1.  That the unacceptable level of performance within DIMIA is due to system failure within that department.

In August 2001 a sinking boat and a rescue vessel called the ‘Tampa’ set off a chain of events which provided the Howard Government with an opportunity to turn the distress and desperation of several hundred refugees into a strategy for domestic political success.

The architects of that strategy were the people who made up the euphemistically named “People Smuggling Taskforce”.  One of those was Bill Farmer, the recently departed head of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA).

Since striking the paydirt of political advantage inherent in persecuting refugees, the Howard Government has mined that vein with ruthless efficiency.  Bill Farmer knew, and his department delivered, exactly what was expected of them by Howard, Ruddock and Vanstone.  But for the fact that the department blundered and erroneously applied its blowtorch to Australian citizens, it would be business as usual at DIMIA today.
2.  That Peter Qasim remained in detention for seven years because he failed to cooperate with DIMIA staff.

Senator Amanda Vanstone’s website sets out the ‘facts’ in support of Peter Qasim’s seven year detention in this country for committing the crime of wanting to live here.  The site claims that he failed to cooperate with DIMIA by refusing to be removed from the country; by failing to complete and sign an Indian travel document application; and by, over seven years, providing information which is inconsistent, contradictory or unable to be verified.

Shame on him for not providing verifiable information. 

Double shame on him for not wishing to return to the country where his father was murdered and he was tortured. 

Triple shame on him for providing inconsistent details over the course of seven years of detention which drove him to the point of psychiatric illness.

It is interesting that, immediately following a Liberal Party compromise to the threat of embarrassment over Petro Georgio’s private members’ bill, Michelle Grattan penned the following in The Age on 21 June 2005:

“Senator Vanstone, who had refused to offer Mr Qasim the visa on the grounds that he was not co-operating with Government inquiries into his identity, said yesterday that he had recently become more co-operative. But the Government still did not know his true identity, she said.”

So, Minister, if he is still providing unverifiable information, in what ways did he become more cooperative?

The answer is ‘none’.  Peter Qasim was detained because of this government’s inhumane attitude to refugees.  He was released because of political expediency.  His life and well-being amount to little more than a low value chip in the government’s poker game of power-retention.
3.  That the expenditure of taxpayer money on government advertising in favour of industrial relations reform is justifiable and in the national interest.

The Howard Government’s proposed IR reforms have not yet been put before, let alone accepted by, the Parliament of this country.  At this stage, the proposals amount to nothing more than a Liberal Party wish list.

That this government has commenced to spend taxpayer income advertising across the nation the wish list of one political party is abhorrent. 

How do they get away with it?  They get away with it because such expenditure is wholly administered by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications (MCGC). 

In his submission to the Senate Enquiry into Government Advertising, Professor Stephen Bartos of the National Institute for Governance said:

“The current arrangements for the management of government advertising are inconsistent with the Commonwealth government’s accountability framework … The MCGC itself is not accountable or responsible to anyone other than the executive government.”

So, the Prime Minister has at his disposal an unaccountable committee responsible for advertising.  That is how you and I end up paying for Liberal Party propaganda.
4.  That media ownership in Australia is unnecessarily confined by “red tape” and the restrictions should be removed.

What possible benefits may befall me in the event that Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch own every newspaper, television and radio station and magazine franchise in this country?  Who, other than the media barons, their favoured politicians and business buddies, does benefit from the removal of media ownership restrictions?

Mr Murdoch provided us all with a glimpse of what news and current affairs might look like in an Australian future when he decreed that the Fox network in the United States would become a cheer squad for Bush’s adventurism in Iraq.  Wasn’t that pretty! 

Jack Robertson, on the Sydney Morning Herald’s Webdiary site, argues that media ownership restrictions amount to a restriction of free speech, and that the left is therefore hypocritical to argue for their retention.  Whilst Jack’s argument is theoretically valid, the practical application of free media ownership laws terrifies me.  We’ve seen the respect the big end of town displays for free speech in the writ applied by Gunns Ltd to restrict lawful protest and criticism.  Imagine Gunns’ intent to stifle dissent magnified by media comment and government legislative support.

We’ve seen at point 3 above how the Liberal Party is spreading propaganda via a government committee.  Imagine their reach with their own media empire at their disposal.

What might be the effect upon free speech when Rupert and Kerry, in an unrestricted media environment, start buying up Internet Service Providers and influencing internet commentary?

Democracy in this country is in decline as government seeks to promote spin and stifle dissent.  Unrestricted media ownership laws can only promote that decline.

Rosinante Quixote  is, as the name implies, a faithful old hack.  As the horse was to Don Quixote, the author would like to be to this island.  Rosinante could be Eeyore, but for the small, but hardy, vein of hope which dwells within.