January 13, 2006 | Graham

Marine lawyer concurs – Nisshin Maru was rammed



An article in the New Zealand Herald was brought to my attention by a Greenpeace supporter who claimed:

The evidence does not show that Greenpeace is to blame in fact when the evidence was reviewed by a marine law expert from Monash University he said the whalers were to blame. Here’s the article about it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000AB29A-F71A-13C4-81BC83027AF1023A

This is typical of the half-truths or wishful thinking being pushed around the ‘net on the issue.
What Dr Eric Wilson is actually quoted as saying is that the Japanese “set-up” the situation, so that “the Greenpeace vessel could not but strike the Japanese vessel.” They might have. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the Japanese rammed Greenpeace, or whether it was the other way around, and whether that simple fact has been misrepresented by Greenpeace and the misrepresentation uncritically accepted by many journalists. The right of way issue is simply a red-herring in terms of the accuracy of the reporting.
Dr Wilson is quoted with something relevant to say on that issue.

But at the same time, it was Greenpeace who rammed the Nisshin Maru and not the Nisshin Maru which rammed the Greenpeace vessel.
The skipper artificially set up the obstacle so it was the Greenpeace vessel which physically collided with the Nisshin Maru … physically, materially, Greenpeace executed the ramming action.

So, the truth is starting to surface. What will Greenpeace do? At this moment, perhaps they are dreaming up their own version of core and non-core events.



Posted by Graham at 6:59 am | Comments (4) |
Filed under: Environment

January 09, 2006 | Jeff Wall

The hypocrisy over the demise of Charles Kennedy.



If there is a strong whiff of hypocrisy in our air today then it has wafted all the way from the United Kingdom.
The demise of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the UK, Charles Kennedy, is as appalling a piece of hypocrisy and total injustice as I have ever come across.
The Leader of the third force in UK politics has been forced out of the leadership allegedly because he has a “drinking problem”.
Now if politicians were forced out of high office because of a “drinking problem” there would be lots of vacancies in most Cabinets, and Parliaments. And had a “drinking problem” been factor in the past, then some of our most notable, and respected leaders would have had early and messy ends to their careers.
One of the most successful, and effective, political leaders in the post-war period was Henry Edward Bolte, Premier of Victoria for a record period. Not only did he enjoy a drink on a hot, or even cold, day, he smoked untipped cigarettes. And having been a “record breaking” drinker did not obstruct Robert James Lee Hawke’s rise to the highest office in our land.
I well recall the case of the Senator who was so tanked that he voted with the other side by mistake…and was rushed off to Canberra Hospital by his colleagues who returned to the Chamber to assure everyone he was being treated for “renal colic”, to which one whit commented “they can’t even bloody pronounce alcoholic!”.
As Lord William Deedes (who has been in UK politics for more than 60 years) pointed out in his weekly UK Telegraph column recently, if a fondness for strong drink was an obstacle to political office, then many of the most successful UK leaders would never have achieved statesman status!
The truth of the Charles Kennedy matter is that he is the sad victim of politics at its mots vicious. He was knifed by former staff, friends, and, significantly, current colleagues – publicly and privately.
There is no doubt Kennedy has had a drinking problem. He agreed in 2004 to seek help for it. But, as one whose father was an alcoholic, I can say with certainty that “help” often does not help at all…and takes time to have any beneficial effect.
There is no evidence Charles Kennedy has been adversely affected by strong drink in recent times. He says himself he has not had a drink for two months. There is evidence he was in the past. So why has it become an issue now?
I suspect it became as issue because Charles Kennedy, to his great credit, was getting on top of the problem…and the “excuse” his treacherous party opponents were using to undermine his leadership was rapidly approaching its “used by” date!
But it gets even more pathetic.
Charles Kennedy was forced into a personal statement last Thursday confirming he had had a drinking problem because he knew that a former staffer intended to report on television news that night her former boss was a “recovering alcoholic”.
His public admission was dignified and courageous. How sharp is the contrast with the grubby way for colleagues, and former staff, ran a whispering campaign against him for months using his drinking problem as the lynch pin?
Charles Kennedy must not be the sharpest blade in the political cutlery set…but some very sharp knives have been used to ruin forever the career of a Leader who took the Liberal Democrats to their highest number of Parliamentary seats for generations less than a year ago.
And if his colleagues were aware he had a drinking problem before the UK general elections last year – as they were – then they need to explain why they did nothing about this “terrible” position BEFORE Charles Kennedy was offered to the people of the UK as choice to hold the “balance of power” if not power itself.
The truth is that when they count not bring down Kennedy on policy or other salient grounds, they resorted to the worst kind of smear of all.
Is it any wonder there is an absolute dearth of good men and women seeking public office in western democracies today?



Posted by Jeff Wall at 11:40 am | Comments (2) |

January 08, 2006 | Graham

Wanted: a politician with the courage to be conservative.



Most Australians would be insulted to be called “conservative”, and while some Australian politicians, like John Howard, are conveniently branded as “conservative” just about all of them have a bias towards “progress”. But what happens when so-called “progress” becomes at best merely “change” or at worst “regress”? Name me one politician who is prepared to say “It’s the way the world works – there is nothing we can do about it?”
The immediate prompt for these musings is the reaction of Queensland politicians Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh to the Christmas Road Toll. Beattie suggests increasing road fines, while Bligh is promoting curfews for young drivers and confiscation of cars of repeat drink drivers (amongst other things).
Will these solutions work? Is the problem severe enough to warrant them?
I don’t pretend to have the complete answer, but the facts of the matter are that if you are going to allow intelligent monkeys to hurtle around at any speed in vehicles weighing around a ton, some of them are going to be involved in accidents and die.
If you seriously wanted to fix the problem you would mandate push bikes for everyone, and the death toll would plummet. So would your political popularity. So death and accident are unavoidable. The only issue is how much better we can do, given existing circumstances, and this can only be judged by reference to benchmarks.
The first benchmark is whether the toll of 19 is out of the ordinary judged by previous years. The answer to this appears to be “No”. According to yesterday’s Courier Mail this death toll has been matched or bettered (?) in two out of the previous ten years – 23 in 1996/97 and 19 in 2003/04. What’s more, taking into account population growth, argualy the 1997/98 figure of 18 is the equivalent of 19 today.
The average road toll for the 10 year period covered by the Courier is 13.7, with 5 years under it and 5 over it, and a more or less normal distribution of results, suggesting that this Christmas-New Year holiday period is the statistical status quo.
Another benchmark is how well other states perform on road fatalities. Given the small samples, it’s not that appropriate to deal with just the Christmas-New Year period, but rather the whole of the year, and to be comparable the figures have to be per capita, or even better, per kilometre travelled.
I can’t find the most recent figures on the ABS site, but I can find figures for 2003. Per capita Queensland is exactly on the Australian average of 8.2 per 100,000. Only Victoria (6.7) and the ACT (3.4) have lower rates. It’s a similar story when comparing statistics per registered vehicles. The Australian figures don’t appear to include comparisons per kilometre travelled, but given the size of Queensland one suspects that we might do relatively better on that measure, and Victoria and the ACT much worse.
However, they do have international comparisons based on kilometres travelled, and they are good news for Australians. The OECD average is 1 person killed per 100 million vehicle kms travelled, and Australia, at 0.9 is 10% better, meaning, given Queensland’s exactly average performance, that we do 10% better than the OECD average.
There may be room for some improvement in Queensland’s road safety, but the statistics suggest that it is not much, and that drastic measures certainly aren’t justified. What we need is a politician with the guts to say that this is about as good as it gets.



Posted by Graham at 2:18 pm | Comments (6) |
Filed under: Australian Politics
« Newer Posts