Darkness at Noon

Another small point about the Kovco case is that the Federal government is blaming the company they outsourcing their mortuary services.

I don’t think that our mortuary services should be outsourced. I think we outsource entirely too much but this is beside the point. The rhetoric defending outsourcing is based on economic models. That’s fine, but I’ll never forget something my year 12 politics teacher once said. Outsourcing is also a way of reducing your responicibilties and liabilities.

I wonder if that excuse will work here.

There is no doubt that the circumstances surrounding Kovco’s death are yet to be fully understood. Of course this has been the subject of much discussion in the Blogsphere etc with a stream of “gun experts” coming out and explaining that something is a miss.

The reaction of a few of my friends initially was “what a dick. Why was he cleaning his gun with a bullet in it?” It was probably the reaction of many people. My initial reaction was “of course – accidental or ‘friendly’ fatalities in war are always the first.”

One of the things that has stuck me however, and unfortunately I can’t remember where I read it initially, is that this more than anything will put the heat on Howard. Probably the most powerful anti-war protest in the States has been that of Cindy Sheehan. I suspect the reason that Bush and Blair have faired a lot worse than Howard because of the war is because this is only the second Australian to die in Iraq (I think). It’s when the body bags start flooding in and the pain of a dead soldier’s mother is so public that opposition to this war will be strong enough for people to vote Howard out.

I do hope we put an end to it before then though.

At the risk of sounding like an echo chamber I thought I’d draw your attention to this:

So what did they do? The Government has FIRED EVERY SINGLE CULTURAL HERITAGE INSPECTOR IN VICTORIA. They haven’t appealed the Emergency Declaration in the Courts – which they could do. They haven’t rung the inspector up and said ‘come in, we’d like to have a chat and see how we can help resolve these issues – which they could do. They probably haven’t even read the bloody thing…

As readers of this blog will know I’ve consistently supported Camp Sovereignty from day one. I know a few of the people involved in it (and what a wonderful bunch they are) so I’m naturally a little biased. However I do hold the opinion that there is an overwhelming need for grass-roots activism from our more radical indigenous population and that the protest is a an effect and symbolic bit of non-violent direct action.

It has been interesting to read the different portrayals of the protest by the two main papers, the Age and the Hun. The Hun has been outright biased and certainly developing false impressions. The Age has been more sympathetic.

The Hun’s portrayal of the protest has lead to some important misunderstandings which I thought were exemplified by this comment by (your favorite opposition leader and mine) Doyle:

“I don’t accept that they can’t be moved on. If the fire can be tended in a way which is not intrusive, then that is reasonable for the 30 days.

“This is not, by the way, about Aboriginality, this is about trespass,” the Opposition Leader said.

The place has be called “Camp Sovereignty“. Now why do you think that would be Mr Doyle?

Update: There’s a nice opinion piece by Graham Ring in today’s Age on this topic

Over the past couple of days Crikey has pointed out a couple of people speaking out about the proposed changes to the electoral laws regarding political donations.

Alan Griffin, federal ALP member for Bruce launched a scathing attack on the proposed changes in Parliament last month (link didn’t work because the APH site was down when I posed this).

Former ALP member, and now ANU lecturer has this piece in the Canberra Times.

The Age has reported today that Environment Minister Ian Campbell has blocked a wind farm in south-east Gippsland because of a fear that it would further endanger the Orange-bellied parrot:

The federal government has blocked a wind farm proposal on Victoria’s south-east coast after a report found the project would threaten an already endangered parrot species.

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell announced today he would not approve the wind farm at Bald Hills in south Gippsland.

The report looked at the effect of wind farms on four species of migratory birds and concluded one species in particular, the orange-bellied parrot, was at risk of extinction within 50 years.

My response to this was, in short: Bollocks! This is such a farce on so many levels. As the Age says:

Even if only one orange-bellied parrot died each year as a result of flying into a wind turbine, it could be enough to tip the species into extinction, the report found.

How can you seriously mitigate this level of risk? How many other things could kill one of these parrots a year? Clearly the report indicates that the level of risk is low (although it’s obviously spun as being high), ie bugger all birds will be killed by the wind turbines. While there is the risk of killing a couple of birds what the report really finds is that we need to put programs in place to build the numbers of these birds. Why couldn’t you simply recommend that 1% of the profit from the turbines go towards this. Moreover, from the sounds of it, they report assumes that the numbers of the parrots will not increase – an unfortunate assumption.

So why is out beloved Mr Campbell doing this? I’m certain it is not for the concerns of the environmentalists who are, as far as I can tell, far more concerned about climate change – which is a far greater danger to a far greater number of species than a wind turbine.

I can only hazard a guess at him motivation, but it does seem to me that the sort of people who are concerned about these wind turbines are those that more concerned about the aesthetics of their horizon at their weekend beech house. They have been scrambling for a legitimate excuse to oppose the turbines for ages.

(Via CCH)

Things are in motion for a China-Australia Free Trade Agreement:

China and Australia have agreed to accelerate negotiations on a free trade deal in a bid to seal an official agreement within two years.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, on a four-day visit to Australia, described his vision for mutually beneficial ties between the nations, which had a trading relationship worth almost $40 billion.

(Via Crikey)

Andrew Murry has set up a site called Political Donations WA.

As he says on the home page:

This website is a project undertaken by Senator Andrew Murray and forms part of the Australian Democrats campaign to reform political funding and disclosure legislation. However, as a Western Australian Senator, it concerns only those donations made to political parties in this State.

I haven’t had a good chance to go through this yet but it’s good to see the Democrats taking on this issue.

Brian Costar and Peter Browne have an extended version of their Australian Policy Online piece in today’s age:

In March 2005, when it made its first submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election, the AEC expressed no concern whatsoever about the workload it faces at each election, when voters are given seven days’ grace to enrol or to update their enrolments. Nor did it express its support for the argument that the last-minute rush of enrolments creates opportunities for electoral fraud. Although several members of the committee repeatedly returned to the issue, they failed to persuade the commission to support the closure of the electoral roll as soon as the prime minister calls an election.

Michelle Grattan reports in today’s age regarding the proposed changes:

The Government’s proposed higher threshold for political funding disclosure will mean the Coalition and Labor will make public only about two-thirds of the total funds they receive — a fall from three-quarters at present.

But this estimate is based on past patterns. The new rules could cause political donors to change their behaviour, leading to even lower total disclosure, according to a research paper prepared by the parliamentary library.

Also, a loophole in the legislation means that a family could donate up to $280,000 to the Liberals and Nationals combined without having to disclose the fact, while the maximum for a corporation would be $140,000.

Meanwhile, a Senate committee inquiry on the legislation before Parliament, which increases the threshold for disclosure from $1500 to more than $10,000, split on party lines in a report tabled last week, with Government members supporting the changes and Labor criticising them

…and a noteworthy amendment for all you bloggers out there:

…after talks with non-profit organisations which feared they might be caught by disclosure provisions for “third party” groups by just making comment on political issues.

Under the Government amendments, the provisions for disclosure of donations to organisations and spending by them will be linked to the broadcasting law, so they will only kick in when these groups undertake political advertising.