Further Observations on the Tent Embassy debacle.

The night of the Tent Embassy protest I wrote this piece (below) and sent it off with hopes of it being published. The media portrayal of the protest had painted all involved as hellcats, violent and spitting fury, and only stopped short of describing Ms Gillard’s position as mortally perilous by the smallest of linguistic margins.

Since the protest there have been a number of developments: Julia Gillard’s press secretary was forced to resign after having been outed as the person who leaked the information about Mr Abbott’s whereabouts to someone connected to the movement; his contact was revealed to be a senior union member (I will admit to having had very limited dealings with her regarding the National Museum of Labour); Ms Gillard has absolved herself of all blame; the AFP has absolved itself of all blame; about half a dozen viewpoints from the protesters side have been made, some positive, others not; and the Liberal Party has been baying for Ms Gillard’s blood, accusing her of orchestrating the event for her own gain. Even Mr Wilkie, an unlikely contributor before the rejection of his pokies deal, has agreed to vote in favour of a no confidence discussion when Parliament resumes.

Reading the news now it seems that our Government is on the verge of collapse and that Ms Gillard is facing challenges from within and without; with pissed off independents and a recent poll showing the Coalition ahead in the 2PP vote it seems we may soon have a new Prime Minister.

But then again, the media has shown such a level of incompetence in the last few days that I doubt they would be able to report on their arse if they were sitting on a photocopier. News of Gillard’s government facing challenges from within and without has been printed so often that I’m beginning to suspect that it’s part of a game in which the reporter changes one word per article to form a secret code (hint: “We can’t believe you’re still buying this shit”). As Jacob Appelbaum said, the business of Government is information management; it chooses which bits of information get passed on or leaked and to whom. It seems that the Gillard government (or at least some of its members) wants people to know that it is held together merely by the desire to remain in power.

As for the efforts of the Coalition to force a criminal investigation of the protest I can’t help but remember the Grech affair when Malcom Turnbull and the Coalition carried on like pork-chops in a failed effort to embarrass Kevin Rudd and to make so much noise that no one would notice that they were lying. Politicians are generally well skilled in seizing on something small and blowing it completely out of proportion to embarrass their opponents and relish the opportunity to do so. I wouldn’t expect any less of them in this case.

So, wait. The Gillard government is in trouble, as usual. The opposition is carrying on and beating their chests, as usual. The media is hyping things up to make things sound more urgent, as usual.

I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

It’s not entirely inconceivable that the Government will lose power if a no confidence motion is debated. The real worry is that Tony Abbott might end up as Prime Minister and that the Gillard government will have set the bar for ALP amateurism even lower than Gough Whitlam’s record.

*

The Tent Embassy Protest and the Media (27/1)

When the news broke yesterday that the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader had been trapped inside a restaurant near Old Parliament House by violent Tent Embassy Protesters it sounded like things had turned ugly. Fresh news articles didn’t help the situation, describing the scenes as violent and chaotic and photos showing a terrified Prime Minister made it clear that things had gotten out of hand at the protest.

Oh, no, I thought. They’ve over done it. I could understand protesting Mr Abbott’s comments about the Tent Embassy being irrelevant but I didn’t think it required the response that had been detailed in the news.

Then Channel 9 released video footage of Ms Gillard being evacuated from the restaurant and I noticed something: there were more police officers and journalists near the Prime Minister than there were protesters. In fact, other than two or three protesters who had gotten caught in the scrum as they ran from the restaurant, there were no protesters near the Prime Minister. Claims of police having to push through a crowd just weren’t backed up by the footage.

When a friend who was at the Tent Embassy contacted me that afternoon I asked her for more information about what was going on so that I could try and get a clearer picture of the real story. Some of what had been reported was true: there were about 200 people protesting; they were angry and noisy; the protest had been called in response to Tony Abbott’s comments earlier that morning.

But there were also large errors or omissions that had not been reported widely. While various outlets had described a violent, rowdy crowd surrounding the restaurant the worst of the violence before Ms Gillard was evacuated was people banging on the glass. Not, I would have thought, grounds to scramble the riot squad. After she was evacuated there was violence: one or two protesters threw water bottles and water at the ComCar with Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott in it and, as various videos show, a number of protesters were hit in the head by police officers. Probably the most violent person at the protest was the police officer photographed waving a large can of capsicum spray near the faces of protesters before pushing over two protesters and a journalist.

The aim of the protest was to get Mr Abbott to come outside and elaborate on his comments about the Tent Embassy being irrelevant and needing to be moved on; the protesters didn’t even know Ms Gillard was with him until about 10 or 15 minutes after arriving and, when they realised, their aim became to get both of them to come out and address the crowd. When the small crowd of riot police ran into the restaurant and locked them in the protesters thought that they were planning to form some sort of guard around Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott so that they could address the crowd.

Instead they decided to evacuate the two of them and, to be honest, I’m not surprised Ms Gillard looked terrified: her bodyguard practically dragged her to the car, the Prime Minister tucked under his arm like a red-haired football, and then proceeded to almost throw her into the car head first. Mr Abbott, on the other hand, got into the car quite casually.

Though angry crowds are quite intimidating I seriously doubt that Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott were at any serious risk. I think Ms Gillard will come to rue her evacuation as John Howard did his appearance wearing a bullet-proof vest following the Port Arthur Massacre.

Maybe Mr Abbott should have been more tactful in his remarks; maybe the protesters should have lined up and politely made their point or remained quiet so as not to disturb those inside; this article isn’t intended to address those concerns. Nor is this an attempt to label all Australian Federal Police violent and incompetent – I was in Canberra when there was a massive factory fire last August and had to be evacuated in the middle of the night. I only have praise for their efforts that night and would not like to tar them all with the same brush.

Yet, on Australia Day, they over-reacted to a perceived threat, made the Prime Minister look ridiculous and managed to get a non-violent protest labelled a violent riot. The protest was neither a riot nor “an unprecedented outburst of violence” (compare it to the eviction of Occupy Melbourne) and before the media sets about patting itself on the back it should address these discrepancies and report the incident more accurately.

Poll: Who Do You Think Is To Blame?

 Loading ...

The Tent Embassy Debacle from A Protester’s POV

In Canberra, in front of Old Parliament House (also known as the Museum of Democracy) is the First Nation’s Tent Embassy, first established in 1972 by four Aboriginal activists who wanted to draw attention to the plight and inequality of Indigenous Australians. 2012 is the 40^th anniversary of the establishment of the Embassy and so a large gathering was organised for this Australia/Invasion day.

The Tent Embassy managed to get a lot of press today (26/1) after a large protest was held that resulted in Australian Federal Police and protective services dragging Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to their ComCars and massively over-reacting to the presence of protesters at the site. But what really happened?

Speaking to Sam Castro, currently at the Tent Embassy, I was able to get a run down of the day’s events.

The morning started with speeches being made at the Tent Embassy on a range of subjects until one person stood up and explained to the crowd that Tony Abbott had remarked to the media that he believed the Tent Embassy was no longer relevant and should be packed up and moved on; information had just come through that Tony Abbott was at The Lobby, a restaurant near the Old Parliament House, and the suggestion was made that the group should go there and ask Abbott to talk to the crowd and explain himself.

A contingent of about 100 protesters made their way up the road to The Lobby and surrounded it. Though they were loud and noisy they were non-violent. Security blocked the protesters from getting close to the restaurant for a while but it didn’t take long for a few protesters to break the line and soon the rest had gotten close up against the restaurant’s walls. As the walls of The Lobby are made of glass the protesters could look in and see Mr Abbott and the others pretending not to hear them and, after about ten or fifteen minutes Julia Gillard’s white jacket was recognised and the protesters realised that she was in there along with Mr Abbott.

The aim of the protest had been to get Mr. Abbott to come out and talk to the crowd – now it wanted to get Ms. Gillard to come out and do the same as well. Yet they continued to ignore the protesters, drink champagne and take photos of one another while their constituents tried to get their attention.

A short time later a contingent of riot police and protective service officers arrived at the restaurant. All up there were about 50 to 60 officers there and protesters watched on as a group of about 20 riot police hurtled past them in V-formation, bursting into the restaurant and then locking themselves inside.

When I spoke to Sam she said that the protesters thought the riot police were arranging to form a sort of guard around the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader so that they could come out and talk to the crowd but, as the rest of the media has shown, the riot police’s real objective was to ‘escort’ the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader to their cars.

As more protesters made their way to the restaurant, the riot police charged out the doors, practically dragging Ms Gillard along, while the onlookers began to shout “where are you going?” and “why won’t you talk to us?” As the cars drove off, some people threw plastic water bottles and water at the cars.

At this point things began to get fairly nasty; one protester was knocked into the rose bushes and one gigantic cop started brandishing a can of tear gas or capsicum spray (reports differ on this point) in people’s faces and shoved Sam, another girl and a female photo-journalist in the head. When Sam told him to calm down he reportedly bared his teeth and grinned so widely his eyes nearly popped out of his head; to many on site it was fairly clear that the officer was barely under control.

Then the police began to link arms to form a line against the protesters and the protesters followed suit, ending up with a Mexican standoff. Some of the Indigenous Elders called for the protesters to return to the Tent Embassy but a female Elder began a non-violent sit-down protest in the road just down from the café and soon a line of Indigenous women, female Elders and non-Indigenous women had been formed across the road.

The women declared that they were not going to be intimidated by the police and that they would not move until the police stood down. While some of the other protesters returned to the Tent Embassy, a large group (including some of the Occupy Melbourne contingent) remained to watch on and support their fellow activists until the police eventually gave in and stood down.

As the remaining protesters made their way back to the Tent Embassy they were greeted by applause and the female protesters went through a cleansing smoke ceremony.

*

A few final points:

• Contrary to some reports, the protest was not “an unprecedented outburst of violence”; in fact the only violence on the day was done by police and protective services (See 0:15, 0:41 and 0:42 in this video and 0:15 and 0:45 in this one).
• The protesters were unaware that Julia Gillard was in the restaurant until some time after the action had started.
• The aim of the protest was merely to get Mr Abbott to speak to the crowd, not to assault him or anything like that.
• The massive over-reaction of protective services and the Australian Federal Police resulted in Ms Gillard losing her shoe, protesters being assaulted and pretty much everyone but the protesters looking like a bunch of dills.

EDIT: The fact that the protest was neither a “riot” nor violent is best shown in footage taken by Channel 9 (of all organisations) that clearly shows a lack of protesters anywhere near the PM as they’re evacuated.

So, in summary: the protest was non-violent, the police over-reacted and Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott still won’t listen to ordinary Australians.

UPDATE: The Tent Embassy protesters retrieved Ms. Gillard’s shoe after it came off and are planning to auction it on eBay.

UPDATE 2: Ms Gillard’s shoe is reportedly going to be used as an incentive to open dialogue with Ms Gillard about a First Nation’s treaty.

UPDATE 3: Footage from the ABC (see below) shows protesters banging on the windows of the restaurant and shouting “Shame!” and “Racist!”, which some might construe as violent. Even so, those who did bang on the windows were n the minority and it has nothing on the violence used against protesters by police (shown immediately after in the footage).

UPDATE 4: Another eyewitness account dismissing the claims of violence/a riot has been added by Mike Stuchbery:

“After another 5 minutes or so, the crowd grew larger and the chants became a bit more organised and you could hear knocking on the windows. It is at this stage that a few police cars start to turn up and officers jump out and run towards the building. The police surrounded the restaurant to create a barrier, the banging on the windows stopped, and a constant chant of “always was, always will be, Aboriginal land” started up, which continued until the two were taken out of the Lobby. It was at this point that Em and John (wife and uncle) were walking around and having a look at what was going on. Now… as emphasised yesterday, Em is pregnant with twins… if there protests were in any way violent, I would have got all paternal and walked Em away. There was almost no prospect of violence.”

UPDATE 5: A THIRD eyewitness account dismisses claims of a riot (courtesy Amy McQuire of Crikey):

“But while there was anger, it was far from a “riot”. A riot involves violence and a disturbing of the peace. While it was definitely a loud demonstration, there was no damage. A few smudged fingerprints on the glass of the restaurant was the net result. There were about 1000 protesters around the café when Gillard and Abbott were rushed through their own mob of security guards.”

Wil Wallace: Jacob Appelbaum Visits #OMEL (The Digest, 24/1/12)

During the 20^th Century many journalists sought to make careers by traveling to distant and dangerous locations to interview rebel leaders, tyrants and criminals for stories that would titillate their readers. In the 21^st century this has continued, though the development of digital technology and communications has brought changes: media can now operate with much greater flexibility, transmitting footage and text from even the most hostile environments; and the role of the citizen has become much more important to media creation.

Changes in technology and communications have also had their effect on society (Australian, Western and Global) and in the 21^st century the list of exciting and alluring interview targets has been expanded to include hackers, cyber criminals and hacktivists.

When mainstream journalists write of hackers and hacktivists the characters they create often fall into one of two stereotypes: the nervous, fidgety and suspicious kind who, if they can be coaxed out for a meet, are laconic and somewhat coy; and the young, cocky and flamboyant types who have prospered from their efforts (illegal and legal). Maybe, if you’re lucky, they interview the hacker brought back to earth by the law or their colleagues.

Jacob Appelbaum fits none of these categories: he is a very normal person. When he spoke at Occupy Melbourne it was almost as though he had materialised out of thin air; wearing his characteristic shirt, emblazoned with the slogan “Be the trouble you want to see in the world…”, and softly spoken his positive and inviting rhetoric drew in a crowd that swelled from a dozen or so people to over eighty near the end.

Appelbaum covered a range of topics: the state and wrongness of American surveillance of civilians and activists; the collaboration of Facebook with law enforcement agencies; the stockpiling and exploitation of personal data by intelligence agencies and online businesses alike; the need for Australia to recognise that Julian Assange is an Australian and that our government has done all but nothing to help him; and the unconfirmed admission by someone in the Australian telecommunications industry that the Australian government had established interception and monitoring rooms within telecommunications facilities, much like the NSA in the United States.

Appelbaum also spoke about Tor (the Onion router) and its applications for online communications by activists. He was quick to assure us that Tor was not 100 per cent safe and that doesn’t provide anything more than anonymity (which can be undone with sufficient resources and patience) but offered tips on how to minimise the possibility of identification while using Tor.

Possibly most importantly, and definitely most controversially (Hi NOSIC!), Appelbaum also called on Occupy Melbourne and other activist groups to actively work to expose Government spying on citizens, to infiltrate spying organisations to learn from them and to create change and to use the tactics being employed against activists against those doing the spying.

Appelbaum’s visit to Australia has been assisted in no small way by Senator Scott Ludlam who wrote a letter of recommendation to ensure Appelbaum’s entry into the country and who accompanied Appelbaum as a speaker at “War on the Internet” (click for videos of the event), a speaker and panel session hosted by the Melbourne Trades Hall on Internet security and surveillance. We thank them both for coming down to Occupy Melbourne.

Wil Wallace: In Support of Reform [Rather than Revolution] (Occupied Times of London, 20/1/12) #auspol #OLSX

Nearly every activist has a place for revolution in his or her political toolbox. Some treasure it as their most precious tool, constantly polishing it up and yearning for the day when it can be put to good use; others hide it away at the bottom of the deepest drawers and instead choosing to use strikes, lobbying or legislative change to achieve their ends.

The appeal is obvious: with the option of revolution we can dream of smashing the system, destroying the structures that confine us and rebuilding our society for the betterment of all its members. Yet revolution is an unwieldy tool and indiscriminate in its manner. As Godwin said, “Revolutions are the produce of passion, not of sober and tranquil reason.”

One might also suggest that for a revolution to provide a satisfactory result for all involved would require a level of unity and common purpose that is not usually found in human societies. It might be possible to unite the masses to depose a brutal dictator or an unfair polity but, when they come together afterwards to define the new state, the dream can too easily be destroyed by factionalism and ego.

In Australia there is not much of a culture of revolution: the few incidents that resemble anything close to revolution (the Rum Rebellion and the Eureka Stockade) came early in our history and are only celebrated and remembered by descendants of the original participants or those who view them as the stuff of legend. This is not to say that there haven’t been struggles or that Australians are totally apathetic; we have a long history of dissent and protest. Instead what it means is that we have found reform a more accessible and effective tool for effecting change.

Reform is a slow and painstaking process but the small steps it takes can help to direct cultural changes that will, in turn, drive further reform. Reform is useful for those who want to effect change because the process of gradual reform softens the blow of change – this is something the Right knows and has put to great use to support the 1%. The Big 4 banks (the major Australian banks) are also employing reform as a technique to trick consumers into accepting their extortionate business practices and in talking to people and reading what they have written online it is clear that the Big 4 are enjoying a lot of success in this endeavour.

For reform to be effective for the progressive cause we must take the reins and direct it in favour of the most disadvantaged and disaffected, rather than the 1%. We can make major reforms to address serious and immediate problems and we can chip away with smaller reform; either way we need to utilise the cultural change inspired by the Occupy movement to help the 99%.

Wil Wallace: Higher Student Fees Just Aren’t Feasible (The Punch, 13/1/12) #auspol

On the Future of Occupy Melbourne. #auspol

Occupy Melbourne (OMEL) is in a dire situation.

For many reasons, some of which I shall go in to, we find ourselves in the situation where our numbers have been decimated, several of our most active members can not or will not come on-site and where a significant numbers of Occupiers are suffering malaise.

If we are to recover – and I am not at all confident that we can, or will – we need to decide whether OMEL is a protest or a movement, change or maintain our structures and processes accordingly and, in any case, take a more proactive role in finding solutions to the problems we perceive in Australia and the world.

The Occupy Movement came from a feeling of disenfranchisement and disillusionment with the system and recognition that conventional forms of dissent had proved fruitless. By Occupying, our discontent took on a physical form and we could create a community where like-minded people could come together, we could educate the public and through collaboration we could find solutions.

However, since the Eviction I feel that we have concentrated on voicing our discontent without taking real steps to have our concerns addressed. At first we could get away with dismissing people’s enquiries about what solutions we were proposing by inviting them to take part in the discussion and by relegating the need to find solutions to the more immediate concern of survival. Yet in doing so we lost the chance to attract and engage the large part of the population who were interested in OMEL and who might have supported us in person or otherwise. It is interesting and important to note that there are quite a number of people in the public who will admit to sympathising with the Occupy movement without explicitly supporting it.

More importantly, it is vital that we take stock of how OMEL is viewed by the public and written about in the mainstream media (MSM). When we have a mere handful of people loudly disparaging OMEL we might afford to ignore them; however, when the aggregate view of OMEL is that it is a movement for people who really like sitting in parks we need to accept that this is how we are viewed and act accordingly to fix it!

It is my belief that one way to fix this is to move from a position where we, as a group, say, “We are ANGRY!” to one where we say, “This is what we want to do about it!”

I do not expect us to have answers for everything, nor do I expect us to try and find a solution to every problem. Sometimes our role might be to lobby MPs, Unions or other people/organisations to pull their finger out and do something. Other times we might be able to put forward a solution and fight to have it enacted. When we discuss problems we need to quickly move from discussing the point that we agree it’s wrong to finding a way to rectify it.

Apart from anything else I cannot see how we could achieve anything by solely concentrating on making sure that people know we’re dissatisfied. I think they get it now – what people want to know, and what will get people back into the fold, is what we plan to do.

As I wrote in the Geelong Advertiser OMEL is a movement unified by a target rather than a doctrine and this gives us unique challenges. Apart from anything else it means that we don’t have a default position to fall back on when trying to find solutions. Taking the example of the Qantas lockout, other activist bodies might have been governed by a philosophy that would enable them, at the drop of a hat, to come out in support of re-nationalising the airline; others might have been able to immediately call for the dismissal of the Directors and the CEO. OMEL needs to take all of these positions into consideration and through consultation arrive at a policy that we can push through Direct Actions and Occupation. That we have not done this is a serious failing of OMEL.

We also need to make the decision about whether OMEL is a protest or a movement; are we using the tactics of Occupation and Direct Action to address a specific complaint or are we a movement concerned about a wider range of issues that can use various tactics as part of targeted campaigns against certain issues?

Both options have their merits, both have their problems. The second option (which I will openly say I prefer) opens up the possibility of OMEL assuming an educational role for the public while seeking change through action. If OMEL confirms itself as a movement we can create campaigns to educate the public about how greed, corruption and transparency affects them as Australian citizens; it means we can educate people about the follies of paying little attention to your Superannuation. Etc., etc.

And finally, I want to remind people that Occupying is only a part of a means to an end. It is a tactic. As the last month at Flagstaff and South Melbourne have shown, Occupying by itself achieves nothing. Occupying for the sake of Occupying is as dangerous as abandoning Occupying altogether.

Given our serious problems with numbers, the loss of prominent members of the movement for various reasons (temporary and more permanent) and our waning presence in the public consciousness we are in danger of reaching the point of no return or where, if we can return to some level of activity, we will be greeted with the response of “…you still exist?”

Going on my experience of how quickly things change in OMEL I believe that unless sincere and effective moves are made to revitalise the movement we will not survive in any appreciable way beyond a week, or two weeks at the maximum.

For those most invested in the movement this will be devastating but for the hundreds of people who have come and gone already, it will not be that surprising.

I think it would be a great pity to see OMEL fall apart like this and I think we can be proud of the huge cultural impact we have had in the past few months: when activists hold sit-ins the news and the people now say that they are “Occupying” something; the 99% has entered our cultural lexicon; and, above all else, people are actually thinking more about the economic unfairness of our world.

I suggest that we accept our past, refuse to dwell on it (though this doesn’t mean fail to learn from it) and instead plan for the future. If we don’t, we are doomed.

A Friendly Exchange With Sir Robert [Review: Letters to my Daughter, R. G. Menzies]

Letters to My Daughter is a collection of letters written by former-Prime Minister Sir Robert “Bob” Menzies to his daughter, Heather Henderson, between 1955 and 1975.

It might come as something of a surprise that someone of my political bent would have an interest in reading about Bob Menzies, father of the Australian Liberals, especially given that in my recent research Menzies featured as the spectre of evil, Money and Conservatism. There are numerous reasons why I decided to pick up Letters; suffice it to say I was interested to discover more about the man himself, about conservative Australian politics in the period covered by the book and to read about the man from a less hostile viewpoint than the Australian Communist Party.

And what a joy it turned out to be! Menzies and his daughter enjoyed a close and friendly relationship, as is evident in the letters, and they give the reader an excellent insight into the personal lives of the Menzies, of the Australian political scene and, to a lesser extent, British and American politics. Henderson has done an excellent job of editing the letters together and annotating them with information that makes sense of quotes and references that might otherwise slip by the reader.

Menzies was no less a writer than he was a speaker. Being a man of an age when education inspired rich, witty and intelligent conversation the letters are interesting and amusing at once when dealing with trivial matters and more serious concerns. On receiving news that his daughter had given birth to her second daughter Menzies wrote:

“When the news came during a luncheon I was giving at Parliament House, I fell into a sort of trance of pleasure. …True, as I wrote to you previously, I would have liked a grandson. As against this, and speaking solely from my own experience, I love daughters. There are other compensations. Probably on the principle of physics that ‘action and re-action are equal and opposite’, a boy would have grown up to be a Communist MP, treating my memory with proletarian disrespect!”

His analysis of issues in Australian and international politics are also very interesting and, more often than not, quite accurate. His views on American elections, John F. Kennedy, “Dick” Nixon are fascinating, especially when placed into the context of how events turned out.

After his exit from politics, Menzies felt that while the world “[had] moved on, and that [he perhaps had] not moved with it”:

“The London Times used to be regarded as the sheet anchor of the reflective man, but every time I open it now the front page is devoted either to the death of the manager of the Beatles (with a subsequent obituary notice to which I could never aspire myself), or to the caperings of some of the eccentrics in the current generation called ‘Flower People’ or something.”

Certainly his attitude towards Australian politicians and politics grew more critical as the years progressed; in some of the earlier letters Menzies writes of “Brother Bert” (H. V. Evatt) and other contemporaries more sympathetically than I had expected but by the early 1970s politicians on both sides of the House were subjected to Menzies’ sharp criticism. Perhaps the change is due to the evolving relationship between father and daughter; perhaps it is due to age – either way it is clear that Menzies had a dire opinion of the Liberal Party in his final years and did not think much of the younger generation that was taking over his party.

I specifically mention this because Menzies is often cited as an inspiration for modern-day Australian conservatives and members of the Australian Liberals; John Howard in particular. Yet Menzies’ politics are as different from modern conservatism as Ben Chifley’s are from the ideology driving the Australian Labour Party today. After reading Letters I can’t help but raise an eyebrow to claims that Howard was mentored or desired to emulate Menzies as his ideology and style, not to mention the thuggish approach to Parliamentary politics*, are remarkably different. But, I shall continue to read as I may be proven wrong.

Letters to my Daughter provides a unique viewpoint into Australian politics and history that otherwise would be lost – many thanks must go to Heather Henderson for making sure the letters were published. Unlike Lazarus Rising (which could only be more mind-numbing if it actually fell out of the bookshelf onto your head), Letters to my Daughter is an entertaining and captivating read and I highly recommend it to people of all political persuasions.

Rating: 7/10

Published by Murdoch Books, widely available. RRP: $39.95.

*Exhibited by the ALP and the Liberals equally.