The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Reform to put black jobs at risk
Tony Koch
February 14, 2005/the AUSTRALIAN

TENS of thousands of Aborigines could lose their government-subsidised work-for-the-dole jobs under a radical overhaul of the $550million indigenous employment program.

Under the changes, the federal Government would no longer subsidise jobs under the Community Development Employment Projects scheme for indigenous workers who carry out essential services such as garbage collection and road maintenance.

The Government wants to shift these costs to state and local governments, which would be forced to find tens of millions of dollars to fund indigenous community councils to provide the services the current system supports.

A confidential discussion paper prepared by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations - and obtained by The Australian - says municipal services that are the responsibility of state or local governments, such as electricity, garbage pick-up, water, sewerage and education, would not be funded except where the services were contracted "at full commercial rates".

But Aboriginal community leaders say paying market rates for such services would take away the part-time jobs of thousands of Aboriginal people, who will be paid to search for jobs that do not exist, returning them to a system of "sit down" money.

It is understood indigenous people would have to meet the same work search requirements as non-indigenous dole recipients, with the Government considering some exemptions for those living in remote communities.

The document says the proposed changes are necessary to conform with national competition policy "to protect existing businesses".

This means local councils, which currently do this work under the indigenous-specific CDEP, will no longer be able to have the work done, because they will not have access to a subsidised labour force.

Officers from the department will travel throughout Australia for four days from February 22 explaining the changes, with just two hours at each centre.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Amanda Vanstone said the Government was committed to reforming CDEP to improve outcomes for indigenous Australians. "The shape of the reforms was discussed last week at the ministerial taskforce meeting. The discussion paper is now being finalised and will be distributed widely for comment in the next few weeks."

Employment Minister Kevin Andrews said remote communities often depended on CDEP for essential services usually provided by state, territory and local governments. "It is proposed that the Australian Government will work with other levels of government to find the best way to fund and deliver these services effectively."

The scheme operates in 1100 indigenous communities throughout Australia. Introduced in 1977, it is now the biggest single employer of indigenous Australians, covering 56,000 workers. Although mainly in remote communities, CDEP programs also exist for unemployed indigenous people in large urban centres, including capital cities.

The consequences of the changes can be gauged by the example of the tiny Mapoon Aboriginal Community on Queensland's Cape York, where the population of 300 includes 80 men and women working under the scheme.

Under the new rules, the Mapoon Council would face a funding shortfall of $666,344 - the amount required to pay workers at commercial rates.

Like all indigenous communities, Mapoon council cannot charge rates because nobody owns land or homes.

Mapoon chairman Peter Guivarra said yesterday that adoption of the new system would mean state and territory governments would have to inject tens of millions of dollars into remote townships and communities to ensure basic services were delivered.

"We have 80 people on CDEP, and if the work they do is to be performed by full-time workers or contract gangs, there will really be work for only 25 or 30 people," he said.

"That means 50 would have to go to Centrelink and get Jobstart or unemployment benefit to exist. There are no jobs in places like this."

Reconciliation Australia co-chair Fred Chaney said there had been longstanding concern that CDEP was not leading to real employment. "But if it's removed, there's no question there will be a need for subsidised programs," he said.

"If you are going to remove it before any substitute programs are introduced, it will lead to a breakdown in services and in communities."

Actually know something about this!

It's a bit of a beat up. It's in prep for a departmental announcement on the future of the CDEP. It's very hush hush so I don't know what the changes will be (we all find out next week). But the Australian has run a story a day all this week to raise interest.

CDEP is a DEWR program to give indigenous people work skills and make them more employable. The program was inherited from ATSIC where there was little attempt to get value for money and the communities expected the money as an entitlement (many questionable accounting practices went on).

Now DEWR wants to treat the delivery of CDEP the same way job network works, ie other bodies deliver their services to the clients (unemployed workers) and they are contract-managed to do so. If you screw up you lose the contract. In urban areas CDEP will probably fold and indigenous unemployed will be mainstreamed, ie treated the same as everyone else.

In rural communities it should survive but only if the community councils administer it to achieve the outcomes laid out by the DEWR contract. Principally that is to give indigenous Australians the skills to get unsubsidised jobs. It's a furphy that there are no jobs, the best and brightest do get them - most of the council anger is because they don't want to lose the best and brightest from community work, but that's entirely the point of CDEP. Just like job network the real challenge is getting people who aren't considered very employable, more employable, build up confidence and skills.

The real problem is that CDEP just isn't managed well in some communities and some councils resent having to report and manage their programs better. DEWR's challenge is to give them the skills to manage their CDEP projects better and get them to work for their communities as a whole not just where their vested interests lie. Community councils are notoriously political and various factions come and go.

I know a few ex-ATSIC people. They may not be convinced by the government's approach but by their reckoning what ATSIC was doing in the past hadn't really improved the lot of indigenous Australians in rural areas, so why not try this new tack? Maybe it will improve something.

The downside is if a community loses a CDEP contract and there is no other organisation bidding to provide the same service - then that particular project/programmes cease to exist. However the conditions required for it's cessation mean it should probably cease - ie it is not meeting it outcomes.


Damn that was a waffle but I've talked to a lot of people in this area (and quite a few of them do get out to the communities in the Cape) so I thought I'd share what I've gleaned.

Thanks for that, hinge. Always interesting to get an "insider" perspective. It'll be interesting to see how the scheme develops.

Today's AGE editorial:

Refusing to say sorry, or admit error, wears thin
February 16, 2005/the AGE


Labor can build on a recent recovery in the polls by leading the fight to call the Howard Government to account.

The latest AgePoll suggests the Coalition's electoral dominance does not guarantee plain sailing in its fourth term of office. The poll findings have a bearing on the nagging issue of the Government's lack of accountability. Australians are rightly disappointed by its handling of the case of Cornelia Rau, who was wrongfully locked up in an immigration detention centre. Seven out of 10 poll respondents said the Government should apologise. Prime Minister John Howard's excuse, that he is waiting for a report, does not wash. No explanation could justify Ms Rau's treatment. Even Treasurer Peter Costello offered a carefully phrased alternative to the Prime Minister's customary refusal to say sorry (and a foretaste of less subtle challenges should the anticipated leadership succession not eventuate).

Attitudes to mandatory detention of asylum seekers are evenly divided - 44 per cent think the system is "about right", 42 per cent think it too harsh. This issue, though, is linked to an important development in accountable government, with Coalition backbenchers speaking out against an inhumane and indefensible system. (Regrettably, Coalition members are also pursuing diversions such as abortion laws, although most Australians, 56 per cent in the AgePoll, think the status quo is "about right". Only 17 per cent want abortion to be less accessible.) Until now, the Howard Government has been marked by rigid and blinkered discipline. The poverty of debate after the invasion of Iraq, for instance, is in stark contrast to expectations of the British Government, which has been obliged to be far more frank with the public. Perhaps sustained Government stonewalling has helped persuade 47 per cent of AgePoll respondents, and 22 per cent of Coalition voters, that its Senate majority after July 1 is a "bad outcome for Australia".

This week's Senate committee hearings have elicited statements by various officials that, along with former Iraq Survey Group member Rod Barton's claims about WMD inquiries and prisoner interrogations, suggest ministers have repeatedly misled Australians. To give one example, ASIO director-general Dennis Richardson yesterday said ASIO formed a view in November 2001 that Australian detainee Mamdouh Habib most likely was in Egypt. "We established to our satisfaction that he definitely was there in February 2002." The Government has simply claimed not to know whether he was in Egypt and scoffed at claims of torture. Mr Habib was moved from Egypt to the US, which could have confirmed this. We are also meant to believe the Bush Administration did not bother explaining his release without charge after three years in detention. Mr Ruddock's statement to Parliament that "the reason that the United States decided not to proceed with any prosecution before a military commission is not known to me" is hopelessly inadequate. The Government must not be allowed to shrug off issues that go to the heart of its attitude to the rights of Australians and, more broadly, to universal human rights. The Senate, in particular, must pursue such issues while it still has its full powers to do so.

I may sound a little patronising but must say what I think ( New Year Resolution). I'm concerned Aboriginals will suffer inordinately if subject to the mutual obligation requirements of the rest of the community. I think there are many without sufficient skills or support to comply. Already there is concern about the effect of Centrelink policies on the least employable and most vulnerable, of our unemployed community. The group includes recovering addicts, mentally ill and very low skilled people. It seems we will soon be including aboriginals.

(Excellent New Year's resolution, gozmo! )

I must say, I tend to agree with you. Centrelink is hardly equipped to assist folk requiring such specialized help to gain employment. I honestly don't know what the "answer" is for unemployed aborigines, but being subjected to the Centrelink treadmill can be an extremely demoralizing experience & I'm wondering if this could actually make things worse.

Hello msolga,

I'm not getting a lot update emails but I check in here regularly to look at the cartoons and keep abreast, thanks for keeping it going. There have been Radio National discussions in the last few days about these matters and the hardship out there is a worry. I expect the broadcasts are still available at ABC Net if you are interested.

Thank you, gozmo.
I'll check that out.
It's nice to see you again, too. I thought the post-election gloom might have turned you off Oz politics indefinitely. :wink:

The beauty of what Centrelink is doing as far as mutual obligation goes is that they have painted themselves into a corner - they may not be equipped to help but they will have to get up to speed - mutual obligation is a two way street.

Most Centrelink money goes into the most unemployable. Agencies get big bonuses for getting the long term unemployed into jobs. Anecdotally I've heard of them funding dental work for a woman who wanted to be receptionist but who's teeth were so bad that no company would employ her as their 'face' in the front office.

It worked, she got a job. Government and agency and person happy.

It's also wrong to think that indigenous people have never been on the centrelink treadmill - boy have they.

The CDEP is something a little different. Community Councils take advantage of it to the detriment of the workers they use.

Eg they get a grant to fix a road. The grant will pay for a white Australian contract company to do the work (obviously, that's how you cost a grant). Council gets the money, employs a white foreman but gets him a team of indigenes to do the work. They get paid way lower than a private company would pay it's workers. OH&S often ignored, work skills training not considered, no employee development.

But the council gets the job done for a fraction of the grant - the rest of the grant is then used for other things which may or may not be moral or legal, but they certainly aren't what the grant was intended for.

DEWR's problem is they have high contract management standards for Centrelink agencies, but the community councils are not run like those agencies - they're democracies for a start, factions come and go. There is no history of governance. ATSIC used to bend to accomadate them. DEWR's bar is way over their heads - they have to meet each other somewhere in the middle.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Both camps will need to change their thinking.

I assumed from comments in the media that Aborigines and Islanders were subject to other than the usual mutual obligation criteria. I perused Centrelink web site, after reading hinge's contribution, and found I was wrong. I wonder how prevalent penalties are in that community?

The circumstances outlined by hh certainly support changes to CDEP arrangements.

I believe MO is sound in principle but concerned the less competent are too readily exposed to severe penalty.

... And now for some silly diversionary stuff.
You've gotta laugh. <snort>
Couldn't happen to a nicer person! :wink: (Mr R, I mean...) You have to wonder why he didn't want Mr Lati at his Christmas party ... but maybe expelling him from Oz to avoid this was taking things a wee bit too far?

Ruddock denies daughter-spy claim
February 18, 2005 - 4:14PM/the AGE

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today denied his daughter's friendship with an Israeli diplomat led to his expulsion from Australia.

The denial came as another Israeli diplomat, allegedly involved in a sex scandal in Brazil five years ago, voluntarily withdrew his candidacy to serve in Canberra.

Expelled Israeli senior consul Amir Laty has told Israeli media that he believes his expulsion is linked to his contact with Caitlin Ruddock, the attorney-general's 26-year-old daughter who lectures at the University of NSW.

Mr Laty met Ms Ruddock six years ago when the two were studying in Beijing and they renewed their friendship when Mr Laty was posted to Canberra in late 2003, the Australian Jewish News reported.

It has not been publicly explained why Mr Laty was expelled from his position but it is understood ASIO believed he had been involved in spying.

Mr Ruddock, the key minister in charge of Australia's intelligence agencies, said any relationship his daughter may have had with Mr Laty was not relevant to him leaving.

"I don't believe that it is appropriate to look at whether my daughter had relationships with anybody," Mr Ruddock told Brisbane radio 4BC.

"Any acquaintance she may or may not have had with this particular gentleman was totally irrelevant to his departure from Australia, and his departure is not something we're commenting on."

Mr Ruddock also declined to comment on reports Mr Laty was due to have Christmas dinner at the minister's Sydney house just three days before his expulsion.

"This is an adult daughter, 26, who doesn't live at home, and I'm not commenting on matters relating to her acquaintances," Mr Ruddock said.

"It's totally irrelevant and I think she's entitled to some privacy."

Greens senator Bob Brown today called on Prime Minister John Howard to explain the background to Mr Laty's expulsion.

"There is enough concern about the stories that have emerged with Mr Ruddock for there to be a full public explanation from the prime minister," Senator Brown said.

But Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said he had been confidentially briefed on the situation and was satisfied with what the government had to say.

Mr Beazley said it was up to the government if they wanted to release any details.

Mr Laty reportedly had a reputation for pursuing women in influential places.

He was to be replaced in the Israeli embassy in Canberra by Aryeh Scher, previously censured by Israel's Foreign Ministry for behaviour unbecoming of a diplomat while in Brazil five years ago.

An Israeli foreign ministry spokesman said Scher had announced that because of the negative "atmosphere" his appointment had created both in Israel and Australia, he has decided to forego the appointment, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Mr Ruddock also refused to comment on Mr Scher.

"I'm not the foreign minister, but in any event appointments are made by foreign governments and unless people are persona non grata and are declined recognition, the decisions are up to their governments," Mr Ruddock said.

- AAP

For example:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=44384&highlight=

or

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45094&highlight=

~

Today's AGE editorial <sigh>:

Acts of arrogance speak louder than talk of humility
February 19, 2005/yhe AGE

In a defining moment, the Prime Minister, who once railed against Paul Keating's contempt for question time, refused to answer question after question.

John Howard knows arrogance can bring down governments. The Prime Minister came to power on the back of public feeling that the Keating government had grown arrogant and contemptuous after nearly a decade of Labor rule. On being elected to a fourth term on October 9, Mr Howard began his acceptance speech by saying he was "truly humbled". His conclusion re-emphasised his "sense of gratitude and humility" in thanking Australians "for the enormous trust you have placed in us". Despite the election result, trust has long been an issue for the Howard Government, an issue revived by several revelations in recent weeks. The arrogance of its responses to these revelations is disturbingly at odds with Mr Howard's election-night pledge, "I serve the Australian people".

There was a defining moment in Parliament this week when the Prime Minister, who once railed against Paul Keating's contempt for question time, refused to answer question after question, nine in all, put to him by the Labor Opposition. He had promised a response on the subject of the first four questions, the extent of Government knowledge of the abuse of prisoners in Iraq last year. Mr Howard referred these to Defence Minister Robert Hill. To the next five questions, on the regional partnerships program-cum-election slush fund, he said he would report back later. Perhaps, tactically, it made sense to let Senator Hill mount a hair-splitting defence of his statement to Parliament last June, when he said Defence had thoroughly reviewed all information, that no Australians had interrogated prisoners and that the Government knew nothing of prisoner abuse until it saw the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib prison. Mr Howard had made similar claims in public, but left it to his minister to throw up a heavy cloud of bulldust as he danced around distinctions between interrogation and interview. This also served to distract from the issue of political interference in the fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction.

A US leader of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, has backed the view of Australian ISG member Rod Barton that they, and up to seven other Australians, were engaged in interrogations. More importantly, two Australians reported suspicions of prisoner abuse before any photographs came to light. One case was secretly referred to the US ambassador. Senator Hill has refused to give details of the second, citing "sensitivities".

What we do know is that Australians were not implicated in abuse and, in at least two cases, acted honorably in reporting their suspicions, but the Government, in the lead-up to the election, was desperate to avoid any Australian association with the one aspect of the Iraq war that caused universal revulsion. Now it is acting more like a smart lawyer exploiting a technicality than a government that accepts it must be accountable for what it tells, and omits to tell, the public and what it does in the name of Australians.

A similar lack of accountability is evident in the refusal to hold an open inquiry into the wrongful detention of Cornelia Rau. We see it, too, in the failure to explain why Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib was released without charge after three years in detention. There is true arrogance in the insistence that the public should still simply accept Government assertions without proper explanation or evidence.

Arrogance is also at work in a government that dispenses largesse, but dispenses with eligibility criteria, under a $308 million regional partnerships program. Senate committee hearings have exposed a cavalier attitude to directing public money to marginal electorates for political benefit. The sports rorts affair, involving a $30 million fund, forced the resignation of Labor minister Ros Kelly 11 years ago; these days, as the Tumbi Creek project shows, ministers delegate responsibility and blame to their underlings. Even the Prime Minister backs the breaching of guidelines, against expert advice, in pouring public money into a previously rejected ethanol plant in Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson's electorate or, worse, into the insolvent Beaudesert rail line.

After Mr Howard's performance, Labor's foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, warned of "the death of Westminster ... We do not have a Prime Minister in this Parliament any more. What we have is someone who increasingly resembles Louis XIV." There is an element of truth to this hyperbole. Arrogant and contemptuous of questions, acting as if it were entitled to govern rather than elected, this Government is at risk of succumbing, as its predecessor did, to the corrupting effects of a decade in power.

~

David Kay's words are chilling:

"Kay warns US to tread warily in actions with Iran
PRINT FRIENDLY
EMAIL STORY
The World Today - Friday, 11 February , 2005 12:32:30
Reporter: Karen Percy
ELEANOR HALL: The other country the Americans are worried about when it comes to nuclear capabilities is Iran, and this week a former senior weapons inspector from the US warned the Bush administration to tread warily in its actions against Iran.

David Kay led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It's since been determined that there are no WMDs in that country, and Mr Kay is now warning the world not to make the same mistake with Iran.

David Kay is no longer with the US Government. He is now writing a book on intelligence and he's been talking to our reporter, Karen Percy.

KAREN PERCY: David Kay, why are you concerned about what you're hearing in Washington when it comes to Iran and nuclear weapons?

DAVID KAY: Well many of the things you're hearing here, that is dire descriptions of what an Iranian nuclear weapon would mean for the world; an announcement of nuclear programs and facilities that seem to be based solely on information given by Iranian dissident groups; denigration of the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency, are hauntingly familiar as what happened in the case of Iraq.

And I guess since I'm intimately familiar with what Iraq didn't have after similar warnings and so-called intelligence, I think it's urgent that we take steps to avoid making the same mistakes again.

KAREN PERCY: Well you were one of the leaders when it comes to the Iraq weapons of mass destruction operation, I guess. How is it that you got it so wrong? That intelligence got it so wrong? That the administration got it so wrong?

DAVID KAY: Well I think it's not only the American intelligence and the American administration got it so wrong. Because of the job I was given, I was privy to the intelligence services of a number of countries.

I think they got it wrong because they relied not on human intelligence inside the country but they relied on dissident groups coming out and they accepted without trying to verify it the information they gave. And the dissident groups were most interested in replacing Saddam, something I certainly understand, but they really used WMD as a crowbar to pry the US and other governments into a position of taking action.

KAREN PERCY: Iran's President Mohammad Khatami has said that Iran won't abandon its nuclear program. He also said, though, that the country isn't developing nuclear weapons. Do you believe that?

DAVID KAY: Well, look, what I do believe is what the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported, that is that there is an 18-year record in which they've engaged in clandestine nuclear activities and they haven't reported.

What that really means, that is, whether they have taken the final fateful steps towards developing nuclear weapons, I just don't think we have the evidence of today.

So I think the first strategy that needs to be pursued is to see if we can find some set of incentives as well as possible penalties that would influence the Iranian Government.

KAREN PERCY: But this week we've had Hassan Rowhani, the nuclear negotiator, in Iran saying that he didn't think there was anything the West could offer Iran that would tempt it to give up what it is doing on the atomic nuclear front.

DAVID KAY: That's what you expect from a negotiator. What sort of negotiator would he be if he came out and gave up without deciding what would be on offer?

KAREN PERCY: The Bush administration has made it very clear it wants the international community to join in any action against Iran or other countries, and that might well include Australia, given this country's role in Iraq. What advice would you have for Australia's leaders?

DAVID KAY: To be sure your intelligence is correct. I cannot think of a greater disaster for the West than to launch military action in the case of Iran and find out that they hadn't yet made the decision to go ahead.

It would … Iraq would pale in terms of the consequences that would flow from that, because there's no doubt Iran has missiles capable of spanning the Middle East and reaching into the edges of Europe, and it certainly has chemical weapons, as well as high explosive weapons, so even leaving the nuclear side, there could be tremendous damage.

So I think we ought to be certain of it. Iran with nuclear weapons would be a dangerous development, and so if you want to try it… is the problem is you tend to skew the intelligence because that's all that holds the coalition together.

I doubt if in Australia, and certainly not in Western Europe, you'll find many governments willing to sign onto going to war in Iran to bring democracy to Iran.

ELEANOR HALL: Former chief weapons inspector for the United States, David Kay, speaking to Karen Percy."

And here:

"Interrogations row deepens
By Patrick Walters
18feb05

FORMER head of the Iraq Survey Group David Kay said last night he was "almost positive" Australians were involved in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners, challenging the Howard Government's stance that no Australian personnel were involved.

Mr Kay was also dismissive of Canberra's line that a distinction could be drawn between "interviews" and "interrogations" when it came to questioning high-value Iraqi prisoners.

"I am almost positive that there were times that they were engaged in areas where interrogations might have been going on," Mr Kay told the ABC's Lateline program.

Retired intelligence officer and weapons of mass destruction expert Rob Barton said earlier this week he had personally taken part in an "interrogation" of a shackled high-ranking Iraqi prisoner at Camp Cropper last year while he was working for the Iraq Survey Group.

Defence Minister Robert Hill has staunchly maintained that no Australians were involved in interrogation of Iraqi prisoners, but were present for some "interviews".



Labor has accused the Government of a cover-up in refusing to detail the involvement of Australians in Iraqi prisoner interrogations.

"Senator Hill was not upfront with the Australian public upon his department being made aware of concerns about interrogations by Australians at Camp Cropper," Labor defence spokesman Robert McClelland said.

"On Monday, 4 June, 2004, a record of Mr Barton's concerns was provided to Senator Hill and two days later Senator Hill rose in parliament and spoke as if Mr Barton's claims did not even exist.

"We now know that at least seven other Australians were contracted to conduct interviews of Iraqi detainees, just like Mr Barton.""

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12288930%255E421,00.html


Next - news of Australian personnel involved in torture?

And:

"Howard stands by his minister
PRINT FRIENDLY
EMAIL STORY
PM - Thursday, 17 February , 2005 18:10:00
Reporter: Alexandra KIrk
MARK COLVIN: After two days out of the fray, the Prime Minister launched into the intelligence wars today.

Until now, he's skirted the prisoner abuse and interrogation issues raised by former weapons inspector Rod Barton and flicked all questions to the Defence Minister.

Today Mr Howard tackled Labor's allegations head on.

Labor has been targeting Defence Minister Robert Hill over his claim that no Australians interrogated Iraqi prisoners.

Senator Hill maintains that Australians interviewed but never interrogated prisoners and the Prime Minister today backed his minister, accusing Labor of "nit picking".

But tonight Mr Barton's claims received some support from a new quarter.

The American weapons inspector David Kay, who headed the Iraqi Survey Group has told the ABC's Lateline program that he's almost positive that Australians were engaged in the interrogation process.

Alexandra Kirk reports from Canberra.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Until today, Labor had failed in its repeated attempts to draw the Prime Minister into the row over what Australians knew about the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq.

Labor's accused the Government of a cover-up, but John Howard has sidestepped Labor's questions, leaving his Defence Minister to answer the criticisms.

It's emerged Rod Barton, a former intelligence officer and member of the Iraqi Survey Group, repeatedly told senior defence officials, between March and June last year, that he'd interviewed prisoners in Iraq and relayed concerns about possible abuse of detainees, recommending and end to Australia's involvement.

LABOR MP: Prime Minister, on what basis, therefore do you stand by the credibility of your Defence Minister when he told the Senate on June 16 last year, that his statement to the Senate, omitting those crucial details was, quote, "the most complete picture Defence can provide on its knowledge to date, of this issue.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Prime Minister was ready to answer this time, standing by the Defence Minister and dismissing Labor's questioning as "nitpicking".

JOHN HOWARD: And frankly I think there are a growing number of Australians who are sick and tired of this endeavour to spear people who are trying to do an honest job on behalf of this country, Mr Speaker. They're getting sick and tired of it, Mr Speaker.

KIM BEAZLEY: Does the Prime Minister accept that obtaining information, even from a willing individual, falls within the militaries own definition of interrogate, which is, and I quote: "The systematic extraction of information from an individual either willing or unwilling."

Why then on the 28th of May last year, when discussing Iraq on the Neil Mitchell program, did the Prime Minister State, "We weren't involved in any interrogations."

Isn't this another example of the Government's distortion of the meaning of words?

ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Prime Minister was keen to put an end to the argument that's raged for days now, about whether Australians in Iraq interrogated or interviewed prisoners, saying there's a distinct difference between the terms interview and interrogation, in military parlance.

JOHN HOWARD: And I've also followed, the comments of Mr Neil James, the Head of the Australian Defence Association, a former Intelligence Officer and a Lieutenant Colonel in the Australian Army, and I quote from what he said last night on the PM program, "So what he [namely Mr Barton] was in effect doing, was that he was questioning someone inside a facility that was used for detailed interrogation, but his questioning of that subject was by no means an interrogation."

The reality is that there is, within the military, a clear understanding of this distinction. It comes out in the manual, and Mr Speaker, I do stand by my minister, and I think he's been unfairly and wrongly and quite disgracefully criticised by the Opposition on this issue.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: But Labor is siding with Rod Barton, and his firsthand experience of a prisoner being brought to him in an orange jumpsuit and a guard with a gun standing behind him, that Mr Barton believed that constituted an interrogation and he said that was the view too of Iraqis and Americans.

JOHN HOWARD: At no stage have I accused Mr Barton of being a liar. No, I have not, I do not accuse Mr Barton of being a liar. People can hold strong views about circumstances which are different from each other.

While the Government maintains Australians were not involved in and did not witness any interrogations, David Kay, the man the America sent to Iraq to head the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, has told ABC's Lateline program tonight he believes Australians would have been involved in interrogations.

DAVID KAY: Can I personally remember the date and occasion, no, but I'm almost positive that there were times that they were engaged in areas where there might have been interrogations going on.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some that were in the room while interrogations were carried out as analysts, it was quite often the occasion.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Rod Barton's former boss says he doesn't see the Government's distinction between an interview or interrogation.

DAVID KAY: Look, it's not a distinction I make, I assume that anyone and operated under ground rules that anyone that was in a room with a prisoner was engaged in interrogation. You weren't playing bridge, and so you had to play by the rules that were established for interrogation.

So I actually, if I was talking to someone, would've said, "I've had an interview, I've had a discussion." I didn't often use the word interrogation, but that's what it was.

MARK COLVIN: David Kay, the American weapons inspector who headed the Iraq Survey Group for the Bush administration. He was talking there to Lateline, and you can see that interview on tonight's edition of Lateline on ABC Television."

Do you like this, Deb?

For Mr Hill's information (according to an AGE letter writer today), the difference between the two is this:

When it's conducted by Ray Martin it's an interview, but when it's Kerry O'Brien it's interrogation.

That's the only thing that's given me a laugh during this whole dismal fiasco.

Hang on a minute: he's going to do it! He's taking the plunge!

No, maybe not! False alalarm!


But he's TRYING to?


"Ssssssssssss ..... Sorrrr ..... ssss ....."


So will he or won't he? Hmmmmmmmmmmm .....





It really does appear to be the hardest word to say, for our Prime Minister, anyway.

Good evening. I'm amazed (and pleased) that this thread keeps on going months after the election. I've kind of moved on. After the US thing, I'm now watching Europe. But I do check in here.
"Mr Laty reportedly had a reputation for pursuing women in influential politics." Hmmn. I'm not sure that that line in a story would play well here in the US.
My political leanings should be obvious to anyone who knows me, but, there is something about David Kay that troubles me. johnboy in VA