I’ve been vaguely following the Gunns’ pulp mill saga, biased against the project by the company’s ham-fisted public relations strategies. It’s hard to feel sympathetic for an organisation that bullies everyone the way that Gunns does.
This morning I decided to have a closer look at one point in the controversy – that the mill will ruin the “pristine” Tamar Valley. As a result I’ve come to the conclusion that Alan Ramsey and Louise Evans plus some of their broadcast colleagues whose prose doesn’t appear on the ‘net should be sent on gardening leave. Well, what else should you do with an environmentally gullible journalist who fails the most basic of fact-checking tests?
My cue that the Tamar Valley is not “pristine” came when Fran Kelly put the proposition to Premier Paul Lennon. He snorted, told her to do her homework, and pointed out that the proposed pulp mill would be built next to Rio Tinto’s aluminium smelter.
“Surely he’s exaggerating,” I thought. Afterall, how could anyone seriously argue that a pulp mill was going to destroy the rural tranquility of a district of orchards and wineries if it already had an aluminium smelter? Yet that is exactly what Cousins and his band of Wentworth dilletantes is claiming.
Well, thankfully Google earth was at hand. So you can see exactly where the mill is going to be built. I’ve put a huge black spot on the photo to indicate the site, but if you want something more elegant you can check out the map on the Federal Government’s website.

You can click on the map and go to Google Earth, but to save you the trouble, I’ve reproduced the satellite image of the building just to the south-east of the Gunn’s site below.

I also unearthed a few other things. According to the George Town Council Strategic Plan 2007-2012 Bell Bay, where the mill is to be built is “The shipping entrance to Tasmania with the most important concentration of heavy industry in the north.” The area is specifically zoned “Major Industrial Zone” in the current “Planning Scheme”, the purposes of this zone are:

5.9.1 Purpose

• The Bell Bay Major Industrial Zone represents a unique opportunity to identify and make available land suitable for the expansion of industrial use and development at Bell Bay and its consolidation as one of the principal industrial estates in the State.
• The inherent qualities of this ara for industrial use and development including its deep waters, anchorages, existing transport infrastructure, availability of services and the separation from incompatible uses, are recognised by this zoning.
• The intent of this zone is to promote the use of the area as a strategic location and clear focus for the establishment of major industries for value added resource processing and requiring the locational advantages the site has to offer.
• The provisions of this zone also establishes a framework for the provision of major infrastructure services and the preparation of a Development Plan to provide the detailed controls to further guide developments.
• The establishment and ongoing monitoring of industries will be subject to the appropriate environmental approvals under the Environmental Protection Act 9173. Quantified risk assessment shall be performed on proposed industrial developments.

Permtted uses include timber mill, hazardous industry and noxious industry.
Bell Bay already houses not one, but two smelters. The Rio Tinto aluminium smelter was built in 1955, and there is also a magnesium smelter owned by Temco which was commissioned in 1962.
The reason for all this heavy industry is quite clear. The Tamar River offers a good deep water port (no doubt the reason George Town was the first town to be settled in Tasmania) with access to abundant cheap hydro-electricity. The industry has been there for about 50 years, and the local community is actively looking for more of it. If you were planning a pulp mill there could hardly be a better spot. What’s more, the area is so settled that only an idiot, or someone who hadn’t even bothered with the minimum of research, could call it “pristine”.

I was wondering what Wikipedia means by the term “anyone”. It is, after all, a site which advertises that it can be edited by “anyone”, but that term apparently does not extend to staff from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. They apparently aren’t “anyone” because it appears to be impossible for them to “edit”. Instead, when they change a wiki entry they “tamper”.
(In fact, if you go to the wiki entry for “anyone” you’ll find out that only a small number of individuals fit the category, which I am sure is not what Wikipedia generally means by the term.)
I’ve written before about Wikipedia banning staff on Capital Hill from editing the ‘pedia. Sounds like staff from the Australian public service will be heading the same way because of the case of the great wiki tampering. But isn’t this what Wikipedia is all about? If it’s any good and the entries have been distorted, then the hordes of editors are supposed to correct the mistake.
In fact, it rather looks like the staff from DPMC were mostly amusing themselves. So the PM ought to be embarrassed, not because they were altering things on orders, but because there weren’t enough orders being given to keep them busy.
Kevin Rudd also ought to be embarrassed. Why aren’t his staff fixing-up his Wiki image if it is so important? That might be a better use of his time than criticising Howard over what is at best lax staff management.
Anyway, there are many more serious abuses of public service resources involving the Internet than this. For example, there’s the public servant who multiple voted on an Queensland Opposition website, or the manipulation of a Queensland ABC poll on Northbank by the government. I’m also aware of public servants haunting particular websites to push a political line.

This morning’s revelations that Kevin Rudd visited a strip club called Scores in New York will probably help his campaign for prime minister. That’s a reflection of people’s desire to change the government. It doesn’t matter what Rudd does, it will be interpreted in his favour – the teflon factor. So this post is for posterity.
There are a couple of things that intrigue me about the matter. The first is why Rudd is apologising for being in the club. I’ve been to a strip club, and I imagine most males have at some time or another. It wasn’t a particularly edifying experience, but nothing to apologise for. So why is Rudd apologising?
The apology lends weight to the suggestion that he might have embarrassed himself at Scores. But if this amounted to being so drunk that he can’t remember, again, so what? Most Australian males have had an alcoholic seniors’ moment.
From my limited knowledge of strip clubs there are a number of levels of interaction. You can treat the stripping as wall paper and have a drink at the bar. Then there’s the poll dancing, where you might even slip some money into a girl’s waistband. And then there are cubicles where less salubrious, but still legal, things happen. So, to what level did Rudd go in the club? Maybe Warren Snowden, who was there with him and who appears to be a little more forthcoming, might be able to explain. Or perhaps no-one’s asking the right questions?
For a future PM Rudd has a problem with the truth – it’s a job that sometimes requires you to lie, and he’s not very good at that. Added to that he has a propensity for demanding higher standards of others than he demands of himself. “I’m not into this Captain Perfect Captain Morality stuff” he says, which is just the problem, because the only reason he needs to say this is because he is. In a few years time he will be vulnerable to the 21st century version of Gough Whitlam’s attack on Joh Bjelke-Petersen as a “bible bashing bastard”.
And at the same time that he claims innocence he can viciously turn the attack on to someone else. Today when asked if he thought it was the beginning of a Liberal Party smear campaign he referred questionners to Alexander Downer and his staff. It’s not immediately apparent to me why. Glen Milne, who wrote the piece, is known to be close to Costello, but this is the first suggestion I’ve heard that he writes for Downer as well.
And even if he does, why couldn’t he have got the information directly himself? I’d be surprised if the newspapers didn’t have little bombs they were working on ready to pop around each of the leaders as the election gets closer. This was an “off the record” event involving a Newscorp senior editor. Perhaps Col Allan, the editor, put it “on the record” to some of his colleagues when he visited Australia recently. Outing politicians for off the record comments is a recently popular Australian journalistic blood sport, as Costello, Milne’s pick for Liberal leader, knows most recently to his own cost.
Could it be that Rudd is hoping to deflect the blast onto one of his enemies, who, because the event occurred overseas and he is the Foreign Minister, is sufficiently circumstantially connected to be smeared as well? As journalists and politicians often know more about sources than they can let on, Rudd may have grounds, so I’m just flagging a suspicion, not making an allegation. But, if my guess is correct, Rudd is certainly no “Captain Perfect”.
If this is all there is, then Rudd is safe. Of course, if it is only the first fussilade in a series, then things could change. “Future PM groped me – stripper” would not be a pretty headline, particularly if her picture accompanies it. But if it is accurate, it is still likely to be accurate in all respects, including “future PM”.

Well, I’ve had my interview with the Liberal Party Disciplinary Committee, and it doesn’t improve my prognosis of the party’s health. I think I was more prepared for the meeting than they were, despite the fact that they didn’t serve me with the offending passages until about 24 hours before the hearing.
Last Thursday 9th August, at 4:59 pm I received an email from the State Director attaching a notice and copies of various articles that I have written, or where I was quoted. I asked for clarification. Did they object to the whole of the articles, or just some parts, and if so, which parts? It’s hard to see them objecting to the sections where I give them good advice, but then again, who knows? I also asked to be told who would constitute the committee.
The response didn’t arrive until 2:32 p.m. on the 13th, with the interview to occur on the 14th at 4:00 p.m. It included some passages excerpted from the material, and refused to tell me who my inquisitors would be. By this time I had already written my response which was due not less than 24 hours before the meeting. So I sent it without regard for the additional material as there was no time to incorporate it.
Then, on the day of the hearing I became aware that one of the tribunal members, Peter Fardoulys had declined to take part because of a conflict of interest. I’ve known Peter for almost the whole of my 30 years in the Liberal Party and he was a key participant in my two state campaigns. In fact there was considerable opposition from some quarters to including him, and I lost some support as a result. I haven’t spoken to him for years, but I can imagine that he made the right decision for the right reasons.
What surprised me was that he was to be replaced by Elaine Bowers. Elaine Bowers is 89 years of age, 14 years past the mandatory retirement age for Australian judges and has actively worked against me in the past. In 1991 she lost a ballot for Griffith FEC Chairman to me and gave my mother an earful when she drove her home. I’ve been watching her from those visual organs that sit in the back of your head ever since.
Party office-bearers were in such disarray that rather than call a meeting of State Council they decided to appoint her via a flying minute which was sent out on Monday, to be signed by 12 midday on Tuesday. One small problem with this is that the party’s constitution does not appear to allow the council to make decisions this way.
Another complication is that tribunal members cannot have sat on the party’s State Council during the last 5 years, and she was Chairman of Women’s Council, and therefore a state councillor, until mid-August 2002. This is a condition imposed in an effort to ensure that tribunal members are not biased by virtue of having been involved in recent arguments in the party. But then, as they could have more easily, and legally, just adjourned the meeting and appointed someone via the conventional route, I’m sure Mrs Bowers wasn’t the nominee because of her presumed impartiality.
Needless to say I raised some of these matters with the chair, John Miles, a Brisbane barrister, when I arrived at the committee. There was no response from Mrs Bowers to the charge of apprehended bias. In fact there was no response from Mrs Bowers to anything during the whole meeting. Miles did not attempt a defence, and he didn’t offer Mrs Bowers the opportunity. He didn’t offer a defence when I asked him to disqualify himself because he was in his position as “a representative” of the Santoro faction, and that his failure to provide adequate materials and notice, along with some of the bizarre rulings of the Disciplinary Committee meant that a reasonable person would have concerns about his impartiality. He did however decide this did not impede him from charing the committee.
Perhaps my aggressive opening threw Mr Miles. He was completely confused about the role of the Discplinary Committee. The way the Liberal Party system works is that the committee inquires into the matters referred to it by the State Council and it then decides whether the charge is proven. It then reports its findings to State Council which can then impose a penalty not exceeding the penalty recommended by the committee. In other words, the committee determines and the State Council sentences.
Despite this, Miles kept asserting that the committee wouldn’t make any determinations and that these were all for State Council to make. That was apart from the times when he said that the committee would reserve its decision and not announce it straight after the meeting. Very confusing.
He also refused to give me a right of reply, apart from making a submission to State Council. But by the time the matter gets to State Council it has already been determined.
Because he said that it was an investigation and it wouldn’t make any decisions he refused to tell me where he thought I had breached the constitution, or even where it was possible that I might have breached the constitution.
He said that the committee had read my submission and then gave me an opportunity to address them. I didn’t take it – if he wasn’t prepared to go through the allegedly offending material with me there was nothing I could add to my written words. I asked the committee if they had any questions about my written submission. It’s a very complete submission they told me. Peter Johnson, former MHR for Brisbane, even helpfully pointed out that it was 35 paragraphs in length.
“So you agree with it?” I asked hopefully. Well, no. “Then you disagree with it?” Well, no. “So can you tell me what you don’t agree with?” Well, no. They might all have been as completely silent as Mrs Bowers for all the difference it would have made.
25 minutes after the meeting began I suggested that if they were going to conduct proceedings like this the party might as well appoint a post box rather than a committee and said that if they didn’t have anything to say to me I had nothing more to say to them, so they might as well take an early marker for the afternoon.
I’ve no idea whether they did or not, but if they want to avoid bringing the party into disrepute themselves I’d suggest that they need to go back to the State Council and ask them to start again. Afterall, this is a party whose objects include the rule of law, which means, amongst other things, that they can’t act capriciously.

Today’s revelations of internal Liberal Party polling drew this response from Kevin Rudd – “This is a poll-driven government and you see it across the board: the attacks on unions, the attacks on state premiers, the attacks one states; it’s all there in their political poll-driven analysis.
What’s worse than a poll-driven political party? Perhaps one that pretends it isn’t. The ALP is fond of saying that the Liberals are Americanising Australia, so it’s ironic that their most successful campaign to-date – that on Work Choices – has been strategised by a US consultant. Vic Fingerhut “[a] pioneer among Democratic polling and media consultants [who] has been behind almost every major ‘rally’ for Democrats of the past three decades” boasts on his website that “in the past year” he produced “a dramatic shift in public opinion and attitudes in Australia”. In fact, he claims the whole 10 points of swing!
His global portfolio also extends to work for the Mayor of Panama City.
You won’t find too many references to him from ALP sites now, but two years ago it was different. On the 15th July, Workers Online was happy to announce :

American pollster Vic Fingerhut has been in Australia this week with a reassuring message to the labour movement – it’s OK to stand up for what you believe in – and it might even win you elections…
And what he has discovered is a sort of immutable truth – there are some issues that belong to the Right and others that belong to the Left and it’s not about policy either. It’s about language and the way you frame an issue.
As a general rule where the issue is about managing the economy or handling terrorism or keeping taxes low, Republicans and conservatives have a marked advantage, with more than two thirds of voters perceiving they are superior on the issue.
But bring people into the equation, particularly working people, and the numbers swing around. By merely adding the words ‘for working people’ to the question ‘who is better at managing the economy?’, Democrats pick up 30 percentage points.
Likewise change the proposition ‘keeping taxes down’ to ‘fighting for fairer taxes for working people’ and the issue goes from being a negative for the left to a positive.
It’s early days, but the trends seem to translate into Australian politics as well. And if they do they add a new dimension to the ‘accepted wisdom’ that Labor needs to be stronger on the economy.

Watch Kevin Rudd and the rest of the Federal Opposition’s frontbench for this sort of phrasing.
So, while the Liberals have been exporting advice via their pollsters Crosby Textor, who worked for the Tories last year, the ALP has been buying it in from overseas.
Crosby Textor suggests that Rudd’s “mini-me” strategy of dressing as a younger version of John Howard is working for him. Our research suggests that there are also potential weaknesses in it. Part of John Howard’s appeal is that he will be economical with the truth to get a desired result. This is the one significant area where Rudd has differentiated himself from Howard. He’s the moral, church-going “mini-me”. He’ll get results, but he won’t cut corners to get them.
At the moment voters still don’t know Rudd all that well. In the next 4 or so months they’ll be looking for information to fill the gaps. Seeing and raising Howard for dishonesty and cleverness too often could be the wrong strategy if it directs voters to the tricks of the Labor campaign.
It’s a bigger sin to be hypocritical than dishonest.

Our surveys show that a substantial number of voters blame Howard for problems with the health system. That’s why he’s taking over a hospital in Tasmania, and offering to do the same in other spots around the country.
Labor has been trying to jam Howard by sheeting the blame for the failures of Labor state governments in health, education and infrastructure to him. When Julia Gillard says that Labor wants to end the “blame game” what she really means is that she wants Howard to wear the blame. It’s a beautiful play. You use the problems created by your own incompetence at the peripheral levels of government as a justification for taking control at the central level. Nice work if you can get it.
Being the pragmatist he is, and armed with the current High Court’s recent interpretations of the Constitution which give the Commonwealth extensive powers never envisaged by any previous generation, Howard has decided he’s not going to be a sitting duck on this one. A de facto takeover of the health system walks right around the “blame game” gambit and shifts the blame back to where it belongs.
At the same time Rudd has played into Howard’s hands by proposing to untie the states from the fiscal discipline of tied Commonwealth Grants, a strategy apparently devised by a former advisor to SA premier John Bannon. Bannon was the Premier who lost office because of huge financial mismanagement of the State Bank of South Australia.
Howard has been criticising the states for being Kevin Rudd’s shock troops. In fact, he’s got it the wrong way around. It’s not the popular Rudd who appears to be pulling the strings, it’s the states. The election rhetoric is shaping as being a battle between whether the states control the commonwealth through Rudd or whether the federal government gets on top of them. This is a problem for Rudd. Voters like him, but they are unsure whether he is strong enough. No surprise then that Alexander Downer has taken to calling Rudd “Jellyback” ^{TM Paul Keating}.

Kevin Rudd famously said that he was looking forward to “messing” with the Prime Minister’s mind. Recent comments suggest that he “knows” the Prime Minister’s mind. I heard him say it before, and he has repeated it again today – the election will be called in six weeks.
The Labor strategy is fairly obvious. Try to force Howard into an early election by redefining “full term” and then suggest that if he doesn’t meet the invented deadline he is scared to go to one.
An early election suits Labor. The more familiar voters get with the Rudd ALP the more likely they are to see things they don’t like. It’s also difficult to maintain momentum when you’re the opposition and have come out of the blocks very hard. Stunts become harder to come by, and as they become less novel they work less well.
The longer time goes on, Howard also has a better chance of getting Rudd’s measure.
Calling an election in 6 weeks time would be absurd. It would be the week of the 10th of September, the week of the Rugby League semi-finals, and two weeks before the finals. The AFL final is on the 29th of September. It might suit Kevin Rudd to have 3 out of the 4 weeks of an election campaign over-shadowed by football finals, but it should suit no-one else, including the electorate. Merely suggesting it makes him look half-smart.
Which means that Rudd has served up an opportunity to the government to get on top of him. Rather than forcing Howard to go early he gives him an opportunity to portray Rudd as wanting to sneak into office without giving electors the chance of giving him a proper examination. Either that, or a nerd so gauche and out-of-touch that he didn’t even realise that while politics is important, football is the salvation of the nation.