Senator Andrew Bartlett
Saturday, October 30, 2004
 
Yesterday I was part of a panel at a journalism conference in Melbourne. The topic was 'Public Figures and Private Lives'. The conference was organised by the Melbourne Press Club. It appeared to be attended mainly by journalists and students of journalism and media. The four other people on the panel were journalists, as was the facilitator of the discussion. I decided trying to make my comments 'off the record' might not be a good idea.

Naturally, there was some interest in the media treatment of the alcohol-related incident I was involved in at the end of last year. One of the journos on the panel was Michael Harvey from the Herald Sun, who helped write the piece that broke the story, which made the event more interesting in a mildly amusing (but well short of hilarious) sort of way.

Having copped that story giving one person's view of the incident, followed by many other people subsequently giving insights into all sorts of things about me I didn’t know myself, I've still refrained from giving my side of what happened. At the time I figured I'd apologise for causing offence and just get on with doing my job.

Whilst it is occasionally tempting to add some extra facts, I think the incident got way more attention than it merited, so despite some specific questions at the forum, I decided it 's still more appropriate to keep focused on doing my job rather than divert attention from issues I think are more important.

It was a worthwhile discussion with some good contributions, including by Christian Kerr from Crikey. I've mentioned before my views of Crikey – whilst there's still room for improvement, they've clearly become a more worthwhile information source now that they've moved away from the obsession with personal gossip and other salacious slop and focused more on the genuinely political.

I've always had a loathing of gossip masquerading as political commentary. I've mentioned before how I thought the treatment which Trish Draper got from the media was totally unjustified. Treating politics as soap opera not only distorts politics, it diverts attention away from the real issues which politicians engage in that affect people's lives directly and substantially.

Anyway, it was a balanced and valuable discussion. One comment which I should have challenged was the assertion that politicians and journalists are natural enemies – a paradigm that seemed sufficiently self-evident for me to have to think about it for 10 seconds before realising that it ain't necessarily so (by which time it was too late to comment).

Along with some intellectual stimulation and a bit of positive feedback from the audience, I got presented with a free Melbourne Press Club bag as a thank you gift. The two bottles of white wine inside will no doubt be well received by the friends I pass them on to.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Saturday, October 30, 2004
|
Monday, October 25, 2004
 
I spent the weekend in Perth at a meeting of Animals Australia, which is an umbrella organisation for over 40 different groups with an animal rights or animal welfare related focus. It may not be everybody's idea of how to have a break and get away from it all, but I thought I would it help re-energise me and freshen up my outlook a bit to get back with grass roots activists and away from the narrow and fairly barren field of electoral Politics. (And I did also meet up with a few Democrats while I was in Perth to talk about other issues and hear their thoughts on where we go from here, as I'm doing gradually in other places and ways.)

The two weeks since the election have been somewhat akin to a grieving process for many people – not just Democrat people after our terrible result - but also the many people who feel distressed by the extra strength and apparent endorsement which John Howard's Government has been given by the Australian electorate. There is much thinking and reassessing to do for all of us who fit in that category some way, and for many it's too soon in the grieving process to have totally clear thinking.

People might think a weekend conference of animal rights activists isn't very real world, but to me it usually provides energy and inspiration to connect with people who give their time to issues and causes they believe in. Devoting your spare time to help others or help improve your society, whether it's picketing a live sheep transport ship or volunteering your time to umpire school footy games is in some ways as real as it gets.

In all but a tiny minority of cases, people aren't doing these things for ego and they certainly aren’t doing it for money or kudos or status. They aren't engaged in some pathetic competition as to who is the cleverest or the most cunning, and they aren't trying to spin ridiculously absurd versions of reality to try to give meaning to things that aren't there just to justify their actions or their existence. They are just trying to make the world a better place, to put energy into something they care about, and they are doing it directly and personally.

People can do this in Politics too, but some of them don't and the whole area of electoral politics operates in a way which can make it quite difficult to do so – you often have to navigate through or around (or be encompassed by) 20 different layers of crap to try to get to the real issues.

Anyway, I certainly enjoyed just listening grassroots activist talk about issues they care about. The Animals Australia meeting was an AGM, and I have always tried to get along to at least a small section of the meeting every year, to help me keep in touch with some of the people and the issues. I went to my first AGM over 10 years ago in Melbourne – some years before I got into the Senate - and I think I've been to each one since, even if only briefly. It's also sort of a touching base with a bit of my own roots and a chance to catch up with some people I only see once a year (if that) – many of whom I admire a lot.

I got to meet the exceedingly cute Lucy, the always smiling (but very determined and concerned) sheep that appeared so regularly at political events during the election campaign. I'd met her in Adelaide during the campaign – she was still smiling after the election, and still determined. I'd have to say she was also pretty angry and distressed outside the dock at Fremantle seeing the thousands of sheep, crammed like sardines into trucks being driven in so they could then be unloaded and crammed like sardines onto a ship setting sail for the Middle East.

It is a disgusting and extraordinarily cruel practice, which absurdly also costs thousands of Australian jobs in the meat processing trade too. As a vegetarian, I don't want to appear disingenuous in suggesting I'm keen to encourage slaughtering and consumption of sheep anywhere, but none the less, when an industry doesn't even make broader economic sense, has a clear, profitable alternative already in existence and is nauseatingly cruel as well, you do have to wonder what the hell is going on.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, October 25, 2004
|
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
 
THE SENATE - VOTING SYSTEMS & VOLUNTARY VOTING
It's always interesting reading post-election analysis, although I imagine it would also be somewhat more enjoyable if you've had a good election result rather than a bad one.

A recent Bulletin contains some items by Max Walsh. In the space of a page he raises a few different ideas.

Firstly, there's the prospect of changing the voting system to make it harder for small parties to get elected to the Senate – this following an election which may well see what I think is the smallest proportion of minor party seats in the Senate since 1993 (and before that, 1977)!

It's funny how the Govt always used to complain that the current system was unfair because it made it impossible for the Govt to control the Senate. I always argued that if they managed to get 50% of the primary vote, there was a fair chance they'd get over half the seats – in this instance, it's rather annoying to be right. I guess if the Coalition does hold 39 seats, we'll see whether or not a Govt controlled Senate is as big a negative as I think it will be, but trying to immediately make it a permanent feature doesn't strike me as a terribly good idea.

If people genuinely believe a Govt should be able to implement its program without being hindered by the Senate, we really should just get rid of it, but I think we should at least see how the next 3 years pan out before embracing such a radical change.

Walsh also raises the notion of moving to voluntary voting. I believe this is a bad idea which would lead to the disadvantaged being even more ignored than they are now.

If this is actually true, it is a very strong reason against change. However, I think people like me who support compulsory voting should start producing more solid evidence to back up these beliefs, rather than simply assert it as an article of faith.

If it is genuinely put forward for consideration, there will need to be good arguments against it, as electoral law will be able to be changed at the will of the Govt if they get those 39 Senate seats.

Walsh also puts forward the notion that it will be in the self-interest of the remaining Democrat Senators to take a "much more supportive approach to government legislation". I always find it hard to understand this rationale – it's not as if we just got a bad vote because the electorate thought we were too obstructionist. If anything, the perception is still around that we're too willing to negotiate.

Whilst I'll always defend the many positive things the Democrats have achieved – and negative things we've prevented – through negotiation and engaging with Govt (GST aside), I think the election result suggests voters aren't giving too much value to that role at the moment. Given that the Govt got all but 3% of it's legislation through the last Senate, it seems bizarre to me that someone as experienced as Walsh can believe we have been too obstructionist.

I also wonder how he (or anyone else) can think it would be electorally beneficial (let alone appropriate behaviour) to vote against your own policies and campaign promises so you can help a Government implement policies you don't support. The notion that negotiating a slightly less bad outcome is good strategy because it makes you 'relevant' is one that has taken hold amongst some commentators in the last 5 years or so, but it is one that I find facile.

The rationale to use in deciding what to support and what not to always seemed pretty simple to me, even if the topics themselves can sometimes be complex. If you can get an agreement that represents an overall step forward then consider supporting it (as long as you are reasonably sure you can't get something even better if you hold out for more), if it means a step backward then you oppose it. All this stuff about the need to be 'relevant' is just a bunch of hogwash to me which puts strategy ahead of substance.

Anyway, I guess it will all be academic soon enough, as the Govt is not likely to need to negotiate with anybody, which is a dangerous scenario.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, October 20, 2004 Permalink
|
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
 
It's certainly not for me to comment on what other parties should do in the current situation, but it has been interesting as an observer to see some of the tos and fros regarding the ALP frontbench options.

I will make the comment that the faction system seems to be working against ensuring the best talent gets to the fore - slicing positions up according to faction and then again by state would seem to make it harder to get the best outcome. However, you are dealing with a group of people and there will always be a range of factors that might not seem related to talent that have to be taken into account.

Even though John Howard has a lot more freedom to pick and choose his Ministry as he sees fit, there are still factors such as state representation, the personal and ideological groupings that pass for factions in the Libs and things like the need for fresh blood that always make for a balancing act beyond just pure 'talent'. (Of course there's also the wide variance of views as to who is talented and who isn't that complicates things further.) It should be emphasised that people can also play a valuable role on the backbench too. Whilst it's true that both major parties have a few long-term and short-term duds on their backbench who they have to try to find various other positions for, there are certainly good value backbench people too. I can best comment on the Senate people as I don't know many of the Reps people well enough.

Of the ALP people, there's already been wide comment on the skills and ability of John Faulkner and the loss of his skills from the Senate Leader position. However, I expect he can still be of great value in the same way as Robert Ray has been for some time now. One who is now gone but performed a good value bringing some intellectual rigour into some Senate Committees is Barney Cooney.

Another, who I noticed got a bit of criticism in the last day or two, is Claire Moore. I assume the criticism is just some cross-factional point scoring, but Claire undoubtedly plays a valuable role for the ALP in Qld. She is not someone who is ever likely to be a Minister, but she has certainly been very valuable in retaining some credibility for the ALP amongst refugee groups and is a very regular attendee at a lot of social justice events. This is not likely to be the key focus of the ALP over the next 3 years (sadly) but they still need people present on the ground, linking in to and supporting those people who support those issues. Claire does that better than any other major party MP I know and she is probably able to do it so well precisely because she isn't preoccupied with angling for a front bench spot.

Craig Emerson is someone else with ability who will also be able to be useful on the backbench if he is allowed to be, although it may well be more of an intellectual role than a community group or parliamentary focused one. On a related matter, I should put in a positive word for the guy who is replacing him on the frontbench - Joe Ludwig. I guess it's understandable that people assume he is just being promoted through factional muscle linked to his father, Bill Ludwig, who is usually described as a major Qld Labor powerbroker. I don't know his father, so my perceptions of him are just as much shaped by the media portrayal as everyone else's.

However, regardless of what Bill may be like, from my experience with Joe, he is a very intelligent and thoughtful Senator. He does bring an intellectual rigour to the issue before him and he is willing to consider issues, rather than just try to spout whatever the party line is. He actually has quite a lot of valuable real world experience - a lot of it may be as a Union advocate, but that can bring you into contact with a lot of people's real life experiences when they are in very difficult circumstances. Seeing the actual impact of decisions (whether they are by Govt, business, employer or union) on the lives of individuals is very important. Anyway, I think he'll probably be quite good, although it may depend a bit on what portfolio he gets.

It probably isn't helpful for me to give personal assessments on heaps of other people, but there are still some good policy minds that will be on the Labor frontbench, regardless of the horse-trading overt he next few days. Chris Evans and Stephen Conroy both know their stuff and have a sense of what is realistic. Nick Sherry certainly knows the superannuation area (even he has been unfairly harsh about some of the Democrats' decisions). I don't know if he's at risk of the 'generational change' excuse or being factionally squeezed, but I hope not.

Anyway, whilst I imagine most of the media focus will be on the personalities and factional dramas and the surrounding soap opera, underneath it all there will still be a fair number of capable people with good brains and a reasonable amount of heart. The issue will be whether those hearts and minds will be allowed to produce what is needed.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, October 19, 2004
|
Monday, October 18, 2004
 
Balibo 5 and SIEV X
Two separate tragic events have their anniversaries around this time. Whilst unconnected, they have some things in common. They both serve as a reminder of the importance of openness in Government and ensuring that we always acknowledge that all human life should be valued.

16th October 2004 marks 29 years since the killing of five Australian television journalists by Indonesian special forces.

Balibo is a village in East Timor and the Indonesian forces were invading that country. It took a long time, a lot of persistence, a lot of work and a lot of heartache for sufficient information to come out, but it is now clear that the five journalists were deliberately killed. Indonesia occupied East Timor, with the acquiescence, and then open support of successive Australian Governments - an occupation which caused the death of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese.

Not only did the Australian Government have advance warning of the Indonesian invasion, it is clear there was an ongoing cover-up on the part of the Australian Government about what really happened. The myth that the journalists were just accidentally killed in crossfire was allowed to stand for ages, despite the fact that some must have known it was blatantly untrue. Regardless of how naïve the journalists may have been, for Australia to turn a blind eye to the danger they were in and to their killing is a chilling reminder that our Govt (and probably any Govt) will not automatically put the interests of its own citizens, or the defence of life, first.

According to a book by Des Ball and Hamish MacDonald - "Death in Balibo, Lies in Canberra", intelligence in Australia knew that Indonesian forces planned to murder the journalists up to twelve hours beforehand, but senior Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) bureaucrats withheld the information. To have alerted politicians that the journalists were at risk, which could have put in train attempts to save them, would have revealed that the Indonesians were being monitored and, more importantly, had been successfully decoded. No doubt there is more that has not been, and perhaps never will be, revealed.

The house where the Australian journalists were staying (it seems likely they were captured there, but taken elsewhere to be killed) is now a community house and memorial. See http://www.australianvolunteers.com/involved/publications/magazine/autumn04/1373

19th October 2004 is the 3rd anniversary of the sinking of the SIEV X, a refugee boat sailing from Indonesia to Australia carrying over 400 people seeking protection from persecution. 353 people drowned, including 146 children. The boat was grossly overloaded (almost certainly deliberately), even more so than the usual refugee vessel.

There was clearly significant involvement of some Indonesian police in organising and enabling the voyage to occur. For reasons that are not yet fully explained, despite Australian officials having significant details about the voyage, no information got through to the military who were regularly patrolling and surveying the area the boat sailed into, or to Aust Search & Rescue, that people were at major risk, or that the boat may have floundered, until many days after the event. Thanks to Senate inquiries and some enormous persistence and hard work by a few dedicated Australians, a lot of information has come to light about this.

The Australian Govt has reluctantly (and very slowly) released some information, but still refuses to release a lot of other material. A main reason given for not doing this is that it allegedly would compromise intelligence and police operations, or because it would be detrimental to relationships between Australia and Indonesia.

I had never thought of the similarities before today when I was reminded about the Balibo anniversary, but it all sounds a bit familiar. I don't know all of what Australian officials knew, or when or who knew it. But I do know, from sitting on the Senate Committees, that there was (and remains) a policy and a mindset where the lives of asylum seekers are secondary to other considerations. That knowledge, combined with the fact that there is relevant material being kept out of the public arena, makes me very uncomfortable indeed. For more details on the specifics of SIEV X, see www.sievx.com

There is also much that is different about these two events and whilst they both involve Indonesia directly, I do not mean to slur that country. There is much to criticise about the past human rights record of Indonesia (and still in the present in places like West Papua in particular), but there must also be encouragement for their attempts to move towards greater democracy and accountability in their systems of governance.

We also have to recognise just how very difficult a job that is, how big a problem poverty and poor infrastructure is in Indonesia and how much it will benefit both our nations if we work together to address that. In Australia, where we have basically had a peaceful and prosperous democracy for over 100 years, it is easy to forget how very hard and slow that can be to achieve, particularly in areas which have not had a lot of experience of peace, prosperity or democracy.

The main common thread in these 2 events is not that the atrocities involved Australia in some way. It is that our Govt clearly knows a lot more than it is telling but refuses to reveal the truth, and that people who were directly complicit in causing the deaths of innocent people have got away with it. The danger with cover ups of events like this (even if supposedly for some 'greater good') is that if the people who do these sorts of things know that others have got away with it so easily, then they are far more likely to happen again. And it could be us, or our friends or family that it happens to, and we won't even be able to be sure that our own Govt will do much to help us.

I praise the people who work so hard, usually in the face of a lot of intimidation, to tackle these sorts of cover-ups. And spare a thought for those who died and even more for their loved ones.

The loss which families have suffered has been made far worse by the knowledge that heads of Government believe their loved ones' lives are not important enough to ensure that the truth is known about who killed them.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, October 18, 2004
|
Friday, October 15, 2004
 
I mentioned a little while ago a new compilation album called Original Seeds Vol. 2 – an album of songs that inspired Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds. I got a copy finally and it’s very good. Fascinating stuff for people interested in some of the history of modern music, with really interesting liner notes.

An excerpt from a review in The Age follows:
“a timely appraisal of the many less-travelled musical paths that have led to his (Cave’s) seemingly unique body of work. As on Volume 1 (also reissued this week), compiler Kim Beissel has selected songs with clear significance to the band - as covered by various members, for example - or with profound links in mood, subject or sound. They span from 1939 to 1987, from the potent work songs of Leadbelly and Harry Belafonte to soul-scraping laments and excoriating proto-punk. The a capella ache of Nina Simone's Plain Gold Ring contrasts with the Stooges' paint-stripping Loose. Tim Rose's hair-raising version of Hey Joe nudges Bob Dylan's marital post-mortem Sara. From Elvis Presley to Lou Reed and Tom Waits, heavy hearts and furtive souls are unburdened in consistently dark, rich performances. More than a simple tribute, this is an inspired - and obsessively annotated - work of cultural archaeology that acknowledges a rare artistic trajectory and opens plenty of musical corridors worth pursuing further.”

Do yourself a favour, as that guy in the hat often said (and probably still does) and have a listen.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, October 15, 2004
|
 
It’s a sign of how things can change over time that I find myself drawing attention to something on the Crikey website. I always used to abhor those people as seemingly willing to spread any piece of nonsensical and offensive gossip just for the malicious pleasure of it.

Whilst they are still prone to taking regular cheap shots, these days they don’t seem much more prone to it than plenty of other media and their obsession with prurient and titillating gossip seems to have diminished. It’s still there occasionally, but again no more common than on some other media outlets.

(As an aside, despite being very disappointed at John Howard’s strong re-election, I did find myself mildly pleased that Trish Draper survived in her seat – I thought she was subject to some appalling, unfair and vicious gossip-mongering, dressed up as ‘public interest’, earlier this year.)

Anyway, Crikey has an interesting debate about possible reform of the Labor Party. It may seem strange for me to be interested in this when my own party clearly has some far bigger challenges to face about where it goes from here. However, I have always had a strong feeling that the Labor Party – and the Union movement – would both benefit from severing, or dramatically reducing their organisational links.

Whilst there were no doubt good historical reasons for these links, I think each does the other a disservice these days. Any organisation or movement that ties itself too strongly to a political party is harming itself in the long run and reducing its opportunities to be effective. It’s the same reason why I think many environment groups have made a bad mistake (for the environment’s sake) in aligning themselves so blatantly with the Greens and now to the ALP.

I’m not anti-union (as the Democrats’ Senate record shows) and I think many unions play a vital role in keeping civil society a lot stronger than it otherwise would be, but I just have a feeling that staying linked so strongly to the ALP – and vice versa – is doing the unions ongoing damage.

I found it interesting to see what seems to be a strong debate along similar lines on the Crikey site following on from the election. Check out the views here http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2004/10/14-0010.html if you’re interested.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, October 15, 2004
|
Thursday, October 14, 2004
 
More musical news - Leonard Cohen's new album Dear Heather <http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/dearheather.html> will be released world-wide on October 25/26, 2004.

13 new songs and the first new album in 3 years.

Still, pretty good going for a 70 year old - it should be good (of course it might not) http://www.webheights.net/dearheather/home.html

For the best site on Leonard Cohen, try out http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Thursday, October 14, 2004
|
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
 
I've been meaning to mention a forum I spoke briefly at on Wednesday before the election in Canberra.

It was a gathering of young people (and some of their families and supporters) at Parliament House who had won a writing competition on human rights issues. There was a booklet of the winning entries which were full of really good stories and many of the winners were there to read out their entries to the gathering.

There was one person there I'd met before a couple of time who lives in Port Augusta - so full of energy and enthusiasm despite the potential to get dispirited after befriending so many detainees and seeing which being locked up for so long has done and is doing to them.

I always enjoy going to the forums and gatherings with younger people. They probably don't realise how much energy they give me, but it always gives me a boost to know that there is such enthusiasm out there amongst so many young people, trying to make a difference. I try not to preach too much at them - probably unsuccessfully - and just try to encourage them to keep doing what they feel they should in whatever area they believe needs it. It's not so much what they do, but rather that they do something - there's so many people who just sit back and let others steer this world down a path that it really shouldn't be going.

I had to leave for a while after my speech but managed to get back to hear a few of the others read their stories. One of the winners who read out a story has a blog - http://www.boytoworld.blogspot.com/ . In amongst the description of that day, there's a line that I'll borrow. It sort of deals a bit with what many Australians are wrestling with after the election, wondering what they can do. "control what you can control, and for the rest, let the chips fall where they may" I guess it's another way of saying not to waste energy worrying about things that you can't make a difference on, and focus on things where you can.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, October 13, 2004
|
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
 
A couple of stories from the campaign from Democrat volunteers (a nice one and a bad one, just to balance things):

1. While I was handing out the HTV cards a man with a thick accent came through and made sure he got a HTV card from every party and continued on inside to vote. After he voted he came and stood in front of all the people handing out HTV cards while the person he was with video taped him chatting in Spanish to camera. Once he was finished he explained to us that he was from Cuba and this was his first chance to vote and he was making a movie to send home to his relatives. He was so happy that he shook all of our hands and left with a grin from ear to ear.

2. My 75 year old mother was helping me letterbox a suburb a long way from where she lived. She got lost and after wandering around for an hour, came upon some people from another party letterboxing. She explained the situation and asked to use their mobile to call me and they refused!

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, October 12, 2004
|
 
I doubt a day went by during the campaign when the Democrats didn't warn about the prospect of the Liberals controlling at least half of the seats in the Senate. The Democrats (and clearly some of Labor's) preferences were aimed at minimising the chances of that happening, by steering some preferences from the conservative side of the spectrum away from the Liberals.

It appears that the reason why the Greens won't get elected in NSW and SA (and if they fall short in Qld) is because the Democrats vote is too low to give them enough of a boost up to get them over the line. If they do get over the line in Qld, it will be from One Nation preferencing them ahead of the Libs, or from Libs or Nats putting them ahead of One Nation - I presume having right wing preferences elect a Green is OK with some people (as it was in 2001), but having left wing preferences elect Family First is not.

No doubt the Greens thought it was very clever to spend half their campaign trying to pull down the Democrats with dishonest and hypocritical claims, but the fact is that if it had an impact in pushing the Democrat vote down it has had the flow on effect of denying the Greens seats. Of course if the Democrat vote had been even 1% higher, that would have meant Democrats getting elected in a couple of states.

One can only assume this is even less desirable to those Greens than having Family First elected. Of course, the Greens own preferences showed they preferred having Liberals elected to the Senate rather than Family First, increasing the chances of the Libs getting control of the Senate. As we've seen this time (even more so than last time) preference flows and allocations are difficult to predict.

Depending on how the count progresses, its certainly possible that the Libs and Nats will get 4 of the 6 seats in Qld. The Coalition getting over 3 and a half quotas on primary votes alone in WA is quite astonishing. It certainly makes one wonder whether people have developed a different view of the role they'd like the Senate to play.


posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, October 12, 2004
|
 
There'll be plenty of places and times for comment on the election result. I received this viewpoint from someone I know reasonably well, which went to a number of newsgroups, so I thought I'd reproduce it here.

I don’t agree with all the views expressed - especially the overly positive view of what the Labor Party offered, but it does indicate well what is now at risk of being permanently lost. That some of these values may be permanently gone from the mainstream of Australian politics is a daunting prospect.
--------------------------------------

It was with shock and disbelief that I first read the election results. I hadn’t been present for the election campaign. When I boarded the plane for my new life in Europe I was convinced that Labor was going to win. That the slow pervasion and weakening of Australian institutions - the High Court, the Industrial relations tribunal, our Federal system of government- would be halted. Would be corrected. That justice would be restored at last to the education system, to the health system. That the weak, the poor, the marginalised would have their rightful opportunities restored to them. That the increasing gulf between the rich and the poor could be minimised. That security could be restored to the Australian workplace, the rights for the most vulnerable would be restored. That the desperate, tortured refugees would finally find the compassion they need and deserve in policy and amongst the community.

That the Government would finally acknowledge the terrible crimes it committed against Indigenous Australians. Would apologise. Would attempt reconciliation. That Australian community would experience a renaissance. That self-interest would be replaced, even slightly, by community interest. That concern for the unemployed or the disenfranchised would for a few seconds replace concerns about investments, renovation plans or Australian Idol.Labor had obviously superior policies that worked towards these noble goals. Superior, properly costed policies that would deliver financial security and economic growth. Superior policies that would enhance our international standing, enhance our rapport with our neighbours, enhance our autonomy, enhance our safety. Policies recognised and recommended as superior by the (very unbiased) Australian Treasury, Australian Department of Defence and Trade, Australian and International Ambassadors. Policies easily defended against the cheap lies and fear mongering of the Government, desperately clinging to power by any means. Spreading lies and buying votes.

Labor gave a vision. Labor gave the truth. Labor played an honest game. The Government lied and fought and bribed its way to re-election. Bribes financed by the taxes of the Australian people. I thought the Australian people would recognise this. Maybe I was just too idealistic.Maybe that was just a pipe dream. But if we don’t have dreams, what to we have? If we don’t have hopes, or ideals, we have nothing. “Reach for your dreams, for as you dream, so shall you achieve.” I dreamed of moving to the city of lights and of love, to open my mind and challenge my soul, my heart.

Negotiating a new life, alone, out of my comfort zone: familiar faces, places, sounds, languages left behind on the other side of the world. Leaving the people I love and cherish, leaving a dream job, burgeoning career and financial comfort to chase a romantic notion of self-enlightenment and self fulfilment. For nearly a year I slaved toward this dream. There were so many nights when I returned home from my 3 and a half hour return trip to work so weary I could barely walk up the stairs. Countless nights where I sacrificed sleep to navigate the mountain of immigration papers. Countless nights where I cried myself to sleep to escape my mental and physical exhaustion with tears.

But I kept working towards this dream. Throwing myself into it with passion. And it payed off. I achieved it. This first month has been one long exhilarating, at times overwhelming delight. The horizon here glitters with unknown possibilities, further pleasures. It is, so far, the most worthwhile decision I’ve made.Just as I devoted countless hours and mountains of energy to pursuing my Parisian dream, I also devoted my countless time and energy to pursuing this second dream, restoring social justice, electing an alternative government. I even began working for the alternative party; the Labor party. Countless hours have been spent- both at work and in my own time - writing speeches, creating flyers and banners, debating, letterboxing, campaigning. And dreaming… dreaming of the glorious day that Howard would lose office. I was certain that this second dream was also about to be realised. And there were thousands who shared my passion for the realisation of this dream.After the shock of the election results came devastation and gloom. Gloom that deepened following a phone call home later that evening, as my parents read me the Sunday morning papers. As the recounted the campaign of fear and lies. As I realised the defeat was even worse than I had ever anticipated.

Senate control accompanying Lower House control. This gloom has settled in the pit of my stomach, churning and churning. My mind is also agitated. Every few seconds I think of another misfortunate that will eventuate as a result of Howard’s re-election. The destruction of the student union movement, of student support services and of campus culture with the abolition of compulsory student unionism. (A bill strongly condemned by all the state Liberal party’s I might add). The further erosion of workers rights, and destabilisation of job security, resulting from Howard’s love of casual labour and hatred of unions. The edification of a two-tiered education system, which could very well see my sisters priced out of a decent university education.

The accelerated perversion of Medicare, created by Labor to deliver free or affordable health care to all, into a hollowed carcass barely capable of delivering care, leaving the majority of Australians – unable to afford hefty private insurance – with no choice but to suffer years of pain, whist those with thicker wallets use tax-payer funded beds in private hospitals for faster treatment. Correcting these problems would have been difficult, after 8 years of Howard’s cunning manipulation. After another three years, or more, it will be near impossible. I thought that the Australian public would have realised what was at stake. They didn’t. I thought they would recognise Howard’s election propaganda for what it was. Bullshit fear mongering. They didn’t. I thought they would kick him out of office for his continued lying. They didn’t.

Why? I don’t know. Perhaps they prefer the devil they know. Perhaps they really don’t give a shit. Perhaps they couldn’t think beyond their own backyard, their own self-interest. They neglected to think of the community, and the community will suffer the consequences.There was no slumber or tears to provide respite from these thoughts or the pain in my gut. Tears often fail to arrive when I most want them. Like when I farewelled my family at the airport. Likewise, when I most wanted to escape from the sombre reality into the haven of dreams and unconsciousness, sleep eluded me. Herbal teas, Panadol. No result. For the first time since I left Australia, I took sleeping tablets to beckon slumber. They also failed.

I watched with dry, weary eyes as the pale light of dawn overwhelmed the amber glow of the Parisian night sky. With tired ears I listened as Paris woke to a drizzly Sunday morning. As hungry infants cried for their mother’s breast, as market vendors rattled through the streets with their goods to set up their stalls at the end of the street. As students and loves giggled as they journeyed home after the first metro of the morning after a night of dancing or passion. As the dogs began their lonely morning chorus. Still no tears. Still no sleep. So I write instead.For those reading this that do not share my political views – and I know that among my friends and relatives there are several that do not share my vision of community and justice and fairness - please do not tell me. The election result has ripped a gaping, bleeding hole into my faith in the Australian people and my hopes for Australia’s future. Gloating over the results, or criticising my feelings would be like kicking me, hard, in the gut. It would do nothing but increase the pain and disillusion I’m already feeling. Leave me to nurse my broken ideals and despair in this city of beauty, love, light and open horizons.

Thank you,

Sincerely the Ideologue in Paris.



posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, October 12, 2004
|
Thursday, October 07, 2004
 
The polls are showing that a large number of people still haven't made up their mind about how to vote. It is likely that whatever that number is, it would be even higher in the Senate. That means there are plenty of people who can have their decision influenced, if they are made aware of the importance of the Senate and the danger that it may be weakened at this election. If I can just find a way to get into the heads of 12 million voters over the next 36 hours, we should be OK.

By polling night, there will have been 42 nights since the election was announced. Counting back, I've done better than I thought in managing to have 11 nights at home in Brisbane. My little girl seems to have grown up a lot while I've been away - she now goes to bed early and gets up early (no doubt benefiting from not having my influence around, as I tend to do the opposite). It will be good to spend some time with her over the next few weeks.

In focusing on what I've been doing during the campaign, it's easy to forget the many many other people who work so hard during the six weeks of the campaign. I have been lucky to have a fabulous group of people on my staff who in many ways have worked harder and under more pressure than I. Having been a party worker and staffer myself in the past, it is humbling to remember how much work so many people do behind the scenes (for all parties) whilst having to put such faith (and a bit of hope) that the party's leader and main candidates in the public arena don't do something that will stuff it all up and put all their efforts to waste.

One of the frustrating things about the adversarial attitude and rigid party line mentality of Australian politics is the enormous number of talented people and candidates who are left out of the process at the expense of people whose main talents seem to be to reinforcing and repeating the party line or in attacking and discrediting people from other parties.

Many of our candidates, but also some from other parties, are clearly people who have great ideas, open minds and fresh attitudes but such things play little part in how politics is practiced or how it is assessed by the media. Not only are such attributes not valued, they are often actively discouraged. It is hard to know how to break this down, but until we do, our democracy will continuing to function at about 30% of its potential.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Thursday, October 07, 2004
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
 
Because I'm a caring, sharing kind of guy (must be the social worker in me), I thought I'd share the text of a form letter email I've been receiving from Argentina. It's a perfectly reasonable request (accompanied by what I assume is the same thing repeated in Spanish) to ensure that Australian nuclear waste doesn't get imported to Argentina.

Although the Democrats and I support their issue, I'm not totally convinced about the value of mass email campaigns from overseas. Anyway, I thought some people may want to read this once - I've received 1285 in the past 5 days (but don't cry for me).

Dear: John Howard, Liberal Party of Australia Mark Latham, Australian Labour Party, Andrew Bartlett, Australian Democrats Bob Brown, Australian Greens John Anderson, National Party
I am an Argentine citizen who, like thousands of others and over 390 environmental and civil society organsiations in my country, is deeply concerned about the proposed Nuclear Agreement between Australia and Argentina. I am writing to you ahead of your general election to ask that you publicly commit that if elected, you will work to renegotiate the agreement between your government and mine so that it does not violate our national constitution. With its current article 12, the Agreement would open the door to Argentina receiving and treating nuclear waste from abroad. This would violate Article 41 of the Argentine National Constitution which does not allow the importation of other countries\' nuclear waste. Though the agreement was signed by the Australian government in 2001, it is still awaiting approval by the Argentine Congress. Strong public and NGO opposition has stalled the agreement for 3 years, but now some deputies are trying again to get it approved as quickly as possible. Your commitment to renegotiate the treaty if elected, eliminating the possibility of processing Australian nuclear waste in Argentina, could save Argentina from soon becoming the radioactive dump of the industrialized world. I hope I can count on your help at this crucial time.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, October 06, 2004
|
 
One of the various topics my dreadlocked cricket buddy suggested I expound on was the best performances by actors in truly terrible movies (his suggestions were Chris Rock in Sixth Element (I think he meant Fifth Element? but you know what dreadlocks do to your memory), and Richard Burton in Exorcist II).

As avid readers of this site would know, the last full feature I watched (in a hotel room) was Scary Movie 3, which is an indication of the sort of high class film that my standards demand. I therefore can't say much on such a topic. However, it did remind me of a web article I'd seen which does bring things back to the election but perhaps links it to other-things-in-the-world.

If you really just cannot decide on who to vote for and need some different information, this may help you.

http://www.aint-it-cool.com/display.cgi?id=18547

Next topic:
Toasted Magi Stock Cube and Kraft processed cheese slice sandwiches - a connoisseur's assessment of the best flavour combinations

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, October 06, 2004
|
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
 
In one of those wonderful pieces of election timing that make you wonder if the gods of politics have it in for me (yes, I do still think it's an open question), the day I choose to make a final foray into Adelaide is also the day that Howard and Latham choose to make a final foray into Adelaide. No doubt they both got wind of the fact that I was going there and changed their schedules because of the threat that they believe I am posing to their campaigns.

I still got some TV cameras turn up to record my words of wisdom, as well as people from the local paper, The Advertiser. What they will use out of it is another question. I also went for a meet and greet through the local Markets in the centre of the City – a good place to go to if you ever visit Adelaide. Two of our Senate candidates, John McLaren and Jenny Scott came along, as well as two of our House of Reps candidates and a State MP, Kate Reynolds, so we had quite a posse going through the place, trying to got out message across without getting in people's way.

Not surprisingly, things to do with the election are crowding most other things out of my mind at present. However, I would rather like to write about something other than the election, as there's plenty of that around. Also, I assume most people reading this would recognise that I would like them to vote Democrats on Saturday, especially in the Senate. It also rather likely that most people reading this are sufficiently engaged with politics that they already have a pretty clear idea of how they will vote – even in the Senate.

An old school friend of mine emailed me yesterday, letting me know he had already done a pre-poll vote for the Democrats. Nice of him to let me know (although if he'd told me anything to the contrary I would have berated him for the rest of his life, so he probably thought it was wise to tell me the 'right thing'.) I used to be very good friends with this guy at school and for a few years afterwards we both hung out around 4ZZZ and Uni and surrounds. We even had two practice sessions in an effort to form a band – the only songs I recall from that brief attempt were two circular pattern tunes called 'Walk/Don't Walk' and a potential chart-topper called 'Cruel Taunts Kill Fat Ron'. The band practices went so well that he moved to Sydney to escape.

While he escaped to a relaxing life of poetry and the pseudo cool of the Sydney inner-city set of the 1980s, I stayed on bravely battling against the oppressive forces of the Bjelke-Petersen regime, keeping the flame of freedom burning in the all-encompassing darkness. And it seemed like too much hassle to move interstate anyway.

As tends to happen, we then had virtually no contact at all until December 2000. He had long since returned to Brisbane, now sort-of liberated. We reconnected and have maintained contact through the politically subversive activity of cricket, intermittently reminding myself of the massive decline that has occurred in whatever sporting prowess I possessed in my teenage years.

Anyway, this is a long-winded way of raising the fact that he suggested a range of non-political topics I could address here, so that I wasn't just writing about politics. Some of these were quite good and some of them were highly dubious and of such a nature that I couldn't write about them here without getting myself into trouble in the political world. In any case, I've written so much now that I'll have to save some of them for another day.



posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, October 05, 2004
|
Monday, October 04, 2004
 
The Green Party released their IR policy today saying they can deliver industrial peace in our time. Labor released their policy on Tas forests, promising a scientific assessment to decide which forest areas will be protected. I thought the Green Party would be outraged that they've just got another review with an unknown result not being delivered until after the election, especially after they'd already handed over their preferences. However, on reflection I guess they couldn't really do anything other than praise it effusively - they would have looked pretty silly doing anything else, given that they'd already handed over their preferences. The Wilderness Society gave a more balanced assessment, noting that we won't know until this time next year what areas are going to be protected.

The suicides of some of the people arrested in the child pornography raids raises some difficult issues. On an issue as absolutely vital and fundamental as this, it is hard to be anything other than uncompromising. A strong message has to be sent that this activity is utterly unacceptable in every way. Presumption of innocence also has to be maintained, which is harder in such an environment. Balancing all these factors out is difficult, but given the lack of serious action on a whole range of child protection issues over so many years, I think there's still a way to go before the rights of children are getting enough weight. The threats to kids are still far too significant and the seriousness of efforts to tackle these threats are still too piecemeal.

Flew out of Brisbane again today - probably won't be back until election eve (have to vote myself in amongst everything else). I managed to read the first 5 or 6 chapters of the Pig City book while on the plane. It's quite readable, which I wasn't sure it would be. It convinced me that I must go and buy the recently issued CD package of the first 3 albums recorded by The Saints - I've got bits and pieces of their stuff on tape and vinyl, but having the lot on CD would be good (once again expanding my musical horizons by buying stuff I already own or know). Will provide a more full 'book review' once I've finished.

I'm doing an Online forum on the ABC site after tonight's 4 Corners (which is on the Howard-Latham contest). I'll be interested to see how much attention the Senate contest gets in the actual report. I know I can't really be objective on this, but I'm starting to get a little bit surprised that the prospect of the Liberals getting de facto control of the Senate (i.e. half of the seats) is getting so little media attention. Having a major party control the Senate will have a much be more far-reaching impact than the decision of who ends up as Prime Minister. I've done a couple of Online forums before - they certainly have their limitations and stretch my speed typing skills to the limit, but it's always good to try different ways of connecting with people about politics. I expect I'll get a few more people repeating the misinformation about preferences, but hopefully there'll be a few worthwhile comments or queries.


posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, October 04, 2004
|
 
I hope the lighter shade of background purple is more to people's taste (or is less irritating on the eye at least)

We're heading into the final week of the campaign, and I noted an item from Newspoll stating that 25% of people haven't given much consideration to how they are going to vote yet. I imagine it's far higher than that for people's Senate vote. It's time to start working even harder now.

I was mildly surprised how totally uninterested I was in the Rugby League Grand Final. It reminded me of when I was growing up when the Brisbane competition was so strong (before the Sydney comp completely gutted it) - I'd have a passing interest in how the Sydney comp went, but really not much more than the English one. It felt just like another game in a Sydney comp to me - about as interesting as who wins the NSW Rugby Union club championship. However, I did end up watching the last 30 minutes or so - I didn't even find myself wanting one team to win ahead of the other, which is a sure sign of non-interest (and I guess is a good example of what disinterest really means too).

I managed to spend some time at home on Sunday, which is always good. Probably won't be back again until next Sunday, so had to make the most of it.

There's been a new CD released which I'm keen to get my hands on called Original Seeds Vol 2. The first volume of this is a fabulous album, a compilation with a wide array of music by various artists who in some way or another have provided inspiration to Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds. It was a good insight into many styles and eras. I'm hoping the new one is just as good (whilst being on guard against the inevitable let down that comes from over inflated expectations). I think the original is being re-released and the new one has tracks by Nina Simone, Harry Belafonte and The Stooges. There was a launch in Melbourne on Saturday I would have liked to have got to.

Instead, I went along to the launch of Pig City, a book on the Brisbane music scene (which rather wisely was launched in Brisbane). Saw a few people I hadn't seen for some time, including a few from when I used to be heavily involved in 4ZZZ in the 1980s. The title of the book is taken from an iconic Brisbane song from the alternative music scene in around 1984 (I'm guessing that date).

I saw a guy who I'm sure used to be the singer in a band called The Vampire Lovers - they did a song called Buzzsaw Popstar which still sounds good today. He looked remarkably similar for 20 years on, but I'd swear it was him – still bleaching his hair and dressing rather similarly. I don't think I ever met him and didn't know his name, so I didn't go up to ask.

I bought the book and listened to the speeches - it was good to listen to someone else have to speak for a change, although I didn't find them overly fascinating, apart from Nick Earls who I've heard speak a couple of times before and who I always find entertaining. Nick's a Brisbane writer who's had a fair bit of success with books such as Bachelor Kisses and Zig Zag Street. I did a comedy debate with him once (or to be more precise against him) a few years back at QUT Carseldine campus.

I can't remember what the topic was, but I remember he was quite funny (apart from when he took the piss out of me, which of course nobody found amusing in the slightest). In some ways, I think he's a funnier speaker than writer, but his books are worth a read. I haven't read the Pig City book yet - I'll get around to it sometime soon, although I did have a quick check of the Index and it doesn't mention me, so it probably isn't that interesting. (That's a joke by the way, in case anyone was wondering)

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, October 04, 2004 Permalink
|
Friday, October 01, 2004
 
Latham's Medicare Gold stuff seems to have got some momentum behind it, (judging by some of the feeling of journos in the Press gallery anyway). Hard to know if it's a grand idea with some flaws that need ironing out or a great sounding idea with no hope of working even remotely like they say it will or for the price they say it will. Needs more detail and depends on how the states, the hospitals, the health insurers, the health professions and other relate to it if they try to implement it -sounds like the perfect job for a constructive, independent Senate to me. We'll have to wait and see if the electorate chooses to elect one.

Did comments on Labor's policies. Also released our position on multiculturalism and how crucial it is to Australia having a secure and prosperous future. There was only a small bit of media interest - maybe I should have got some migrants to do a bungee jump.

Doing some final touches for our final, overall launch on Saturday. Launch is not really the best word to describe it, as it's more a bringing together or culmination of what we’ve been doing, whereas 'launch' implies the start of something. I think heading into the final week is the right time to do it, especially for a Senate focused campaign, as the Senate hasn't had much attention to date but people will need to start thinking about the Senate soon. Any suggestions for a better title than "Launch" are welcome. "Culmination" doesn't quite work, neither does "zenith".

So many words in the language and none of them seem quite right - I'm sure there's one out there somewhere. Whatever you call it, I should be able to have a brief time at home on Saturday night, which will be nice. A book called 'Pig City' is being launched in Brisbane that night too, which I'm quite interested in seeing. It's meant to outline Brisbane's music history - from 6.30pm at the Powerhouse in New Farm.


posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, October 01, 2004
|