THERE IS a tendency in England, where some still make every effort to retain the class system, to judge a man - or woman, for that matter - by the newspaper he or she reads. The image of the Midlands lord of the manor is that he would still be expected to read the Daily Telegraph with his eggs and toast, and of the Manchester labourer that the Sun would be propped up by a sauce bottle behind his corn flakes. In Australia, perhaps, we could be tempted to do the same with our politicians. NSW Premier Bob Carr, himself a former reporter, appears to have melded in so well with the Sydney Telegraph's campaign on ethnically motived or related crime, particularly sexual attack, that it is difficult to know who is leading and who is following, who started it and who is trying to gain the most from it. The gusto with which Mr Carr has embraced this matter, and seems so much in tune with his state's highest circulating newspaper, presents the rare situation of a leading politician and a media outlet beating the one drum in time.
Mr Carr's actions will not calm the nerves of those who do not believe lasting solutions to vitally important issues of law and order can be found in making statements in the style of 120-point headlines. The problem with such pronouncements is that they leave no room for considered argument, for balanced debate. There is no backgrounding, no reasoning, no explanation of how and why laws and guidelines to sentencing are the way they are. Just a bold, black statement, as if the might with which it is delivered makes it right. A sentence on a sentence, without apparent due consideration of the evidence, or the facts which led to the sentence. The leniency of judges is far too easy a target, one so broad that any sweeping statement is bound to hit the mark. It is all too easy, too, to feel a swell of public support building when the judicial system is being criticised, when emotive terms such as ''gang rape'' and ''ethnic groups'' are being bandied about, and when a newspaper has already thrown its considerable weight behind the cause.
And yet Mr Carr appears to have found an ally in Chief Justice James Spigelman, who, after a meeting with the Premier in Sydney on Monday, decided (at least according to Mr Carr) to move gang-rape cases to the Supreme Court, where they will be heard along with murder and drug importation trials. This was in the face of sensible advice from the like of Women's Electoral Lobby spokeswoman Eva Cox, who pointed out the change would not guarantee longer sentences, given the natural reluctance to hand out life sentences. At the same time, NSW Law Society president Nick Meagher said it was ''unfortunate'' Mr Carr had bowed to public pressure on a complex and emotional issue. Such intense community feeling has been roused, however, that Mr Carr was assured of finding at least some support from across the floor, as expressed by NSW Opposition Leader Kerry Chikarovski in regard to a tougher stance on sexual assaults. But this was merely the latest in a series of Carr tirades in the area of law and order: earlier targets have included immigration laws and a proposed Bill of Rights.
It should be pointed out that Mr Carr's immigration argument - that gang members and criminals are being allowed into the country - was yet another example of him using an all-too-convenient ploy. This ''letting-in-criminals'' defence has been used as an excuse to stop immigrants entering a country since at least 1939 when there was a ship laden with refugees and not a welcoming port in sight.