Can't we ever learn? There is always some mug convinced that if we can sell one sock to every Chinese a fortune is assured.

The Howard Government can't see beyond dollar signs and wedge politics as it rushes headlong into an agreement to open up Australian uranium mining, and sell uranium to China.

We can leave uranium to the market to sell it and foreign companies to dig it up. The dream is that the natural resources of the "lucky country" will save Australia from the incompetence of its political and business leadership by generating squillions in export revenue and arrest the slide into international bankruptcy.

But not everything is hunky-dory, even if the nuclear boosters blind everybody to the nuclear waste elephant. Can't the populace see that even on one of the biggest, most sparsely settled and geologically stable continents in the world, Australians still can't agree about where to store their own relatively small, low and medium-grade nuclear waste.

Amazingly, the Australian Government agreed to build a new nuclear reactor in Sydney's Lucas Heights without any plans about where to put the waste from the existing reactor, let alone the new reactor. Back-to-front planning on this scale is simply pathetic.

This farce could become a tragedy if Australia becomes one of the world's biggest uranium exporters. Does anyone doubt that within a few decades Australia will be asked nicely to take back our high-level waste? If we don't comply, pressure will be applied to ensure we take it whether we like it or not.

Promises will be made. But despite the optimism expressed by Pangea, which set up an office in Perth in 2001 to facilitate the importing of high-level waste (and was blocked by the Gallop state government) or Bob Hawke, who last year supported Australia setting up a world-class nuclear waste dump, I doubt a fortune is to be made from Australia becoming the world's nuclear waste dump, even though it might make the fortunes for a few and their families over time.

Even in the short term, there is no economic bonanza that will solve the balance of payments.
According to the industry lobby, even with a third of the Chinese market at the present high prices, exports would be worth only $300 million to $400 million a year by 2020 - a flea bite in terms of Australia's current account deficit, which is now running at $50 billion a year.

The Chinese know what they want. They want resource security. They want to own the mines that supply their market. They want leverage over prices, and I'm sure they are already thinking about decommissioning and waste disposal.

Nuclear power is no panacea. The Chinese recognise this. China plans to increase its production of electricity from nuclear power from 2 per cent now to 6 per cent of the total in 2020.

In October, China announced plans to increase its renewable electricity generation target from solar and wind energy from 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the total electricity generation in 2020 - three times the amount from nuclear power.

Why? The Chinese can't afford to be silly.
They would know that nuclear power is extremely expensive, even by comparison with renewable energy when decommissioning costs are taken into account. I am sure they would be aware that, at best, nuclear power is carbon-emissions neutral over the full birth, life and death cycle of a nuclear power station.

Yes, you say - in the long term we'll all be dead.
Too right. Greenhouse gas emissions build up in the atmosphere cumulatively. The greenhouse gases we generate this year don't conveniently disappear next year. Within a decade, most of us on spaceship Earth will face the prospect of choking, freezing, burning or drowning, and all of us are likely to be extremely uncomfortable unless measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases now.

The climate tipping point will be passed before the first nuclear plants being planned get to the point of generating electricity or geo-sequestration has been attached to coal-fired power stations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

If Australia could free itself from its quarry mentality, it should be able to see that there are better economic, as well as environmental, prospects in focusing on the development of renewable and conservation infrastructure to exploit its scientific competitive edge in these areas.

The renewable sector already employs 6000 people - three times the number directly employed in uranium mining. Hydro Tasmania has just signed a $300 million contract with the Chinese to help build three wind farms.

Encouraging the industry is not rocket science. The mandatory renewable energy target should be lifted from the present 2 per cent to 5 to 10 per cent, to give the industry the platform to move with confidence into Asia.

And if the Government can't rise above its nuclear obsession, it might give some thought to the taxing regime suitable to a quarry - including a resource-rent tax so we can share some of the profits of the now largely foreign-owned mining industry.

The question is: do the changes to the Crimes Act and the associated anti-terrorism measures announced by the Prime Minister last week suggest a Government that is more alarmed than alert, or are they further evidence of political virtuosos who can spin the community's security concerns into political advantage? The answer is: it is a bit of both. But where alarm and spin combine to constrain personal freedoms without having much impact on the problem - terrorism - the community has reason to worry.

It is clear that the alienated radicals forming the splinter groups within international Islam are a threat to personal and national security, though the level of threat may well be overstated. Random acts of violence, whether remotely triggered explosions or suicide bombers, give people the jitters. Commuters bear the brunt of this unfocused fear, and governments have every reason to strengthen public safety measures on underground trains, the ferries, in bus and rail concourses and at airports. So closed circuit television, facial recognition software, a heightened security presence, improved passenger flow management and security drills are all reasonable, if expensive, responses that most people would support.

Greater intrusion into people's private affairs notwithstanding, the adjustments to the warrant system through which ASIO exercises its surveillance and monitoring powers are also reasonable. That is because that process demands reasonable grounds for the warrant and accountability on the part of the decisionmaker. And, what is of equal importance, the warrants have a termination date, thereby requiring review and re-issue if surveillance is to continue. In my experience, ASIO and successive attorneys-general have handled these matters with care and diligence. Although they might make us bristle at the inexorable march of "Big Brother", these are essentially administrative matters that the community can tolerate.

The proposal that it become an offence to incite violence within the Australian community or violence against our forces deployed overseas probably makes sense, even though the difficulty of proving incitement should not be underestimated. As we saw in the Spycatcher appeal in 1987, the courts take the view that "freedom of speech and disclosure of information (should) not be unnecessarily or unreasonably curtailed". Nonetheless, while a charge of "sedition" would be difficult to uphold, the provision would impose a serious constraint on those who advocate terrorist acts.

Of greater concern are the other proposals for legislative change that significantly increase the powers of government and the bureaucracy to constrain or curtail personal freedoms. Apart from the civil liberty and jurisprudence issues, we need to ask ourselves whether the threat is actually serious enough to warrant these changes, and whether they will be effective anyway.

Serious doubts attach to legislation permitting control orders, preventive detention, notice to produce and the extension of stop, question and search powers. Indeed, such powers, if targeted against the communities that might harbour terrorist sentiments, are more likely to exacerbate the problem than alleviate it.

What these measures fail to grasp is that terrorist cells cannot be eliminated using the traditional tools of legislation and law enforcement. They are not like criminal conspiracies that have structure, leaders, management and bureaucracy. Terrorist cells are ephemeral: they coalesce around specific terrorist operations, then mutate as other opportunities appear. They are opportunistic rather than targeted, which explains why terrorist events cannot be prevented absolutely. What governments, acting co-operatively, must do is to attack the causes and motives of terrorism by addressing the issues that alienate vulnerable communities and generate radicalism.

Australian governments have traditionally shied away from granting what are tantamount to royal commission powers to the police. The scope for abuse is too great. Yet the apparently unlimited scope of the notice to produce "information that will assist with the investigation of terrorism and other serious offences" has the potential to undermine both legal professional privilege and the protection of media sources. Similarly, the preventive detention proposal is far too open-ended, and lacks any sunset provisions that would remove it from the statute books when it is no longer needed. What is more alarming, however, is that these stern measures are unsupported by argument and evidence of threat. Nor is there any analysis of their likely effectiveness. And accountability is totally overlooked. It is here that one might suspect the victory of politics over reason.

Australia will not be more secure by becoming less free: our real defence is the rule of law, inclusiveness and prosperity.

To bow or not to bow, that is the question. Is it nobler in mind to suffer the slings and arrows of one's torment at George Bush's foreign policy adventurism or should one take arms against it (figuratively speaking of course)? This challenge of conscience preoccupies a smattering of federal MPs invited to hear the President of the United States address the Australian Parliament next Wednesday. They give the question too much weight.

To accord Mr Bush due courtesy is to acknowledge respect for his office and through that office, to show Australian regard for the American people. It does not necessarily mean that Australians are applauding the incumbent, although many would. It is about saluting the rank, not the individual. That some Australians, including some MPs, are disgusted at the invasion of Iraq does not justify incivility towards Mr Bush in the very institution intended to reflect this nation's aspirations. Australia's elected representatives should show Mr Bush the same respect they expect for Australian leaders visiting overseas.

A Labor backbencher, Harry Quick, does not see it that way. He has been persuaded not to turn his back on Mr Bush during the President's address but he will wear a white armband to mark his opposition to the Iraq War, and says he will refuse to join in any standing ovation for Mr Bush. That is his right. But it will be interesting to see how Mr Quick and other like-minded MPs respond to the address to Parliament the following day by the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, whose regime could teach Americans a thing or two about oppression. And will Democrats, half of whom have threatened to stay away from the Bush address, feel the same pressure to boycott Mr Hu? The snubbing or heckling of Mr Hu by Australian MPs would be as grievously insulting to the Chinese people as would any wilful embarrassment of Mr Bush be for Americans.

This is not to urge standing ovations for either leader. The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, wants Labor MPs to applaud Mr Bush and to stand at the end of his speech. That is not the same as encouraging a standing ovation, as accorded to Bill Clinton seven years ago, but there is room within courtesy for MPs to fashion their own marks of respect.

By definition, parliaments are crucibles of diverse opinion. This should be reflected in the varying intensities of response to initiatives and individuals, so long as civility and courtesy are maintained.

Standing ovations are almost obligatory when US presidents address the Congress because US Republicans and Democrats consider it necessary to unanimously mark respect for the presidential office. But this is not the US. Here, standing ovations are characterised by spontaneity more than contrivance. They tend to be expressions of genuine enthusiasm. Mr Bush should not be insulted if congressional reflex is not mirrored in his Australian welcome. But he is entitled to be heard with the dignity and respect owed to his position.

For 45 desperate seconds, crew and passengers on QF1737 fought for their lives yesterday, overpowering an armed man who police said tried to hijack and crash the aircraft with 53 people on board.

Brandishing two 15cm sharpened wooden stakes as knives, the 40-year-old assailant stabbed two flight attendants who stopped him forcing his way into the cockpit of the Boeing 717 - 20 minutes after take-off from Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport. Five passengers came to their assistance, forcing the man to the floor and disarming him.

Police recovered an aerosol can and a cigarette lighter. They suspect the assailant intended to use them as a flame-thrower to disable the pilots once he got into the cockpit.

A major review of airport security began immediately and the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson - who said it was "an attempt to crash the plane" - demanded officials find out how the man smuggled the weapons through airport checks before boarding the plane, which was bound for Launceston.

Government sources said the assailant called out about "God's will or Armageddon when he was interrogated by federal police after the plane returned to Melbourne. He had been quiet but one source said that, during the attack and after he had been detained, he began talking about "God and the end of the world", saying that "God had spoken to him".

Mr Anderson said the metal detectors at the airport would not have picked up the man's wooden stakes.

Witnesses who saw the man after he was arrested, his hands bloodied and in handcuffs, described him as "just a normal looking Australian". It was believed he recently had resigned or been sacked from a job. Federal police said he would be charged under the Federal Aviation Act.

"We believe he was trying to take over the plane," said Federal Police agent Stephen Cato.

Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said: "We do not believe at this stage that this is terrorist-related in any way."

He said the aircraft did not have one of the new "enhanced" security doors which are being installed on all Qantas planes but the cockpit door was locked.

Passengers said the hero of QF1737, which took off at 2.50pm, was the purser, Greg Khan, 38, who for 10 dangerous seconds stood between the cockpit door and the man's frenzied assault.

He was stabbed in the head and face as he fought the assailant back down the aisle, where five passengers helped subdue the man. A 25-year-old female flight attendant was also stabbed in the cheek. Keith Charlton, 59, one of the passengers who disarmed the man, said the desperate fight lasted no more than 45 seconds.

"I didn't hear him utter one word," Mr Charlton said.

"If there ever was a hero, it was Greg," said Mr Charlton. "He saved the aircraft."

Mr Charlton, from Rosebud, Victoria, was sitting in row three when he "heard a commotion behind me. I turned and this guy came rushing past, waving what looked like a wooden dagger high in the air. He charged onto the purser and began stabbing him."

But Mr Khan did not go down. Instead, with blood pouring from his wounds, he buried his head into the assailant's chest and forced him back down the aisle.

"The guy was stabbing him, there was blood going everywhere, but the purser wouldn't let go, he kept fighting him back," Mr Charlton said.

The passengers and a female flight attendant came to his assistance, overpowering the man and forcing him to the floor. "The first to help him was a passenger sitting in the front row," Mr Charlton said. "I learned later it was his brother-in-law. We got the guy down, we took the wooden stakes from him. We stood on him."

Mr Charlton said the crew got plastic restraints. They bound the assailant's legs and hands. "We picked him up and threw him on the floor between two rows of seats," he said. "Someone sat on the seat with his feet on him. I was leaning over the back of the seat in front, watching him."

One passenger injured his arm in the melee, but Mr Charlton said no one had time to feel fear. "It happened so quickly, we had to subdue him, there was no thought of anything else. But later we got very angry at what he'd tried to do."

Mr Anderson said that while Australia had "world's best practice" in airport security, "it may well be that there are lessons to be learn out of this".

It's a sad fact of life that every home in Australia has received a copy of a booklet entitled 'Let's look out for Australia: Protecting our way of life from a possible terrorist threat'. The booklet provides advice about how we can work together to protect our way of life from the threat of terrorism. It is part of the Commonwealth' Government's commitment to keeping every Australian informed about:

- New counter-terrorist measures that have been put in place;
- How we can all play out part by being alert, but not alarmed
- Who to contact to report suspicious activity;
- What to do in the event of an emergency

Let's look out for Australia: Protecting our way of life from a possible terrorist threat, is part of a $15 million advertising campaign to raise consciousness about terrorism. In the booklet, with cover pictures including a group of children, Australians are reassured that emergency services have detailed plans in place and antibiotics and other drugs are stockpiled. It also informs as to what to do in an emergency ie if a bomb explodes, if you receive a suspicious package, if you are caught in a fire and if a chemical, biological or radiological incident occurs!

As our Prime Minster, John Howard states in his letter 'Australians have every reason to be hopeful and optimistic about the future. We are a strong, free, compassionate society - together, we will look out for Australia and protect the way of life we value so highly' a comment I agree with but one wonders where the world is heading when such a booklet is issued.

An enormous shift of global power in a post-Cold War world is epochal in that the players compete in economic contests rather than ideological ones. There is no doubt that there will be a major shift in the focus of world economic power towards the western rim of the pacific which will offer an enormous opportunity to Australia. Australia must adapt, innovate, and make use of opportunities within Asia. It should be recognised that it is in our interest to contribute to the economic development of the region through trade, aid and investment. In doing so, we will be promoting our own prosperity. In order to develop markets we will have no choice but to accommodate greater Asian access to our market and greater investment flows in both directions.

Australia has changed very significantly since the war - politically, socially, ethnically, culturally. We need to recognise that regional perceptions of Australia will be based in significant part on our record on aboriginal issues, migration and refugees as well as our attitudes to race. Australia needs to actively cultivate an awareness of an sensitivity to Asian realities. This awareness is required not only at official levels, but by all groups. An active two way flow of information will not guarantee freedom from misunderstanding (as per the Hanson comments) far less can we expect freedom from clashes between differing perceptions of the role of the media. What we can aim for - and should - is to avoid misunderstandings based on ignorance, bias or perceived views which have not kept pace with reality. Australia needs to make a sustained national effort to avoid such misunderstandings in the future. In all instances, a strong leadership role from Government is required.

It is difficult, perhaps dangerous, to make any generalisations about a region of such diversity. Yes Asia can be approached as a region but in doing so may obscure opportunities for pursing interests or addressing problems particular to individual countries. . Australia needs to strike the right balance between the imperatives of Asian relationships and the position and values cherished as a developed, aligned, non-Asian country. The Australian Government has firmly reaffirmed that the alliance with the United States is fundamental to national security and foreign and defence policies and that commitments and obligations remain valid and appropriate in today’s very different circumstances.. We are independent as well as being aligned and within the Asia Pacific region we must continue to develop sound relationships with regional countries.

In a very real sense the problems that Australia faces in relation to regional neighbours reflects her growing integration and increasingly important links with them. This doesn’t mean we should contemplate exclusive concentration on the Asia-pacific region. Asia cannot afford to become inward looking. Australia will need to remain independent and assertive when the need arises, while becoming accepted as a member of the region; to be active in support of our interests and values without appearing naive, insensitive or moralising; and to work for the economic benefit of the region, not least our own small bit of it.

The challenges that lie ahead for Australia are far from easy. But our national prosperity and standing depend on facing them squarely.