THE Rt Hon David Blunkett is one of the more interesting Members of the Blair Government in the UK. He is also one of the most powerful – and successful.
Totally blind, David Blunkett has held the largest, and most complex Ministry in the UK, Home Affairs, since 2001. The Home Secretary is responsible for law and order, prisons, customs, migration and a host of other areas.
David Blunkett is no shrinking violet. His attitude to asylum seekers, and the equivalent of our “boat people” in particular, makes that of Phillip Ruddock and Amanda Vanstone almost “soft” by comparison.
Apart from wanting illegal entrants to be held in prison, not detention centres, his latest initiative is to require people waiting for removal after being denied refugee status to undertake community service!
He takes a hard line approach to crime and criminals, and has presided over a cut in violent crime. He is even less tolerant towards football hooligans, who seem to be born every minute in Britain.
He has now decided to take on the Police Force – a dysfunctional organization that is supposed to report ultimately to the Home Secretary. The UK has 43 Chief Constables, effectively the equivalent of our Police Commissioners, many of whom think they are a law unto themselves.
This week he has demanded that one of the more powerful Chief Constables, David Westwood, Chief Constable of Humberside, stand down as a result of highly adverse findings by an Inquiry into how the convicted child killer, Ian Huntley, was able to be appointed a school caretaker despite a string of sex abuse complaints to Humberside police.
The Chief Constable, and the Police Board to which he directly reports, is ignoring the Home Secretary’s direction. The Police Board is headed by a prominent Labour Party Councillor.
The matter may end up in court, and will be interesting to watch, because David Blunkett has been moving for some time to assert more direct political control over the Police Force. The deeply entrenched Chief Constables, and their Boards, are resisting his moves very strongly.
From time to time there are debates here over whether a Government, through the Police Minister, has the power to direct the Police Commissioner and the Police Force. In NSW, the Police Minister, John Watkins, has recently increased his powers to the chagrin of sections of the NSW Police.
The more political law and order issues become – and they are now very political in Victoria and NSW in particular – then the greater will be the pressure for stronger political control.
There is a fine line between legitimate political directions and unacceptable political interference. There is no question that during the Bjelke-Petersen era in Queensland that line was crossed many times. It was certainly crossed during the Askin regime in NSW as well.
It is interesting that in Papua New Guinea, the National Constitution specifically prohibits the Government from “directing” the Police Commissioner. What it does not prohibit is the Government sacking the Commissioner – so when a Commissioner is disinclined to follow the Government line he gets the chop!
David Blunkett has deliberately decided to take on the Chief Constable of Humberside because this Chief Constable is in a very weak position. A sex fiend was allowed to have access to school girls – with tragic consequences – because of gross police incompetence.
Being the very smart politician he is, David Blunkett is on a sure winner…….and will milk his showdown with the Humberside Police for all its worth.
And a footnote – he must have the most placid guide dog of all. His dog sits at his feet during Question Time in the Commons, and does not stir even when the only genuinely robust “parliament” in the Commonwealth is in full cry!

THE credibility of the commitment by the Anglican Church to dealing resolutely with the mishandling of sex abuse issues over many decades is about to be put to a significant test.
The allegations against the former Archbishop of Adelaide, Dr Ian George, cannot be allowed to die forever with his forced resignation just six weeks from his planned retirement date.
They are the most serious allegations to be made against a Church Leader in recent history, significantly more serious that those that brought an end to the Vice Regal service of Dr Peter Hollingworth.
At best, the claims against Dr George amount to grave errors of judgement. At worst they might amount to misconduct that invites the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
But what the allegations must do is be subject to the Anglican Church’s own test of the standards it demands from its clergy – including its Archbishops and Bishops.
At the present time, the former Bishop of Grafton, Donald Shearman, is before a Church Tribunal in the Diocese of Brisbane as a result of a complaint of his association with an underage girl in his care at a Church Hostel 48 years ago.
This Tribunal has been set up notwithstanding the fact that Bishop Shearman resumed his liaison with the complainant when she was an adult, and the fact that his resignation as Bishop of Grafton 20 years ago was a result of the complainant pursuing the allegations against him with Church authorities.
An attempt by Bishop Shearman to “resign” his Holy Orders, rendering the Tribunal powerless, was denied by the Anglican Primate, Dr Peter Carnley, early this year.
The tribunal is being asked to carry out the quaintly named practice of “defrocking” Bishop Shearman – an act that would remove him completely from Holy Orders.
It would seem that the acting head of the Anglican Church in the Diocese of Adelaide, Archdeacon John Collas, is unaware of the fact that the process of ending a priest’s Holy Orders does not automatically follow his or her retirement or resignation.
In the “Weekend Australian” the Archdeacon sought to distance the Church from his former Archbishop by saying that Dr George is now a “private citizen”.
That is palpably false. Unless, of course, Dr George has been allowed to vacate his Holy Orders in an extraordinarily brief period. If that is so, then whoever allowed him to take this course has behaved appallingly.
But I suspect that Dr George remains a Bishop and Priest. He may now be a “private citizen” in the sense that he is no longer employed by the Church but he remains an ordained Bishop, and therefore subject to the Church’s jurisdiction.
The Anglican Church has apologised for its appallingly bad handling of sex abuse issues in the Adelaide Diocese and its gross neglect of victims in particular. The criminal process involving former priests, youth workers and others has begun.
But the response by the Diocese will fall short of the standards that society demands, and its own people are entitled to expect, until it subjects Dr George’s behaviour as Archbishop to the rigours of its disciplinary system.
Since his resignation, Dr George has not responded in any satisfactory way to the serious allegations made against him in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry he appointed, and, more worryingly, his correspondence with the disgraced School Chaplain, Rev John Mountford, who is now being sought by the SA Police.
Even Archdeacon Collas was moved to describe one particular letter from Dr George to Mountford as leaving him: “gobsmacked would be the right word, I’m absolutely shocked.”
There are other findings of the Inquiry with regard to the former Archbishop that demand further probing by the Church, but the most troubling findings relate to who encouraged Mountford to flee Australia the very day he met with Dr George and the Principal of St Peters College – the day after allegations of the sexual abuse of a school student were raised.
Allied to this is the letter Dr George allegedly wrote to Mountford a year later which, if genuine, is both disgusting and unacceptable in the extreme.
The Anglican Church, along with other churches and state and community groups, has failed young people badly over a long period of time. That failure will only be truly redeemed when the perpetrators are brought to justice and those who have failed to give victims the support and assurance they deserve are held to account as well.
It won’t be redeemed until anyone in authority who covered up gross misconduct and criminal behaviour is dealt with resolutely as well.
Dr Ian George had a distinguished career in many areas. He was a forceful advocate for equality for women in the church, for reconciliation and for the compassionate treatment of refugees.
That may be argued in mitigation, but it in no way lessens the need for the grave allegations made against him to be examined by the processes the Church itself has in place.
Until that happens, apologies, criminal charges, compensation, and new protocols will be a less than wholly adequate response to appalling revelations that the Church has, once again, let down badly those most entitled to expect its protection and care.

In his new book, Peace Kills: America’s Fun New Imperialism, P.J.O’Rourke casts a cynical eye over four marches that occurred simultaneously in Washington D.C. a couple of years ago.
These rallies, which came together in one mass of futility, had such a dearth of shared purpose, not to mention a lack of talent in political street theatre, that O’Rourke regarded them as “pointless”.
Without being nostalgic, back in the good old days, when skeletons squirmed in King George Square after being nuked by realistic, if cardboard, bombs, political street theatre was not only enjoyable, but chillingly accurate as well.
If we give O’Rourke any credence, then seventy-five thousand activists, or seventy-five or seventy-five million depending on if you’ve talked to cops or organisers, would’ve achieved more for their causes, all seventy-five billion of them, if they’d stayed home and sung Dylan songs instead.
Unfortunately, “Mr Tambourine Man” doesn’t annoy parents like he used to in the sixties, the seventies, the eighties and the nineties (I adore Bob, so I won’t go in for that easy gibe and say he still irritates those with musical taste, and since I also love Peter, Paul and Mary mine isn’t in question).
The assessment that such a huge gathering of humanity (nobody includes hippies and ferals in head counts so the real figure was seventy-five billion) wasted everyone’s time makes me wonder whether I should’ve spent my, well, early 20s, more wisely than going to demonstrations that were perhaps as meaningless as the ones O’Rourke derides.
Given the only people who attended many of them were members of Resistance, the cultish youth wing of the Democratic Socialists, and a few ALP types eager to prove they weren’t careerists like their foes in the right and on the left, there can be no other conclusion drawn; there was a slim chance going to lectures might have been more valuable, even though I was doing political science (“those with dole forms queue in front of me, please”).
At least it wasn’t gender studies, sociology, philosophy, history, education, engineering, medicine, science or law.
While important issues need to be visible and protests can make a difference with persistence, press, shifting public opinion and retrospection, to my knowledge the Prime Minister hasn’t resigned because someone dawdled up Adelaide Street chanting “hey, hoe, hey, hoe, John Howard has got to go, hey, hoe, hey, hoe, John Howard has got a big toe, hey, hoe, hey, hoe”.
I genuinely believe, however, that Australia’s policy towards asylum seekers changed perpetually after Merlin from Big Brother held up a “Free th(sic) Refugees” sign and refused to tell Gretel who in the house had the worst habit.
Though never receiving the attention of Merlin’s stunt, the marches I’ve been to include: several (hundred?) opposing upfront fees, supporting the maritime workers, IVF access for lesbians, against the GST, not in favor of GST on tampons and presumably other sanitary products, International Women’s Day and one at the Irish Club when we were livid women weren’t allowed to dine with the PM.
“Hey, hoe, hey, hoe, John Howard has got to go, hey, hoe, hey, hoe, John Howard didn’t want women eating Irish food of which I know nothing, no, no, hey, hoe, hey, hoe”.
That event was memorable for its thuggish air and the radical who tried to kick a door down (the tucker can’t of been that good, sister), but I also recall the meeting in Roma Street Forum graced with the presence of around thirty students, which was too bad for the union, as they’d hired out almost as many buses as there was people.
About ten of those present were Young Liberals who came to mock; surprisingly they were slightly amusing and it was fun pondering why youthful male right-wingers all wear moccasins and shorts below their knees.
Presumably, it’s because they feel sensible shoes are better for running the country in and that while doing so you shouldn’t get Young Liberal girls unduly excited.
While most of the protests I’ve trudged along in, except the one just referred to and a few others, were worthy and true, I quote O’Rourke in attempting to answer the question of whether any I was at achieved anything: “five, four, three, two/(I) don’t have a doggone clue”.
Another Quote from P.J. O’Rourke’s Peace Kills: America’s Fun New Imperialism
“America is not a wily, sneaky nation. We don’t think that way. We don’t think much at all, thank God. Start thinking and pretty soon you get ideas, and then you get idealism, and the next thing you know you’ve get ideology, with millions dead in concentration camps and gulags”.
As a shameless media tart, I’d invite you to visit my website, but I haven’t updated it for a bit. Nevertheless, you can find it here.

THE following statement was made in Washington, USA, earlier this week:
“Over eight years, it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He’s a man of enthusiasm and warmth…….”.
Al Gore? John Kerry? The Rev Al Sharpton? Ted Kennedy? All wrong……….these word were part of a speech by George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States at the White House on Monday when he launched the official portraits of William Jefferson Clinton and Hilary Rodham Clinton.
And this is what he said about Senator Hilary Clinton:
“She inspires respect and loyalty from those who know her………..It takes an extraordinary person to campaign and win the United States Senate. She has proven herself more than equal to the challenge…”.
The charity so evident on Monday is not uncommon in the tough, hurly burly world of US politics. It has ever been thus.
Whyis it that Australian politics today cannot rise to such standards of basic courtesy and decency?
Indeed, the more I watch or hear question time in the House of Representatives the more despondent I become. The Government spends the whole of question time bagging Mark Latham – the Labor front bench generally reciprocates.
Is it any wonder that the standing of Australian politicians, and their politics, is about as low as a snake’s belly?
It was not always so. Anyone who doubts that should look up Robert Menzies’s parliamentary tribute to Ben Chifley after the latter’s sudden death in 1951, or his generous tribute to his number one sparring partner, Eddie Ward, in the mid-1960’s.
Or look up Hansard for 1984 when Parliament paid tribute to my late boss and friend, Kevin Michael Keirnan Cairns, the former Liberal MP for Lilley. The tributes to Kevin paid by Paul Keating, Kim Beazley, Lionel Bowen and other Labor frontbenchers were moving, and genuine.
If our current mob think the populus is impressed by their snarling at each other across the chamber, then they are more out of touch with reality than even I had thought.
The problem with the political scene today is that the attacks lack humour, and are all too predictable (and boring). Sometimes Peter Costello rises to the occasion, but as the election draws closer he has become all too predictable and, frankly, all to repetitive.
I can remember the day Gough Whitlam called the aged Liberal MP, Les Irwin, a “superannuated tug boat”, and old Les retorted that “at least he did not look like Liberace!”. Both sides laughed, just as they did when Jim Cope told Sir Robert Menzies that the truck driver who called out “Ming you are magnificent” should have been arrested for drink driving.
About 30 years ago a book containing witty quotes/interjections by Federal MP’s was published. An update in 2004 would struggle to fill two pages.
So the humour has gone, and so has the decency and goodness of spirit. Parliament, and our democracy, are the poorer as a result.
George W Bush is not good at speeches, but his effort in front of the Clinton and Rodham families on Monday was an exception.
What a pity our mob cannot do something similar…….even occasionally?

Last week Brisbane’s new Liberal Lord Mayor Campbell Newman delivered his first budget. It delivered on his campaign promises and continued on his theme of being the “Can Do” Mayor, but will this be enough?
This budget is more interesting than most because while Newman is the Lord Mayor his Opponents control the council. I was disconcerted to see Newman delivering the budget flanked by his principal opponent – Deputy Mayor David Hinchliffe – and the other Labor councillors. The theatrics and body language are completely different when you face your friends front on and your enemies are all around you.
The centerpiece of Newman’s campaign – 5 new tunnels circling the CBD – won’t be a significant budget item until much later in his term, so his speech was a list of undramatic adjustments to last year’s spending which keep faith with his election promises. They put the spotlight back on good management and looking after the small things that need fixing – maintenance rather than renovation; Home Handyman rather than Backyard Blitz.
He has kept rate increases below the rate of inflation, at the same time as significantly increasing the amount of money spent on some maintenance areas. Capital works is up 15% for example and resealing roads 40%, while $30 M is to be spent on upgrading the Sandgate Wastewater Treatment Plant.
This suggests that Newman’s budget partly relies on the development surge in Brisbane to provide revenue growth in excess of inflation, while rates are held down. The budget also eats up this year’s $60 M surplus. If income increases more slowly than revenue, then the money has to come from somewhere. There was also some rearrangement of priorities from Labor’s previous budgets, but not such as to cause any significant public outcries.
Much was made of the transparency of the budget, which is where Newman was really canny. He has laid out where and on what the maintenance monies are to be spent, as well as leaving only a tiny $296,000 surplus. This effectively locked Labor into either supporting his maintenance programme, or telling some residents they can’t have that park or road upgrade because the money is going somewhere else.
The budget also paid attention to public transport and the environment – more “environmentally friendly” buses and some park developments; and more rubbish vouchers to reduce the amount of illegal dumping. As well, there is a pilot project to trial Sunday opening of Council Libraries – surely mandatory rather than experimental.
While the incrementalism was in line with Campbell’s campaign promises, it may well produce problems for him in the longer-term. Brisbane people are largely happy with the direction in which the city is heading, and the election campaign was fought on that understanding. Newman won by stressing his youth and energy against Quinn’s perceived lethargy. So he doesn’t have a mandate for radical change, but if Newman can’t establish a sufficiently different direction to Labor in government, then he will have difficulty wresting control of the council chamber from Labor at the next election, which must surely be his goal.
Newman has a number of promising themes. This budget is a return to the era of “roads, rates and rubbish” and he has the opportunity to contrast his administration, looking after the basics and ordinary ratepayers, with the Labor Party, running events for inner city elites. By laying out the costings of individual neighbourhood projects he can lay stake to the claim that he is more democratic and transparent than the previous administration.
While those themes were there, they were not heavily promoted. The compare and contrast, sound and fury that characterizes most government’s first budgets was missing. Perhaps this is a function of not having control of the council – you have to be careful what issues you take a stand on, and massage the rest away.
I also have a suspicion that while voters will elect a politician on the basis of being down to earth, they really do want some pizzazz with their government. One of the things that Brisbane residents like about their city is that it is no longer the big country town it was a mere 20 years ago (prior to the Atkinson administration). The Liberals need to quickly develop a rhetoric that casts their policies in terms of Brisbane as a world class livable city, with room to breathe. For that Newman is going to need to develop some policies for government which are innovative, broad scale, distinctive, and which puts the Labor Party on the back foot. Maybe next budget.

Mark Latham spent part of the weekend addressing delegates, observers and others at the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP’s) State Conference.
While it’s arguable that Conference is less dull and painful than watching lawn bowls and having your bikini line waxed, Latham’s speech was an interesting, and relatively painless, example of how the language conservatives have been using to discredit Labor is now being employed against them.
About a decade ago the dominant meaning of “elite”, which in Australia described a bloody good sportsman (sic), was superseded by the derogatory denotation of being a lefty that subsisted on government grants and had a crush on Paul Keating (the object of affection for the “elite” for recognising indigenous disadvantage and giving Don Watson a job so he could later write a tome that makes you look really clever when carrying it on public transport).
Although the latter meaning is dodgy due to the way it delegitimises the entrance of groups like women into institutions of power, in a media-soaked age the ability to ridicule opponents with a word or short phrase is a handy talent to have. This use of “elite” has been so successful that every person besides rich, white, heterosexual males and rich or white or heterosexual males is one.
For this reason, it’s noteworthy that Latham accused the Government of “New Elitism”. That is, Howard and Co were charged with having a disinterest and derisory attitude towards “commonsense” concerns like encouraging literacy amongst littlies.
“This is the new elitism of our time”, said Latham, “where Tory politicians look down their nose at one of the basics of life: reading books to our children”.
You might, unfortunately, be able to kick welfare-recipients in this country, but everybody would think only a right bunch of uppity mongrels would mock anything to do with tiny tots.
With the word “new” Latham inferred that the “elitism” conservatives go on about is passé and so are they for still focussing on it. He didn’t offer his support for it though; the statement that “(the Howard Government’s) joined the elites and moved beyond the everyday concerns of the Australian people…” allowed him to distance today’s Labor from “elitism” in general.
The reference to the “Opportunity Express”, a bus Latham travelled on during his last Queensland visit, was hokey, but useful because, metaphorically speaking, everyone’s invited on board, especially those dubbed “Howard’s Battlers”; the “us” in “for all of us”.
They can now, however, be identified as those who didn’t benefit from recent tax cuts.
“The Government’s forgotten about the hard workers on less than $52 000 year; the sales reps, the technicians, the shop assistants, the teachers, the office workers – the backbone of the Australian economy…”, Latham lamented (since Latham was speaking at an ALP Conference he should have added political staffers and union heavies to the list).
Of course, no politician’s image is going to suffer from catching the bus to work like regular folk.
For the benefit of Messrs Costello and Abbott, a bus is like a big car that sometimes arrives on time and often does not.
Although those of us who think issues like gender are marginalised in this differently pitched line to ‘ordinary voters’, there is much pleasure to be had from seeing the Government copping what they have so expediently inflicted on others for years, and with only them being given a hard time in the process.