First of all, she's spot on about those tiny shorts. Really, only an Aussie could get away with those. Second, I'm pretty much with her on the heart of the matter -- Irwin's bull in a China shop approach to approaching, handling and talking about animals. The guy's enthusiasm was his schtick, and it was good. But when you look at real experts dealing with animals -- and I would include native peoples in that category -- they uniformly act quite the opposite of the way Irwin did. That is, they are calm, quiet and very respectful of the animal's space. (Okay, native people sometimes butcher animals, but they do so primarily to feed their families and they do so with respect notwithstanding.) You can argue that Irwin was a popularizer, and that animal conservation benefited from the spotlight he cast, but all in all I'd say Greer is right. The voyeuristic nature of Irwin's tv shows cast animals in the role of the Other -- and, like Boo Radley or the subterranean Albino monster you're so fond of, that is a role that ultimately distances us from the natural world.
 

Here's a cute item from Wikipedia, which is not, apparently, a hoax:

On April 23, 2000, Greer was taken hostage by Karen Burke, a nineteen-year-old student from the University of Bath who had been writing to Greer, and who eventually broke into her home in Essex, tied Greer up in the kitchen, and proceeded to smash up the contents of the house with a fireplace poker and rip the telephone from the wall. Dinner guests eventually found Greer lying in a distressed state on the floor, with Burke hanging onto her legs, shouting "Mummy, mummy". Burke was arrested and charged with assault and unlawful imprisonment, and was later sentenced to two years' probation. Greer was not hurt and held a press conference in which she told reporters: "I am not angry, I am not upset, I am not hurt. I am fine. I haven't lost my sense of humour. I am not the victim here. Ever since I published The Female Eunuch there's been an off-chance that some nutter is going to pick me off, judging by the hostility in the letters."
 

Anon 3:24; I am fond of that subterrranean monster, it's true. How could one not be?
 

Germain Greers comments were certainly insensitive to a grieving family, and I have no doubt that that is part of the reason she wrote what she wrote: she thrives on controversy. But she is fundamentally right about Irwin's approach to wildlife, and she may even be write that if no voice dissented from the chorus of grief, more children would take up bad habits in the bush.