The Liberal Party has been caught out apparently breaching Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) rules on political advertising.

Facebook – the Web 2.0 social networking phenomenon (see earlier posts) – is the latest battleground for voters’ hearts and minds and it’s also the site of a political advertisement for the Liberal Party which appears to be in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

According to the AEC, “Section 328 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (CEA) requires all electoral advertisements to include the name and address of the person who authorised the advertisement”. But the ad you see below, which appeared when I navigated to the homepage of one of my Facebook friends this evening, provides no such attribution – just the carriage of the word ‘sponsored’. Given its obvious pro-Howard government spin and appreciating the laws of political advertising, this ad piqued my interest. When I clicked on the image I was redirected to the homepage of the Liberal Party of Australia (http://www.liberal.org.au/). Mystery solved. This is a Liberal Party advertisement, sans mandatory acknowledgement of authorisation. Twenty minutes later when I randomly visited another FB friend’s page the ad appeared again – it's presumably on high rotation.

The ‘Seinfeldian’ bent of the ad and its subtlety were no doubt designed to appeal almost subliminally to the youth market – the demographic where the Coalition is fighting its biggest losing battle. But it is clearly still a political advertisement and there is no loophole for social networking sites in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Perhaps the Liberal Party will deny they placed the advertisement – maybe some well intentioned Facebook-savvy sponsor linked the ad to the Liberal Party website without informing the boss? I strongly doubt it. Perhaps the Coalition is hoping Facebook users aren’t politically savvy enough to notice such breaches? Big mistake – I have Canberra Press Gallery journalists and a host of other reporters in my FB network…the media cottoned on to the power of social networking sites long before the politicians did. And, it’s a stupid politician who underestimates the intelligence of young voters. Perhaps the Liberal Party will argue that the fact the link, if clicked on (not that there's any invitation to click on the image), identifies the government’s handiwork. Spurious argument: do TV advertisements rely on viewers investigating the source of advertisements? No. The Act is explicit – it REQUIRES ALL such advertising to carry details of the person/s authorising the plug.

In fact, the Howard Government actually ensured the Internet was captured by the Act by legislating in July 2005 for its specific inclusion. At the time, the Special Minister of State, Eric Abetz told the technology news website, Zdnet Australia, "the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has adopted a policy of recommending to all political parties and the public who contemplate electoral advertising on the Internet that electoral matter conforms with the provisions of the Electoral Act.” Ironically, it was a website exposing Howard government 'lies', which failed to acknowledge political affiliations, that was the trigger for the legislative action clarifying the powers of the Act in relation to the Internet. It would appear the boot is now on the other foot.

Complaints about political advertising make up the bulk of matters referred to the AEC during an election campaign and the Liberal Party is probably counting on the fact that a written complaint is required to trigger an investigation. Four days out from an election, perhaps they’re willing to take their chances. But my next move after signing off here will be to write to the AEC. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: The Greens are also running political advertisements without official attribution on Facebook but the ads witnessed tonight are at least clearly identifiable as promotional material for the their party.

FURTHER UPDATE: Crikey is now running this story (read it here)and two Facebook groups have been started to mobilise against the abuse of political advertising on FB. They are "“Libs and Greens are Running Illegal Facebook Ads” and “Don't Put Liberal Party Ads on My Profile” – they have about 160 members between them so far. There have been no sitings of any unauthorised political advertisements since the story was run nationally this afternoon (20/11).    [read more]

I live in a quirky little village called Bungendore on the outskirts of the National Capital and at times I feel like I’ve been transported onto the set of one of those bucolic BBC comedy/dramas.

The arrival of a genuine French chef in this little town has set the scene nicely. Christophe Gregoire and his lovely Australian-Italian wife called - wait for it – Josephine, have fled Canberra’s fine dining district and settled in ‘Bungers’ (as we locals like to refer to the town). Their new venture, ‘Le Tres Bon’, is indeed ‘very good’. It’s also a source of enormous amusement for villagers like me seeking a spicier country life.

‘Chef Christophe’ (yes, ladies, he does have a French accent and he is a little dishy ;) was France’s 1986 apprentice chef of the year and whatever you do, don’t call him a cook! He produces the most delectable classics. One of my favourites is a melt-in-your-mouth venison casserole with porcini mushrooms in a sauce laced with dark chocolate. The aromas are like foreplay – they arrest your senses and leave you desperate for a taste. And the good news is, you won’t be disappointed by the flavour! Then there are the desserts…I’m very partial to the passionfruit crème brulee. It’s the stuff of culinary fantasies - toothsome caramelized crust, velvety smooth on inside, just the right balance between sweetness and sharpness. Tongue-tingling yumminess!!!

Christophe was inspired to make food his profession by his grandmother - a traditional cook from Lorraine who did everything the long, hard way. He and his partner are members of the Slow Food Movement – the worldwide collective pushing for a return to traditional methods of growing and preparing food with dividends in flavour and nutritional value. This passion manifests in Christophe’s cuisine and the way he and his partner talk about food. I had a wonderful discussion with Josephine recently about films that celebrate food as the stuff of life…we talked wistfully about Babette’s Feast and Like Water for Chocolate during the first of their new cooking school classes, while Christophe mesmerized his students with his recipes for Quiche Provencal and Tarte au Fraises. (Strawberry tart for those of you without Alexander Downer's mastery of the French language).

This class was a great experience, I refined my tart-baking technique while commentating on the process and quaffing French champagne – I was like a pig in mud! When it was time to cook, Chef Christophe donned his enormous white hat, with ceremony, and I shocked him by asking "Is it true - the bigger the hat, the better the chef?" But I was serious – I read that somewhere – French chefs have a hat hierarchy!

When we'd finished baking, we ate together as a class and Christophe took the floor. He's been trying to grow his own vegetables but the possums, cockatoos and other wildlife are frustrating his efforts: "Zey joost mow my vegies down!" And his attempt to use eggs hand-collected from his chickens have also been thwarted – by a 2m long King Brown snake (Australia's deadliest and a local nasty we have to contend with) which took up residence in his chook shed. He described killing it like this: "Zis snek was sooo big and eet ad my schicken in eez belly and I joost tuk my shuvel and swung like zis and zat and zis (he was gesticulating wildly) and cut im in 'alf but ee was still moving…I only killed 'alf of eem ".

The fun continued this week when I went to a French wine appreciation class hosted at Le Tres Bon. I really didn’t need a class to learn to appreciate the fruits of the appellations but I learnt a lot of interesting stuff about French agrarian politics and got to sample close to a dozen spectacular examples, drinking my way from the Loire to Bergerac, accompanied by Christophe’s fine food - which came out in dish after dish as fresh wine was poured. And Christophe wasn’t the only Frenchman in the room…it turns out there’s another French resident of Bungendore – a scientist called Xavier who’s almost as passionate about food and wine as Christophe. Xavier had me in stitches as he ranted about an article in one of the local newspapers (yes, we have two rags in a town of 5000!) which he believed to be an assault on French culture equivalent to English occupation. The offending article contained a recipe from another local ‘chef’ “ee is not a chef…ee is joost a cook!!!”. But the real travesty was the recipe itself, according to Xavier. Purporting to be for crème brulee, the method required only that whipped cream be baked in the oven before being topped with sugar and grilled. Apparently this is actually a recipe for mortification. Xavier’s voice became shrill, he shook his head, pointed his finger and let out exasperated French-accented yelps. All I could do was laugh despite the fact he was righteously angry – a brulee is an egg-based dish that in no way resembles the ‘dessert’ featured in the article. Look out for the Letter to the Editor in the Bungendore Mirror he’s threatening to pen – it will likely leave you with a taste for authentic brulee!

But Bungendore’s French connections don’t end there. One of the reasons I moved here from inner Canberra eight years ago was the allure of a little French Bistro which previously occupied the site of Le Tres Bon. Run by a woman known to her customers only as ‘Madame’ and her husband. 'Madame' informed us she was once a "famous Parisienne ‘airdresser" and she had the certificate on the wall to prove it. Her husband was equally engaging. One night she flitted about the restaurant (which back then sported the requisite red and white checked tablecloths and wine-bottle candles) wearing her ubiquitous hairnet, exclaiming “it’s a busy service and my ‘usband ‘as only one arm!!”. My partner and I looked at each other in disbelief: “Did she say her husband has only one arm?” I asked him. Moments later, Madame’s husband emerged from the kitchen with my partner’s Steak au Poivre in pan – and sure enough, he was missing an arm! Yes, here was a one-armed chef about to flambé a steak. He pulled it off with panache and I wondered whether this could be a new Paralympic sport – ‘one-armed chefing’.

So, don’t let anyone tell you Australian country towns lack amusement and sophistication – Bungendore alone has enough laughs and culture to keep me engaged for decades to come!    [read more]

Regulars to this blog will already be aware of two things: 1) I’m a hopeless romantic and 2) I’m a big fan of ABC TV’s ‘The Chaser's War on Everything’ – the satire that plugs the gaps in enterprising journalism.

But this week I had a conflict of interest. The Chaser’s endlessly talented Andrew Hansen – renowned for his witty musical skits – had the temerity to lampoon Julie Andrews! I know! And not just in any old role…as Maria Von Trapp in the Sound of Music!! And not just in any scene…in one of my favourite scenes!!! Yes, I’m a tragic SOM fan…seen the movie umpteen times, recently sat in the second row of the Palladium performance in London, own the DVD…even went on an SOM tour in Salzburg way before it was popular to be a daggy fan of 60’s musicals.

So, back to the scene in question. Surely you know it: “These are a few of my favourite things – when the dog bites, when the bee stings, when I’m feeling sad…I simply remember my favourite things and then I don’t feel sooooo bad” Julie/Maria sings to the Von Trapp children as they crowd onto her four poster bed to seek comfort in the middle of a thunderstorm. It’s a thing of celluloid beauty, that scene…a memory of childhood innocence. Stop it, I’m serious! Which is why I was so appalled by that Hansen bloke I almost couldn’t laugh at his skit.

Dressed as Julie/Maria, he impersonated her vocals (rather well, I have to say) and inverted the lyrics – it was like listening to back-masking…twisted, perverted man. Then he danced around the set strangling the kids one by one before fantasizing about his favourite thing…exploding Julie/Maria on the top of that green Austrian hill just as she’s about to launch into “The hills are alive…” Sacrilege!

Don’t you get it, Andrew? Against her will, rebellious novice Julie/Maria is turfed out of the convent to care for the emotionally neglected Von Trapp children, but discovers it’s their father – the damaged, withdrawn Captain Von Trapp – not God, she wants to marry. She awakens the children’s sense of fun, wins their love and then wins the heart of the Captain who’s impervious shell she’s unintentionally cracked – what’s not to love!?!?! Oh, and how could I forget? There are Nazis! Everyone loves to hate a Nazi…even when they sing. Then there's the escape from the Nazis over the Alps in the dead of night! Romance, high drama, Austrian hills, happy songs, a fight against injustice - this film's got it all!

So, I say hands off Julie Andrews ‘Chasers’ or I may just have to move you down my list of favourite things.    [read more]

It’s been revealed that the Howard Government is breaching Caretaker Government protocols. These protocols allow opposition parties equal access to bureaucrats and state information during election campaigns and they’ve been properly extended to every department this election apart from – you guessed it – Immigration and Citizenship.

Labor’s Immigration spokesman, Tony Burke, has told Lateline he’s been denied access to the file on Tony Tran, the man at the centre of Australia’s latest Immigration scandal who was wrongfully locked up in an immigration detention centre for five years and denied access to his son.

Labor was slow to react to the story after it broke but Mr Burke now says Mr Tran seems worthy of an apology and is likely to be entitled to compensation. However, he says he can’t make any definitive comments on the case because he’s been denied access to files on the matter despite formal requests for briefings from the Minister, Kevin Andrews, the department and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Departmental Secretary has advised the Labor Party that they must direct their inquiries through the minister. According to Tony Burke, “Kevin Andrews, through his use of or abuse of what everyone else regards as standard protocols during an election campaign, has shut us down.”

Meantime, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, has told Lateline Mr Tran’s case is just one of more than 200 he’s reviewed involving wrongful detention or deportation since the Rao and Solon scandals erupted in 2005. So, there are at least 200 reasons why the Minister would want to block the Federal Opposition’s access to Immigration Department files. But Mr Burke says he’ll take immediate action to deal appropriately with the cases if he’s in the minister’s chair in a fortnight and he’s still entertaining the idea of a Royal Commission into the multitude of cases of Departmental bungling which have destroyed the lives of innocent, unlawfully detained and deported people – some of them Australian citizens like Cornelia Rao and Vivian Solon. He highlights the systemic, politically driven problems within the Department under the Howard Government: “Where the nature of the leadership that was given by successive ministers for that department drove a particular culture which resulted in a culture of assumption, a culture of denial - finally - a culture of cover-up, all of which has been reported in the Palmer and Comrie reports of a couple of years ago.”

The Australian Democrats – a party of conscience facing political annihilation at this election – have gone further. Democrats leader, Senator Andrew Bartlett, has reiterated his call for the abolition of mandatory detention laws saying that’s the only way to end the bungling. He told Lateline “it is not just wrongfully getting a speeding ticket and being able to get it repealed down the track. You can't un-jail someone. You can't undo the damage which is done. That is why mandatory detention is such an abomination and that is why whoever forms government after the election, the Democrats will continue to pressure through the Senate to get that reform to the Migration Act.”

And, what’s the Federal Government itself had to say about this story? Nothing. A spokesperson for Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, says a brief on the matter should be on the Minister’s desk by early next week. That would be just a few days out from the election. How convenient. With a little more procrastination once the file ‘officially’ reaches his desk he should be able to drag out his non-response 'till November 24th - the day the polls say he’ll lose his job.

Finally, coverage of the story itself is worthy of comment. Unfortunately, it’s been under-reported by the Australian media which is in pack-mode on the election campaign trail. It’s barely rated a mention amidst the economic analysis and set-piece policy launches. But ABC TV's Lateline, in typical strident, authoritative, investigative fashion is continuing the campaign for ground breaking, values-conscious journalism. And, as always, Bill Leak, the Australian’s brilliant cartoonist with a sharp wit and a social conscience has summed the story up beautifully. He depicts the recognizable victims of the Howard Government’s immigration scandals – members of the ‘Department of Immigration Survivor’s Club’ - being interviewed by a journalist about the economy.You can see his handiwork here    [read more]

Warning: I’m ‘blogging’ mad!!!!

Every now and then I check my rage levels against the Howard Government to ensure I’m not reacting disproportionately by drawing comparisons with Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa and Northern Ireland during ‘The Troubles’. But today, I’m left in no doubt that these labels are apt: this is a government that perpetrates and perpetuates injustice.

The reason for my surety is the heartbreaking, gut-wrenching story of Tony Tran, broken by ABCTV’s, Lateline, last night. Mr Tran and his family now stand with Vivian Solon, Cornelia Rao and Mohamad Haneef as victims of the Howard Government’s xenophobic, unjust and abusive immigration policies and the incompetent department which administers them.

Tony Tran was a Vietnam War refugee who grew up in America before making his home in Australia with his Korean wife. Having settled in Brisbane, he was an ambitious man with plans for higher education and business. But his dreams morphed into a horrible nightmare the morning in December, 1999 when he went to the Department of Immigration to inquire about obtaining a visa for his wife. A computer check mistakenly indicated Mr Tran did not himself have a valid visa and he was immediately handcuffed and carted off into detention without an opportunity to talk to his wife or say goodbye to his young son. He remained behind bars for five and a half years – being transferred between facilities in four states - until a review of detainees, in the wake of the Rao and Solon scandals, revealed he’d been the victim of a bureaucratic bungle.

But during those five years in detention he lost everything. His wife. His child. His health. Tony Tran’s wife, also threatened with detention along with their then two year old son Hai, succumbed to Immigration Department pressure and agreed to be deported to Korea. In order to convince the Korean government to take their child as well, the Australian Government changed the little boy’s name from Tran to a Korean family name. This was done without the knowledge or consent of Mr Tran. He was told he’d lost his family by an Immigration Department official when they’d already left the country.

Not surprisingly, the impact of that news was devastating: “When they taken my child, that's when everything just collapsed for me mentally and physically. I thought I lost them. I thought I'd never see him again. Because I don't even know how my life is going to end.” Mr Tran told Lateline. He said he was medicated in detention from that day on as his mental health deteriorated. Meanwhile, his wife wasn’t coping and she returned to Australia, abandoning their son. He was placed in foster care and when the child welfare agency responsible for the boy requested he be allowed to join his father in detention in the Immigration Department refused. The child was placed in foster care and the Department refused to facilitate Mr Tran's attendance at Children’s Court hearings involving the boy. Meantime, in an attempt to secure Hai's deportation to Korea, Immigration officials lied to an immigration agent, telling her Tony Tran didn’t care about his son. They then left the five year old boy with Korean welfare workers and sought to have him declared an orphan as revealed in this excerpt from a letter obtained by Lateline: “My purpose in writing to you is to request that, as the child is a Korean national, the Korean Consulate arrange for the return of the child to Korea in coordination with the Health and Welfare Agency in Seoul”

Again, Tony Tran’s legal rights regarding his child’s welfare were over-ridden by the Australian Government. He managed to maintain phone contact with his son but he threatened suicide when the Department refused to allow him to send a photograph of himself to the little boy. They finally agreed to send the picture to Hai when his father stood on the roof of the Baxter detention centre and threatened to jump.

But in June 2005, after five and a half years in prison, Mr Tran was suddenly released without explanation. The reason? The department had discovered, courtesy of the system-wide case review triggered by the Solon and Rao incidents, that he had indeed held a valid visa all along. By now his wife had returned to Korea and her whereabouts remain unknown. But, Tony Tran was finally reunited with Hai, who had been severely traumatized by the long separation from his father and had nightmares that he’d be abandoned again. “That's very heartbreaking actually. Even when I got him back, every night he will have nightmare. Even when he's asleep, his hand will twirl around just to feel if I was there and he'll wake up and pinch my skin whether to see it's real or not. And then after that he'll go back to sleep again. Everyday I told him that I will always be here,” Tony Tran told Lateline. He is also battling his own nightmares – he emerged from prison with depression, a heart condition, asthma and injuries from being brutally bashed and stabbed by another inmate.

I’d like to tell you that, recognizing their mistake, the Government immediately apologized to the Trans and compensated them accordingly. But you should know by now that the Howard government doesn’t say sorry and it fights just compensation cases tooth and nail. So Tony Tran – rendered stateless by the Immigration Department bungle – is still fighting for the right to stay in Australia and he hasn’t seen a cent from the government. Instead, he’s surviving on charity in Melbourne. But he’s not giving up – amazingly, inspiringly, he’s studying for a radiology degree while caring for Hai, now aged 8. “When you ask me how do I feel, I don't really know what to feel. I just want to, most of the time, just want to be secluded, just want to be myself for now. For me my main focus is, like, my son. To hope that he can grow up and lead a normal life. For me, I'm trying as well. It's not easy but I'm trying as well.”

As Tran continues his remarkable struggle to survive this nightmare, his lawyers have begun civil proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court for compensation after two years of failed negotiations with the Federal Government. If the case is successful, it’s likely to involve the biggest immigration-related payout in history and another action will be launched on behalf of Hai. Tran’s lawyers are hoping going public with the story in the middle of the Federal Election campaign will result in a pre-Christmas settlement. But this is a heartless government with an obscene track record on immigration and refugee issues - Tampa…Children Overboard…Rao…Solon…Haneef…Tran. I could go on and on. And, sadly, Howard’s racist and inhumane immigration and refugee policies have proved to be vote winners in the past. That may explain the government’s failure to respond to the story and the Labor Opposition’s disappointing silence on the matter, but it is no excuse for populism on either side of politics.

To quote barrister and human rights advocate, Julian Burnside QC, “Can we afford to watch complacently as unpopular minorities are mistreated, or does our indifference identify who we are? This election is not just an opportunity to hold the present government to account for ignoring justice. It is an opportunity to take a stand and say: We are better than this. Australia is not just an economy.” Indeed, it used to be a country that defined itself through identification with equity, fairness and multiculturalism. Australians must take a stand for justice – at the polling booth and in the community - for the sake of our collective soul.

Note: You can vodcast the Lateline story about Tony Tran here and you can podcast Julian Burnside’s Perspective monologue on justice from ABC Radio National here.    [read more]

Surprise, surprise...John Howard told Australia he was “sorry” for rising interest rates this week but took back the apology almost immediately. The Prime Minister, who’s heading to election-day as the nag bringing up the rear, back-tracked almost immediately upon uttering the 'S' word, insisting he wasn't actually apologizing. Sound familiar Aboriginal Australia?

Yes, the man who’s still asking the electorate “who do you trust?” after promising last election that interest rates would always stay low under a Coalition government (despite the fact that the 90 day cash rate hit a record high of 21% when Howard himself was Treasurer in the early 80’s!) is now sorry he said sorry when official interest rates rose this week for the 10th time since 2001, to 6.25%.

It was the first time the Reserve bank had ever moved on official interest rates in a Federal election and the hurt will be felt acutely in marginal seats full of ‘Howard Battlers’ who can no longer afford the repayments on their massive mortgages acquired in the booming economic conditions for which Howard claims credit. His first reaction to the news was to say "sorry" to voters. But within hours he was explaining that he was only "sorry" in the sense that he felt bad for people who would suffer as a result of the interest rate rise but not "sorry" in the sense that he was apologising on behalf of his government for failing to keep interest rates low as promised. So, he wants kudos for economic boom-times but won’t apologize for the rising interest rates caused by said unchecked booming.

So, who do you trust? Not a man who plays such legalistic word games, surely. And surely not the sort of man who’d apologize one minute and retract it the next in a fit of spin-related re-programming. He could give a pernicious QC a run for his money with the semantic games he plays. Although he told reporters he didn’t want another argument about the definition of the word sorry – insensitively referring to the debate over a national apology to Aboriginal Australia he refuses to utter, saying “Haven’t we been here before on another issue”. Yes, Mr Howard, we have and your track record on apologies proves you’re disingenuous and untrustworthy.

This whole debate reminds me of that other long-forgotten pattern of deceit he practiced in his first term in office way back in 1996. Do you remember his explanation for broken election promises? It went like this “There were core promises and non-core promises…we can break the non-core ones”. I remember at the time using the analogy of parents employing such an approach when trying to inspire honesty and integrity in their children. “If you promise Daddy you’ll eat all your veggies but then refuse, you’ll be breaking a core promise but if you promise Mummy you’ll brush your teeth before bed and then go to sleep without doing so, you haven’t really deceived her because that wasn’t a core promise.” What twisted logic!

Not quite as twisted, though, as teaching your children that you don’t have to apologize for your mistakes or take responsibility for them. Not as bad, either, as teaching them to pretend to say sorry if it wins you points with people you need to exploit for personal or professional gain or that it’s OK to take an apology back as soon as you’ve issued one: “I didn’t really mean it!”. It’s the stuff of juvenile playground conflict.

Grow up Mr Howard and grow a conscience! Sorry, shouldn’t have said that. ;)

Postscript: For a satirical take on this story see Nicholson's witty animation "Sorry"    [read more]

I am about to out myself here as a hopeless romantic. Yes, I may have had a reputation as an interviewer for "going for the jugular" of slippery, evasive politicians live to air; yes, I’m a feminist academic with a rational brain and I’ve got inner strength by the bucket-load, I’m told. But tell me a tale of high romance and I turn to mush.

So, this week when a story about love at first sight on the New York subway made headlines, I followed the yarn as though it was a piece of explosive investigative journalism.

The story goes like this: Patrick Moburg, a 21 year old Brooklyn web designer was riding home on the subway last Sunday night when he spied the 'girl of his dreams' sitting nearby. Camille Hayton, a 22 year old Melbourne woman on an internship at a New York magazine, was wearing a red flower in her hair and wrote in her journal as the packed train headed towards its destination. Moburg was instantly smitten but he lost her in the crowd of commuters before he plucked up the courage to approach her.

He was not to be dissuaded, though…he believed the instant connection he felt with this stranger was destiny’s hand at play and he decided to give fate a nudge. He went home and created a website – nygirlofmydreams.com - on which he posted a hand-drawn picture of the beautiful woman with the rosy cheeks standing alongside him. He included his mobile number, email address, details of the journey and this message: “I saw the girl of my dreams on the subway tonight. Please help me find her”. And, help they did!

This story of love at first sight mobilized the online world and he was inundated with sightings and offers of love from complete strangers who (like me) thought “what an adorable man!” and urged him to “pick me instead”. But within 48 hours, he managed to find that needle in the NY haystack – one of Hayton’s friend’s sent him a photo of her and Moburg posted this message on his site: “Found Her! Seriously!". The girl with the flower in her hair agreed to meet the ‘smitten one’ and they hit it off. A flurry of interviews and international media attention followed the pair but Moburg says they’re now pulling down the shutters and we'll have to make up our own ending to the story.

My ending goes like this: And they fell in love and lived - in material poverty but rich in desire - in a bohemian NY apartment, thriving on passion and care for the rest of their long lives. The man I live with, on the otherhand, is determined to burst my romantic bubble. He responded to my reiteration of this tale thus (tongue partly in cheek): “He’s a web designer – this was probably some scam to boost his profile…look at all the hits his site is getting!” And I can hear other romance-deniers saying “Yeah and she’s a journalist in training – probably trying to take a shortcut to fame and fortune”. Cynics, all of you!

Maybe I’m a female cliché but I love romance, damn it! Spontaneity, poetry, flowers, risk-taking behaviour, making love on the river bank under the full moon – bring it on, baby! So, I choose to believe my ending to the story. What ending would you write?

UPDATE: Attention cynics - it's not just me! The world's gone nuts for this story. See The Age article on the blogosphere reaction.
   [read more]

There are disturbing developments unfolding in South Africa (SA) – the 13 year old democracy birthed in no small way by dissident journalism. Freedom of speech is under threat from an increasingly arrogant and power-drunk ANC government which is seeking to silence its media critics.

Ethical questions raised about the methods of investigative reporters who exposed the South African Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, as an abusive alcoholic and a "kleptomaniac", are being used to justify a clamp down on free speech under the guise of privacy protection and respect for culture.

Following a five month investigation, leading SA newspaper, the Sunday Times, recently reported that the minister got drunk and abused nursing staff during her hospitalisation in Cape Town in 2005. A week later, the paper revealed that Manto was an alcoholic who bullied medical staff into fast-tracking a liver transplant she underwent earlier this year and covering up the diagnosis that led to it - alcoholic liver cirrhosis. And, they have alleged she's continuing to drink post-surgery. The paper also exposed her as a convicted thief. She was found guilty of stealing from patients when she was a hospital administrator in Botswana in the mid 70’s.

But it’s not Manto the government is accusing of theft and impropriety – it’s the reporters on the story and the paper’s editor who are under police investigation and face possible jail sentences if prosecuted. Confidential hospital records obtained by the Sunday Times were relied upon for substantiation and there’s an inference they may have been stolen (by persons unknown) from a Cape Town private clinic. SA law prohibits the release of personal medical information on privacy grounds and while there are legitimate questions to be asked about the ethics of publishing such material and the manner in which it was obtained, the government's reaction to a story clearly in the public interest is out of all proportion. Again, debate over the ethics of investigative techniques employed by journalists is always warranted as are clearly stated reasons justifying publication when the ethical territory is murky – it’s healthy professional practice and the public has a right to know if spurious methods are used. But the reaction of the ANC government to this story underlines the very tenuous nature of freedom of speech and free media in the ‘new’ South Africa, despite its enshrinement in the country’s vaunted Constitution. (See SA journalism Professor, Guy Berger's, blog posts on this aspect of the story here and here)

In the shadow of this saga, SA president, Thabo Mbeki, and his political apparatchiks have publicly condemned journalists and media outlets critical of the ANC, arguing such coverage is inconsistent with being ‘proudly South African’. And the ANC is considering replacing self-regulation with a Media Tribunal. Their argument is that journalists have a responsibility (or should be forced?) to uphold culture and assist development – an approach that represents a serious threat to independent journalism and freedom of speech. But it’s an approach which has apparently already been adopted by the cowed South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) which sounds increasingly like a state broadcaster, rather than a public one. SABC News Editor, Snuki Zikalala recently told an SA Human Rights Commission seminar on free speech and privacy that the SABC would not have run the story about the Health Minister because it only carries stories that help develop the country. “We are guided by the Constitution not to incite violence or hatred in our reporting. Publishing such a story is disrespectful.” He has a point – racial dignity is invoked in the South African Constitution but there’s also very strong protection for free speech and free media within, and the two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One could argue, for example, that the Minister’s behaviour amounted to self-inflicted indignity worthy of exposure in the public interest. It really is hard to understand the argument that Manto’s rights to privacy and dignity would have outweighed public interest in this story – particularly in light of her apparent abuse of the health system she heads, for her own medical benefit. Indeed, the Freedom of Expression Institute’s, Jane Duncan, told the Mail & Guardian such stories should be published: "There was an abuse of power here so one can't have a reasonable expectation to privacy."

Even more disturbing is a scandal reminiscent of apartheid-era politics and propaganda erupting around the ANC President. It’s been revealed that a company (Koni Media Holdings) owned by Mbeki’s political advisor, the government’s foreign affairs spokesman and the former Chief of State Protocol, was mounting a takeover bid for a newspaper group (Johncom) which happens to own the Sunday Times (the originator of the Manto story) along with other titles regularly critical of the ANC. This sort of state interference in the independent media is reminiscent of the darkest days of apartheid censorship. In 1978 a newspaper critical of the apartheid regime revealed the government had funded another newspaper, which purported to be independent (The Citizen), for propaganda purposes. The parallels to the takeover bid of Johncom by ‘The President’s Men’ are obvious. And, there’s fear being expressed in some quarters that SA's liberators are at risk of becoming the oppressors – a controversial perspective but one which does resonate. One SA media commentator, Ivo Vetger, has blogged about “worrying similarities between the socio-economic policies of this government and the apartheid regime — both practicing a form of national socialism or state corporatism.”

The fact that this ANC clampdown on the media coincides with the 30th anniversary of what’s known as Black Wednesday – the day the apartheid government permanently banned key anti-racist newspapers along with all Black Conciousness organisations – highlights the amnesic danger of the ANC government’s strategy to suppress independent, critical journalism. The fact that so many courageous South African journalists risked so much and suffered so greatly – with Steve Biko and others like him paying the highest price with their lives – just for the right to speak freely and write what was right makes this dangerous political manoeuvre all the more distasteful. (See Guy Berger’s blog post on his own transformation inspired by Black Wednesday).

This is a complex and disturbing story about the right to tell stories in a country with one of the most heart-breaking tales in history. And it’s one we need to watch. But we also need to be cogniscant of the diminishing rights to free speech here, in Australia. A study released this week by the Right to Know Coalition, “should ring alarm bells for those who value free speech” according to the chief investigator, former NSW ombudsman, Irene Moss. Moss admitted she was initially sceptical about the concerns being expressed by journalists over oppressive Freedom of Information (FoI) regulations but the report found “free speech and media freedom are being whittled away” in Australia. It lists more than 500 separate legal provisions in 335 different state and federal acts of Parliament as evidence that freedom of speech is being eroded. Secrecy provisions in a range of acts are being blamed for suppressing information which should be in the public domain. The study also confirms the FoI laws are a significant impediment to journalists attempting to report on government and identifies more than 1000 suppression orders issued by Australian courts.

Among examples of the curtailment of information availability cited by the report are opinion poll results on the first round of advertisements for the Federal Government’s controversial 'Workchoices' legislation and state government statistics on poker machine revenues. Calling for greater accountability and transparency upon the release of the report, media outlets said they would continue to campaign for reform to FoI and suppression laws while lobbying for the protection of whistleblowers. "We are not living in a dictatorship, but we are not living in a gold standard democracy. We are paying lip service to the principle of open government," Fairfax Media Chief Executive, David Kirk, said.

Journalists, and journalism academics have a responsibility to do more than pay lip service to the concerns raised here: on both sides of the Indian Ocean.

Update: The SA parliament is also considering a bill which could, in effect, act as a form of pre-publication censorship for the print media. Read about this 8/11/07 Mail & Guardian article by Guy Berger about what's at stake    [read more]

No, I’m not talking about the Melbourne Cup, I’m alluding to the rising tide of Islamophobia in Australia.

The latest targets of xenophobes and racists are Muslim school children in Sydney’s far South West.

Plans by the Qu’ranic Society to construct an Islamic primary and secondary college in the town of Camden have sparked a vicious community backlash based on ignorance and fear. The school, designed to accommodate 600 students, is awaiting approval from Camden Council but it’s facing furious opposition from many locals.

A public meeting held in Camden last night to discuss the proposal revealed the ugly side of Australian culture: intolerance. In a town of just over 3000, more than 2000 people attended the meeting and only a few hands were raised in support of the school. The views held by its opponents have been echoed on the local newspaper’s blogspot (Camden Advertiser) which has carried comments like this: "The thought of our beautiful Camden accommodating to this religion is a disgrace ... This Islamic school will change the town forever.” Another contributor argued that the council risked bringing crime and corruption to Camden if they approved the school which would turn it into a “dirty looking town like Lakemba.” And ‘Hadenough’ began, predictably, with “I’m not a racist…” and then proceeded to rail against Islam thus: “How will Camden benefit from a school that teaches its pupils how to be devote (sic) Muslims, not how to assimilate into the Australian society or show others respect? This is a religion that promotes violence against anyone who is not Muslim, I personally have had enough, let the Muslim religion return to the countries they fled.” S/he may escape the racist tag by strict definition but s/he’s clearly an ill-informed bigot and xenophobe. ‘Worried’ also complained about being labeled racist, arguing, incongruously, “I just would like to know, if Islam is so good, why are they here and why not go back?”

What these comments reveal is the extreme ignorance that’s fuelling racial vilification and religious bigotry against Middle Eastern and Muslim Australians in the post September 11th world we inhabit. This sort of emotive, fear-driven opposition is scarily reminiscent of the prejudices used to justify anti-Semitic policies in Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa and – closer to home – the White Australia policy. Claims that Islam is a religion that disrespects others and promotes violence are no more justifiable than the suggestion that all Christians agreed with the Crusades or the methods of the Spanish Inquisitors. Similar arguments can be mounted in reference to Judaism, Hinduism and so on. All religions have extremists among their adherents. That’s what Islamic fundamentalism is: a movement of extremists motivated by hatred which, ironically, is fanned by Western imperialism and the sort of racism and bigotry I’m highlighting here. Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and respect at its core and the vast majority of Muslims in this country are law abiding, harmonious citizens.

Fear – fear of difference, fear of the ‘other’, fear of the unknown and fear of terrorism – is the real driver behind this campaign of opposition to an Islamic school in Camden. Would plans for a Catholic school (overseen by nuns who cover their heads) or a private fundamentalist Christian School be so opposed? I doubt it. There is, undeniably, a strain of religious bigotry, racism and xenophobia underpinning this fear.

This story is a microcosm of the greater battle in this land for hearts and minds. It is a fierce battle: a battle between tolerance and intolerance; a battle between education and ignorance; a battle between fairness and prejudice. And, it’s a battle that’s re-entered national politics in the person of that infamous xenophobe Pauline Hanson. The wannabe Senator has this week reiterated her call for a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia and the right wing fundamentalist Christian party ‘Family First’ has done a deal with Hanson to preference her ahead of Labor and the Green’s on the ballot, increasing her chances of being elected.

Meantime, the Camden opponents of the Islamic school have embarked on a text message campaign in an effort to pressure the council to disapprove the development application. There are some moderate voices in that community debate, though, and I think I’ll end this post with the thought-provoking voice of one of the Camden Advertiser’s blog contributors calling himself ‘anti-bigot’: “Who's to say that the children of these Muslim people are to be any worse than us, the grandchildren/great grandchildren of criminals and low-lives?”    [read more]

It was a very funny week on the Australian federal election campaign trail.

Light relief from Labor’s ‘me too-ism’, and all the predictable sniping and carping from the Coalition, came in the form of political satire – scripted by the politicians themselves!

I’ve been gnashing my teeth about the Religious Right’s attempt to embed conservative Christian values in national politics. The movement is led by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), which bills itself as a united, non-partisan promoter of traditional Christianity in national life but which speaks with a right-wing tongue and has been described as un-representative of diverse Christianity by the Greens. The values espoused by ACL are clearly pro-traditional family and anti-gay rather than inspired by the politics of the radical social justice campaigner, the friend of prostitutes and the ‘unclean’, in whose name they preach – Jesus. The political party most closely aligned with ACL is the one-policy ‘Family First’ party which campaigns hard against homosexuality and pornography and is currently in preference-swapping negotiations with the xenophobic Senate candidate, Pauline Hanson. But any reading of the statements issued by ACL puts Howard’s Liberal National Coalition at a close second.

Relief from my frustration with this culturally and politically conservative model of Christian values in national politics has arrived, though - in the form of a Tory-style sex scandal…naturally! On the day ACL launched their campaign, one of ‘Family First’s’ endorsed candidates, Andrew Quah, turned up naked on a swag of gay websites via a series of self-portraits in which he is seen topless and pulling his penis out of his pants for assessment. He defended the photos like this: "I might have been drunk off my face or my political enemies might have drugged me." Yeah, good one Andrew, your political enemies drugged you into flashing your 'bits' in a mirror and taking a self-portrait! He also claimed: "that's not my penis...it might have been photo-shopped." Witty scribes are referring to him as 'Australia's Smallest Loser'. Too funny! To top it off, later in the day he admitted to being a regular visitor to pornography websites. Suffice it to say he's been dis-endorsed and expelled from the party.

Meanwhile, the engineer of Howard's much maligned industrial revolution, 'Workchoices', Tony Abbott, had a shocker on Wednesday. He began the day with a mea culpa to the legendary workers' rights campaigner, Bernie Banton. Bernie has three months to live – he's a victim of the James Hardie asbestos scandal and the man who forced that recalcitrant multinational to their knees in the fight for compensation for thousands of asbestosis victims. But he's a thorn in the side of this government's anti-union campaign and Abbott took a swipe at him on the campaign trail. Big mistake. Then, the Health Minister (a former seminarian and another morals campaigner) arrived half an hour late to a nationally televised debate with his Labor opponent, Nicola Roxon. She won over the tough National Press Club audience by debating herself and offering to impersonate the minister. Abbott apologised profusely for his lateness - when he eventually did arrive - but then, at the end of the debate, he was sprung on tape swearing at Roxon and accusing her of taking advantage of his predicament…further apologies will no doubt follow.

Then, the Prime Minister was hounded by satirists targeting ‘yesterday’s man’. Howard was chased on his morning walk (during which he always looks ridiculous dressed in some national team's training tracksuit) by four women wearing vintage 50's gear (hats, gloves, the works!), carrying tins labelled 'Xenophobia in a Can' and a big card with the word 'race' emblazoned on it. They called themselves the 'John Howard Ladies' Auxiliary' and kept urging him to "Play the race card, Mr Howard." Howard is getting increasingly tetchy about the attention of humourists on his daily walk – the 'Chaser' boys are always hot on his heels. They’ve ‘chased’ him with a giant worm – mocking the PM’s refusal to allow the audience meter known as the ‘worm’ to track reaction to his performance during his controversial first debate with Kevin Rudd (and, if he gets his way, it will be the only debate we’ll see this election). They also tailed him in a De Lorean – the classic 80’s car used to transport Michael J Fox ‘Back to the Future’ – driven by a man in white lab coat and a grey wig impersonating the film’s eccentric inventor of time travel. Satire is the real star of this campaign.

Labor didn’t escape the week untainted by comedy either. Kevin Rudd was publicly humiliated by his taste for ear wax. Old footage of him picking wax from his ear and eating it (eewwwwww!) during a House of Representatives debate surfaced and was broadcast on CNN and, of course, it was run on a loop on Australian TV. But at least he managed a self-deprecating laugh at the expose.

Less funny for Labor was the ‘jocular’ gaffe of the former Midnight Oil front-man and Opposition Environment spokesman (critics would supplant ‘spokesman’ with ‘sellout’) Peter Garrett. ‘Big Pete’, let the cat out of the bag during an airport exchange with a shock-jock who took a swipe at him over Labor’s ‘me-tooism’ (i.e. the perception that Labor is campaigning as a Coalition clone with a younger face). Garrett’s naively unguarded response was to declare that the copycat routine was designed to win votes: "once we get in we'll just change it all" he reportedly said. Garrett dismissed the conversation as a case of ‘jocularity’ and then added the spin that of course things would be different under Labor – new leader, new vision, abolition of ‘Workchoices’ blah, blah, blah. He sounded like a broken record in the ‘setting-the-record-straight’ press conference which followed and was broadcast nationally by ABC radio. The sound of pedals in reverse, full speed, is really quite grinding.

Ah, what sport the pollies make for us! Who said politics wasn’t entertaining?    [read more]

Three short years ago, Mark Zuckerberg was a Harvard psychology dropout who’d invented a quirky little social networking site called Facebook in his dorm room. Today he's worth $3 billion on paper! This week the 23 year old sold a 1.6% stake in the wildly popular web 2.0 utility to Microsoft for $15 billion after that other former geek, Bill Gates, won a bidding war with Google.

Facebook is a Generation Y phenomenon which is spreading faster than a Californian wildfire but maintains super-cool status among its 50 million international adherents. Rupert Murdoch’s My Space is just so 'yesterday'! In fact, with a weekly membership growth rate of approximately 3.5 % Facebook looks set to surpass its News Corporation competitor in official popularity inside nine months. And Australia has one of the fastest growing membership rates in the world.

So, what’s so special about Facebook? Well, at this point I should declare an interest in this story. I’m an undiagnosed FB addict! A couple of years ago I was randomly poked in the arm by one of my ex-students and when I asked “What was that for?” she answered excitedly “I’m poking you…you know, like on Facebook!” No, I didn’t know. She explained that FB was a social networking site where you effectively had your own webpage which worked like a public diary, photo album and email facility all of which was bundled together with loads of fun, time-wasting applications…like the poking thing. More on that later. Anyway, I dismissed the phenomenon with a wave of my hand back then but fast forward to this August and I was finally persuaded to sign-up by the same ex-student, now a practising lawyer. And, guess what? I was immediately hooked.

Within 24 hours of signing up, I’d scoured FB for every person I could ever remember meeting and asked them all to be my Facebook friends. This is part of the strange appeal of FB – people collect ‘friends’ like trophies. It reminds me of a High School popularity contest and it’s got a competitive edge that appeals to my inner journalist. In fact, I’m currently engaged in an FB friends race with another former student and I’m beating the pants off her. Rebecca has 14 friends…I have 56. The fact I feel like poking out my tongue at her at this moment demonstrates both how whimsically appealing Facebook is and how much I need serious psychological help to get over this addiction!

So what's a 37 year old academic doing on Facebook? One of my young FB friends rudely wrote on my 'wall' (the graffiti-like space that you use to communicate with your network) that he didn’t think FB allowed people born before 1980 to join. But I’m not the only oldie swimming around in FB land. I have Facebook friend who’s a 51 year old journalism professor (I won’t out him here…but he knows who he is). He initially ridiculed my interest in FB, arguing he had no time for it. But who’s cross promoting his blogs, column and research site on FB now, eh? And I’ve also claimed my 53 year old Vice Chancellor (the rather hip Prof. Stephen Parker) as an FB friend after convincing him to sign-up. Mind you, I was laughed at the other night by a high-flying Chief Financial Officer when I espoused the professional networking merits and academic usefulness of FB to him. I bet him it would outstrip My Space’s value and who’s laughing now, David?

So, who’s still wondering about the ‘poking’ thing? I mentioned this double entendre in an earlier post (Techno Vibes) but to re-cap – it’s an innuendo rich action which involves you clicking on the image of a pointing finger to attract your friends’ attention or just let them know you’re thinking of them. Actually, ‘Superpoking’ has now superceded ‘poking’. With ‘Superpoke’ you can send flowers, throw a chicken or even trout-slap your mates. And just moments ago I was hugged via yet another variation on the poking applications. Trust me, it’s really a lot more fun than it sounds. (Looking for that psychologist’s number as I type)

On a more serious note, I do find Facebook to be a great tool for communicating with students and keeping track of ex-charges – an important facet of professional journalism training and mentoring. And I also make use of my FB page to incite debate about politics, promote discussion about journalism issues and research topics, and link to this blog. So, while I admit it can be a big time-wasting distraction, it really does have broader merit than the initial appearance of a bunch of loosely connected high-school cliques.

It’s also a great tool for cross-cultural communication; journalists are using it to aid research and as an adjunct to their contact books; and politicians are exploiting it as a campaign tool. Federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd has his page open to all comers and he’s notched up 4,960 friends to date. Prime Minister John Howard also has an FB page - he isn’t showing and telling, though (I’ll let you do the political analysis on this one). And, importantly, given the criticisms levelled at Gen Y regarding their capacity to build meaningful relationships, FB is also a space where I’ve watched friendships grow and care and affection publicly expressed – that can’t be a bad thing in a world torn apart by injustice, war and terror, can it? Of course, this is a particularly Western, middle class phenomenon – poverty and poor access to 21st century communications limit the availability of FB to the developing world, where access to food, health care and fresh drinking water take priority over online social networking.

But while columns and columns are being dedicated to analyses of the FB phenomenon, and the critics emerge from the woodwork, Mark Zuckerberg can afford to sit back and count his FB friends and watch his business and his profits grow…ca-ching, ca-ching, ca-ching. Half his luck and talent.

Ps I wonder if Mark would be interested in issuing shares on a time-wasted-on-FB-basis. I know one journalism academic who could become an instant billionaire!    [read more]

Australia’s Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, sounded like a posh private school boy exasperated at being walloped in a debate by some working class upstart when he appeared on radio today. This is because he was.

Former pig-shooter and Guantanamo Bay inmate, David Hicks, continues to haunt the Howard Government on the election campaign trail despite being behind bars in Adelaide’s Yatala prison and subject to a gag order.

For five years, while Hicks languished in the notorious US military prison without charge but under suspicion of involvement in terrorism connected to his Taliban activities, the Howard government demonised him and refused to intercede on his behalf. That was until the eventual public backlash against his (mis)treatment threatened to turn the Hicks case into an election issue.

Within weeks of the government changing its tune and calling on the Americans to charge or release Hicks, a plea deal was struck at the highest level which resulted in the Adelaide father of two entering a guilty plea to one charge of ‘providing material support for terrorism’ in exchange for his repatriation to Australia. Hicks was ultimately sentenced to nine months jail in Adelaide’s Yatala prison and he’s due for release on December 30th.

At the time, the government denied it had done a political deal to secure Hicks’ release before the election and ensure he was behind bars on polling day. But revelations from US military sources this week appear to put the lie to that claim. The respected magazine Harpers carried an article from a US Civil Rights lawyer who quoted an unnamed military officer saying “Vice President Dick Cheney interfered directly to get Hicks’ plea bargain deal… He did it apparently as part of a deal cut with Howard.”

The Chief Prosecutor in the Hicks case, Colonel Mo Davis, today lent weight to those claims, telling ABC Radio he resigned his post in response to high level meddling with the judicial process in the Hicks case. “Unfortunately in my opinion, politics has inserted itself in the process so it’s, in my view, no longer a military commission, it’s become political,” he said. Colonel Davis says he was taken by surprise when the plea bargain was announced to the court after a deal was struck at levels above his head, disconnected from the judicial process. And he claims Hicks got off lightly.

Alexander Downer was clearly angry about these claims when he appeared today on another ABC radio program. “I mean honestly and truly,” he said, urging listeners to trust him. “I was exasperated by the amount of time it took and I thought that the public criticism of…no, and a lot of people were not supporters of David Hicks but they thought it was taking too long.” Not a particularly convincing performance and he was clearly rattled by the line of questioning from Virginia Trioli: “You’re just blackening our names. That’s all you want to do," he protested. I wonder what David Hicks would have to say in response to that complaint?

John Howard, who earlier in the year denied intervening in the case, was today telling a different story. “Of course I plead guilty to having asked both the President and the Vice President, within whatever power they had, to accelerate resolution of the matter,”he told another ABC presenter. His argument, though, was that this intervention was good and proper.

Meantime, Hicks’ father, Terry, who campaigned tirelessly for his release from Guantanamo, is once again a thorn in the side of the Howard government. He is raising questions about separate ABC reports that the Australian Federal Police are considering slapping a control order on Hicks when he’s released from jail. According to the ABC his movements and communications would be restricted and he’d be required to report to the police for up to a year if the order is applied. Terry Hicks is calling for a meeting with the AFP, saying such an order could destroy his son’s life.

And, with echoes of the Hicks matter, the Dr Mohamed Haneef case is also continuing to plague the government with the AFP Commissioner, Mick Keelty, admitting to the Bulletin magazine today that he advised the Director of Public Prosecutions not to lay charges against the Gold Coast Hospital registrar who was falsely accused of involvement in the June terror attacks in Edinburgh. The Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, cancelled Dr Haneef’s visa on the grounds he was of bad character after the charges against him were dropped. The decision was overturned by the Federal Court but the Federal Government is appealing the decision and the matter is set down for hearing on November 15th – ten days before polling day.

Dr Haneef’s lawyer says he’s astounded at the AFP Chief’s admission which will be inadmissible at the appeal due to the rules of evidence precluding the tendering of new information.

It’s almost surreal watching the government stumble on its back foot on these issues of ‘national security’ during an election campaign. It was just six years ago, during the 2001 election that the ‘Children Overboard’ and ‘Tampa’ scandals underlined the electorate's racist response to the fear of terror whipped up by Howard’s ‘dog whistle’ politics. This time around, though, the Howard Government appears to be unraveling on similar issues. Could it be that the electorate will no longer be bluffed by the race card and has finally had enough of the so-called ‘War on Terror’?    [read more]

OK blokes, have you ever wondered what goes on behind the doors of those sweet-smelling vessels of female indulgence and escapism known as day-spas? Let me enlighten you.

During a much-needed retreat to Noosa with my best friend last weekend (see Long Division post below) we booked in for the ‘Ultimate Indulgence Package’ at the Aqua Day Spa in search of beautification and relaxation. I was admittedly a little nervous about the experience – particularly when I read that I’d be the subject of a ‘full body kelp wrap’. I pictured myself, dignity stripped, being served as gourmet sushi at a Japanese restaurant.

So, what was the full body wrap experience like? Well it was a little embarrassing – a feeling I suspect had something to do with the disposable paper g-string I was required to wear throughout!! I know I don’t ‘get out’ much but I honestly thought that thing was a shower cap until I joined the dots and my friend found me staring at it, perplexed, in the salubrious surrounds of the change room. “What am I supposed to do with this?” I asked her. I mean, I’m all for sexy underwear but there was something really off-putting about this little number! The fact that she (approaching two metres in height with a body to rival Nicole Kidman’s) looked so amazing in her paper g-string didn’t help! But I got brave and donned the flimsy thing and just hoped the kelp-wielding beauty therapists wouldn’t laugh at me.

On a bench in the elegant waiting area were oatmeal cookies and herbal tea…I wondered if these constituted the products with which we’d be ‘buffed and polished’. We had to fill in wordy forms describing our expectations and health status before proceeding and there were questions like “do you want your breasts massaged?” and “would you prefer a male or female therapist?” Alarm bells were ringing at this point but I just kept breathing deeply and chanting “I’m not a prude” and “there’s no need to be ashamed of my body” unconvincingly under my breath.

Shortly thereafter, I was ushered into something called a ‘Vichy spa room’ (which conjured up thoughts of complicity with Nazism rather than relaxation) by a smiling American (“Thank God, she’s a woman!”) therapist and asked to lie down on a vinyl-covered bed resting in a bathtub which was flanked by high pressure hose units. “Weird”, I thought. Then, I was cleansed and exfoliated all over with earthy smelling products that left my skin tingling and engendered an unexpected sense of mind-numbing relaxation. Next, I was asked to sit up while she spread something on the foil blanket beneath me. It smelled foully of rotten ocean debris but I wasn’t prepared for the sensation of lying in this stuff. “Eeeeeooooowww - what is this sludge?”, I asked, recoiling. She explained that it was a kelp-based gel designed to purify and dexotify the skin while helping to combat cellulite (no doubt it's also useful for achieving world peace and combating poverty). It felt like warm pureed seaweed mixed with rock salt and that sticky green viscous substance kids play with. So, I’m lying in this stuff and then she spreads another layer all over the top of me – no crevice missed – before I’m literally wrapped up in the crinkly foil layer and left to 'cook' for 20 minutes.

Despite the way it sounds, it was a surprisingly pleasant experience. I was toasty warm and felt secure, enveloped as I was, while I enjoyed a hair treatment and head massage. Bliss arrived in the form of total relaxation and mental oblivion by the time I was ‘unwrapped’ and I didn’t even flinch at being hosed down, under high pressure, like a vehicle in a car wash. “What election? What PhD? What stress? What turmoil?” I asked myself as the layers of muck were washed away.

Next came the full-body aromatherapy massage – more relaxation and much sweeter smelling. At some point during this hour I fell asleep and when I tried to open my mouth to speak I realised my tongue was so relaxed I couldn’t form vowel sounds! It was at this stage I suggested the players in the next round of Middle East peace talks sign up for the ‘Ultimate Indulgence Package’ before opening their mouths.

But the relaxation didn’t stop there. There was a deluxe facial and some overdue grooming before a pedicure complete with paraffin wax treatment – an extraordinary sensation which involves your feet being coated in hot liquefied wax and wrapped in plastic bags before the substance sets and is wiped clean, revealing the feet of a 14 year old.

Five hours later we stumbled back to our room, smelling heavenly and feeling as soft as silk. I, for one, felt like I’d just enjoyed the best sex of my life (without any of the hassles ;o) 'adminstered' in combination with mind-clearing psychotherapy (OK, so maybe that description equals a slight exaggeration - I'm not ready to replace men with a day-spa just yet - but you get the picture, right?). Later that night we ‘went to bed’ with George (Clooney), Brad (Pitt) and Matt (Damon) in ‘Oceans 13’ and I slept like a baby… Pure oblivious bliss.

So, what’s the moral to this insider’s tale of day-spa indulgence? Paper g-strings aside, gals get yourself to a day spa stat. and blokes join them if you dare.    [read more]

My best friend’s 11 year old daughter announced at dinner the other night that she simply didn’t get the concept of long division… “What’s the point of long division when you can do short division?” she sensibly asked. I just about knocked over my wine glass in furious agreement with her “I know – that’s so true!!” I said, thinking this would make a good motto for my life.

I am notoriously impatient – a character flaw which at times threatens to become fatal. I blame it on a deadline driven career - hurry, hurry, race, race, pace, pace – but it’s the story of my life. In the past few days I’ve been reminded(again), though, of the benefits of letting time stop and sucking in fresh air...

I’ve just spent three days ‘chilling’ in the Queensland resort town of Noosa with the woman who’s been my best friend for 23 years. We never got to do the end of school party-travel thing…we already had the weight of the world on our shoulders at eighteen thanks to personal tragedy and responsibility beyond our years. But this past weekend we paused and laughed and indulged and took stock and counselled one another and remembered why we’re still stuck together after all these years.

In many ways we couldn’t be more different – I’m a passionate, outspoken career-driven political animal with social activism embedded in my pores. She’s a reserved, sensitive, nurturing physiotherapist who now works full time as a mother of four and she’s not much interested in politics or current affairs. We’ve drifted apart for periods over the years and spent nearly a decade on separate continents. But what binds us together is unbreakable – an historic connection borne of times of trial and a sisterly love that cares without variation, with the power to revive friendship, bridging space and time in an instant. And it’s a friendship that thrives on laughter as well as shared tears.

We knew this trip would be a good one as soon as the Virgin air hostess opened her mouth on the flight out of Sydney. “Your devastatingly handsome pilot and the equally dashing steward join me in welcoming you on board this flight to Maroochydore” she quipped, deadpan. We giggled while most of the other passengers looked straight ahead. “You’ll find life-jackets in this season’s colours under your seat…” More laughter from our row. “And I must warn you that there is strictly no smoking on this flight. The toilets are equipped with smoke detectors and security guards”. The woman was on fire and she thoroughly deserved the applause she got from us.

Isn’t it amazing how humour can cut through the tension? It’s so stressful just boarding a flight to anywhere these days you often feel like assaulting, rather than thanking, the flight attendants when you disembark at your destination. I mean, in this post-September 11th world, there are actually signs at some airports warning passengers that “airline travel is not a laughing matter.” But on this flight, laughter was delightfully unavoidable.

The long taxi ride from the ‘Sunshine Coast’ airport to Noosa was also amusing. The father and daughter taxi-driving duo were thoroughly entertaining - she was a law student and he was a ‘kite-surfing addict’. The conversation was quick and engaging. He talked with such passion about kite-surfing (a sport which involves you being catapulted above the waves at the whim of the wind) he almost convinced me to give it a try. And I couldn’t suppress my laughter when he said “Oh yeah, it’s so addictive it breaks up marriages. People hear the wind in the trees and they can’t stop themselves.” Really? I’ve heard drug-addiction, gambling and infidelity cited as causes of marriage collapse but never ‘kite-surfing’. Perhaps I’d better give it a miss after all...

By the time we arrived at our hotel, I already felt lighter of heart and clearer of head. Further relief came in the form of a long lunch in an open air restaurant, where wild bush turkeys blended in with the décor and my friend listened while I poured out my heart and blinked back tears in between gulps of wine. Catharsis. “God, I needed this!” I said repeatedly.

After that conversation time slowed and we reminisced and projected into the future and celebrated our friendship…increasingly carefree. One hour blended into another. We wandered along the Noosa beach boardwalk and sat and sighed and laughed and just watched the waves pound the beach, sucking in all the beauty with every breath.

When we returned to the beach for dinner that night there was a sand castle built to an exacting plan - lit by tea lights, it mesmerised passers by. We came back the next night, after a day of indulgent spa pampering and a great bottle of red, threw off our shoes and lay on the beach in our fancy gear. We laughed like school girls, taking photos of each other…daring the tide to reach us and not giving a damn what anyone thought.

It’s times like these we rarely find time to value. But it’s these times – time standing still times – that keep us going when the going gets too crazy. We’re going to make this an annual pilgrimage to celebrate life and our friendship and to help us remember how to laugh out loud.

Meantime, I’m going to try to remember how to do long division and force myself to take the scenic route more often. Life is short and it threatens to race you to the finish line which is why, sometimes, you just need to push the pause button.    [read more]

John Howard’s deathbed conversion to Aboriginal reconciliation is as transparent as cling wrap. It’s been hailed a ‘road to Damascus’ style conversion and an important, visionary move by some doyens of the mainstream media commentariat, but to me it’s nothing short of a man without empathy, seeking to re-define his legacy as he stares political annihilation in the face.

As is evidenced by his fascination with 1950’s Australian values, his obsession with faded sporting icons and his determination to white-wash Australian school history courses, he is a man who lives both in and for the past. He is a man who is also very prickly, stubborn and grudge-prone as history tells us. I’ve observed that his 12 years as Prime Minister have been like watching a schoolboy who was teased mercilessly in the playground seeking to even the score with his detractors. Aboriginal Australians who labelled him a racist were no exception.

Perhaps this analysis helps us understand why within weeks of coming to office, he tried to limit the inquiry into Australia’s ‘Stolen Generations’ of Aboriginal children and swore blind that he’d never utter a personal or collective apology to Indigenous Australians in recognition of two centuries of trauma inflicted by white Australia. In the subsequent 12 years, he’s burned so many bridges to Aboriginal Australia and alienated so many long-suffering people, history looked likely to record him as a divisive, xenophobic force.

Howard’s rejection of the findings of the Stolen Generations Inquiry, his derision of modern perspectives on Aboriginal history as ‘black arm-band views’ and the myriad other insults he heaped on Indigenous Australians saw a convention hall of prominent Aborigines stand and turn their backs on him during a speech he delivered a decade ago. In the intervening period, the reconciliation process - which looked so inspired and promising under Paul Keating’s leadership in the early 90’s - stagnated so badly, that Howard’s own hand-picked National Indigenous Council recently considered resigning in protest at the hopelessness of the situation.

Then, last week, on the eve of the federal election being called, he made a bid for a different legacy. Without any ministerial consultation, he announced plans for the inclusion of a new statement of reconciliation in the preamble of the Australian Constitution. He told the conservative think-tank, the Sydney Institute: “I will (if elected) put to the Australian people within 18 months a referendum to formally recognise indigenous Australians in our Constitution – their history as the first inhabitants of our country, their unique heritage of culture and languages, and their special (though not separate) place within a reconciled, indivisible nation.” This from the man, who in 2000, chose to stay at home when his deputy, the Treasuer, Peter Costello, joined 10's of thousands of Australians who marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in support of reconciliation and a national apology.

In an effort to explain such a radical shift in position, Howard went so far as to say he was willing to accept his share of the blame for the deterioration in white-black relations under his leadership (big of him). He certainly tried to sound genuine:

I recognise now that, though emotionally committed to the goal, I was mistaken in believing that it could be achieved in a form I truly believed in. The old paradigm’s emphasis on shame, guilt and apologies made it impossible to reconcile the goal with the path I was required to tread…The challenge I have faced around indigenous identity politics is in part an artefact of who I am and the time in which I grew up.

But struggle as I might, I just can’t accept that this man’s conversion is genuine. I just don’t believe him. Why not? Because in any relationship breakdown there is one word that’s crucial to mending wounds and rebuilding bridges – the very essence of reconciliation. That word is sorry and as the song says it is often the hardest word to say, but it is also the straightest path to genuine forgiveness, in turn, the healing power of relationship reconstruction. It's a word Aboriginal Australians and supporters of the reconciliation movement want to hear - in recognition of two centuries of massacre, abuse, disenfranchisement, discrimination and ongoing disadvantage. It's a word that's been uttered by many in public life - including the Federal Opposition - and it's been recommended as a course of action by countless committees and inquiries. But it’s a word the Prime Minister is still refusing to say. There may be a referendum, but there will be no personal or official apology on behalf of the Australian Government from John Howard if he's re-elected. He argues that this is because too many Australians would disagree with such a move.

I suspect the real reason is that he can’t bring himself to utter the word because he refuses to accept responsibility on behalf of our forebears for the devastation they wreaked upon Aboriginal Australia. This is not about guilt, Aboriginal Australia doesn’t want white Australia to feel guilty (although as a friend suggested to me recently, politically speaking, guilt may be the basis of social caring) but Indigenous Australians do want the past acknowledged and they need the healing that could flow from the utterance of that small word we all insist our children learn in their first grasp of language.

And, in Howard’s case, he has inflicted so many personal wounds on individual Aboriginal activists, nothing short of ‘sorry’ will convince them his apparent change of heart is any more than political trickery. One of them is Lowitja 'Lois' O'Donoghue, herself a member of the Stolen Generations and the former head of ATSIC. "Big deal," Ms O'Donoghue told The Australian. "Another bloody election promise. It's not before time, it's what we've fought for, but who believes him? I don't.” The first Aboriginal politician in the NSW parliament,Labor vice-president Linda Burney, was similarly skeptical "It's interesting he is talking about that in the preamble but if he is really on about rights then why was the Racial Discrimination Act suspended so that they could bring in the NT intervention? I welcome it, but looking at his record I'm suspicious." Relevantly, Howard actually cited the controversial Northern Territory intervention (which involved sending the military into Aboriginal communities and rescinding land rights under the guise of protecting abused children) as the very motivation for his about turn – but not for the reasons Burney may surmise. He believes the move "overturned 30 years of attitudes and thinking on indigenous policy" and paved the way for a groundswell of support for Aboriginal reconciliation within mainstream Australia. More re-writing history before the ink is even dry.

Noel Pearson, Aboriginal lawyer and activist, whose intelligent, post-modern pitch for Aborginal revival has been embraced by the Conservatives for reasons of political expediency, agrees with me: it’s about history. “History soon forgets budget surpluses and property booms, tax cuts and sky-rocketing share markets. History will not forget reconciliation,” he wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald. But he’s calling for full support for Howard’s proposed referendum, saying it’s an important step forward for the reconciliation process. Other Aboriginal leaders have echoed this call. But the one who’s words most resonate and inspire is Pat Dodson - Aboriginal priest and activist, Australia’s answer to Desmond Tutu. With extraordinary grace and powers of forgiveness I’m ashamed to admit I don’t possess, Dodson told the ABC he was surprised by Howard’s change of heart but had no reason to doubt his sincerity “I think it's a positive contribution to the process of national reconciliation…I think that it's a big shift for him, but this is about the nation's reconciliation, it's not about John Howard's reconciliation ... this is something quite different.” I just hope Pat Dodson’s heart won’t be broken again by this government.

For its part, the Labor Party may be suspicious and cynical of Howard’s motivation but it will support the proposed referendum without too much criticism - partly because Kevin Rudd’s team knows it’s unlikely to translate to many votes on polling day. This is because the Aboriginal vote largely exists in safe National Party seats and Howard’s well and truly done his dash with the socially progressive political vacillators in marginal urban seats.

Effecting change to the constitution through a referendum is notoriously difficult and the Prime Minister argues he’s the only one who can bring mainstream (i.e. ignorant white)Australia onboard. Some commentators have bought this argument, saying 'mainstream' opposition to Aboriginal reconciliation is based on economic jealousy –of ‘special treatment’ welfare offered to Indigenous people - and Howard’s conservative approach can get them past this indifference. I think that’s a bogus argument. The same Australians don’t refuse to attend ANZAC marches because they aren’t beneficiaries of the War Veterans’ Pension do they? This argument is just an attempt to veneer over deeply ingrained racism. And, if these 'mainstream' Australian voters do come on board it will because they know the Prime Minister feels the same way they do.

As much as the thought of Howard being eulogised as a champion of Aboriginal reconciliation makes me feel physically ill, I sincerely hope his referendum proposal does get up – for all Australians. But it will be a hollow victory without these letters S-O-R-R-Y.

And, I’ve said it before, but once more for the record: I am deeply sorry for the suffering inflicted on Aboriginal Australia by my colonial ancestors. I don’t feel personally responsible for what they did, but I am appalled and ashamed of their actions and I do accept personal responsibility to help repair the damage they inflicted in whatever small way I can. I also accept that I am a white beneficiary of historic and continuing racism against Indigenous Australians. Mine is a heartfelt apology.    [read more]

John Howard is seeking to re-write history – and not just by defying predictions at the polling booth. He’s trying to re-write our children’s history books.

I wrote in an academic journal last year that it was my high school history teachers who politicised me. They taught me to think independently and interrogate the themes of history - to analyse the causes and consequences of events, not just reiterate dates. These are the skills that form my journalistic scaffolding and the lessons that inform my moral compass, socially activating me.

I suspect the transformation my history teachers effected within me is precisely the sort of outcome the Howard government is seeking to prevent through its new national, compulsory history curriculum.

The controversial plan takes a good idea – increasing high school students’ exposure to Australian history – and prostitutes it for political purposes. The Howard agenda is about white-washing Australian history. This shouldn’t come as a shock to long term observers of his ‘cultural revolution’. In the late 90’s he railed against what he described as the ‘black-armband’ view of Australian history – this was a deliberately offensive way of critiquing contemporary perspectives on the history of Aboriginal Australia since European invasion (a term he detests…it was settlement or colonisation in his view despite the bloody battles, massacres and genocide).

He’s also criticised what he perceives as Leftist interpretations of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam war in some history curricula along with representations of the dismissal of the Whitlam government – Australia’s most significant political crisis and one in which he played a part. Howard’s focus is on celebrating Australian achievements…particularly on the cricket pitch.

Monash University's National Centre for History Education was originally commissioned by the Federal Government to produce the curriculum and its output was approved by the Federal Education Minister but Howard was unhappy with its direction and instead, referred it to a panel of experts. Read for: hand-picked, right leaning experts like the conservative historian Geoffrey Blainey and former Howard staffer and columnist, Gerard Henderson.

Howard released the end result last week on Federal election eve, in a carefully managed publicity stunt which involved the student captains and principal of a western Sydney school being brought back early from school holidays to accommodate the PM’s need for a classroom photo opportunity. But the curriculum, the implementation of which will be tied to federal education funding, has been criticised by the academics responsible for the first draft, the state education ministers, and history teachers themselves.

The concern of the Monash academics is that the curriculum is now too cumbersome and will be difficult to implement. The state’s say it represents inappropriate federal intervention in school curricula – and NSW points out that it already has a compulsory history course for years 9 and 10 and doesn’t need another layer of lesson plans. The history teachers themselves say it’s a politicised curriculum, a point reiterated by ACT Education Minister, Andew Barr who told the ABC "What we are effectively being asked to adopt here is ... John Howard's version of Australian history.”

There’s certainly evidence of Howard’s hand on the curriculum – date driven, rather than theme-informed, it is overcrowded with so called milestones and characters but key events and people seem to be missing. Why, for example, is the rural entrepreneur RM Williams featured, but the living political legend, Gough Whitlam ignored? And, what do we make of this: according to the ‘Howard-ised’ curriculum Aboriginal history is taught from 60,000 years BC to 15,000 years BC; the ‘Early Encounters’ end with Captain Cook scouring the Australian coast in 1770 and the period from 1788 to 1840 is titled ‘British Settlement’. As a student of history, my analysis is this: Howard is whiting out the most tumultuous period in modern Australian history – the wars, massacres and genocide that characterised white-black relations from 1788.

This is a dangerous and dastardly act. I support the compulsory study of history in secondary school and I wish more journalism students would study it at university. As long as the content is engaging and well taught, history studies can produce well-informed citizens and journalists who can understand the present and potentially predict the future in the context of the past.

It is history which teaches us to avoid repeating the mistakes of our forbears. But jingoistic history has no place in our schools and a nation which is so far from repairing the damage inflicted on Aboriginal Australia has no business erasing the harrowing history the Indigenous people of this country have endured since white invasion.

How can we even hope to reach a state of true reconciliation without confronting our black history?    [read more]

Sick of the election already? OK, here’s some light relief from my subconscious to entertain you.

About a week ago I had a very weird dream.

There I was – resplendently dressed, of course – in a medieval crypt beneath the Danish Royal Palace preparing for some sort of royal soiree. Who knows what a staunch republican was even doing inside the Danish palace in an ‘official’ capacity but there you go…

Anyway, cut to the next scene and Princess Mary (of Fred and Mary fame) wanders into the opulently decorated crypt (music, laughter & the clinking of glasses stop suddenly) with the royal entourage and breaks free of the line to hug moi! Nope, don’t know her from a bar of soap (have you ever wondered what the derivation of that saying is?) but apparently, in my dreams, we’re very close.

So, we sit down at a table for two and then a friend of mine appears with a silver platter to wait at our table. Mary and I launch immediately into deep conversation and my friend, who’s recently been at the other end of my own emotional outpourings, smiles knowingly. It turns out that Mary is deeply unhappy in her marriage…she’s feeling trapped and stifled and doesn’t know what to do. Being the helpful, empathetic gal pal I am, I offered this advice: “Mary, you can’t start a blog to express your feelings because that would be way too public and risky. But why don’t you start a diary? You really need to download all this and give yourself a chance to escape – at least in your mind - while you work out what to do”.

Weird, huh? Weirder still is the fact that I read in this weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald (read more) that Mary is reportedly – wait for it – unhappy in her marriage which has come under strain as a result of pressures of Royal life and dealing with Fred’s dysfunctional family!! Apparently royal watchers fear she’s locked herself inside the palace and thrown away the key – literally and metaphorically.

I have the most curious, vivid dreams sometimes…if only I knew what they meant! And, apparently my subconscious now also has a direct line to the Danish palace… Hey, is that the phone? Maybe it’s one of those tabloid women’s mags looking for an anonymous quote from a ‘palace insider’.

Mary, if you’re reading this: you know what to do.    [read more]

It’s one to nil to Kevin Rudd in the opening hours of the Australian Federal election campaign.

Flanked by a banner plastered with the campaign phrase ‘New Leadership’, the Labor Opposition leader certainly looked like the fresh alternative to John Howard, presenting big picture ideas and forcefully attempting to outline the differences between himself and the Prime Minister.

His address to the Brisbane media this afternoon was composed and confident, appearing scripted in parts, but suited to the needs of campaign reporters…brevity, clarity, thumping key messages. He appeared to lose confidence – adjusting glasses, licking lips momentarily and shrinking slightly at the podium – when the journos began firing questions. But his composure grew as the press conference continued and the end result was impressive. He certainly looks like the young, inspired but safe alternative voters say they’re looking for. Particularly in contrast to Howard’s ‘yesterday’s man’ performance earlier today.

But was there real substance? In my assessment, yes. While there was scant specific detail – as expected given the nature of political campaign management – the themes were rich and clearly discernable. The old promise of an ‘Education Revolution’ was joined by commitments to withdraw Australia’s combat troops from Iraq, sign the (now outdated) Kyoto Agreement on greenhouse gas emissions, deliver high speed broadband to regional and remote Australia as well as the big cities (long overdue), prohibit nuclear reactors, repeal ‘Workchoices’, end the blame game between the states and the Commonwealth on hospital funding (easier said than done). That’s the stuff of potential campaign meat.

But it’s a long road ahead and, as Rudd acknowledged, Labor is going to have to make history to win this election – the party has only crossed the line twice from Opposition since World War 2. “This is going to be the fight of our lives…we have 16 seats to win and we’re up against a really clever politician…I believe this will go down to the wire,” he told reporters. He’s right - despite being consistently ahead in the polls, it’s going to take more than fresh ideas and ‘youthful’ appeal to pull off the win on polling day. History is likely to judge John Howard as the most cunning politician ever to live in the Lodge and he will be a tough act to beat, especially from the back-foot – he is the dogged “Lazarus with a triple by-pass” after all.

That’s why Rudd will need to engage with the negative campaign launched by Howard today. And, he’s off to a good start on that front, saying he’s prepared for the "mother of all fear campaigns" and putting defensive tactics in play. He’s hit back over the false claim that the Coalition Government is the one to trust on interest rates, pointing to the five interest-rate rises on Howard’s watch since the last election. And he’s answered Howard’s criticism of him as inexperienced, highlighting his career achievements in the public service, the diplomatic corps and his decade of service as a Labor MP. He's also re-iterated his claim to be economically conservative and fiscally responsible. But he'll have to point to his achievements in the shadow Foreign Affairs portfolio and his fluency in Mandarin, among other strengths, if he’s going to convince those prone to hesitating in the voting booths, that he can be trusted for the top job. But he’s off to a good start with this strategy: pre-empt the attacks, confront them head-on and return fire. That’s the only way to win the battle.

Meantime, this is the anti-Howard message you can expect Kevin Rudd to ram home “…he (Howard) has no plan for our future. Australia can’t afford another three years of a government gone stale without fresh ideas…I refuse to stand idly by and watch this happen” That and "Who's afraid of Peter Costello?"    [read more]