Well, that broke the monotony huh?

Amid all the sound and fury last night, let’s not overlook that Malcolm Turnbull has achieved a truly remarkable feat: drag his party kicking and screaming to actually support the Government’s CPRS, in an amended form.  It is an impressive achievement.

And forget about Wilson Tuckey and Dennis Jensen and the denialist bloc within the Liberal Party calling a spill against Turnbull on Thursday.  If the spill motion gets up, Turnbull will likely have the numbers, and for that matter won’t even need them in Tony Abbott or Joe Hockey don’t stand.  I mean, seriously – Kevin Andrews? A man whose ministerial career was marked by both incompetence and malice?  He’d be lucky to get his own vote let alone anyone else’s.

But Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership is terminal after today for two reasons: he now has a formidable array of conservative figures aligned against him, and he has confirmed yet again that he is unable to control his high-handed and aggressive style of leadership.

Andrews Robb’s decision to join the “no” camp was the bombshell of the day, but one quickly overtaken by talk of spills and numbers.  It remains a critical development.  Robb is the most substantial figure in the party apart from Turnbull.  He is more widely-respected than Abbott, he is far, far smarter than Joe Hockey, he has supporters amongst both conservatives – his instinctive political home – and moderates (he is a republican).  Above all, he was Turnbull’s trusted point man on the ETS before he was felled by illness.  His decision to oppose Turnbull would not have been taken lightly.  It would have been taken in the full knowledge that he was turning his back on the man whom he strongly supported for the leadership in November 2007 and September 2008.

It also means that there is now a solid bloc of Nick Minchin, Robb and Tony Abbott, amongst the senior leadership, who opposed Turnbull.  This is a far more formidable grouping than a clutch of denialists like Bernardi.

A key feature of the partyroom meeting was always going to be how Turnbull handled it.  There has been a growing chorus – from senior Liberals down – in recent months that Turnbull is unable to control his aggression, unable to rein in his tendency to go for the jugular.  It was bad enough when he bit off more than he could chew against Kevin Rudd over the faked email affair.  But when directed at his colleagues, at it increasingly has been over the CPRS, it makes enemies where it is unnecessary to do so.

And Turnbull has tried to rein it in.  He was extraordinarily patient in getting the party slowly but surely to move to a point where it would at least consider a deal – a remarkable achievement given it voted against the CPRS point blank earlier in the year.  But he always seemed a brain explosion away from undoing all the hard work – like when he labelled opponents smartarses and reckless and irresponsible, and visibly and deliberately put his leadership on the line over the CPRS.

Today, again, he tried hard – insisting that everyone who wanted to be heard should speak their piece.  Hour after hour it went.  Denialists, legitimate sceptics, climate change believers who didn’t like the CPRS, supporters – all had their say.

And then, as if he could restrain himself no more, he declared victory while senators were out of the room, saying he had a majority.

There was no hint of sharp practice in doing it while senators were absent – or at least that’s what Warren Truss and Barnaby Joyce said.  Both said that wasn’t an issue – people had been going in and out of the partyroom all day.  But very quickly, Turnbull’s opponents began saying that he had misrepresented the partyroom position.  Kevin Andrews in effect accused Turnbull of lying, saying “40 or 41″ backbenchers had opposed the CPRS package, and only 33 had supported it.  Another counted it 47-47 after including shadow Cabinet members.

The same words were again used – high-handed.  Arrogant.  Bullying.  Sentiments unlikely to have been curtailed by his repeated, Muhammad Ali-like claim “I am the leader”.

Turnbull has achieved an astonishing feat in getting his party to back the Government’s CPRS, particularly given just how alien he is to many conservatives in his party and how relatively inexperienced he is politically.  But regardless of what happens later this week, he has confirmed the suspicion many hold that he simply cannot control himself.  Worse, there are serious, substantial party figures who are now alienated from him.

For a party as deeply divided as the Liberals, Turnbull’s style simply can’t work.  Frankly it’s doubtful whether anyone’s style could work given how badly they are fractured. But Turnbull risks exacerbating their divisions with his approach – and that is exactly what appears to have happened this evening.

Over the past week, Croakey has been hosting a lively discussion about the merits of breast cancer screening, in the wake of new research highlighting the potential for over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment. You can read some of the previous pieces here, here and here.

Now Daphne Havercroft, a Founder Member of an advocacy organisation for patients in the UK, called  Independent Cancer Patients’ Voice (ICPV), offers her perspective, arguing that women should be given balanced, accurate information, and their personal choices about whether to be screened, or not, should be respected.

She writes:

“ICPV doesn’t have a united view on breast screening. Our members have various views.

But  we are united in agreeing that women should have fair and balanced information to make an informed choice about whether or not to be screened. If they choose not to be screened, they should not be made to feel that it is an irresponsible decision, as sometimes seems to be the case.

We welcome the work being done in the UK by Dr Joan Austoker of Oxford University to rewrite the information leaflet sent to women with Breast Screening appointments so that they are told the truth about what is known of the benefits and harms of breast screening. Three of us recently met Dr Austoker and realised what a difficult job she has, because whatever she produces will not please everyone.

It is now well accepted that breast screening will lead to over-treatment for some women. The controversy concerns the statistics about the extent of harms versus benefits.

We hear views from women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer varying from those who are outraged that they may have had unnecessary treatment to those who are convinced their lives were saved by breast screening. The problem is that neither these women nor their doctors can say with absolute certainty whether the treatment was appropriate or whether they were over-treated.

It is unethical for any woman, whether or not she has had breast cancer, to use her views and personal experiences to influence other women as to whether or not to be screened.

That is a decision each woman is entitled to make for herself.

It’s time to move on. ICPV wants to see all women provided with fair and balanced information about breast screening. It must be based on the best available evidence, and be honest about the differing views of experts.

We have a great opportunity to bring a multidisciplinary approach to the future of breast screening by bringing together epidemiologists, breast clinicians, public health experts, researchers, psychologists, cancer patients and women of screening age to understand what we currently know about the biology of breast cancer, what we need to know to better distinguish between disease that will do not harm if left and that which will kill.

Then we must decide on the research priorities that will reduce the incidence of over-treatment, yet not lead to under-treatment. If we make good progress, breast screening information for women will rapidly become out of date and have to be revised every few years as knowledge increases.

Let’s start this work now, for the sake of future generations of women.”

Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has got the science on climate change wrong before. For instance, back in 2006, Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California, San Diego told Crikey “At the very least I would like it to go on record that Bolt’s abuse of my science is not done with my approval.”

But that didn’t stop Lateline from giving him air time on the subject last night.

Contained in the Lateline report about the hacked emails that were nicked from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s University of East Anglia last week and spread all about the web was Bolt’s take on what it all meant:

“Obviously some of the world’s top climate scientist, ones most involved in developing this theory, involved in a massive collusion stretching from America to Britain in trying dodge, fiddle with data, destroy data when others try to check it, sceptics try to check it,” says Bolt.

Here’s a snippet of Bolt’s measured comments from the many posts he’s devoted to the subject on his blog, which is presumably why Lateline felt him qualified to represent the ’sceptics’ :

Surely these emails can’t be genuine. Surely the world’s most prominent alarmist scientists aren’t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can’t find the warming they’ve been so loudly predicting?…

This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isn’t, we’re about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.

Feel the drool.

Apparently the producers of Lateline thought it fitting to give this kind of considered commentary oxygen.

This kind of thing has been labelled the bias of balance (thanks @Lumo) by some: an overcorrection of sorts in which pundits are given airtime simply because they represent an opposing view, not because they know what they’re talking about.

Ross Gelbspan spent 31-years as a reporter and editor. He argues in his books The Heat Is On and Boiling Point that a “failed application of the ethical standard of balanced reporting on issues of fact has contributed to inadequate U.S. press coverage of global warming.”

An item dating back to 2004 on the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) website acknowledges that the journalistic norm of balanced reporting is considered one of the traditional pillars of good journalism. But:

“By giving equal time to opposing views, the major mainstream newspapers significantly downplayed scientific understanding of the role humans play in global warming. Certainly there is a need to represent multiple viewpoints, but when generally agreed-upon scientific findings are presented side-by-side with the viewpoints of a handful of skeptics, readers are poorly served.”

What’s the internal directive for ABC staffers when it comes to reporting climate science and the politics of climate science? Is it to commission well informed experts on the subject, or to pursue the secret ingredient of news that journalists are taught to seek out: conflict? Because that might work for politics, but it doesn’t work for science.

There IS a distinction between reporting the science of climate change, and commenting on the politics of it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on that, however unqualified it is, and Bolt’s theory on the significance of these emails is a point of view that shouldn’t be censored.

But if Lateline is seeking to shed light on the issue, that won’t achieve it by interviewing Bolt.

Climate science is neither left wing or right wing. There’s no pro or anti in this discussion, and the reportage surrounding it has to dig deeper and think more intelligently. None of us are climate scientists, but that doesn’t mean we can get away with relying on soundbites.

Airing the Great Global Warming Swindle was a low point for the ABC’s coverage of climate science. Can we please move on?

What had looked for Malcolm Turnbull like a tough but doable task of getting his partyroom on side for a CPRS deal with the Government has become a nightmare with former Turnbull supporter Andrew Robb declaring he’s opposed to the deal.

Robb was Turnbull’s original choice to lead the CPRS process, but had to bow out when he was felled by an illness earlier in the year.  He was replaced by Ian Macfarlane, who has negotiated the package released today with Penny Wong.

Robb’s opposition to the deal will lend respectability to those opposing a deal, who are primarily climate denialists.  While initially a climate sceptic, Robb immersed himself in the detail of emissions trading and visited the US for discussions with carbon markets analysts there.  After Turnbull, Macfarlane and Greg Hunt, Robb is the Liberal figure who understands the detail of the CPRS and emissions trading best.

He is also the most substantial senior Liberal after Turnbull himself, respected in Parliament and in the Press Gallery.

Robb will be fully aware of what his opposition will do to both the chances of a deal and to Turnbull’s leadership.  It is, quite literally, a gamechanger, and leaves Turnbull in serious trouble.  This could be the end of Turnbull’s leadership.

The partyroom meeting resumes at 4.00pm after a break for Question Time.

Over the weekend I found myself fascinated by the story of a group of prominent scientists who conspired to promote the theory they supported. Their correspondence revealed how they agonised over the impact of others’ publications and reviews, planned their public commentary so that their critics would be thwarted, and worked together to raise the prominence of their theory with the public. Yes, the fascinating final episode of Darwin’s Brave New World on ABC1 delved into all of these machinations from Sir Charles Darwin and the supporters of his theory of natural selection – but while the history of one of the most important scientific theories was being presented, the actions of some modern scientists have come under scrutiny for their own apparent collusion.

Last Friday, emails and data taken from a server at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were made available to the public. News of the files quickly spread around the climate science blogosphere, and the blogs of the so-called “global warming sceptics” quickly turned their attention to finding the most incriminating evidence of scientific malpractice. For those who already viewed the science of global warming as a con being perpetrated on the world by scientists and governments with the silent assent of the media, these emails were the smoking gun they had hoped for. But are their proclamations of doom for the science of global warming valid, or is their desire to see a conspiracy stretching their arguments beyond the evidence?

Andrew Bolt’s blog serves as a prime example of how those who already denied global warming have responded. Bolt first posted news of the emails on Friday afternoon. He then began to present some of the emails that were considered most damning – in particular, Bolt and others highlighted the reference by Phil Jones to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a data series. He continued to update with quotes from more emails as they were discovered. By the time the hacking was confirmed by the UEA on Friday evening (Australian time), Bolt was prepared to call it “a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science”.

When Bolt resumed his blogging early on Saturday morning, he went in hard and heavy on the “warmist conspiracy”. His commenters went along with him, asserting that the scientists should be charged with treason and that any plans to introduce emissions trading should be abandoned immediately. Bolt began to broaden his attack, highlighting links to Australian government institutions such as the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology and then evaluating the news media’s response to the emails – and, not surprisingly, finding it lacking. It seems that journalists’ pesky insistence on verifying facts, attempting to place the emails in context and seeking a reaction from those involved prevented them from hastily unmasking the grand conspiracy that underpins all climate science.

As the email commentary moved into its second full day, Bolt sought to brand the conspiracy – while some bloggers went for the cliché “ClimateGate”, he encouraged his readers to be more inventive in their labelling. He also divined the true source of the leaked files – moving from describing it on Friday as a theft by hackers in which “the ethics [were] dubious” to Sunday’s statement that it was “whistleblowing, almost certainly by an insider”. This was an interesting “trick” which allowed Bolt to clear away some moral ambiguities in his own commentary and also to attack the “news outlets of the Left” who insisted on saying the information came from hackers. As he refined his own message leading into the new week, Bolt continued to criticise “the paid mainstream media” for failing to break the story, being slow to cover it, and equivocating about its implications. Even the existence of news stories that were being widely read somehow became evidence that the media was not paying the story due attention.

The frenzied weekend of posting by Andrew Bolt illustrates what the so-called sceptics would like this “scandal” to be – the unmasking of a vast conspiracy, in which the scientists have committed scientific fraud to advance their case for a theory that has been corrupted by the interests of environmental groups and government funded bodies, while the Left-leaning media has complied in promoting the global warming agenda. This purported grand conspiracy fits easily with the existing notion that the draft Copenhagen agreement is a step toward establishing a world government, that our universities and research centres are tainted by the agenda-driven funding of climate science, and that global warming is the Left’s new tool to control our society and economy.

But what do the emails actually show? Some of the claims of scientific fraud have been debunked already, and the eagerness of those mining the data to capitalise on one or two damning words has brought up red herrings that are easily explained when the message is taken in context, such as Jones’s supposedly fraudulent “trick”. This is not to suggest the emails are not potentially damaging to the reputations of their authors – for instance, they raise some serious questions about the handling of FoI requests and the integrity of some peer-review and editorial processes. Some of those issues deserve further scrutiny, and if anyone is found to have engaged in improper conduct then they will have to shoulder the consequences.

In yesterday’s Crikey email, Sinclair Davidson argued that the emails suggest “overall a pattern of poor behaviour” and that “the public, whose taxes finance that behaviour” are entitled to be displeased. I recently wrote about the importance of confidence in publicly-funded research, but I think Professor Davidson overstates the implications of these emails for confidence in the scientific process. In my view, what the emails highlight more than anything is that ego and politics continue to affect how scientists approach their work – especially when the science will itself influence politics and society. Much of what the authors discussed was about making the strongest presentation of their evidence, their concerns about the weaknesses and unexplained details in their arguments, and how to rebut the claims of their critics – many of whom, such as Andrew Bolt, have a strong public voice but draw on pseudoscientific reasoning and misrepresentation to attack the research evidence. In short, the emails suggest a clique – a small, exclusive group of like-minded experts discussing how to advance the evidence for their theory – rather than a broad conspiracy.

Proponents of a theory will discuss how to deal with the things they cannot yet explain, such as the recent slowing of global warming. Scientists might be loose, or even inappropriate, in how they talk about their critics when sending personal emails to their colleagues. And when they see serious practical and policy implications for their work, they are likely to discuss how to present a clear and coherent message to the public. The fundamental question is, do these emails discredit the scientific evidence that our understanding of human-induced climate change is based on? As much as some might like to hurry us toward that conclusion, it is not clear how these discussions by a small set of climate scientists undermine the many decades of theory and research that is the basis our current knowledge.

ELSEWHERE:Responses from RealClimate on Friday and today; Ruth Brown at Crikey’s Rooted blog; two posts at Larvatus Prodeo from Saturday and today; Tim Lambert yesterday and today; and the conspiracy theory counter-argument from Tim Blair.

As reported in the Crikey email today, there is a stoush going on between The Monthly magazine and Asian-based freelancer Eric Ellis. It’s all about an article commissioned by editor Ben Naparstek on the refugee camps in Sri Lanka. Ellis delivered, but Naparstek decided the piece wasn’t up to the magazine’s high standards. It has since been accepted for publication in the Spectator.

The correspondence below was sent to me first by Ellis. Then, when I contacted  Naparstek for comment, he sent me some of it as well. Apparently both sides in this dispute think that it favors their point of view.

You decide!

From: Ben Naparstek
To: Eric Ellis
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:51 AM
Subject: story for December

Eric,

I’ll pass on the Indonesian idea, but I would be keen for a story to
run in the December issue that gives us some background to the current
boat people drama, and that tells us who the asylum seekers are, what
they’re fleeing, and what they’ll be facing if they return home. I’d be after 3000-3500 words (at $1/published word) by November 9. Would that suit? If not, we can talk about maybe doing something for early 2010.

best,
Ben

On 18/10/2009, Eric wrote:
Sure, I could do that, Ben. In terms of what they are physically fleeing,
that would be better and more compellingly described with an actual visit
to the IDP camps, which few have done (no-one that I know of, maybe the
BBC, certainly no-one in Oz yet) and I could possibly do that in first week of
Nov, with a re-routing of my travel from London..the rest I know well, and I
will also input from my interview with Rajapakse, only the third he has done
since the end of the war (NYT/BBC). I used abt 20% of it here, in a story
that was onstensibly about the economy, and have lots of non-econ stuff left
over, plus observations from the encounter  http://www.forbes.com/global/2009/0907/people-economy-rajapaksa-sri-lanka-next-battle.html

Eric
From: Ben Naparstek

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: story for December
Hi Eric,
Sorry the tardy reply. The November issue goes to press tomorrow, so
I’ve been caught in production madness. If you could visit the IDP
camps, that would be really excellent, and I’d be keen for you to
write up to 4000 words. Making use of quotes from your Rajapakse
interview, which haven’t previously been published in Forbes, is also
a great idea. When would be the earliest you could file? Meanwhile,
did you mention that you’ll be in Melbourne in a couple of weeks?
Let’s certainly have coffee if so.
best,
Ben
From: “Eric Ellis” <eric@ericellis.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:11:31
To: Ben Naparstek<benn@themonthly.com.au>
Subject: Re: story for December

Ben…just to advise..I am making my back from Europe/Qatar tmrw and will
try to route through Lanka. I have asked to see the IDP camps so am in
the hands of the government so will advise there..
Eric

From: Ben Naparsthek >
To: Eric Ellis
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: story for December
That’s great, Eric. Did we say 3-4k by 9/11? Ben
Eric Ellis
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:59:54
To: <benn@themonthly.com.au>
Subject: Re: story for December

That’s what I am aiming for, Ben. Would the following month not work? I
just know how difficult it can be in Colombo ..
The other stuff – my Le Carre-like trawling through the Tiger networks in
Oz, Canada and the UK, the background, the Raja intvu all good, its just
the camps that would be great and updated.
Eric
From: Ben Naparsthek
To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: story for December
Hi Eric — I will really need it for this month, unless something else
magically appears to fill the space, in which case I’ll let you know. Is
it unlikely you’d get to the camps within that time-frame?
– Ben

From: Eric Ellis

To: Ben Naparsthek

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:43 AM

Subject: Re: story for December

Camp-wise Ben, I really cant say. They are HUGELY sensitive about that stuff
as you can imagine, it really does go to the heart of the post-war
relationship with the West per aid et al (the Oz refugee drama is an
afterthought in that context) but I have very good relations with the palace
after my Rajapakse intvu and they just might do it for me, that’s what I’m
hoping for and I’m working that theme for the upcoming week, period between
now and when I file..access to the camps would also give it exclusivity…
Eric
On 02/11/2009, Eric Ellis  wrote:
Ben…FYI..have probably a 36 hr window here for real time access..otherwise we go with what we have..
From: Ben Naparstek
To: Eric Ellis
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: IDP et al
Thanks for the update Eric.

On 02/11/2009, Eric Ellis wrote:
Ben… I have spoken just now to the SL Pres private secretary. He said he
can arrange access for me to visit the camps on Wednesday, Nov 4. I would
likely fly there via military helicopter from Colombo. This would require me leaving Sing tomorrow/this evening and returning midnight Wed for overnight return to Sing coz I have to be in Sing Nov 5 evening for dinner with my long pre-arranged dinner with my editor. The exercise will cost around $A1000 – being flight, overnight hotel and
sundries. Its a unique opportunity if they do it but, I caution, Lanka being Lanka and I know it very well, it may not come off, either because they change
their minds or simply inertia and everyone’s time and money will have been wasted and I will have permanent jetlag.
Your call.
Eric

From: Ben Naparstek
To: Eric Ellis
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: IDP et al
Eric, sounds exciting. Go for it, and thanks for the effort. – Ben
From: Eric Ellis
To: Ben Naparstek
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: IDP et al
OK Ben..I’ll see what can be done ASAP…I do caution again that they may
just pull then plug on it at a moments notice…would not at all care if we blew
$1000 on a wild goose chase..but I told him I needed to book flights ASAP
to meet his Wednesday promise and he said ‘go ahead’ …that’s about as good as it gets..

From: Ben Naparstek

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 6:21 PM

Subject: Re: Fw: IDP et al
Those expenses sounds fine, Eric. Keep me posted.

On 02/11/2009, Eric Ellis wrote:
OK, Ben..I just called him again and he confirmed it, said to call him again
on arrival in Lanka tmrw morn so that’s a double confirm, so I shall proceed
on that basis..
Just so you know, exps-wise, the Sing Air flight is $S871 ($A690)..the hotel
will be about $US130 ($A150) and I would imagine $A100-$A150 or so of sundries – cabs, this and that – as I anticipate I will need to be in people’s faces tmrw again so it comes off, which means seeing people at the pres palace and a quick run arnd town to do some intvus..

From:Eric Ellis

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:51:54 +1100

To: Ben Naparstek

Subject: final

Ben…did my last intvu…I dont this needs any more adds, at which point its getting too long though, that said, I think it zings along..One could add more camps, or the stuff about the Oz UN guy behind the lines, or I could ask Rudd – I’m seeing him at a breakfast in Sing on Sat – abt all this…Anyways, in the interim, go with this this..and delete all previous

Eric

From: Ben Naparstek

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:26 PM

Subject: Re: final

Hi Eric, can you add more on the camps — if indeed there is more you can say — and shoot me a new draft by tomorrow morning? – Ben

On 12/11/2009, Eric Ellis wrote:
Ben,
Was this the Spec piece – back in April! – you were referring to, about
Australia and Asia? I think I got it right…it amuses to hear people now saying they know nothing of what was going in places like Sri Lanka…it might help them to read a little wider, and mags like The Monthly, when at their best, might facilitate the process in providing the necessary perspective, balance and ballast, rather than chase the news cycle
Eric

From: “Ben Naparstek”
To: Eric Ellis
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:27 PM
Subject: Re:

Thanks Eric. I think that was the piece I read, but will reread it. Any chance of an ETD for the new paras on the camps? best, Ben

From: Eric Ellis
To: Ben Naparstek
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Re:
Frankly, Ben, having gone through my notes, this is my take;
I dont know there is a great deal more that can be said abt it, in terms
of the observation than I have. I have discussed the sanitation, the
tents, the living conditions, the facilities and so on, and the spin
either side. The point of the camps is that these people are not escaping
from the camps per se, they are escaping real or imagined wider persecution. The SL government insists says they are not, they have the moral power of incumbency and Australia is in the middle, forming policy on the hoof abt stuff the voters know very little about, and they certainly dont know these people already live here, All of which context to that is absolutely crucial and, as I have moved around Oz in the last week, I have found quite unknown. What is clear that is also unknown, because it is under the radar of ‘whitebread’ Oz, is that the LTTE were, are and will continue to be very active in Oz. People here do not know that, as I have discovered. That is the point.
I know Sri Lanka extremely well. If you want/wanted an opinion piece of
‘what Rudd should do about the refugees’ (per your phone call) that is not the story, and further it is not different to the blizzard of material already out there, and none of it is reportage, a distillation of 20-odd yrs of getting to know the place intimately. I have sent that piece to a number of very close friends and academics and each have said its a very important story that needs to be published, because Australians do not know this stuff, and it informs this context. Were this to be crunchedinto a 2K word opinion piece, it would be an utter waste, and I would be very reluctant to be published on that basis. Ive already done thoseopinion pieces, for The Age and The Spec..I suggest you go to The Atlantic and see what Rob Kaplan has written. Mine is perhaps an Australian version of that with my direct contact with the LTTE. NO-ONE in Oz has has such contact, and thereason why I know that is because LTTE Tamils the world over told me. I also traded off my very intimate contact with the Presidents office, to get this access and co-operation. Again, no one in Oz has intvued the Pres of SL..
Frankly, it is a perfect time to run that, against the backdrop
of the gathering refugee crisis. I dont much want to advise Rudd/his
handlers on what to do, or tell readers what I think..I would much rather
people read this, and form an informed view..that is why that story,
right now, will separate The Monthly from the other stuff out there, coz
NO-ONE in the Oz media has done what I have done in Lanka, now or over recent times..
Eric
From: Eric Ellis
To: Ben Naparstek

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re:
Further to this, Ben, I hear that various hacks have now been to Menik
Farm, with John McCarthy, describing it pretty much as I did. I was there
10 days ago. I got access trading off my goodwill and connections with the
president’s office based not on The Monthly, which they had never heard of
(I told them mid-visit who I was writing it for) but based on my personal
connections and via Forbes/Fortune). That I was Australian was of zero
interest to the camp officials – they thought I was American (ie coming
earlier via US mags), and that was what was important to them -
international opinion and publicity, in DC and London, not in Canberra.
Australia was an afterthought, as it often is in Asia to Asians and any
refs to OZ were forced by me in my questions of them, notably the boat
stand-off of Indonesia, whcih they’d barely heard about.
All of which reinforces my point is that the essential story in Lanka is not abt the camps, it is the claims of abuse of
the Tamil ethnicity by the Sinhalese who won the war, as you may have
divined again this morn by news that the general who prosecuted the war is
not a political opponent of Rajapakse for the presidency..and has
criticised how the Tamils have been treated….whcih means that Australia
will be receiving more of those people, whose relatives are already here
and will be pretty pressure on a naive Oz to do so..
Eric

On 13/11/2009, Eric Ellis <eric@ericellis.com> wrote:
Ben..I presume Lateline is not happening…I had kept the morning free for
that – at the expense of 1-2 other appts but I have to move to the apt at
1400 to fly to APEC in Sing …I am bfasting with Rudd tmrw morning..
Eric

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 10:17 AM

Subject: Re: Re

Hi Eric, I haven’t heard anything from our publicity manager, so no, I
guess it’s not happening, at least for now. Will let you know if I hear otherwise. Thanks for your other emails. Will get onto your piece shortly, and get back to you.
best,

Ben

From: Ben Naparstek
To: Eric Ellis
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:25 AM
Subject: Sri Lanka essay
Dear Eric,
Unfortunately, we won’t be able to run this essay. What I can offer is
a kill fee of $1500, and you will, of course, be free to publish the
essay elsewhere. My thanks even still for all your hard work in
gaining access to the camps.
Best,
Ben

On 14/11/2009, Eric Ellis  wrote:
You are kidding? Why not?

From: Ben Naparstek

To: “Eric Ellis”

Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:29 AM

Subject: Re: Sri Lanka essay

Sorry, Eric: after trying to edit it, I just decided that it is not up
to the standard we require. But I’m sure you’ll have no difficulty placing it elsewhere. – Ben

From: Eric Ellis
To: Ben Naparstek
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka essay

What, Ben – specifically – wasnt ‘up to standard’?
I write and have been a staff member of some of the world’s leading and
most tightly-edited magazines, I know the SL story extremely well and
there is not a fact out of place, it is a unique piece of reportage (journalism,
not an essay, like what you claimed The Monthly wanted more of)
unlike any other published in Australia on this topic, it is written clearly
and cleanly and to specification, after our discussion, and I spent – or
was it wasted?  – two weeks and invaluable personal goodwill with close contacts in the SL president’s office, which I kept you apprised of, to deliver unique and sole access, and you traded off my earlier interview with Rajapakse, also unpublished in Oz. A former editor of mine thought it was ‘outstanding.’ And yet, here we are, you telling me it is sub-standard after only two days earlier wanting to promote it on Lateline..I look to move things fwd, and strive for constant improvement and am very curious so what was it that was not up to standard required, as you put  it?
Eric

From: Eric Ellis

To: Ben Naparstek

Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:44 PM

Subject: Re: Sri Lanka essay

Ben…would you please respond to my questions…and these as well.
During the week, in an email to me, you described the piece as ‘very good’
after reading it. Now it is not ‘up to the standard we require.’ You are
reading the same piece. So which is it? Very good or sub-standard?
And how do you intend to deal with the considerable expenses I have incurred
on your behalf, that you approved, as I rather navigated – by association-
The Monthly through the thicket of the Sri Lankan president’s office at
perhaps its most senstive time in recent history? (I reserve legal rights in  this matter)
Thank you

From: Ben Naparstek>
To: Eric Ellis

Cc: Stephanie Williams

Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:26 AM
Subject: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Dear Eric,

Can you please send receipts to the address below in order for us to
reimburse your expenses?
The non-publishing rate of $1500 will also be processed next month.
Best,
Ben
From: Eric Ellis

To: “Ben Naparstek

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 6:59 AM

Subject: Re: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Ben,
1. During the week, in an email to me, you described the piece as ‘very
good’ after reading it. Now it is not ‘up to the standard we require.’ You
are reading the same piece. So which is it? Very good or sub-standard?

2. How have you arrived at a figure of $1500? Which currency? I operate in
$US.

3. Do you intend to write to the various SL govt officials I engaged and
whose goodwill I expended on your behalf, with whom I need to have an
ongoing relationship but whose valuable time was wasted, explaining why
their time was wasted, on such a very serious matter for them?

4. You claim the piece as filed was not up to the standard you require. I
always look to move things fwd, and strive for constant improvement and am
very curious so what was it that was not up to standard required?

5. After we met last week, I fwded you details of story ideas from a recent
effort I was involved in to revive The Bulletin. How do you intend to deal
with these ideas?

From: Eric Ellis

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:42:06 +0800

To: Robert Manne; Morry SchwartzCc: Rebecca

Subject: Ben Naparstek

Morrie/Robert..
Greetings from Singapore.

I write to advise about a particularly puzzling, unpleasant and unprofessional encounter with the editor of The Monthly, Ben Naparstek, that I am quite furious about and about which I think you both need to know.

My engagement with Naparstek began a month ago in an email from me to ask if he would be interested in a story I was preparing about Indonesia. He wasn’t – fine, no dramas and that was the end of that subject. It was a very normal engagement in the first time I’d had any contact with him. (You will recall I had asked for his email address.)

A few days later, unprompted, he mailed me to ask if I would be interested in writing a 4000 word story about Sri Lanka. I do not know how he knew that I know Lanka very well. But by design or accident, I suppose I was a good person to ask, in the Australian media context. I have reported from Lanka for 20-odd years for international media. I had recently interviewed the President in my usual job – as a correspondent in Asia for Forbes Magazine. I own property there and I have developed very intimate contacts across the political, business and ethnic divide in a manner which I know is unique to an Australian journalist, as the attached story explains. Indeed, I have spent much of this year in Lanka, reporting and monitoring the end of the civil war, as I finish a book.

It was a good commission, and I was happy to do the piece, a distillation of my collective knowledge and experience of the island at a crucial time, in the Australian context of the refugee crisis there. Duly, I moved aside – at considerable cost to me – various other assignments in the region for Forbes to make room for Naparstek’s commission, because I believe it is an important story in Australia,  that I had a unique and revealing take on it, that I had been a fan/subscriber of The Monthly (which had handled the earlier Wendi Deng matter very professionally) and very much supported its existence for the diverse voice it seeks to provide, a diversity which I felt suited this very story he and I were discussing.

I told him at the outset that story would work better, logistically, with a visit to the camps, which I felt I could arrange, thanks to my intimate contacts in Colombo, built up and secured over 20 years. www.ericellis.com/srilanka.htm
I warned him of matter he clearly had no idea of, that it also was a long shot as the matter was extremely sensitive in Colombo and in some cases life-threatening for journalists. I explained that foreign journalists are particularly unpopular there but that I would use my reach on The Monthly’s behalf inside the presidential palace. As I painstakingly requested access, I forwarded all correspondence on the matter to him. I was in Qatar, Spain and the UK on assignment as I was doing this.

I returned to Singapore on November 2, whereupon I again pursued a close contact, the president’s private secretary. As I explained to Naparstek, I had a limited window to execute this assignment – in the unlikely event it came off – and which was narrowing by the day, as I had long committed to being in Australia from November 6.
Late on November 2, the president’s office agreed, somewhat unexpectedly but pleasingly nevertheless. I was advised I would be provided with an armed escort to the camps from Colombo for a day visit on November 4.  I mailed Naparstek and he was thrilled, and agreed to fund the expenses for the assignment.

I told him such ‘approval’ from Colombo doesn’t necessarily mean I will go, Lanka being bureaucratically quixotic at times, and that it would be highly possible in the political atmosphere there that the approval could be withdrawn at the last minute. I asked him to make a judgement call, mindful it was his budget, though I advised that it ‘felt’ like it would happen and was worth making the trip.

Naparstek instructed me to proceed and I hastily left for Colombo that evening from Singapore, making arrangements on the run. I spent Tuesday seeing contacts in Colombo building the story, and re-confirming the Nov 4 visit with close consultations with long-standing contacts in the palace. During Tuesday, as I networked in Colombo, I was advised by many observers, including the Australian High Commission, various diplomats, the senior UN representatives in SL and highly-placed Lankans that it was ‘extremely unusual’ for a journalist to be granted sole access – ie not part of an organised media tour – and to have such high-level approval and escort, directly from the President’s office. This, I was told, was likely because of the earlier interview I had done with Mr Rajapakse. I communicated to Naparstek how unique this opportunity was, and that I had spent considerable goodwill in doing so.

I left Colombo in a SL government escort for the camps on Nov 4 at 4am, arriving at the Menik Farm IDP camps, where I was taken on a tour of the facilities by senior govt officials and military, notably the former national chief of police, given a briefing as I conducted a series of interviews. I returned to Colombo that evening, to return to Singapore in order to transit for the long-planned journey to Australia.
I advised Naparstek of every step of the process, as professional foreign correspondents do. He seemed very pleased and I proceed to prepare the 4000 word story, with the exclusive camp visit as the backdrop to a wider story about Sri Lanka and the ethnic issue, as was explained and agreed with him. He suggested that if were in Melbourne, I should drop by his office for a coffee, which I did on Monday Nov 9.

Though keeping me waiting for 30 minutes, for which he apologised, it was a cordial enough exchange during which we discussed the state of the Australian media, among other topics. He seemed very keen for my opinion on the quality of his editorship and lavished compliments on me as “someone who I respect immensely.’

He was keen to ‘pick my brains’ on how what stories I thought The Monthly should be publishing. I said that though I’ve been abroad as a foreign correspondent for 25 years and I am not close enough to the industry for a particularly informed view, I lamented the industry’s decline on rare returns to Australia and that I thought magazines like The Monthly were at their best when it undertook penetrating longer reportage of nationally-defining topics, that in my experience readers preferred absorbing involved informative stories, rather than being told what to think, per the recent rise of the aggressive commentariat in Australia.

I told him of my involvement in an aborted effort to revive The Bulletin magazine last year, and said I would be happy to discuss with him some of the story ideas then generated in dummy editions. He seemed excited by that and asked if I would be prepared to research and write some of them, as he lamented the lack of journalist talent in Australia, remarking this was inhibiting his editorship. Naparstek also pointed out, with some glee, a profile of him in a recently published magazine, which I had not read.

We also discussed the Lanka story, and again I mapped out where it was going, and described what I had prepared thus far. He seemed very enthusiastic.

On November 10, after an intensive two days of writing, eating into the separate reason why I was in Australia, I filed a 5200 word story, which I have attached. I regard it a good solid piece written to specifications, as attached. I had privately consulted with various editors, analysts and academics familiar with Lanka and the response ranged from ‘outstanding piece’ to ‘this is an important story that needs to be aired.’

On November 11, Naparstek mailed me to compliment the story as ‘very good.’ He asked me if I could add more detail from the camps, if I had any more to add. I noticed there were more and more journalists visiting the camps, and said to him, mindful of the length, that I had pretty much exhausted the eyewitness material I had, in that context. He asked if I would be prepared to appear on the ABC’s Lateline to talk about the story. I agreed, time permitting.

On Friday morning, November 13, Naparstek called to say that now he wanted me to write a 2000 word piece “giving your opinion of what Kevin Rudd should do with the refugees in Indonesia”
I said that I thought the stronger and more unique story was the one he already had and had commissioned, mindful there was a welter of commentary about Rudd’s political dilemma in the daily media and that the story he commissioned was separate and unique and would not necessarily be overtaken by events, mindful of lead times. I said such a piece would not have required the involved effort to go to the camps, nor the goodwill spent, the arrangements made.

The exchange was cordial but it was clear something had changed. He would not elaborate. I would also now not be required to appear on Lateline.

I returned to Singapore, to receive a mail from Naparstek telling me that far from his description ‘very good’ of two days earlier, my piece was now (an insulting) “not up to the standard we require.” He would pay a kill fee of $1500 and said he thought I would have no difficulty placing the story elsewhere.

I have since asked Naparstek on numerous occassions as to what prompted this sudden change, and he has refused to respond, indeed on one occasion hanging up on me like a petulant teen. The only thing he said was that he was unable to edit it, which seems an odd remark from an editor. At no time in any actual editing process was there any consultation between me and he, as is very normal and appropriate.

I’ve never been ‘in love’ with what I write and Naparstek can edit The Monthly in the manner he sees fit, and I’m sure he will become more experienced as a journalist as he does.

But this is beyond irregular. I write for, and have been a staff member of, some of the world’s most prestigious and tightly-edited magazines. At no time in 20-plus years in this business have I been dealt with in such a bizarre, cavalier and unprofessional manner.

My visit to the camps was no casual stroll to a Fitroy café to interview some artist. This was a hasty but well-executed trip by a sole foreign journalist to one of the world’s trickiest countries for journalists, to a recent war zone, while engaging with officials on the most sensitive matter before them. I cannot underline stronger the gravity of that, a gravity the inexperienced Naparstek seems unable to grasp in his glib and casual emails, that is the insulting ones he wrote before he ceased communication.

Naparstek and The Monthly have jeopardised my personal goodwill with contacts with whom I have a 10-15 year relationship, and with whom I must have an ongoing relationship, long after my unfortunate encounter with him has passed. I am not at all happy with that, and yet he refuses to respond to my inquiry as to how he will explain to these contacts crucial to this piece of the sequence of events that they put themselves out for us, to no avail and to my ongoing cost.

I prepared and wrote the story at considerable expense to me, at an extremely sensitive time for journalists in a difficult country. Journalists have been killed preparing lesser stories than this one. And in his cavalier manner, dealing in topics he clearly knows very little about, Neparstek has been particularly insulting to me professionally, and dismissive of the logisitical and personal difficulties and risks as to how one conducts such assignments. This is nowhere near good enough.

I would like to know the sequence of events that took place in Australia that led him, in less than 48 hours, to go from describing as “very good” the very same piece delivered to him precisely as commissioned and discussed to being ’sub-standard.’ Was there any other hand in the editing process? Naparstek’s Monthly preaches transparency – where is it?

I apologise for burdening you with this, and I have not written to you lightly. You as proprietors/directors of The Monthly need to know the appalling manner in which he has mishandled this matter. I am told by colleagues who have dealt with them that this is not a one-off, professionally. He may well have been a wunderkind, a title he seems to revel in but if he continues to behave in this manner, he is doing serious damage to your masthead and the diversity we all crave will be harder to achieve, as will the brilliant career he seems convinced is his birthright.

I look forward to any corrective suggestions you may have, and reserve my legal rights in this matter.

Many thanks and kind regards

From: Morry Schwartz

To: Eric Ellis ; Robert and Anne Manne ; Morry Schwartz

Cc: Rebecca Costello

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:53 AM

Subject: Re: Ben Naparstek

Dear Eric,
I am respsnding from my phone to confirm receipt. I won’t be able to read nd respond untill tonight or tomorrow morning.
Best Wishes,
Morry

From: Robert Manne

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: Ben Naparstek

Dear Eric, Just to let you know Morry will be responding to your emails on
behalf of the Board, best wishes, Rob Manne

From: Stephanie Williams

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 3:31 PM

Subject: Re: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Dear Eric,

I hope you’re well. I would like to organise for you to be paid for

The non-publishing rate of US$1500. This payment will be made in

mid-December,via cheque.

Could you please let me know your ABN number, and if the cheque

Should be made out to you personally or if you have a company name?

Also, if you could please send your receipts for reimbursement to me

At the address below, I’ll organise this payment as well.

Very best,

Stephanie

Stephanie Williams

Production Manager

The Monthly

From: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, 16 November 2009 6:52 PM

To: Stephanie Williams

Cc: Morry Schwartz; robert Manne

Subject: Re: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Thank you, Stephanie. I’m not particularly well, since you generously

asked, actually I’m rather furious and I can’t see that phase passing

any time soon given that I am an unwitting victim of ‘editorship’ (if

that’s how his bizarre behaviour could be described). Then again, it

may have been gross immaturity or, perhaps, something quite different.

Whatever it is, it is beyond unprofessional, and then some, and I

Will find out and consider if it should be more widely known in the

industry,so as colleagues don’t suffer the same fate, inconvenience, losses andlibel as I.

Duly, my engagement with The Monthly remains a (legal) work in

Progress and I will advise of the various details as and when I deem that it has been ended to my satisfaction. There is an elegant solution to this,and I’m sure someone will arrive at it.

In the interim, I shall prepare and forward the various receipts you

request for reimbursement, which are to be dealt with separately.

I am disappointed I had anything to do with this fellow, which has

utterly polluted my previously high regard for The Monthly. I

apologise for any involvement of yours in this unfortunate matter. I hope he willlearn a lesson from this.

It didnt have to be this way..

Thanks and all best

Eric

P.S: If you could be so kind as to fwd me details of the subscription dept, so as to cease my subscription, I would be most pleased.

From: Morry Schwartz
To: Eric Ellis
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:14 AM
Subject: RE: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Dear Eric,

I have read all the correspondence regarding your Sri Lanka piece, and I
am sincerely saddened by the whole affair.

It was a great pleasure to publish your Wendy Deng piece, and it’s a
pity that your current essay is not right for the magazine. I am always
awed by the skill and courage of journalists in extremely dangerous
places, and I must admit that I am very uneasy when we put a writer into
a risky situation.

I have talked to Ben about the issues you raise, and he maintains that
he came to your piece with goodwill, and his praise referred to aspects
of it that he liked, but that the whole did not work for him, and that
in the end he couldn’t reshape it to suit The Monthly.

Not running a commissioned piece is not unusual, and I hope that we can
resolve this spat amicably. I have mentioned your Quarterly Essay idea
to Chris Feik, but he doesn’t feel that it’s right for that journal (in
any case, it’s booked out until the end of next year).

We normally pay all expenses plus a third of the fee for pieces that we
don’t run, which I believe is the acceptable level in the industry. I
hope, given your confidence in the essay, that you can place it
elsewhere.

I can assure you that we have not talked to anyone outside the magazine
about any of this, and that your concern about libel as absolutely
unfounded.

I would be happy to discuss all this with you on the phone (or in fact,
face to face, if you happen to be in town) – please let me know where
and when I can call you.

I hope that we can resolve all this amicably, and continue a pleasant
working relationship.

With best wishes,

Morry
From: Eric Ellis
Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 11:31 AM
To: Morry Schwartz
Subject: Re: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Thanks for your mail, Morry. I accept your correspondence with good
grace.

I would also have liked to continue a pleasant working relationship. As
I explained to Ben when I met him – but I don’t think he quite understood
- thanks to my working with the non-Oz media in the region, I get excellent
access to Asia’s leaders and events (as he exploited with the access to
the camps) and that provided an excellent ongoing opportunity for him, per a
regional topic of great interest to Australians -Asia, a rich seam of stories and commentary. That relationship would be greatly enhanced by Ben responding properly, correctly, honestly and professionally, as editors do, to the very valid
queries I had made of him after his inexplicable about-face.

Thanks again
Eric

From: Morry Schwartz

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:49 AM

Subject: RE: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Dear Eric,

Thanks for your gracious response. I will talk with Ben, who is in the
midst of putting an issue to bed, and ask him to respond as soon as he
can>

Best wishes

Morry
From: Eric Ellis
Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 2:34 PM
To: Morry Schwartz
Cc: Robert and Anne Manne; Rebecca Costello
Subject: Re: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Morry..per below…five days on, I still have not heard from Naparstek,
per the matter under discussion. As I await that response in order to – as
you put it – ‘continue a pleasant working relationship,’
I trust that it is understood by you that I do not regard the matter as
being closed by our exchange of emails below.

A start, in resurrecting that relationship, would be for him to explain
his unprofessionalism and actions, and how he intends to remedy matters, in
the good faith you – and I – seek. Hanging up on commissioned writers with
such a sensitive and, as you correctly point out, dangerous assignment where
he has traded off my goodwill, is not the way to do so, or to protect the
ongoing viability of your title.

Naparstek has a series of questions before him. They have been before him
for five days. I still await his response, and on receipt of which I
will consider my next appropriate action.

Thank you

Eric

From: Eric Ellis

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:09:06

To: Morry Schwartz

Cc: Robert and Anne

Subject: Re: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Thank you Morry…

For what its worth, these developments today are why it was a mistake

Of histo re-commission yet an(other) opinion piece abt what Rudd should do with the refugees in Indonesia, when he had my unique reportage about the Tamil issue before him..and that remains the case, and will continue to be as the wider drama of Sri Lanka continues…Its known as ‘judgement’ and ‘experience’ and, from what I observed of

himin recent weeks, and from what I can gather in asking around to seek

explanations as to his dysfunctional behaviour toward me, he seems to

lack both in some considerable measure, assuming it was in fact his own

decision-making that a wasted week of my life fell victim to. I trust

he will learn lessons from this. It seems there are a great many

disillusioned contributors – and I am but the latest – who wish he

would learn them rather quickly.

I look forward to his response to my questions….

All best

Eric

From: Morry Schwartz

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:18 PM

Subject: Re: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Hello again Eric,

To the best of my knowledge there is no comment piece on the refugee

situation in the coming issue. Ben has indicated that he will respond

to

your questions.

With best wishes.

Morry

From: Eric Ellis]

Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 5:32 PM

To: Morry Schwartz

Subject: Re: Payment for Sri Lanka article

I’m sure that is correct, Morry. He asked me to do it, or rather he requested that I transform the unique/involved/expensive/difficult/dangerous-to-execute essay of 4000 words-plus he commissioned and that I delivered, entirely within his specification and, for a time, obvious approval and enjoyment, into one.

That is my point, and somewhere in between is where his judgement and experience is sorely lacking, not least his bedside manner and interpersonal skills on those he impacts.

Something happened in between, and I would like to know what, and why he was insulting and unprofessional in his limited communication of that.

I think by now you have determined that I will pursue this matter, until such time satisfaction is reached, whatever that is.

I do not believe I am an unreasonable or irrational person. I just had the misfortune of encountering one – and then some – at my cost and peril, and it seems I’m not the first.

We were all wunderkinds once, though most of us chose not to believe our own reviews.

I trust that further clarifies matters.

Eric

From: Morry Schwartz

To: “Eric Ellis” <eric@ericellis.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:50 AM

Subject: RE: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Dear Eric,

We made a serious effort yesterday to reduce the tension between yourself and The Monthly, but sadly the tone of your last email has made it obvious to us that you have no intention of allowing this matter to be settled on any terms that we regard as reasonable.

We wish to make it clear that we fully support Ben’s decision. He made the tough call to not proceed with your article, even though that put him in a very difficult position of being short an article just days before going to press.

Following your last email, we have advised Ben not to respond to your correspondence. Please submit your invoices as agreed and they will be paid by return.

Yours sincerely,

Morry Schwartz,

Publisher, The Monthly

Robert Manne,

Chair, Editorial Board of The Monthly

From: “Eric Ellis”

To: Morry Schwartz

Cc: “Robert and Anne Manne; Ben Naparstek

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 7:09 AM

Subject: Re: Payment for Sri Lanka article

Thank you for your mail, Morry.
I think you and I both know what you have written below is nonsense, and
that is very disappointing. I had hoped and imagined you were better than
that.I know its a preposterous notion but maybe, just maybe, this unfortunate  matter just might be something as simple as Naparstek doesn’t know what he’s
doing, and blames others for his deficiencies. Just a thought.
My matter will pass, but when it does, Naparstek will still be your
‘editor,’ your employee.I wish you all the best at The Monthly.
On the basis of my experience, I suspect you will need it in some measure.
Good luck
Eric

P.S: FYI, the piece was edited in about an hour yesterday by a competing
publication, one Naparstek relished in panning when we met last week, a
relish only surpassed by his zeal in pointing out to me the article about  him in whatever throwaway publication it was published in.

From: Eric Ellis

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:42:41 +0800

To: Stephanie Williams

Stephanie..greets…invoice as attached..

All best

Eric

Eric Ellis

Correspondent

From: Stephanie Williams <

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:22 PM

Subject: Re: Please resubmit your invoice

Dear Eric,

I hope you’re well.  I received your invoice yesterday but require you to resubmit it at the rate of US$1500. Your current invoice is for US$4000 (full publication rate) however, as we are not publishing your article, we will be paying the non-publishing fee of US$1500 as previously discussed.

I won’t be in the office tomorrow, so I will organise your trip reimbursements early next week.

Best,

Stephanie

–

From: Eric Ellis

Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2009 4:01 PM

To: Stephanie Williams

Cc: Morry Schwartz

Subject: Re: Please resubmit your invoice

Stephanie, thank you for your mail.

I had already submitted the correct invoice.

As I reminded Morry, and as he correctly agreed…I undertook a life-threatening assignment for The Monthly, which in turn treated me very shabbily. At no time prior to this past week was I advised there would be a kill fee. The only time ‘kill’ was mentioned was in the context of the perilous undertaking I made – in vain – for The Monthly, aka journalists being killed preparing lesser stories.

Perhaps it boils down to this, which may be difficult to imagine from the comforts of Melbourne, but I would ask you and your colleagues to try to do so – how much is my life and experience worth? $1500 or $US4000? I and others think its worth rather more than $US4000, but on this occassion I will settle for the settlement as agreed by Naparstek.

I look forward to this payment, and my expenses reimbursement, being made post haste. At that point, I will consider my next step.

If The Monthly chooses not to pay its due in full, then I am very determined and prepared to have that conversation publicly and/or via lawyers. Murray said he wished to resolve this ’spat’ amicably. Here is the opportunity.

All best

Eric Ellis

Morry Schwartz, Nov 17, 2009 – “I am always awed by the skill and courage of journalists in extremely dangerous places, and I must admit that I am very uneasy when we put a writer into a risky situation.”

From: Morry Schwartz

To: Eric Ellis ; Stephanie Williams

Cc: Morry Schwartz

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:23 PM

Subject: Re: Please resubmit your invoice

Dear Eric,

We are willing to pay your expenses of US$1200 plus a third of the fee that would have been paid should the piece have run – which would have been between AUD 3-4000, depending on the final edited extent. We have. offered you US$1500, which is well above our normal kill fee. That is all we will pay, on receipt of your invoice. Please correspond directly with me on this matter – no one else is authorised to deal with it from now on.

Yours sincerely
Morry Schwartz

From: Eric Ellis

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:46:17 +0800

To: Morry Schwartz

Subject: Re: Please resubmit your invoice

Thank you for your mail, Morry.

It seems that yet again there is an inexplicable volte-face in your empire. First, you express your admiration for journalists who put themselves in harm’s way for you, as I did in undertaking this assignment for The Monthly, at considerable cost and peril.

Now it seems, barely two days later, you have very little regard for that.

I have obtained legal advice that I am due $US4000, and that is quite clear, and I have communicated that to you. I guess you have to decide the value of your magazine’s reputation, as well as my life and career you imperilled - it is $US4000 or $US2500?

It disappoints me greatly that you have reduced this matter to this – to ‘filthy lucre’- but such is the way of modern society I guess, or perhaps of The Monthly and its associates – it seems that money is more important than morals and professionalism.

With respect, I am not bound at all by the rules you seek to impose. I shall share all and any details of your magazine’s sad and unprofessional conduct with those who I deem appropriate, at the appropriate time.

I await the full payment of the invoice I have forwarded, at which point I shall consider this unfortunate matter too be at an end.

How does that sound?

Thanks, kind regards and all best

Eric

From: Morry Schwartz

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:12 PM

Subject: Re: Please resubmit your invoice

Dear Eric,
My offer stands, and you are welcome to accept it or otherwise. It’s important that I put you on notice that we will not hesitate to take legal action should it come to our attention that you are defaming us.

Yours Sincerely
Morry Schwartz

From: Eric Ellis

To: morry@panurban.com

Cc: Robert and Anne Manne

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:38 PM

Subject: Re: Please resubmit your invoice

Thanks Morry.

I’m curious. Where’s the defamation? I only see embarrassment, unprofessionalism, avoidance and a reneging on agreements on your magazine’s part, and inconvenience, financial loss and having my life imperilled, on mine.

And where would you sue for this real or imagined defamation? I don’t live in Australia, and haven’t done so since 1989, and don’t imagine doing so for, well, forever.

I suppose you could launch actions in Indonesia (good luck there), or Sri Lanka (there too) or the UK or Spain or Singapore (I’d suggest Singapore, as it has a highly-refined defamation regime that favours the plaintiff, as you probably know) – all places I move between but I imagine that would rather expensive for you, conducting an international legal campaign over a story your editor handled unprofessionally. My website is hosted in Costa Rica, so I guess that’s another legal option for you. Hablas Espanol?

Indeed, I suggest it would cost more than $US2500 to pursue such follies but if you want to throw good money after what is due to me, I can’t prevent you compounding the previous wrongs your staff has perpetrated. Anyways, good luck with that. I’m advised I’m in the stronger position, legally and logistically, on defamation and professional and reputational injury, should that route be chosen.

I look forward to the $US4000 being deposited forthwith, by the close of business November 30. That gives you a comfortable 11 days to consider the consequences this sad and needless affair. International bank transfers take just one day, and you have my details.

Thanks, all best and kind regards

Eric

From: Eric Ellis

Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2009 10:46 PM

To: Morry Schwartz

Subject: Re: Please resubmit your invoice

Just wondering, Morry, if you need any help locating defamation lawyers in any of those places? – London, Colombo, Singapore, Cadiz, Jakarta or even San Jose, for that matter.

Costa Rica I’m a little hazy with, my only connection to it is via my study of Spanish, and my website host in San Jose as I say. I’ve have never actually been there, only around it, but I hear good things.

Still, I’d be happy to help with any translation of paperwork and the like, as best I can. I studied Castellano Spanish, which is the basis of the official language in much of colonised Latin America as you know, so that should be fine for both there and, of course, in Cadiz, from which many of those conquistadores sailed. I hope you don’t lisp, though – speech impediments can make communications tricky between the Latino lands.

The legal system in Indonesia is always tricky to navigate – decisions often come down to the size of the backhander being offered poorly-paid judges, so I guess you being wealthier than me, you’d win that one should you descend that route, but it would definitely cost you more than $US2500 to do so, and the beauty of settlements in Jakarta for those that lose them – me, one anticipates – is that they are often ignored, which is probably what I would do if your bribe was bigger than mine. In any event, I don’t do corruption but I’m guessing I understand more Bahasa Indonesia than you do, Bapak.

Colombo can appear to be familiar, its legal system being notionally British in character but, as in Jakarta, cynics contend it can come down to who you know in the legal fraternity, and I know Lanka pretty well, having navigated its courts extensively in recent years in a property matter. I guess I’d have the edge there, though Ben would doubtless disagree, pace his clear regard for what I know of Lanka, but I would advise against his wise counsel.

London? Expensive, long way away but famously solid as a jurisdiction, which would mean it favours me. But who doesn’t love London? That said, I notice there has been this trend of ‘libel tourism’ to the Royal Courts of Justice in recent years, largely by corrupt Russian oligarchs, so I guess you could combine that with a wander through Madame Tussauds for the Kylie waxworks. Nazdorovya!

Honestly, your best bet in suing me for defamation is Singapore. I’ve written things there over the years which I know some people weren’t happy with, including stories about the legal system, so you would definitely have an advantage, if I could find you a skilful local lawyer with access to Factiva, so they could build a near-guaranteed cause and malice argument. And the libel payouts are of world-record size, so you’d have the satisfaction of not just avoiding your $US4000 obligation to me, you’d financially cripple me for good measure. Singapore is also close to Oz – direct flights to Melbourne, as Ben noted last week as he was gleefully showing me, fresh off the plane, the gushing article about him in the Melbourne Magazine – and it has great hotels, superb food and is quite cheap these days of the muscular $A. And you could pick up a new Play Station for your wunderkind for those quiet moments when you proprietorially edit The Monthly.

Good luck with it.

Eric

________________________________

From: Eric Ellis Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:06:35 +0800

Subject: Fw: FYI

To: Robert and Anne Manne, Ben Naparstek

Food for thought, Morry, from a very senior and respected writer in Oz…

How’s that defamation action going?

You want my address?

Eric

—– Original Message —–

From:

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 8:21 AM

Subject: RE: FYI

Eric,

This confirms my long-held hunch about that narcissistic little

enclave.   I think they are overdue for the whack you delivered so

beautifully.   I think you should publish your correspondence and be

damned — and if he tries to sue, you’ll have hoisted him on his own petard.

As for the kid: obviously a tosser. Like a lot of people (admittedly some twice his age) he doesn’t understand that real stories about real people written in a direct and conversational style is better than all that commentariat crap.  Therre is more truth, wit and wisdom in a Jeremy Clarkson car review or a Rod Liddle rant than in most of the ’serious’ commentary slopping around.

I totally agree with your editor friend: it’s an excellent piece and the decision to spike it is bizarre.  You have every excuse to be

frothing at the mouth.   One consolation is that you’ll be doing your

job long after the kid gets a ‘Ben has decided to pursue other projects’ ultimatum some time in the next 18 months.  He who laughs last etc.

——————————————————————————–

From: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, 23 November 2009 10:27 AM

To:

Subject: Re: FYI

Here’s your insider knowledge, as attached…but yes, yes, and yes it would seem…its called journalism, which I’m not they understand much there…

Been doing this too long to ever be in love with my words but there is a way to deal with such things, and The Kid didnt do it…and that has consequences

—– Original Message —–

From:

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 7:20 AM

Subject: RE:

Without the benefit of any inside knowledge I would observe:

1. Monthly has child prodigy editor (22 years old?)

2. The above appointment could be a reflection of  the economic downturn  on Maurie Schwarz’s income as a property developer. He’s amusing himself with publishing and the novelty might be wearing thin as the bills get thicker.

3. Maybe it’s not earnest enough for all the tossers who commission things.

——————————————————————————

From: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, 23 November 2009 10:12 AM

To:

Subject: Re: FYI

Thanks mate….was commissioned by The Monthly, at 4000 words plus, who then inexplicably spiked it…go figure..

—– Original Message —–

From:

To: Eric Ellis

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 7:08 AM

Subject: RE:FYI

1. I didn’t know you mum knew my aunty Joy.

2. I didn’t know that when my newsagent told me they didn’t have the Speccie in yet, I was missing out on such a refreshingly direct

yarn on Sri Lanka.    Be careful: it could catch on.

We call them banana benders or cane toads and sometimes use the state they live in as a punch-line for unkind jokes, but for the most part Queenslanders are no more stupid and backwards than the rest of us. However I’m not sure that The Australian’s Malcolm Colless agrees with me.

from next January all homeowners in Queensland must complete an exhaustive sustainability report card before they can put their house, townhouse or unit on the market.

..it could discourage homeowners from selling their properties if they first have to go through this tortuous and potentially costly process.

People are not going to sell their homes because of a checklist?

Colless’ ire is directed at the “environmental red tape that poses a real and present economic threat” that he sees embodied by this sustainability checklist. The idea behind it is to give people a clearer picture about the costs associated with living in a particular property, not unlike the energy efficiency star rating that we have had on electrical appliances for some time now. It seems a simple concept with multiple benefits, buyers are better informed when comparing similar properties, and it should encourage home owners to think about ways to improve the efficiency of their homes.

So what is it about the process that Colless fears so much?

Meanwhile, the detailed 56-point questionnaire demands complex information on issues ranging from the number of energy-efficient light fittings to window treatments, the colour of the roof, whether east and west-facing windows are covered, the use and size of any rainwater and grey water tanks, the dimensions of shower heads and taps, the layout of the premises for disability purposes and whether the dwelling number is clearly visible from the street.

This stuff is complex? How many lights do you have and what colour is your roof? My five year old could tell you that much. Surely there must be something more difficult than that to have alarmed Mr Colless so much?

it asks for details on the number of people who typically live in the home, the annual household electricity costs and annual electricity usage in kilowatt hours.

It also asks for the approximate amount of greenhouse gas emissions from this electricity use and for the annual water bill and its use in kilolitres.

Which is info that you’d have on every gas, electricity and water rates bill. Does anyone, even Malcolm Colless, really believe that a half hour filling out a checklist will put people off selling a house? Amongst all of the other things involved this seems like one of the less onerous tasks.

So to all of our friends in Queensland, I’d like to let you know that I believe in you. I don’t think that you are incapable of measuring the shower heads and counting the light bulbs in your own house, I’m confident that you can figure out whether your western windows have curtains, and I refuse to believe that you will be destined to never move house again because you can’t identify the colour of your roof. After all, if the checklist is written by Queenslanders, how hard can it be?

Ed Cowan told twitter it came out of the footmarks and gave him wood.

Jimmy Maxwell said it hit a crack and was a work in progress.

Terry Jenner informed Australia it was chucking and against the law in his book.

And AGB questions if the selectors will pick someone who bowls it.

All of this because Australia’s off spinning back up, Jason Krezja, got one to go the other way.

About 12 people have seen this ball (it was during a shield game), but it has stirred up some emotion already.

Not be left behind, Nathan Hauritz has jumped on the doosra bandwagon, saying he has one, but he is afraid to use it. Strong words, Nathan.

Bryce McGain doesn’t have one, but he did take 7 wickets for 92 runs in his last first class game and I haven’t stopped smiling since.

Aaron O’Brien probably doesn’t have one, but no one knows who he is anyway.

Marcus North doesn’t care. He is a batsman.

This time last year I was writing about how you’d be better off trying to survive a zombie attack than trying to pick an aussie spinner.

Now there is little Nathan defying logic and common sense, Krezja has a mystery ball, McGain is fit, and O’Brien is taking wickets and making runs.

Four of the top ten wicket takers in first class cricket this year are spinners, last year at this stage there were none, and that doesn’t even count little Nathan, Cullen Bailey or Jon Holland.

Oh baby, Australia is spinning again, both ways.

Australia may not be the spinning wasteland it was, there are options, all rounders, wrist spinners, and now one of their spinners has dabbled in voodoo.

The selectors NSP are even going to use little Nathan at the gabbatoir, even if he doesn’t believe in his doosra yet.

It is like the Oval never happened.

You can find Jarrod at cricket with balls.

To mark next week’s theatrical release of Woody Harrelson’s gnarly new action comedy Zombieland, Cinetology readers have the chance to win one of 25 in-season double passes. They are valid nationwide from December 3.

Here’s the official synopsis:

Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) has made a habit of running from what scares him. Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) doesn’t have fears. If he did, he’d kick their ever-living ass. In a world overrun by zombies, these two are perfectly evolved survivors. But now, they’re about to stare down the most terrifying prospect of all: each other.

For your chance to win simply email me with your full name and postal address and answer the following question: if you were making a zombie movie, what would you call it?

Competition closes November 30.

For more info about Zombieland check out the official website where, if you’re bored, you can upload a photograph and zombify yourself. For your amusement here I am in zombie form. And yes, yes, I know – it’s a vast improvement.

Two years ago today saw the end of the Howard era, with the rare explanation mark added of Howard losing his own seat. This is what I posted that morning.

E-Day

The day has finally arrived. After months of campaigning that felt like years, after the 100 odd pieces of polling analysed, the rumors, the research, the tips and the leaks – in 12 hours time Australia will have a new Prime Minister.

The question will be the size of the majority, and we’ll get a good idea of that soon enough. The marginals will count, but the big nasty surprise in store will be what Crosby Textor calls “LNP 5-10%” – Coalition seats held on a 5-10% margin.

These have been problematic for the Coalition all year as we’ve seen with the Oztrack polling, and while the average size of the swing to the ALP in these seats has reduced over the last few months, the swing is still large enough to cut out a significant parliamentary majority.

The marginal seats will deliver most of the numbers needed to form an ALP government, and there will be marginals that buck the swing – but these semi marginals are where the action is and where the size of the majority will be defined.

A rather copious quantity of horsefluff has been written over the last week about The Narrowing, yet far from the marginals tightening for the Coalition, the late swing apparently is to the ALP, particularly in NSW, and particularly in the seats that are on the fringe of the marginal classification. This is why the two leaders didn’t waste their time in the last week of the campaign in those marginal seats – their fate was effectively decided weeks and months ago.

It’s why Rudd was out fox hunting in seats with up to double digit margins, and why Howard was following. Rudd was campaigning not just for this election, but for the next.

The West is still good for the Coalition, in terms of only one or two seats being likely to fall – maybe even zero in net terms, yet this election wont be going down to the wire, we wont be staying up all night waiting for the Sandgropers to decide the nations fate. That will be decided early, and the West will just be a curiosity to the final outcome.

So go and do your part for our democracy – man the booths, assist the booth workers or simply just exercise your franchise. This day is our day, your day, the day where that little piece of paper and its accompanying little pencil make all of us equal.

——-

To relive the day, the original comments thread can be seen here that covers election day morning. To relive the election night coverage, Poll Bludger had the cracker election night thread, while the reaction from after 8:00pm when the result was known can also be seen on my site here with a decicated post.

Thanks to all for making it such a great campaign.

This week’s Essential Report has the primaries running 45/39 to Labor, washing out into a two party preferred of 55/45 – no change on the major party figures from last week. The Greens are down 2 to 7, while the broad Others are up 2 to 9. This comes from a two week rolling sample of 1892, giving us an MoE that maxes out around the 2.3% mark.

Additional questions this week focus on the differing perceptions of soft vs hard party voters – they come from a sample of 1084, giving us an MoE that maxes out around the 3% mark.

The first question up estimates the strong party vote vs the soft party vote for the ALP and the Coalition – a result which comes into play in a number of questions later on.

Would you say your choice is very firm, pretty firm but you might change your mind, or might you very well consider another party closer to the election?

If the “Very Firm” is taken as the strong vote, the sum of the “Pretty firm but I might change my mind” and “Might well consider another party closer to the election” responses become an estimate of the soft vote. That gives us:

The breakdowns here suggest that the minor party vote is much softer than the major party vote.

On the cross-tabs we get:

Firmness of voting intention increased with age – 56% of those aged 55‐64 and 65% of those 65+ said their vote was very firm compared to 43% of those aged under 35.

How satisfied are you with each of the following

Breaking down into satisfaction strength we get:

Breaking the results down into hard/soft voters and looking at the net satisfaction we get:

Which of the following issues currently has the most impact on your voting preference?

On the cross-tabs we have:

Labor voters nominated the most important issues as the economy (40%) and Kevin Rudd’s performance (22%). Liberal/National voters nominated the economy (44%) and asylum seekers (20%). 61% of Greens voters said climate change had the most impact on their vote.

45% of both Labor and Coalition “soft voters” nominated the economy – which was a little higher than the “firm” voters (40%). The asylum seeker issue impacted most on the voting intention of “soft” Coalition voters (21%).

.

Regardless of which party, if any, you currently prefer or lean towards for the next election, which party do you normally feel closest to?

The cross tabs here were relatively short, reinforcing what we already know: “The only age group which identified most with the Coalition was aged 65+ (35% Labor, 42% Coalition).“

A slightly belated acknowledgement here, but last Friday in the Crikey email, I predicted that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy would signal his intentions regarding Australian content regulation on new media platforms. Well, my information was from good sources, but Conroy did not speak as expected.

Conroy’s  speech followed what I called the Battle of the Kims: speeches by Foxtel chief Kim Williams and the ABC Director of Television, Kim Dalton. To put it in a nutshell, Williams was calling for deregulation, while Dalton (who is also Chair of Freeview) was calling for the extension of Australian content regulation to the internet and services delivered on mobile devices. More detail and background here and here.

Conroy failed to deliver. Read his Friday speech here.

He acknowledged the issue the two Kims identified – the way in which new platforms are quickly changing the business, and the need for regulatory review – but did not say what he intended to do.

The Government has been committed to reviewing regulation for some time, but Williams is arguing for this to be brought forward. He is right to do so. At present crucial arguments – such as over the anti-siphoning list – are taking place without the transformation brought about by technology being properly considered.

Insiders were expecting more from Conroy on Friday. There is a view that he is a regulator, rather than a deregulator. Certainly, he will have to do or say something more definite before too long. I am getting tired of making the point, but it would of course have been nice if the Government had come to power with a media policy that gave some guidance on matters such as this, rather than giving the impression of considering such things on the run and under pressure.

Meanwhile, in the Battle of the Kims there are some areas of agreement. Both men, in slightly different ways, have suggested that the money the Government gets from auctioning off spectrum in the wake of analogue switch-off be spent on producing Australian content. This could be a significant pool of money, and the fact that there is consensus on the idea means that it is likely to happen.

The latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s two-party lead steady on 55-45 after the previous week’s sharp drop from 59-41. Further questions probe “firmness of vote” (slightly stronger among Coalition voters); satisfaction with Labor and Coalition positions on asylum seekers, climate change, the economy and things in general; relative impact thereof in determining vote choice; and party with which respondents most closely identify (37 per cent Labor, 31 per cent Coalition).

Other news:

• The Mike Rann situation is sufficiently volatile that alternative leadership scenarios are being discussed. Writing in Crikey, Hendrik Gout of Adelaide’s Independent Weekly indicates Treasurer and Deputy Premier Kevin Foley may have ruled himself out with his recent revelations of personal problems: a deal between Left and Right could instead see the job go to Patrick Conlon of the Left.

• George Megalogenis of The Australian probes recent Newspoll data for trends since the start of the Oceanic Viking saga:

In the three Newspolls that followed, Rudd shed a little more skin each time. By last weekend, the score was 56 per cent to 34 per cent. In other words, his net rating—the gap between those who like and loathe him—had almost halved from plus 43 per cent to plus 22 per cent. Scary stuff until you consider the unpublished splits for Labor and Coalition voters. Rudd’s net rating among Labor voters has barely moved. It was plus 84 per cent six weeks ago, now it is plus 81 per cent. All the loathing has been on the Coalition side. His net rating among those who were already voting Liberal or National was minus 13 per cent six weeks ago; now it is minus 38 per cent. Incidentally, Greens voters are also down on Rudd, with his net rating crashing from plus 60 per cent to plus 18 per cent in the same period. This isn’t the first time Rudd has antagonised people other than Labor voters. The same ripple of disrespect was detected after Labor’s first two budgets, in May last year and again this year. He arouses the enemy when he is forced to defend a specific policy.

• A Galaxy poll commissioned by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry finds “nearly six in 10” respondents believe an emissions trading scheme would cost jobs and force up electricity prices, and 54 per cent believe legislation should be delayed until after Copenhagen.

• Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports the Right is expected to throw its weight behind Adam Searle, Blue Mountains mayor and member of the “soft Left”, in the battle to succeed the retiring Bob Debus in his federal seat of Macquarie. Debus and the hard Left want the seat to go to Susan Templeman, with Debus in particular having a long record of conflict with Searle.

• Salusinszky also reports state party secretary and rising Left figure Luke Foley has denied suggestions he might seek to fill a casual vacancy created by the expected departure of the Right’s Henry Tsang from the state upper house later this year. The Right would have the seat go to Shaoquett Moselmane, a Rockdale councillor and Lebanese community leader who has in the past sought to unseat Frank Sartor from Rockdale.

• The NSW Liberals have eyebrow-raisingly preselected Chris Spence, former One Nation candidate and president of its national youth wing, in the highly winnable state seat of The Entrance. Andrew Clennell of the Sydney Morning Herald reports Spence worked for David Oldfield in his time as a state MP, and is currently a staffer to Terrigal MP Chris Hartcher. Spence also took statutory declarations in his capacity as a justice of the peace from Iguanas staff who complained about John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal. He describes his past involvement with One Nation as “a mistake”.

• The ABC further reports local mayor Chris Holstein, who ran unsuccessfully in 2007, has been endorsed as the Liberal candidate for Gosford.

• The ABC reports four candidates have nominated for Liberal preselection in Bennelong, with Steven Foley and Melanie Matthewson joining the previously discussed John Alexander and Mark Chan.

• The Manly Daily reports Bronwyn Bishop has not been opposed for preselection in Mackellar.

We live in the era, so we’re constantly told, of evidence based health care and evidence based policy. It’s not a paradigm that’s known for being sympathetic to narrative and anecdote. And yet there is nothing like the power of an individual’s story for generating attention and action.

It’s telling that a new report from the NSW Cancer Council called Roadblocks to Radiotherapy is using the power of patients’ stories to raise broader issues of concern about the inequitable access to radiotherapy that have been highlighted in literally dozens of reports and inquiries over the years. It will be interesting to see whether this report has more impact than all those that have gone before.

Radiation oncologist Professor Graeme Morgan has been a tireless advocate over many years for improved access to radiotherapy. Here is his analysis of the report – and a call to action:

“On Friday, NSW Stateline documented the personal traumas of cancer patients attempting to access grossly inadequate radiotherapy services provided by NSW Health.

In NSW, only 36% of cancer patients receive radiotherapy – well short of the benchmark of 52%. In June this year, the NSW Auditor-General criticised the inability of NSW Health to provide enough treatment machines and recommended it develop a 10 year Strategic Plan for Radiotherapy.

Although NSW Health now has a draft Plan, it fails to substantively tackle the lack of access and equity for treatment.

But the rest of Australia is little better with the national radiotherapy treatment rate at 38%, largely unchanged since 1999 – varying from 43% in Victoria to 31% in Western Australia.

How has this been allowed to happen? Well, it’s not due to a lack of reports or inquiries – in the 10 years from 1986 to 1996 over 50 reports had been published – an average of 5 per year.

In 2002, former Senator Peter Baume in “A Vision for Radiotherapy In Australia” recommended the formation of a central body – Radiation Oncology Australia  – for planning, quality and funding, and to overcome the fragmentation between different levels of government – sound familiar?

But after seven years, little has been achieved – still only 38% are being treated, but the number missing out has risen from 7,400 in 1999 to 16,200 in 2008, and as a result 2,500 premature deaths each year due to lack of radiotherapy.

In the last Federal budget, funding was announced for ten regional cancer centres. But this will be to no avail if money is not allocated through a central body for radiotherapy – as occurs with chemotherapy through the PBS.

During the election campaign, Rudd committed to taking over health care from the states if they could not show they were able to improve service delivery within 12 – 18 months. In the case of radiotherapy services, the States have had years to address the problem.

It’s time Rudd took over so that all cancer patients in Australia have equitable access to this essential cancer treatment.”

And now for an anecdote from Croakey:

Last year, when researching an article on cancer care in the bush for Australian Rural Doctor magazine, I heard many distressing stories about what the lack of radiotherapy services in the NT means for cancer patients there, especially for those from remote areas. I tried to imagine what it must be like for Aboriginal people from remote areas having to travel thousands of kilometres to Brisbane or Adelaide when they were unwell.

It became clear that the trauma of a cancer diagnosis, bad enough in the best of circumstances, is  magnified terribly in remote communities. It inevitably means a long, arduous journey into a foreign world far from home and kin. One doctor told me of  an Aboriginal man with a young family, who  had to spend several months living in a hostel in Adelaide while having radiotherapy without the support of a familiar face. It was his first trip outside the NT. He was not the only such patient the doctor had seen develop serious depression.

Others chose to go without treatment. The doctor told me of one such patient who had to be sent back to Darwin, to die without any family around her.

So there are plenty more powerful stories out there, many beyond NSW’s borders.

Special safety audit after Norfolk ditching

(CASA statement)

A special audit of two air operators is being carried out by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority following the ocean ditching of a Westwind jet near Norfolk Island last week.

CASA is auditing elements of the operator of the aircraft, Pel-Air Aviation, as well as Regional Express Pty Ltd. Pel-Air is a member of the Regional Express group.

The special audit will look at a range of areas that may relate to the ditching of VH-NGA on Wednesday 18 November 2009.

CASA’s special audit is being carried out in addition to an investigation of the accident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The CASA audit will not pre-empt the findings of this investigation.

Areas to be examined include fuel policies and practice, flight planning, in-flight operations during changing weather conditions, the check and training of pilots, safety management systems and the inter-relationships between Pel-Air and Regional Express.

CASA has already written to the companies requiring a range of relevant documentation to be supplied.

A request has also been made to interview the pilots of the aircraft that ditched.

CASA has called special safety audits of Pel-Air and its owner, REX airlines.

A full story will be posted as soon as possible.

If Roland Emmerich and Ronald McDonald teamed up to make a movie it would look something like Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, an aporkalyptic disaster pic in which gigantic bits of food fall from the sky and cause civilisation-destroying deliciousness.

Based on a children’s picture book published in 1978, the story follows bumbling wannabe inventor Flint Lockwood (voice of Bill Hader) who lives at home with his stoic disapproving dad (James Caan) and spends much of his time alone in a Three Investigators-style backyard hideaway/lab. Flint has a history of making screwy contraptions – spray on shoes, TVs that run away, a device that translates monkey thoughts – but through a process of fluke and genius the junior mad scientist out miracles Jesus Christ. Yes, JC may have turned water into wine, but this guy can make any food he wants rain from the clouds. And in a brazen display of narrative implausibility, cheeseburger ingredients even fall into people’s hands in perfect order – i.e. bun, patty, cheese, sauce, lettuce…

The mayor of Flint’s small home town, Swallow Falls (Bruce Campbell) sees dollar signs and drumsticks and urges Flint to up the ante, but when the machine goes haywire it starts dumping meatballs the size of craters and all hell (and hamburgers) breaks loose. Flint works with his new wide-eyed love interest Sam (Anna Faris), a rookie weather reporter, to save the town and in turn the world from all-you-can-eat annihilation. At about this point the movie becomes a frenzied hodgepodge of weird food-related visual concoctions, looking like a fantastical dinner table remake of Honey I Shrunk the Kids except the kids remain the same size and the dishes become monolithic. There are gigantic fighting chicken carcasses, malevolent gummy bears, sandwich sail boats, steaming lakes of sulphuric-like cheese sauce and any number of other super-sized snacks.

Directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller establish a cracking comedic pace from the get-go, serving up a steady supply of gags thrown into the viewer’s gobs like a marathon teppanyaki tasting session. Parents will be pleasantly surprised to discover the comedy is broad and has genuine all age appeal, the script playfully matching amusing characters and a bonkers plotline with an attuned sense of absurdity present throughout, even down to the title.

The energy of Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is infectious and the animation well suited to 3D format, capping off a recent trifecta of giddily enjoyable guilt-free 3D family flicks (the other two being Pixar’s Up and Disney’s A Christmas Carol). The last act places a shade too much emphasis on spectacle over story, in turn diluting the cleverness of the setup, but the movie’s unpredictable and outlandishly inventive visual structure makes up for it.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs Australian theatrical release date: November 26, 2009.

Julia Gillard has risen to the lofty heights of possibly having tea with me! Haha!

True story.

He was found drenched in blood underneath a pile of 2784 news articles about the end of his career/life.

Other than some paper cuts, and a sore elbow from trying to fight his way out, he is ok. He may even be fit enough to bowl again just after Christmas, if he doesn’t die again before then.

Life has been tough for Lee under all these news items. At times he even had Dizzy Gillespie and Mark Taylor sitting on the pile.

Lee is resilient, and even though his elbow is not working, he realises that it can come good and that he might not be finished with yet.

He was also lucky that he hadn’t read any of the articles on him (they were all facing up), as that would have scarred him for life.

But he has a pulse, still bowled faster Walt Flanagan’s dog in India, and is not at the age he needs to be put down.

If he was 33 and was bowling at Stuart Clark’s pace I’d agree, I’d get the shovel, but he is 33, in an injury phase, but no need to bury him yet.

There is no guarantee he will ever get picked again, but that doesn’t mean he has to call the cooper to give his measurements just yet.

Ofcourse even if Lee was dead that wouldn’t stop him trying.

He is that sort of dude.

If he were dead he would probably try harder. And his ghost would be forever moving the bowler’s marker at the SCG.

You can find Jarrod at cricket with balls.

Bit of a blast from the past here: The Sunday Age has commissioned “Irving Saulwick and Denis Muller” to conduct a 1000-sample survey on Victorian state voting intention. Saulwick was a feature of the Australian polling landscape in the 1980s, but as Antony Green recently noted on this site, the ALP succeeded in damaging its reputation in the early 1990s and Saulwick himself moved on to new endeavours. Labor has nothing to complain about on this occasion: consistent with Newspoll, the poll shows the Coalition headed for a third successive drubbing. Labor leads 50 per cent to 36 per cent (Liberal 32 per cent, Nationals 4 per cent) on the primary vote and 58-42 on two-party preferred, while John Brumby leads Ted Baillieu 56 per cent to 25 per cent as preferred premier. Lots of further detail in the accompanying report.

Last week, hundreds of private emails and documents from climate scientists were nicked from computer servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s University of East Anglia and unleashed into the wilds of the intertubes.

The internet went insane (OK, more insane) as the leaked emails spread like a bad case of the clap online, with climate sceptics up in arms, claiming their contents are a smoking gun proving collusion, data manipulation and conspiracy amongst scientists to push their climate change agenda.

You can download them for yourself here or read just the emails online here.

Australia’s favourite climate sceptic La Bolt picked up the story on Friday, declaring it “a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science” and has continued to run with it all weekend:

Surely these emails can’t be genuine. Surely the world’s most prominent alarmist scientists aren’t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can’t find the warming they’ve been so loudly predicting?

…

This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isn’t, we’re about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.

So just what is so incriminating in these files? You can read the critics’ full list here.

One of the most discussed and debated excerpts has been from a 1999 email by Research Center Directer Phil Jones:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

His colleagues have come out in defence of the emails, claiming the words are completely innocent in their proper context:

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 … and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Other criticisms of the hacked emails’ contents revolve around the language used by the scientists when discussing climate change denialists, including one scientist describing the death of Australian sceptic John L Daly as “a cheering occasion.”

Obviously there are dozens more “smoking guns” in the emails, and just as many rebuttals and defences, but you can wade into the whole shit fight yourself, (at your own peril).

The story has just hit the mainstream media (and probably the rest of the Oz media by the time you read this). Here’s the NY Times, Guardian, Washington Post, Telegraph and Times. Many sceptics had been dubious that the MSM would cover the story at all. Now it has, though, early sentiment seems to be that most publications are being far too blasé and understated in their reporting of “the greatest scandal in modern science“.

As the Beeb point out, it’s possibly no small coincidence that this was all unleashed right before Copenhagen. At a time when the public’s belief in man-made global warming has dropped both at home and abroad, it will be interesting to see how much traction this whole saga can gain in the wide, offline (ie “real”) world.

As they say: Watch this space.

Unrelated to the soon to be judged bad sex in fiction awards (litworld’s finest annual moment outside the Man Booker) is the looming release of the movie version of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. What a harrowing, yet unstoppable book that was. Grimly unrelieved. I can’t decide yet whether to take my mind’s eye view on and see the film … probably will. Meantime the pre-release road show has dragged McCarthy out blinking into the light.

This interview/encounter from the Wall Street Journal is superb.

Today’s media coverage is rightly hostile about the Crawford report, commissioned and welcomed by the Rudd Government, which recommends that Australia abandon its Olympic traditions and ambitions and accept a more realistic target.

So much for excellence.

The report recommends that additional government funding go to community sport (eg our many footy codes) rather than elite Olympic sports programs.

Of course, ‘framing’ comes into play here. The report want s you to believe that archery is an ‘elite’ sport while AFL and rugby league are really just community sports after all.

The report is also premised on a flawed, or exaggerated, notion that there is an opposition between community and elite sports programs.

But it is lucky that it has stirred up a hornet’s nest with its blunt rejection of the Australian Olympic movement’s claims for extra funding.

Without this controversy, the report contains nothing of interest. It is page after page of banalities and findings of the ‘no shit sherlock’ variety. Again and again, the tough issues are ducked.

Take finding 47:

Sports at all levels derive significant revenues from fast food and alcohol advertising.

Limitations on sponsorship of sport will significantly affect the industry.

No kidding, and the recommended response? None.

But there are lots of the usual lame ideas like a government program to encourage old people to volunteer to help sporting organisations. The sort of policy bumpf much loved by 20/20 conferences and the like. Butcher’s paper strategies.

Unsurprisingly, the report makes much of the health, educational, social capital etc benefits of community sport, yet there is no one on the committee with real and substantial expertise in any of these areas.

The composition of the committee is questionable, while four of the five committee members have links to the major football codes, only one has links to a major Olympic sport (hockey).

That’s not independent, that’s stacked.

Still, reading the report you get the sense that it is really just a way to help the hapless Kate Ellis reject the insistent John Coates.

Certainly, Coates got the message.

The battle will be fierce and the second-rate nature of this report (unbalanced committee, flawed arguments, little factual substantiation, unimaginative policy contribution) will not help the Government.

Rocky and I have decided the time has come to move on. I signaled this possibility in a previous post, on September 17, when I posted a piece which showed, I hope, the direction in which my writing was taking me–away from Rocky and Gawenda. Rocky is on board with this, for our mornings together continue uninterrupted and of course we remain each other’s affectionate–no loving – companion. But for now, there will be no mornings with Rocky sitting  on my lap as I write another episode of Rocky and Gawenda. I am drawn elsewhere, though Rocky will be welcome on my lap anytime.. This writing has led me down a new–though not wholly surprising–path and I have already travelled down it some  short distance. I think this path may be a long one and I will have to walk it slowly. Then again, maybe not. Perhaps I have walked down it in my head far further than I know.

I might, at some stage, post bits of this new writing which I find hard to describe, for I have no real idea where it is leading me. I have so enjoyed writing this Rocky and Gawenda thing. So has Rocky I think. And there’s the book of course, Rocky and Gawenda: the story of a man and his mutt which is in all good bookshops. It is a lovely looking book. The photographs are gorgeous and the writing, well I hope the writing touches some people. It touched me, especially the chapters written by my children Chasky and Evie.

That’s it then. Rocky sends his love. So do I.

Another sunrise beckons.

Postscript: My son’s band Husky is recording a new album and a single from it, Dark Sea, will be formally released on Saturday 28 November at  8.00pm  at The Astor Theatre on Chapel Street in Prahran. It should be a great gig. Dark Sea has been played on Triple J and received rave reviews.

Tickets are cheaper on presale – Astor box office – 9510 1414.

This is the text of a piece I wrote for ABC Unleashed last year:

On Wednesday last week, during ceremonies to mark the nation’s apology, Bonney Djuric gave Prime Minister Rudd a letter seeking his support for a living memorial to the Forgotten Australians and the Stolen Generations in Sydney’s western suburbs, on a site called the Parramatta Female Factory Precinct which has long been associated with both indigenous and non-indigenous women and children committed to institutional care.

Bonney Djuric, and other ‘Parramatta Girls’, believe a living memorial could become a symbol of shared learning, giving voice to the voiceless and offer an economically-viable, culturally-rich environment for future Australians which would be of international standing.

And it would help the healing process for a lot of people.

Something like 500,000 Australians experienced care in an institution or some other form of out-of-home care during the last century. Many of these people have lived for decades with a legacy of depression, low self-esteem, phobias and nightmares which has in turn often led to alcoholism, drug addiction and prostitution. A large proportion of our prison population are drawn from the ranks of the ‘Forgotten Australians’.

In 2004, the Commonwealth Senate Community Affairs References Committee reported on the abuse of children in institutional care (Forgotten Australians: A report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children).

The Committee received submissions from hundreds of survivors. These detailed accounts of physical abuse and neglect, emotional abuse and neglect, sexual abuse, broad dehumanisation and cruelty by people charged with their care.

The Committee members and staff involved in the inquiry found that, ‘The scale and magnitude of the events described in evidence was overwhelming’. Indeed, two Senators broke down when speaking at the release of the report.

It is important not to condemn everyone who worked in these institutions, but it is equally as important to reveal the truth and condemn those who were responsible for perpetrating these acts, and those responsible for enabling the perpetrators to do so.

Parramatta Girls Home (PGH) operated from 1887 until 1986. During the course of that century, it was the destination for thousands of girls aged between 11 and 18 who were considered ‘at risk’.

The institution’s population represented girls from all social, ethnic and economic backgrounds including significant numbers of the Stolen Generations and many who had experienced a succession of institutions and foster care placements throughout their childhood.

PGH gained some public attention last year when it was the subject of a Belvoir Street production, Parramatta Girls starring Leah Purcell.

Bonney Djuric, who spent eight months in PGH in 1970, was an adviser on the play’s production. Written by Alana Valentine, the play pays tribute to the courage, hardship and inequality that the Parramatta girls experienced.

Australia’s convict legacy helped to shape its welfare system. In particular, those decades of transportation shaped ideas and beliefs about females who could be charged and committed to institutions for being ‘Exposed to Moral Danger’; a charge which did not apply to males. Less than two per cent of the inmates at Parramatta had been charged with a criminal offence.

The convict heritage was also pervasive in operating procedures and practices. The routines, procedures and institutional language which continued unchanged throughout the years at PGH had their origins in Parramatta’s convict beginnings.

The institution was not only associated with Australia’s colonial past in its underpinning ideas and operating procedures, but also in its physical location next to the former convict asylum known as the Parramatta Female Factory which was once the destination of all unassigned female convicts to the colony of New South Wales.

Arguably, the Parramatta site is as important in Australian history as Port Arthur and the Hyde Park Barracks. It was first explored by Captain Arthur Phillip in 1788 and shortly afterwards established as a gaol town and farm, with the first Female Factory operating by 1804 and later replaced with a grander building commissioned by Governor Macquarie and designed by Francis Greenway in 1821.

Speaking of the Forgotten Australians, the Senate Committee found that there had been wide-scale unsafe, improper and unlawful care of children, a failure of duty of care and serious and repeated breaches of statutory obligations.

The Committee recommended that the governments, churches and care providers should express sorrow and apologise for the physical, psychological and social harm caused by their neglect and worse.

Today, nearly 40 years after her own stay at Parramatta, Bonney says: ‘It is an eerie place. It could be beautiful with its old buildings and river views, but there is sense there of ghosts wanting to speak out, a sense of unspoken pain and of suffering, and the need for understanding and change.’

Bonney Djuric, and her fellow members of Parramatta Female Factory Precinct Association, want to save the area from further deterioration, while stimulating debate and raising the level of public and government awareness of the need to recognise, promote and value women’s contributions and heritage.

They propose the implementation of a dual purpose redevelopment of the site as a National Women’s Heritage Centre and the National Centre for Forgotten Australians.

They want to promote an interactive approach to historical and cultural preservation and they seek to create accessible public spaces that provide opportunities for participation in the arts whilst maintaining the historical integrity of the area.

They want the site to be a living memorial. A recognition of the wrongs of the past, but also an expression of hope for a better future for our nation and for the children who deserve better from a society as rich and sophisticated as Australia is today.

In her letter to Prime Minister Rudd, Bonney wrote that the memorial her group envisages has ‘the potential to become a world-class, leading-edge demonstration of what happens when people work together, combining art, history, technology and tourism into a site of economic opportunity, national significance and international recognition.’

Let’s hope that last week’s momentous events are not allowed to pass us behind, dimmed by the onrush of events and concerns. The events in Canberra should make us all feel a little more proud of being Australian and Bonney’s living memorial at Parramatta would be another fitting way to mark this remarkable time of forgiveness and reconciliation.

The author, a communications strategy consultant, has been advising Bonney Djuric.

We hear about it, have heard about it for what seems a long time now – but it’s hard to get a good picture of it in our minds: what it’s like in Afghanistan. And how it would be like to be a Coalition soldier there. To see the pictures below is to have something from which to imagine the fear in that work, and why post-traumatic stress disorder* is so prevalent.

The images here are taken from a photo essay published in the DenverPost.com, where there are many more to look at. They are the remarkable work of David Guttenfelder, the chief Asia photographer for The Associated Press, who over the past seven years has documented the lives of American troops in Afghanistan.

See an excellent July 2009 NYT interview/article on Guttenfelder’s Afghanistan photojournalism here. He said: “Some people, especially print correspondents, are looking at the conflict from any number of levels and often from 30,000 feet. For photographers, there’s really no other way to tell the story but in the micro way, the intimate level. The closer you can get to the company or platoon or squad level, to a few individuals out in the field, the better the work will end up. They allow you in. That’s the only way for a photographer to get down and as close to the ground as possible.”

The captions below are Guttenfelder’s (my added comments in brackets).

+++

A U.S. Marine from the 2nd MEB, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines, checks behind a compound wall during a patrol near the town of Golestan in Afghanistan’s Farah province Friday, June 12, 2009. AP Photo/David Guttenfelder (What must it be like to creep around a blind corner, not knowing if you will meet a bullet?)

+++

U.S Marines from the 2nd MEB, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines battle Taliban fighters inside a mud walled compound near Now Zad in Afghanistan’s Helmand province Saturday June 20, 2009. AP Photo/David Guttenfelder

Guttenfelder on this photo from the NYT piece: ‘This series, from Now Zad, documents a Marine assault on a Taliban compound. “We blew a hole in the wall of the compound and went inside,” Mr. Guttenfelder said. “As we entered this alleyway, one of the marines saw three Talibans pop out from around the corner and open fire. This was certainly closer combat than I’d ever seen in Afghanistan. They were 15 to 20 feet away from one another.” The second picture [below] shows a marine throwing a hand grenade in the alley.’

+++

Soldiers from the U.S. Army First Battalion, 26th Infantry take an ambush position during an operation against the Taliban in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan’s Kunar Province on Wednesday May 13, 2009. AP Photo/David Guttenfelder

+++

U.S Marines from the 2nd MEB, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines walk through a mud walled compound as they search for Taliban fighters near Now Zad in Afghanistan’s Helmand province Saturday June 20, 2009. AP Photo/David Guttenfelder (Searching for Taliban fighters half-blinded by dust – how frightening would that be?)

+++

U.S. Marines from the 2nd MEB, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines stand guard along a wall in the village of Khwaja Jamal near their base near Now Zad in Afghanistan’s Helmand province on Monday, June 22, 2009. Three years after its residents fled, the once bustling town of Now Zad is the scene of a stalemate between U.S. Marines and Taliban insurgents and an example of the challenges facing the U.S. administration even as it sends 21,000 extra Marines and soldiers to the south to try and turn around a bogged down, 8-year-long war. AP Photo/David Guttenfelder  (Blank and barren, except for the constant possibilty of an enemy soldier, or a hail of bullets.)

+++

U.S. Marines from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, one with the names of fallen colleagues tattooed on his back, bathe at a forward operating base in southern Afghanistan Saturday, April 26, 2008. AP Photo/David Guttenfelder (This picture says a lot to me about how soldiers feel about their job and the people they fight with and on whom their lives can depend.)

+++

U.S. Marines from the 2nd MEB, 1st Battalion 5th Marines sleep in their fighting holes inside a compound where they stayed for the night, in the Nawa district of Afghanistan’s Helmand province, Wednesday July 8, 2009. AP Photo/David Guttenfelder

Guttenfelder’s in the NYT article on this photo: ‘These aren’t graves. They’re beds. “This is typical of the photos I like to shoot that just show the daily life of soldiers and marines,” Mr. Guttenfelder said. “After a long, hard, exhausting day, you’d pull out your little shovel and dig the hole in the ground where you’d sleep. We all did it, to protect ourselves from incoming mortars.” The photographer made a point of waking up early enough to catch the men still asleep, remembering that a picture like this can convey a lot of information to viewers looking on comfortably in the United States.’

+++

*PS: On post-traumatic stress disorder – this amazing anecdote reported in the Boston Review (and picked up here via the Daily Dish) in an article titled ‘God, the Army and PTSD’:

[Paul] Sullivan was working as an analyst at the Veterans Benefits Administration in Washington in early 2005 when he was called to a meeting with a top political appointee at the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs], Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Michael McLendon. McLendon, an intensely focused man in a neatly pressed suit, kept a Bible on his desk at the office. Sullivan explained to McLendon and the other attendees that the rise in benefits claims the VA was noticing was caused partly by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were suffering from PTSD. “That’s too many,” McLendon said, then hit his hand on the table. “They are too young” to be filing claims, and they are doing it “too soon.” He hit the table again. The claims, he said, are “costing us too much money,” and if the veterans “believed in God and country . . . they would not come home with PTSD.”

On the 7th of August 2007 the then Federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, introduced the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 (the NTNER legislation) in response to what he and Prime Minister John Howard described as a “national emergency” in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities that required the exercise of extraordinary powers.

Chief amongst those powers was the control over access to grog.

Brough told the House of Representatives that:

“The authors of the Little Children are Sacred report described alcohol abuse as the ‘gravest and fastest growing threat to the safety of Aboriginal children‘.

…

To dry up the lethal rivers of grog, this bill will enable the government to introduce a general ban on people having, selling, transporting and drinking alcohol in prescribed areas. At the same time, our measures apply tougher penalties on people who are benefiting from supplying or selling grog to these communities.”

The primary anti-grog measure introduced by Brough was contained in section 12 of the NTNER Act – which replaced the previous regime in section 75 of the NT’s Liquor Act of offenses and penalties relating to “restricted areas” with a regime relating to “prescribed areas“.

Brough’s “prescribed areas” expanded the area subject to the alcohol bans by several orders of magnitude to include all Aboriginal freehold land in the NT – about 42% of the Territory landmass.

And, as I explained in Crikey back in 2007 in relation to another contentious part of the NTNER legislation, the Devil would always be in the detail.

And Vince Kelly, now President of the Police Federation of Australia and in 2007, as he remains, also President of the NT Police Association, told the SBS program Living Black just prior to the introduction of Brough’s “tough on grog-runners” legislation:

VO: But only days away from the ban coming into effect, Northern Territory Police may not be ready to tackle this latest Government plan.

VINCE KELLY: I do envisage difficulties with prosecutions because of the way legislation is drafted. There has been limited training or no training provided to the NT Police on the practical implications of the legislative changes that are coming about because of federal legislation. So all these difficulties will flow through, ultimately, to prosecution.

In March this year the NT News reported that one particularly useless part of the NTNER legislation would be scrapped:

Under a rule introduced by the previous federal government, anyone who spends more than $100 on takeaway alcohol must have their ID recorded and say where they plan to drink it. NT Licensing Minister Kon Vatskalis yesterday said the law was “a waste of time, a waste of paper and a waste of ink”. He said he had discussed it with Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin and he expected the laws to be removed “soon”. “The Minister agreed with me that it was not the brightest idea of the intervention,” he said. The scheme was said to be an attempt to stop grog-runners but it doesn’t stop anyone buying booze – or taking it to alcohol-free communities.

Almost two years after the introduction of the NTNER scheme current Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin was asked about the effectiveness of the NTNER legislation in stopping the “rivers of grog”.

As Macklin told journalists at a press conference in Melbourne on the 5th of August 2009:

“…certainly all the evidence shows that that particular measure has not been effective. That said, I just want to reiterate how critical it is that we have strong alcohol controls on the supply of alcohol…one of the things that we have to do to control and reduce that violence is to see stronger alcohol controls.”

And, as the Fairfax Press reported last Friday, the rivers of grog are apparently flowing faster and wider than before:

“In the communities targeted by the intervention…there was a 34 per cent increase in alcohol-related crime, the report, titled Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory, said.

The last spike could be due to the criminalisation of alcohol possession in some remote communities. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, attributes the increases to higher police numbers.”

“An increased police presence in remote Northern Territory communities, particularly in places that previously had limited or no police, has resulted in more reporting in a number of offences, including violence, alcohol and child abuse,” a spokeswoman said.

For some time The Northern Myth has been aware that several NT Magistrates have been less than pleased that their sentencing options with regard to grog-running – particularly for serious and repeat offenders – have been seriously compromised by the supposedly tougher regime instituted by Brough and maintained by Macklin.

The Northern Myth also understands that many police – particularly those in remote areas that have to deal with grog-runners face-to-face on a daily basis – are particularly pissed off at this situation – they know that if they get a repeat offender “bang to rights” that they will only face a fine at most when the matter is dealt with by the Courts..

Before September 2007 a prison sentence was available as a sentencing option for a Magistrate dealing with a person convicted of a basic “restricted area” offence under the Liquor Act – an option increasingly attractive in respect of repeat or particularly serious offenders.

Since then, under the “prescribed area” provisions of the NTNER-modified Liquor Act, the maximum penalty available is a fine.

A prison sentence can now only be imposed for an aggravated version of the basic offence that relates to “transporting” more than 1,350 millilitres of pure alcohol with the intention to supply.

The pre-existing regime under the NT Liquor Act, at section 124A, always allowed (and still does) for Police officers to state or “aver” that seized grog was alcohol.

But there is no equivalent averment provision in the NTNER Act in respect of the 1,350 millilitres of pure alcohol situation.

The consequence of this is that if Police seize enough grog to trigger an aggravated offence and charge accordingly they will have to chemically analyse each item if the defendant opts to go to hearing.

The Northern Myth understands that the NT Police Forensic Lab in Darwin is not geared up to conduct such testing, and would have to send the seized alcohol interstate for testing.

The practical result of this snafu is that the vast majority of charges – including those that would clearly be classed as aggravated “grog-running” offences – are now processed by the Courts as basic “prescribed area” offences, and the only sentencing option is a fine.

Three weeks ago Marie Nudjulu stood before Court at the troubled community of Wadeye charged with a number of “prescribed area” offences.

The Northern Myth has seen the Court Transcript of Proceedings against Ms Nudjulu.

The Prosecutor read the following facts – admitted by Ms Nudjulu’s Defence counsel – into the public record:

Your Honour, the facts are that approximately 5:55 am on Thursday, 10 September 2009, Marie Nudjulu, the defendant, was the rear passenger in a green Holden Vectra sedan, registration: 536 888, driving to Wadeye from Darwin.

The defendant was travelling with Sebastian Cumpuda(?) and Terrence Parmbuck both rear passengers and Matthew Cumpuda driving. At that the defendant’s vehicle was stopped by police in the vicinity of Woodyculdiya Outstation turn off from Port Keats Road. The search of the vehicle apprehended nine bottles of spirits and 29 unopened 375 ml of cans of Victoria Beer on the floor at the defendant’s feet.

When asked who owned the unopened 29 cans of 375 ml of beer the defendant replied, ‘The VB is mine, I bought it for myself’, the two unopened 700 ml bottles of Bundaberg rum were located at the feet of the defendant were claimed by the co-offender Terrence Parmbuck. The remaining bottle of spirits was claimed by the co-defendant Sebastian Cumpuda.

The vehicle was seized and conveyed to Daly River Police Station. Both the defendant and co-offender, Parmbuck, were conveyed to the residence of Wadeye in a marked police vehicle. The defendant was advised she will receive a summons in relation to the matter.

At the time of the offences the whole of the Daly River land trust area is a prescribed area under the Liquor Act as amended by the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act. The defendant was not the holder of a liquor permit in order to provide a lawful excuse for the liquor in question.

According to the transcript Ms Nudjulu had previous convictions for possession of alcohol contrary to the Liquor Act – and was currently subject to a suspended sentence. This meant that, in ordinary circumstances under the previous regime, she would be a prime candidate for a custodial sentence.

But, as Stipendiary Magistrate Melanie Little told the Court:

“Her Honour: Well she…I mean this just demonstrates how this legislation is not completely – look at this lady’s record, it’s inevitable she would have gone to gaol for this offence, absolutely inevitable, $2200 maximum penalty now. I wonder – I don’t understand Canberra, it just totally bewilders me.

…

Her Honour: Look at the record, look at it. How many, look, one, two – this is now her fourth bring liquor and she was on a suspended sentence. I wonder – it just – it seems to have accelerated and the message is out, isn’t it, there’s absolutely no deterrence anymore.”

And in sentencing Ms Nudjulu, Magistrate Little made her views on the practical effects of the NTER Act modifications to the NT Liquor Act clear as possible:

Her Honour: Ms Nudjulu, on 10 September you were in a car at 6 o’clock and the police stopped the car and there was other people there and quite a lot of alcohol was found. You said that 29 of those cans were beer, 29 375 ml cans of beer were yours, and you pleaded to guilty to bringing liquor into the community. The liquor and the vehicle was seized. You had no permit to have alcohol here. You said you bought it for yourself and you were in the – what’s called a prescribed area.

We used to call them restricted areas and the penalties were very significant, Ms Nudjulu, and as I mentioned had they been – under the old penalties and old regime you would be looking at a period of imprisonment today. The maximum penalty today is $2200 and I take that into account.

I take into account that you were told to keep out of trouble. This offence is not punishable by imprisonment so it’s not a breaching offence. I take into account that this now the fourth bring liquor, plus you’ve got other offences on your record. So it’s clear to me that you’re not taking any notice whatsoever of the rules, Ms Nudjulu.

I accept you have been trouble for some time since I put you on that suspended sentence, and I take that into account. You pleaded guilty the very first time in court so I take that into account as well. It’s not a small amount of alcohol, having said that it’s certainly not at the – completely at the upper end, but I take that maximum penalty to – to mean that – well I know that it covers all offences, control liquor, possess liquor, bring liquor, and I regard bringing liquor is at the upper end of the types of offences that are covered by the maximum penalty.

You’re convicted and fined $400, $40 levy, 28 days to pay. You’ll get a piece of paper explaining how to pay that money and – and how to get more to pay if you need that extra time. (emphasis added)

Canberra – weak as piss on grog and grog runners in the NT.

This is an extended version of the piece published in the email edition of Crikey earlier today. I’ve added a few more thoughts and more from Mildren J’s Sentencing Remarks in this matter.

In April this year, Kevin Rudd, maintaining the fine Australian political tradition of vilifying people you’ve not met and never will, told the world that:

“People smugglers are engaged in the world’s most evil trade and they should all rot in jail because they represent the absolute scum of the earth. We see this lowest form of human life at work in what we saw on the high seas yesterday.”

Rudd was talking about the tragic events arising from an explosion on board the boat, known as SIEV 36, carrying a group of Afghani asylum seekers en route to Australian waters from Indonesia.

SIEV 36

Last week two of Kevin Rudd’s “scum of the earth” made guilty pleas before Justice Dean Mildren in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in the matter of The Queen v Mohamad Tahir and Beny.

Justice Mildren, here speaking in his Sentencing Remarks directly to Mohamed Tahir & Beny, summed up the background to the trip from Indonesia:

On 15 April 2009 a Type IV Indonesian fishing vessel, about 15 metres in length of wooden construction with an inboard engine, was intercepted by HMAS Albany approximately two and a half nautical miles south-east of Ashmore Reef inside the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The vessel has been given the name SIEV 36 by Australian authorities. At the time of interception you were both inside the wheelhouse at the helm of the SIEV 36. The vessel also carried 47 unlawful non-citizens, 46 from Afghanistan and one from Iran. The SIEV 36 had been at sea for about five days and nights after leaving Indonesia. The vessel carried sufficient food and water and it was equipped with a compass but it only had one life jacket. The passengers each paid up to $6000 to reach Australia.

And, rather than being the “lowest form of human life”, the two men charged with bringing the boat into Australian waters – Mohamed Tahir & a man known only as Beny – were really just young innocents abroad on a folly – not members of some evil conspiracy.

Beny is one of twelve children and attended school in South Sulawesi till he was about seven years old and has mostly worked as a subsistence fisherman and labourer .

As Justice Mildren told the court on his Sentencing Remarks:

“…approximately 12-18 months ago, you left South Sulawesi to go to Java in order to find work. You obtained some employment but about a month before you became involved in this matter, you left Java to go to Lombok in order to find work there. You were approached in Lombok by an older man who offered you employment on this trip. You were to be paid five million rupiah (about $AU560) which to you is a very large sum of money. You were lured into the task by the money. You expected to be caught. You were told that you would be returned home after a short time.”

Mohamed Tahir was one of seven children had a similar work history as Beny and was:

“…born in a village called Muncar near Banyuwangi in East Java. You also had been employed as a fisherman. You were approached by two older men at the wharves near your village and were offered five million rupiah to undertake this job. You had not been in work for some months and to you this was a very substantial sum of money. You left your village with the men and you were taken to Lombok. There the vessel was loaded with the passengers on a beach. At the time of departure, a captain was also on board.

Beny and Tahir were both severely injured in the explosion.

As Justice Mildren told them in Court:

“Beny you received burns to your left leg, left arm, left foot and the left side of your back. You were also thrown into the water for about 25-30 minutes before you were rescued. You were hospitalised for about 20-30 days.  Following your discharge from hospital you…were arrested and detained at the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation at Pinkenba in Brisbane. You falsely told officers of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that you were 17 years of age. A bilateral wrist X-ray taken for the purpose of age determination subsequently revealed that you d the skeletal maturity of a male of at least 19 years of age. I accept your counsel’s submission that the question of your age is one of some difficulty. You do not know your date of birth and there were conflicting reports about how old you were. It is accepted now that you are over 18 and that you are probably about 19, although you may be 20. This information has been confirmed by your solicitors through speaking to your family.”

…

“Tahir, also received burns to right arm and left leg. You have permanent significant scarring. You are still wearing bandages and will need to wear the bandages for the next two years. You still have pain.”

…

You, Tahir, were arrested following your discharge from hospital and detained at the DIAC juvenile facilities at Redcliffe in Perth. You had falsely told officers at the DIAC that you were 13 years of age. A bilateral wrist X-ray taken for the purpose of age determination subsequently revealed that you had the skeletal maturity of a male of at least 19 years of age. You do not know your exact age but you accept that you are older than 18.

The question of Beny and Tahir’s age is relevant because of the operation of subsection 233C(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) which provides that a mandatory minimum sentence does not apply to persons under the age of 18 years.

Beny & Tahir entered guilty pleas to offences under section 232A of the Act for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of $220,000 or both.

The true evil for Beny, Tahir and for Justice Mildren, is the requirement that anyone found guilty under section 232A of the Act is liable to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years with a mandatory minimum non-parole period of at least three years as required by section 233C of the  Act.

These provisions were introduced as amendments to the Act in 1999.

Introducing the Bill to the House of Representatives, Peter Slipper said that:

“The bill…introduces a more severe penalty of 20 years imprisonment or 2,000 penalty units, or both, for the trafficking of groups of five or more people. This penalty recognises that organised crime groups are involved in people trafficking, and the penalty reflects the seriousness of the offence.”

Labor’s Con Sciacca responded:

“Overall in 1997-98 some 157 illegal immigrants arrived by sea on our shores. In 1998-99 this figure increased eightfold to 859, and more are coming every day. This increase in people smuggling, in the operation of the so-called `snakeheads’, signifies that Australia’s penalties for these offences do not go far enough to deter those who assist these criminal warlords on our shores.”

In Beny & Tahir’s case all in Justice Mildren’s Court knew that they were not members of one of Slipper’s “organised crime groups”, nor were they Sciacca’s “snakeheads” or Rudd’s “scum of the earth” deserving of the condign punishment required by the provisions of the Act.

In any other circumstances Beny and Tahir would be prime candidates for the exercise of long-standing judicial discretions and the application of the ordinary judicial Sentencing Principles that provide clarity and transparency in sentencing.

But in Beny & Tahir’s case Justice Mildren’s hands were tied.

In words that reveal his barely restrained judicial frustration, he told Beny and Mohamed that:

“But for the mandatory minimum sentences which I am required to impose, I would have imposed a much lesser sentence than I am now required by law to do. There are dangers when the Courts are required to impose mandatory minimum sentences. In cases such as this, the ordinary sentencing principles play no function.

…

The other dangers of mandatory minimum sentencing, apart from the fact that the Court is required to impose a sentence which is greater than the justice of the case would otherwise require include the fact that principles of parity between offenders has little or no role to play. All offenders that fall within the class will be treated equally no matter what their level of criminality may be.

However this is not the occasion to debate the merits of mandatory minimum sentencing.”

Beny and Tahir were both sentenced to five years “on the top” and a non-parole period of three years.

Justice Mildren recommended that Beny and Tahir be released after twelve months.

Maybe now is the time to debate the merits of mandatory minimum sentencing under the provisions of the Migration Act?

Today is a sad day in internet land: Yahoo has finally pulled the plug on GeoCities.

GeoCities was one of the first free, design-your-own-page website hosting services on the net, and was the place many of today’s web masters, bloggers and sundry other geeks popped their web design cherries.

Sure, most will remember it as a haven of eye-searing fluro text, badly animated GIFs, never-ending Midi tunes and the horror of HTML frames, but for me, it will always be where I took my first uneasy steps into the world of blogging and online media and embarked on a journey of more than a decade that has lead here, to being someone who gets paid to screw around on the internet all day (not to mention being one of Australia’s most self-declared social media gurus).

The internet came early to my household. My mother was an early adopter of email, and we’d had a clunky old modem for as long as I can remember. But when we finally upgraded from the old 486 sometime circa 1994 to a new Windows-based PC, it came with the first edition of Netscape Navigator, and my love affair with the World Wide Web (for back then we still called it that — when we didn’t call it the ‘Information Superhighway’, of course) began.

I was allowed an hour a day on our dial-up modem (couldn’t tie up the fax machine for too long), where my nine-year-old self would look up Simpsons and NBL fan-sites and cheat codes for Commander Keen and Skate or Die. One hour was never enough (actually, given each page took about 10 minutes to load, it really wasn’t). I yearned for more time online, but most of all, I yearned for a page of my own. Not that I had anything of interest to share with the world (of course, these days, Twitter has made sharing nothing with the world the internet’s raison d’être, but these were different times), but I honestly remember longing to design my own page.

But back then, it was all just a pipe dream. You needed money, you needed a host, you needed to know what a host was, you needed coding skills. I got $5 a week pocket money and was a dab hand at Paintbrush for Windows, but that just didn’t cut it. No-one I knew even had the internet at home, so who could show me how?

I wish I could remember more from the intervening years and exactly how and when I stumbled across GeoCities to make this narrative flow a little better, but it’s all a bit of a blur. It was sometime in ‘97 or ‘98 — around age 12/13 — that I got wind of the site (definitely well before Yahoo’s acquisition of the company in ‘99, anyway), and what I do remember is the genuine excitement when I fired up the WYSIWYG editor and discovered that ZOMG, I CAN ACTUALLY CREATE MY OWN PAGE AND I JUST HAVE TO DRAG AND DROP EVERYTHING IN AND IT’S SO EASY AND WOW LOOK AT THIS AWESOME FLASHING TEXT AND THIS BOX PUTS MUSIC ON MY SITE WHEEEEE!

By that stage, we had acquired a second phone line and internet access had become much cheaper and I was able to begin what would become a lifelong habit of staying up all night playing around online. And how! I dedicated hours — hours — every day to playing with my Geocities page.

My first page was called “Doris the Satanic Goat” (I’m actually blushing after typing that), after the neighbour’s pet goat (though I can’t vouch Doris was actually a Satanist. They were Catholics), and I filled the pages with my favourite jokes, Metallica lyrics (no, really) and, the quintessential feature of any self-respecting GeoCities page, animated GIFs I’d cribbed off other pages.

Thankfully, I don’t think anyone else ever saw the page.

But after a while, even that wasn’t enough. I wanted my site to look like the professionally designed websites that were popping up. I wanted readers. So I created a new site to practise my design skills and share some slightly more interesting content that other people might actually want to look at. The new site was called “R.B. Industries” (an improvement at least), and I designed everything by peering at the source code of pages I liked, then working backwards until I could fgure out what they’d done, teaching myself the basics of HTML and CSS in the process.

I started to fill its pages with cynical teenage rants about how lame the world around me was, cartoons I’d drawn (my l33t Paintbrush skills finally coming into their own), sarcastic commentary on TV shows, Mad Magazine-ripoff satires and other stuff I can’t remember. Little did I know, I’d created a little proto-weblog. It was there that I discovered a) writing was fun, and b) I was actually OK at it.

From there, I got into blogging more seriously (or less seriously, actually), and about three or four years later, I was offered my first paid writing gig.

So while GeoCities may just go down as a footnote in the history of bad web design, it holds a bit of a special place in my deeply geeky heart. I may be a social media tragic these days, but one reason is because I appreciate how amazing it is to have places like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, where anyone of any age or technical proficiency can have their own web page and connect instantly with the world.

The online journalists of tomorrow don’t know how lucky they are.

Thanks for the memories, GeoCities

It’s how GeoCities would have wanted to go