I never get tired of looking at this photograph. It never fails to fill me with wonder and awe at the ingenuity of my species who, against all the odds, have carved these glorious man-made islands of light out of the primordial blackness. Whenever I am heavy of heart, I open up this photograph and stare at it to remind me that, somewhere, there is light and life.

And there is. For now.

Towns and cities around the world are turning out the lights for an hour to highlight the threat of climate change.

Sydney was the first major city to begin "Earth Hour", when at 2000 (0900 GMT), lights went out on landmarks like the Opera House and Harbour Bridge.

Bangkok, Toronto, Chicago and Dublin are among 27 other cities officially due to follow suit at 2000 local time.

With each passing day I become more convinced that the 'green' movement is actually a millenarian psychosis; a mental and spiritual sickness borne, perhaps, from some degree of civilisational exhaustion. Not just a belief that the end of the world is nigh, but an active desire to bring it about. And soon. Ours is not the first age to witness such pandemics of madness but, in the Middle Ages at least, there was the excuse of a near-universal poverty. In such a state of interminable plight, despair may not be the wisest response but it is at least an understandable one.

But now we live in an age of near-universal prosperity and progress. Never before has our species enjoyed such security and such freedom from want. Yet this is clearly no defence against a recurrance of this psychological plague.

Some pubs are spending the evening without the lights on while many Australians are marking the occasion quietly in the darkness at home.

Life, laughter, love, food, drink, warmth, travel, communication, progress, a world full of unprecedented wonders and it's all too much for them. Better to sit in the darkness and curse the lighting of even a single candle.

'Stop the world, I want to get off' was the plaintive refrain of some Broadway comedy show I think. It could also be the motto for the greens, except that they want everybody off. Is that what they aspire to as they sit at home quietly in that seductive, undemanding cloak of blackness? To switch off civilisation and shuffle away into the perpetual tenebrosity dragging everyone else behind them?

The conditions are ripe for the spread of this insanity. Indeed, it is spreading now. How long will it be, I wonder, before some official body somewhere floats the idea of mandatory blackouts and curfews? "The voluntary approach" they will proclaim, "has not worked".

And what do we do in response? Laugh at them? Ignore them? Rage against them? What would work to innoculate the rest of our species? What combination or words or phrases could we use to dissipate and lay low a viral madness? I am, of course, familiar with the customary rebuttals. "We will win because we have MTV and Coca-Cola". But without the light there is no MTV, there is no Coca-Cola. What do we have then?

The lights are not yet going out all over the world. But I fear that I will see them do so in our lifetime.

On November 19, 1941, the light cruiser HMAS Sydney of the Royal Australian Navy was returning to the port of Fremantle after escorting the troopship Zealandia to Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra. The Sydney spotted what appeared to be a merchant vessel about 150km off Shark Bay on the coast of Western Australia. As it happened, the vessel in question was the quite heavily armed German merchant raider HSK Kormoran, painted black and disguised as the Dutch vessel Straat Malakka. The Kormoran had been responsible for sinking ten merchant ships in the previous year in the South Atlantic and Indian oceans, but it was not initially identified by the Sydney.

Whilst attempting to identify the unknown vessel, which was sending out deliberately unclear and ambiguous flag signals, the Sydney chased and overhauled the Kormoran, approaching to a distance of approximately 1000 metres from the Kormoran. At this point, the Kormoran opened fire. Sydney was hit approximately 50 times, causing severe casualties on her bridge and open decks, damage to her gun turrets, and apparently damage to both sides of her superstructure that caused complete destruction of her lifeboats and rafts, and setting the ship on fire. Sydney retaliated, and caused severe damage to the funnel and engine room of the Kormoran. Sydney then left the scene, heading south. Kormoran was so badly damaged that the ship had to be abandoned. Sydney was last seen listing and on fire, and flames were seen and explosions heard from the crew who had abandoned the Kormoran as the evening progressed.

The bulk of the crew of the Kormoran (over 300 people) were either rescued by Australian ships, or managed to sail their lifeboats to the Australian mainland. They were imprisoned in Prisoner of War camps, where they remained until 1947. The crew of the Sydney were not so lucky, however. Neither the ship or anyone on it were ever seen again. Apparently the destruction of the lifeboats and rafts meant that when the ship sank it went down with its entire crew of 645 people.

For people in Australia who lived through the Second World War, the loss of the Sydney is a moment that is always remembered and recalled. Losing one of the largest vessels in the Australian Navy did terrible things to Australian morale, and the mystery of where the ship went down and exactly how it was lost is something that has led to controversy, disagreement, and even the odd conspiracy theory involving the Japanese. The Sydney went down two weeks before Pearl Harbor. The fact that the only knowledge of the battle and how the Sydney was lost came from the enemy has heightened this sense.

The next six months were very bleak ones for Australia in the war. Eight ships (including the Zealandia) were sunk and there was much loss of life and property when a massive Japanese air raid attacked the Australian city of Darwin on 19 February 1942. More bombs were dropped in this raid than had been dropped on Pearl Harbor two months ealier. This was the first of over 100 air raids on Northern Australia in 1942 and 1943. The 8th Division, which the Zealandia had transported to various parts of tropical Asia as the Japanese threat loomed (but which had been trained for desert warfare against Nazi Germany) suffered a series of terrible defeats, and was essentially destroyed as a fighting unit by the middle of 1942. The Japanese Navy made serious incursions into the water off the east coast of Australia, culminating in the midget submarine raid on Sydney Harbour and shelling of Sydney and Newcastle by Japanese submarines in May and June of 1942. At the time if was feared by many that a Japanese invasion of Australia was imminent.

Of course, this did not happen, but it was a terrible moment in Australia's history, and one that largely took Australia by surprise. In my mind that six month period from the sinking of the Sydney is when Australia ceased to be British. That Australia was in a different part of the world, and had different interests and different priorities and potentially different allies from Britain was something that could no longer be denied by anyone. While for most practical purposes Australia had been an independent country for decades by this time, a law was passed (The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act of 1942) that made this unambiguously clear. Those symbols of nationhood that Australia had not adopted for itself prior to this time were adopted soon after the war. Australia's foreign policy ever since this moment, including Australia's very close alliance with the United States and Australia's decision to keep relatively small but extremely modern and well trained armed forces are really a consequence of what happened in this six month period of the Second World War. The loss of the Sydney was in a way an atypical part of this terrible six months. It was sunk by a German vessel, and the war was ultimately with Japan. However, the loss of the Sydney was a landmark event in Australian minds.

Which is why the mystery of what had happened to Sydney has been a long-standing and long-running one in the Australian psyche. It was one of two mysteries from the Second World War, the other being what happened to the third midget submarine that entered Sydney Harbour on May 31, 1942. That submarine was eventually found just north of Sydney, but not until November 2006.

And people kept looking for the Sydney, despite the fact that it was lost a long way to sea, and at that the sea off Australia's very inhospitable north-western coast. $3.9 million of government money was directed towards a search for the wreck of the vessel that commenced at the beginning of this month, headed by American shipwreck hunter David Mearns. On the 16th of March it was announced that the wreck of the Kormoran had been found on 12 March. On the 17th March, it was announced that Sydney had been found at 26°05′49.4″S 111°04′27.5″E, and the wreck was still largely intact. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that both wrecks would officially be designated as war graves, and thus protected under Australian law. Presumably it will be possible to examine the wreck of the Sydney further and learn a little more about how she was damaged and sank. Still, though, the question of what happened in her final few hours will always remain supposition.

One of London's top City financiers is lobbying to get a statue of Keith Park, one of the top RAF commanders during the Battle of Britain, put in Trafalgar Square. Park, a New Zealander, seems an excellent choice.

Park had the sort of qualities, according to reports, that I have come to associate with New Zealanders today: unassuming, sharp sense of humour and frequently tough as nails.

Every child should have authoritarian parents, because then they'll grow up to be libertarians.

-Oddball Australian journalist Paddy McGuinness, as recounted at his funeral this week by Bill Hayden.

The controversial Australian euthanasia advocate and doctor Phillip Nitschke has been arrested in Auckland, New Zealand, and books that he had in his possession have been seized. Nitschke, the moving spirit behind Exit International, had gone to New Zealand to host some 'workshops' on euthanasia.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of euthanasia, this seems to me to be a clear case of 'thoughtcrime', and New Zealand authorities deserve nothing but scorn for this.

It is not widely known even in Australia that in 1808 the NSW Corps of the British Army deposed the Governor of New South Wales, William Bligh, in a coup. This is known as the 'Rum Rebellion', but it was not really about rum. Reading about it on Wikipedia, it is clear that Governor Bligh, a Captain in the Royal Navy, who had already endured the Mutiny on the Bounty, was not fit to govern a colony like New South Wales was at the start of the 19th Century.

For there were already free settlers in New South Wales at that time, and they wanted their rights and liberties as British subjects respected. Chief among them was John Macarthur. Michael Duffy writes about the rebellion and Macarthur's role in it here.

As for myself, since it is also Australia Day today, I am going to do the patriotic thing and toast my nation onwards- with good old Australian Rum.

There is a new book about Tom Cruise, the American movie actor. Normally this information would not elicit even a groan from me. I simply have no interest in Cruise, movies, Hollywood and the pampered, pathetic world of the modern celebrity. But this new book, on the other hand, seems to be much more interesting then its subject matter.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian bookstores have been denied access to sell the book, not because of any government ban, but because the US distributor has decided that it will not sell the book outside the US or Canada. The distributor, Ingram International, will fulfill existing orders, but will not accept any more orders.

This is a very curious story. What is not said but is left implied is that the most controversial aspect of the Tom Cruise story is his adherence to the Church of Scientology. It seems that the Church came to some sort of legal arrangement with the distributor.

US-based Ingram International, described on its website as "the world's largest wholesale distributor of book product", sent an email to its Australian customers this morning citing unspecified legal reasons for not being able to distribute the book outside the US and Canada.

"Although I recently e-mailed stating Ingram's ability to offer the book to international customers, the position has now changed that we will not sell it outside of the US and Canada," Asia, Australia and New Zealand sales representative Jonathan Tuseth wrote in the email.

If so, it seems to be hardly worthwhile- anyone who wants to read the book, anywhere in the world, can do so by ordering through Amazon.com.

However it is another sad retreat from the old position of 'publish and be damned'. The publishers of Salmond Rushdie's book showed some courage in the face of Muslim rage in 1989, but now publishers seem to be willing to retreat at the first hint of a lawsuit.

This is just the sort of case that an aspiring young political figure with a passion for freedom should take up as a rallying cry for liberty, freedom and rationality. Do not hold your breath.

A headline in the Australian newspaper struck my eye just now: 'Teachers warm to merit pay'. A deeper reading of the story reveals a few caveats, but the fact that Australian education unions are willing to concede anything at all to the principle still struck me as the most surprising thing to me. I thought we'd see peace in the Middle East, cold fusion and spending cuts long before seeing education unions in Australia concede the principle of merit pay.

Unsurprisingly, John Howard and his conservative coalition lost Saturday's federal election in Australia heavily. It also looks like Howard will lose his seat - a sitting Prime Minister has only ever lost his seat once in Australian political history. On a personal level, his passing is somewhat of a melancholy event for me. I first started taking a strong interest in politics from the age of about 13. Howard was elected when I was 15, so for many years he has been a political figure of very close scrutiny and interest for me. Thus, the "end of an era" aspect is a little sad, and I think that despite the kind of doublespeak people in his former position often need to talk in order to Keep Everyone Happy - or at least keep the minimum amount of balls in the air - he is quite a decent and humane man. He genuinely had the "common touch"; not in the charming, polished, stage-managed way that impresses the media and the elite. He was less of a "gather a media entourage and head to the nearest working class pub to have a sham beer'n'bellylaugh with some rough men in singlets" type - ringing up a late night radio station talk show after he'd clearly had a few too many beverages was more his style. His uncontrived ordinariness, often verging on folksy, is a rare commodity amongst politicians of his seniority - and it is something I will miss.

Having said all of that, we should not get too sentimental about his defeat. John Howard and his party are no friends of ours. Many of his party's major reforms, whilst bearing objectives which most in the small-government camp would consider a step in the right direction, were implemented with a liberally (pardon the pun) spread layer of added regulation. Consider the tax code which, after eleven years of ongoing "reforms", stands as an epic bureaucratic tome defying compliance. Or the recent industrial relations changes, which somehow made a fiendishly complicated system even more so.

Certainly, Howard can accurately claim that Australia became richer and more economically stable whilst he was in office. Nevertheless, he and his team should be remembered as big-government conservatives, and we liberals must not forget that Australia is more prosperous today in spite of his government's efforts, rather than because of them. My only regret is that his successor is likely to be even more meddlesome.

As predicted for many months Mr Kevin Rudd and the ALP have won the Australian elections. The upside of this has already become apparent in the comic value that Mr Rudd has provided - at least for us in the rest of the world, who have heard stuff like his so many times before.

In his acceptance speech Mr Rudd came out with a lot of fatuous waffle about how everyone should believe in the future, create the future, even "embrace" the future. It was like listening Harold Wilson in about 1964. For Americans it must have been like hearing Bill Clinton do one of his JFK impressions about futurism - if I am allowed to steal a word from the Italians.

Then, of course, Mr Rudd came out with a lot of backward looking polices:

Soldiers to run away from Iraq, as if it was 2003 and it was possible for the West to avoid involvement - and totally ignoring the events of the last year that mean it now looks like we are going to win the war. The idea seems to be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sign up for Kyoto - as if it was sometime in the 1990s. There was, of course, no mention of reducing regulations on the expansion of the nuclear industry. In short the concern with C02 emissions was a pose - and an excuse for various new taxes and regulations.

And, of course, more money for his friends, and fellow ALP members, in the schools and universities - the people who, along with the media types they produce, worked so hard to get him elected. More money and, vague, "reform" will mean better education - pass the sick bag. Mr Rudd did not actually say "education, education, education" but he might as well have.

Some of my friends in Australia are a bit down in the dumps about the election result, although they all predicted it, but my message to them is simple - if you can not do anything about the farce you might as well enjoy it.

There will be plenty of laughs over the next three years.

In this weeks edition of The Economist, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, is attacked for 'spending' money by promising to reduce taxation in a targeted way so that people can better afford to send their children to independent schools. We are also told that "professionals and economists" (no names are given) hold that the money would be better spent on increasing the government school budget even more.

So tax reductions are 'spending money', as if all money belonged to the government and allowing taxpayers to keep a bit more of their own money is 'spending' it, and the solution to the problems of government education is to increase government spending on it even more than it has already been increased.

In recent times I have attacked the Economist for pretending to be pro free market whilst, when one reads it closely, not really being so. Articles like the one on the Australian elections mean I can no longer fairly make this charge. The Economist having now 'come out' as an openly leftist publication.

In Australia there is a budget surplus, unlike most nations. Taxation, in total, is lower than almost all other Western nations. Unemployment is about 4% of the workforce - the lowest it has been for decades. Both industrial output and GDP are growing at more than 4% (higher than almost all nations in the Western world), and this growth has been going for years.

And everyone tells me that Mr Howard is going to lose the general election.

Why? Someone explain this please.

"It is Iraq" - but Australia has had virtually no casualties in Iraq. I can not believe that the nation that suffered the mass murder of its citizens in Bali is going to submit to the will of Al Qaeda (which is what running away from Iraq would be).

"It is Kyoto" - but this agreement did not even limit India or China (the latter the biggest producer of C02 emissions), even the Democrats in the American Senate were not interested in ratifying such an absurdly biased agreement. Why should Australians wish to do so?

No I do not understand. Why should Australians wish to throw away their economy? All their prospects for prosperity tossed away on unlimited power for the unions and endless government Welfare State spending. I do not deny that most Australians are going to do this (I can not argue with a nine month opinion poll lead), but I do not understand why they are acting in this self-destructive way.

Australian students have been force-fed a diet of a certain version of Australian history, the 'black-armband' school of Australian history, which paints the entire colonial period of Australian history as a moral disaster. Now in evidence before the Australian Senate, history teachers have admitted that this is provoking resistance from students, who feel pride in their country.

HIGH school students resent being made to feel guilty during their study of Australia's indigenous past and dislike studying national history in general.

The History Teachers Association called yesterday for a rethink of the type of Australian history being taught in schools and the way in which it is taught.

History Teachers Association of NSW executive officer Louise Zarmati said her experience teaching in western Sydney was that students were resistant to learning about Australian politics and, in particular, indigenous history.

"This is a somewhat delicate subject but they don't like the indigenous part of Australian history," she told a hearing of the Senate inquiry into the academic standards of school education in Sydney yesterday.

"The feedback I get is they're not prepared to wear the guilt. They find it's something that's too personal, too much of a personal confrontation for them.

Since the students are not responsible for decisions made in the late 18th and early 19th century they are quite right to reject the 'guilt' being pushed on them by teachers. And it is nice to see that attempts by education authorities to politicise the classroom are rebounding on them.

Guy Herbert this morning posted a piece commenting on Australian Prime Minister John Howard's decision to "ban" the Australian cricket team from touring Zimbabwe later this year. I generally have little time for Mr Howard, but in this case I can not personally be very harsh on him. What clearly happened is that the Australian Cricket Board (which these days prefers to call itself "Cricket Australia") begged him at length the make such an announcement, and he eventually gave in despite considerable resistance, and he did this because the alternatives open to him were probably worse. I have no disagreement with Guy that the outcome is essentially a dishonourable one, but the other easy options were worse. Some background.

In international cricket, there are only three countries for who the game is directly profitable. These are India, Australia, and England (in decreasing order of profitability). The other countries that regularly play international cricket make money by playing the national teams of these three countries, and then selling television rights and other sponsorship opportunities for these matches. Thus it is very important to (say) Sri Lanka for (in particular) India and Australia to regularly tour Sri Lanka and play matches.

In order to assure its members of some sort of regular cricket and regular income, the International Cricket Council (ICC) has in recent years created a mandatory tour program, requiring each of its members to play each other both home and away over a five year period. Reactions to this rule have varied, and compliance with it has been variable. The rule allows two sides to postpone a series if both are in agreement, which has allowed India and Australia to at times get their way by offering more money or more matches if the matches are played at some undefined "later". However, if a team takes a hard line, then (at least theoretically) the other side must tour, or must pay a fine to the ICC which will be then forwarded to the host team as compensation for the lost revenues from the matches that were to have been played. The ICC's rules allow for two situations in which a fine is not payable: firstly in cases where there is a genuine issue of safety - tours of both Sri Lanka and Pakistan have been called off for this reason in times of high political tension and terrorist threat - and in cases where a government forbids a tour. This second rule has come into play more in cases where Zimbabwe were potentially the touring side, most notably when Zimbabwean players were refused visas by the government of New Zealand.

Zimbabwe are a full member of the ICC. In the mid 1990s Zimbabwe had quite a decent cricket team (of mostly but certainly not entirely white players) but in the years since then Zimbabwean cricket has gone the way of most other things in Zimbabwe. At the demand of the government, white players were pushed out of the team, as were any non-white players who dared to say anything critical of the government. Officials who ran the game and actually cared about cricket were replaced with compliant government yes-men. The organisation of cricket in Zimbabwe became a shambles, and we are not sure right now to what extent the domestic cricket is even taking place. (The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians has recently been complaining about being unable to get scorecards for the domestic Logan Cup, which it has documented with no trouble for over a century). Inevitably, the standard of the national team has dropped from "decent, but not world beating", to utterly woeful. Their performance in the recently completed World Cup was dreadful, and they have dropped to 11th in the world rankings, way behind the rapidly improving Bangladesh, and behind even Ireland, a side just consisting of part time Australian and English expatriates and who are not a full member of the ICC.

However, through all this Zimbabwe has maintained its full membership of the ICC. Zimbabwe has been "temporarily suspended" from playing test matches due to its declining standards, but it is still playing one day international cricket, and other teams are expected to tour in order to play these games. Australia was scheduled to tour Zimbabwe this year.

The obvious thing to do would be to expel Zimbabwe from the ICC, not necessarily on political grounds explicitly, but simply because cricket in Zimbabwe is no longer being administered and organised properly, that the board is no longer independent of government, and because selections are no longer taking place on the basis of merit. However, there are two reasons why this has not happened. The first is that there is a "third world" versus "first world" divide in international cricket, and some aspects of the administration of the game are a post-colonial nightmare. For many years Australia and England (and, prior to their expulsion from international cricket in the apartheid days, South Africa) had the right of veto over any decisions made in the ICC, and the other countries still have a lingering resentment of this. Once this veto was abolished, the Asian cricketing powers were eager to elevate other countries to membership of the ICC so as to gain a voting majority against the former "colonial" powers, and this is one factor that led to the elevation of Zimbabwe in the first place. Expelling Zimbabwe would increase the voting power of the "first world" bloc, and many people in India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka do not want this.

Secondly, what are the objections to Zimbabwe playing international cricket? For one thing, Zimbabwe is ruled by a dictatorship that restricts civil liberties. Well, other members of the ICC include Bangladesh and Pakistan, who are not exactly wonderful on this score either. South Africa is ruled by people who consider Robert Mugabe to be one of their old comrades in arms. If Zimbabwe were kicked out of world cricket on these grounds, then this would "set a bad example" to Pakistan and Bangladesh in particular. Did I mention that the governing body of cricket in Pakistan is traditionally a branch of the army and the head of its board is usually a general? That complicates matters further, and rules out the "We should expel Zimbabwe because the government controls cricket in the country" argument. The government of Sri Lanka appoints that nation's cricket board too (although not through the army). As for "Zimbabwe selects players on something other than merit", well, South Africa does that too. (Affirmative action with respect to black and coloured players). One would think that "Zimbabwe should be expelled because Zimbabwean cricket is a shambles" might be enough, but the organisation of cricket in a number of countries is a shambles (most notably Pakistan again, also (sadly) the West Indies). The ICC is also a shambles, having demonstrated in its organisation of the recently completed World Cup that it is an organisation that could not collectively get pissed in Porto)

Australia was scheduled to tour Zimbabwe later this year. The Australian players did not want to make the tour. The Australian government definitely did not want the tour to go ahead.

However, until recently it stated that as Cricket Australia is a private organisation, then it is not the government's job to decide. The Australian board mainly cares about making as much money as possible, but in the crunch it did not want to tour either, and really would have just preferred that the whole issue would go away. However, it did not especially want to upset the ICC, and it did not really want to pay a fine. Quite typically, the board asked the government to solve its problem for it.

When it initially got this request from Cricket Australia, the Australian government made comments about how it did want the tour to go ahead, and about how it might be willing to "indemnify" Cricket Australia against a fine from the ICC. What this means is that Cricket Australia would have cancelled the tour as this is what the government wanted and that the government would then have paid the fine on its behalf. This would have been an easy enough thing for the government to do - after all it was only taxpayers' money,. However, when the government said this, it had not comprehended the full implications, which was that the fine would be paid to the Zimbabwean board in compensation, and that as the Zimbabwean board is controlled by Robert Mugabe, paying the fine would essentially mean giving a gift of $2 million directly to Robert Mugabe.

Once the Australian government comprehended this, paying the fine was not a feasible option. The Australian government was not going to give Robert Mugabe a $2 million gift. The only other option was to take advantage of the ICC's rule that a government ban could stop a tour without a fine. In defence of John Howard, I believe he genuinely did this as a last resort. The alternative was worse.

However, from the point of view of Cricket Australia, there was another alternative, which was to simply withdraw from the ICC. The ICC is very culpable concerning Zimbabwe. The participating teams in the recent World Cup and other ICC tournaments have been given a share of the profits of the tournament. This includes Zimbabwe. The ICC is already partly funding Robert Mugabe, and Australia is partly implicated simply by participating in the ICC's tournaments. The recent World Cup was such an organisational debacle that there is no great loss in not participating in future such events. If Australia were to leave, the ICC certainly could not stop Australia playing its traditional series against England, and if they tried then the national boards of England, New Zealand and probably other nations as well would follow Australia out of the ICC. Australian cricket is also based on expectations of receiving money from playing India frequently (next January's series between Australia and India is anticipated to be extremely lucrative), but it is hard to imagine that India would not find a way to continue playing Australia - they need the revenues they receive from playing such games

What Australia should have done was called the ICC's bluff. It may have suffered some short term financial insecurity as a consequence, but it would have regained control over its own destiny and would have at least fixed these kinds of problems for good.

This would have been good, because there is another cricketing crisis in the background. When Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer was murdered in March after Pakistan's elimination from the World Cup. most of us speculated that the murder was in some way connected with subcontinental bookmakers, as cricket's problems with match fixing and betting were well known. I expected that this would confirm and the details would leak out relatively quickly, but it did not happen. One thing I did not take adequate notice of was a series of strange articles that were published about the religious devotion of certain members of the Pakistan team, in particular captain Imzamam-al-Haq. Apparently a significant portion of the Pakistan team were devotees of the Islamic Tablighi Jamaat movement, which stresses living a pure and authentic Islamic lifestyle and which is aggressively evangelical. Apparently the team was factionalised between devotees of this movement and non-devotees, and there were prayer rooms set up in team hotels and Tablighi Jamaat clerics mingled with the team and were present in the dressing room. Allegedly Bob Woolmer saw this as divisive and detracting from the team performance.

There have been various leaks and observations since Woolmer's death suggesting that he must have been murdered by someone he knew and who was connected to the team. The possibility is very real that he was murdered by someone in or closely connected to the team, and the reason that he was murdered was mixed in with fundamentalist Islam rather than bookmaking. There are now doubts that the final e-mail sent by Woolmer (resigning his position as coach) before he died was written by him (it does not sound like it was written by a native English speaker). which again suggest that the murderer may have been some what connected to the team, and somehow had access to his laptop. (Of course, this story has already long passed six impossible things happening before breakfast, so perhaps it was some bizarre combination of the two). The fact that we still do not know who killed Woolmer after two months does make me wonder if some sort of cover-up has gone in within the Pakistan team, and if so the "Islam" explanation becomes more likely and the bookmaking explanation less so, I think

I do not know what happened, obviously. The story gets stranger and stranger. It may be that the state of the Pakistan cricket team is symptomatic of the decay and radicalisation of the country of Pakistan every bit as much as the decay of the Zimbabwean cricket team is as symptomatic of the decay of that country. If so, countries such as Australia and England should not be playing Pakistan either. However great the rivalry between Pakistan and India, one cannot imagine some of these revelations increasing the eagerness of India to play Pakistan regularly either. If the ICC mandates regular tours of Pakistan, then this may well be another reason why the ICC is not an organisation that it is advantageous for cricketing authorities in Australia, England, or elsewhere to be connected to any more.

John Howard, Australia's Prime Minister, is quite rightly critical of the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe, and does not like the idea of the Australian cricket side touring there. He has had to struggle with his conscience:

"I am jammed between my distaste for the government getting involved in something like this and my even greater distaste for giving a propaganda victory to Robert Mugabe.

But not that much of a struggle. The next sentence:

Obviously if there is a way legitimately that the tour can be cancelled and there not be an exposure by Cricket Australia to any fine, then we'll go down that path."

Later in the week this was backed by threatening to withdraw the players' passports, and the federal government undertaking to pay any ICC fine.

What a pity. Mr Howard plainly understands that the administration of sport is not the government's business; but he feels bound in the pursuit of maintaining Australia's national image to intervene in private sphere. Talk of the tour being a victory for Mugabe is just justifying cant: a ban is a much bigger target for racialised anti-colonial rhetoric. The quasi-ban - notably exercised by bullying and bribery rather than any lawful power - is a lurch of Zimbabwe-style arbitrary government and propagandising state action.

Western politics is not so far from the world of Comrade Bob, and we forget that at our peril.

"The severing of Britain's economic ties with its Commonwealth partners as a price of European (Union) entry further strained those relationships. Today, Germans arriving at London's Heathrow airport breeze through the domestic arrivals line, while Australians who fought against the Germans at El Alamein for Britain's sake wait in the foreigners' line with the Japanese."

- Jim Bennett, The Anglosphere Challenge, page 279.

Not that I have a problem with Germans or Frenchmen "breezing through" customs.

Scott Wickstein notes a priceless piece of bureaucratic imbecility in New Zealand:

A New Zealand council has taken itself to court and successfully been fined $4,800 [...] it will pay itself the fine, minus the court's 10 per cent cut. It has already stumped up $3,000 for pre-trial "outside legal opinion".

I also enjoyed an anonymous comment left on the post at Scott's:

I wouldn't be surprised if they lodge an appeal

The president of our National Welfare Rights Network is a man named Michael Raper.

Surely an excellent name for someone who constantly thinks about how best to take advantage of taxpayers.

Canberra-based libertarian blogger Tex has been asked to stand as a candidate for the Australian Senate, and has written his campaign speech. I think you willl agree with me that it is a model of Australian eloquence. On the other hand, no one can accuse Tex of taking a 'populist' approach.

To mark the occasion, Samizdata reader Sam Ward - better known as 'Yobbo' - has posted an alternative Australia Day address from Sam Kekovich on his blog. Might as well plonk it here, too.

Right. It is a heinously hot day in Perth. I am off to spend the entire afternoon in the sun, drinking beer and frying steaks.

To those who are not au fait with arcane Australian military procurement debates - and those that wish to be so - I present to you a rather fascinating discussion of the merits of the F-22 Raptor (a most superior bird) versus the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (which the Australian government has plumped for). And those that do not give a tinker's cuss about Australian defence procurement (hell, I do not blame you), I have some quite breathtaking footage of an Su-37 being put through its paces.

I believe this footage (also via Catallaxy) is of an Su-37 being exhibited at the Farnborough air show in the late 90s. Would not like to be facing this plane in a dogfight during daylight hours. According to the linked source, the Su-37 is not currently being manufactured for any particular client. Okay, Samizdata military talking heads - discuss!

There is an Australian political party worth voting for! I have recently joined as a financial member. Some principles, some policies. Not bad at all. I think their taxation policy places too much of a burden on the taxpayer, but it is still preferable to the progressive status quo.

Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.

- Sheikh Taj Din Al Hilaly, widely noted as Australia's most senior Muslim cleric and an assumed <sigh> moderate Muslim, unintentionally explains why multiculturalism is quite a bad idea. The Sheikh had, in the same sermon, described unveiled and outgoing (as in leaving the house) women as "uncovered meat", and that "if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it.”

Rape away, gents.

And the reason? Simple, the USA has banned Vegemite! I expect to see RAAF strikes on US targets by late this evening and Aussie SAS teams boarding US shipping and dumping cargoes of Skippy Peanut Butter into the sea.

More seriously, it is just preposterous that the state interferes in the most picayune aspects of life. Next time I am in the US I intend to smuggle a jar in disguised as Marmite and smear it over the door handles of the first US federal government building to see.

We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith and because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem. You can't wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others. Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia.

- Andrew Robb, a spokesman for the Howard government in Australia, speaking to an audience of 100 imams.

Can you imagine Bush or Blair having one their spokesmen saying anything even remotely like that?

Brian Scurfield brings some interesting developments in New Zealand to our attention

You might like to keep an eye on New Zealand politics, where a classic shit fight is taking place. And it was all started by Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton, who is suing the NZ government for misappropriation of taxpayer money during election campaigning of 2005. For some background information check out Darnton vs. Clark, Not PC & David Farrar

Having misappropriated taxpayer money and facing a lawsuit, the New Zealand government now wants to ram through legislation validating their thievery. To divert attention, they threatened to dish the dirt on opposition MPs, resulting in the exposure of an affair by the opposition leader. The dirt has come right back at them, however, with allegations that the PM's husband is gay and that her marriage is one of convenience. Entering into the equation, also, are Exclusive Brethren who may have been snooping on the Prime Minister and tales of the government hiring private investigators to snoop on the opposition.

While I do not give a damn about either the Prime Minister's or the Leader of the Opposition's personal lives, the amount of dirt being dished is an indication that the New Zealand government is in serious trouble.
In Hungary, when governments lie, people riot. In Thailand, the tanks roll in. What will happen in New Zealand? For the government has not only lied, it has also stolen taxpayer money to win an election.

"Allegations of corruption are intolerable in a Western liberal democracy."
- Helen Clark, NZ Prime Minister

No, [Mrs.] Clark. Corruption is intolerable. When allegations of corruption are intolerable, it is no longer a Western liberal democracy
- VigesimalPundit

Speaking of moonbats, Germaine Greer dusts off her keyboard to put the untimely demise of her compatriot, Steve Irwin, into some sort of perspective:

In 2004, Irwin was accused of illegally encroaching on the space of penguins, seals and humpback whales in Antarctica, where he was filming a documentary called Ice Breaker. An investigation by the Australian Environmental Department resulted in no action being taken, which is not surprising seeing that John Howard, the prime minister, made sure that Irwin was one of the guests invited to a "gala barbecue" for George Bush a few months before. Howard is now Irwin's chief mourner, which is only fair, seeing that Irwin announced that Howard is the greatest leader the world has ever seen.

So there we have it. Driven to despair by the illegal encroachment, a member of the oppressed Alternative Species community hit back against the Irwinist-BusHitler-Howard cabal. They must adopt a different maritime policy.

And now for a story of a nature rarely seen in the pages of Samizdata - that of government policy incompetence resulting in farce. As in the rest of the world, we Australians are starting to rankle about paying the high petrol prices experienced at present. Politicians of all stripes sense votes in this issue, and they are right to do so - I am certain the average Australian firmly believes the government should Do Something about this added financial impost. Consequently, the Australian federal government has announced that it will Do Something About It by spending other peoples' money. That should come as no surprise to those that watch governments with a w(e)ary eye, however this latest brain fart from the sages in Canberra - to subsidise Australian motorists if they convert their petrol powered cars to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) - is more egregiously stupid and counterproductive than most, and deserves attention.

First, some background. LPG is widely available in Australian cities. All of the larger fuel stations sell it. LPG's price is usually slightly less than half that of conventional unleaded petrol. I estimate that somewhere between 5-10% of cars have conversions enabling them to run on gas. A conversion kit, fitted, costs about A$2500. The federal government subsidy is worth up to A$2000 per conversion.

There are a number of fairly simple and certain predictions one can make from such a proposal, given the circumstances outlined above. Firstly, the cost of vehicle conversion will soar due to the massive increase in demand⁽¹⁾. No matter - the increased investment will soon be recouped through fuel savings. That is the whole point of the subsidy; alleviate the political headache of high fuel prices by getting Australians to switch from expensive petrol to cheap LPG. Of course, all things are static - especially prices.

Back in the unfortunate realm of reality, it is quite obvious that a return on the conversion investment is unlikely to be realised, because the price of LPG will also be a victim of incrementally increasing demand, as more and more gas-powered cars hit the road. The price of petrol may fall slightly, though oil (and thus petrol) is a global commodity with a more-or-less uniform price. Naturally, producers will sell their fuel in a market that provides the optimum return. Thus, supply will fall in concert with the slump in demand, leaving prices largely unchanged. And another factor to be considered by those who are thinking about taking up the government's ostensibly generous offer - petrol excise is a major revenue earner for the Commonwealth. If this starts to dry up, lightly-taxed and increasingly-used LPG is going to look like quite an attractive target for the Treasury boys, narrowing the price gap further. The two fuels will probably reach price parity at some not-too-distant point; that is, the price of LPG will rise to meet that of petrol.

Simply put, this subsidy will achieve none of its stated aims, create a bunch of unintended negative consequences and is a most elementary economic blunder. The lesson - and it should be well understood by a government that trumpets its sound economic management at any opportunity - is that subsidies do far more harm than good. The big winners will be gas conversion component manufacturers and those installing this equipment. Gas suppliers also stand to benefit. The losers will be the broad pool of taxpayers (again) and those who have invested in a gas conversion kit in the vain hope of cheaper vehicle running costs.

What a marvellous outcome.

LPG-powered cars do, however, emit far lower levels of greenhouse pollutants than their petrol-powered counterparts. A nation of gas-powered cars may help Australia achieve its assigned Kyoto targets. We sensibly refrained from taking on that ball and chain, however we may as well sign the bloody treaty now - our adherence to it might be the only thing we have to show from the colossal waste of taxpayers' money that is about to take place.


⁽¹⁾ = In my home state of Western Australia, our state government had already declared it was going to subsidise LPG conversions by $1000 per unit. This subsidy will now run on top of the federal government's $2000 subsidy. Expect all conversions in WA to rise, probably overnight, from A$2500 to $3000+ when the subsidies come into force.

Whenever we are told that the state needs new powers for whatever reason, we are constantly reassured that there will be 'safeguards' and 'accountability' to protect citizens from the intrusions of powerful government agencies.

You did not have to be a Brazillian living in London to have some doubts about that. And it is not just in such high profile cases that government agencies misuse their powers.

For example, here in Australia, a rather colourful lawyer, one Michael Brereton has found that details of his messy private life have found their way into newspapers after a tax investigation against him failed to provide the state with enough legal ammunition to prosecute him.

Investigator inquiries have appeared to focus on the details of the financial structure behind Mr Brereton's latest theatre venture, the musical Jolson.

... But Mr Brereton and a number of his Jolson investors maintain it was a bona fide musical and not a tax scam, despite being a flop. He says that in the absence of evidence of any wrongdoing, the ACC moved to shame him.

The original Melbourne newspaper article that fingered him, headlined "Drug, sex claims in tax probe", described Operation Wickenby's Mr X and appeared to derive straight from court affidavits provide by his ex-wife.

She declined to repeat her claims that Mr Brereton endangered his daughter but labels him "a nasty and vindictive man". She said the newspaper leaks must have come from the ACC, which had "subpoenaed a lot of my files". The ACC has denied being responsible.

A longstanding friend, former cabinet minister Alan Griffiths, said the ACC had "potentially ripped up the rule book in relation to lawyer-client privilege".

The Australian Crime Commission has suffered a massive blow to its credibility by getting entangled in a domestic spat; but it might also demonstrate just how far government agencies are willing to go to 'get at' people its officials take a dislike to.

So much for those 'safeguards', hey.

My home town of Perth recently bore witness to perhaps the most shocking crime in recent memory around these parts - earlier this week, an eight year old girl was raped and murdered, her body dumped in the disabled toilet of a popular Perth shopping centre just minutes after she was separated from her parents. Now a strange twist has created even more public interest in the case. The individual apprehended and charged with the offence, twenty one year old Dante Arthurs, is rumoured to be one of the two boys who killed James Bulger back in 1993.

There are a number of coincidences that have given rise to the aforementioned rumour. Perth's local rag, The West Australian, notes that

a Sue and Ron Arthurs lived in Surrey, south of London and left to return to Australia in 2002. Around the same time, the Bulger killers were believed to be entering a secret relocation program

More chillingly, The West - in its typical muckraking fashion - actually made the link between Dante Arthurs and the Bulger case last year. It put the question regarding Dante's identity to the family then; long before he committed the offence he is currently being held for. It is quite remarkable that Dante, quizzed about his identity vis-à-vis the Bulger case, would later go on to commit such a similar crime.

When the rumour surfaced, the Western Australian police force and justice system immediately rushed to scotch it. British authorities declared it untrue; the Bulger killers were not relocated to Australia. The Arthurs family vehemently denied that Dante Arthurs is an assumed identity, masking one of the Bulger killers. They produced a birth notice, published in The West Australian in 1984, declaring Dante's birth. This would appear to conclusively bury the rumour, however some have pondered whether the birth notice simply illustrates the depth of Dante's cover. Personally, I suspect it is more than likely that Dante is not a re-identified John Venables or Robert Thompson, and the startling coincidences linking the two cases are no more than startling coincidences. However, it must be noted that all the parties who have denied the rumour also have a strong interest in ensuring the confidentiality of such an arrangement, if it indeed exists. If child-killers like Venables or Thompson were released, given new identities and shipped off to foreign lands - only to re-offend there in similar circumstances - the political consequences would be enormous. It would at least spell the end of such expedient methods of dealing with society's most notorious (but presumably rehabilitated) malefactors; a scenario authorities in Britain and Australia would rather not suffer. If Arthurs is one of the Bulger killers, I have no doubt that authorities would sooner lie about it if they think such evasiveness could head off the ensuing major international scandal that would inevitably follow the breaking of such news.

Unfortunately for any government agency attempting a cover-up, if the rumours are correct about Dante Arthurs, I think it likely that the truth will be explosively revealed here and in Britain sooner rather than later. There is so much public interest in the Dante Arthurs case that every angle of this tragic affair will be exhaustively probed by investigative journalists. No doubt they are at it now - wading through birth and death records, electoral rolls and the like, hunting for inconsistencies - whilst hounding their snouts within the public service for information. A devastating public service leak is a strong possibility; if there is anything to leak, that is. I still maintain that all the journalistic investigations will probably come to naught, as Dante Arthurs is most likely not Jon Venables nor Robert Thompson. However, I may be wrong and we could be seeing the early stages of a scandal that will shake the justice systems of Great Britain and Australia to their foundations.