Margo, you may be interested to read a letter I wrote to Mr John Howard this evening, August 18. It contains a brief view of my concerns. Keep up your own good work!

The Prime Minister, Hon. Mr John Howard, MP, The Deputy Prime Minister, Hon. Mr John Anderson, MP, For Information: >The Federal Member for Longman, Hon. Mr Mal Brough, MP

An Appeal from a Conservative Voter

Gentlemen,

It is with some considerable difficulty and regret that I have the need to pen this letter, for I feel that in recent months the credibility of our conservative Government has taken quite a battering. I have laboured over the content of such a letter as this for some weeks, but I shall now give it my best shot.

I am acutely aware that the previous ALP government under Mr Paul Keating received numerous letters of condemnation from my desk as their credibility, in my opinion, was completely in tatters. However, since the conservative government came to power some eight years ago, I have always expected a much higher standard of professional and personal conduct from its members. This is particularly so as a conservative team, in my perspective, is usually Christian based and therefore of a higher standard.

By and large, I am pleased with the performance of the current government, particularly in its economic management, the improvements to Medicare, and the improved role of our Defence Forces, but there are a few areas where discipline has slipped. I shall attempt to address just four areas:

* Immigration - the question of Dual Citizenship;

* Post War Iraq - the competence of the U.S. Military in the rehabilitation role;

* Free Trade Agreement - the handling of the Opposition's amendment; and

* Children Overboard of 2001 - the reopening of the debate.

Immigration - the Question of Dual Citizenship

This occurred a fair while ago. It has always amazed me that a conservative government could even consider the idea of permitting Dual Citizenship in this fair land of ours. There are dozens of countries in the western world where dual citizenship is not permitted from their soil, and I say to them 'Well Done!!'. It would be a difficult task to repeal such a law now, and it would take several years to achieve, but I believe it would be worth it. To prohibit Dual Citizenship in Australia would place a far better control on the conduct of unsavoury persons whilst living in this country. It would also require prospective citizens to consider exactly where their heart lies, in Australia, or in another land. Dual Citizenship is already prohibited for members of our Defence Forces, (rightly so), and for all Members of Parliament as well as some areas of Public Service (again, rightly so). Therefore, I genuinely consider that the same requirements should be for the general public as is for the Defence Forces in this regard.

Post War Iraq - The Competency of the U.S. Military in a Rehabilitation Role:

It should be emphasised here that I was always a loyal supporter of the offensive programme to overthrow Saddam's regime. The debate on Weapons of Mass Destruction, to me, simply did not matter. I had always believed that the coalition forces simply went in to perform an action the United Nations should have done ten years earlier. While the U.N. procrastinated, Saddam murdered 60,000 per year. However, in my opinion, the bad news only started when the so called hostilities stopped.

If you ask any Australian Servicemen, particularly any of the NCOs or Warrant Officers who have served alongside our U.S. allies in an overseas capacity, they will all tell you the same thing. The U.S. Military is highly productive when on an offensive, as that is their 'Gung Ho' role. However, in all the areas I have seen the U.S. Military operate; I can assure you that they are simply not cut out for a 'Post War Rehabilitation Role'. I believe that our own government, backed up by our own Defence Forces, should have tactfully informed the U.S. of this fact, then tactfully but firmly suggested they quietly leave while the Australians and the British looked after the rehabilitation programme.

It is true that the U.S. has been an amazing ally, but we still must retain sufficient ticker to say to them when their forces are not up to it. I can assure you that the loss of life would have considerably less than the current state. It is widely known that the ordinary Australian and British servicemen have the uncanny ability to 'get alongside' of the local populace when on overseas service. Sadly, it is too late now, for there has been an incredible amount of damage done by the U.S. since that time.

Free Trade Agreement - Handling of the ALP proposed Amendment

By and large, I believe most people believe the Free Trade Agreement with the USA will have a positive result for our country and will reflect an amazing achievement by our government. Even when it is accepted by both sides, I believe there will probably be some initial teething problems.

However, when the opposition presented its proposed amendment to the agreement, citing a further tightening on the control of pharmaceutical companies, the Government initially vehemently and publicly opposed any such amendment. It wasn't until the Government realised there was no other way out than to negotiate the amendment did the Government decide that the amendment wasn't as dangerous as it initially thought.

Gentlemen, I have attended many a high level committee meeting where proposals are presented, then perhaps met with opposition or suggested amendments, etc. If any of our members were to behave in a manner similar to the government ministers did in their debate in the House of Representatives, such members would have been thrown out of the meeting by the Chairman. The Chairman would have instructed all members to adjourn the meeting, meet elsewhere and genuinely debate the merits of the amendment and its genuine effect on the bigger picture, considering its effect on the overall target. The important point here is that the amendment was eventually discussed and negotiated with a successful outcome being achieved.

Children Overboard of 2001 - the Reopening of the Debate

In my view, this is probably the most serious of matters to happen recently. Personally, I don't particularly care whether a public servant said what to which Member of Parliament or when. History has recorded that statements by members of the Public Service are seldom recorded. However, the most indictable fact is an occurrence right at the beginning of the saga. It soon became apparent at that time that the Naval ship's Captain and his crew gave a report which differed to that given by the then Minister of Defence, Mr Peter Reith. It also became evident that the report given by the Ship's crew was altered and fabricated by the then Chief of the Defence Forces, Admiral Barry, in order to satisfy the political aspirations of the minister.

I find it amazing that the media keep on harping on what this Public Servant was reported to have said to Members of Parliament. I simply cannot understand why the Ship's Captain's report is not obtained and given as evidence. If, I repeat IF, the Captain's evidence is contrary to that initially presented by the Minister, then an Indictable Offence has occurred and as a consequence, two men should then be charged in a court of law.

These are: * Mr Peter Reith be charged for the Sedition of Her Majesty's Senior Naval Officer in that he coerced a senior naval officer to fabricate a report for political gain.

* Admiral Barry should then be charged for Perverting the Course of Justice, in that, in a moment of weakness, he consented to fabricate a factual report to satisfy the whims of a Minister.

In my time in the RAAF, I too have seen this happen, where a senior officer gives in political pressure and a truthful report by a subordinate officer is suppressed. Such an event is always distasteful and disappointing.

Therefore, if investigations of the Ship's Captain's report are conducted and are in fact contrary to that of Mr Peter Reith, then an indictable offence has taken place. Irrespective of your previous loyalties to Mr Reith, if the evidence is there, then it should be handed over to the Director of Public Prosecutions for due process. Yes it is that serious....

Conclusion

Gentlemen, prior to my recent retirement, I had been in the workforce for some forty-three and a half years. In that time, just over forty years was spent in the aviation industry, either in actual aircraft maintenance, maintenance planning, or in Flight Operations. I can assure you that during all my service, if an error occurred and was not discovered prior to the aircraft Maintenance Release being signed, then the person committing the error was totally on his own. No cover or quarter was requested nor given. To do so would have vastly increased the probability of fatalities. This is the condition under which we all worked. No-one complained, that's simply the way it was.

Having worked under that standard for more than forty years, I cannot understand why other professional people should not operate in a similar manner. In short, I have never, repeat never, asked anyone to cover me for an error I have made. If I discovered my own error, no matter how slight or serious, I put up my hand and took what ever action was required to recall the aircraft, irrespective of cost.

In closing, I ask the question, 'Just where is the conservative voter to place his vote? To elect the so-called 'alternative government', i.e., the one which is somewhere between the left and a 'wannabe right', is simply unthinkable. But, I have to seriously consider that the disciplinary control of many conservative members needs to be improved. I really do hope you can pull it off at the next election, for the sake of the nation, but the credibility and the discipline will need to improve.

Yours most Sincerely,

John Clarkson