THE Defence Minister, Robert Hill, says we should all recognise the trauma suffered by Douglas Woods and wish him well in his recovery.

Senator Hill, speaking presumably on behalf of the Government, seeks no compensation for the rescue mission mounted on Mr Woods’ behalf, wishes him well and takes no issue with Woods’ intentions to profit from his ordeal.

Senator Hill says that the expensive rescue mission was part of the Government’s responsibility to do everything possible to rescue a kidnapped Australian. “Most of the time to be blindfolded, not to know if on any particular day you were to be shot …  it would be a horrible experience and I hope that he lives happily ever after and if that involves writing a book or making a film, and he gets financial benefit from that then from my perspective, good luck to him.”

Of course, in another part of the world, another Australian citizen remains imprisoned against his will.  Unlike Woods, David Hicks’ captors are known to the Australian Government.

Unlike Woods, there will be no expensive rescue mission for David Hicks.  Unlike Woods, Robert Hill will never utter the words quoted above in relation to David Hicks.  And, unlike Woods, David Hicks has endured his own ‘horrible experience’ for, not two, but for more than forty months.

The question which ought to arise out of all of this is not so much, “What is the difference?”, but, “Why is there a difference?” 

How can we all be so certain that Douglas Woods is a person so deserving of the “fair go” which we all used to honour so much, and yet David Hicks is not?  We are permitted to know so little, and that which we are permitted to know is carefully managed.

Perhaps I’ve been naïve in suggesting that the “Wood good: Hicks sick” labels applied to their respective misadventures are based on objective assessment of the relative merits of each case.  Could it be that we arrive at that dichotomy simply because Douglas Wood was operating within the pervading ideology of the “Coalition of the Willing” whereas Hicks had demonstrated his opposition to it?

Could it be that Douglas Woods is a greedy capitalist who was driven by a desire to line his own pockets?  Could it be that David Hicks was a misguided idealist who was driven by a vision of a less corrupt world?

At least one of them looks like getting what he desired.  In Robert Hill’s words, “Good luck to him.”

Happily ever after indeed.

Rosinante Quixote is, as his adopted name suggests, a plodding, faithful old hack.  There’s a touch of Eyeore about Rosinante.  He lives on an island, and is indirectly employed by the emperor, who is very nervous about any of his staff making public comment, let alone asking difficult questions.