NEWS AND VIEWS
Australia

Other Countries

Monday, 30 July 2007

Security Suffers Now Trust is Gone

Being able to trust the government - politicians, police and other public servants - takes on an added importance when dealing with national security where that very security can often depend on actions and motives being kept secret. It is a difficult task to prevent the methods needed to protect freedoms from themselves destroying those freedoms .Which is what has made the case of Mohammed Haneef such a dangerous failure for John Howard - the actions taken and the words spoken have given the impression that the Coalition Government is incapable of getting the balance right. Trust has been lost by many people and they are not just a collection of mad lefties. When The Australian says in an editorial that "what appears to be craven political opportunism at Dr Haneef's misfortune should serve as a warning beacon for everyone" then ordinary people really should be worried.

There is a real danger that the bungling by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, the man who has contributed most to the growing mistrust of what government is doing in the name of protecting national security, really will endanger national security! Security services and federal police when next confronted with the possible existence in Australia of a terrorist cell - as they were when alerted to the possible connection of doctors in this country to bomb making doctors in Britain - should not have to hesitate while considering the public relations implications of action. To avoid any future embarrassment perhaps they will just detain any future suspect like Dr Haneef under the latest anti-terror laws under which, as The Australian observed, "it would have been a criminal offence for anyone to even mention his arrest."

To restore confidence in the underlying decency and fairness of the attempts to protect Australia from future terrorist acts, a forthright and honest admission of mistakes made is necessary. Neither the Federal Police Commissioner Keelty nor the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Damien Budd QC was in the mood last week for any groveling apology although Mr Budd has promised to now look at what went wrong in his office. Mr Andrews, meanwhile, continues to unconvincingly proclaim that he has done nothing wrong and would take the same action again.

He is the Minister, remember, who aided and abetted the Prime Minister in hiding the information that there would be losers from the changes to industrial law. Only after his removal did the Government feel moved to make the changes to the Work Places law designed to ensure some fairness for the low paid employees who Mr Andrews had maintained did not need any protection in order to be better off. Perhaps the only solution is for Mr Howard to once again change his Minister for Immigration to someone who people might believe is capable of telling the truth.

For in the absence of being able to look at the evidence for ourselves, we can only make a subjective judgment on the people saying "believe me". To me, Mr Andrews has a quite unappealing television presence which combined with his record at industrial relations suggests untrustworthiness. Dr Haneef, by contrast, had an appealing presence on 60 Minutes. He looked and sounded like a man telling the truth.

I have do doubt that Mr Andrews had political advantage in his mind when he played the clever card of revoking Dr Haneef's visa after a magistrate was prepared to set him free on bail. Politics is, after all, the game that politicians play and a majority of Australians may well have supported - and still support for that matter - taking a hard line when there is any doubt at all about a person's connection with terrorism. But what I am sure the Government pollsters are now finding is that it on this issue, as on most, it is not the majority that a political party has to worry about. Of relevance when it comes to winning elections is the minority that feels strongly enough about an issue to change how they vote because of it.

This Government looks as if it has wedged itself and the only solution to it is to do a complete mea culpa as Mr Andrews is sent to the back bench.

Labor's Comfortable Lead Continues

The new Galaxy poll out in this morning's Murdoch tabloids has the government doing a little better than shown by the latest polls from the national pollsters but Labor still has a comfortable lead.

The Owl's Election Indicator, measuring not voting intention like the polls but the probability of victory, has Labor as a 57% chance.

The Mouse and the Rat and Under Age Drinking

The home of Mickey Mouse has learned that rats just don't fit on wine labels. Over the last month Disney has seen its wholesome family image under attack by opponents of under age drinking. With Californian wine makers fermenting the discontent, the company has abandoned plans to sell a French chardonnay through the giant Costco retail chain to support the launch of a new cartoon feature film called Ratatouille.

The animated feature tells the story of a young rat named Remy, living within the walls of a famous Paris bistro, who wishes to become a chef, but is hindered by his family's skepticism and the rat-despising staff and patrons. The California Wine Institute, a San Francisco trade group representing 950 wineries, complained to Disney because the Ratatouille label, with Remy holding a rat-sized glass of wine, appeared to violate the spirit of the code of advertising standards that all institute members must follow. The code bans the use of any advertising that might appeal to people below the legal drinking age by using photos of very young models or cartoon characters.

Nancy Light, an institute spokeswoman, told the LA Times that as well as being in touch with Disney the Institute voiced its concerns with the attorneys general of various states That may explain why regulators at the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control said last week that they had opened an investigation into whether the Disney-Costco wine marketing program might have violated state liquor laws.

According to the LA Times report, Disney spokesman Gary Foster said. "We've been getting a trickle of inquiries and complaints." He accused the California Wine Institute of being relentless in trying to make this an issue because the wine chosen to carry the Ratatouille name was French. "But the entire movie," said Foster, "is based on a French restaurant and French food and wine."

Foster said Disney canceled the wine deal to avoid a possible Internet-fueled controversy about underage drinking. Costco agreed with the withdrawal of the product.

Not that the withdrawal of the wine with its cuddly Disney style rat on the label will do much to limit under age drinking. According to an interesting survey of the drinking habits of young Americans, wine hardly rates as a source of alcohol. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data Arkansas , Nebraska , New Mexico , and Wyoming and found wine was the least prevalent type of alcohol usually consumed in all four states, ranging from 1.6% in Arkansas and Wyoming to 3.1% in New Mexico . The authors of the CDC study suggested several factors might play a role in students choosing liquor more than other types of alcoholic beverages. First, high school students have a high prevalence of binge drinking, which can lead to acute intoxication; liquor might facilitate this outcome because of the higher ethanol concentration. Second, liquor can be combined with other beverages such as soft drinks, possibly making concealment easier and providing a flavor that is more acceptable to younger drinkers.

These same factors also might cause youths to unintentionally drink more alcohol and drink it in a shorter period, increasing the risk for alcohol-related effects (e.g., alcohol poisoning).