EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Middle East shames inner west

GREENS have much to learn from Marrickville's meddling.

Chutzpah, in the true Hebrew meaning of the word, is not the admirable sort of audacity for which we tend to use the word now. Real chutzpah, it is said, is the sort of impertinence that sees a man accused of murdering his parents beg for mercy on the grounds that he's an orphan. So the term is apt to describe the brazen way the Marrickville Council, in Sydney's inner west, has gotten above its station by implementing an economic boycott against Israel.

Section 51 (xxix) of the Australian Constitution makes it very clear that the federal parliament is responsible for foreign policy or, in the jargon of the time, "external affairs". The local government authority upon which councils such as Marrickville exist is not even mentioned in the Constitution. These are the cold, hard facts that underscore the absurdity of the council and its Greens Mayor, Fiona Byrne, attempting to play their jaundiced role in Middle East power politics. The council's support for BDS (boycott, divest and sanctions) action against Israel has been condemned by the national leadership of the Greens, the Labor Party and the Liberals. Yet even as she prepares to tear down her metaphorical wall against Israeli infiltration, Ms Byrne continues to argue that her council has a role to play in resolving the intractable dilemmas of international relations. As Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd pointedly put it, she might first concentrate on collecting the garbage and looking after the parks and gardens. Mr Rudd succinctly described this provincial excursion into the heady realms of foreign policy as "just plain nuts".

While this affair seems ripe for satire, there are serious issues at play. The persistent inconsistency between Ms Byrne, Greens federal leader Bob Brown and senator-elect Lee Rhiannon demonstrates a shambolic policy development apparatus within a party now in a powerful alliance with the Gillard Labor government. Senator Brown needs urgently to assert leadership on foreign policy issues and eliminate the loopy anti-Israel sentiment from his ranks. The Labor Party, unfortunately, is not blameless, with four of its councillors having backed the BDS move. When the council votes to overturn the policy, they intend to put this right, but Julia Gillard must ensure that her party's strong support for Israel is not compromised again by such jejune antics from elected officials.

Never a defence for sex abuse

EXISTING law enforcement should handle new allegations.

Sexual abuse can have a lasting and debilitating impact on victims who, for various reasons, can take many years to comprehend the full repercussions of their trauma or summon the fortitude to seek legal redress. So, given the widespread publicity about the Australian Defence Force Academy Skype-sex scandal, it is hardly surprising that allegations of previous sex-abuse incidents in defence force institutions have come to light. Defence Minister Stephen Smith clearly expected this development when his initial announcement of a series of inquiries into the ADFA incident and defence force culture included the appointment of an independent legal team to examine fresh allegations and recommend ways to deal with them.

Since then we have seen increasingly detailed allegations made public and lawyers have reported an increase in inquiries from people contemplating legal action. Mr Smith has admitted the Commonwealth could be liable for compensation claims and he has flagged the possibility of a judicial review of one kind or another to consider these complaints. There also is potential for these processes to investigate allegations of non-sexual abuse through the bastardisation practices that have dogged Defence for years. Certainly, any victims of abuse deserve to have their allegations tested so they can seek justice and, if appropriate, receive compensation. Every effort should also be made to pursue offenders and seek criminal or military convictions. The Australian believes appropriate penalties for any perpetrators will be important to provide comfort for the victims and confidence within the defence forces and broader community about serious attempts to rectify any cultural shortcomings. The minister has not ruled out a royal commission and he is probably right to leave all options on the table until he has seen preliminary assessments of some of the allegations.

However, given the potential for such an inquiry to be distracting and morale-sapping for the defence forces, it should be contemplated only if there is a demonstrable need. The current inquiries examining processes and cultural issues ought to deal sufficiently with any entrenched problems. Claims of rape and sexual abuse, if true, would constitute crimes that can be investigated and prosecuted under existing legal mechanisms.

Unions an early-warning device for Labor leaders

PM must address the workers' backlash on carbon tax.

Paul Howes is as ambitious as he is young, but the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union is finding a way to eat humble pie when required. Mr Howes took a while to hear the message from the shop floor, but his call for steel to be exempt from the carbon tax suggests he is now reading the mood of his members.
There is self-interest in Mr Howes's intervention: it shores up his own standing within his union to take the fight to government. But Julia Gillard and her Climate Change Minister should listen to the messages coming from union members, many of whose jobs depend on coal-based energy production. They know that a carbon tax imposed on trade-exposed industries will filter down through costs -- and potentially job losses -- to workers. They understand that while Greg Combet can promise some households will be better off under his plan to compensate for electricity rises, it won't be much use if the breadwinners don't have jobs.

A market-based price mechanism -- which is Labor's ultimate aim -- will be the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. The call from the AWU leader to protect steel production has focused the mind of a government that today must sit down with big companies and convince then the tax won't hurt their viability. Mr Howes could be doing the Prime Minister a real favour in the long run. His statements remind us of an earlier era when unions were a useful sounding board for Labor administrations, tapping into the cost-of-living concerns of working Australians. Such shop-floor intelligence is even more vital these days when Labor is losing touch with its base. The government faces a big task to convince Australians of the value of its tax. The public consensus for action is under strain as voters begin to worry that they could be affected by a reduction in Australia's international competitiveness. A carbon tax is no longer an abstract concept but a real impost that could lead to an increase in prices, a message reinforced by food and grocery producers, who have joined miners to argue that jobs, living conditions and investment in local industries are at risk. The high dollar is not helping, with manufacturers anxious a carbon tax will make imports even more attractive.

Mr Howes and his union are powerful players: the union's support was crucial to Ms Gillard's success in moving against Kevin Rudd last year. Mr Howes had earlier backed the ill-conceived original mining tax, judging his members would embrace a proposal that was framed in class-warfare terms as a "super-profits resources tax". He, like Wayne Swan, was wrong about that tax, underestimating the ability of his members to see that hitting mining could damage their jobs in the sector. They failed to see that a campaign by the big mining companies would gain traction with voters.

It seems Mr Howes has learnt his lesson, and is taking a very public stance on behalf of his members, recognising that attacking the "big polluters" without understanding commercial realities could harm ordinary people. The ball is in the court of former union leader Mr Combet. His task is to carefully calibrate a carbon price that balances the interests of big companies and households in a policy that will genuinely reduce emissions.