Senator Andrew Bartlett
Thursday, March 31, 2005
 
A Senate Committee Interrogation

After my relaxing weekend, I travelled to Canberra on Tuesday for a Committee hearing into claims of Australian involvement in interrogations in Iraq. This Inquiry was set up following allegations in a Four Corners report that the Government had misled the Parliament and the public in saying that no Australians were involved in any interrogations.

After further questioning at Estimates Committee hearings in February (page 36 onwards), the Senate decided to establish a specific Inquiry into the matter, supporting a joint motion moved by the Labor, Democrat and Green Parties.

This was the first hearing and the Committee heard from just the one witness – the man who made the allegations on Four Corners, Rod Barton. He is a retired intelligence analyst with a very impressive career stretching back to investigations in Laos and Cambodia in the early 1980s, as well as experience in Africa and Iraq through the 1990s. He came out of retirement to assist with the Iraq Survey Group in looking for weapons of mass destruction after the war.

There was a good turnout from the Committee, with 3 Coalition and 3 Labor Senators there, along with myself. A few of the specialist defence journalists from the press gallery also came along specifically to watch.

There was a lot of focus on the issue of whether people had been conducting 'interviews' or 'interrogations', with Mr Barton taking the common sense view that there was a lot of overlap between the two concepts and the words could quite reasonably be used interchangeably in describing what was done. However, the Government Senators' were focused on manufacturing a distinct divide between the two terms, because the Minister had specifically told Parliament that no Australians had conducted or were present during interrogations and had continued to insist this was the case. I couldn’t quite see why the Government didn’t just acknowledge that there was a misunderstanding and correct the record, rather than continue to insist on such a dubious pedantic distinction.

To me, this was much less sigifinicant than Mr Barton’s claims that he had raised concerns about mistreatment of prisoners which had not been properly investigated, not to mention the fact that some of those people were still being held prisoner today – almost certainly illegally. The questioning from the Government Senators seemed mainly focused on trying to attack the credibility and accuracy of Mr Barton's comments, rather like a defence lawyer trying to destroy the credibility of a witness by playing around with words and trying to create the perception of inconsistencies. This has become a fairly predictable approach from the Government, but I still found it rather irritating. Mr Barton seemed to handle it in his stride though.

This was just a one day hearing at this stage, although the Committee will probably have further hearings. I managed to fit it into a day trip, getting a 6.10am flight out of Brisbane and arriving back about 7.00pm. If you are interested in reading the Hansard record of the day’s proceedings you can find it here.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Thursday, March 31, 2005 Permalink
|
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
 
Meanwhile, on Christmas Island ... some freedom!

I mentioned in my last posting about the refugee baby, Amy, who was in detention on Christmas Island, where I hope to be visiting next month with a Parliamentary Committee to inspect the existing detention centre.

About three hours ago, I received an email informing me that baby Amy’s parents had been granted a visa today by Minister Vanstone and had left the Christmas Island detention centre this afternoon with Amy. I’m not certain at this stage what type of visas they were granted, although I expect it would be Temporary Protection Visas, which means they’ll have to go through it all again in a few years time.

Still, it is good when anyone gets freed, especially with a one year old baby, so we should be thankful to the Minister for acting wisely in this case. The family will be staying in a house out in the Island community for the moment and have supporters who will assist them.



Vietnamese Asylum Seekers on Christmas Island, including Amy and her parents
(young man in white t shirt with hand on Betty Cuthbert's shoulder and his wife
to the left peering over his shoulder) and advocate Kaye Bernard (kneeling in front)
November 2004.
I should mention that, apart from its detention centre, Christmas Island is a wonderful and fascinating place to visit. It has a number of plant, bird and animal species that appear nowhere else on the planet. Perhaps best known is the red crab, which migrates from its habitat in the forest floor to the ocean and back in huge numbers each year. The Island reputedly has the biggest diversity of crabs of any island. It also has fabulous coral and fish literally one step off the main beach, which means you don’t have to worry about boat hire to go snorkelling.

It also has an interesting social history and existing culture. Many of the signs on Christmas Island are in 3 languages – Chinese, Malay and English. The majority of the population of approx 1200 people is ethnic Chinese (many originally from Malaysia), and the rest is about equal parts ethnic Malay and white ‘European’.

It is expensive to get to, but well worth it if you can find a way – it’s much closer to Jakarta than it is to Australia. For those who still haven’t got over the introduction of the GST, it’s also a GST-free zone!

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, March 30, 2005 Permalink
|
Monday, March 28, 2005
 
Meanwhile, on Nauru …..
In amongst the relaxations for many of us of the Easter weekend and the current debate about the fate of asylum seekers and refugees in Australia, Michael Gordon has done an article in The Age reminding us of people the Government would like us to forget – the 54 asylum seekers marooned on Nauru.

I’ve visited Nauru twice and met many of the people still stuck there. It is a terrible situation with great suffering and great expense and no justification. Putting people in detention on Nauru has no more impact in deterring asylum seekers than detaining them in Australia, despite Government talk of the ‘success’ of the Pacific Solution. The real purpose is two-fold: (a) to put them outside our legal system, in our version of Guantanemo Bay, and (b) to put them out of sight and out of mind, where they cannot be visited and cannot tell their stories effectively. Sadly, this part of the Government’s strategy has worked.

This is why articles such as the one by Michael Gordon are so important. He has done a few very powerful and effective pieces on the Nauru asylum seekers over the last year or two – his use of straightforward and comprehensive facts means he doesn’t need to rely on emotional rhetoric, as the facts are sufficient to draw out the emotional responses.

UPDATE: Also, click here for a reminder of the number of children who have spent Easter in migration detention, including 6 on Nauru. The site also includes information on viable and realistic (and cheaper) alternatives to detention.

One of those children is baby Amy, a one year old who was born in detention. I met Amy and her parents, Tran Toan, and Pham Thi Phuong Thuy, along with most of the other Vietnamese detainees, when I visited Christmas Island last November (a visit I wrote about here.) The asylum seekers on Christmas Island, including 10 children, are as forgotten as those on Nauru.

Amy had her case considered by the Refugee Review Tribunal (via phone link-up) while I was on the island and she was found to be a refugee. However, her parents’ claim was unsuccessful, so baby Amy remains in detention waiting for the Minister to use her powers to grant a visa. Their story is reported in West Australia's Sunday Times. I should be going to Christmas Island again next month as part a visit by the Parliamentary Committee on Migration. I would hope by then the Minister will have acted, and I won’t be meeting Amy’s parents there again when I visit.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, March 28, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, March 27, 2005
 
A Whole lotta - pleasant sort of - Nothin going on
As I was leaving the office on Thursday evening prior to the Easter long weekend, I checked my diary and discovered I had no politics related events at all for the whole 4 days! I figured there must be some error in my computer diary, but apparently not. I guess it means the general ‘I must spend more time at home’ mindset I’ve been trying to adopt since the election is starting to have an effect. It’s certainly the first time in over a decade I’ve had a free Easter.

In the interests of de-mystifying what (at least one) politician does on the odd occasion when he does have some spare time, my weekend consists of unremarkable but moderately pleasurable things such as:

· Watching my first game of Rugby League for the year on television, a good (and slightly unexpected) win to the Brisbane Broncos over the Roosters -and getting slightly peeved that there was no AFL on TV on the Saturday afternoon).

· Driving out to the main University of Queensland campus at St Lucia with my little girl to feed the ducks in the duck pond. We got there just when the fire that gutted St John's College was well underway, which provided an unexpected backdrop. The ducks looked well fed but acted like they hadn’t eaten for weeks, literally snatching the bread out of our hands. (Maybe it was something in the water, as their ponds were a particularly virulent shade of bright algal green.)

· We also flew a kite on one of the soccer fields for half an hour or so - something I never did as a child and always assumed required at least a little bit of skill, but which I now know is something a three year old can do. (I’ll leave out commentary on Voluntary Student Unionism from this post, but the St Lucia campus really has a lovely set of grounds and facilities.)

· We spent a while watching the speedboats on the Brisbane River and wondering how many millions of dollars the houses on the other side of the River at Fairfield and Highgate Hill cost.

· Caught up on some of my emails, websites and other assorted articles and newspapers I’d been putting to one side. I also posted some comments on a few blogs around the place and wrote my monthly report for the Queensland Democrat members’ newsletter.

· Did an interview for Channel 7 for a news story they were doing on the planned new security arrangements at Parliament House. I presume they asked for my comments based on a fleeting mention I got in a column by Matt Price on the issue, which in turn was based on a speech I gave to the Senate about it. I actually spoke on this a couple of times in the past too, in March and June last year. I don’t know if Channel 7 used a grab from me or not, as I haven’t been watching the TV news.

· Going to my Mums for Sunday lunch with most of my siblings and a few other relatives likely to be there. My Mum is very supportive, is a Democrat member and we agree surprisingly often on policy issues, but she does have a liking for John Howard, which can lead to the occasional disagreement.

· I’ve also wasted stupid amounts of time playing the Age of Empires computer game. I hadn’t played this for a long time, but found it lying in a drawer somewhere and fired it up. I have an unfortunate tendency to get captured by those things, and many hours later found myself cursing for wasting such a huge amount of time (especially a total waste of time when the computer kept beating me!!) I’m discovering computer games are another thing a three year old can do, although I’m keeping her away from the stab and shoot type of games for as long as I can.

· I will (once again) vow off chocolates and potato chips after the weekend. I gave up this stuff for a while, but I’ve been slipping back into bad habits again with it, so will have to cut it out completely. I’ve actually found junk food exceptionally hard to give up for any significant length of time. Hopefully by putting it up on a public website, it might make me feel more like I’d better stick to it.

· I will also do some preparatory reading for a couple of Senate Committee Inquiries I’m part of and do some writing for a few articles and papers I have to present. (I’ll leave that until Monday -saving the fun stuff until last.)

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, March 27, 2005 Permalink
|
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
 
Stories of my father

Today is my father’s birthday. He would be 81 if he was still alive.

He died of prostate related cancer over ten years ago. His father died of the same thing and one of his brothers was being treated for it at the time he died, so I guess that puts me rather high in the danger zone. Now that I’m over 40 I should get a check-up for it, but I haven’t yet. Labor MP, Shadow Treasurer and fellow Brisbanite, Wayne Swan, has done a good job trying to raise awareness about prostate cancer issues in recent years, after suffering a scare himself.

Because I have the sort of job that means people know how to contact me, I sometimes have people from the past getting in touch. Every now and then I get an email or a phone call asking ‘are you that Andrew Bartlett I used to know?’ from Uni or school or wherever. Sometimes I also get messages asking if I’m the brother or son or uncle of someone in my family, and people use me to pass on a message or get in touch with them. When I got stuck filling the role of ‘scandal of the week’ for the media at the end of 2003, I was amazed by how many messages of support I got from people I hadn’t heard from for many years.

The most recent one of these incidents was a month or so ago, when someone rang my office asking if I was the son of a John Bartlett who used to work in New Guinea 40 years ago? I rang back and spoke to a very elderly sounding man, now living in Toowoomba, who used to work with my father back then. My dad was an engineer, building roads, bridges and the like when my parents lived in New Guinea for about 8 years from 1956-63. All my siblings were born there in Port Moresby, but I was born a short while after they had left and re-located to Brisbane.

This man wanted to get in touch with my mother, but he also wanted to tell me what a magnificent man my father was – “the most honourable and decent fellow he’d ever met” was one quote that stuck in my mind. He had no particular need to tell me that, but he seemed very keen to do so and it was a touching thing to be told.

By chance, I was looking through a few of my father’s old papers a couple of weeks ago which my mother had found. I found an old CV he’d typed out – I presume for job applications – in the late 1940s. Curiously, on his CV he stated his nationality as British, despite being born in Sydney (as were his parents) and never having left Australia! Technically, there was no such thing as an Australian citizen until 1948 when the Citizenship Act was passed, so I guess that’s how people described themselves at the time, but it does seem very strange 50 years later.

In between doing various University degrees at Sydney University, I discovered from his CV he’d done a few months of what appeared to be a form of work experience at Cockatoo Island in Sydney Harbour. This pleased me, as one thing I had a big influence on a few years ago was enabling legislation to pass which established the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, and also ensuring there were enough protections to give some historic sites, including Cockatoo Island, a good chance of surviving and being made accessible to the people in the future. I never realised my father had that connection with the Island.

I have visited Cockatoo Island a couple of times and it really is a fascinating place – an incredible part of Australia’s history, with convict built structures, an old (and rather depressing) convict prison, underground grain silos, it’s own unique powerhouse and what must be the best view from any tennis court in the world - right in the middle of Sydney Harbour and yet unknown to so many people. I saw in the paper the other day that there is a music and arts festival being held there over the coming Easter weekend, so it looks like the Island is starting to be experienced by many people once again and adding another phase to its history.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Live and Let Die
Not surprisingly, there is an enormous amount of debate around about the battle in the USA over whether or not to withdraw the feeding tube for Terri Schiavo, a woman who has been in a vegetative state for the last 15 years. Cases like these raise immensely difficult issues and strongly held views. My view is that it is impossible for any law to be able to fully resolve some of the complex and competing principles in these situations. This very personal tragedy is compounded by it being played out so brutally in a public arena and being adopted as a political football by some to push their own ideological or theological views. I was going to write something of my own views on this, but frankly it is too hard to summarise and the more I read, the more I feel that judgements should be left to those that know the full facts, as opposed to the propaganda or summaries that are necessarily incomplete. It is impossible to discuss a case like this without emotion coming into it to some extent, but reason is also essential. Some good discussions can be found at this site of a philosophy professor’s in the USA, or once again at Troppo Armadillo.

On a not quite as fraught, but somewhat related topic, the Senate in Australia is currently looking at a Bill which seeks to make it an offence to use the internet to access, transmit or make available material that counsels or incites suicide. The Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005 is currently being looked at by the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Committee. This was originally put forward prior to the election and has been re-introduced by the Government. I can understand the rationale behind it, although I have to say I wonder about its workability and whether it will work as its supporters think it will. Whilst the principles involved may seem simple to some, to me the practical issues are not so straightforward. This is another difficult topic where overly simplistic statements do not always increase understanding.

If you have views on this Bill, I recommend you provide them to the Committee. I will be reading the public submissions with interest.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Permalink
|
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
 
Me Being Stupid
One piece of advice I have regularly received from a wide variety of people across the entire political spectrum over many years is that as general rule it is really dumb for people in politics to attack journalists. This is based on the simple fact that the media are in an infinitely stronger position to attack back in a manner and time of their choosing, coupled with the perception that politicians are one of the few groups who are held in lower esteem by the public than journalists and therefore you are unlikely to gain much sympathy if the media decide to hoe into you.

I saw an article written by a journalist which makes some comments on journalism. It is by a former editor of The Age, Les Carlyon, and is entitled The write stuff. His view is that "the main troubles with journalism are sloppy writing and sloppy editing, advocacy masquerading as reporting, gossip masquerading as reporting, stories that abound in loose ends and clichés, stories that are half-right, stories that insult the reader's intelligence."

In keeping with advice, I make no comment. After all, Les Carlyon is a journalist, so what would he know about journalism?

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Werriwa - An historic result for Informal?

Labor is the only party that can take much positive out of the Werriwa result. It is a useful result for them, especially given the dangers that by-elections can occasionally present. It will also make good propaganda value, although the realists in the Labor Party will know that it doesn't mean a great deal.

However, there was one aspect which doesn't seem to have attracted too much commentary, which is the informal vote. According to the current figures on the AEC website, it is over 10 per cent, which must be one of the higher percentages ever recorded for the informal vote in a House of Reps seat.

More significantly, I am wondering whether it is the first time ever that Informal has actually come in second. The next highest is the independent Liberal candidate, James Young, who is currently polling less than 8 per cent, so I doubt he will catch up to Informal.

The Psephos site by Adam Carr is the best site I know of for election statistics. It includes the results of every federal by-election back to 1901 (and a hell of a lot more). I didn’t have the energy to go back through them all, but whilst Informal has put in a few good showings here and there, I couldn't find any where it got into second place. If anyone finds another example, please let me know.

As an aside, it is interesting to see the names that pop up as candidates in by-elections who went on to be elected in other contexts, or who keep re-appearing as candidates. Marc Aussie-Stone, a candidate in last weekend Werriwa contest, appeared as a candidate in the Bass by-election in 1974 (and plenty more in between). Peter Consadine is another regular contestant.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, March 20, 2005
 
From Canberra to Student Unions, Tunnels and Being Re-born
The last week in the Senate once again had a much higher number of Bills dealt with than usual – 19 in total in the 4 sitting days. None of these were very controversial, apart from the law to abolish ATSIC. As usual, details can be found on my main website. I left Canberra on the Friday morning, with the Senate not sitting again until the Budget appears in May.

I got back to Brisbane for a couple of hours and then got a flight to Rockhampton. With proposed laws just introduced by the Government aimed at destroying Student Associations and Unions on University campuses, I’m keen to see what might be done to make people aware of just how damaging this will be. It is likely to be far more damaging on regional campuses, so I wanted to meet up with a few people at the Central Queensland University to get a better picture of what the possible impact might be. As well as the Student Association, I also met with a number of academic staff. CQU has the highest percentage of overseas students of any of the 38 Universities in Australia. Its Rockhampton campus (it has 9 campuses around Australia) is one of the biggest single employers in the city and surrounding region and the potential loss of 30 or 40 jobs there, along with the services provided will be felt more widely than just the students.

I flew back home late Friday night and on Saturday morning I attended a rally in my local suburb regarding a proposed tunnel that’s planned to go under the Brisbane River from Woolloongabba to Windsor. If it goes ahead it will be Brisbane’s first step down Sydney’s path of mega-expensive, traffic-multiplying road tunnels, complete with an unfiltered smogstack at each end. The affected communities are starting to wonder when they will actually get some proper information about the project, beyond the usual glib stuff promising that the air will be cleaner and the traffic will be less. It’s proposed by the Brisbane City Council and supported by the State Government. Both Liberal and Labor parties support it. Because I live within a kilometre of one of the smogstacks, I’ve avoided speaking out about it before, as it could look like I’m speaking out of self-interest. I should mention that the Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, and the Premier, Peter Beattie, also live nearby (even if they are up on the hill, while I’m down near the floodplain). I’ll probably write some more about it soon. It impacts on areas I’ve lived in for virtually all my life, so it does interest me a lot.

Speaking of connections to the local area, I went from this rally to a meeting of local Democrat members. I wrote a brief entry on this site in January about a process we’ve been working on to look at where the party goes from here. The meeting today was to report back to members on some of the major outcomes (so far) with that process. The party organised to have it in a venue we hadn’t used before, which was an old Church hall in the suburb of Wooloowin. This hall actually used to be a church and, unbeknownst to whoever chose it, it was where I was baptised back in 1964. The church closed around 1968 and moved into a new one next door, so I had no memory of ever being inside this building. I guess returning to the place of my baptism could be a good symbol for undergoing a political re-birth. We’ll see if the voters agree by the time the next election rolls around.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, March 20, 2005 Permalink
|
Saturday, March 19, 2005
 
Changes to the Electoral Act for political websites - an attack on free speech or simple consistency?
A report during the week in the Sydney Morning Herald said the Government was planning to change the Electoral Act to require websites containing electoral material to identify a person authorising its content.

This new move is seen as being directed at anonymous political sites such as johnhowardlies.com. A few sites like this sprung up around the last election. I must say, when I first read of the planned change, it seemed a fair enough move to me. It seems reasonable that the rules that apply to printed electoral material should also apply if you put the same thing up on a website. Not surprisingly, it has caused a lot of debate amongst Australian blogs, with many fearing it will stifle political debate on the web, particularly if it also applies to people who want to leave comments – as you can do on this site.

I hadn’t thought of this aspect and I must say there are some valid arguments. Newspapers no longer have to give the name and address of letter writers during election campaigns and talkback radio do not have to identify callers, so people leaving comments on blogs or websites should also be exempt.

If you want to see some of the debate on this topic on other sites, you could try Troppo Armadillo, Catallaxy, Barista, John Quiggin, or Weezil.

The Electoral Act has long had a requirement that printed and electronic electoral material must contain a name and street address of somebody authorising the material. The Electoral Commission says this is to “ensure that anonymity does not become a protective shield for irresponsible or defamatory statements.” As this part of the Act has been around for a while, it has never been clear whether or not this applies to the internet, although most political parties and candidates have an authorisation just in case. For example, at the bottom of pages on the Democrats' site is the name of the party's National Secretary, Jason Wood, along with the address of the party’s main office. I’ve had my name authorising heaps of stuff in the past when I had a Campaign Director role. This is a fairly minor part of the law, but not having an authorisation can mean the Electoral Commission will require the material to be withdrawn (or have an authorisation added)

A change like this will need to pass the Parliament. Until now, the Senate was a safety net against bad laws. However, from July 1st the Democrats will no longer be able to fill that protective role, as the Government gets control of the Senate. This means more work has to be put into raising public awareness (including awareness amongst all MPs) about any possible negative consequences.

The Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the electoral laws, as it does after every election. If you have views or concerns on this proposed change (or anything else to do with our electoral laws), I’d encourage you to put in a submission. Most MPs are not particularly internet-savvy (myself included) and will often simply not be aware of some of the consequences, unless somebody tells them - it may as well be you. Anonymous or confidential submissions can be made too, although they don’t have as much value.

I’ve served on this Committee in the past, and despite the Government having a majority, it usually works in a fairly constructive and non-partisan way (apart from a brief period under the Chairmanship of Chris Pyne, but that was an aberration).

For extra reading on the topic, try this backgrounder into electoral advertising put out by the Electoral Commission. For an even more comprehensive analysis, this research brief from the Parliamentary Library is very good (see page 4 onwards for the current rules around political advertising).

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Saturday, March 19, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Comments on the Ross Lightfoot saga
- I hope this episode doesn’t end up damaging the credibility of the Kurdish cause. Ross Lightfoot has said a few things in the past I found quite objectionable, and his behaviour in this incident seems at the very least a little bit odd. However, I agree with his support for the Kurds and their desire to attain independence or at the very least a decent form of autonomy. He has spoken publicly on this in the past and I agree with his view on this.
- I wish John Howard was just as willing to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone else in the community as he is to his own MPs. It is unsatisfactory that there is not going to be some form of further inquiry into the matter, as it does raise issues of proper declaration of interests to Parliament, apart from anything else. The suggestion that he wasn’t sure who funded an earlier trip to Iraq is not very credible to me;
- I don’t like condemning people without all the facts. However, from what has come out to date, this seems to be a case of excessive verbal bravado, coupled with some specific inconsistencies in the story. Whatever the truth may be, one fact is that it generally brings the reputation of politicians down (again);
- We are seeing the natural benefit to John Howard of his decision to dramatically reduce the number of sitting days in the Parliament. After only 11 sitting days so far this year, the Senate does not return until the Budget is brought down on May 10th. Even that is for just 3 days, and it’s another break until June 14th. In a more normal environment, there would be plenty more opportunities to get to the facts of this matter.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Saturday, March 19, 2005 Permalink
|
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
 
Tsunami Aid package passes Senate
Back at the end of last year, I was writing, as were many others, about the horrendous tsunami and the responses to it. In my posting of December 30th, I wrote "There is no doubt that the $35 million pledged by the Australian Government so far is inadequate, but I also have no doubt that a lot more will be pledged down the track." This is one occasion when I am pleased to be proved right, although I must say I don't think I expected the eventual total to be as big as it was.

I mention this, because the Bills appropriating the money for the tsunami assistance passed through the Senate today. They were not controversial of course, and therefore got little media coverage, (although both a Green Party Senator and I said it would be better if half of the $1 billion package was not in the form of a loan). However, it was good to see the cross-party support for the Government's efforts.

I will probably take the links to the tsunami help sites off this site soon. The time has shifted to the Government and aid agencies making maximum use of the assistance, so I don't think I need to highlight the donations sites much longer (although the SEA-EAT blog is still interesting to drop into now and then).

As I mentioned in the Senate a few times in different speeches over the last week or so, I hope the Government's sizeable aid package, and the significant private and corporate donations, serve as a catalyst to a longer-term increase in development assistance and aid – especially in our region. Showing people that the funds for the tsunami victims are well spent will be crucial to the chances of this happening.

The final death and casualty figures for this catastrophe will never be certain, and are so large as to be difficult to comprehend anyway. However, figures were given to an Estimates Committee last month showing a death toll that is probably over 300 000, and the number of displaced at over two and a half million people. (Some more details about this can be found by looking at the Hansard here – from page 41 onwards.)

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, March 15, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, March 13, 2005
 
Mental Health
I know I have written about Cornelia Rau a lot on this site. However, the story about her case on the Sunday program today is definitely worth watching. You can read the transcript here. The website for this story also has one of the most badly worded webpoll questions I've seen. Webpolls tend to be dodgy at the best of times, but asking "should detention centres be abolished?" is firstly not that much to do with the story and secondly is bound to get a massive No vote. The issue isn't whether there should be detention centres, it's how long people are in them, who is put in them, and what the conditions are like. Anyway, the question also distracts from what I think is the main aspect of the story, which is the appalling attitudes to people with significant mental illness.

Every story like this has its own unique tragic factors, but this story suggests to me that systemic factors make it inevitable that many other mentally ill people will continue to suffer unnecessarily – something which harms our whole community in various ways. A comment left on my previous post from someone with personal experience certainly suggests this too. I don't endorse all aspects of it, but it's worth reading, (which you can do if you click here. )

I repeat my suggestion that anyone who does have experience or an interest in this area – from any perspective – consider doing a submission to the Senate Committee that's just been set up on mental health. Submissions can be brief. The Terms of Reference are here.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, March 13, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Mardi Gras
Sydney's Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras parade was held last weekend and it was the first time in about 7 years that I didn't attend to march in the parade. The Democrats have had a presence in the parade for many years to show support for equality for all people regardless of their sexuality or gender status. The Party Leader, Senator Lyn Allison marched this year along with NSW State MP Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. Senator Brian Greig has gone a number of times over the years, as have Aden Ridgeway and Natasha Stott Despoja.

A few of the photos on my website (such as here and here) were taken at various parades over the years and part of me was wistful at not being there this year. Being part of the parade as opposed to watching it is an unusual experience, as there is always such an immense outpouring of goodwill from the crowds of people watching, as well as from other parade participants.

This is a total contrast to the extraordinarily hostile response I often get some people when I speak in support of equal rights for gay, lesbian or bisexual people, as well as for transgender or intersex people. As a politician, I expect people to sometimes strongly disagree with things I say or do. For example, I did a posting on this site a few months back giving some examples of the type of antagonistic comments that can happen when I speak in support of refugees, (although this issue provokes a much less heated response than it did a few years ago).

However, nothing ever matches the ugly, hate-saturated comments I often get on issues related to homosexuality and same sex relationships. What makes these all the more unfortunate is that they almost always purport to present a Christian perspective, occasionally selectively quoting a bit of the Old Testament to reinforce the 'correctness' of their view.

I do tend to find this distressing - not so much personally, but because I know how deeply such comments can wound a person and it is sad to see that people think it is OK to say such things. I noticed a few of the usually quite civil blog sites developed quite a strident exchange of comments around the issue of a lesbian teacher who was sacked in Victoria recently for discussing the topic with students in her class.

Normally though, I like the comment aspect of blogs, as it provides quick and open feedback - sort of like an instant letter to the editor (usually without the editing). Often the comments are more interesting than the postings of the blogger. It was through reading some of those comments that I came across this very powerful article by a National Party MP, Adrian Piccoli. I hadn’t seen this before, but it is a great expression of how seriously this issue can affect people.

UPDATE 15/3: In another example of good things to be found in blog comments, the teacher I mentioned above who was sacked in Victoria wrote this posting which details her experience. It is a brief but very compelling story of the personal impact and experience of prejudice.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, March 13, 2005 Permalink
|
Saturday, March 12, 2005
 
Avalanche
Another Senate sitting week is over. There are now 14 sitting days left before the Government takes control of the whole Parliament, with 4 of those days happening next week.

The Senate has passed a much larger number of Bills than usual, given we have only had 7 sitting days so far this year - with over 30 Bills passed, it's almost been an avalanche. This is mostly due to the Government putting up mainly non-contentious legislation, although the recognition of the imminent Government takeover has played a bit of a part too.

It was pleasing to see agreement was reached with both Labor and Liberal on the Democrats' proposal to have a broad Senate Inquiry into mental health issues.. This will hopefully be a positive process to come out of the tragic case of Cornelia Rau that I’ve written some entries on previously. If you have any experiences or views on the issue, I'd encourage you to make a submission.

On Monday, we will resume debating the Bill that will abolish ATSIC. The Committee looking into issues surrounding this reported earlier in the week. It is a pity that the controversies surrounding ATSIC’s leadership has obscured some of the Government’s major failings on indigenous issues.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Saturday, March 12, 2005 Permalink
|
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
 
Maz meets (most of) Parliament - live online!
The Senate has been getting through legislation at an extremely rapid rate. I think 11 Bills have been passed already in the last 48 hours or so. As always, you can watch the Senate proceedings live by going to this site and clicking on the Senate icon.

Princess Mary fever has hit Parliament today, with the reception being held in the Great Hall, held by the Prime Minister Mr Howard, for His Royal Highness Crown Prince Frederik and Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mary of Denmark

If for some inexplicable reason you don't want to watch the Senate live online, you can always watch the Princess Mary function by going to this page – screening starts in an hour at 5.30pm Canberra time!

Repeating my point from my post on the 4th March, it is a big contrast from the reception given by the Prime Minister to the man who is in line to be the next King of Australia.

Meanwhile, the Parliament will continue to sit and do minor things like make laws. Legislation on anti-siphoning is coming up soon. For those interested in such issues, I believe Labor will be moving an amendment to ensure that the soccer (or football) World Cup is on the anti-siphoning list, which would enable it to be broadcast on free-to-air TV. I expect it will be successful in the Senate, but I don't know if the Government will accept the amendment.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, March 09, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, March 06, 2005
 
Sittings of the Senate and drug testing in the military
The Senate resumes again tomorrow for two more weeks of sittings. This will be the last sitting until the Budget is brought down on the second Tuesday in May. I’ll fly down to Canberra from Brisbane tonight. This flight is usually full of Qld based MPs and their staffers. If one of these Sunday night flights ever went down in a ball of flame, three quarters of the state would need to have by-elections.

People who want to know what legislation is likely to be debated in the Senate over the next two weeks can find out by clicking here. As I wrote at the start of the last sitting week, this list can vary a lot from what actually ends up happening, although last week we did get through all the Bills listed and the Government ran out of business to bring on for debate, which showed pretty poor skill at organising or running their business in the chamber.

If you want to find out more details on any of the Bills listed for debate, go to this site and click on the name of the relevant Bill. I have responsibility for the second Bill listed, the Defence Amendment Bill 2005. This Bill appeared less than a month ago, only being introduced in the Parliament on the 10th February. It has already been rushed through the House of Representatives (which is nothing unusual), but the Government wants to bring it on for debate in the Senate as soon as its introduced there, which is more unusual.

The Bill is intended to update the random drug testing regime for Defence Personnel (including Reservists). I won’t give my views on it here, as our Party Room won’t discuss it until tomorrow morning. However, the Bills Digest done up by the Parliamentary Library gives some of the history behind the legislation, as well as summarises the possible effect of it. The Bills Digest also raises some issues about possible privacy implications and whether there is scope for independent testing in the event of a dispute.

This is an example of a law which will directly affect over 70 000 people, but will probably only receive a small amount of mainstream media coverage (here’s an item from The Age last month as one example) and is likely to be rushed through both Houses of Parliament in less than a month. Some related comments by Labor’s spokesperson on the issue, Arch Bevis (who is also my local member), can be found by clicking here.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, March 06, 2005 Permalink
|
Friday, March 04, 2005
 
Government chucks Charles
I read on the ABC site that Prince Charles is in Canberra tonight, apparently for a ‘State dinner’. The news item says the dinner is at Government House, the residence of the Governor-General, who is also hosting the function. This is a fairly small venue. The Prince is also ‘attending several engagements’ in Canberra tomorrow, as well as holding ‘formal talks with the Prime Minister’.

I received an invitation the other day to attend an evening event next week with Princess Mary in the Great Hall of Parliament House. This is a huge (and very impressive) venue which can fit hundreds of people. I imagine all federal politicians got the same invite. It doesn't bother me that I didn't get an invite to any of Prince Charles' functions in Canberra, but it does strike me as a bit strange when I did get one to see Princess Mary.

There may be some protocol thing I'm unaware of (protocol not being my forte), but it seems very odd that our devoutly Monarchist Prime Minister would be hiding the future King away when he visits Canberra and most MPs don’t get a chance to hear or meet him, while many MPs (and presumably many other people) get invited to attend a function in the heart of Parliament House for a Danish Princess (even if she was born an Australian) whose only political connection with us is that she seems to be on the cover of every women’s magazine and newspaper in the country.

After all, Charles is most probably going to be King of Australia one day and it would make sense for him to get a chance to address and meet with federal MPs. According to the ABC, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are at his ‘State dinner’, along with the Chief Justice, the Defence Force Chief and the British High Commissioner. I don’t know if any other politicians got invited, (although I know the Democrats’ Parliamentary Leader, Lyn Allison, didn’t).

I should emphasise that I don’t feel personally miffed, and I don’t have any burning desire to meet either of them, although if I had to pick one I’d go for Charles. Mind you, I don’t have anything against Princess Mary. I quite liked her Tasmanian father when I saw him on TV once. She seems quite nice, looks very beautiful in photographs and I wish her good luck and all that – although the media frenzy about her does leave me cold.

As some readers would know, I’m a republican. I believe it would be of benefit to our nation’s future if we cut our connections with the monarchy, and that’s why I’ve been a member of the Australian Republican Movement for some years and I’d encourage others to join and make it a more effective grassroots movement. However, I’ve never seen the benefit or value in making public fun of Prince Charles or other royals. All things considered, Prince Charles seems OK to me. At least he’s shown an interest in some aspects of environmentalism and more holistic health care, and I wouldn’t wish the poor guy’s (not-so) private life on anyone.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, March 04, 2005 Permalink
|
Thursday, March 03, 2005
 
Some migrants are more equal than others

A report in today's Australian newspaper says the Government is considering increasing our skilled migrant intake by 20 000 people next year, a big increase on this year’s total of around 77 000. Statements by the Prime Minister reported on the ABC seem to confirm this.

There couldn’t be a more blatant example of how this Government has failed to ensure that opportunities are available for people already in Australia to obtain the necessary qualifications.

When I saw this story, I recalled a media release by the former Minister, Mr Ruddock from 1999. At that time that skilled intake was 35 000, yet the Minister said a substantial increase in the Skill stream, “would only be possible by significantly diluting selection criteria … which would irreparably undermine the significant economic, budgetary and employment benefits of skilled migration.”
Given this fact, it seems strange that just 5 years later the Government is suggesting it is viable to aim for a skilled intake of close to 100 000 people.

I think it is unlikely there are that many people highly skilled in just the right fields, sitting around looking for another country to move to, unless they can get much higher pay than is currently available in Australia. Of course, to offer higher pay would fuel the upward pressure on skilled wages which was part of the cause of yesterday’s interest rate hikes.

I’d say this is an unworkable attempt at a quick fix to try to dampen the clamour arising from the interest rate hike. Business will like the sound of it, as anything that increases the pool of skilled labour they can draw from suits them and the housing sector always likes more migrants. But I can’t see it really putting a big dint in the skills shortage and it runs the risk of reducing the pressure on where the real action should be, which is in much greater investment in training opportunities for people already here.

I should emphasise I support (moderately) higher migration, but it infuriates me that this Government specifically puts hurdles in the way of other migrants using or developing their skills, while at the same time going out and trying to scoop up others. There are thousands of refugees on temporary visas prevented from updating their skills, being prevented from accessing English language classes that other refugees are provided with. I know many of these refugees are highly skilled. I can recall one Iranian couple I met in Baxter in 2003 and 2004, one of whom was a Doctor and the other a Pharmacist. They have finally been given a Visa, but would have to pay full fees to access any courses to upgrade or diversify their skills to meet Australian requirements.

We also have many people who have been prevented from settling here because a family member has a disability and is therefore seen as a ‘cost’. There was a family in Canberra who got some publicity in Canberra near the end of last year when they were refused a visa because they had an autistic son.

It’s time we acknowledged our migration system is already grossly discriminatory. We should remove some of those unfair aspects that stop people already trying to settle here before we go out seeking more and we should not see instant migration as a cheap way of avoiding properly investing in education and training here.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Thursday, March 03, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Interest rate rise was avoidable

The economic news of the past day shows how laughable the assertion is that either of the two major parties can somehow be seen as good economic managers.

The totally avoidable interest rate rise will significantly hurt huge numbers of Australian families because of the enormous levels of private debt. Some will say that this is the fault of the individuals who have got themselves into that debt, and there is some truth in that. But both major parties are guilty of supporting tax and economic policies that have greatly encouraged higher levels of private debt and they have made high debt almost unavoidable for anybody that wants to buy a home.

Australia's interest rates are now higher than most other western countries. Our total household debt continues to skyrocket – according to today’s Sydney Morning Herald, it’s gone from $495 billion in June 2002 to $744 billion now. Housing debt alone went from $410 billion to $628 billion in the same period, a rise of over 50% in less than 3 years.

Both Labor and Liberal have supported a tax regime of negative gearing and capital gains tax cuts that encourages property speculation. In addition, we have had tax cuts for the highest income earners while low income earners struggle with higher effective marginal tax rates. We also had an election campaign where votes were being blatantly bought by throwing untargeted lump sump cash payments at whole sections of the electorate.

It wouldn’t worry me so much that we have the highest taxing Government in Australia's history if that tax take was derived in a more equitable way and the revenue was spent on services and infrastructure, instead of vote buying, porkbarrelling, upper class and corporate welfare and gross wastage of money on things like detention centres and government advertising.

As I have written before, this Government had plenty of warning about the cost of housing. Public pressure forced the Treasurer to announce a Productivity Commission inquiry into housing costs. However, it is now clear that this was done to get the issue off the front pages by looking like they were doing something about it. When the Inquiry eventually reported, the federal government rejected every recommendation that required significant action from them.

I don't know why the mainstream media seem to have no interest in the unsustainable price of housing. If the price of food and clothing doubled in the space of a few years there'd be an outcry, but when the same thing happens in housing its seen as a good thing, presumably because some people make money out of it. Sometime I think the huge amounts of advertising revenue from the property industry might have something to do with it, but I guess that's too simplistic.

On top of this, the skill shortages which are seen as part of the reason for the rate rise (to address possible upward pressure on wages) is being used as an excuse for draconian industrial relations changes to cut the minimum wage. This is despite the fact that the minimum wage has nothing to do with skill shortages, as it is only paid to unskilled workers, who sadly there is not a shortage of.

Discretionary consumer spending and property speculation are the main factors driving up private debt and the current account deficit, yet we still have plenty of Government members pushing for more tax cuts for higher income earners, whilst also campaigning for lower wages for the unskilled and kicking disabled people and sole parents off the pension.

It's all a bit of a mess, and with every sign that the Government is blaming everyone but itself for the interest rate rises, high housing prices and massive levels of private sector debt, it seems there is a good chance of another rate rise in a few months time.

One more piece of icing on the cake - we also had the announcement from the Government that private health insurance rebates will rise by another 8%. The extra sting is that it will also mean a rise on the spending of public money on the ever more wasteful government subsidising of health insurance – now as much as 40% for some people, again thanks to those economically responsible Liberal and Labor parties. I'm sure every other business would like a 30-40 per cent subsidy for people who wanted to buy their products.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Thursday, March 03, 2005 Permalink
|