Carbon Abatement Submission (Senate Inquiry) Condensed
Though air temperatures whether local or worldwide, daily or annual average, may for various reasons not reflect it, the world is none the less clearly warming. It is now possible to fulfill Lord Franklin’s dream and sail the Northwest Passage over the top of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, at least for one month or so in the Northern summer. Possibly within the next ten years ships will be able drop anchor in an essentially ice-free Arctic Ocean, right at the North Pole. That together with the satellite altimetry data on sea levels testifies to the rapidity of global warming, and of the onset of the positive feedback loops that can only further accelerate it. The safest assumption we can make, in short, is that we face a planetary climate emergency, requiring urgent economic reforms on a comparable scale to those which took place in Australia after the declaration of war in 1939…
Kangaroos, Thylacines and Aborigines 1
As in other areas of human history, inference is needed for the Aboriginal past not only because there are controversial and politically sensitive areas, but because the documentary record alone is insufficient for sound judgement one way or another. While some might find certain inferences to be politically (and mythologically) attractive, on close inspection they turn out to be too improbable for acceptance. Such, I argue, is the case with Keith Windschuttle’s thesis on the demise of the Tasmanians, which he applies also to explain the declines of the mainland populations, namely that the bulk of it was the unintended consequence of introduced diseases, rather than the intended consequence of deliberate frontier violence…
Kangaroos, Thylacines and Aborigines 2
Beside European settlement, agriculture, rainfall and temperature, there is another, related distribution. It is that of the present day distribution of speakers of indigenous languages, mainly found today beyond the Europale. It shows that wherever Europeans settled, the native languages died out. The unavoidable conclusion is that conditions inside the Europale increasingly militated against aboriginal children learning their ancestral language in the process of growing up…
The language decline correlates with the dilution of the aboriginal indigenous gene pool, as increasing numbers of people who describe themselves as Aborigines find themselves acknowledging, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, one or more Europeans in their ancestry…
Kangaroos, Thylacines and Aborigines 3
The British perception was that the macropods were wild in the country and belonged to nobody. The ecological reality of Tasmania and elsewhere was that the biomass of available grass and herbage in any one period of time could feed a related biomass of herbivores only up to a limit, which in turn could support a limited biomass of omnivorous humans, their dogs and a net population of wild carnivores. The latter included dingoes on the mainland, where they had displaced thylacines; thylacines in Tasmania, and also the Tasmanian Aborigines’ dogs (gone feral) as the aboriginal populations crashed. Settlers everywhere in Australia honoured these principles every time they set about clearing the bush to make way for grass; ‘clearing off’ kangaroos and emus to make way for sheep, cattle or crops, and clearing off Aborigines to make way for themselves…
Kangaroos, Thylacines and Aborigines 4
…Windschuttle’s Australia is one where the Aborigines went quietly to their fate as fringe dwellers of the country towns, and in marked contrast to their aboriginal counterparts in the Americas and New Zealand.
If there was no ‘warfare’ of whatever category involved in this transition, then the attendant and marked depopulation of the countryside and Aboriginal population decline can only be due to starvation and/or disease. Windschuttle won’t have starvation, but at the same time there are problems with the disease hypothesis that beg for a remedy, an explanation, or at the very least, a Band-Aid: which leaves warfare of some kind hanging around in the background.
And so we come to the elephant in the parlour of Aboriginal history…
Night Vision and Bipedalism
This raises the intriguing possibility that before the discovery of fire and the invention of the thorn-fenced kraal, our distant African ancestors attained their relatively longer legs by wading, swimming and climbing for shelter at night up or down rocky cliffs, bluffs and outcrops, where long non-grasping legs provide no great disadvantage. For the climbing of trees, they do. Getting to where the predators cannot reach you makes poor night vision less of a disadvantage…
Plimer’s Climatology 101
Plimer says that nothing humans do can affect the climate of the whole Earth, and that if it is warming, it is a good thing anyway. Others disagree, and contend that climate change is occurring because of CO2 emissions. These latter were not put into the air for the purpose of warming the planet. Like the radioactive waste from the nuclear industry, they are a by product of another project entirely, to be justified after the fact…
Plimer’s Climatology 102
At a point in the long distant past someone extracted what was found to be useful fuel from a coal outcrop, and the coal industry was born. Only since the work of Arrhenius in the late 19thC have questions arisen about the basing of the steel, power generation and other industries upon it. Established industry has understandably reacted to the IPCC reports and scientific concern about greenhouse gases with counter-argument and delaying tactics regarding the transition to alternatives. Ian Plimer’s book and his talk to the Sydney Mining Club talk are best seen in this context…
Plimer’s Climatology 103
The total yearly biomass production of the organisms on Earth is on one estimate at around 170 billion tonnes (164 billion tons) of which a third is oceanic and two thirds terrestrial: say 60 billion tonnes oceanic. Assuming this roughly to be 10% of the total oceanic biomass brings the total mass of all marine organisms to 600 billion tonnes, or 600 Gt. The potential total CO2 addition to the hydrosphere of 4210 Gt (assuming it all finishes up in the oceans) is thus about 7 times the total biomass in the oceans. That is indeed significant…
Plimer’s Climatology 104
…a two degree rise due to CO2 will produce a further two degree rise due to water vapour, making four degrees in all. The next domino to fall in this situation is the methane, locked up in arctic permafrost in Siberia and Northern Canada, and below the deep ocean floors as methane hydrates. In all those locations, it has built up from slow bacterial decomposition of organic matter. Methane is 45 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, to which it oxidizes in about a year after release to the air. The warming produced by this gas may in turn release the final nightmare gas, hydrogen sulfide. Plimer does not mention these potentially disastrous knock-on effects of methane and hydrogen sulfide…
Plimer’s Climatology 105: Lord Franklin’s Dream Turned Nightmare
Pope aside, there’s no need to ask which embodiments of human stupidity Plimer might have had in mind. He has spent the preceding 483 pages denouncing them: ‘activists’, ‘environmentalists’, Greenpeace… but above all, Sir Nicholas Stern, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Al Gore, Ross Garnaut; other practitioners of the alleged quackery and pseudoscience of climatology, the IPCC, the Royal Society, the signers of the Kyoto Accord… If the book’s index was any good I could look them all up.
But that is only half of the last sentence. I have an uneasy feeling that behind the rest of it lies the profound theological thought that there will be no runaway greenhouse or climate catastrophe, because God will not allow it.
Plimer’s Climatology 106: His Lordship’s List
At the end of his book, Ian Plimer hands over the keyboard to his lordship to deal with the question ‘What if I am wrong?’ In Plimer’s view Monckton (previously an economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher) had already dealt with it splendidly in a speech to the Local Government Association at Bournemouth, on 3 July 2008. So Plimer reproduces the speech in its entirety (with his lordship’s permission) on pages 489-493 of Heaven+Earth. We can take as noted the usual ‘ITS?’ (is that so?) in the margin against each one of the following points as they occur, and as well a ‘WIIFY?’ – an abbreviated form of ‘what’s in it for you?’
If they are not, scroll right down to the bottom of this page, and you should find them there.
I am currently recording a new CD: Songs From the Shed. Those interested in my existing CDs can read more at my other WordPress site >>>
GUEST POST: Good Planets are Hard to Come By – Andrew Glikson
ANU Earth and paleoclimate scientist Andrew Glikson puts an extraordinary amount of effort, well above and beyond the call of duty, into keeping the rest of us informed on the science behind the global warming issue.
The Earth’s climate system is commonly likened to a supertanker, meaning that in order to avoid disaster later in the 21st Century, we have to start turning the wheel now. Unfortunately there is a political problem in this, because the short-term interests of many in politics and business demand all ahead full. –IM
GOOD PLANETS ARE HARD TO COME BY
As sea level rises the planet is drowning in an ocean of untruths
Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Australian National University
We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet. (Joachim Schellnhuber, Director, Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute, advisor to the German government.)
The sleep of reason produces monsters (Francisco Goya)
While Earth is undergoing a sixth mass extinction in its history, dominated by oxidation of hundreds of billion tons of carbon derived from fossil ancient biospheres, with consequent shift in the state of the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere system, the feeble efforts of civilization to mitigate the climate is drowning in medieval conspiracy theories aimed against climate scientists by vested interests and fundamentalist man-over-nature ideologues.
The release of more than 320 billion tons of carbon (GtC) from buried early biospheres, adding more than one half of the original carbon inventory of the atmosphere (~590 GtC) to the atmosphere-ocean system, has triggered a fundamental shift in the state of the atmosphere at a rate of 2 ppm CO2/year, a pace unprecedented in the geological record with the exception of the effects of CO2 released from craters excavated by large asteroid impacts.
November 19, 2009
It is clear from these various facts, therefore, that a warmer planet than today’s is far from unusual. It is also clear that climate changes naturally all the time. The idea that is implicit in much public discussion of the global warming issue – that climate was stable (or constant) prior to the industrial revolution, after which human emissions have rendered it unstable – is simply fanciful. Change is what climate does.
The reader will recall that Faust, in Goethe’s play of the same name, was offered a deal by the Devil: a life of every pleasure imaginable in return for his soul. The deal was accepted, and became the classic a metaphor for shortsightedness; and subsequently the basis of one of the funniest films ever made: Bedazzled, featuring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.
I try to avoid shortsightedness, but three times in my life I have found myself in the related condition of extreme denial: the result in each case of receiving serious bad news affecting me personally. Confronted with an elephant in the parlour, in the shape of an elephantine tragedy, one looks around it, over the top of it, and anywhere but at it. On each occasion, I started looking for whatever scant threads there were of hope. My conclusion from these experiences is that living in denial and hope is about the most futile state of existence there is, but we do it on occasions because at the time there appears to be no better alternative. Added in is the fact that acceptance of an apparently dismal reality can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So hope, furious, fervent and all too often futile, springs eternal.
Are those like Bob Carter, who deny that there is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) going on in this state of being in denial? (Read all you might want of their reasoning at Quadrant Online.)
Up to a point, we believe what we want to believe. This applies particularly to ideas which are in themselves beyond the scope of rationality and science, such as the propositions of the major religions; though devotees seeking consolation and grounds for hope in them also deny that this is the case.
I stumbled upon this issue thanks to the ABC Four Corners program Malcolm and the Malcontents, put to air in Australia on Monday November 9, 2009. That dealt with the battle within the Liberal-National Coalition between AGW denialists and those who take a more alarmist and at the same time, truly conservative approach. It is tearing the Coalition apart and so ruining its electoral prospects. Their problem: how to deal with the Rudd Government’s policy on climate change. Then I happened to read George Monbiot’s Why the sudden surge in climate change denial? Could it be about something else altogether? published in the Guardian on November 2. It begins on the pessimistic note
There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
Be that as it may.
Denialists are divided on what they deny. Most in my reading experience assert that the Earth is cooling, not warming, but add that whatever it is doing, humans cannot possibly be responsible. So if there must be GW, they want no A associated with it. But while I and many of my alarmist co-thinkers would be only too happy if they turned out to be right, we are not prepared to stake the lives of our children and grandchildren on it. By advocating a do-nothing policy with respect to CO2 emissions, the denialists finish up doing just that. This inevitably involves a dismissal or explaining away of evidence to the contrary. So they:
- look for flaws in the evidence on which AGW alarmism is based; and when I say ‘the evidence’ I mean all the evidence. None of it can be allowed to pass;
- have to assert that any global warming detected post 1750 is purely natural, and part of a solar or other cycle or phenomenon.
- erect a straw man, then proceed to knock it down. (See the quote above from the prominent denialist Bob Carter. Does he seriously assert that the people raising the loudest alarm in the ‘public discussion’ – ie the bulk of the world’s climatologists – believe that the global climate only began to change after 1750 AD?)
- deny any useful role for computer models of climate;
- dismiss alarmist scientists for allegedly having venal motives, and being unable to see beyond their next research grant. Given the extraordinary weight of scientific opinion now standing against the denialist case, this amounts to a full-blown conspiracy theory.
- dismiss any suggestion that they could have such motives themselves, or be influenced by any connections of individuals in their ranks to the fossil fuel industry;
- dismiss the Precautionary Principle or any sort of approach based on it as ill-advised;
- deny even the remotest possibility of runaway greenhouse establishing;
- assert (with Senator Nick Minchin et al) that AGW alarmism arises from the extreme left of politics; left causeless at the end of the Cold War;
- deny that anything humans do either way can possibly have any significant effect on the world’s climate;
- welcome the prospect a warmer Earth, arguing that our species only really got going in the last 10,000 years, after the retreat of the Pleistocene glaciers;
- assert that apart from its allegedly negligible greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide can have no significant effect on life in the oceans when it dissolves in water to form carbonic acid.
- admit of no possibility of their being wrong;
- nor admit of any serious consequence if they are wrong, particularly if their do-nothing approach has meanwhile become state policy.
Accordingly, every bit of data on which the alarmist case is based must in turn be challenged, leading the denialists to argue that:
- the last 100 years of thermometer-based surface temperature data is unreliable, thanks largely to the ‘urban heat island effect’ by which urban recording stations are influenced by waste heat from industry and automobiles, and the solar radiation absorbed and re-emitted by buildings and roads.
- at the same time, what little reliable data there is indicates that the Earth is cooling;
- as the ‘greenhouse effect’ of atmospheric CO2 diminishes logarithmically, from here on added CO2 will have minimal effect anyway (say perhaps raise average temperature by 0.1 degree Celsius.)
- the Precautionary Principle would actually have us keep on with business as usual, for by that principle, CO2 and other emissions must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
- the complexity of the global weather system, and the difficulties implicit in attempts to isolate the effect of any one component (eg anthropogenic CO2 vs ‘natural’ CO2) are a point in favour of their do-nothing case.
Their use of such arguments, and their tendency to close association with the political Right, have not deterred major world scientific organizations and many governments from urging strong action at the forthcoming Copenhagen summit. One such is the Letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the US Senate (link) which says to each US senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view. Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced…
As well as being sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Letter is endorsed by the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and 14 other scientific organisations. Whatever its advocates elsewhere may claim, denialism has not exactly won the day in the scientific community.
All of the above denialist wisdom will be found in the paper already referred to; by leading denialist Bob Carter, a climatologist and Adjunct Research Professor James Cook University, Townsville.
Independent scientists who have considered the matter carefully do not deny that human
activities can have an effect on local climate, nor that the sum of such local effects represents a hypothetical global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are, first, can any human global signal be measured, and, second, if so does it represent, or is it likely to become, dangerous change outside of the range of natural variability?
The answer to these questions is that no human global climate signal has yet been measured, and it is therefore likely that any such signal lies embedded within the variability of the natural climate system. Meanwhile, global temperature change is occurring, as it always naturally does, and a phase of cooling has succeeded the mild late 20th century warming. (Carter 2008, 190)
That human-caused climate change will prove dangerous is under strong dispute
amongst equally well qualified scientific groups. The null hypothesis, which is yet
to be contradicted, is that observed changes in climate or climate-related phenomena
are natural unless and until it can be shown otherwise. (Carter 2008, 193)
If made the captain of the SS Null Hypothesis, a liner sailing on its maiden voyage in the North Atlantic, Carter would order full speed ahead until it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the ship was about to collide with an iceberg. .As I have argued in the ‘Plimer’s Climatology’ series on this site, the most compelling evidence that the planet is presently warming is to be found in the:
- worldwide retreat of glaciers and the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, and
- satellite altimetry data that shows a consistent global sea level rise of 3 mm per year ever since readings began in 1992.
Both the above features are of geographic scale, and screen out the ‘noise’ of the ‘urban heat island effect’ and with it all the other strands of denialist argument. It may of course be the case that (say) so far undetected solar flux or bursts of heart coming up from the Earth’s interior are responsible for the ice loss and ocean level rise. It may be a mere coincidence that the rise from 270 ppm pre-industrial 383 ppm in 2009 is happening at the same time as a completely unconnected process of global ice loss and sea level rise. But I’m not betting the farm on it.
But interestingly, Carter and the other denialists never say what would constitute the unambiguous evidence of AGW that they proclaim does not exist. One is forced to the conclusion that in their view it cannot exist; that there is no way the signal of anthropogenic CO2 induced warming can be separated from natural background climate change, and that for them, by its own inherent nature it is both theoretically impossible and practically unknowable. Thus for them, if humanity was heading into self-inflicted climate catastrophe it would be doing so completely, inevitably and incurably blind. Nobody on the Titanic could have an inkling of the looming disaster. Whether conscious of it or not, as passengers on this planetary ship, the denialists seem not the slightest bit concerned at this possibility, which is implicit in their own thoughts on the matter.
One of the leading denialist Ian Plimer’s most enthusiastic supporters is Cardinal George Pell of Sydney. On 24 May 2009, Pell had a column in the Sydney Daily Telegraph supporting Plimer’s position on AGW. A critical response from Michael Mullins, editor of the Catholic journal Eureka Street testifies that Catholics are not united behind him on the issue. However, Ian Plimer saw fit to include a significant theological aside on page 493 of his purportedly scientific book Heaven and Earth.
Human stupidity is only exceeded by God’s mercy, which is infinite.
In the context, the ‘stupidity’ referred to is what Plimer has spent his preceding 492 pages attacking: the proposition advanced by climatologists and other scientists that the Earth is being unduly warmed by human activities. This leaves the reader open to the conclusion that for Plimer, God is the ultimate thermostat. Of the Earth. There will be no climate catastrophe, because He will not allow it.
Well, it has this going for it: it is the most powerful and convincing argument in Plimer’s whole book, and the safest refuge for the denialist.
Without the atmosphere, the surface of the Earth would not be its present average temperature of 14 °C (57 °F), but as low as −18 °C (−0.4 °F). In order of abundance, the main greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are (with their contributions to the greenhouse effect in [square brackets] ):
- water vapour (H2O) [36–70%]
- carbon dioxide (CO2) [9–26%]
- methane (CH4) [4–9%]
- nitrous oxide (N2O) [neg]
- ozone (O3) [3–7%]
- chlorofluorocarbons (‘CFCs’) [neg]
All except the CFCs are products of natural chemistry, and have been generated in and by the atmosphere and ecosystems of the Earth since life began. All are likewise generated by human activities like the burning of fuels and the pasturing of ruminant animals such as sheep and cattle. The effect of the ‘natural’ as distinct from the anthropogenic CO2, N2O and CH4 can only be surmised from the known properties of each compound and the calculated concentrations of each in the air. If however, a significant percentage of the air was (say) chloroform (CHCl3), we could say that that any particular greenhouse effect due to that was 100% anthropogenic, because chloroform does not occur in nature.
However, that is a card we have not dealt to ourselves.
At this stage it would appear that there is no way the Earth can avoid a two degree rise in average temperature this century. That is an order locked in, thanks to the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have been added to the atmosphere since around 1750. But a global average of two degrees involves a much higher rise of temperature in the high latitudes, threatening significant releases of methane from the Arctic permafrost and ocean floor deposits, which would in turn drive the temperatures still higher. While climatologists say that global warming involves an increase in the number of extreme weather events, it would be simplistic to attribute, say, a run of hot days in Adelaide in November 2009 to global warming alone, or to say that it even provides evidence of it. The global weather system is like a supertanker. Its momentum when underway is so huge and the time it takes to respond to alterations to engine speed and rudder settings so long that collision and running aground can only be avoided if anticipated well in advance of their happening. As all-too-often happens in shipping, those on the bridge are condemned to watching disaster steadily loom, knowing that the opportunity for taking evasive action is well past and gone. Vide the Exxon Valdez.
This year the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) changed the start date of the Pleistocene from 1.8 to 2.588 million years BP. In the last 650 000 years, the Earth has experienced seven major cycles of glacial advance and retreat, as seen on the graph at the following source, [and my apologies for not being able to cut and paste it ditrectly.]
We are now approximately in the warmest phase of the 7th cycle to occur in the last 650,000 years. It will be seen that corresponding warm periods in interglacials occurred at 130 000, 225 000, 325 000, 400 000, 475 000 and 580 000 BP.
It will be seen also from the above cited graph that the glacial-interglacial cycle has not been regular. In the last half million years or so, the glacials have been getting steadily longer and the interglacials shorter, as if the Earth was shaping up to plunge into a freeze-lock. If it were to do so, it might take a considerable time emerging on the other side and warming up again.
We are at a strange conjunction in the history of the Earth, with icecaps at both poles and the two American continents forming a north-south barrier to oceanic circulation that extends almost from pole to pole. It is pretty safe to assume that without the icecaps there would be no great mass of methane trapped in the permafrosts of Siberia and northern Canada, and thus considerably reduced possibility of runaway greenhouse establishing.
Since the start of the Cambrian 542 million years ago, the mean temperature of the Earth has kept between the lower and upper limits of 10 and 25 degrees Celsius; except for two brief periods in the late Permian (at 251 million years BP) and the end of the Paleocene (at 55.5-54.8 million years BP) when it went as high as 27 degrees Celsius.
Both of those periods have distinct names: the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event, and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Both involved massive reduction of life, and should be taken very seriously by those who would avoid another one in the very, very, very near future of geological time.
As the old proverb has it, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Elvis may have left the building, but the elephant is still here.
Politics commonly reduces to the art of presenting a sectional interest as the general interest: In evaluating any given party’s program, manifesto, wish list or whatever, our first question must be about who it might be designed to favour.
One issue at present in Australia and abroad is the growth of plutocracy: the combination of wealth and power. The bigger private capitalist organisations (like for example Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting) have control of wealth in excess of that of many of the world’s governments, and with that the ability to wield enormous political influence and to duchess very large numbers of retainers, lobbyists, journalists, media outlets and politicians. This process turns those people, arguably including the players of right-wing thinktanks, into the modern equivalents of the flunkeys found in a royal or baronial court during Mediaeval times.
It is with this fact of modern life in mind that one should read the wish list Be like Gough: 75 radical ideas to transform Australia by John Roskam, Chris Berg and James Paterson of the thinktank entitled the Institute of Public Affairs, or IPA*. (A rather grandiolorious title, don’t you tankthink?) Those who find these 75 ideas insufficient may gain their ultimate satisfaction from those authors’ supplementary 25 further ideas.
The original 75 are at:
The extra 25 are at:
Let nobody dismiss this stuff as being so far to the right it can carry no influence. It has clearly influenced the thinking of Tony Abbott; a possible (may even the God of the Jesuits find this too much to stomach) future prime minister of Australia.
In the lead-up to the September election, the IPA is doing a bit of banquet hall campaigning. As conveyed in an email from the people at GetUp:
It was the most exclusive of events: a glittering $500 minimum per head gala fundraising dinner last week for a right-wing think tank. Tony Abbott, Gina Rinehart and Rupert Mudoch took turns sharing the stage. Andrew Bolt was MC. Tony praised his fellow key-note speakers, especially Rupert, and promised the crowd a “big yes” to many of the think tank’s list of 75 policies to radically transform Australia.
So what, exactly, is on this think tank’s wish list?
•Public broadcasting – gone. The ABC to be broken up and sold off, SBS to be fully privatised.
•Corporations to be allowed to make secret payments to political parties.
•Medicare gone for most Australians.
•A return to WorkChoices, just by another name.
•The clean energy fund and the renewable energy target – scrapped.
•Funding for sport and arts – including the Australian Institute of Sport – axed. Same for science, with the CSIRO to be privatised.
It goes on. Never before has the extreme conservative agenda been laid out so clearly, but as they get more arrogant and brazen, our movement has the opportunity to do something we can’t count on any of the parties to do alone: fight back, effectively.
So as part of that fightback (where have I heard that before?) campaign, I herewith post the IPA’s original series of 75 propositions, plus their supplementary 25. These along with my own critical comments (in this bold type).
Be like Gough: 75 radical ideas to transform Australia
IPA REVIEW ARTICLE
John Roskam, Chris Berg and James Paterson
If Tony Abbott wants to leave a lasting impact – and secure his place in history – he needs to take his inspiration from Australia’s most left-wing prime minister
COMMENT: sic!. Ben Chifley as I recall wanted to nationalise the banks. Gough would never have entertained such a thought.
No prime minister changed Australia more than Gough Whitlam. The key is that he did it in less than three years. In a flurry of frantic activity, Whitlam established universal healthcare, effectively nationalised higher education with free tuition, and massively increased public sector salaries. He more than doubled the size of cabinet from 12 ministers to 27.
He enacted an ambitious cultural agenda that continues to shape Australia to this day. In just three years, Australia was given a new national anthem, ditched the British honours system, and abolished the death penalty and national service. He was the first Australian prime minister to visit communist China and he granted independence to Papua New Guinea. Whitlam also passed the Racial Discrimination Act. He introduced no-fault divorce.
Perhaps his most lasting legacy has been the increase in the size of government he bequeathed to Australia. When Whitlam took office in 1972, government spending as a percentage of GDP was just 19 per cent. When he left office it had soared to almost 24 per cent.
Virtually none of Whitlam’s signature reforms were repealed by the Fraser government. The size of the federal government never fell back to what it was before Whitlam. Medicare remains. The Racial Discrimination Act – rightly described by the Liberal Senator Ivor Greenwood in 1975 as ‘repugnant to the rule of law and to freedom of speech’ – remains.
It wasn’t as if this was because they were uncontroversial. The Liberal opposition bitterly fought many of Whitlam’s proposals. And it wasn’t as if the Fraser government lacked a mandate or a majority to repeal them. After the 1975 election, in which he earned a 7.4 per cent two-party preferred swing, Fraser held 91 seats out of 127 in the House of Representatives and a Senate majority.
When Mark Steyn visited Australia recently he described political culture as a pendulum. Left-wing governments swing the pendulum to the left. Right of centre governments swing the pendulum to the right. But left-wing governments do so with greater force. The pendulum always pushes further left.
And the public’s bias towards the status quo has a habit of making even the most radical policy (like Medicare, or restrictions on freedom of speech) seem normal over time. Despite the many obvious problems of socialised health care, no government now would challenge the foundations of Medicare as the Coalition did before it was implemented.
Every single opinion poll says that Tony Abbott will be Australia’s next prime minister. He might not even have to wait until the current term of parliament expires in late 2013. The Gillard government threatens to collapse at any moment. Abbott could well be in the Lodge before Christmas this year.
Abbott could also have a Fraser-esque majority after the next election. Even if he doesn’t control the Senate, the new prime minister is likely to have an intimidating mandate from the Australian people. The conditions will suit a reformer: although Australia’s economy has proven remarkably resilient, global events demonstrate how fragile it is. The global financial crisis, far from proving to be a crisis of capitalism, has instead demonstrated the limits of the state. Europe’s bloated and debt-ridden governments provide ample evidence of the dangers of big government.
Australia’s ageing population means the generous welfare safety net provided to current generations will be simply unsustainable in the future. As the Intergenerational Report produced by the federal Treasury shows, there were 7.5 workers in the economy for every non-worker aged over 65 in 1970. In 2010 that figure was 5. In 2050 it will be 2.7. Government spending that might have made sense in 1970 would cripple the economy in 2050. Change is inevitable.
But if Abbott is going to lead that change he only has a tiny window of opportunity to do so. If he hasn’t changed Australia in his first year as prime minister, he probably never will.
Why just one year? Whitlam’s vigour in government came as a shock to Australian politics. The Coalition was adjusting to the opposition benches. Outside of parliament, the potential opponents of Whitlam reforms had yet to get organised. The general goodwill voters offer new governments gives more than enough cover for radical action. But that cover is only temporary. The support of voters drains. Oppositions organise. Scandals accumulate. The clear air for major reform becomes smoggy.
Worse, governments acclimatise to being in government. A government is full of energy in its first year. By the second year, even very promising ministers can get lazy. The business of government overtakes. MPs start thinking of the next election. But for the Coalition, the purpose of winning office cannot be merely to attain the status of being ‘in government’. It must be to make Australians freer and more prosperous. From his social democratic perspective, Whitlam understood this point well. Labor in the 1970s knew that it wanted to reshape the country and it began doing so immediately.
The time pressure on a new government – if it is to successfully implant its vision – is immense. The vast Commonwealth bureaucracies and the polished and politically-savvy senior public servants have their own agendas, their own list of priorities, and the skill to ensure those priorities become their ministers’ priorities. The recent experience of the state Coalition governments is instructive. Fresh-faced ministers who do not have a fixed idea of what they want to do with their new power are invariably captured by their departments.
Take, for instance, the Gillard government’s National Curriculum. Opposing this policy ought to be a matter of faith for state Liberals. The National Curriculum centralises education power in Canberra, and will push a distinctly left-wing view of the world onto all Australian students. But it has been met with acceptance – even support – by the Coalition’s state education ministers. This is because a single National Curriculum has been an article of faith within the education bureaucracy for decades; an obsession of education unions and academics, who want education to ‘shape’ Australia’s future. (No prize for guessing what that shape might look like.) A small-target election strategy has the unfortunate side-effect of allowing ministerial aspirants to avoid thinking too deeply about major areas in their portfolio. So when, in the first week as minister, they are presented with a list of policy priorities by their department, it is easier to accept what the bureaucracy considers important, rather than what is right. The only way to avoid such departmental capture is to have a clear idea of what to do with government once you have it.
COMMENT: So we have political paralysis because we have this institutionalised parliamentary dogfight, which begs the question: why two parties? Why not only one? Why not several of comparable strengths?
We have two major parties – the Liberal party and the ALP. We also have a handful of independents, and the small parties: the Greens, and the National Party: itself the descendant of the former conservative Country Party.
I suggest that we have two (2) dominant political formations because we live in a market-based economy: because in any exchange on the market there are only really two players: a buyer and a seller. Their interests are always antagonistic, simply because the seller naturally seeks the highest price for whatever he or she sells, and the buyer’s interest lies in getting the seller to agree to the lowest possible price.
The biggest single market is still that for the working time of employed people. In that, the conservatives always represent and legislate in the interests of the buyers of working time (ie the employers) and the ALP was set up to win office and legislate for the employees: sellers of their working time.
An important difference between wage work and normal market exchanges is that the deal is normally for the purchase of the worker’s whole working day. Supply and demand pressures on prices the buyer might pay and the seller might expect to get are not as straight forward as in, say, a real estate auction.
Only radical change that shifts the entire political spectrum, like Gough Whitlam did, has any chance of effecting lasting change. Of course, you don’t have to be from the left of politics to leave lasting change on the political spectrum.
Both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan proved conservatives can leave a paradigm-shifting legacy. Though Thatcher’s own party strayed from her strongly free-market philosophy, one of the major reasons the British Labour Party finally removed socialism from their party platform under Tony Blair was because of Margaret Thatcher.
Ronald Reagan not only presided over pro-market deregulation and tax cuts during eight years in the White House, but also provided the ideological fuel for the 1994 Republican revolution in the House of Representatives, led by Newt Gingrich, which enacted far-reaching welfare reform.
Here we provide a list of 75 policies that would make Australia richer and more free. It’s a deliberately radical list. There’s no way Tony Abbott could implement all of them, or even a majority. But he doesn’t have to implement them all to dramatically change Australia. If he was able to implement just a handful of these recommendations, Abbott would be a transformative figure in Australian political history. He would do more to shift the political spectrum than any prime minister since Whitlam.
We do not mean for this list to be exhaustive, and in many ways no list could do justice to the challenges the Abbott government would face. Whitlam changed the political culture. We are still feeling the consequences of that change today. So the policies we suggest adopting, the bureaucracies we suggest abolishing, the laws we suggest revoking should be seen as symptoms, rather than the source, of the problem.
Conservative governments have a very narrow idea of what the ‘culture wars’ consists of. The culture of government that threatens our liberty is not just ensconced in the ABC studios, or among a group of well-connected and publicly funded academics. ABC bias is not the only problem. It is the spiralling expansion of bureaucracies and regulators that is the real problem.
We should be more concerned about the Australian National Preventive Health Agency – a new Commonwealth bureaucracy dedicated to lobbying other arms of government to introduce Nanny State measures – than about bias at the ABC. We should be more concerned about the cottage industry of consultancies and grants handed out by the public service to environmental groups. We should be more concerned that senior public servants shape policy more than elected politicians do. And conservative governments should be more concerned than they are at the growth of the state’s interest in every aspect of society.
If he wins government, Abbott faces a clear choice. He could simply overturn one or two symbolic Gillard-era policies like the carbon tax, and govern moderately. He would not offend any interest groups. In doing so, he’d probably secure a couple of terms in office for himself and the Liberal Party. But would this be a successful government? We don’t believe so. The remorseless drift to bigger government and less freedom would not halt, and it would resume with vigour when the Coalition eventually loses office. We hope he grasps the opportunity to fundamentally reshape the political culture and stem the assault on individual liberty.
SOME OF THE IPA PROPOSALS AND COMMENTS ON THEM:
1 Repeal the carbon tax, and don’t replace it. It will be one thing to remove the burden of the carbon tax from the Australian economy. But if it is just replaced by another costly scheme, most of the benefits will be undone.
COMMENT: The carbon tax has been woefully introduced and explained by Julia Gillard, who is not the greatest of communicators, even about things she believes in. (Remember how cavalier she was with the emissions trading scheme policy?)
Mainstream climatology and scientific opinion is definitely not with the IPA* authors on this, which is one possible reason they also want to get rid of the CSIRO as we now know it.
They should just keep reciting this mantra: the atmosphere is big enough to look after itself, and needs no coddling from us down here on the ground. They will most likely be wrong, and living in a fool’s paradise. But if they confine themselves to that activity, they will do little harm to the rest of us.
2 Abolish the Department of Climate Change
COMMENT: This makes sense, but only if you are a carbon denialist. Otherwise, the wisest course is to follow the one advised by the late Margaret Thatcher: to give the planet the benefit of any doubt. That leaves the IPA making a pretty stupid call, analogous to some extremist pacifist outfit calling for abolition of the Defence Department: in 1939.
Abbott is reluctant to make any policy statements, presumably lest they be attacked and shown to be hollow.
3 Abolish the Clean Energy Fund
COMMENT: See 1 and 2 above
6 Repeal the renewable energy target
COMMENT: See 2 above.
7 Return income taxing powers to the states
COMMENT: Former Victorian Premier Sir Henry Bolte was in favour of this, but on investigation found that collection costs would be far too high: from memory about one third of the revenue to be raised. However, collection costs thanks to modern electronics may have gone down.
It would induce the states to compete with each other for population by racing to the bottom on tax reductions. A commonwealth government so inclined could impoverish states further by refusing to underwrite their health, education and other programs financially, leaving them to do it for themselves.
8 Abolish the Commonwealth Grants Commission
COMMENT: This makes sense, but only if state income can be cut free of its present dependence on problem gamblers, liquor licensing and such.
Overall, there is a certain Tea Party, states’ rights flavour to 7 and 8, for which the authors give no supporting argument. One might assume it is reflexive anti-federalism: the sort of campaign associated with the backblocks Right which in times past gave us the campaign to install former Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen as PM.
9 Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
COMMENT: So there is no watcher in the marketplace monitoring the activities of the inevitable spivs, shonks and outright crooks.
10 Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol
COMMENT: See 2 above.
15. Eliminate laws that require radio and television broadcasters to be ‘balanced’.
COMMENT: OK: provided free to air broadcasting is available to all program makers (like access to the Internet). So this would necessitate a further deregulation: namely an ending of licenses to broadcast. Deregulate the airwaves!
21 End all corporate welfare and subsidies by closing the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
COMMENT: Hopefully, not to be confused in the public mind and before the 2013 election with self-inflicted radical brain surgery.
22 Introduce voluntary voting
COMMENT: Surprise, surprise.
As a general rule, democracy should be widened to include in the decision making process all who wish to be part of it. But in the nature of the present political game and the way it is played, this will favour the Tory side of politics. My money is on this being the reason for it, whatever the rationale.
23 End mandatory disclosures on political donations
Why do you suppose donors might wish to make their donations and the name of the recipient party a secret? Out of pure modesty and shyness, perhaps?
For that matter, and now that you mention it, why is the IPA itself so coy about its own funding?
24 End media blackout in final days of election campaigns
COMMENT: This is clearly calculated to favour the party patronised by those with the deepest pockets. I wonder which one that might be.
25 End public funding to political parties
COMMENT: And corporate; don’t forget corporate.
While we’re at it, why not privatise all those parliaments?
26 Remove anti-dumping laws
COMMENT: So foreign firms can drive local businesses broke, then move in, jacking up their prices as they do so. The present differentials between local and overseas electronic goods and software prices are relevant here, and a pointer to what is to come if this wish is granted by the electorate.
Another fine example of market selectively deregulationist naivete. IPA*
27 Eliminate media ownership restrictions.
COMMENT: So Gina Rinehart can cop the lot; buy all the ground out from under her critics’ feet, including Fairfax.
28 Abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board
COMMENT: This is another example of the aforesaid and wretched market selectively deregulationist naivete.
It could only be likened to another kind of self-inflicted radical surgery: a self-blinding by the ‘wise monkey’ who wants to see no evil.
29 Eliminate the National Preventative Health Agency.
COMMENT: This does not read like a well-considered proposal. i would not rule out it being the product of long and concentrated tankthink by a powerful team of naïve IPA* market selective deregulationists.
30 Cease subsidising the car industry.
COMMENT: Given that GMH after $250 million in Federal Government subsidies is clearly on the way out of manufacturing in Australia, this is reasonable. But as well, end all subsidies to all private industry in all forms, including tax concessions. We have the start of a big list here.
31 Formalise a one-in, one-out approach to regulatory reduction.
COMMENT: This is designed to stop ‘red tape creep’, and as such is laudable. But it assumes that the present number of regulations is the optimum.
32 Rule out federal funding for 2018 Commonwealth Games.
COMMENT: Privatise the commonwealth games!
33 Deregulate the parallel importation of books.
COMMENT: The publishing trade has always fought for protection of Australian-published copies of overseas-authored books.
Deregulation opens Australia to foreign competition in everything, sending jobs offshore, and meaning that Australians in future may well have to follow the capital overseas, leaving the only jobs here in industries where Australia is naturally competitive.
Thus no premium is allowed for retaining Australian culture by retaining the population in which that culture is found. The corollary of deregulation and open borders in trade has to be open borders to immigration. Just as the local clothing market has been swamped by cheap imports from China, so the present local population could be swamped culturally by unrestricted immigration. The ‘market mechanism’ here would be that immigrants from the poorer and more populous countries of Africa, the Middle East and southern Asia would keep coming until the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors equalised, and it made as much sense for Australians to migrate to say, Pakistan or Yemen as vice versa.
‘Deregulation’ is always selective in its effect. Always.
Remember also that there simply can be no such thing as an unregulated economy. Private property (ie private use of goods and land) is the most fundamental economic regulation of all, and I am sure the authors of this impressive list cannot be in favour of scrapping that. But such is IPA*.
This sort of (compulsive and selective) deregulation is a bit like allowing ‘useless’ wild species to go extinct, or going through one’s possessions and taking anything of no immediate use to the rubbish tip.
35 Legislate a cap on government spending and tax as a percentage of GDP.
COMMENT: What is the optimum percentage? (Hint: it is probably not a round number.)
36 Legislate a balanced budget amendment which strictly limits the size of budget deficits and the period the federal government can be in deficit.
COMMENT: Banks are pools of capital, and have a smoothing effect on economic activity: analogous to the role played by capacitors in an electronic circuit or dams in the water supply. (Check out those regions whose water supplies don’t have dams or reservoirs, and where they draw their water where they can find it, leaving supply to nature and demand as whatever it may be. Like, say, Somalia.)
Borrowing has a legitimate economic function. Large capital works such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge are commonly built on borrowed money.
Again in Tory thinking, selectively deregulationist naivete is set to trump rationality.
37 Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database
COMMENT: Provided the bureaucrats don’t have to spend too much time justifying themselves to selectively deregulationist fools like the IPA, out on their IPA*.
38 Repeal plain packaging for cigarettes and rule it out for all other products, including alcohol and fast food.
COMMENT: This attack on what the selective deregulationists see as the ‘nanny state’ assumes that public health is not a legitimate government concern. You can’t have this and low public health costs, including hospital costs.
39 Reintroduce voluntary student unionism at universities.
COMMENT: That will, of course, end student unions as we know them, and terminate a few budding political careers before they can get going. Then again, Tony Abbott began his career in student politics. So perhaps the idea has merit.
40 Introduce a voucher scheme for secondary schools
COMMENT: Provided the middle-class welfare rorts and tax dodges introduced when Peter Costello was Federal Treasurer are ended. They help pay the fees demanded by private schools of the parents, many of whose incomes are tax-minimised thanks to the said Costello.
Also: ensure that the professions etc are likewise deregulated.
41 Repeal the alcopops tax.
COMMENT: Not a good public health move.
See 38 above.
42 Introduce a special economic zone in the north of Australia including:
a) Lower personal income tax for residents
b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers
c) Encourage the construction of dams.
COMMENT: So reservoirs of water are OK, but not those of money?
Why not just split Australia into two countries and be done with it? Better still: make each state and territory an independent nation.
43 Repeal the mining tax
COMMENT: This assumption behind this is that the mine proprietors ‘own’ the minerals they dig up. They don’t: any more than a landholder owns them by virtue of the landholding above them.
‘Privatising’ commonly owned natural resources makes about as much sense as privatising the air we all breathe, and is the modern counterpart of the enclosures of the common lands of Britain, which began in the 17th century. As I said above, private property is the most fundamental economic regulation of them all, and heartily approved of by the ‘deregulators’ infesting the political thickets all over the world.
In the words of economics journalist Peter Martin: “The Norwegian petroleum tax is an example of how profits-based resources taxes, even very high ones, don’t necessarily discourage investment. If the taxes are well designed they can generate big returns for taxpayers and allow resource companies to make enough profit to cover their costs of capital, many economists say.” (Read the rest at http://www.petermartin.com.au/2010/07/meanwhile-in-norway-where-rspt-is-set.html )
44 Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states
COMMENT: The present Murray-Darling schemozzle is what you get with this approach.
By the time popular discontent and food shortages favour the whole thing being taken over by the Federal Government, it will probably be too late to save that river system, at least as it used to be known.
45 Introduce a single rate of income tax with a generous tax-free threshold.
COMMENT: Totally regressive, and fundamental to plutocracy: Guess why.
Wealth is power. It is in everyone’s interest to limit the wealth, and thus the political reach and power of wealthy individuals, unless one wants a plutocracy, or a career as a court flunkey in one.
46 Cut company tax to an internationally competitive rate of 25 per cent
COMMENT: This is a race to the bottom on taxation of dividends received by offshore investors. Taxation of company profits before distribution to shareholders is the cleanest and simplest way. Otherwise the government has the messy task of collecting income tax from non-citizens resident overseas.
Overseas shareholders of Australian companies must be made to pay their fair share of tax.
48 Privatise Australia Post
COMMENT: Thus creating a ‘royal monopoly’.
Why not privatise all the roads, bridges and waterways while you are at it?
49 Privatise Medibank
COMMENT: There was never anything wrong with Medibank that draconian penalties for the rorters of the medical profession would not have cured, and smartly.
50 Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function
COMMENT: To see the inevitable effect of this, take a trip to the US and watch TV there.
Or back in Australia, switch on any commercial TV or radio station. Select any one of the brainless programs at random. But do it quickly before all those stations go broke thanks to the spreading popular control over infotainment (Internet, DVDs etc.)
Have fun while you can.
51 Privatise SBS
COMMENT: See 50.
52 Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784
COMMENT: Or better still, privatise the whole thing! But remember what you pay for is what you get.
If you want to ring up a government department, there has to be someone to take the call, preferably someone who knows a few answers.
As with all wish lists, you have to be careful what you wish for.
53 Repeal the Fair Work Act
COMMENT: Better still, write an Unfair Work Act.
And while you are at it, end enclosures of public property via mining concessions and similar fiefdoms.
(See also Ian Macdonald’s and Eddie Obeid’s alleged corruption in NSW relating to mining concessions at http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/icac-told-of-obeids-100m-deal-20121112-298h4.html#ixzz2C3UNmmaB)
54 Allow individuals and employers to negotiate directly terms of employment to suit them.
COMMENT: A race to the bottom.
And end all cartels and ‘royal monopolies’ while we’re at it. But the idea has merit. Company executives are the employees of the shareholders, and by the same token should negotiate their contracts with the shareholders directly, or with their disinterested representatives. (NB: the latter cannot include board members. Guess why.)
55 Encourage independent contracting by overturning new regulations designed to punish contractors.
COMMENT: Which regulations are “designed” to punish contractors? We need to see more detail on this.
56 Abolish the Baby Bonus
COMMENT: Relates to 53 above
57 Abolish the First Home Owners’ Grant
COMMENT: As the grant is funnelled straight into property prices, this is not a bad idea.
But at the same time, land use and building has to be deregulated to encourage falls in real estate prices. Humpies and shacks could shortly be all the rage in the greater metropolitan areas.
58 Allow the Northern Territory to become a state
COMMENT: This is presumably intended to favour Tory numbers in the Senate.
So the (Labor-voting) ACT must be included as well, as its population exceeds that of the NT.
59 Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
COMMENT: Better still: put Tony Abbott in charge of everything.
60 Remove all remaining tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade
COMMENT: And all remaining barriers to free competition in extraction of minerals, exchange of goods services domestically, including mining tenements and leases, the cartels controlling entry to the professions, local regulations governing use of property for retailing purposes. Etc. Etc.
Be careful that in your rush to deregulate you don’t open a Pandora’s Box.
An additional note here: we all buy and sell in various markets. but our attitudes are commonly inconsistent.
When we go to buy, we want sellers to be in a frenzy of undercutting one anothers’ prices.
But when we go to sell, we want a closed shop. We want to be the only cab on the rank, with an inflexible take-it-or-leave-it price, and with eager takers outnumbering the disgruntled leavers.
Buyers of the labour services of others (ie employers) thus favour union-busting and other forms of labour-market ‘deregulation’. But as sellers of the goods their employees produce, they want to corner the market as far as they can. To appear consistent, they often want to do this while making noises in favour of ‘free trade.’
No matter what they might say, capitalists (like me) abhor free markets if they have to sell on them, but they love them when buying on them. Nobody should be surprised to find this IPA* list expressing this inconsistency and self-contradictory approach to markets. It is quite well done here indeed, and full marks for trying.
So in short, we all incline to be monopolist free-traders: selectively monopolist as sellers, and selectively free-traders as buyers.
61 Slash top public servant salaries to much lower international standards, like in the United States
COMMENT: I am all in favour of that. But at the same time, an incoming government could slow the drift into enhanced inequality and plutocracy by regulating corporate and executive incomes through sliding scale taxation. Corporate operators are in the strategic position to award themselves as they please. So tax their incomes down to more reasonable and less obscene levels, but leave them the right to compete with one another in the scramble to claim the highest on-paper and before-tax income: for the status it confers.
62 End all public subsidies to sport and the arts
COMMENT: See 53 above
64 End all hidden protectionist measures, such as preferences for local manufacturers in government tendering
COMMENT: See also 53 above
65 Abolish the Office for Film and Literature Classification
COMMENT: So nobody knows the sleaze or ‘adult’ content of what they are about to see on TV? ??!!!! Does some honcho at the IPA* have shares in a porn movie studio?
68 Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement
COMMENT: This encourages short-sightedness: the inevitable trap of capitalism.
Please bear in mind that we will need at the same time a big public spend to build more prisons: for many of those tempted in youth by short-term gratification will fall into relative destitution in their autumnal years, and many will likely take to crime as the only means of survival they can see.
Again, a good example of IPA* selectively deregulationist naivete.
69 Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and privatise any sections that have already been built
COMMENT: In other words, create a bunch of private adfotainment local monopolies out of it.
70 End all government funded Nanny State advertising.
COMMENT: This would have to include such things as the Howard Liberal Party’s massive penchant for self-promotion. At public expense.
71 Reject proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labelling
COMMENT: So food companies can get away with murder. This is a policy favouring the analytical chemist with access to a well equipped laboratory and lots of time to spend in private analytical work before going downtown to browse around in Woolies or Coles.
This requires food vendors to let the buyers in on what they the vendors know about the product they are selling. Alternatively, if they are ignorant on that point, it requires them to find out.
72 Privatise the CSIRO
COMMENT: Private companies only do research related to their specific fields of activity and where patents can be taken out; not research for the general public good.
Two examples out of a CSIRO plethora: the rabbit disease myxomatosis would never have been researched and introduced by a private company. Nor could a private company have produced the CSIRO’s highly successful bush-fly (dung beetle) program; because neither could be toll-gated.
I am sure the wish list’s authors are familiar with the effects of these programs, even if they might be excusably ignorant of the work that produced them.
The effects are a largely rabbit-free modern Australia, meaning higher agricultural productivity all round, and our everyday ability as individuals to step out of doors in summer without becoming a walking installation of flies.
75 Privatise the Snowy-Hydro Scheme
COMMENT: ie turn it from public property into a private water and power oligopoly.
76 Have State Premiers appoint High Court justices.
COMMENT: The High Court is a federal court, but this would make it a ‘states’ court’ the way the Senate is a states’ house of parliament.
The next quite logical step in this process is having elected local councils appoint magistrates and judges of the district courts.
I would say this latter is likely to be controversial and a hard political sell.
77 Allow ministers to be appointed from outside parliament.
COMMENT: Tricky, given our Westminster system (eg how do they report to Parliament, or participate in Question Time, not being members?)
The American system, which presumably inspires this, is based quite differently. The various cabinet secretaries report to and are directly appointed by, the country’s very powerful elected monarch (known to all as the President)
78 Extend the GST to cover all goods and services but return all extra revenue to taxpayers through cutting other taxes.
COMMENT: Thereby favouring those who buy their big ticket items (GST-free) overseas.
Elementary, my dear Watson. I detect the hand of a gauche, cynical and at the same time naive bunch of Moriarty’s IPA* disciples behind all this.
79 Abolish the federal department of health and return health policy to the states
COMMENT: Epidemics do not respect state borders, and it is only a matter of time before we have a big one to deal with: like the virulent avian flu that has recently broken out in China.
80 Abolish the federal department of education and return education policy to the states.
COMMENT: See 40 above
82 Abolish the Australian Human Rights Commission.
COMMENT: OK. It is a sinecure for ex- politicians and the well connected anyway.
83 Have trade unions regulated like public companies, with ASIC responsible for their oversight
COMMENT: How are public companies ‘regulated’? (Think how, say, the scandalous AWB was handled.)
85 Repeal laws which protect unions from competition, such as the ‘conveniently belong’ rules in the Fair Work Act
COMMENT: OK, provided all protections of individuals and companies from open competition are likewise done away with.
86 Extend unrestricted work visas currently granted to New Zealand citizens to citizens of the United States.
COMMENT: Is this to be bilateral?
If not, it is more selectively-deregulationist IPA* naivete.
89 Adhere to section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution by not taking or diminishing anyone’s property without proper compensation.
COMMENT: Provided it has not been thieved in the first place. (“When Adam delved and Eve span/ Who was then the gentleman?”)
90 Repeal legislative restrictions on the use of nuclear power.
Ever heard of Fukishima????
What day-nursery playground* are you from?
91 Allow full competition on all foreign air routes.
COMMENT: What??? Unilaterally???
How about open slather for all the world’s air carriers on Australian domestic routes while we’re at it? It would be a world-first!
92 Abolish the Medicare levy surcharge.
COMMENT: And deregulate the provision of medical services, pharmaceuticals, etc.
93 Abolish the luxury car tax
COMMENT: Agreed. But only provided the owners of the luxury cars pay for the roads they drive them on, and don’t dodge taxes via company-owned cars, family trusts, private super funds, and similar middle and upper class welfare schemes.
94 Halve the number of days parliament sits to reduce the amount of legislation passed.
COMMENT: Or preferably, abolish Parliament altogether, thereby saving heaps. Tony Abbott for Fuehrer! Or better still, privatise Parliament!
95 Abolish Tourism Australia and cease subsidising the tourism industry
COMMENT: And all other direct and indirect industry subsidies
96 Make all government payments to external parties publicly available including the terms and conditions of those payments.
COMMENT: An excellent suggestion. And likewise all payments by ‘external parties’ to political parties and politicians,
And while we’re at it, by lobbying think-tanks like the IPA.
Also, require all lobbyists to make their submissions to politicians in open session, as in a court. Prohibit by law the private lobbying of a politician. He or she after all is a publicly-paid decision maker. Such private lobbying should be seen as of equal gravity to the offence of private lobbying of the judge by a party to a court case.
97 Abandon plans to restrict foreign investment in Australia’s agricultural industry.
COMMENT: Ever heard of the Irish famine? Through all the famine years of the 1840s, Ireland was a net exporter of food. Guess how that came to pass.
(HINT: foreign, ie English, ownership of Irish agricultural land was involved, and a right to freely export produce out of Ireland.)
Suggested reading: Julian Cribb, ‘The Coming Famine’ –the global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it’: published incidentally by the abovementioned CSIRO.
99 Rule out the introduction of mandatory pre-commitment for electronic gaming machines.
COMMENT: Provided state finances cease to be underwritten by problem gamblers.
(See also 8 above.)
100 Abolish the four pillars policy which prevents Australia’s major banks from merging
COMMENT: So one bank; (one Fuehrer? one Reich?)
OK. But only provided all other forms of economic regulation go as well.
And I mean all. Not just your own selection from amongst them to suit yourselves.
*To conclude after reading all this, I would say that ‘IPA’ stands for ‘Interesting Playtime Activities’.
|Carbon Abatement Submission (Senate Inquiry) CondensedThough air temperatures whether local or worldwide, daily or annual average, may for various reasons not reflect it, the world is none the less clearly warming. It is now possible to fulfill Lord Franklin’s dream and sail the Northwest Passage over the top of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, at least for one month or so in the Northern summer. Possibly within the next ten years ships will be able drop anchor in an essentially ice-free Arctic Ocean, right at the North Pole. That together with the satellite altimetry data on sea levels testifies to the rapidity of global warming, and of the onset of the positive feedback loops that can only further accelerate it. The safest assumption we can make, in short, is that we face a planetary climate emergency, requiring urgent economic reforms on a comparable scale to those which took place in Australia after the declaration of war in 1939…|
|Kangaroos, Thylacines and Aborigines 1As in other areas of human history, inference is needed for the Aboriginal past not only because there are controversial and politically sensitive areas, but because the documentary record alone is insufficient for sound judgement one way or another. While some might find certain inferences to be politically (and mythologically) attractive, on close inspection they turn out to be too improbable for acceptance. Such, I argue, is the case with Keith Windschuttle’s thesis on the demise of the Tasmanians, which he applies also to explain the declines of the mainland populations, namely that the bulk of it was the unintended consequence of introduced diseases, rather than the intended consequence of deliberate frontier violence…|
|Kangaroos, Thylacines and Aborigines 2 Beside European settlement, agriculture, rainfall and temperature, there is another, related distribution. It is that of the present day distribution of speakers of indigenous languages, mainly found today beyond the Europale. It shows that wherever Europeans settled, the native languages died out. The unavoidable conclusion is that conditions inside the Europale increasingly militated against aboriginal children learning their ancestral language in the process of growing up…
The language decline correlates with the dilution of the aboriginal indigenous gene pool, as increasing numbers of people who describe themselves as Aborigines find themselves acknowledging, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, one or more Europeans in their ancestry…
|Kangaroos, Thylacines and Aborigines 3The British perception was that the macropods were wild in the country and belonged to nobody. The ecological reality of Tasmania and elsewhere was that the biomass of available grass and herbage in any one period of time could feed a related biomass of herbivores only up to a limit, which in turn could support a limited biomass of omnivorous humans, their dogs and a net population of wild carnivores. The latter included dingoes on the mainland, where they had displaced thylacines; thylacines in Tasmania, and also the Tasmanian Aborigines’ dogs (gone feral) as the aboriginal populations crashed. Settlers everywhere in Australia honoured these principles every time they set about clearing the bush to make way for grass; ‘clearing off’ kangaroos and emus to make way for sheep, cattle or crops, and clearing off Aborigines to make way for themselves…|
|Kangaroos, Thylacines and Aborigines 4…Windschuttle’s Australia is one where the Aborigines went quietly to their fate as fringe dwellers of the country towns, and in marked contrast to their aboriginal counterparts in the Americas and New Zealand.
If there was no ‘warfare’ of whatever category involved in this transition, then the attendant and marked depopulation of the countryside and Aboriginal population decline can only be due to starvation and/or disease. Windschuttle won’t have starvation, but at the same time there are problems with the disease hypothesis that beg for a remedy, an explanation, or at the very least, a Band-Aid: which leaves warfare of some kind hanging around in the background.
And so we come to the elephant in the parlour of Aboriginal history…
|Night Vision and BipedalismThis raises the intriguing possibility that before the discovery of fire and the invention of the thorn-fenced kraal, our distant African ancestors attained their relatively longer legs by wading, swimming and climbing for shelter at night up or down rocky cliffs, bluffs and outcrops, where long non-grasping legs provide no great disadvantage. For the climbing of trees, they do. Getting to where the predators cannot reach you makes poor night vision less of a disadvantage…|
|Plimer’s Climatology 101Plimer says that nothing humans do can affect the climate of the whole Earth, and that if it is warming, it is a good thing anyway. Others disagree, and contend that climate change is occurring because of CO2 emissions. These latter were not put into the air for the purpose of warming the planet. Like the radioactive waste from the nuclear industry, they are a by product of another project entirely, to be justified after the fact…|
|Plimer’s Climatology 102 At a point in the long distant past someone extracted what was found to be useful fuel from a coal outcrop, and the coal industry was born. Only since the work of Arrhenius in the late 19thC have questions arisen about the basing of the steel, power generation and other industries upon it. Established industry has understandably reacted to the IPCC reports and scientific concern about greenhouse gases with counter-argument and delaying tactics regarding the transition to alternatives. Ian Plimer’s book and his talk to the Sydney Mining Club talk are best seen in this context…|
|Plimer’s Climatology 103The total yearly biomass production of the organisms on Earth is on one estimate at around 170 billion tonnes (164 billion tons) of which a third is oceanic and two thirds terrestrial: say 60 billion tonnes oceanic. Assuming this roughly to be 10% of the total oceanic biomass brings the total mass of all marine organisms to 600 billion tonnes, or 600 Gt. The potential total CO2 addition to the hydrosphere of 4210 Gt (assuming it all finishes up in the oceans) is thus about 7 times the total biomass in the oceans. That is indeed significant…|
|Plimer’s Climatology 104…a two degree rise due to CO2 will produce a further two degree rise due to water vapour, making four degrees in all. The next domino to fall in this situation is the methane, locked up in arctic permafrost in Siberia and Northern Canada, and below the deep ocean floors as methane hydrates. In all those locations, it has built up from slow bacterial decomposition of organic matter. Methane is 45 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, to which it oxidizes in about a year after release to the air. The warming produced by this gas may in turn release the final nightmare gas, hydrogen sulfide. Plimer does not mention these potentially disastrous knock-on effects of methane and hydrogen sulfide…|
|Plimer’s Climatology 105: Lord Franklin’s Dream Turned NightmarePope aside, there’s no need to ask which embodiments of human stupidity Plimer might have had in mind. He has spent the preceding 483 pages denouncing them: ‘activists’, ‘environmentalists’, Greenpeace… but above all, Sir Nicholas Stern, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Al Gore, Ross Garnaut; other practitioners of the alleged quackery and pseudoscience of climatology, the IPCC, the Royal Society, the signers of the Kyoto Accord… If the book’s index was any good I could look them all up.
But that is only half of the last sentence. I have an uneasy feeling that behind the rest of it lies the profound theological thought that there will be no runaway greenhouse or climate catastrophe, because God will not allow it.
|Plimer’s Climatology 106: His Lordship’s ListAt the end of his book, Ian Plimer hands over the keyboard to his lordship to deal with the question ‘What if I am wrong?’ In Plimer’s view Monckton (previously an economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher) had already dealt with it splendidly in a speech to the Local Government Association at Bournemouth, on 3 July 2008. So Plimer reproduces the speech in its entirety (with his lordship’s permission) on pages 489-493 of Heaven+Earth. We can take as noted the usual ‘ITS?’ (is that so?) in the margin against each one of the following points as they occur, and as well a ‘WIIFY?’ – an abbreviated form of ‘what’s in it for you?’|
Why Keith Windschuttle is likely wrong about frontier violence in Australia.
[A preliminary note: I have published this long piece as a four part series. The full bibliography is appended at the end of each part in order to facilitate ease of reference. In time I hope to have all references set up as links, and diagrams now linked to embedded in the text on your screen.
Since publication of Kangaroos, Thylacines and Aborigines in April 2009, a number of publications have appeared on the Internet that deal with the same subject: relations between Aborigines and European settlers. To my knowledge, there has been nothing published from scholarly or academic sources which supports the position taken by Keith Windschuttle, as discussed in this series by me; and there has been much that does not. Perhaps the most powerful piece of writing in the latter category was written by Tony Roberts, and published in The Monthly of November 2009 under the title The Brutal Truth.
In 1881, a massive pastoral boom commenced in the top half of the Northern Territory, administered by the colonial government in Adelaide. Elsey Station on the Roper River – romanticised in Jeannie Gunn’s We of the Never Never – was the first to be established. These were huge stations, with an average size of almost 16,000 square kilometres. By the end of the year the entire Gulf district (an area the size of Victoria, which accounted for a quarter of the Territory’s pastoral country) had been leased to just 14 landholders, all but two of whom were wealthy businessmen and investors from the eastern colonies.
Once they had taken up their lease, landholders had only three years to comply with a minimum stocking rate. By mid-1885 all 14 stations were declared stocked. What happened in the course of this rapid settlement is the subject of this essay. At least 600 men, women, children and babies, or about one-sixth of the population, were killed in the Gulf Country to 1910. The death toll could easily be as high as seven or eight hundred. Yet, no one was charged with these murders. By contrast, there were 20 white deaths, and not a single white woman or child was harmed in any way. The South Australian government of Sir John Cox Bray (1881–84) knew from a variety of reports that the region was heavily populated. And it knew, from experience in South Australia over the preceding 45 years, precisely what the consequences of wholesale pastoral settlement would be: starvation, sickness, degradation and massacre.
Also recommended is George Monbiot's review of the James Cameron blockbuster 3D film Avatar, as published in The Guardian of January 11, 2010 under the title The Holocaust We Will Not See. Monbiot sees the film as an allegory regarding the fate of the original population of American Indians. With Haiti in the current news, it is worth remembering that following the Columbus expedition of 1492 leading to the Spanish settlement of the Caribbean and Central America, the original inhabitants of Hispaniola, the island Haiti shares with the Dominican Republic, were totally exterminated.
Ian MacDougall, 21.01.2010 ]
The ability to stand outside your own political system, your own culture and your religion, to criticise your own society and to pursue the truth, is something we today take so much for granted that it is almost part of the air we breathe. Without it, our idea of freedom of expression would not exist. We should recognise, however, that this is a distinctly Western phenomenon, that is, it is part of the cultural heritage of those countries — Europe, the Americas and Australasia — that have evolved out of Ancient Greece, Rome and Christianity. This idea was never produced by either Confucian or Hindu culture. Under Islam it had a brief life in the fourteenth century but was never heard of again. Rather than take the idea of history for granted, we should regard it as a rare and precious legacy that is our job to nurture and to pass on to future generations.
Keith Windschuttle, Social history, Aboriginal history and the pursuit of truth, 2003
…The British colonization of this continent was the least violent of all Europe’s encounters with the New World. It did not meet any organized resistance. Conflict was sporadic rather than systematic. Some mass killings were committed by both sides but they were rare and isolated events where the numbers of dead were in the tens rather than the hundreds. The notion of sustained ‘frontier warfare’ is fictional.
A great many Aborigines willingly accommodated themselves to the transformation. They were drawn to and became part of the new society. Many other, however, were subject to a policy that kept them separate from the white population. The officials who initiated this strategy claimed it was to protect them from white violence and white exploitation. However, the worst crime Australia committed against the Aborigines was not violence or exploitation, but this very policy of separating and interning them on missions and reserves. Those who did this are still celebrated by historians today as great humanitarians and as the Aborigines’ friends. These volumes severely question that assessment.
Keith Windschuttle, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, 2002, pp 3-4
Keith Windschuttle’s revision of Tasmanian history, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History – Volume One Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847, (2002) which is the first of a projected three-volume series covering all of Australia, created some controversy in the press when it first appeared. Conservative reviewers such as Geoffrey Blainey (Blainey 2003) cheered and hailed it, while those more to the left, including Robert Manne, (Manne 2002) booed it in chorus. Windschuttle was arguing that the ‘orthodoxy’ in Australian historiography was wrong on Aboriginal history in general, on Tasmania in particular, and most particularly on its contention that the displacement of the Aborigines by European settlers and British civilisation had been violent and murderous. The second of the above quotes, from The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, sums up the Windschuttle position. We will ignore for the moment that its second paragraph can be interpreted as contradicting the first.I leave it to others to sort out the rights, wrongs and casualty figures of the various violent incidents cited by historians. My aim here is different and twofold: to frame whatever controversy there is in its appropriate ecological and biological setting, and beyond that, to apply to Aboriginal history the dictum of Hutton that underlies much of geology and all of the science of stratigraphy: ‘the present is the key to the past’. The human past is embedded in the human present, and to some extent inferable on that basis.
Of course, the possible pasts are too numerous for fine separation just by the facts of the present; except to note that the proverbial Martian surveying and comparing modern Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand could spot the differences between them, and point not only to possible explanations, but proceed to rule out certain hypothetical pasts, and with confidence.
As in other areas of human history, inference is needed for the Aboriginal past not only because there are controversial and politically sensitive areas, but because the documentary record alone is insufficient for sound judgement one way or another. While some might find certain inferences to be politically (and mythologically) attractive, on close inspection they turn out to be too improbable for acceptance. Such, I argue, is the case with Keith Windschuttle’s thesis on the demise of the Tasmanians, which he applies also to explain the declines of the mainland populations, namely that the bulk of it was the unintended consequence of introduced diseases, rather than the intended consequence of deliberate frontier violence.
Understandably, given the press controversy, Windschuttle’s contention became the subject of dinner table and barbecue conversation across the country. Shortly after the first reviews of his book were published in The Sydney Morning Herald (against) and The Australian (for) in late 2002, I found myself involved in one such discussion. It was with Mick Baulkley, the neighbour next gate along the road to the cattle property I live on in the northwest of NSW. Mick told me that when he was a boy growing up in Cullen Bullen, NSW, there was an old man living there by the name of Ted Jones, who had told Baulkley of his youth working cattle in the Channel Country of Queensland. From the ages of the men concerned one might assume that the story would date from the period 1880 to 1910.
Ted Jones told Baulkley that on the run then in process of being ‘taken up’ and stocked, the owners were having trouble with the local Aborigines, who had started spearing the cattle. This was a fairly common practice through the history of 19th Century Australia, and can be seen as an effort by the Aborigines to drive the newcomers and their stock off the run and out of their country. Jones told Baulkley that parties of white stockmen responded by locating any Aboriginal bands in the area, and as mounted teams, running the Aboriginal men down. Women and children were generally left alone.
According to Jones, the horsemens’ weapon of choice was a metal stirrup, swung on the end of its strap like a polo mallet. A single blow to the back of the head was usually fatal. According to Baulkley, Jones said that though he did not like doing it, he accepted that it had to be done.
When I first heard this somewhat unsurprising but none the less shocking story, I immediately felt great sympathy for the victims, as I believe most people would, certainly including Mick Baulkley and possibly including, in a perverse sort of way, Ted Jones himself. There can be no doubt that such killings were illegal and against the prevailing Judeo-Christian morality, and also that those responsible were highly unlikely to leave a trail of paper or anything else that would track it back to them. But was the story credible?
It rests on an understandable disinclination on the part of the Aborigines to ‘go quietly’ as their locality was invaded by others seeking a permanent rather than nomadic presence. But what most inclines me to believe that the story is likely true is that precise bit of detail: the stirrup to the back of the head.
A horseman has a tremendous advantage over a man on foot, particularly if the latter is trying to flee. But any horseman is wary of horses’ response to the unfamiliar, often through bitter experience. Firing guns off the backs of horses was not something Australian stockmen usually did in the course of their work, and it would likely cause the average stock horse to shy, skitter, or even bolt. Moreover, in a general melee, with horsemen and Aborigines moving in many directions, the chance of a horseman or a horse being hit by a stray bullet was likely unacceptable. Given this problem, something readily at hand to stockmen in their camps would be the obvious choice. I would have thought they would favour something with weight on the end of a handle, like a hammer or branding iron. But there were never enough of these to supply one to each man in the camp. The weapons would have to be available to all hands simultaneously. Spare stirrups and straps were common around stock camps.
Why would they not choose say, wooden lances, which were in use by horsemen in various armies right up to the mid 19th century?
A lance was more than just a long sharpened stake. The Norman lance as described by Montgomery (Montgomery 1968, p 161) had an untapered wooden shaft between 8 and 9 feet long and was tipped with a broad iron head. It had specialist-made metal tips and guards fitted, the latter to prevent the weapon travelling back past the horseman on impact with the target. Moreover, lances were useless for anything else, were dangerous in untrained hands, and would have been incriminating evidence if the authorities should see fit to turn nasty. If the tip went into the ground even at a trot, the rider would likely be thrown off and/or suffer injury. Fashion a lance out of a sapling and try it if you do not believe me. Never mind if you find yourself short of a horse: for this exercise a bicycle will do just as well, and it is far safer. Don’t try it from a moving car.
Greatest effect is achieved if the business end of the weapon travels in the same direction as the horse. If it is moving backwards as the horse moves forward, as for example the head of a polo mallet does on a backstroke, the rider has to slow the horse to compensate. Lance tips travel forward at the same speed as the horse, but stirrups swung fast by a rider who was on a horse at full gallop would have been much faster still, and particularly lethal if they struck the target at the bottom of the swing while moving closest to the same direction as the horse, transferring maxima of both kinetic energy and momentum to the target. Again, vide the analogy of the polo mallet on a forward stroke. Needless to add, medical authorities recognize blows to the back of the head as particularly dangerous, given that the cerebellum, the motor area of the brain concerned with subconscious skeletal muscle movements required for coordination, posture and balance, is just under the skull there.
Defence against the swung stirrups would have been difficult for the Aborigines. While they were expert at defending against attacks by Aboriginal weapons such as spears and nulla-nullas (clubs) with their narrow shields, these are useless against horsemen. Out of the long history of pre-firearm warfare on the Eurasian landmass, pikes emerged as the only effective weapons for foot soldiers to use against mounted knights. For example, those used by the Swiss pikemen at the Battle of Laupen in 1339 were 18 feet long (approximately 5.6 m), with shafts of ash and ten inch steel heads “held level at shoulder height, and totally effective against cavalry.” (Montgomery 1968 p 195) A pikeman had to have sound training in the use of his weapon, and it had to be strong enough, as he allowed the galloping horseman to impale himself upon it, to resist bowing and breaking.
Aboriginal spears are not pikes. A spear thrown at an oncoming horseman could conceivably have quite devastating effect, but not if used as a pike, for it was far too short and light in construction. In the horsemens’ favour also would have been the fact that the aborigines had little opportunity to train to deal with such encounters, and the likelihood that an Aborigine’s first such would be his last.
Stockmen riding individually or as teams used to drive mobs of kangaroos on horseback, and as a young man I was told eyewitness accounts by Queenslanders of kangaroos being culled by horsemen wielding wooden clubs and even golf clubs, again aiming the blow at the back of each animal’s head. Skills learned by horsemen in the mass killing of kangaroos could be transferred to range warfare as described above.
So the short answer is yes, I believe the Ted Jones story has credibility. But it is still, as I relate it here, third-hand hearsay. However, it should be noted that this account of Jones’ corroborates Henry Reynolds’ account of the settling of the Channel country in which he writes: …”Aboriginal resistance to the invasion of white people and their animals took what was, by the 1880s, the characteristic form of killing, maiming and running off stock and spearing isolated stockmen. Conflict which began in the late 1860s persisted for twenty years. Writing of this period, Mary Durack observed that:
Every traveller brought rumours of increasing trouble and many settlers now openly declared that Western Queensland could only be habitable for whites when the last of the blacks had been killed out – ‘by bullet or by bait.’”
(Reynolds, 2001, pp 130-131)
As Jones is no longer alive, his story could not be admitted as evidence in a court of law, which is reasonable. But must an historian always follow the same rule?
I call as my first witness Mr David Irving, who has made a reputation for himself as a leading ‘Holocaust denier’. Understandably, he has his critics. He was arrested in Austria in 2005 and sentenced to three years in prison after a judge ruled that he had breached Austrian law in two speeches he made in 1989, in which he asserted that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, and questioned the existence of extermination camps. He is also quoted as having made inflammatory statements about the Holocaust such as: “The Jews are the architects of their own misfortune, but that is the short version A-Z. Between A-Z there are then 24 other characters in intervening steps.” (Taylor 2007)
But if we attend closely to what Irving says on the history of the Holocaust, we find that he does not deny that there was killing, nor at times even systematic killing, of Jews, gypsies, and others in the concentration camps of Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War. What he does deny is that this was policy in the Third Reich, and specifically and most importantly, that Adolf Hitler knew that it was going on. He has challenged his critics to produce a single document that proves the contrary. At the time of writing, as far as I am aware, none have been able to. A single memo from a camp commandant initialed by Hitler would do. The following is Irving’s own summary, from the Introduction to his Hitler’s War (1977):
Nothing created such agony when this biography was first published as my analysis of Hitler’s role in the Jewish tragedy. Pure vitriol spilled from the pens of my critics, but I see no reason to revise my central hypothesis, which is based on the records of the day: that Hitler grasped quite early on that anti- Semitism would be a powerful vote-catching force in Germany; that he had no compunction against riding that evil steed right up to the portals of the Chancellery in 1933; but that once inside and in power, he dismounted and paid only lip service to that part of his Party creed. The Nazi gangsters under him continued to ride to hounds, however, even when Hitler dictated differently, e.g., in November 1938. As for the concentration camps he comfortably left that dark side of the Nazi rule to Himmler. He never visited one; those senior officials and foreigners who did obtain privileged access, like Ernst Udet or General Erhard Milch or British Members of Parliament in 1933 and 1934, were favorably impressed (but those were early days). Himmler is known to have visited Auschwitz in 1941 and 1942. Hitler never did. (Irving, 1999)
Is it appropriate to conclude that therefore Hitler did not know? Or is it more appropriate to ask: ‘how credible is the proposition that Hitler did not know?” A moment’s reflection on the nature of the Nazi bureaucracy indicates that any Hitler subordinate (including Himmler) who took a decision to go down such a horrendously serious path without clearing it first with higher authority up to the Fuhrer himself would have been taking a monumental risk, not only that Hitler might not have wanted it, but of cutting himself off from the Nuremberg Defence in case things went wrong. That defence was the only one conceivable in Nazi Germany, and so came naturally to Hitler’s minions at the end of the war: ‘I was following orders.’
The old caveat emptor principle can be expressed many ways, including ‘let the buyer beware’ and ‘if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.’ The Hitler portrait that emerges from Irving’s studio looks far too good to be true. While it is not beyond conceivable doubt that Hitler was unaware of the fate of the Jews, it is very close to it. Irving in the passage above, for whatever reason, seeks to pass responsibility down to Himmler. But as well as the fact that Hitler openly called for the extermination of all the Jews of Europe in Mein Kampf, Irving’s argument rests on a huge improbability, arising directly out of the nature of the Nazi regime. Historians, who like scientists, can only deal in probabilities and never in absolute certainties, are on safe ground when they reject it. They may choose to suspend judgement until ‘all the facts are known’, but the trouble with that is that all the facts are never known.
With the above in mind, we might consider the credibility of another story. Sally Dingo says of Wail, one of the two outstations of the vast Yallalong holding in Western Australia:
…Wail was not far from where many tribal blackfellas had been captured and taken to prison, walking, chained together at the neck, mile after blistering mile into Geraldton and then on to Fremantle gaol or Rottnest Island down south. At nearby Mt Narryer Station, an outcamp still goes by the name Jailer, across the creek from the old prison where the captives were brought on the first part of their long trek, the policeman on horseback beside them. A tree, now a stump, still stands outside, to which the men were chained. It was a time when there were some hard, cruel whitemen, I was told by a white stockman, who had ridden the Canning Stock route in his early teens, seeing and hearing much.
Mostly the Yamatjis’ crime had been to spear sheep on their own traditional grounds, and often many of the prisoners had the misfortune merely to be there when it happened, or even somewhere in the immediate district. But at least they had escaped the oft-employed method of territorial and social control. They had not been massacred, as many before them. Sheep stealing was a serious offence in white eyes. So was being a witness. But blackfellas wanted tucker, and not surprisingly, these other fellas to move back off their land.
(Dingo 1998, p 40)
Dingo is a white woman married to Ernie Dingo, a prominent Yamatji Aborigine and TV presenter, and explains in her book not only the origins of her husband’s white-conferred family name, but his family’s history and its times from its own Aboriginal perspective, for which she plays the role of historian and third-person narrator. It is a valuable addition to Australian literature.
Insofar as Keith Windschuttle dismisses other historians’ claims that frontier violence and murder are the basic explanation for the undeniable total extermination of ‘full-blood’ Aborigines in Tasmania, the complete obliteration of their language and culture, and the massive environmental and ecological changes in the Australian countryside as white pastoralism and agriculture replaced Aboriginal hunting and gathering, he is almost certainly wrong; as it is my intention here to show. Where he invokes disease as an alternative explanation, again he is almost certainly wrong, as I also aim to show. But on the positive side, though the publication of Windschuttle’s The Fabrication of Aboriginal History was greeted with press controversy, it has served as a stimulus to debate and research ever since, including my own. In my opinion, this can only be for the good. As the old Chinese proverb puts it: “Let the waters recede, and the stones will emerge.”
The emerging stones might not be those Keith Windschuttle had in mind when he first decided on the three-volume project of which The Fabrication of Aboriginal History is merely the opening statement. The second and third volumes will have to take account of the (numerous) objections raised to date if they are to succeed as credible history, whatever they might manage commercially. The historian engaged in a search for the truth must, like a good detective, proceed to the facts behind the stories, sort the plausible from the implausible and, in the manner of a scientist, evaluate each hypothesis in terms of the probability of its being right. Moreover, the historian must in the end be able to say with Darwin: “I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as the facts are shown to be opposed to it.” (Darwin 1888)
Though I naturally cannot speak for others, insofar as Windschuttle and I are both engaged in a search for the truth, we are at the end of the day and inevitably, on the same side. I honestly would prefer his version of the past to be right, as no doubt would many other Australians, and many contemporary Germans would Irving’s. But we can’t have it, and must rule it out as beyond credibility.
END OF PART 1
To be continued.
Australian Bureau of Statistics: 3235.6.55.001 – Population by Age and Sex, Tasmania — Electronic Delivery, Jun 2005
Latest ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (Canberra Time) 30/06/2006
Australian Dictionary of Biography, George Augustus Robinson entry http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/scripts/adbp-ent_search.php?ranktext=George+Augustus+Robinson&search=Go%21
Australian Dictionary of Biography, Trugermanner (Truganini) entry http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A060326b.htm
Australian Historical Statistics (bicentennial 1988)
Australian Wool Innovation Limited, Sheep Breeds in Australia, 2007. http://www.woolinnovation.com.au/page__2158.aspx
Bates, Daisy, The Passing of the Aborigines, Heinemann, Melbourne, 1948
Berndt, Ronald M and Berndt, Catherine H, The World of the First Australians, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra 1999.
Blainey, Geoffrey, ‘Native Fiction’, The New Criterion, April 2003, http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/21/apr03/blainey.htm
Blainey, Geoffrey, Triumph of the Nomads, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1975.
Bowman, DMJS, Australian Rainforests Islands of green in a land of fire, CUP, Cambridge 2000
Broome, Richard, The Aboriginal Australians, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2002
Broome, R, “The struggle for Australia: Aboriginal-European warfare, 1770-1930″, in M. McKernan and M. Browne (eds), Australia: two centuries of war and peace , Australian War Memorial and Allen & Unwin, Canberra, 1988)
Boyce, James, Van Diemen’s Land, Black Inc. Melbourne 2008.
Cannon, Michael, Who Killed the Koories? – The True, terrible story of Australia’s founding years, Heinemann Australia, Melbourne, 1990.
Carr, EH, What is History? Penguin, London, 1961
Darwin, Charles, & Darwin, Francis, Sir, The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter , John Murray, London 1888. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.2&pageseq=1
Dawson, John, Washout: On the Academic Response to The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Macleay Press, Sydney 2004,
Diamond, Jared, Guns, Germs and Steel, Vintage, London, 1998
Diamond, Jared, Collapse, Allen Lane, Melbourne, 2005
Dingo, Sally, Dingo – The Story of Our Mob, Random House, Sydney, 1998.
Elkin, AP, The Australian Aborigines, 3rd Ed, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1954
Fitzpatrick, Brian, The British Empire in Australia – An Economic History 1834 – 1939, MUP, Melbourne, 1949
Flood, Josephine, Archaeology of the Dreamtime, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1999
Foley, Dennis, Eora and Wiradjuri Wars, undated, http://188.8.131.52/search?q=cache:lH9TsuFa-6AJ:teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty2055/Eora%2520and%2520Wiradjuri%2520Wars.doc+myall+river+massacre&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au
Gould, Bob, (1) The Fate and Future of Aboriginal Australians, 2000
Gould, Bob, (2) The attempt to revise the history of the massacre of Aborigines on the British colonial frontier in Australia, http://www.gouldsbooks.com.au/ozleft/windschuttleblack.html , 2000
Guiler, E.R., Thylacine: The Tragedy of the Tasmanian Tiger, OUP, 1985
Hill, Barry, Broken Song – TGH Strehlow and Aboriginal Possession, Random House, Sydney 2002
Heyerdahl, Thor, Aku-Aku, Allen & Unwin, London, 1958
Hinds, Lyn A et al, Rabbits-prospects for long term control: mortality and fertility control, CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, and CRC Vertebrate Biocontrol Centre, PO Box 84 Lyneham ACT 2602 Australia. A paper prepared for the Prime Minister’s Science and Engineering Council, 13 September 1996. http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/Science/pmsec/14meet/rcd1.html
Hitchens, Christopher, The Strange Case of David Irving, Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2001, http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/20/books/bk-144http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/20/books/bk-144
Irving, David, Hitler’s War, Introduction, http://www.codoh.com/irving/irvhitwar.html ,1999
Irving, David, Hitler’s War, Online edition, http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/1977/index.html
Jones, F. Lancaster, The Structure and Growth of Australia’s Aboriginal Population, ANU Press, Canberra, 1970
Josephy, Alvin M, 500 Nations – An Illustrated History of North American Indians, Alfred A Knopf, NY, 1994
Kohen, Jim, The Impact of Fire: An Historical Perspective, 1993, http://asgap.org.au/APOL3/sep96-1.html
Kormondy, Edward J, Concepts of Ecology, Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1969
Macintyre, Stuart, The History Wars, excerpt from the 2003 ISAA ANNUAL CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, http://184.108.40.206/search?q=cache:ZMClIPR49qUJ:isaa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/history_wars.pdf+blainey,+windschuttle+review,+australian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=au
Manne, Robert (Ed), Whitewash On Keith Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History
Black Inc. Agenda, 2003
Manne, Robert, ‘Blind to truth, and blind to history’, The Sydney Morning Herald, Dec 16, 2002 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/15/1039656294498.html
Manne, Robert, Whitewash Introduction, on Evatt Foundation site, http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/109.html
McFee, Gord, Where did David Irving go Wrong? http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-wrong/
McKenna, Mark, ‘Dead Reckoning’, The Age, 25 Jan 2003
McLaurin, James, Memories of Early Australia, unpublished MSS, 1888
Montgomery of Alamein, Field-Marshal Viscount, A History of Warfare, Collins, London, 1968
Morgan, Sharon, Land Settlement in Early Tasmania: Creating an Antipodean England, CUP, Cambridge, 1992
Mulvaney, John & Kamminga, Johan, Prehistory of Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1999
Odum, Eugene P, Fundamentals of Ecology, WB Saunders, 1953
Perkins, Charles, A Bastard Like Me, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1975
Perrin, Les, Cullin-La-Ringo – The Triumph and Tragedy of Tommy Wills, Published by the Author PO Box 1269, Stafford, Qld, 4053, 1998
Pest Animal Control CRC, Dingoes and other wild dogs (Canis lupus spp), undated. http://www.feral.org.au/content/species/dog.cfm . Website established by the Pest Animal Control CRC in cooperation with the University of Canberra and with the assistance of the Bureau of Rural Sciences.
Ramsey, Alan, Weasel words won’t hide monstrous shame, SMH, February 2, 2008; http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/weasel-words-wont-hide-monstrous-shame/2008/02/01/1201801034773.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Reid, James B et al, Vegetation of Tasmania, Australian Biological Resources Study, Hobart, 1999
Reynolds, Henry, An Indelible Stain? Viking, Melbourne, 2001.
Reynolds, Henry, Why Weren’t We Told? Penguin, Melbourne, 2000
Reynolds, Henry, Fate of a Free People, Penguin, Melbourne, 2004
Reynolds, Henry, The Other Side of the Frontier, Penguin, Melbourne, 1995
Richards, Dave, The Last Words of Xavier Herbert, National Times, January 18 to 24, 1985. (Interview with Xavier Herbert. Part 1.)
Richards, Dave, Me and my Shadow, National Times, January 25 to 31, 1985. (Interview with Xavier Herbert. Part 2.)
Roberts, Tony, Frontier Justice: A History of the Gulf Country to 1900, UQP, Brisbane, 2005
Ryan, Lyndall, The Aboriginal Tasmanians, Allen & Unwin Sydney, 1996.
Singh, G et al, Quaternary Vegetation and Fire History in Australia, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 1981
SOCIAL DARWINISM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism))
Taylor, Mathew, ‘Discredited Irving plans comeback tour’, Guardian (UK) 29 Sept 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,2179842,00.html
Temby, Ian, Problems Caused by Kangaroos and Wallabies, Dept of Primary Industries, Victoria 2003. www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/LinkView/6B84C66359D4A9B0CA256BCF000B4D70694E0B9522A644D14A256DEA00291F28
Terry, Michael, War of the Warramullas, Rigby, Adelaide, 1974.
Travers, Robert, The Tasmanians – The Story of a Doomed Race, Cassell, Melbourne, 1968
Unattributed author, History of Rabbits in Australia, http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00128/en/rabbits/history.htm
Ward, Russel, The Australian Legend, OUP, Melbourne, New Illustrated Ed, 1978
Watterson, Barbara, The Egyptians, Blackwell, London 1997
Windschuttle, Keith, Social history, Aboriginal history and the pursuit of truth. Keith Windschuttle in debate with Stuart Macintyre Blackheath Philosophy Forum March 1, 2003.
Windschuttle, Keith, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History Volume One Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847, Macleay Press, Sydney, 2002
Windschuttle, Keith, The historian as political activist: the legacy of Michel Foucault, Paper to conference of The Historical Society and the History Department, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill: Reconsidering Current Fashions in Historical Interpretation December 8, 2001 http://www.sydneyline.com/Foucault%27s%20legacy.htm
Windschuttle, Keith, The myths of frontier massacres in Australian history, Part I The invention of massacre stories, Quadrant, October 2000 http://www.sydneyline.com/Massacres%20Part%20One.htm
Windschuttle, Keith, The Return of Postmodernism in Aboriginal History, Quadrant, April 2006 http://www.sydneyline.com/Return%20of%20Postmodernism.htm
2. Online resources used in preparation of table 4: Pre-European influence island population statistics (p.15)
PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Papua_New_Guinea.htm