A working class hero is farewelled...

My friend Patricia Corowa - who has been mentioned on this blog before - yesterday went to the State Funeral for Bernie Banton (pictured above with his wife, Karen). Here is the Vale to Bernie posted last week on The Eagle's Nest. Patricia has given a beautiful report on the State Funeral and has kindly given permission for it to be published. Thank you, Patricia.


Dear Family and Friends:

Just want to let you all know:

I went with a Maori friend... John Ake... to the State Funeral of Bernie Banton AM, at Acer Arena at Olympic Park yesterday... in the teeming rain...

It was a good send off to an ordinary working man... who did extraordinary exploits... with a processional guard of honour of about 100 High School Students from Kings School... Parramatta... where Bernie and his brothers and sister were born... and where he grew up and worked in the James Hardie Factory nearby...

His Sons and Nephews were Poll Bearers... There was a 12-piece string orchestra... his Brother, Rev Bruce Banton (Full Gospel Ministry) officiated... with tributes from his Wife, Daughters-in-Law, Grand-daughter... and official Tributes (all there in person) from PM Kevin Rudd, NSW Premier Morris Iemma, and Greg Combet, MP for Charlton and Parliamentary Secretary assisting the Minister for Defence...

The Eulogy was given by his Sister, Grace... who now lives in Texas, USA... His son Dean read Psalm 121... and there were more tributes from his brother, Brian Banton and the closing address by Rev Bruce Banton... Hymns were It is well with my Soul... and The River... and as the cortege left the assembly... the John Rowles song If I only had time was sung by a male soloist

There was a Guard of Honour of NSW Unions with their banners as the cortege was brought out of the Acer Arena to the Hearse... still in the teeming rain... to go to a private family burial... and PM Kevin Rudd was there with Karen Banton, Bernie's widow, right up till then

As the service progressed... we heard... that Bernie was of Irish and Jewish descent... and that he and his family are Christians

In his closing address... Rev Bruce Banton related how Bernie's passions were FMH... Football, Meat Pies and Holdens... and how towards the end of those 102 of a possible 153 of his last days on this earth... Bernie called him to have communion with him in hospital... so that he could forgive... as set out in the disciples' prayer (of Matthew 6:9-13... and the admonition of Jesus to them of verses 14 and 15... that if we do not forgive those who have wronged us... our Heavenly Father will not forgive us our wrongs)... and be ready to meet his Maker...

As they took communion in that hospital room... the remembrance bread representing the body of Christ... was a meat pie... So wonderful... I wept!

I thanked God for Salvation... amongst that crowd of witnesses... who were there to mourn the passing... and to celebrate the life of an Australian hero

He did what it was in his heart to do... even unto death

Loves,
Patricia

Vale, Bernie Banton AM

Bernie & Karen Banton

Sky TV will telecast Bernie Banton: A life at 8.30am this morning

Bernie Banton is dead. A man who embodied so many of the characteristics which Australians admire has gone from our midst. Bernie is a Parramatta working man, a fighter for justice and right. As I right, I find words difficult to describe to people who have not seen Bernie on the TV so often as Australians have.

Bernie fought James Hardy for those who were suffering the ravages in their bodies of their interlude with asbestos. The fight would have been bad enough and relentless enough - but James Hardy turned out to be a shameless corporate criminal. A formerly reputable Australian company, it shifted itself to Holland leaving what amounted to a token amount of money in a separate company for the afflicted in order to avoid its responsibilities.

But Bernie took on the Australian Tax Office too. The heartless ATO was prepared to allow taxation to eat up further the compensation money for the asbestos victims.

Bernie may yet have one more triumph, one more scalp on his belt. As the Liberal Party writhes in agony and uncertainty after its dreadful defeat on Saturday which Michael Kroger has dubbed the Liberals' lowest ebb since the foundation of the party 60 years ago, Tony Abbott - the Health Minister in the Howard Government - has thrown his hat in the ring for the Liberal Party leadership. It is unlikely, in Miss E's view, that the Libs will take Abbott on. In fact, Abbott's own view that he has a chance shows a marked lack of self-reflection. And what has Bernie to do with that? This, dear Reader.

Abbott is nothing if not rude. Don't send him on a peace mission. He'd only add fuel to the flames. He attacked Bernie in a most dreadful way. Bernie handled that with his usual dignity. Abbott was forced to apologise. Abbott showed his true character. Bernie showed his.

And how did Bernie keep going? How did he keep going in the media campaign, the battle for justice, the battle to fight a one in a million disease? In Bernie's own words, faith in God.

Rest in peace, Bernie. You have been a good and faithful servant. Our thoughts and prayers are with Karen and your family - including your sister who flew in from Texas, USA.

Eternal rest grant unto Bernie, O Lord, and may perpetual Light shine upon him. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen

A national motto for the national logo?

The Oz, otherwise known as The Government Gazette, is running a comp to find a motto for Australia. This is a copy cat of Gordon Brown's idea to get a motto for Britain as publicised in Rupert's other paper, The Times of London. Above, dear Reader, you will notice the Coat of Arms of this Fair Land of Oz. Now what Miss Eagle wants to know is if The Oz manages to come up with something somewhere on the way to appropriate - will it make it to that national logo, the Coat of Arms?

Trial by Jury - it's no operetta

The following statement was published in Crikey to-day.

Last year, twelve jurors found three Western Australian men guilty of the murder of Phillip Walsham nine years ago. The men were at the centre of last year's controversial Australian Story three-part series "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Last Friday, the Western Australian Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of the men who were serving life jail terms. The following statement was released yesterday. It represents the opinion of the majority of the jurors:
Every stakeholder in this case has been allowed to express their opinion in the media with the exception of the twelve people who were charged with the responsibility of making an extremely difficult decision.
As a jury, the justice system forbids us to have a public voice on what occurred within the jury room during the trial. This we respect.
We would, however, like to express our deep frustration at a number of things that have occurred since our decision was handed down.
There are a number of issues that we would like to address, along with our concern and disgust at the obvious bias and inaccuracy of much of the media representation.
We did not choose to be jurors on this trial. We were initially selected by means of a ballot system, with final approval by the defendants, the defence and the prosecution. Once selected we all acted professionally throughout the trial.
We all took the role of juror very seriously. We are all intelligent and professional people who were prepared to listen to both sides of the case and were more than capable of analysing the evidence presented to us.
When we went into deliberations we did so carefully, thoroughly and did not allow emotion to enter into our decision-making process. Our decision was based purely on the evidence put to us.
We all support and recognise the need for, and right of, appeal.
We recognise that it is the prerogative of the appeal judges to overturn a jury’s decision.
Unfortunately, a decision that took many days to reach has now been ruled as “unsafe and unsatisfactory”. What part of our decision was “unsatisfactory”? We made the only decision we felt possible on the evidence presented to us over the ten weeks. Does the decision of the appeal judges undergo the same thorough scrutiny?
We are disgusted with the subsequent public attack on the jury – specifically, our integrity and ability to make reasoned decisions. It is easy to blame and speculate about the jury when their decision does not suit. Remember, the system chose us. We did not choose to be on the case.
Our experience has led us to believe that the jury system is a farce. If the judicial system deems that a jury is unable to make reasoned decisions in a high profile and/or prolonged case, then surely those cases should only be heard before a panel of appeal judges. Why do juries even exist? Criticism of the decision we accept, what we object to is the public maligning of us personally. Again, the system chose us.
The media reporting of the case has been scandalous. Certain commentators have stated they heard all ten weeks of the trial. Not one media representative heard all the evidence presented – the evidence on which the jury based their decision. Much of what has been put in the public domain by so-called commentators, both in newspapers and on the internet, has been biased, speculative and factually inaccurate.
One constant criticism leveled at the jury has been the amount of speculation allegedly made by them in the process of them reaching their verdict. How ironic it is that those same people are now speculating themselves about the alleged prejudices of the jury and their ability to make decisions without emotion.
Do those charged with the responsibility of informing the public have an obligation to be factually correct and unbiased? Unfortunately, it appears not. Some, it appears, align themselves with one side and present only the information beneficial to their case. Sadly, the West Australian public in general have not been given an unbiased account of the facts and as such go on believing that another miscarriage of justice has been averted.
This was a legitimate trial by twelve peers. Is this really justice?

@@@@@@@

Have you come to the end of this statement, dear Reader, feeling slightly troubled, perturbed? Miss Eagle has been concerned for some time about erosion of the principles surrounding and undergirding trial by jury. For nations whose law is founded on British common law, being innocent until proven guilty and trial by jury are foundations of our freedom.

When there are outcries about our judicial system, it seems to Miss E that large sectors of the community have forgotten, if they had ever learned it in the first place, that - in our system - it has traditionally been held that rather ten guilty people go free than one innocent person is condemned.

Scotland has, by tradition, had majority verdicts - but do we really need majority verdicts? The cost of running the judicial system means that major trials which are expected to be lengthy frequently carry "understudy" jurors. Queries frequently arise about where jurors are equipped to make decisions based on highly specialised or abstruse expert opinion. We are seeing moves to remove the principle of double jeopardy. We see the possibility of jury interference - particularly in the dramatised documentary, Joh's Jury, which told the story of a widely held view of interference which resulted in a hung jury.

All these factors and more lead to consideration of more widespread use of judicial rather than jury trials. Judicial trials are more common in civil cases than criminal cases in higher jurisdictions although one has to be alert to changes which allow more power to the summary jurisdiction of Magistrates without referral to higher jurisdictions.

We hear a lot to-day about requiring of new immigrants seeking citizenship a knowledge of Australian values. Miss Eagle hasn't noticed that any of these values make reference to being innocent until proven guilty, to the right of trial by a jury of one's peers.

And, on the topic of a jury of one's peers, one wonders whether this could be streamlined. Juries are not publicised under our system - that is why the statement above is highly unusual. Miss E - along with most Australians - would not advocate the way of the U.S. where individual jurors speak to the media soon after a trial. But Miss E is not aware how many Aboriginal people were on the jury in the recent Chris Hurley trial following the death of Cameron (Mulrunji) Doomadgee. Would an all white jury verdict differ from the verdict where Aboriginal people were included in such a situation?

Plain and simple - Miss Eagle believes that Australia waters down or over-rides the trial by jury system with great caution. However slight the erosion, this might pose/or already poses a threat to the entire principle. Judicial oversight cannot, in Miss E's view, become the 100% decision making process at law. There must be room for authentic peer review.

Malcom Fraser: Australians All: Justice, Security, A Fair Go

There's no doubt about Malcolm Fraser, 22nd Prime Minister of Australia. In 1975, his actions divided the nation. In 1986, a now retired Malcolm somehow managed to get drugged and lose his trousers in Memphis, Tennessee. But, for many years, Malcolm has had the status of National Treasure. Where would we be without him?

In recent times, he has gathered around him a coterie of forty distinguished Australians from all walks of life, from major faiths, from across the political spectrum. You can find them all on Malcolm's site, Australians All, which has the motto - Justice, Security, A Fair Go.

In the dark shadow cast by John Howard's Shock and Awe Campaign in Aboriginal communities, there's a lot of good writing at Australians All so please pop over and avail yourself of it, dear Reader.

Archbishop and Anglicans : Policy and Prayer

We keep hearing that our economy is booming, and we saw clear evidence of that in the federal Budget. But the sad reality is that inequality is increasing. Housing affordability is at a record low, rents are rising rapidly, and homelessness is increasing.

Words of warning from Philip Freier, Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne. Read more of what he has to say here.

Philip Freier is taking the Christian voice to the frontline of the public policy debate in Melbourne.

New to Melbourne, the Archbishop has established a prayer quest, Prayer4Melbourne. This gets Archbishop Philip out and about into all sorts of places in the city and the suburbs to talk to all sorts of people. Read about this stuff on the Archbishop's blog.

Then there are his Conversations. Held in the centre of Melbourne at BMW Edge at Federation Square, there have been two so far. The first one focussed on stem cell research under the title Send in the Clones; the second one was Is a 'fair go' a 'no go' in Australia today?

David Hicks: politicians get brickbats

Let's be blunt here. There are politicians in this nation who bleat about citizenship and Australian values and who have done nothing to increase the value of either. In fact, they have failed the mateship test. They have failed to show a duty of care towards a citizen - namely David Hicks. Although he is not the first - just the worst - case.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
There is the Black Trinity of John Howard, Philip Ruddock, and Alexander Downer.

For years, they have refused to lift a finger to gain the release of David Hicks from the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay used to circumvent the Geneva Convention. As the US Government conspired to avoid it human rights obligations, the Australian Government was complicit and these three men were the Australian activists who conspired to ensure the detention of David in this illicit hell hole.

Citizenship, mateship, Australian values. Forget it! These three devalue everything that Australians hold dear.

The duty of care towards a citizen. Forget it. Corruption at AWB gets more support and priority.

Mateship. Forget it. Just because Hicks is Australian did not make him a mate. He was evil - according to the demonisation antics of the Black Trinity. Australia had no law under which he could be convicted and imprisoned. So the Black Trinity took the most convenient option. Revenge, US style. Convict him in the United States. They have a law and, if it doesn't fit, they will make it fit to order.

Australian values. Forget it. Foreign governments - particularly and in particular the United States of America - can do anything they like with impunity to Australian citizens. Britain, however, values their protection of citizens more highly than this Australian government. Tony Blair got every last one of his people released from Guantanamo years ago.

THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

Ministers from Mike Rann down continue the demonisation begun by the Black Trinity. Wonderful how Labor and Liberal coalesce and merge into one another sometimes, isn't it?
Caught Kevin Foley briefly on the telly last night saying "he's not a celebrity, he's not a hero." Duh, Kevin!

No, David Hicks is not a celebrity. He is not a hero. He is more than that. He is one of us.

He has been misguided and foolish - as are all of us at some time in our lives, to a greater or lesser degree. But David Hicks is one of us who has been treated abominably. He is one of us who has been a victim of revenge from two governments - from the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave; and from his homeland, Australia, the land of mateship, the fair go and being fair dinkum.

Are South Australian politicians so used to law and order debates and upping the ante on who is the toughest on criminals, that they just automatically mouth off?

Have they never heard of mercy and compassion?

We know the Black Trinity does not understand mercy and compassion. Corruption and privilege and special pleading for people of privilege is what is understood best.

So Rann and Co - who like to appear non-partisan, who appoint a churchman to the halls of government - look no better. No mercy for Hicks. No compassion for Hicks. Demonise Hicks. Belittle Hicks. Kick Hicks while he is down. Feet of clay, Mike and Kevin, feet of clay!

Decency in the valley of decision?

Ross Honeywill says that decency is the key to the 2007 Federal Election. He describes a demographic group called NEOs who support the Neo Power: how the new economic order is changing the way we live, work, and play.

Miss Eagle has some empathy/sympathy with the NEO description but will wait to see: to see if there is an intrinsic decency within, to see if decency becomes the decisive factor in the 2007 Federal Election, and whether decency can change a government.

Anzac Day 2007

To-day is Anzac Day.

This is a significant day in Australian life.

All around Australia from the Australian War Memorial (below) to every tiny country community, Australian and New Zealand war dead will be remembered.

All around the world, Australians and New Zealanders will gather.

They gather for the Dawn Service in Gallipoli in Turkey.

They gather in Flanders Fields.

The troops in Iraq and every place on earth where there are Australian and New Zealand military personnel, there will be solemnity and memorial.

After the solemnity, there will be the traditional two-up game

"Two up" game in progress troops returning from service H.M.A.T. MAHIA

Museum Victoria Collection

When Australians remember those who died in the service of their nation, on Anzac Day, at the going down of the sun in RSL Clubs across Australia, the verse below is said as a sort of prayer, a testimony of sacred intent:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

Laurence Binyon (1869-1943)

Love is a challenge

I have to-day received an email from a friend. It is absolute drivel. I publish it below with my comments interpolated.

Have you ever thought -- Is Australian Moslem really an oxymoron? Can a devout Moslem be an Australian and a loyal citizen?
I forwarded that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 >years. The following is his forwarded reply:
"Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Mmmmm..... Don't know about the moon god bit but how do we interpret Islamic acceptance of Abraham, Moses, Jesus? How do we tally this up against a God (whom Christians and Jews worship) who is known as God of the Mountains (El Shaddai) and Lord of Armies (that's what Lord of Hosts means - not to mention various warlike characteristics that can be drawn from the Old Testament).
Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Jesus said: "I am the way, and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) So where are modern Christians in all this as they inhabit a pluralist society? How does this statement of Jesus' inform our discourse with Jews, Buddhists inter alia....and yes Muslims?
Scripturally, no Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, back in 1960, became the first Catholic elected to the US Presidency. Questions were asked during the campaign, (these same questions, I might add, had prevented previous Catholic hopefuls from running for the highest American office) concerning his allegiance to the Pope in Rome. Such questions by Christians have been used to discriminate against fellow Christians who own the name of Christ. Why should we believe, as we read this, that this statement is on any firmer ground than the Christian discriminators were.
Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
And the sun doesn't set on the British empire; and every night at 7pm at the RSL a light shines and a little prayer is said; and some Christians stand to pray, some sit, some kneel; some join their hands, some raise their hands. and some fold their arms. I am reminded of a saying of an old Pentecostal lady who was a friend of mine in younger days: It's not the position. It's the disposition that counts. And, tell me again, what this has to do with citizenship?
Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Well - one thing is for sure. We now know that the person who wrote this drivel has never travelled (even if he did work in S/Arabia for 20 years, it is clear he did not move beyond his European enclave) in Africa or Asia. There is a long history of Jews, Christians, and Moslems living peaceably in their communities. To give an indication of this, I have attached a document by the distinguished writer and historian William Dalrymple. Here is a link to William Dalrymple's home page. Here is the entry for William Dalrymple in Wikipedia.
Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
As a Christian, I am required to submit to spiritual leadership.
Now can we know which mullah, which Moslem community, which Muslim denomination. Just like us peaceful, wise, and non-warlike Christians, there are many denominations/theological schools/communities within the Islamic tradition. Their teachings (unlike we unified Christians) are not universally the same.
Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Oh, you mean that, like the Patriachs of the Old Testament, they may have more than one wife not like men in Christian societies who have one wife, one mistress, and some one night stands. And you mean women are beaten there like in Christian societies - many of whom are killed along with their children. Oh, you forgot to mention, that unlike women in Christian societies until the late 20th century, women entering marriage under Islamic law have economic rights. In fact, the Islamic community in Australia would like to have the Family Court of Australia recognise this in family law. Not mentioning those facts was a bit of a slip up.
Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the Australian Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Well, I almost doubled up with laughter at this one. Because one thing that the writers of the Australian Constitution were very careful to do was to keep any hint, smell or taint of religion out of the document. In fact, it is clear that our informants have never read the Australian Constitution otherwise they would know that the major concerns of the document have to do with commerce and the balance of power between six colonies (for here think individual nations in all but name) in bringing them into one nation. In case any one hasn't noticed, the colonies still get really stroppy and their relationships and their relationship with the Commonwealth of Australia have to be sorted out by the High Court of Australia. I have never heard anybody suggest that the High Court is a biblical body or that its decisions are based on the Bible or that they interpret the Constitution with the Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other. In fact, I can think of a few decisions which were completely unbiblical.
Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co - exist.
Mmmm...Clearly all that lack of teaching of history that Australian schools are accused of is catching up. Christians have never been good on freedom of religion and expression until recent times. I am 62, was brought up in a pre-Vatican II Irish-Catholic-Australian tradition, and had a very Irish name which gave my religion away immediately. This does not raise an eyebrow these days. In fact, there's a certain cachet to such a heritage. But when I was growing up, religious bigotry was alive and well between Protestant and Catholics. Look at the history of the Queensland Police Force where there are historic divisions between Catholic and Masons. This was why Ray Whitrod had to leave the Qld Police Force. He was neither Catholic nor Mason : he was a Baptist. I could go on with the way Peter Hollingworth was vilified by the secular press when he accepted the appointment of Governor-General (keep this separate from what came later). And I am of the view that if the Chamberlains had been Anglican instead of Seventh Day Adventist their story would have been very different. As for democracy: well, democracy for whom? Could go on ad infinitum ad nauseam about this. Just suffice to say that The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills says it - even though it was written about the US of fifty years ago. It is a sociological classic about who controls what and how much and it informs the Australian milieu as well.
Every Moslem government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Yeah. I know some of them are not attractive - to say the least. And yes I would like to see democratic institutions and universal suffrage. But have a look around democracies and tell me if there is a complete absence of dictators and autocrats and dictatorial and autocratic actions. This will be a shoo-in for Queenslanders to answer.
Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names."
Now it becomes clear (as if it couldn't be figured out before this point). The answer is not from an Australian but from a citizen of the United States of America. You see only citizens of the USA refer to "one nation under God". SO-O-O please go back to the beginning and put this in your mind. As for the Christian's God being loving and kind - well there are a few other descriptions in the Bible. A reading of God - a biography by Jack Miles would shed a little light on this. Read about Jack Miles here and here.
Therefore after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MOSLEMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Moslems and good Australians. Call it what you wish.....it's still The truth.
If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.The religious war is bigger and more complex than most Australians currently know or understand.

This drivel smells very much of stuff that comes from the Australia First Party and its associates. . You will note their involvement in the Cronulla riots and, more recently, drumming up racism against refugees in Tamworth. Moslems are like Christians. Each has their share of those who we would rather not own as citizens. In fact, most Moslems do not share the above views. Not all Moslems have plural marriage and nor do they all scourge their wives. One could go on. I would draw people's attention to a book that has been on must read lists for a while now A Short History of Islam by Karen Armstrong. You can read about Armstrong here and here.
We serve a risen Lord. His way is straight and narrow and we are to follow in His footsteps. He has given us two commandments. How does the above tally up with these. Where is the love? Where is the mercy? Where is "yourself"?
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Justice, torture, coercion, and moral bankruptcy

Australia does not provide justice to all Australians.

Malcolm Fraser speaks plainly about how Australia, along with other western nations, has moved away from the rule of law and is prepared to accept evidence gained through torture in spite of the long battle under British law to outlaw such a practice.

Brian Walters SC, a Melbourne barrister and the immediate past president of Liberty Victoria, says that, contrary to well-known principles of international law, Australia's Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, says that sleep deprivation is not torture: it is merely "coercive".

You can decide but Miss Eagle thinks the only point of argument is whether Australia, as a nation state, has reached a state of moral bankruptcy or is merely on the road to it.

Valuing our birthright

Peter Costello is to-day sounding off about Australian values and citizenship. There is much in what he says - but it has a singular point of reference: those who do not accept the secular rule of law in a pluralist democratic society. Costello says, amongst other things:

No one is going to respect a citizenship that is so undemanding that it
asks nothing. In fact our citizenship is quite a demanding obligation.

I think this is the heart of the matter: that by and large there has been little or no respect in Australia for citizenship - and I am not singling out terrorists or any ethnic group. I just do not believe we truly value what we hold. Look at the track record: the number of people who live here as permanent residents, who could take out Australian citizenship, who reap the benefits of living here and expect to cherry-pick what they want from our society - but they don't take out citizenship. How many British and New Zealand citizens are in this group? Look too at the teaching of civics in our schools. Look at the erosion of so many things that we have taken for granted:

1. The attempts by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Nick Minchin, to take away compulsory voting. Does he really want Australia to be like the USA where the President almost never receives the votes of the majority of Americans?
2. Attempts - and in some areas of the law this has already occurred - to do away with trial by a jury of twelve with unanimous verdicts to supplant it with hearings by a judge or a jury of fewer people or majority verdicts.
3. The rights of all citizens to access the law - when access to the law has become more a right of the rich.
4. The right to have government assistance when abroad. Things may have improved in this regard but it is still a hit and miss afair and if you fall foul of the politics of the Australian government as David Hicks has done, forget it. Blair and the Brits can extricate their citizens from the madness of Guantanamo Bay, the US takes umbrage if any of their citizens are threatened, and yet we leave a young citizen to rot with none of the legal rights that Australians take for granted - and certainly no access to rights under the Geneva Convention.

We Australians also need to recognise our historic exclusion of people - Aborigines from civil rights until 1967, selectivity in immigration under the White Australia Policy, and continuing selectivity by herding some immigrants into concentration camps known as immigration detention centres. We are happy to control and/or manipulate access of some to Australian law.

Our right to free speech and the democratic hallmark of transparent governemnt is limited when major social organisations in Australia are forced, if they want to receive any government funding, into silence as a condition of funding and when governments can indulge themselves in secret dealings of dubious nature and claim commercial-in-confidence dealings.

Lastly, we won't look to closely at flawed business and educational immigration programs where we have been only to happy to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage allowing criminal elements to infiltrate and unqualified people to conjure up Mickey Mouse courses while our own students are increasingly priced and placed out of university places.

Citizenship. I'm in favour of it. I am a sixth, possibly seventh, generation Australian. I am proud of the place. I just wish I saw governments, both state and federal, value it as much as I do.