Monday 8th March 1999


This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the National Library of Australia

Subscriber's password check (have your subscription number handy)
Subscribers get free access to the monthly "The Strategy" on-line from April 1998.

Current topical links (available to all readers):
[Links to the MAI]
[One Nation on-line DISCUSSION forum] [One Nation Web Site]
HAVE YOU ORDERED:
[MURDER BY MEDIA, DEATH OF DEMOCRACY IN AUSTRALIA]

from an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's first daily Internet newspaper.
Since October 1995

Rebel MPs want more

The five One Nation Queensland state MPs who left the party because of  allegations of a "lack of democracy" are now each asking for an additional Au$140,000 in support by way of staff etc....

They should take a reality check and realise that the party that they once stood for is against special perks for MPs and their case as independents - is very weak indeed.

State Premier Peter Beattie said in response to their submissions yesterday, "There is no precedent in Australia for a person elected to one party who becomes an Independent ending up with more resources."

Well said.

Liar Paff no laughing matter in joke party

Here is an extract from that article:

Not satisfied with leaving it there, Mr Feldman claimed the whole affair provided further proof of a conspiracy between the CJC and The Courier-Mail. Given that the newspaper has been locked in a protracted legal battle with the CJC for much of the commission's existence and that it was The Courier-Mail which, more than any other organisation in this state, which brought to light the truth of the Heiner affair and the abuse of of children, Mr Feldman's allegation displays as much correlation to reality as did those of Mr Paff.

ALLEGATIONS THAT UQ "ATTRACTS" OVERSEAS STUDENTS THROUGH UNFAIR MARKING SYSTEM

Revolutionary Method of Re-assessment developed by The University of Queensland, destined to have ramifications around the world.

All enquires re this email PRESS RELEASE should be directed to the Chief Executive Officer of the University of Queensland,

Mr Douglas Porter

Secretary and Registrar +61 7 3365 1310 (Telephone)
The University of Queensland +61 7 3365 2680 (Facsimile)
Queensland, Australia, 4072 d.porter@mailbox.uq.edu.au

This method of re-assessment is now firmly entrenched at The University of Queensland (UQ) having been wholeheartedly accepted and endorsed on 2 March 1999, in a brave act after extensive deliberation, by the Executive Dean of the major faculty of UQ, the Faculty of Engineering, Physical Science and Architecture, (EPSA), Prof Andrew M Lister (exec.dean@epsa.uq.edu.au). The University of Queensland, is a world class university, being one of the top two or three Universities in Australia.

THE METHOD
In his undated (but received by the Head of Department, Mathematics, Professor John A Eccleston (jae@maths.uq.edu.au) on 1 February 1999) re-assessment of a subject offered in the Department of Mathematics at The University of Queensland, Semester 2, 1998, Prof Kevin Burrage (kb@maths.uq.edu.au) explained his newly devised method of reassessment as, "Assigning 1 mark for a good answer, 1/2 mark for an adequate answer and 0 marks for a poor answer and expressing the mark AS A PERCENTAGE OUT OF THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ATTEMPTED GIVES THE FOLLOWING RESULTS; ....." (emphasis added).

THE DEVELOPER; THE PEDIGREE OF THE METHOD.
Prof Kevin Burrage (kb@maths.uq.edu.au), an eminent mathematician in the Maths Dept (MD) of The University of Queensland (UQ) is solely responsible for devising this inventive process. He is Director of CIAMP (Centre for Industrial Mathematics and Parallel Computing) and ACMC (Advanced Computational Modelling Centre), with major funding and support by Queensland's Department of Primary Production (DPI) (callweb@dpi.qld.gov.au), Queensland Treasury (alex.fulton@treasury.qld.gov.au), Queensland's Department of Natural Resources (Environment&Natural@ministerial.qld.gov.au) and the State Labor Government

THE IMPACT IN OPERATION
This is a judicial decision on appeal and has the force of imperative precedent as ratio descendendi of the decision of Prof Lister (exec.dean@epsa.uq.edu.au). It is now the law and applies to all subjects previously completed and especially in Semester 2, 1998 in any department within the faculty of EPSA, and to all subjects completed in the future in a department within EPSA Faculty. It is the standard imperative method of reassessment in EPSA and a strongly persuasive method for all other Faculties at UQ, until it has been accepted at the executive dean level in each of those other faculties at which time it becomes of imperative force respectively in all departments within each of those other faculties in turn. Because of its pedigree of development and the Government support (DPI@ministerial.qld.gov.au) it has received, it is solidly established. It a triumph for the egalitarian goals of Labor and mediocrity. The competitive advantage it gives UQ in attracting full-fee paying overseas students, means that it will need to be invoked at all other Australian Universities. This development should meet with the approval of the Minister for Education, Training, and Youth Affairs of the Australian Government, the Hon. Dr David Kemp, MP (D.Kemp.MP@aph.gov.au) who is eager to encourage Australian Universities to attract more full-fee paying overseas students.

The novel aspect of this revolutionary method is that it in no way relates to the number of questions set in the examination process, but rather just to the number of questions the student chose to attempt. If a student is unsure re the solution to a specific question, that student should not risk a less than perfect answer, provided the student answers at least one question. In fact, the greater the number of questions answered, the greater the risk that an error may creep into the solutions, so the number of questions attempted should be strictly regulated. The frequency of 100% being awarded is likely to increase dramatically.

ONE ASIAN FULL-FEE PAYING OVERSEAS STUDENT VERY HAPPY.
By inventing and adopting this method, Prof Kevin Burrage (kb@maths.uq.edu.au) was able to legitimately and validly justify a grade of 7 for an Asian FULL-FEE PAYING student with a score of 22.5 but only a grade of 4 or 5 for an Australian student who, by kb's scoring, scored 22. This method of re- assessment should improve the attractiveness to overseas FULL- FEE PAYING STUDENTS of GAINING DEGREES FROM UQ.

DECISION AT MATHS DEPARTMENT LEVEL.
On 10 February 1999, after thorough consideration, the HoD, Professor John A Eccleston (jae@maths.uq.edu.au) accepted and endorsed the report and recommendations of Prof Kevin Burrage (kb@maths.uq.edu.au) including the revolutionary method of reassessment and the particular grades for those students.

THE DECISION AT THE FACULTY LEVEL; THE CALIBRE OF THE DECISION
The report of Prof Kevin Burrage (kb@maths.uq.edu.au) was specifically incorporated in the decision of Prof Lister (exec.dean@epsa.uq.edu.au) delivered on 2 March 1999. In that decision Prof Lister (exec.dean@epsa.uq.edu.au) stated, "in formulating my response (to the appeal) I have perused all the written material relating to the issue, including .... Professor Burrage's detailed report of his reassessment."

The future for the finances of UQ looks particularly encouraging due to the courageous stance of these three professors in the EPSA Faculty of The University of Queensland.

**************************************************************
Russell G H Mathews BCom(Q'ld) BSc(Q'ld)
Member of the Standing Committee of Convocation of The UNIVERSITY of QUEENSLAND

More on Bryan Palmer's political website

Dear Bryan,

Thankyou for your reply.

I didn't expect you to agree with all of my comments. However, I'm disappointed that in spite of all the evidence, you still believe your "site is fair and factual". You have not conceded on any of my points. P. K. Shaw said that "Open-mindedness is often confused with weakness of character." I wonder whether your mind is closed because you fear others may mistake you for a weak character upon the change of your opinion.

I concede you may not have contempt for One Nation, but it is clear to me you are politically remote from them - remote enough to distort and alter the facts.

You have not shown me any evidence that Hanson made racist comments. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission found Hanson not guilty of racism. The simple fact is; the racist tag is merely an allegation - an assertion made without proof. Therefore the adverb form of allegation, "allegedly" is required in sentence fragment 1 below as shown in sentence fragment 2.

1. "She was subsequently disendorsed by the Liberal Party for making racist remarks; but as it was too..."

2. "She was subsequently disendorsed by the Liberal Party for allegedly making racist remarks; but as it was too..."

Your site cannot be "fair and factual" while retaining your original sentence above with there being no evidence of Hanson making racist comments. Anyone asserting that Hanson made racist comments would be as silly as someone inferring that Paul Keating was a racist by quoting him out of context when he said "F... the Chinese," back in May 1986. (refer Paul Kelly's "The End of Certainty", p., 216)

You make a fair comment on One Nation's actions and strategies, but remember this party is still young. Well thought out policies don't spring up like mushrooms.

You haven't convinced me One Nation's retractions/revisions are any more of an issue as compared with the other parties. Take for example the fiasco with John Howard's nursing home policy.

I was not accepting your assessment on utopian statements. In my opinion your judgment of One Nation's policy documents being "little more than utopian statements" overlooks a lot of constructive policies that even the current government has adopted. Take for example, the Federal Government's recent decision to align ABSTUDY's level of assistance to that of AUSTUDY.

I was not getting stuck into you for using a heroes vs., villains analogy. It was the choice of villains that you used that I found offensive. I think it is fare enough that you included for example, power elites, welfare cheats and economic rationalism in the villains category. Some of the others are clearly misplaced.

You appear to be playing games with me here with your reference to the fallacy of existential universalisation. I just quoted you three examples that are inconsistent with racist behaviour. If you would like, I will quote you dozens of other examples. However, I think the key point is that if you believe Pauline Hanson or One Nation is racist, show me some evidence. I have not seen any yet, nor has the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission.

You say: "Hanson is not opposed to the entire arts community because their is one artist who likes her?" Bryan, I thought you would know by now when to use "there" and "their". You have a problem with understanding the use of examples. I can cite you other artists who are One Nation supporters, but that is not the point. You criticise Hanson for making "broad generalisations" and yet enact this same transgression with your mention of some assumed villains.

I'm 26 years old, so I can't give you a first hand account of the 1950s, but from many people's first hand accounts, Australia was a much happier place then, as compared with today. Key statistics show this - unemployment, youth suicide, drug abuse and crime were all lower. The past is not mythical; it actually happened.

I don't see it as ambiguous to accept some parts of the "Australian Settlement" and not others. One Nation does this as well - they are not suggesting to go back to a racially White Australia.

Paul Kelly's arguments don't convince me of the "failure" of the "Australian Settlement". The "Australian Settlement" may be "unworkable" in isolation with a world moving towards Globalisation. However, with a global resistance to economic rationalism and deregulation, nationalism will work. There is evidence of many countries overseas possessing a voice of resistance against Globalisation. If no one stands up taking a principled stance, we will be sure to travel further down the road of social decline.

Yours sincerely
Jeremy

On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 02:10:09 +1100, you wrote:

>Dear Bryan,
>
>For a political web site that is supposed to be unbiased, you're not
>doing a very good job in hiding your contempt for Pauline Hanson's One
>Nation.

I think contempt is far too strong a description of my personal assessment of Hanson. I readily acknowledge that she is a significant political figure, and that she has widespread support.

>The internet address http://www.tip.net.au/~bpalmer/ displaying a
>summary of One Nation shows a complete lack of research and ethics in
>reporting.
>
>You say Pauline Hanson "...was subsequently disendorsed by the Liberal
>Party for making racist remarks". Have you heard of the word
>"allegedly"?

There is nothing "allegedly" about it. The fact remains, she was disendorsed by the Liberal Party. Whether her remarks were actually racist is a separate question.

>Pauline Hanson did not make racist remarks. The catalyst
>for her disendorsement was a letter she wrote to "The Queensland Times",
>published on 6th January 1996. Bryan, the letter was strongly worded,
>but not racist. I'm sure you've already read the part quoted in Paul
>Sheehan's "Among the Barbarians", p., 154 (p., 224 for the updated
>election edition), that you have on your list of bibliographic notes.

Mine's the original edition. And yes, I have read it. As I have noted, my statement is about the reasons the Liberal Party took for its actions, not an assessment of Hanson's letter.

>You say, "Hanson's public statements are usually broad generalisations
>and often ambiguous." From my experience politicians from Labor and
>Liberal suffer from this problem more that Hanson. They try to appeal to
>everyone and yet fill few people's hearts and minds with passion. Hanson
>is straight and to the point - no beating around the bush.
>So, Hanson "occasionally retracts or corrects her public statements with
>a hint of disingenuousness that leaves one suspecting that much of the
>original statement was actually meant." No one's perfect.
>
>This statement
>adds little value to your article as it could well be aligned with
>nearly any politician.

When I wrote the piece I looked hard for her "programme": the strategies she would follow if elected; her prescription for an Australian solution. While her rhetoric was long on desired outcomes and long on problem identification (usually cast in terms of good guys and bad guys), it was short on actions or strategies. Furthermore, a number of her public statements were later retracted or revised. My observation at the time was that the retractions/revisions were in part ambiguous.

In contrast, I find it easier to describe the programme of Liberal and Labor.

>Considering Hanson is not a polished politician,
>having completed only year ten schooling, I think she has performed
>exceptionally well.
>
>Are One Nation's policy documents really "...little more than utopian
>statements."? What about Bob Hawke's promise of no child living in
>poverty by 1990? Paul Keating talked about his J curve regarding the
>current account deficit (refer Paul Kelly's "The End of Certainty" pp,
>204-5) which was no doubt a utopian statement given the recent record
>high current account deficit. Remember the famous line by Keating back
>in 1985, exhorting people to "set their sails for growth", that would be
>required "for the rest of this decade to restore full employment".

You seem to be accepting my assessment (her policy documents are little more than utopian statements), and then saying that it is okay because the policy Statements of others are just the same. I don't consider that a refutation of my argument.

>Labor
>and Liberal politicians have been overflowing with utopian statements.
>That's why the electorate has had a gut full, after seeing the lack of
>results, knowing that their government is really working for foreign
>interests.

The juxtaposition here is fascinating. You finish your last paragraph with a classic right wing populist allusion to heroes and villains, and then get stuck into me for asserting that One Nation uses this approach.

>I quote you again: "In her cosmology, the villains include Aboriginal >Australians, Asians..." Now Bryan, you're an intelligent man and
>assuming you've read all of the books in your bibliographic notes, this
>statement shows a complete lack of professionalism. I'll give you some
>examples to point out the frivolity of your statement:
>
>Hanson was quoted out of context as saying she would not represent the
>Aboriginal race. It was only after eighteen months of being forced to
>defend herself against this lie that the Human Rights and Equal
>Opportunities Commission found her not guilty.
>
>Ron Holten a 63 year old Aborigine is standing for the central coast
>seat of Wyong in the upcoming 1999 New South Wales state election.
>Holten calls for the abolition of special funding for indigenous people.
>He says that One Nation and the teachings of Aboriginal elders have
>several parallels: "They both teach community responsibility and faith.
>I was taught, at a young age, respect and how to be part of a
>community." Holten is a member of the Darkinjung Land Council which
>oversees the Wyong area. "I hope I set an example that if you want
>something you can go out and achieve it" he said. "No one gave me
>anything and I worked and paid for my land."
>
>Pauline Hanson employed Lilly Vichitthavong, a woman with Asian ancestry
>who has described Pauline as "very blunt and frank, but fair, trusting
>and totally lacking in any racist behaviour". She said if she saw
>Pauline Hanson now, she "would want to give her a big hug".
>
>Former One Nation MP, John Kingston has a wife with Asian ethic origin.
>
This is a weak argument. Hanson is not a racist because one member of her party is Aboriginal, another Asian, and another married to an Asian. In logic it is known as the fallacy of existential universalisation. You take an single example (tangential at best) and then imply that is true in all cases. Hanson is not opposed to all Aboriginals because there is one who likes her.

>Talking about generalisations, you mention one of Hanson's villains as
>the "Arts community". Well known Australian artist, Pro Hart has
>supported One Nation by donating two of his paintings to the party. I
>love art myself, being born into one of Australia's most notable
>artistic families, my great uncle being Arthur Boyd. I am certainly not
>offended by any of One Nation's policies on art. I also think it is
>highly understandable that One Nation has an aversion to some members of
>the arts community. For example, the "Backdoor Man" song broadcast on
>"Triple J" was highly offensive by any standards. Another disgraceful
>incident occurred when the federal government's LOUD initiative allowed
>a pornographic image of Hanson to be shortlisted as a finalist by the
>LOUD judging panel. Only after much protest, did Michael Lynch, General
>Manager of the Australian Council for the Arts, issue an apology in
>writing. In the letter, dated 4th February 1998, Lynch wrote:
>
>"I hope that you will accept my sincere apology on behalf of the Council
>and the LOUD organisers and my regret at any distress caused by the
>appearance of this image to you and others who may have viewed it."

Hanson is not opposed to the entire arts community because their is one artist who likes her?

>Bryan, you make mention of a "mythical past". What are you trying to
>assert? Is our history in virtual reality? Were the 936,296 One Nation
>voters at the 1998 Federal Election suffering from a distorted memory by
>believing times were better years ago?

I am saying that Hanson romanticizes the past.

>Why do you write that the Labor, Liberal and National parties could be
>heroic, explaining "to the electorate the dangers of continuing with the
>Australian Settlement."? I thought your site was supposed to be
>politically unbiased. You are making the assumption that the policies of
>Paul Kelly's "Australian Settlement" are unacceptable and yet it was
>only back in the early 1980s that many of these policies were accepted
>as standard practice. You may belittle Hanson, but there are many well
>educated people expressing many of her views. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.,
>physical economist and founder of the CEC, Clive Hamilton, Executive
>Director of the Australia Institute, Graeme Strachan B.Sc.,LLB.,
>Australian Institute of Business Philosophy, just to name a few.

My point was that Liberal gives lip service to some elements of the Australian Settlement and Labor gives lip service to other elements. In public, both parties have some commitment to specific elements of the settlement. They both have constituencies which are wedded to elements of the settlement. In private, both major parties reject most if not all of the Settlement as workable. It is heroic for the major parties to reject the settlement outright because they receive electoral advantage from their ambiguity.

I think Kelly argues the failure of the settlement well, so I wont give a rendition here. Note, I would draw a distinction between "unworkable" and "unacceptable". I think of it is unworkable, but it is also acceptable to most.

In terms of the people you cite, I suspect most Australia's agree with some elements of her back to the Australian settlement package. However, this does not mean they agree with all of it. The only person in your list whom I have read (Hamilton) would not agree with the entire settlement.

>One Nation don't have all of the solutions and they have their fair
>share of problems, but if people just reported the facts instead of
>propagating lies, we would have a genuine democracy rather than a power
>elite brainwashing our minds while stirring up a cauldron of hatred.

I think, on balance, my site is fair and factual.

>If you're a looking for something to read, I recommend Scott Balson's
>"Murder by Media Death of Democracy in Australia" that can be ordered
>on-line at: http://www.gwb.com.au/murder.html Also, Graeme Strachan
>B.Sc.,LLB., has written "Globalisation: The demise of the Australian
>Nation", which can be ordered from the internet at
>http://www.overflow.net.au/~bizbrief/pg000008.htm or for fast service
>call (07) 5546 9210 and use your credit card. Dr Helen Dodd's "Pauline:
>The Hanson Phenomenon", Boolarong Press, (Brisbane), 1997 would probably
>be a better source of information than Pasquarelli's book, given that
>Pasquarelli is more than likely to be suffering from a case of sour
>grapes.
>
>No matter how many so called experts you quote, you wont convince me
>globalisation is good for Australia, or for any country for that matter.
>It's all a big scam to benefit the hedonistic elites

... more villains ...

>at the expense of
>democracy and the common man.

... and, as always, contrasted with the heroes.

Poms for Pauline

Dont let the saturday worshipers grind you down.I would like to know what papers and mags One Nation publish.I and my friends are B.N.P supporters.So we have similer views.

Good luck.
Richard Partridge.

Law and Order

The Attorney-General,
The Minister for Justice,
The Minister for Police,
PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Dear Minister(s),

As by this you will have become aware of the very recent "Sunday" programme, on Kerry Packer's Nine Network Television, spelling out the likely consequences of adopting the New York system of Zero Tolerance.

Our Principals have directed us to seek from, or through, you confirmation that your government, in the name of "Law and Order" (Lora Norder) has been seriously contemplating enforcing a similar system.

Clearly the evidence is that, if the process is to be implemented, there is urgent need to divert plenty of financial resoures from other areas for quadrupling the Police and Warder numbers, increasing significantly the prison accommodation and educating the judiciary to interpret the laws in the way that best suits the political agenda.

In some of the Australian States and Territories the members of particular ethnic groups and low age groups are able to commit an extensive range of crimes unchallenged by the police - however this is only because the police have had enough of the system that makes them do lots of paperwork and deliver the culprits in to the Court only to have the Magistrates/Judges give the accused a verbal "slap on the wrist" and discharge them otherwise unpunished with words like "naughty child/person don't do it again".

For how much longer can the commercial and national media be allowed to alert the community at large to the failure of ideas like zero tolerance overseas? Surely the government will be unable to govern in an effective way if civil disobediene is encouraged.

Naturally it is understandable that our Principals might feel that , given that "the only lesson that we learn from history is that we do not learn from history" and so our law makers and enforcers are bound to repeat the mistakes with monotonous regularity.

Your early and comprehensive advice in the matter is awaited by our Principals with great interest - same should be sent to them in care of this office.

Sincerely,
J o n M. A x t e n s

from the global office:

Another perfect day in paradise.

Have a good one.

This Ring Name site is owned by One Nation. Want to join the One Nation ring? [Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [Random] [Next 5] [List Sites]

exclusive to  (how to) subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day:

Pauline Hanson in Penrith - 5th March 1999
One Nation 1999 AGM - 28th February 1999
"Murder by Media" withdrawn by Dymocks bookstores - 13th February 1999
One Nation "split" - 6th February 1999
Paff and the red light - 3rd February 1999
Launch of "Murder by Media, Death of Democracy in Australia" - 22nd to 24th January 1999
One Nation's Queensland State Conference - 27th to 29th November 1998
Dual Citizenship and politicians- 20th November 1998
Where Prize Turkeys Gather - 17th November 1998

Return to Australian National News of the Day

#

See GLOBE International for other world news.