The power and the passion of Garrett:

Peter Lloyd writes: Re. “The power and the passion of Garrett, sadly de-balled” (Friday, item 11). Peter Mattessi is right. During the recent campaign I was amazed at the enduring optimism of voters who were sure that, once secure in government, Garrett would fulfil their hopes. While one could point to many incompatibilities between Mr Garrett’s reputation for passion and truth and the Rudd Labor government’s toadying to entrenched business and union groups, the saddest thing about Garrett’s now-standing gag order is that he stands as the last victim of the Karl Rove attack strategy. This strategy requires that once an opponent’s strength has been identified, he must be attacked repeatedly and remorselessly, using the full power of the conservative media machine. So just as war hero John Kerry was destroyed for his war record, arguably Australia’s most recognised environmental crusader is a standing embarrassment to Rudd. Only by standing strong against such an attack can it be parried. Garrett has to use argument and policy to bring down the soft-brained goons who made his name mud – or perhaps Rudd wants him to stay that way?

Tony Ryan writes: What a laugh Peter Mattessi provided on a Friday afternoon. Frustration may lead to a “fierce swipe of his (Garrett’s) razor sharp claw”. More likely a teddy-bear pat. Garrett is out of his depth. He has been found out and may well be the first Labor Minister to be punted. Has anyone started a book yet on the first Labor Minister to be shown the door?

The many problems with lobbyists:

Neil James, executive director, Australia Defence Association, writes: Re. “Rudd register’s risks runaway industry” (Friday, item 15). Julian Fitzgerald rightly highlights the many problems with lobbyists. Stringent regulation of all lobbies is definitely needed but not on a one-size-fits-all basis because the transparency and integrity problems are vastly different depending on the type of lobby. There are essentially five different types of lobby in descending order of the conflicts of interest and political corruption problems they involve: commercial guns-for-hire who will lobby for anyone who pays; sectoral lobbyists who push the interests of a particular industry, profession, trade, socio-economic group or geographical area; political lobbyists who seek to further a more general cause but on politically partisan grounds (such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and many larger, ostensibly humanitarian or charitable, NGOs); proper charities (meaning ones that do not push politically-partisan agendas at the cost of their charitable activities); and public-interest guardian organisations in major areas of national governance, who are community-based, non-partisan, have wider functions but may do some lobbying on behalf of all Australians equally (such as Taxpayers Australia, the Australian Consumers’ Association, the Australia Defence Association and the National Trust). The bulk of the problem clearly lies with commercial and sectoral lobbying, and to a lesser extent the political lobbies, because they seek Government largesse or particular favours directly or indirectly. Even the charities can cause some problems where they come to rely on Government funding or favours rather than self-help or community fundraising. The community-based non-partisan lobbies, in contrast, eschew Government grants or favours and revel in their independence, transparency and broad focus. Moreover their only “client” is the public interest and therefore one somewhat hard to register specifically in detail. They need to be registered too but with due regard to the fact they are not really a lobbying problem.

In defence of Rodney Adler:

Justin Templer writes: Re. “Rodney Adler: In defence of Rodney Adler” (Friday, item 6). I am not a great fan of Rodney Adler for the obvious reasons but I believe that he has attempted to prompt an essential debate through his comments on his experience in prison – he is obviously intelligent and would have a wider view on the societal impact of prison sentences than your typical inmate. There are two primary aims that a prison sentence should meet: (1) punishment, (2) avoidance of recidivism. The punishment should be as described – “you are sentenced to 4 years in prison not to be released before December 2011”. Not “you are sentenced to 4 years in prison – in this time you will be brutalised by prison officers and fellow prisoners, possibly bashed or stabbed, and raped if you are under 25”. If this is the intention of our courts (and apparently condoned in their silence on prison conditions) then these Dickensian outcomes should be read into the sentence. As Rodney Adler wrote: “the punishment is going to jail, not to be degraded and humiliated once in jail”. The prison experience should not be a walk in the park but nor should it be designed to make the released prisoner even a lesser person than they were before. Prisoners are punished through the daily humiliations of their prison experience, their exclusion from society and especially through being apart from their families. If they leave prison with increased separation from society and support groups recidivism will be higher. A large proportion of prisoners have already experienced disrupted childhoods, mental illness and alcohol/drug abuse. If in prison they are then humiliated and abused they are surely more likely to be recidivists. Rather let them be given improved skills to better adapt to society. I salute Rodney Adler for making these points – there will be no support from populist politicians or the baying crowd. As he wrote: “Is this what you believe Australia is all about”.

Margery Clark writes: I was most impressed with Rodney’s dignified response to the Barnes article. Like most people I was ready to believe every word against him, but in this particular case he acquitted himself well… shame he could not have done so in his business dealings! It would seem that this salutary experience has been to some avail, and I wish him a happier ’08 than I would have had I not read his letter.

The public service:

David Havyatt writes: Re. “No night of the long knives for senior public servants” (Friday, item 20). Mark Bahnisch wrote: “Staffers, as well as massaging the administrative machine and providing political and media advice, also have a key role in policy generation.” But the follow-up comment is important. “In her book on Ministerial staffers, Power Without Responsibility, Griffith Uni political scientist Anne Tiernan cites interviewees as perceiving a decline in the quality and energy of policy advice as the Howard government aged.” The simple facts are that portfolio departments are meant to be the place Government gets portfolio advice from. As John Stone made clear in Quadrant though the errant Kemp’s decided the Departments worked against the Fraser Government and the Howard Government came to power with a theory that Ministers needed lots of staff to protect them from their Departments. It is one of the consequences of the different skill bases between the two parties that the ALP seems better equipped to manage large departments, the 70% of the coalition front bench who were lawyers knew only how to argue a brief not manage people.

Flint and the republic:

Jonathan Matthews writes: Re. “Flint: Republic a barnacle on the bottom of victory” (Friday, item 19). In response to David Flint, given the innate conservatism of the Australian public, how is the overwhelming majority of “No” votes surprising? All the “No” campaign had to do was act the spoiler, creating as much uncertainty as possible until a “Yes” vote was doomed. I was working for the “Yes” campaign at a voting booth in Perth and the official “No” how to vote pamphlet featured scaremongering gumpf about republicans changing the flag and abolishing the states, both a gross misrepresentation of the facts. If Mr Flint is proud of his part in peddling lies and misinforming the Australian public then good luck to him.

Mikey Hughes writes: It’s hilarious seeing Flinty bring up his glowing recollections of the good fight versus those nasty republicans what with their across the board media support etc. It had nothing to do with the fact republicans were split over their respective models which weakened their case dramatically and the monstrous scare campaign flinty ran that included gems like ‘hundreds of untested changes to the constitution’, when said changes were mostly grammatical. Let’s hope he keeps at it.

Frank Golding writes: Was that Flinty’s concession speech: a final acknowledgement that John Howard has been shafted by the great unwashed? Well at least there’s some comfort for him. John Roskam told him that Howard would have lost even if he’d promised the electorate that he’d turn Australia into a republic. And, more to the point, Flinty is greatly comforted in the belief that Mr Rudd told Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan that he won’t try any evil republican tricks in this term of office – “if at all”. If at all – it must make life almost worth living again for the Flint.

Henderson vs. Manne:

Steve Johnson writes: Gerard Henderson was accused by Robert Manne that “for the past 11 and three quarter years… (Henderson) maintained a consistent rhetorical attack on the supposed left-wing bias of the ABC”. I fail to see why Mr Henderson feels the need to offer a reply via the Crikey columns when he does so little to convince us that Manne’s comment is inaccurate. For instance, he leads his argument with “Hawke and Keating Labor governments were highly critical of the ABC before the Howard government came to office”. So? Who ever accused the Hawke Keating governments of being specifically left wing? Henderson also argues that he was critical of the ABC before John Howard came to office in 1996. Again, how does this mitigate Manne’s original argument?

Alex Penfold writes: It’s uncertain just what Gerard Henderson is on about, apart from the fact that he’s irritated The Monthly doesn’t “run a letters/correspondence page.” Although he petulantly continues, Robert Manne dared to allege “The Howard Years saw the rise and rise of an aggressive right-wing commentariat” and he was included there along with Janet Albrechtsen, Piers Akerman, Miranda Devine, Christopher Pearson, Alan Jones and all the other usual suspects. What bolshie effrontery. No, you have every right Gerard Henderson to complain especially as you said “the fact is I had a difficult relationship with Mr Howard between 1986 and 2003.” Lest we forget the past four years. And your contribution to publicity for The Monthly.

Andrew Whiley writes: Gerard Henderson has been slagging off at the ABC’s “left wing bias” for an eternity. Robert Manne has said it, we all know it, Henderson now feels hurt….. C’mon Gerard, acknowledge the truth instead of putting up all the irrelevancies about Hawke and Keating. Bashing the ABC, Fairfax, unions, leftist luvvies, academics etc etc is just so Howard era. It didn’t work. He’s gone, they aren’t. Get used to it.

Martin Guthrie writes: Dear Gerard. We. Don’t. Care.

North Melbourne:

John Macdonald writes: Re. “North avoids being shinboned: Will the AFL learn?” (Friday, item 30). I, like Adam Schwab, am all for continued subsidisation of the Victorian clubs by the Australian Rules community outside that state. Any damage to more than a century of tradition and loyalty should indeed be limited to the harm inflicted upon the local competitions in Western Australia and South Australia since 1987. It is Victoria’s right, as the home of the game, to carry its suburban game history through to any supposed national competition – and to call for more support when the game outside Victoria grows faster than it does inside, making the disproportionate channelling of funds to Victorian clubs ever more tricky.

Martin Copelin writes: Good on the Kangaroos – they are keeping the North Melbourne part alive and looking after their supporters. The Gold Coast is now well served with the Titans Rugby League team and that is enough on a full time basis. Let the AFL Kangaroos play 4 times per year there – that is sufficient.

Belgium:

Bruce Graham writes: Re. “Belgians’ most brilliant” (Friday, comments). Belgium’s contributions to the world are: beer, chocolate, comics, mussels in white wine with strips of salted, deep fried potato (do not call them “French fries”, because they are… Belgian), and a small status of a boy peeing, which is sometimes modified by university students to permit the dispensing of beer. It is incorrect to say that English is the effective language of Brussels. You need at least 3 languages to get a job. This, in my opinion, is a model for the way the whole world should run. If Belgium ever splits, the de facto result would be that Brussels would need to become an independent free city, under EU governance. Danzig (Gdansk) was in a similar situation from 1920 to 1939. Beyond that, a split would make everybody’s life easier.

Women’s Weekly:

Patrick Belton writes: Re. “Calling all Women’s Weekly fans” (Friday, comments). Christian, you cannot just call for copies of early 1990s editions of the Women’s Weekly and not tell us why. What earthly reason could you have? Have you taken up crocheting? Need a recipe? Like doing crosswords where a photo of the vet from a Country Practice is the clue? What?

Seven news Brisbane not battling:

Debbie Turner, publicity manager, Channel Seven Brisbane, writes: Re. “Nine planning a power move in crucial 5.30pm slot” (6 December, item 21). Just a correction to Glenn Dyer’s article. Dyer wrote: “Bert’s Family Feud was tried and found wanting against Seven’s Deal or No Deal, which has helped drive Seven News to national dominance this year (though not so much in Melbourne and Brisbane during the second half of the year — Seven News is battling in Brisbane because Nine’s Brisbane Extra is a strong lead in at 5.30pm).” In Brisbane, 7 News is definitely not “battling” as we have won the second half of the ratings year – please refer below:

From w/c 1 July (OzTAM week 27) to 1 Dec (OzTAM week 48).

6.00pm News – 7 Days – 7 News has won 20 from 21 weeks ahead of Nine News.

6.00pm News – 5 days – 7 News has won 16 from 21 weeks ahead of Nine News.

For these 21 weeks (1/7 – 1/12).

7 News averaged 274,257 viewers with a 38.5%

Nine News averaged 247,592 viewers and a 34.7%

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.