street memo, the contents of which are available to my Government, I now hold grave doubts about the official story. All told, since the start of hostilities in Iraq, it appears that 82 media personnel have lost their lives.

I must say, that it came as a surprise to members of my Government when General George Casey recently re-asserted the right of the US military to plant paid-for stories in the Iraqi press. We believe this sets an unfortunate precedent, in that it may lead to suspicion among Iraqi citizens that that the West prefers a paid press to a free press.

I also noted in my 2004 speech that 'Australia had helped to re-establish the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, [and] set up a payments system for the 2003 harvest and used our experience to help Iraqi farmers bring in the bumper summer grains harvest'. Perhaps I should have been more forthright about that experience. For many years the Australian Wheat Board has been helping the Iraqi Government bring in bumper summer grains from Australia. We have achieved this by channelling millions of dollars of hidden commissions into the coffers of the man previously described as a loathsome and repellent dictator. To be frank, we had been privately funding a regime that we publicly claimed was a threat to the world, and I can see now that this might lead some people to question our probity.

All in all, since the war began I have consistently maintained that the situation in Iraq was measurably better than it was under Saddam Hussein.

I held to this belief even during the dark days of the Abu Ghraib abuses, which caused many in the region to question whether democracy would make the slightest difference. But I strongly argued at the time that the difference would be apparent for all to see, because the victims of abuse would not only able, but would be encouraged to speak out, to seek redress and to find justice.

Sadly, very few victims have been able to find justice. And those senior figures who issued the orders to turn up the heat on detainees, have not been properly investigated. In the matter of our own citizen, David Hicks, who remains to this day Guantanamo Bay, often in solitary isolation, it is becoming increasing difficult to distinguish his predicament from that which would have faced a prisoner of Saddam Hussein. I believe the Department of Foreign Affairs has been remiss in accepting the assurances of some US officials at face value.

I speak to you here openly, and with sadness. I have no intention of repeating or elaborating these remarks outside this room. [Why, then, would you post the speech on the Internet? - SDN] For decades, many of you have stayed loyal the principles of our Party. However, it is not wise for any leader to mislead himself, and I have no wish to mislead you. Like our good friend Tony Blair, I too admit to episodes of anguish. I worry the situation is getting worse. Not only in Iraq, but elsewhere in the world. You will of course be making up your own minds as you watch the news in the coming weeks.

I note that the latest US Country Reports on Human Rights concedes that in Iraq, 'civic life and the social fabric remain under intense strain from the widespread violence'. The US ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, has said we have 'opened a Pandora¹s box in Iraq'. There is mounting evidence of arbitrary detention and torture committed by government forces, both police and military.

During my recent trip to India, also horribly touched with extremist violence, I was reminded by their soft spoken Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, that the British had seriously erred by clinging too long to their former colony. Despite widespread opposition to their presence, British politicians continued to insist that their departure would lead to chaos. Dr Singh said, 'But it would be our chaos, don¹t you see?' At that moment I understood what he was saying.

There is tremendous pressure from the US for our troops to remain in Iraq, and of course mutual loyalty is a vital component of the alliance. But the longer the Coalition of the Willing remains, the more we are detested, and the more blood is shed. The country is already tearing itself apart, so I am asking you, could our departure really make it any worse?

Perhaps it is time for Iraqis to regain control of their future, and for the coalition of the willing to be willing to leave the stage. When I say this, I speak as a troubled private citizen, and not as the Prime Minister of Australia.

Flying home from India, I started to ask myself what a leader like Mahatma Gandhi would do, but I feared I would not be able to live up to the answer, unless I have some wise advice form my longtime friends. Please look into your hearts and let me know what you find.

PLEASE EMAIL ME (socdemnow@gmail.com) IF THIS SPEECH IS A HOAX

A widely-publicized report in the Washington Post addresses the fact - long known to most people who have studied the issue - that while Americans spend more on health care than anyone else, they derive far less value for money. 'The survey, published in the journal Health Affairs, questioned 6,957 adults who had recently been hospitalized, had surgery or reported health problems between March and June of this year.' The respondents came from the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Britain and Germany. (SOURCE)

The report's conclusion, albeit one I would have expected, seems to me incontrovertible proof that in many respects central to our lives, welfare state solutions are by far the most efficient.* Indeed, out of the countries surveyed in a study those who seem most contented with the quality of their health care are the British, whose national health care system is usually depicted by conservative ideologues as a little more than a joke.

A hitherto unremarked aspect of the survey is the fact that Australians do not differ radically from Americans in their dissatisfaction with the quality of the health care they receive. While 'about half' of the Americans surveyed said 'they had decided not to fill a prescription, to see a doctor when they were sick or opted against getting recommended follow-up tests,' New Zealanders and Australians weren't too far behind, with 38 percent and 34 percent respectively (but only 26 percent of Canadian and 13 percent of British respondents). In every aspect of health care examined in the survey, Australians are firmly located on the dissatisfied end of the spectrum. 'Americans also reported the greatest number of medical errors. Thirty-four percent reported getting the wrong medication or dose, incorrect test results, a mistake in their treatment or care, or being notified late about abnormal test results.' Canadians and Australians followed with 30 percent and 27 percent respectively.

Strikingly, Australians are paying more than most other countries for health care. 'Nearly a third of U.S. patients reported spending more than [a thousand USD] in out-of-pocket expenses for their care, far outpacing all other nations. Canadians and Australians came next, with 14 percent of patients spending that much. The proportion reporting similarly high costs was far lower in the other countries (my italics).' In short, Australia may not be doing as badly as the U.S., but it is doing badly compared to other countries. This report therefore obliges Australians to ask harder questions about what is happening to health care in this country since the advent of the Howard government, which has subverted the foundations of Medicare (our national health care system) to the point that for many of us it scarcely exists anymore. As Peter Sainsbury, President of the Public Health Association, complained in 2003,

The current Commonwealth Government is deliberately dismantling Medicare piece by piece, no matter what its rhetoric. It is misrepresenting the aims and principles of Medicare. It is shamelessly wasting over $2 billion a year on the totally ineffective private health insurance rebate. It is redefining bulk-billing to destroy its purpose. It is entering into trade agreements with the USA and other countries (through GATS) that seriously threaten the integrity, efficiency and excellent cost-control record of Australia's healthcare system. Why a government would want to destroy a highly productive, cost-effective, well-liked, internationally admired system to create a more fragmented, more costly one (for individuals and for Australia) is totally beyond me. Anyone who cares about health, equity, universality, and service availability on the basis of need not ability to pay must oppose this underhand deconstruction of Australia's healthcare system. (SOURCE)

The Health Affairs survey implies that the crisis which Sainsbury forecast only two and a half years ago has already arrived. This is, moreover, an unnecessary crisis triggered by Howard's ideological aversion to the welfare state, exemplified by the 2004 Medicare Plus plan, but also the tacit consensus embracing both major political parties in favour of health care retrenchment. The consistently positive results for the U.K. belie such ideologically-motivated antagonism, showing that so-called 'socialized' medicine can work well, even without spending a lot of money. Germany's results also seem rather impressive, while several other European countries have still superior systems, including not just the Scandinavian countries but also Italy, France and Spain, the latter being a country which, according to the 1997 WHO World Health Report, does not spend anywhere near as much on health as Australia does. Since Australians are paying a great deal more than the British and many (most?) Europeans, we have a right to know why we are not receiving health care of at least comparable quality.

* That this proposition would be true is almost self-evident to those with a knowledge of history. This is because public provision of welfare services developed only because they had been so poorly provided by the private sector. We have therefore reached a historical juncture at which it is necessary to largely re-invent the wheel.

The other day, greatly to my surprise, I learned from one of my students that Australia has the 'highest minimum wages in the world.' I instantly demanded to know where he had obtained his information, and discovered that he had derived his views from an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph that sounded very much like a precis of what the Australian federal government is currently telling Australians by way of propaganda for its hugely unpopular Industrial Relations reforms. Although I don't know whether the federal government is actually making such claims, many employer groups do seem to think that minimum wages here are much too high. One writer for the Murdoch press, Mike Steketee, actually claimed recently that 'minimum wages as a proportion of average incomes are higher in Australia than in most other Western countries.' (SOURCE) Whether or not the matter is directly relevant to the Howard government's projected IR reforms, it is important to know how Australia measures up in international perspective.

As it turns out, Australia has one of the highest minimum wage rates in the world - but only because many countries have minimum wage rates, and most of them are countries where wages are significantly lower than in Australia, while others are poor countries like Brazil where such laws are a dead letter. If we compare Australia with genuinely comparable countries - i.e., other OECD countries - the rates are only higher than those of the United States (where, according to one calculation, the minimum wage today is 35 percent lower than was earned by 'unskilled, non-union labor in the height of the Great Depression'), some Canadian provinces and New Zealand. In 2003, the minimum wage in Australia was 444 dollars a week or 1776 dollars a month. This was, using the May 2003 exchange rate, a sum equivalent to 993.6 Euros. In the EU alone, there were in 2003 six countries with a minimum monthly wage of more than 1000 Euros: Ireland, the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. (SOURCE - EUROSTAT PDF)

In addition, several other European countries that do not have statutory minimum wage rates have de facto minimum wage rates well above 1000 Euros per month. This includes Switzerland and all the Scandinavian countries. In the latter, de facto minimum wages are about twice those of the United States. As one commentator observed, 'The big difference between the Nordic countries and the U.S. is the wage spread. The main reason is that the lowest-paid workers in the U.S. have very low incomes, indeed. The minimum wage there is equivalent to NOK [Norwegian kroner] 45 per hour, and that is the actual wage for many millions of workers. The minimum wage in Norway is twice as much, NOK 90 per hour, and even that level is regarded by LO [i.e., the Norwegian Trade Union Association] as too low.' (SOURCE) In Sweden, the rate is reportedly somewhat higher: in Sweden 'the de facto minimum wage ... is more than twice the legal minimum wage in the United States.' (SOURCE) According to one source dating from May 2003, this is a sum equivalent to 930 pounds a month. (SOURCE)

By comparison to other OECD countries, we can easily see, Australian minimum wages are actually located at the miserly end of the spectrum. Australian workers are therefore hit by a double whammy: they have some of the lowest minimum wage rates in the OECD as well as some of the lowest unemployment compensation rates. These two circumstances explain why Australia also has one of the highest poverty rates in the OECD - 14.3 percent, just behind the United States (which has 17 percent poverty) and much worse than the U.K. and Ireland, where the poverty rate is around 12.5 percent) (figures are for 2004). (SOURCE - EPI PDF)

What's more, the trend throughout the OECD is to either maintain the minimum wage at its present rate (e.g, the Netherlands, where it has been frozen since 2003, the United States, where the rate has not changed in eight years, and  the Canadian province of Ontario, where this year's increase was the first in eight years) or to actually increase it. In 2005, twelve European countries increased their statutory minimum wage rates by an average of 9.2 percent. (SOURCE) In Canada, where rates are determined by the provinces, eight provinces increased their minimum wage rates during 2005 - Alberta, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan. In Sweden, municipal workers will receive major increases both this year and 2006: 'the minimum monthly wage for employees older than 19 years of age is raised by SEK 400 to 13400 (EUR 1431) in 2005 and from 2006 to SEK 13800 (EUR 1473). For employees with vocational training and one year working experience, the minimum wage is raised with SEK 1000 to 15 000 (EUR 1601) in 2006.' (SOURCE) In New Zealand, the government plans to increase the minimum wage from nine dollars fifty per hour to twelve dollars over the next three years. (SOURCE) One has to wonder why employer groups in Australia feel the need to aim for reductions in minimum wages when the trend almost everywhere else is towards increasing them.

In short, Australia not a country that enjoys high minimum wages. If Mike Steketee is right in claiming that 'minimum wages as a proportion of average incomes are higher in Australia than in most other Western countries,' then the explanation can only be that average incomes in Australia are significantly lower than in other Western countries. Since that seems most unlikely, my conclusion is that Steketee and others making similar claims are simply trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Certainly, if minimum wages were so very high in this country it would seem difficult to account for our relatively high poverty rate.

The story reproduced below, taken from the website of Melbourne's Herald Sun, which is apparently the largest selling newspaper in Australia, illustrates the point made in the previous post that the gloves are really off these days, as reactionary elites from different countries co-operate with one another in an effort to suppress opposition. This particular incident, involving the inexplicable arrest, detainment (five days in solitary confinement!) and deportation of 36yo American peace activist Scott Parkin - or, more to the point, anti-Halliburton activist -  shows how the so-called war on terror has furnished the pretext for the suppression of individuals who have  done nothing wrong whatsoever. In fact, according to Australia's Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, Parkin has been deported not because of anything he has done, but because he has received 'an adverse security assessment,' something that resulted in the instant cancellation of his visa. (SOURCE)

This is simply disgraceful.  What rights do people have today when they can't even discuss their country's foreign policies in a different country?  If an American citizen can be deported from Australia for giving political talks, then the same thing could happen to any political activist anywhere. So it looks to me like Parkin's deportation is simply a case of the politically-motivated harrassment of an international political activist. They don't yet dare go after someone with the profile of a Scott Ritter or a Naomi Klein, but in time they assuredly will.

Let's just think about the precedent that Parkin's arrest, detainment and deportation sets. Can it be long before foreign visitors will be obliged to declare upon entering Australia that while in the country they will desist from all political activity? Ultimately, the intention may be to intimidate those who tour the world lecturing audiences informed on the injustices and atrocities committed against the Palestinians. Alternatively, the ultimate intent could be to silence critics of international corporations. It would not hard to forsee a time when, say, the Australian government deports a speaker at the request of an Exxon Mobil, a Monsanto or a Coca Cola. Those who wish to engage in political activity will no doubt have to apply for a special visa, which of course will only ever be granted to those whose politics is that of the New World Order.

Deported activist landed with bill

From Peter Mitchell in Los Angeles

AMERICAN peace activist Scott Parkin arrived back in the US today under guard after Australian authorities detained him in a Melbourne jail for five days for being a "national security risk".

The 36-year-old Texan history teacher was also given a bill for almost [eleven thousand seven hundred dollars*] after his brush with Australian authorities. Mr Parkin said he was made to feel like a terrorist and a criminal and remains baffled as to why six police officers "snatched him off the street" as he left a Melbourne cafe last Saturday.

He said he was interrogated and spent the next five days in solitary confinement in a Melbourne jail.

He was escorted by two Victorian correctional officers on a Qantas passenger plane which left Melbourne yesterday, arriving in Los Angeles this morning.

"I'm just completely baffled by all of this," said Mr Parkin, surrounded by Australian TV cameras and media, soon after his arrival at Los Angeles international airport.

Mr Parkin was in Australia as part of a six-month holiday in Australia, New Zealand and Asia. He arrived on June 1.

An activist for 15 years, he said he gave talks while in Australia about the war in Iraq and helped organise one protest against US energy company Halliburton.

"In the talks I gave I wasn't even openly critical of Australia," Mr Parkin said.

"I was being openly critical of the US occupation (of Iraq) and I was being openly critical of Halliburton."

Mr Parkin said authorities never made it clear why he had been arrested.

"They were very vague," he said. "They said I violated sections of the migration act and they said I was a direct or indirect risk to their national security."

Mr Parkin was housed alone in a jail cell that contained two concrete slabs to sleep on, a TV set and a sink.

"They gave me three couch cushions and three really crummy blankets and fed me three times a day," he said.

Mr Parkin was also handed a bill for almost [eleven thousand seven hundred dollars]. It included [four thousand two hundred and thirty-five dollars and three cents] for his airfare back to LA and [six thousand six hundred and seventy-five dollars and thirty-nine cents] for the return airfares of his two corrective services escorts as well as their accommodation in Los Angeles.

"They're staying in Anaheim on Disneyland Drive I heard," Mr Parkin quipped.

The five-day stay at the Melbourne Assessment Prison will cost him another [seven hundred and seventy-seven dollars].

"They said if I ever decided to return to Australia I'd have to pay them back," Mr Parkin said.

The activist was also banned from entering Australia for three years. He plans to fight his removal from Australia and is desperate to find out why authorities were concerned about him.

"I'd love to know the assessment in which the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) made of me to lock me up for five days in solitary confinement and then remove me from the country essentially forcibly," Mr Parkin said.

Mr Parkin warned the incident raised great concerns about freedom of speech in Australia and the US.

"I think we are seeing a crisis in freedom of speech and freedom of expression in Australia, the United States and lots of places and people need to be aware," he said.

*****

I feel strongly that most Australians would apologize to Mr. Parkin, were it within their means to do so. Most are, no doubt, reading items like this one in the Herald Sun over their morning coffee and scratching their heads in amazement. I personally plan to convey my apologies to this unfortunate man and will do so shortly via the following email address: backingscott@yahoo.com

This incident is tied not to Mr Parkin himself, who has done nothing wrong, but to the loss of accountability that has taken place under cover of national security. Since the precipitating decision took place within ASIO, and therefore subject to all kinds of legislation exempting the agency from democratic oversight, there is no way that parliament, the media or the public will ever be privy to the real reasons for Parkin's deportation.

But what really takes the cake is that Parkin has been billed for his own mistreatment! I fail to see how he is in any way responsible for the fact that ASIO suddenly and capriciously decided to assess him as a security threat. Parkin probably has the right to sue for the inconvenience and suffering caused by this sordid and despicable little act of arbitrary political harrassment - except that national security legislation probably denies anyone the right to sue ASIO.

I am at this moment deeply ashamed and embarrassed by the Australian government. I think nothing may be involved here more than the desire of those in Australia's secret government entrenched within agencies like ASIO to cover up the extent to which the country's involvement in the Iraq war was entirely motivated by mercenary concerns.

Relevant links on the Scott Parkin story:

http://users2.ev1.net/~geosynch/hgac.html
http://houston.indymedia.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=557&category_id=1
http://crikey.com.au/articles/2005/09/13-1216-1716.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0917-23.htm

QUOTE OF THE DAY: 'Is the Australian government afraid of peace activists? Or did they deport him because Scott Parkin was speaking up against their secret deals with Halliburton, 150 military contracts in 2004 alone, that include covert deals in Iraq? Or was it the kickbacks that Halliburton executives requested from Australian businesses? Might it be their profiteering out Australian bilateral aid projects in India, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam? If John Howard or ASIO have any evidence as to why Scott Parkin should be considered a security threat, they should present it to the public or apologize for their behavior.'
- Pratap Chatterjee, executive director of CorpWatch, Oakland, California, U.S.

Catch a short radio interview with Scott Parkin here.

* For reasons I don't understand, Blogigo blogging software does not show dollar signs, forcing me to write the figures out in full.

The World Socialist Web Site is one of the very few places - on the Internet or anywhere else - where you can find insightful, critical commentary on contemporary Australia. It is truly sad that virtually the only intelligent thinking about current Australian society and politics comes from a source which believes utterly and dogmatically that the only hope for mankind is something which can never possibly occur, that is to say, an international proletarian revolution. Leaving this crank ideology aside, you really won't find anyone who can lay the facts as plainly before you as WSWS writer Mike Head does in this devastating indictment of the descent of Australia's parliamentary state into the worst kind of despotism. And this is all occurring without any opposition whatsover from the opposition Labor Party or the mainstream media, which, like that in the U.S. and the U.K., has long surrendered whatever pretensions it had to the status of critical 'third estate.' Because pieces as good as this are as rare as hen's teeth, I have decided to make it this blog's inaugural post.

Australian government unveils legal framework for police state

By Mike Head
12 September 2005

In the lead-up to his September 27 “counter-terrorism summit” with the eight Australian state and territory leaders, Prime Minister John Howard last week unveiled a package of legislation that goes well beyond the already deep inroads made into essential civil liberties under the fraudulent banner of the “war on terrorism”.

With the tacit support of the Labor Party—which currently holds office in all the states and territories, and whose leaders instigated the call for the summit—Howard’s government is proposing unprecedented measures that directly target fundamental democratic rights: the freedoms of speech, association and movement, and the right not to be detained without trial.

Once again, as happened after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States and the Bali bombings of October 2002, the government is seeking to exploit a terrorist atrocity—in this case the July 7 London bombings—as a pretext for sweeping changes to the machinery of rule.

While no legal details have been provided of any of Howard’s proposals, the main lines are clear. They go far further than the previous “counter-terrorism” laws. What is being prepared is the legal scaffolding for a police state. In the name of fighting terrorism, broad provisions are being drafted that could be used to stifle political dissent and opposition.

Control orders: In secret court hearings, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) will be able to apply for 12-month control orders imposing draconian conditions on individuals, such as tracking devices, travel bans and association restrictions, simply because the security agencies accuse them of being “terrorist risks”.

Howard claimed these orders would be similar to apprehended violence orders (AVOs), taken out by individuals to protect themselves against domestic violence. But an AVO ordering a person to stay away from a place of residence bears no resemblance to an order permitting the police and intelligence services to electronically monitor a person’s movements and conversations, and bar them from travelling or meeting with political or religious colleagues.

Preventative detention: The police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) will have the power to secretly lock people away for up to 48 hours. This marks a qualitative shift in the power to detain people without trial. Victims will be imprisoned not because they are accused of committing any offence, or even alleged to have “information” relevant to terrorism (as with ASIO’s already unprecedented detention power, established in 2003), but because of what they are suspected of intending to do in the future.

At the September 27 summit, Howard will ask the premiers to pass state laws providing for longer periods of such detention, similar to the 14 days recently introduced by Blair’s Labour government in Britain. In effect, he is asking them to help bypass the Australian Constitution, which bars the federal government from detaining citizens without trial for periods that would be viewed by the High Court as punitive.

Inciting violence: Howard is proposing to outdo British Labour by outlawing “inciting violence against the community”. The British “inciting terrorism” laws can jail people for their political views, such as expressing sympathy for terrorists or calling for an understanding of the social roots of terrorism.

Howard has chosen to go even further by extending the existing sedition offences to make it a crime to write or speak in a way that supports Australia’s “enemies,” or promotes ill-will or hostility toward any group in the community, including Australian military forces overseas. The maximum penalty for sedition will be increased from 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Sedition laws are designed to suppress political and media criticism of Canberra’s underlying domestic and foreign policy. People could be jailed for opposing the war on Iraq, for example, if their views could be construed as encouraging attacks on Australian troops. At his media conference, in response to a specific question, Howard refused to rule out the possibility that journalists could be prosecuted for exposing Australian conduct abroad, such as involvement in the US torture at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, if their reportage caused reprisals against Australians.

Advocating terrorism: Similarly, the government’s unilateral powers to ban organisations without any court hearing—agreed to by Labor late last year—will be extended to include groups that “advocate” terrorism. This is far-reaching, especially given that the Criminal Code definition of terrorism is wide enough to include many traditional forms of political dissent, such as demonstrations where injury or property damage occurs.

Expanded police powers: An array of ASIO and the federal police powers will be boosted, including to use closed circuit television surveillance, secretly enter and search premises, intercept communications and seize material. ASIO’s interrogation power will be bolstered by longer jail terms for providing false or misleading information.

The AFP will have new powers to stop, question and search people on the street, seize documents and obtain airline passenger information. Its proposed “notice to produce” powers could severely affect free speech and media scrutiny. They could be used, for instance, to compel journalists to hand over their notes and recordings, including those made during interviews with confidential sources.

Citizenship: Immigrants will have to wait three years—an extra year—before being eligible for citizenship. Applications can be rejected on security grounds and more readily revoked. These changes will make it easier for the government to deport targeted individuals or detain them in immigration detention centres.

How such a vast expansion of the government’s powers, which already exist for non-citizens, can be readily used for political purposes has been demonstrated by the current detention and planned deportation of an American anti-war activist Scott Parkin. After three months in Australia, his visa has been revoked on “national security” grounds, when his only “offence” appears to be participating in protests against the war on Iraq and the activities of corporate giants such as Halliburton.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has refused to give any reason for Parkin’s removal, claiming that he cannot comment on “national security” decisions. If that is the case, then no one can challenge such deportations, no matter how flagrantly they violate freedom of expression.

A range of civil liberties, legal and media organisations have condemned Howard’s proposals and pointed to some of their implications. NSW Civil Liberties Council president Cameron Murphy said: “It’s very difficult to define when someone is inciting violence. It’s an absolute nightmare.” Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network convenor Waleed Kadous asked: “What about someone who says that the people of Iraq have the right to resist the occupation? That would contravene these laws.”

Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O’Gorman told ABC television: “If you grant huge new increases in powers without any checks or any limitations or any oversight, then, by definition, it’s a recipe for a police state.”

The new laws have nothing to do with protecting ordinary people against terrorism, the threat of which the Howard government has itself heightened through its participation in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. No new powers are needed to fight terrorism—every conceivable terrorist offence, from murder to kidnapping and arson, was already a serious crime before 2001, as was supporting, financing or planning such actions.

Significantly, apart from a vague reference to the July 7 bombings in London, Howard offered no evidence to justify the need for the latest measures. Asked by journalists at his media conference whether there was any increased risk of terrorism in the months ahead, he admitted that the government had no specific information or reason to raise its official terrorist alert level.

Even mainstream journalists, who have generally uncritically backed the government’s erosion of basic legal rights since 2001, appeared taken aback by the far-reaching character of Howard’s package. One reporter asked Howard: “[H]ow are you going to answer the criticism that these measures will go too far and that Australia is essentially being turned into some sort of quasi police state?” Howard claimed this was an “absurd proposition” but could offer no answer, except to say that court rulings would be required for “control orders”.

Bipartisan unity

The real reasons for the Howard government’s escalating anti-democratic measures lie in the deep disaffection felt by broad layers of the population toward the war in Iraq and the growing social inequality at home. Over the past four years, the government has repeatedly seized upon terrorist atrocities, and whipped up fears and insecurities, both as a convenient diversion from its own political crises and to develop a legal framework that can increasingly be used to suppress social unrest and political opposition.

So far, Howard’s “counter-terrorism” laws have been used primarily against Muslims, one of the most vulnerable segments of society, but they have the potential to be utilised against any political opponents, as Parkin’s deportation shows. Not even during World Wars I and II was anything remotely like this latest package introduced to curtail the civil rights of the entire population.

Significantly, Howard could not have brought forward his latest package without the assistance of the Labor Party. One of its leading lights, former NSW premier Bob Carr, first issued the call for the September 27 summit in the wake of the London bombings.

Since 2001, both federally and in the states, Labor has not blocked any of the sweeping “counter terrorism” provisions introduced by the Howard government, including ASIO’s detention powers, the outlawing of organisations by executive fiat and the staging of terrorist trials behind closed doors. At the federal level, Labor has at times claimed to have moderated some of the most objectionable features of the legislation. But, meanwhile, state Labor governments have worked hand in glove with Canberra, handing over their constitutional powers to Howard and passing their own laws to complement the federal provisions.

Now, while saying they are waiting to see the details, Labor’s state leaders have made it plain that they are ready to embrace Howard’s new barrage, if not demand an even deeper assault on basic rights. Carr’s successor in NSW, Morris Iemma, declared that his government had the “toughest anti-terror laws” in the country and “remains committed to working closely with the Commonwealth and all other states and territories against the threat of terrorism”. His Queensland counterpart, Peter Beattie, said: “In a nutshell, there are things that we can agree to immediately, there are things we need to clarify, there are things we need to ensure there are safeguards on. But at the end of the day we’ll work with the Prime Minister to make it a safer Australia.”

None of them has expressed any disagreement with federal Labor leader Kim Beazley, who, far from paying even lip service to civil liberties, has sought to outflank the government from the right, declaring that Howard’s proposals were inadequate to deter terrorists. This is in line with his speech to the Sydney Institute on August 4, in which he accused the government of leaving the country “unprepared” for the threat of terrorism, and called for a massive boost to the resources and powers of ASIO and the AFP.

With Labor’s help, the stage has been set for a summit at which the state and territory Labor leaders will be competing with Howard to see who can advocate the most all-encompassing and potentially totalitarian measures to expand the powers of the police-intelligence apparatus.

*****

Frankly, these are dark days indeed, and any Australian who genuinely believes in the tradition of civil rights which made us superior to most other countries without such traditions - this is, at least, what we were all taught in school - should probably consider emigrating.