Senator Andrew Bartlett
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
 
Getting on with things - Pride, the UN and Qld's oldest broken political promise

Despite the disruption of losing Senators and staff (and the Government winning control of the Senate), I have still had to keep busy with local and national issues. In some ways I have to keep busier than ever if I want to (a) cover the same number of issues with fewer Senators, (b) balance out the likely loss of some of the forums that previously existed in the Senate for issues to be explored and heard, and (c) get re-elected in Queensland.

Over the weekend, I attended the Pride Fair Day, where the Democrats have had a stall for many years. With Brian Greig’s departure from the Senate, I am keen to make sure that his legacy (and that of many others before him) of effective work and achievement promoting equal rights for people of all sexualities and gender statuses is not lost.

On the Saturday night I went to a United Nations Association dinner marking the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter.

On Sunday I went to a community meeting of people campaigning for the building of the Petrie to Kippa Ring Railway. This goes through an area which has one of the fastest and largest population growths in the country. The land to build it on is already in Government hands. The highway through the area carrying all the traffic up to the Sunshine Coast, already gets severely clogged at peak times, is expected to have traffic doubled and has already had a fortune spent on it.

The railway to Redcliffe – a city on Moreton Bay on a peninsula just north of Brisbane – was first proposed around the end of the 19th Century and is probably Queensland’s oldest and most regularly broken political promise. I have a natural preference for favouring investment in public transport and in favouring rail over road. Despite this, I do acknowledge that rail is not always the best solution. However, putting a rail link through to Redcliffe seems clearly beneficial and cost effective, and it truly baffles me that somehow or other successive Queensland Governments keep talking themselves out of it.

This piece by Peter Spearitt from the Brisbane Institute (pointed out by Benno in a comment to this posting) shows the bizarre aversion to rail that appears to permeate the Queensland Government. It doesn’t mention the Redcliffe rail link, but makes a strong case for rail lines being extended through to Coolangatta and Maroochydore and shows some of the curious logic that seems to be driving infrastructure spending in other directions.


UPDATE: I'm informed that Redcliffe City Council voted unanimously on July 4th to support the construction of the railway and to lobby the Beattie Government. The Council also voted to seek to establish a joint committee with Pine Rivers and Caboolture Councils to lobby for the railway. This is a good sign, particularly as there is widely expected to be a by-election before the end of the year for the state seat of Redcliffe, currently held for the Labor government by the Speaker Ray Hollis (who some may not know was number 2 on the Democrats' Queensland Senate ticket in 1984, with a person called Cheryl Kernot number 4 on the same ticket). A by-election would provide an ideal chance to pressure the State government to change their mind and deliver on this promise. There's still a long way to go, but a well organised campaign at community level with a well argued case can sometimes achieve a lot.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, June 29, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Another 'Nauruan' refugee family arrives in Australia
The slow movement of refugees off Nauru and into Australia continues. The Rehmatis, who were the final refugee family left on Nauru, arrived in Australia yesterday. I have written about them previously, including in this piece. They came into Brisbane in the evening and I was able to meet up with them and welcome them to Australia. They stayed the night in a motel near Brisbane airport and flew on to Canberra today.

After more than three and a half years on island detention centres, they were still adjusting to what was happening. However, the difference in their demeanour from when I last saw them on Nauru last month was enormous. People often used the expressions like 'weighed down with suffering', and they did look like they had a weight lifted off their shoulders – especially the two teenagers. However, it should not be forgotten that this family still has the uncertainty of being on temporary visas, which will continue to weigh on them.

There are still 32 asylum seekers remaining on Nauru, plus two who were transferred to detention in Melbourne for health reasons some months ago. These are all individual men, as all the couples and families have now finally left. These people are still traumatised and suffering and the pressure must continue to be applied to the federal Immigration Minister until they are all free.

Above is a photo of me with most of the family in their Brisbane motel room, and you can click here to read a report by AAP (from The Age website) of the family’s arrival in Canberra.



posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, June 29, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, June 26, 2005
 
The saddest week
I said in my previous post that the last sitting day would probably be a long one and it was - we started at 9.30am in the morning and worked through until about 1.30am on Friday morning debating the Migration Amendment Bill, Superannuation Legislation, Tax Laws and various other pieces of legislation as well as listening to more valedictory speeches.

I have to say that in about 15 years of pretty intensive involvement in parliamentary politics, last week has been far and away the saddest that I have experienced, not just for the loss of three good senators but also for the loss of many wonderful staff as a result of the last election (a circumstance that hasn't been conducive for regular blogging - apologies for the hiatus on this site).

People like Daele Healy who has been on staff with the Democrats for a very long time and whose personal support for me as well as her broader support for the party was so valuable and appreciated. And Jo Pride, an incredibly professional person whose standard of work continued to be excellent no matter what. Work that was not only useful for the Democrats but that resulted in better laws for Australia. And the incredibly professional and focused Eleri Morgan-Thomas who came on board as chief of staff during my leadership .... and many more who have basically paid the price for past mistakes made by others.

Many showed their commitment to the party’s principles and values by staying on during the last six months, which has been a difficult period. They knew it was not going to be fun, but people stayed and continued to work hard not just in ensuring that the Democrats remained effective in the Senate but in doing a lot of very valuable work ensuring the Democrats are in the strongest possible position to rebuild - work that will stand us in good stead as our party works together in a focused way on rebuilding support for the very important role we still have to play.

It was a great team of people - whilst there have also been some talented people in previous years, this group was the most cohesive staff team I've experienced in my time in the Senate, especially over the last year or so. One of the major frustrations of the last few years has been that the strange, alternative universe the press gallery seem to inhabit, seemed to have no connection to the world that the Democrats Senate team operated in, working as an effective unit inside the chamber and out in the community with a capable and cohesive team of staff. The press still seem to be imagining some serious disunity and loss of focus, although it is hard to see how they could have any idea given how comprehensively they ignored what we were doing.

That was the major frustration of the period when I was the party leader and it is frustrating to see that nonsense being spouted again by a few in the last week or two, pontificating about stuff that simply does not reflect reality.

I believe that as a nation we focus too much on the negative in politics. The positive contribution each person makes is almost always overlooked. The positive impact a person makes in the Senate is not always able to be measured in amendments passed or committee recommendations accepted, although I should say that the Democrats excel in that area. The impact that comes from supporting a single person, an idea, a movement or a group of people can be very hard to measure, but it can be huge.

Without doubt Brian Greig’s greatest achievement was that, even with a government that was so pig-headedly opposed to the simple notion of equality, he was part of the Democrats’ success in achieving an agreement from this government to recognise and provide superannuation entitlements for people in same-sex relationships—an achievement that I believe has been drastically under-recognised by those who called for it for many years. Brian is a quiet person, but he has strong beliefs and can also be quite extraordinarily quick witted and very funny — often at unexpected times. His advocacy on a wide range of human rights issues is something of which he can be justly proud.

The loss of Aden Ridgeway is perhaps the biggest loss for this parliament, because it represents a lost opportunity. It remains a sad reflection on our democracy that we have only had two Indigenous Australians elected to our parliament in over 100 years, and to lose Aden’s Indigenous voice is a loss not just for the Democrats but for our nation as a whole. While like all Democrats, Aden covered a huge range of issues and spoke effectively on many of them, he could not escape his wider role as an Aboriginal voice in parliament. It was a role — and sometimes a burden — he was very willing to shoulder, and he did so effectively and sometimes with great importance in his contribution, at times when sadly the government was unwilling to give this central issue the priority it deserves.

Personally, at a time when my character was being publicly attacked from a range of quarters in the national media, Aden was straightforward and open in his support for me and in recognising the simple reality of a situation that was blown totally out of proportion. We did not always see eye to eye during some of the public difficulties the Democrats went through a few years ago — at a time when we all made mistakes — but I appreciated his simple and consistent support for me then and throughout my time as leader.

John Cherry has been in the middle of some tumultuous times in the Democrats. Whilst he had been an adviser to Democrat senators for some years, I think he joined the party on the day Cheryl Kernot resigned. It’s no secret that John and I did not always agree during some of the public disputes within the party a few years ago, however we were always able to keep working together effectively as senators for Queensland and the Democrat membership in Queensland. Being effective in achieving positive change is one of the key benchmarks I use in assessing the value of people’s time in the Senate, including my own, and John Cherry has undoubtedly been effective in a range of areas, not least in significantly assisting low income earners through a number of initiatives.

Even though you wouldn’t have known it from reading the newspapers, we all got over the divisions of the past and got on with the job. We worked effectively as a single team of Democrat senators to achieve a lot of positive things. Whilst we might not have achieved electoral success, we certainly achieved a lot of gains that will benefit Australia’s people and environment for many years into the future. Those three Democrat senators – along with the staff that supported them - played a key part in that and all made a positive difference.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, June 26, 2005 Permalink
|
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
 
Two days to go
The Senate started on a long list of valedictory speeches last night at 6pm with Brian Harradine's final speech after 30 years.

This week also marks the departure of the Senate's Deputy Clerk, Anne Lynch, who first came to the Senate at the start of the Whitlam era. Unlike the Clerk, Harry Evans, who is quite publicly outspoken (including just recently), Anne is quieter but has none the less produced useful assessments of parliamentary processes.

The Senate also agreed yesterday to establish a Senate Inquiry into the administration of the Migration Act. In a clear sign that the Government is not wanting to be subjected to any serious scrutiny on this area, and a worrying signal as to what will happen when the they get control of the Senate, they voted against this inquiry being established, even forcing it to a formal vote to make the point (and maybe on the outside chance they might stop it if the independents voted against it).

Valedictories will continue for most of today. Some of the other key departing speakers will be former Labor Cabinet Ministers, Peter Cook and Nick Bolkus.

There will probably be a long final day of sitting on Thursday to get through all the other pieces of legislation, including the brand new Migration Bill which the Government is wanting to rush through the Senate after introducing it just yesterday in the House of Representatives and getting it voted on in that chamber the same day.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, June 22, 2005 Permalink
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
 
Three Days to Go

The outgoing 'obstructive' Senate passed another six Bills on Monday, even refusing to insist on a simple amendment extending eligibility for Maternity Payment to all adoptive parents, instead of just those adopting children under two years of age.

I spoke on one of these Bills, an Environment & Heritage Amendment Bill. It was an uncontroversial Bill, but it gave me a chance to revisit one of the achievements I am proud of – ensuring the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was established and set up in a way which ensured protection of some incredibly valuable lands in and on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour. This was done back in February 2001, when I reached an agreement to pass legislation setting up the Trust after negotiating heaps of valuable amendments.

I also reached agreement with other parties to set up a Senate Inquiry into the administration of the Migration Act, with particular focus on deportation, decision making and detention.

Tonight from 6pm, the Senate will start valedictory speeches, recognising the contribution of all the outgoing Senators whose terms conclude on 30th June. It will start with Brian Harradine, who is retiring after nearly 30 years in the Senate. Despite his views on many issues being quite different to mine, I have always admired him and mentioned him favourably in my First Speech to the Senate back in 1997.

There are 13 other Senators also finishing up on the 30th June, when the Senate will become controlled by the Government, including 3 Democrats - Aden Ridgeway, John Cherry and Brian Greig. Valedictories will continue through until 11.00 pm this evening and continue on tomorrow when most of the other retiring Senators will speak. They should all be broadcast on the ABC's News Radio or can be viewed through the web by going to this site.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, June 21, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Peter Qasim's likely release is to be welcomed
The likely release of Peter Qasim, Australia's longest serving immigration detainee is to be welcomed, while the system – which is still in place – that kept him in there for so long must continue to be condemned. I have written before about his plight, which is now fairly well known.

At least, I assumed his release would be welcomed, but in reading this report on ABC, it seems the Labor Party's Shadow Minister, Laurie Ferguson, is not so sure. The 'concern' Ferguson points to about whether or not Peter Qasim has been 'co-operative' shows how arbitrary this man’s situation is and how powerless his position still is. The refrain that a certain person has been 'unco-operative' is the catch-all line that the Minister uses regularly to justify imprisonment – a pretty heavy penalty for a very unclear and untested offence.

The Removal Pending Visa which Peter has been released upon is an artifice, and does not address the problems which are at the core of mandatory detention. However, it does at least provide an entitlement to work and Medicare, which is more than what a lot of other people who have been released from detention over recent years have got.

I have met Peter a few times over the years on visits to Baxter and when he was previously at another centre. He reflected the mindset of a person who was caught up in a bizarre bureaucratic maze that he had no control over.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, June 21, 2005 Permalink
|
Monday, June 20, 2005
 
Easy Test for the PM's Promises
According to refugee advocates DIMIA settlement services have chartered a plane to transport a group of Vietnamese Refugees from Christmas Island to Perth either tonight or tomorrow. They will leave behind thirteen others, including three children.



Also left behind will be recently married Ngoc Ung Phan – her husband is one of those who will board the plane, because he is one of the 27 who have been granted refugee status. Thirteen others are already on mainland Australia on TPVs.

All fifty three Vietnamese asylum seekers who arrive in mid 2003 fled Communist Vietnam because they were under threat for believing in democracy. As I said after visiting the detainees on the island in December last year the fact that some have already been released while others have had their initial claims refused, highlights an anomaly in the system and creates additional distress for those left behind. Especially because they were all involved in the same activity and many of them are linked in a family sense.

Because all the Vietnamese have a similar claim it is almost certain that the thirteen remaining asylum seekers who have not yet received protection will eventually end up recognised as refugees as all their counterparts have been.

This is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to use her discretionary powers – powers she has always had – to save further suffering (and wastage of taxpayer's dollars). With a sweep of the pen or a simple phone call she could ensure that all the Christmas Island detainees board the plane for Australia. She could – but will she?

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, June 20, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, June 19, 2005
 
The Final Four Days

Senators and staff are flying into Canberra for the final sitting week before the Howard Government takes control of the Senate.

The final list of legislation proposed for debate has been sent around. There are 17 packages of Bills, but very little that is politically contentious other than a Workplace Relations Bill (which I suspect will end up not being debated anyway). Another interesting Bill is one that seeks to ban the use of the internet to advocate suicide. Although it has Labor's support, it may also end up being deferred until August if we get tight for time, as it is not particularly urgent. I don't support the Bill, but it does raise some complex issues which I feel many people on both sides of the argument do not really acknowledge.

Interestingly, despite 'tough talk' from the Government about taking tough action to reduce delays on court appeals on migration matters (an example of this tosh is in this article from The Age), the legislation they say will achieve this has been put off until August even though Labor has not said it will oppose the Bill. Of course, the legislation is probably unconstitutional or inoperable in part and will probably increase delays rather than reduce them, as has happened with other Bills in the past that have sought to prevent people appealing to the Courts on migration matters, but doublespeak seems to be compulsory when the Government talks about migration matters.

I hope to be successful in getting a broad Senate Inquiry established into a range of matters relating to the Immigration Act and Department. I will also be introducing an updated version of a private Senators Bill to do with Animal Welfare which I first introduced a couple of years ago.

The end of the Senate career of Brian Harradine will be a highlight of the week. He was first elected in 1975 and is the longest serving Independent in Senate history. His final speech to the Senate is due to start at 6.00pm on Tuesday. People who can get the radio broadcasts of parliament should be able to hear it then. If not, the Senate can always be heard online by going to this page.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, June 19, 2005 Permalink
|
Saturday, June 18, 2005
 
We wont Get Fooled Again? - Some Comments on the Migration Detention changes.
The fact that the Prime Minister announced his changes to migration detention and the processing of refugee claims at 4.30pm on a Friday afternoon should have been enough to make anyone immediately sceptical.

However, from the media coverage I have seen to date it appears that reporters from the Parliamentary Press Gallery have been happy to talk it up as a major and positive change without worrying about examining the detail to assess what it is likely to mean, or talk with anyone who might actually know.

As usual, a lot of the media comment is on who wins or loses the politics of it, rather than what the detail of the policy will actually mean (apart from those articles that just repeat the Prime Minister’s misleading assurances.)

Before I say anything else, it has to be emphasised that nothing that was announced yesterday affects in any way the 45 asylum seekers who have been in detention on Nauru for the past three and a half years. They are completely outside the reach of Australia’s laws.

The political pressure that has been building on the Government over many months to make changes has really been due to the large and growing number of people throughout the community, across the social spectrum, who have recognised gross injustices and pressed for this to be acknowledged and for meaningful change to occur.

The efforts of Petro Georgiou and his Liberal supporters, or people like myself and others have only gained traction because of that community pressure. That is why this is such an important moment. If the majority of people who have been concerned about this issue believe that it has now been satisfactorily addressed, they will ease off the pressure and the Prime Minister and all his backbenchers can breathe easier and stop having to avoid all those awkward questions from their constituents about how such cruelty and injustice can be justified.

Personally, I am amazed at how limited the changes are, how misleading the portrayal of the changes have been and how even more power has been given to a Minister and Department that has been shown to be highly dysfunctional. I am irritated but not surprised at how absurdly positive the portrayal of these changes has been in the mainstream media.

It has to be remembered that Petro Georgiou's Bills were a compromise to begin with - reflecting numerous Parliamentary Committee and other reports over many years - which still left many problem areas untouched.

I am not intending to be critical of Petro Georgiou or his brave and disappointingly small number of Liberal supporters. They obviously feel that what the Prime Minister offered was as good as they were going to get and they didn't have sufficient support amongst the other Libs to push it further. Pushing the Bills to a vote when they were going to go down might make people like me feel good, but it wouldn’t have changed anything and would have hardened views within the Government. He’s achieved some changes that will help some individuals and that is better than nothing.

Of course Petro, Judy Moylan and the others have to talk it up as much as possible or they'd look pretty dumb and of course John Howard isn’t going to say its minor tinkering that leaves all the power with the Government. These things are totally understandable and totally predictable.

However, that provides all the more reason why the media and the public should be assessing the changes closely, rather than just swallowing it all at 4.30pm on a Friday afternoon.

In simple terms, the reality is that an Act that is full of hundreds of piecemeal, tacked-on 'solutions' to address problem after problem has just got a couple more tacked on. The system is already a chaotic farce and this will make it even more random and unaccountable.

Some people will get visas more quickly and some people will get out of detention (although under what conditions is not really clear yet), but it will all be dependent on the Minister and DIMIA as to who it applies to and who it doesn't.

The notion that the Minister (and no one else) should be making all these decisions about individual cases is ridiculous. Since when is it the role of a Minister to micro-manage the fate of hundreds or thousands of Immigration cases? How can she possibly be expected to have the time or the expertise? AND isn't she also supposed to be Indigenous Affairs Minister in her spare time?

This 'solution' looks to me like it is little more than a new coat put on over the top of the emperor's existing new clothes.

I’ll do more of an assessment of the details when I have a chance. In the meantime, a response from Chilout (the group that has campaigned so hard for children to be out of detention) is here on their website.

The Prime Minister’s statement with all the details that have so far been released is here on his website.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Saturday, June 18, 2005 Permalink
|
Friday, June 17, 2005
 
Ministers chance to be humane but will she take it?
Based on what's been announced in the media I'm disappointed with the deal struck between the PM and his 'rebel' backbenchers.

I want to see the full details before commenting at length, but it seems to me that while what's been announced may help a few people, it won't solve the core problems at the heart of our migration laws and the administration of detention policy.

It appears that the Immigration Minister will be given a few more chances to be humane, but with no compulsion. There is still no guarantee that all children will be out of detention. There will be more reports on the condition of detainees and recommendations from the Ombudsman, but no requirement for the Minister to act on them. Setting time limits that cannot be enforced with no consequences if they are not met, is of little use.

The Government has a long history of ignoring reports by the Ombudsman and our Human Rights Commission in this area. Producing more reports for the Minister to ignore is just going to make an inefficient, exorbitantly expensive system even worse.

It seems that with the tide of public opinion turning and faced with a backbench revolt, the Prime Minister has just handed more powers to the Immigration Minister, with no legal oversight over how they are used. Given the failure of the Minister and her Department to competently and fairly use the powers they already have, giving them even more unfettered power is absurd.

I don't think this deal will satisfy anyone who has been working with and on behalf of asylum seekers. The simple fact is we need a total overhaul of the system not just tinkering at the edges.

The Democrats plan to move next week in the Senate to establish a comprehensive Senate Inquiry into the administration of the Migration Act by DIMIA, with particular focus on detention and deportation and we will continue to call for a Royal Commission.

Thousands of people around the country will be participating in community events this weekend in the lead up to World Refugee Day on Monday. If you're anywhere near Brisbane this weekend I'll be speaking at a public forum on Saturday about conditions on Nauru and on Sunday I'll be at the World Refugee Day rally in Brisbane.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, June 17, 2005 Permalink
|
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
 
Six Days to go and Senate Valedictories

Income tax cuts and more asylum seeker controversy dominated most of the Senate debate today.

The negotiations between some Liberal backbenchers and the Prime Minister about making meaningful changes to the laws surrounding immigration detention sound like they are at a critical stage.

The debate on the income tax cuts started. One vote was held on a motion of the Greens aimed at preventing any income tax cuts for anyone and proposing the equivalent amount of money be spent on health, education, etc. I didn't support this as I believe providing extra money for lower and middle income earners through income tax cuts is important (particularly given they got none last year), and there is still plenty of surplus left over to spend wisely on health, education and other infrastructure. Pitting one against the other seems counter-productive to me.

Tomorrow morning we move on to Democrat and Labor amendments to make the tax cuts fairer (naturally I think the Democrats' are better but they will not be successful, so we will have to vote for Labor's as a fall back). I expect a final vote on the tax Bill will happen late in the afternoon and I expect it will pan out as I predicted in this item.

We also had some meetings to cut back the number of pieces of legislation the Government will try to get decided before the end of next week. The list is still too long, but now it's just unrealistic rather than ridiculous.

We have the extra problem of an unprecedented number of Senators all finishing up at the same time. As we have fourteen finishing at the end of next week, that means lots of people wanting to make a final speech and lots of things that the remaining Senators want to say about those who are leaving. This Senate custom of valedictory speeches may look self-indulgent to some but I think is quite important in its own way.

It is a way of showing respect and acknowledging the contributions that people have made and encapsulating some aspects of the mark they have made. As the media 'debate' on the income tax cuts has shown, there is a lot of very narrow and shallow focus on what happens in the Senate and much of the other contributions that people make is lost. But just because it is not noticed or understood by the press gallery or the public does not mean it is unimportant or doesn't make a difference.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, June 14, 2005 Permalink
|
Monday, June 13, 2005
 
Update: Chen comments withdrawn

My previous item expressing concern at some threatening comments about Chen Yonglin on a website run by Chinese students in Australia has led to the site being shut down by the site's administrator. He explains his action in the comments section of the previous entry.

I saw this development whilst checking my site on a computer as I was waiting at the airport tonight. I was on my way down to Canberra for the final seven days of Senate sittings before the Prime Minister gets control of the Senate.

I discussed this issue with one of my perceptive staff, who deals regularly with multicultural issues. She reminded me that the threatening postings I drew attention to are not dissimilar to plenty of other abusive stuff you get on the Net - just false bravado as I suggested in the title of my previous post. Nationalism and uncritical patriotism can tend to bring out these sorts of aggressive and strident comments and there are plenty of examples of Australian blogs and websites with abusive and threatening stuff on them towards others - especially if the person was seen as being 'anti-Australian' in some way. (I won't link to any of them because I don't intend to increase the traffic to their sites)

I've been called a traitor many times just for supporting the rights of refugees, let alone for when I criticised our Government in committing us to war I believe was wrong. I've also had very threatening emails (usually from people calling themselves Christians) when I've spoken in support of the rights of gays and lesbians. Whilst it is never pleasant, it is part of the price you pay for freedom of speech (although I would argue it is an abuse of that right).

The difference with this case that may make some feel it is more than just over-aggressive nationalistic internet bravado is that it could be perceived to have a powerful Government behind it that has a record of acting on that intimidation in unpleasant ways. If I get stuff from Australians mouthing off in a threatening way, I usually just think they're idiots and ignore it. If it's seriously bad, I refer it to the Federal Police and then ignore it unless I hear something back from them (which I never have).

However, if a Chinese dissident sees stuff from someone mouthing off in a threatening way, they could perceive it having the Chinese Government tacitly behind it. I'm not suggesting that the Chinese student website is a pawn of their Government, but there is no doubt the Chinese Government has committed many serious breaches of human rights (far in excess of Australia's less than perfect record) and that uncomfortable knowledge would undoubtedly increase the fear of someone who feels they are a target when they see open threats like the ones I described.

In any case, the website administrator has apologised and withdrawn the material and I feel it is appropriate in this forum to accept that at face value.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, June 13, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Serious Threats or just false bravado?
Chen Yonglin’s request for asylum is an issue which quite understandably has become a cause celebre for many people, and I am wary of his interests being put secondary to the consequential issues people are raising. If the reports of how DIMIA initially handled his claim are even half-true, I don’t blame him at all for going public. However, it does mean there will be even more pressure on him for a while, even though he will also have plenty of supporters. I often get concerned when one person’s case becomes a cause celebre, as the welfare of that individual (and their families) can become secondary to the campaign itself. I can’t see any way around this dilemma, beyond being sensitive to it and trying to exercise restraint and make dispassionate judgements on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that some person’s situations have been helped by going public (not always through their own choosing), but equally there are others where I think it has not been helpful to them.

It is important that concerns about human rights abuses in China don’t just turn into blanket “China-bashing”. I believe it is usually better - when it is possible - to publicly debate a matter in a way that is non-divisive as it enhances the prospects of a constructive result. However this is not always possible and it is important that sensitivities and niceties don’t become an excuse to cover up the truth or prevent debate about it.

One of the main consequential issues which is now being debated in the mainstream media and on the internet is the way the Chinese government treats people it thinks may disagree with it – not just in China, but in other countries too.

One worrying example I have seen is on a website called Patriot China (Canberra), which says it is run by the Australian Chinese Students Patriotic Association (ACSPA). According to the site this is “a non-commercial, non-government organisation founded by Chinese students in Canberra Australia (whose) main purpose is to introduce a modern, free and democratic China to Australia and its people.”

The website contains an entry about Mr Chen which includes photos of him, such as the one below, with his face crossed out and the words “traitor” branded across it. Apart from calling him a traitor and a criminal, the author of the post says “if it were up to me, I'd kill this punk.”

Some of the comments claiming to come from other Chinese students in Australia are equally disturbing. No doubt one could take all of this as just the sort of false bravado you often get on the internet, (particularly in anonymous comments) but that’s easy to say when it’s not you who is being threatened or having your photo showing you eliminated being posted on the internet.

The comments on ACSPA’s site were also highlighted on a website called Peking Duck. This site is by a blogger in the USA which focuses on China in what seems to me to be a fairly sympathetic way. Some of the comments to his posts provide interesting insights into this fraught area too. Chen Yonglin’s defection has clearly made the news in the USA, as this site shows. (This site also contains good material on continuing Chinese government restrictions on blogs and the media)

As the ACSPA site appears to be run by people who are in Australia on student visas, I think DIMIA should be seriously cautioning them about what is appropriate behaviour in this country. I’m sure the Australian Government does not want to threaten the very lucrative trade in overseas students from China, but this group does claim to “represent many Chinese students in Australian universities” and if this is a genuine example of how people on student visas here behave towards others who they disagree with in this country, I think it should be looked at.

Some other sites providing a variety of views on this situation are Gary Sauer-Thompson, John Quiggin, The Currency Lad, Dogfight at Bankstown, Dispatches from the moderate left, Sydney's Conservative Weasel and Bondurbia.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, June 13, 2005 Permalink
|
Saturday, June 11, 2005
 
China cracksdown further on bloggers

China's poor record on human rights and the threats to dissidents have been receiving a rare degree of serious attention from the mainstream media following the defection of Chinese Consul official Chen Yonglin. It should be mentioned that there are many other asylum seekers in Australia whose cases aren't in the public domain (and it usually preferable for everyone that their cases stay that way). UNHCR figures show that 1042 Chinese people sought asylum in Australia in the 15 months to the end of March this year. This is out of a total of 3815 seeking asylum over that period, which makes China the largest source of asylum claims in Australia. Many, although far from all of them, are Falun Gong practitioners, a group who the US State Department acknowledges face torture, abuse and death in China.

One common thread amongst dictatorships is their intimidation and persecution of dissidents and their fear of free expressions of opinion and thought. I have written before about the Iranian regime cracking down on bloggers and the internet, which is also happening in Vietnam and China.

There was a copy of the Asian Wall Street Journal on the plane when I was flying back home from Jakarta this week, and it contained an interesting editorial entitled "Beijing vs the Bloggers". Following on from China's jailing of dissidents who have placed their views on the Internet, it has now "ordered all domestic blogs and Web sites to register with the government or risk being fined or shut down." The "Great Firewall of China" already tries to block or severely filter the availability of information from the rest of the world and there are continuing efforts to ensure the flow of ideas and information within the country is also controlled. The editorial suggests there are over half a million blog sites in China who are now being targeted with renewed vigour by the government. This sort of clamping down on any dissent makes it all the more important for those of us who do have freedom to defend the rights of those who don't and to draw attention to abuses of human rights by their governments.

For more details on China’s crackdown on bloggers, go to this story. The site it is on, The Committee to Protect Bloggers, has good information about crackdowns on freedom of thought and speech around the world. Some other recent entries give details about how serious the crackdown is in Iran at the moment.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Saturday, June 11, 2005 Permalink
|
Friday, June 10, 2005
 
The Last Seven Days

Only 7 sitting days of the Senate left before the Howard Government takes full control of the Parliament.

I arrived back home around 11.00 pm last night. Today I went to a funeral and then into my office to sign a huge pile of forms and letters that had been sitting there awaiting my pen marking. The draft program for the 7th last day also came through today. This can always change up to the last minute, but at 12.31pm on Tuesday 14th June (after prayers and paperwork), we will almost certainly begin debating the Personal Income Tax Reduction Bill.

I’ve written a couple of times previously about how I believe these tax cuts are grossly unfair and also miss a golden opportunity to put in place some meaningful long-term change by indexing the thresholds to reduce bracket creep. However, despite all the speculation, I think the outcome in the Senate is unlikely to surprise. The Bill will pass the Second Reading stage and then a stack of amendments will be moved. The Democrats will try to amend it in the way we think is best and will not get enough support from others for our amendments to pass. Labor will try to amend it according to their preferred option as they outlined in their reply to the Budget. This will probably pass on the grounds that it is less regressive than the Liberal’s version, and then the amended Bill will go down to the House of Representatives, where the Government will immediately reject the amendments and send it straight back to the Senate. It’s possible that someone may change their position at this stage and not insist on the Senate’s amendments, but I think it unlikely. However, there are a few uncertainties. I don’t know for sure what the independent Senators like Shayne Murphy or Meg Lees or One Nation’s Len Harris might do at this stage, or indeed whether they will support Labor’s amendments the first time around. It is their final couple of weeks as Senators so they don’t have anything much to lose. I also don’t know whether Brian Harradine will be there or not – and don’t know what his attitude will be if he is there. He hasn’t returned to the Senate since he had a stroke over three months ago. Whatever does happen in the Senate on this Bill, if it doesn’t end up to the Government’s liking, they will presumably pass it in its original form when they return with control of the Senate in August.

There are many other things that are listed as likely to happen on Tuesday. The day’s Notice Paper (sort of like the formal agenda) is available, although unless you know what order things come in and what gets priority, it’s hard to get a clear indication from it. One thing likely to happen is the First Speech by new Liberal Senator, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who has come into the Senate a month or so earlier than the other new ones because of the early resignation of Senator Tierney. She will probably be pigeon-holed as another Liberal lawyer from the right-wing of their NSW branch, but I prefer to wait to see what people say and do before categorising people too definitively.

Also listed is a motion by me aimed at establishing a Senate Inquiry into the Immigration Department and its decision making on things like detention, deportation and visa applications. I’ve had this motion on the books for a while waiting for the proper time to move it. It was initially focused on the Cornelia Rau case, but given all the other things that have come to light in the last month or two, I expect the wording of the motion will be changed before it is moved to ensure a wider range of evidence can be sought.
There will also be a motion by Democrat Senator Brian Greig aimed at preventing the Government’s accreditation of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fisheries Management Plan. I don’t expect this to be successful, which I think is unfortunate, for reasons explained by the Human Society International in their statement on the issue.

Another Bill we may get to is one aimed at abolishing the superannuation surcharge for high income earners. This will provide an extra tax windfall for the highest income earners in addition to the large income tax cuts. I doubt this will pass either unless the four independent/One Nation Senators let it through, which is possible as they let through a reduction in it last year without getting any significant positive gains for low income earners to balance it out. Again, the Government will presumably pass this anyway come August if it doesn’t get through in the next couple of weeks.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, June 10, 2005 Permalink
|
Thursday, June 09, 2005
 
More impressions of Aceh & beyond
Just before leaving Aceh yesterday, our delegation was told we would probably be able to meet in the morning with the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. It would be a good finish to a visit focused on the enormous human impacts of the tsunami and earthquakes in the region. The twin messages I got from my time in Aceh (and from meeting Acehnese politicians) was the need for more reconstruction to be happening on the ground, but also the need for the local people to have involvement in the reconstruction. Unfortunately, these two goals are often incompatible. Proper community involvement in decision making and implementation is highly desirable and gives the best chance of successful reconstruction and maximum value for money from all those people and countries who donated. However, if it is done properly, it also takes a lot of time, particularly for a place like Aceh which has a very fraught relationship with the central government and a generally high suspicion of many outsiders. By contrast, donors – and the local people – like to see results. Given the scale of the disaster, which is very hard to fully comprehend, I think the progress has been very good and the foundations well laid for things to be able to go ahead well from here.

However, the loss of local expertise is even harder and slower to replace than bridges, houses, ports and roads. It is possible that up to a quarter of a million people were killed. Many of them were community leaders, teachers, health workers and people in the local bureaucracy. Cultural and social differences make it difficult to just fly in a stack of replacements.

Of course the thing that can never be fully repaired or replaced is the personal loss. As we walked through the local (ex)village of Deah Baro yesterday, there were pockets of people here and there building some more solid shelters. Over a half to three quarters of all the people who lived in that area have died. As we walked up what used to be a laneway in the village towards the waterfront (the laneway with its curbing is still there, but the village is wiped away), a middle aged woman was walking towards us. We said hello and that we were from Australia, but she could not speak English. However, one of the other delegation members, Catherine King, the Labor Member for Ballarat, found one of our aid officials who could interpret. As we stood on the shoreline that used to be shielded behind the harbour that was blown to pieces, this local woman who had lived on the laneway told how she had been away when the tsunami hit and had returned home to find that all five of her children and all her grandchildren had been killed. She said in her local neighbourhood of 2000 people, only around 240 had survived. It was hard enough to just listen to this, let alone imagine what it would be like. I don't know how you rebuild personally from that type of devastation. We stepped out of that world and back into the comfy chairs of our aeroplane and flew back to Jakarta to our very comfy hotel.

In the morning we got to meet President Yudhoyono. Foreign Minister Wirayuda who we met on Tuesday was also present. It went for about 30 minutes and it was undoubtedly an honour. Without revealing the specifics of what was said, such meetings inevitably have some diplomatic niceties, but there were some useful and positive things said.

The President acknowledged the security challenges that still need facing and expressed his clearly genuine thanks for Australia's prompt, large and ongoing support (at community as well as government level) in helping to rebuild areas affected by the tsunami. The sizeable tasks still ahead in addressing central problems like poverty and corruption are recognised, but I agree with a comment left on my previous post that very substantial progress, bordering on the extraordinary, has been made in implementing real democracy in Indonesia and there is reason to be optimistic about the chances of improvement in some of these key areas. Also, as with the various discussions we had in Jakarta on Tuesday, I think people who are concerned about Schapelle Corby's situation should have no concerns with what was said.

One does have to be careful not to get too rose coloured a picture on delegations like this, as inevitably the positive side of things tend to be heavily emphasised. However, I think there is a strong awareness and open acknowledgement by the Indonesians of the nature and size of the problems they face, not least of which are poverty and corruption. But when I consider the current habit amongst Australian governments, both Labor and Liberal, of denying or ignoring major problems or glossing over them with shiny rhetoric or shooting the messenger who highlights the problem, the Indonesian Government's open acknowledgement of some of their major problems seems almost refreshing by contrast.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Thursday, June 09, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Indonesia continues to outstrip Australia in pressuring Burma on human rights

Yesterday a petition was presented to the Indonesian Foreign Minister urging their Government to oppose Burma (also known as Myanmar) taking up its turn to lead ASEAN, or boycott all ASEAN forums under Burma's leadership unless there are immediate democratic reforms implemented by the Burmese military junta. The petition was signed by 35 of the 48 members of the Indonesian House of Representatives Commission 1 (similar to our Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee). I wrote two days ago about how lame the Australian government has been in putting pressure on the dictatorship in Burma, and they continue to be outstripped by the growing strength of the public statements made by Indonesian political leaders. Indeed, I would suggest that Indonesia needs stronger public Australian support on this.

Indonesia's Foreign Minister, Hassan Wirayuda, has made clear his view that Burma should not take its turn leading ASEAN until it has made concrete reforms through a process that has to involve Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD). It is now 15 years since the Burmese military seized power in the face of a huge election victory by the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi has been kept in custody for most of that time. She is just reaching her 60th birthday and she and her people have had to wait far too long for freedom and justice.

I made the point before, but the fact that the Indonesians, as well as government leaders from other ASEAN countries, are so open in criticising Burma shows just how ludicrous Alexander Downer was in claiming that Australia couldn't sign a Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN because it would stop us criticising Burma. The sad fact is that the USA didn't like us signing it, so we weren't going to, a stance which is at odds with our Government's rhetoric of engagement with out Asian neighbours and insistence that we don' t think of ourselves as the Deputy Sheriff for the USA in our region.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Thursday, June 09, 2005 Permalink
|
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
 
In Aceh

We left Jakarta at 6.30 this morning on the Government jet to Banda Aceh. It is further away from Jakarta than I expected - over 1800 kilometres - and is actually further west than Vietnam and Thailand and lies well north of the Equator.

Accompanying us was Dr Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, who is the Director of the new Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Executing Agency for Aceh and Nias (BBR). This Agency is an innovative attempt to try to design and oversee a coordinated community driven reconstruction and development program. The good news for the region is that international donor support has been so large that it appears there will be sufficient funds for the huge tasks ahead. However, this raises the big challenge of ensuring the money is spent wisely, in a coordinated fashion and for the maximum long-term benefit of the local communities. Such a big amount of money can be very hard to spend well. The BBR's biggest role is to match necessary projects with available donor funds and bodies from amongst the many NGOs and donor countries that are endeavouring to assist.

There is also a big emphasis on ensuring that the process is free of corruption and nepotism, as well as ensuring that projects aren't built just to show that things are happening or in ways that make the donors feel good rather than meeting the needs of the community. It is easy to make knowing smiles about corruption in a country like Indonesia which openly acknowledges their own difficulties in this area, But it is worth remembering that there are plenty of examples in Australia that are less than transparent, especially when projects worth billions of dollars are involved.

Coupled with these challenges is the understandable and growing urge for things to happen quickly. The BBR reports directly to the Indonesian President and is thus (intended to be) able to avoid being caught up in Ministerial turf wars. One of the main messages we got when meeting with 3 of the Senators from Aceh yesterday was concern that some things were happening too slowly. I was therefore pleasantly surprised at the level of activity and the overall appearance of Banda Aceh, which was much better than I expected. There has obviously been an enormous amount of work put into cleaning up areas that were inundated by the tsunami. The place is very clean and indeed quite beautiful in parts. There is plenty of activity in areas of the city and plenty of food and goods in the markets.

However, that applies for those areas that suffered mainly from inundation. The areas where buildings were damaged or destroyed are a different matter. Many people will have seen some of the photos and footage of these areas, but it is still hard to be fully prepared for the totality of the devastation. It does look like a nuclear bomb has hit – kilometres of blasted earth, with just a few shells of houses and the odd palm tree left standing amongst the wasteland. Banda Aceh's port, Ulee Lheu, was decimated, with breakwater walls smashed aside and much of the land to the port just washed away, with the sea now flowing right through. An announcement was made as part of our visit that agreement had been reached to rebuild this port and tendering for the job was starting straight away, with a completion date of November this year.

The force of the water was simply inconceivable. A huge barge which was in the harbour containing a mobile power generating unit was picked up from its moorings and carried more than a kilometre inland, where it now sits, with its power generator working well. The barge is a couple of stories high and I imagine will not be able to be moved. The impact of the earthquake itself also caused a lot of structural damage to buildings further inland.

It is the need to move on the major infrastructure projects which is becoming more pressing. These big ticket items such as bridges, ports and roads are the ones which must be properly planned and well built. There is also the number one need – housing. There are still many people living in tents, and many of the house shells that remain have graffiti on them with the owner's name, saying they are alive and will be returning and occasionally even having a phone number. Rebuilding housing is easier said than done in some of the worst hit areas, where even the land itself has been severely damaged and in some cases is no longer there at all.

There are major cultural and political sensitivities in Aceh which will present big hurdles for the BBR and aid agencies. There is longstanding unease from many of the local people towards the central government in Jakarta. Even though the BBR is a nationally established agency, it is working hard to show that it is encouraging local community input and involvement in deciding how the reconstructions proceed and in actually participating in it. In addition, because separatist rebels from the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) had been fighting the Indonesian army in many parts of the province, the whole area was a 'no go zone' for most outsiders until the earthquake and tsunami. Now the locals are faced with people from a huge number of countries and NGOs. They are very grateful for the support, but still have their own customs and culture they are keen to maintain.

The editorial in today's Jakarta Post commented on resolving the conflict in Aceh. It contained some scathing comments which show just how much press freedom there is in the newly democratic Indonesia. A couple of examples: "We – the people of Indonesia – have been accomplices to a reign of terror in Indonesia's westernmost province….. For all intents and purposes, successive Indonesian governments, because of their exploitation, patronising behaviour and habitual use of terror in the province, may have lost any legitimacy to represent the interests of Aceh." It should be noted that the Jakarta Daily is an English language paper which is far from the biggest or most influential paper. Even so, if any Indonesian paper had written something like that 10 years ago, there would have been hell to pay from the Government. It should be emphasised that the paper supported a "resolution of the Aceh conflict within the framework of the unitary state of Indonesia."

Peace talks between the Indonesian Government and GAM have been happening in Helsinki. It is impossible to predict the chances of a good outcome, but I did feel from some of the many discussions we had yesterday that there is some tentative fragile optimism that some agreement for a form of special autonomy may be reached. I am not sure that there is a strong desire amongst most Acehnese for full independence, and if peace can be achieved with a form of special autonomy that would be a good outcome.

In the mean time, there is a hell of a lot of difficult work to be done rebuilding some of the shattered places and lives of Aceh. I believe things and people are in place to do that job well.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, June 08, 2005 Permalink
|
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
 
In Jakarta
It has been a very full day in Jakarta for the delegation I am travelling with. After a briefing of an hour or so last night from Australia's Ambassador to Indonesia and some Embassy staff, we had a dinner with nine members of the House of Representatives' Australia-Indonesia Cooperation Group, from a range of different parties. It was informal, but informative.

This morning we had a meeting for over an hour with Indonesia's Foreign Affairs Minister, Hassan Wirajuda. I found this extremely interesting and valuable. The format basically enabled each of the 8 members of our delegation to ask a question or make a comment, with the Minister making comments himself throughout. Our delegation is particularly interested in assessing the progress of reconstruction in areas affected by the Tsunami at the end of last year and that was certainly a topic of discussion. However, all Australians should also be interested in the broader challenges Indonesia faces in ensuring economic development that can put a big dent in major problems of poverty, whilst also addressing human rights issues and removing corruption. The best aspect of the Howard Government's $1 billion assistance package is the prospect it offers to lay foundations for wider future economic development in Indonesia.

I was keen to ask about human rights issues. I had just read an article in The Age by Garry Woodard which mentioned how weak the Australian Government has been in putting pressure on the military junta in Burma, and it seemed a good opportunity to ask the Minister what the attitude of the Indonesian Government was towards Burma's human rights record.

It is not appropriate to detail comments made in the meeting, but nothing was said which made me question Garry Woodard's assessment. This article by Reuters, from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's pages, also gives an indication of Indonesia's attitude. Indonesia is assisting Australia's efforts to be more closely involved in ASEAN, which our country should be grateful for, and it is ironic that they and some of their ASEAN counterparts are taking a stronger line on the actions of a regional military dictatorship than Australia, particularly when Minister Alexander Downer was saying Australia couldn't sign the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation because it would make it "impossible for any Australian government to criticise Burma on human rights issues". Indonesia's moves in recent years towards a fully functioning democracy have been extremely positive, and the more it and other nations in the region provide democracy, economic development and better human rights standards, the more unacceptable dictatorships like Burma (or Vietnam) will become within ASEAN and our region.

Following the meeting with the Foreign Minister, we went for a visit to the Australian Embassy, which is still showing the signs of the bomb blast that occurred in October last year. We were shown the spot where the bomb went off and could see the major security walls and rebuilding work that is happening, which was a sobering experience. This Embassy has over 80 Australian based staff, which is our largest in the world. After an informal chat to some of the Embassy staff (which also gave some useful insights into local issues), we went on to lunch with some members of their equivalent of our Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee.

Following that we met with the Deputy Speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) (which is a bit like a Joint sitting of their Parliament which meets to ratify the President's appointment and meets to receive the President's reports which are like the US President's Address to Congress.) Following that, we met the Speaker of the House of Representatives and another 4 Parliamentarians. Indonesia's Parliament is more innately powerful than Australia's, as it is more clearly separate from the Government and the Executive. This meeting was quite frank and very useful. Finally we met with the Speaker of the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) which is a new House of Parliament, similar to our Senate. It has 4 representatives directly elected from each region. Included in that meeting were 6 other 'Senators', including 3 out of the 4 people elected to represent Aceh. We naturally spent a lot of time getting their views on how the rebuilding of Aceh was going and what could be done better. We are flying to Aceh in the morning to look and listen for ourselves, and I will write more on that afterwards.

The day finished with a reception hosted by Australia's Ambassador, David Ritchie, at the hotel we are staying at, which was attended by a range of officials and representatives of various organisations. I spent most of my time talking with Australian Embassy workers and getting their assessment of the pluses and minuses of issues locally.

Whilst $1 billion of Australian Government assistance and the $300 million of aid donated by the Australian people directly, along with wider issues of governance and ways to improve contacts and understanding between Australians and Indonesians were what dominated our discussions in all these meetings, the issue of Schapelle Corby did come up briefly a few times. Again, it is not appropriate to report specific comments, but I can say that I heard nothing from anybody that would give any cause for concern for Ms Corby or her supporters.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, June 07, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Accommodating Tyranny

As I'm on an overseas delegation at the moment, it isn't surprising that the name of Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, comes up from time to time. I guess I should be diplomatic myself and say that I feel his performance in this very important role is less than consistent in its level of adequacy.

The attempt by a senior Chinese Consular official to seek asylum has rightly attracted a lot of interest in Australia (you can read some statements made by the Australian Democrats by clicking here, here and here.) But I found it particularly absurd that Alexander Downer had a column in The Australian this week attacking the Labor Party of the 1950s for being "too accommodating to communist tyranny" just days after his officials turned away a senior Chinese Consular official seeking asylum from the Chinese communist government. The wilful blindness of the current Australian Government over the last decade in ignoring and appeasing the tyranny of the Chinese government has been just as hypocritical, mealy-mouthed and complicit as the left-wing deniers of communist atrocities of the 50s and 60s.

For Alexander Downer, the Foreign Minister who has presided over nearly ten years of appeasement of human rights abuses by Chinese dictatorships (not to mention other countries with an appalling human rights record like Burma), to try to lecture about alleged isolationism and appeasement by John Curtin – a Prime Minister who worried and worked himself right into his grave out of his concern for Australians during wartime – is simply breath-taking.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, June 07, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Whaling
Most Australians are rightly appalled by Japan's plans to increase the number of whales they kill each year and it is pleasing to see that Australia's Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, appears to have convinced the Solomon Islands not to support Japan's aims at the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission. Whaling is an undeniably cruel activity and also often environmentally damaging. It is an area where the Australian Government has consistently made some good noises over a reasonably long period time.

However, you have to wonder about how many of those noises were just hot air, when the Government opposes a Court action by the Humane Society International (HSI) against a Japanese whaling company for breaching Australian law by slaughtering whales in Australia's whale sanctuary. I wouldn't have thought there's much point passing good laws when the Government is not interested in enforcing them.

I am totally opposed to whaling and believe it is an abomination which should be outlawed globally. However, there is one aspect of the whaling debate where I have some sympathy with the Japanese (and the Norwegians and the Icelanders) - the apparent anomaly of a lot of Australians getting outraged by the slaughter of a whale, but seeming to have no problem with the wholesale slaughter, on a much wider scale, of kangaroos, cows, sheep or pigs (just to name a few).

Whilst some would say that the endangered status of many whale species is what makes the difference, I doubt many Australians would say it's OK to slaughter whales as long as you can demonstrate it's a sustainable 'harvest'. Some argue that, unlike the other creatures, there is no humane way to kill a whale. Even if one were to accept that (and there is plenty of evidence that the killing of wild kangaroos generates a lot of suffering for the joeys and for the many who are not killed instantly with the first bullet), many other animals suffer far more over the term of their lives, even if the final kill might be more humane.

To me, the arguments against killing whales should also apply to all sentient beings - unless there is a clear need to slaughter them for our own survival, then we have no right to kill them. I don't suggest this is a principle that should be enforced overnight, but I do think there should be more consistency in our logic and our compassion on this issue.

Jennifer Marohasy touches on some of these issues in two pieces on whaling at her blog.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, June 07, 2005 Permalink
|
Monday, June 06, 2005
 
Arriving in Indonesia

I spent most of today sitting in a plane on a seven and a half hour flight from Canberra to Jakarta. I am participating in a Parliamentary delegation – details on the purposes of the trip and who else is on it can be found in this media release by the delegation leader, Bruce Billson.

Given that the Daily Telegraph managed to make my visit to the detention camp on Nauru look like some sort of Pacific Island jaunt, I'm probably asking for trouble writing about a Parliamentary delegation flying to Indonesia on a government jet (especially as Anita Quigley, writing in the Daily Telegraph, has already labelled this trip as a jaunt and a waste of money before we'd even left the country).

However, I think it is worthwhile trying to outline the reality of what happens on trips such as these, as it might give some people a bit of an insight into what the benefits can be. It also provides at least some response to the inevitable cheap shots from the mainstream media about junkets and jaunts. I'm not naïve enough to think that bland descriptions of overseas trips by people like me will ever be an antidote to the mainstream media's instinctive fuelling of the general public's natural and often well-founded cynicism towards politicians. However, at least it provides some alternative perspectives for people who want to look.

Having just read a bunch of briefing papers that included all the security assessments and travel warnings for this region, I won't go into detail in advance as to what the itinerary of this trip is. Given that I'm travelling with a group of westerners, we are not surprisingly staying in a place where westerners tend to hang out which seem to be the focus of a lot of these travel warnings. All those travel warnings do focus the mind somewhat, no matter how much I feel such things will never happen to me. Suffice to say, I won't be going for any night-time sightseeing strolls.

However, hopefully I can give a few descriptions about what the delegation did, who we met and what we saw and heard. I've written a few times about the difficulties facing Indonesia as a nation and the importance of better understandings between Australians and Indonesians. That needs to be on all levels, not just parliamentarians, but greater understanding at this level has to be a good thing too.

We arrived in Jakarta OK and, at the risk of getting more cheap shots from the Daily Telegraph about the "Little Lord Fauntleroy lifestyle of politicians", I should mention we were met by Australian Embassy officials who moved us very quickly through customs. We were then driven to where we are staying. A dinner is being held soon with a number of members of the Indonesian Parliament, so I best post this entry and get myself prepared.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, June 06, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Noel Pearson & Tectonic Shifts

When Aden Ridgeway's term in the Senate expires at the end of this month, I take on the role of the Democrats' spokesperson on indigenous issues. My main goal in that role will be to try to help get these issues more continually and seriously onto the political and public agenda.

There is some reported disagreement today amongst some indigenous leaders about the extremely positive descriptions by Noel Pearson of the Prime Minister's speech last week to a national reconciliation conference. Pearson described the speech as marking a "tectonic shift" in the Prime Minister's position. I'm not so convinced of that, partly because of this Government's long record of saying one thing and doing something very different. However, it is worth taking the time to look at the speech and the issues raised within it – it is available by clicking here. I'd be interested in any feedback people have on its content.

I agree with many of the points Noel Pearson made on ABC TV's Insiders program yesterday. However, one thing I do disagree with him on is his view that it is a non-issue as to whether the Indigenous Affairs ministry is handled by someone who has no other Ministerial responsibilities, as opposed to now where the same Minister also handles Immigration. This isn't about Departmental structures, it is about Ministerial and political priority and frankly, I think it is a no-brainer that the Indigenous Affairs Minister should have no other responsibilities. There is no way we can get the level of political leadership and prioritisation that is necessary for indigenous issues unless the responsible Minister is focused on it full-time. This is not an attack on the ability of the current Minister Amanda Vanstone – nobody can seriously give the role of Indigenous Affairs Minister the focus and energy it deserves if they have to spend half (or more) of their time on other matters, let alone something as major as Immigration issues.

If there really is going to be a tectonic shift in the attitude of the Howard Government towards indigenous affairs, they have to demonstrate it by allocating a Minister to work on this issue on a full-time basis, while still giving it the seniority of a Cabinet position. There is scarcely a more compelling area of policy failure in Australia - a failure that I've argued before is, in a significant way, holding back all Australians - and it requires high priority and unrelenting attention.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, June 06, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, June 05, 2005
 
Visiting Indonesia


Tomorrow I'm heading off to Indonesia on a short visit as part of a Parliamentary delegation (referred to briefly by Alexander Downer at the end of this newspaper article). Given the new warnings around lately about the risk of bombings in areas where Westerners hang out, this probably isn't the best timing. I did think twice about going – more because I am already well behind on things I need to do and I am already away from home too much – but I haven't been on an overseas delegation in my nearly 8 years in the Senate and unlike some of them, this one does seem like it will be interesting as well as useful (although I see the Daily Telegraph has already labelled it a “jaunt” and a “waste of taxpayers’ money”).

I spent two days in Jakarta on a visit on my own in mid-2002 looking at how they handle asylum seekers there and it was a real eye-opener to some of the wider differences and difficulties in that country. Included in this visit will be a day trip to Banda Aceh to see how the post-tsunami reconstructions are going, along with a lot of meetings and official functions. There are 8 of us on the trip, which is being led by the Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Bruce Billson. Knowing a bit about how foreign affairs departments work, I imagine some Indonesians officials are aware of some of my criticisms about West Papua, but I'm sure we'll get told their official line about this issue anyway.

As it is a government run delegation, we will be travelling on a government plane (which thankfully also means government baggage handlers, which sadly is now recognised as an important consideration). Hopefully I'll be able to give an update or two about the trip on this site while I'm over there.


posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, June 05, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Taxing Times Coming Up in the Senate

The draft legislation program has been released for the final fortnight of Senate sittings before the Government takes control on July 1st. The list for the first week can be found here . As is usual at the end of a session, the full list contains a ludicrously high number of Bills – 68 of them contained in 56 separate packages. In addition, there will almost certainly be a couple of motions to disallow Regulations and probably a few motions to refer matters to Senate Committee for inquiry. On top of this, Monday 13th June is a public holiday in Canberra, so we have just seven sitting days to deal with the whole lot.

Not surprisingly, the very first item the Government has listed for debate is the "Personal Income Tax Reduction" Bill which implements the tax cuts announced in the Budget. I expect this will provide the opportunity for a lot of political posturing and pontificating, most of it short-term and transitory as usual.

I saw newspaper articles over this weekend by Michelle Grattan, Matt Price and Glenn Milne all having a go at Kim Beazley in various ways for Labor’s strategy of opposing the Government’s income tax cuts in the Senate. Basically, the criticism revolves around the pointlessness of opposing the tax cuts when the Government will be able to pass them in August anyway when it gets control of the Senate, thus just holding everything up for what appears to be political purposes and inconveniencing everybody in the meantime. I can understand this criticism and I even agree with most of it, although for somewhat different reasons.

What really gets up my nose about Labor’s stance is that they didn’t oppose the Government’s unfair income tax cuts in the Senate last year when it actually would have made a difference (particularly given that last year’s windfall tax cuts to the highest income earners were even more unfair than this year’s). I haven’t seen anyone mention this discrepancy, but it is this more than anything else that makes Labor’s stance this year seem very hollow to me.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, June 05, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Other Things

I watched the Nick Cave special on ABC TV last night. I'm still mildly peeved at missing Nick's recent tour due to my visiting Nauru at the same time. The TV special was a poor substitute but it was still interesting to see. I was actually hoping to be at a friend’s 40th birthday party last night, but as I've been away from home for 18 of the previous 20 nights – and had already spent all the daylight hours of Saturday at a Democrats meeting - I needed to stay home and spend some time with my little girl. Whilst I was disappointed at missing the party, I did get to see most of the Nick Cave special, plus Dr Who and even bits and pieces of the Brisbane Lions winning a game of footy again. Long-time Bad Seeds member Blixa Bargeld made an observation about how Nick Cave had managed to avoid becoming a burnt-out rock star, which was basically through recognising that there were other things in life outside of the life of being a rock star. I avoided this particular dilemma by not becoming a rock star, but I'm also keen to avoid burning out in my political role over the next 3 years. One tactic is to try to keep doing a few other things outside of politics.

One of these other things included playing a game of Australian football last weekend – admittedly it was a game of politicians (the Roosters) against the Press Gallery (the Jackals), but it was still just footy. In a good display of cross-party teamwork, some of the other players were Labor’s Craig Emerson and Kim Wilkie, plus the Liberal’s Andrew Laming, Gary Humphries and Gary Hunt. Last year in the corresponding game I broke my wrist, so I was pleased to get through this game unscathed. Indeed, I was lucky enough to kick a few goals, which is always a nice feeling (and my team won the game too, which would be an even better feeling if I was a competitive type.) Apart from being misreported in Crikey as having kicked 6 goals rather than 3 (why can't the media make those sorts of mistakes more often!), having sore leg muscles for the next three days and having an even uglier photo of me than usual published in the Canberra Times (no doubt the media's revenge for having their sorry asses whupped), it was a worthwhile experience. I’ve already started preparing for next years match with a renewed determination by watching more games on the television.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, June 05, 2005 Permalink
|