WikiLeaks and Afghanistan:

Harry Goldsmith writes: Re. “Whatever their motivation, WikiLeaks undermine international humanitarian law” (yesterday, item 10). Neil James tells us that:

“WikiLeaks is not authorised in international or Australian law, nor equipped morally or operationally, to judge whether open publication of such material risks the safety, security, morale and legitimate objectives of Australian and allied troops fighting in a UN-endorsed military operation. Nor should and can groups such as WikiLeaks be so authorised or equipped respectively, especially when they are unaccountable to any responsible authority or international humanitarian law (IHL) in a legal or moral sense.”

I am pleased that WikiLeaks was able to show the Helicopter Gunship Massacre, so we could see the barbarism that is war, especially in the light of Hans Blix’s comments before the UK Inquiry into the Iraq War. I understand that US’s appetite for war in Vietnam was reduced because TV audiences could see what was involved, and maybe the Helicopter Gunship Massacre will have a similar effect. So, too, will the airing of atrocities in Afghanistan.

Does Neil James think that Daniel Ellsberg, who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers was similarly “not authorized” and should therefore be condemned? (For those not aware of the Pentagon Papers, Wikepedia  records that the “Pentagon Papers demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance.”

At my local RSL club, members and guests hear the words each night “Lest we forget”. I fear we do forget.

Have we forgotten that the Taliban are powerful in Afghanistan because the US assisted them to overthrow a previous government? The US action has come back to bite it in its metaphorical bum.

I wonder if these subversive words of mine will be interpreted by Neil James as words that “intentionally assist, by any means whatsoever, an enemy, at war with the Commonwealth”.

Kevin Foster writes: A clarification regarding Neil James’ addition (Wednesday, comments)  to Jeff Sparrow’s piece. He observes that my 2009 edited book What are we doing in Afghanistan? “is meant to be the full proceedings of a sparsely attended one-day November 2008 Monash University symposium but ended up including only those contributions Foster agrees with.”

This is risible. Sparsely attended? There were around 25 delegates there for the greater part of the day:  more than enough to generate plenty of spirited debate. As for the publication. The collection included all papers submitted for publication, with the sole exception of Neil James’ (“one of those censored out”??).

Far from censoring out work that supported the ADF’s media policy I had trouble sourcing it. Two speakers from the symposium chose not to submit a piece for the edited collection. I did, indeed, elect not to include Neil James’ piece, but only after a lengthy email correspondence with him in which he refused any proposed edits.

I left the piece out not because I disagreed with what he had to say but because it was intemperate, insufficiently scholarly and, in its thinly veiled attacks on one of the journalists who attended the conference, possibly actionable.

This isn’t bias, Neil, it’s editing. Get over it.

Serco and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship:

Department of Immigration and Citizenship spokesman Sandi Logan writes: Re. “Why privatisation should be on the agenda” (yesterday, item 14). Let me assure Crikey readers the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) — and its detention services provider Serco — treats seriously its duty of care to all people in detention.  The safety and good order of all of our detention facilities is paramount.

Serco, our current detention services provider and the subject of your correspondent’s report, was selected as the Australian Government’s detention services provider through a fair and transparent tender process. Where areas for improvement have been identified since Serco was contracted by DIAC, appropriate action has been taken to remed these issues.

If Loewenstein knows of anyone in detention who has complaint about the way they are being treated or the detention environment in general, he can advise them there are clear complaint-handling mechanisms in place to ensure their concerns are treated seriously, investigated promptly and resolved.

Finally, contrary to the tenor of your Loewenstein’s report, and as Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young herself said in recent days, there is a community feeling among detainees at Curtin Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) as well as goodwill towards those in charge.  Clearly he was writing about Australian immigration detention arrangements without recent first hand knowledge.

Emma Needham, Communications Director, Serco Asia Pacific, writes: I write in response to Antony Loewenstein’s references to Serco in yesterday’s edition of Crikey.

Serco has grown to become one of the world’s leading service companies by working in partnership with its customers, mainly governments, to manage change smoothly and positively. Citizens want faster and better services so we think innovatively to help governments improve services across a diverse range of sectors. Serco has been operating in Australia for more than 15 years, partnering with governments in the delivery of services in transport, health, justice, immigration and defence.

Serco began operations in 1929, known then as RCA Services Limited. In 1987, RCA Services Limited was renamed Serco Limited and in 1988, the company achieved a full listing on the London Stock Exchange as Serco Group plc. Serco has no connection or association with KBA or Halliburton as inferred by Mr Loewenstein.

Serco’s values-based approach and strong management capability are underpinned by a robust accountability framework in all contracts we operate, including immigration services. Serco is subject to closely monitored contractual requirements and the company will be penalised where it does not meet these requirements. Furthermore, governance and accountability is assured through a rigorous independent inspection and monitoring framework, which is often far more comprehensive than that to which the public service is subjected.

Serco aims to positively contribute to the communities in which we operate and has a strong history of high performance. We are working closely with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to deliver a humane and dignified service for the people in our care. Following a two day visit to Christmas Island last week, Professor Patrick McGorry spoke of the improvements that have been made, describing the centres as, “a more supportive and humane environment” where staff are treating asylum seekers as clients, not criminals.

The Greens:

Chris Hunter writes: Re. “Meet the Greens, Part Two: how will they fare on August 21?” (yesterday, item 2). I can’t quite come to terms with Bernard Keane’s rather optimistic outlook for the Greens at the upcoming election. The Green’s worst enemy is increasingly staring them in the face — polarisation. Squeezed out of the primary vote their power evaporates, all of which serves Tony Abbott.

I hope for Gillard’s sake that her political sponsors have got their sums right. Perhaps Bob Brown could have signed the deal — and tinkered with it down the track?

Roger Davenport writes: The other night we heard the deputy leader of the Greens on Q&A telling us one of their policies was to introduce light rail into the cities — starting with Canberra. I would have though Donkeys would have been more environmentally friendly.

The only problem would be that when our four legged transport trotted up to Parliament house bearing our elected representatives, security might have difficulty trying to work out the difference between a donkey and an ASS.

Laurie Oakes:

Peter Wesley-Smith writes: Re. “This isn’t your usual Cabinet leak” (Wednesday, item 1). In the old days, or perhaps it was just in some primary-school journalism course, an allegation wasn’t publishable until it was corroborated by at least one other source.

Did Mr Oakes have any corroboration for the supposed leak from Cabinet? Seems unlikely.

Barbara Brady writes: Is it my imagination or is Laurie Oakes slowly morphing into a Piers Akerman?

Hidden inflation:

John Band writes: Re. “Our Goldilocks economy moment … if you believe the CPI figures” (yesterday, item 21). Adam Schwab’s article on ‘hidden’ inflation mixed up two very different issues.

Australia rose in the international cost-of-living rankings solely because they’re measured in US$ and the A$ has appreciated against the US$. But, apart from people with savings or incomes overseas, that has absolutely no impact on the cost of living here (I do have savings and incomes overseas, so sucks-to-be-me, but I’m not representative of many Australians).

The point about CPI versus RPI is more reasonable, but exaggerated – especially because utilities price rises *are* included in CPI. They’ve been offset by the fall in prices of imported goods due to … yup … the strong A$.