The Peter Roebuck story: we must be careful of the dots we connect

Front page of today's Fairfax Sunday papers is the exclusive "The Roebuck tragedy: a tale of love, beatings and blackmail".  This is a remarkable piece of investigative journalism, reporting on the enigma who was Peter Roebuck, both respected cricket commentator, and now also known as alleged child sexual offender and benefactor.  A paradox indeed.

Yet, within what appears to be a factually diligent reportage, there is a disturbing connection.  The connection is not made deliberately, and in this particular case, the connection is fair.  Unfortunately, it also enables those who are not so fair-minded to extend the connection in directions where it has no right to go.  This connection is that as Peter Roebuck was a homosexual, that homosexuals are likely to sexually assault young boys.

Some people commit sexual assaults - race, class, sexuality, religion or any other characteristics has no relevance

Whenever sexual assaults are reported, there is understandable community concern, even outrage.  This heady emotion can often combine with prejudices against various groups in society, so that an offender who is of a particular race, class, sexual orientation, even religion is seen as representative of all of their kind, rather than representative of sex offenders.

Within the article, cricket commentator Jim Maxwell explained that:
"he was "taken aback" when he gave his statement to police shortly after his friend's suicide, and the second question they asked was "Did you know he was a homosexual?"

For those who have a predilection towards criticism of gays, this offers them the opportunity to say "see, he was gay, no wonder he did it to those boys".

All of the evidence is to the contrary.  Pedophiles are pedophiles, not because they are black men raping white women, Catholic priests interfering with altar boys, or gays assaulting young men. These three cohorts have had the misfortune of attracting widespread media attention, as a result of certain cases that have enabled myths to be perpetuated.  None of these groups deserved those connections.

Myths related to sexual assault are damaging myths

There are so many myths relating to sexual assault, which have been disproved by many studies (see a list of reliable references below).  These include the myth that sexually provocative dress means that women are "asking for it", the myth that most assaults are by strangers, that most assailants are old men, and so forth.

When these myths are allowed to perpetuate, our society suffers.  We distrust priests (most of whom are well meaning people).  We discriminate against women for the way they dress.  The US criminal justice system has been shown to discriminate against black men. And there are many more impacts on our society.

The Roebuck legacy must not be about gays and boys

The Peter Roebuck legacy will be many things.  It may be about the need to support youths reach their potential in Africa.  It may be about the need to be more aware of abuses against vulnerable children.  It may be related to cricket. It may be other things entirely.

What the legacy must not be is an excuse for bigots to accuse all gays of being pedophiles, nor an excuse to be suspicious of all white men in Africa.


For when we engage in unfounded bigotry, it hurts us all.


Let me know what you think.

Mark S

References on sexual assault myths:
http://www.thewomens.org.au/SexualAssaultsMyths
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/csa_myths.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml
http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html
http://www.mnsu.edu/here4you/assault/myths.html

The Iron Lady only had partial rights to do what she did

Meryl Streep deserves great praise for her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady", despite the screenplay itself lacking from its superficial coverage of each of the important events in Thatcher's political life (unfortunately a more fulsome coverage would have run for too long for the average Oscar contender). She shows the leadership qualities that gained Thatcher her steely reputation, but also exposed the arrogance that is a leader's greatest enemy.

The fine line between leadership and tyranny

We want our leaders to lead.  We don't want them to dominate, terrorise or control our lives.  I don't agree with Thatcher on a range of her policies and approaches, but I respect her for stating her perspective and for being elected by the British people.  What I don't respect is her belief that her way was the only way.

As a hard-line conservative, Thatcher believed that all people had a responsibility to work, to earn an income.  Yet she went further, by stating it as a duty. 

"when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!" 1

This debate plays out in all democracies, and there is certainly truth to the sentiment - without people choosing to be productive, society would have no progress.  However, Thatcher puts her perspective as an absolute.  It is this "moral absolutism" that is of concern, rather than the view itself.

When leadership gives way to righteousness

Thatcher's downfall is often portrayed as the infamous cabinet meeting in which she chastised her colleagues as children.  While this obviously had a role to play, the (almost) equally famous resignation speech in the Commons by the Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, made it clear that it was Thatcher's refusal to consider any alternative views on integration with a European monetary union that was actually to blame.  As he said...

"Cabinet Government is all about trying to persuade one another from within". That was my commitment to Government by persuasion--persuading colleagues and the nation. I have tried to do that as Foreign Secretary and since, but I realise now that the task has become futile...The conflict of loyalty, of loyalty to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--and, after all, in two decades together that instinct of loyalty is still very real--and of loyalty to what I perceive to be the true interests of the nation, has become all too great. I no longer believe it possible to resolve that conflict from within this Government. That is why I have resigned.

We can all take the lesson that leadership is no longer leadership when nobody is following any more.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

Hat-wearing etiquette's time to enter the modern era

Recently I walked into a lawn bowls club on match day wearing my black fedora-style hat.  I was told that I had to remove my hat as it was club rules. I looked around and there were the ladies sitting there with their hats on. Of course, the rules are that ladies MUST keep their hats on in the club. Hmmm.

John Brack: Collins St 5pm, 1955

Now I'm not completely opposed to etiquette, or "when in Rome..." type standards, but I am opposed to standards that are imposed that make no sense at all in 2011.  This hat issue is certainly one of those.  According to all writers on hat etiquette, when the wearing of hats was commonplace until the middle of the 20th century, there were a long list of hat wearing rules that men and women followed.  John Brack's famous painting reflects that era in "Collins St 5pm".

It's important to remember that during those times, issues of gender inequality along with class/status issues were integral to Australian, American and British culture (one might argue it hasn't much changed in Britain!). So, a man removed his hat to deference to a superior or to a woman.

If I wear a hat, do I have to relinquish sexual equality?

So, the etiquette of the mid 20th century has been largely forgotten, and now hats are making a comeback.  Those who are old enough to remember the traditions of 50 years ago expect that the same protocols should apply now. As a man, I am expected to remove my hat in the club, but the women are expected to leave theirs on.  Huh? It no longer makes any sense.

If the etiquette is about a hat being an outdoor item, then men or women should take a hat off when indoors.  Or, a more modern take on hat etiquette is "if you are in transit, leave the hat on. If you’re stopping or sitting or staying for a while, take it off." Again, that would make equal sense for men and women.

Fashion - it's the new thing

The fashion advisers are telling us guys that hats are in.  The retailers are selling us lots of cool hats, and the paparazzi are happily snapping the models indoors with their hats on in the spring carnival marquees.

Of course, the ladies wear their hats all day, but it's just as sensible if it's a men's fashion item that they should wear their hat as well.

Don't make me fight you, old bowls and RSL clubs

I'm not going to shame the bowls club I entered or the RSL club with this published policy

At no time is the following allowed -

- Hats/beanies, including bandana’s

            (ladies are allowed to wear hats when worn as a 

              fashion item, not caps etc)

But needless to say, these clubs are now out of touch with modern society. If they don't want hats worn inside - then, fine - for men and women alike.  But, hanging onto their sexist rules are just anachronistic, like some of the committee members.

OK, so hat etiquette isn't the most important topic in the world, but it still shines a light on how old traditions can undermine modern equality

Let me know what you think

Why does Bill Evans want Australia to have a recession?

Bill Evans, Westpac

Glenn Stevens, RBA

Back in July, Westpac's chief economist Bill Evans forecast the European economic problems would slow growth and result in a decrease in official interest rates by 100 basis points.  Nobody else was predicting that, and yes, he got it right when the Reserve Bank dropped rates by 25 basis points in November. But why does he insist on interpreting every statistic through the lens of their own prediction?

By sticking to the prediction that rates will decrease by a further 75bps, Bill Evans is forecasting the cash rate to fall to 3.75%.  That is well below a neutral level, so the only reason we will get a rate that low is if Australia falls into recession. The Reserve Bank is forecasting Australia's growth to continue at trend rate of 3-3.5%, so why does Westpac continue to talk up their prediction and talk down the economy?

Stick to your guns, but be fair

I respect Bill Evans for having a view, but recent economic data is indicating that the Australian economy is turning upwards.  As new data has arrived, it seems that Westpac are only looking for evidence to support their "rates down by 75bps" view, rather than taking an objective look at the figures.

Sure, if they believe that Europe is going to hell in a handbasket, then there is a case that Australia will fall into recession.  But you can't just dismiss positive data because it doesn't fit your theory.

My call is for stable rates

For what it's worth, I think rates will stay where they are now for some time. I don't see any change in December, and the green shoots of growth give me cause to think that by February our consumer economy will be looking OK.  Combined with the very strong mining sector, and my thought that the next inflation numbers won't be quite as low as the October figures, I'm tipping no change in February as well.

Of course, if Europe really does disintegrate, then that's a different story, but unlike Bill Evans, I'd be prepared to change my view if the data do change. (Oh, and I am putting my money where my mouth is!)

Whatever your view might be, you still have a responsibility to interpret new data objectively.  I don't believe that Westpac are doing that at the moment 

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Greece and Italy set to gain proper governments from the wreckage

No more bunga bunga capitalists. No more crazy socialists.

While Greece and Italy have been forced into dramatic political change, for the first time in many years, they are set to be led by men who will govern the country with less interest into popularity.  Lucas Papademos in Greece and Italy's most likely PM Mario Monti are "technocrats".  That's political speech for "they'll get on with managing the economy".

It takes a crisis to find a leader


Not every crisis produces leaders of quality.  But serious crises do create an urgent need for change, even more urgent than an election.  The paradigm changes.

The paradigms in Greece and Italy (and a number of other European countries) has been to continue to do the  same that's always been done, just because it's always been the way.  There's even been acknowledgment that things could be better, but there's been no political will to change.

Finally, like a company in crisis who calls in the administrators, the new managers will be expected to fix the mess.  They won't expected to be popular, they won't even be expected to consult widely.  They will be expected to get the job done.

Frankly, we need more focus from our world leaders on getting the job done, and less focus on 10 second voice grabs.

Lucas and Mario - please stick to your guns and fix the mess.  The people will respect you for it.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Australia's carbon price legislation is a sign of growing up

After years of dithering, today's decision by the Senate to pass the Clean Energy Bill is a momentous occasion in more ways than one.  Yes, I think the policy itself is a good one, but it's the maturity as a country that has really struck a chord internationally.

So the largest polluters will pay for carbon emissions, pass on the costs to consumers who will be compensated, and clean energy innovation will thrive.  Economically and ecologically the evidence suggests this will be a positive for Australia.

Huge international interest

But what has been more compelling is the positive international response. Within 12 hours, there are over 800 global news stories covering this decision, and a variety of opinions.

BBC: Australia's Senate has approved a controversial law on pollution, after years of bitter political wrangling.
WSJ: Australia's Carbon Tax Clears Final Hurdle
Xinhua: A latest report showed the carbon tax will cost 0.98 trillion U. S. dollars on the Australian economy, or 39,086 U.S. dollars per Australian from July next year to 2050.
TVNZ: Australia passes landmark carbon tax laws

Leadership by Gillard

Whether you like the law, or dislike it; whether you see it as an economic positive or negative, this story has put Australia's leadership credentials on the global stage.  Rather than waiting to be led by the next Kyoto round, or following the path of larger countries, Prime Minister Gillard has shown real leadership.

Whether you agree with him or not, you can't ignore the power of Al Gore.  And when he says, "With this vote, the world has turned a pivotal corner in the collective effort to solve the climate crisis,” it is a clear sign that Australia is setting the agenda on a major issue.

After failing to vote for a Republic 12 years ago, finally Australia is growing up.  Whatever your views on the Clean Energy Act, we should be proud to take our place on the world stage. Oh, and it's good for our brand.

Let me know what you think

Why do Christians get a special seat at the tax table?

The Federal government is holding a tax  forum on Tuesday 4 October and Wednesday 5 October to discuss priorities and directions for further tax reform.  After all the reviews we've had, let's hope any reforms are good for Australia.

What concerns me is who is getting a seat at the table - particularly the special treatment for Christian groups.


There have been 20 invited participants representing the community. 6 of these are representing Christian charities. There are peak groups such as ACOSS and others representing housing needs, but there aren't any non Christian charities who have been invited.


Tax exempt status for religious organizations

This skew in attendees matters a lot.

First, in any fearless review of Australia's tax system we must look at the tax exempt status of religious groups. Why they receive this special privilege is beyond me. And with 6 invited Christians on the forum the government is sending a clear message - "you are important and we won't be touching your tax exemption"

Next, these groups all have the same worldview due to their Christian beliefs. Sure, there are lots of business leaders at the forum to present a business viewpoint, but among community leaders there are vast differences. So, why invite 6 groups representing the same ideals and broadly the same people?

Apply to be an attendee

There is one thing you can do. There are still 12 places available for community participants. Expressions of interest close this Friday 12 August. So apply.

The 6 Christian charities invited to the tax forum all do good work for the community. But Australia is all for a fair go - not for making one religious group more important than the rest of us. 

Let me know what you think

Mark S