The Lucky Country

What a wonderful election night speech from Ted. One of the first things he said was to acknowledge how lucky we are to have the right to peaceful voting in Australia. When was the last time you heard any Australian politician do anything but take it for granted? In some cases even talking about it like an impediment!

Too Green for Their Own Good?

Check out the letters page in today's Age, specifically Alex Schlotzer and Stuart Kingsford. These are blatantly pro-Greens partisan letters - apparently from party members. No letters writing in such terms about the major parties will ever be published in the Age without some sort of acknowledgement of the writer's party affiliation.

The Greens party and especially many of their members seem to want to take the glory of moving from fringe party (in terms of electoral support) to significant minor player without any of the obligation. These two letters are just another example of that, you can't be all over the letter pages claiming victimhood while your electoral support is surging especially when you are gaining support from large sections of uninformed voters.

That moves me on to a comment on the next letter from Helen Smith. She talks about tram conductors and writes: "Come the election this Saturday, I'll remember who put these thugs on our trams and trains and who has kept them there. "
It seems like she's implying that the people who put them there (Liberals) will not get her vote and neither will the people who kept them there (Labor). Safe to assume she thinks she can vote for a third party (probably Greens). This misunderstanding of the preferential voting system pops up over and over again in Australia. Helen, in most seats you must ultimately still choose a preferred party of Liberal or Labor. If you vote Greens and just follow the how to vote card you have preferred Labor, ie. "the ones who kept them there."

Grass Roots

Oh wow, a whole 3000 people protested against the G20 over the weekend. The organisers are apparently proud of this as a demonstration of the everyday man's dissatisfaction over globalisation. Not quite.

Just to draw their attention to a few other street protests in Melbourne of recent times:

-Late last year 150,000 take to the streets over WorkChoices industrial relations changes.

-In 2003 20,000 people rallied in Melbourne against the Iraq war, they were complemented by 10s of thousands in other Australian cities.

-Way back in 2000 up to 400,000 marched for reconiliation with Aboriginals.

-They even say half a million people go and support the Gay & Lesbian protest parade (Mardi Gras) in Sydney each year.

So, 3000 people? You're kidding me. They need to get a reality check on what exactly their support is. The visible protests around issues like the Iraq war, reconciliation and gay rights go to show that there are vast numbers of Australians ready to march in solidarity for causes that don't even impact them directly. Yet the stop G20 guys are unable to get them to come out and march to supposedly help the worlds poor and preserve fair wages and the environment etc.

If they want a clue as to why, they could try being a little less isolating and bigoted, it's a turn off. The following is from the stop G20 website: "The G20 Accord ... reads like the script of a G8 fat cat's wet dream."

It is sadly typical of organisations like this and their members to resort to crude language and offensive nasty statements. Sometimes, as seen last weekend, it even turns to violent attacks. Until they can learn to control themselves and behave with a little more respect they will be shunned by mainstream society. Although it seems like that's the way a lot of them like it.

Six Days

The newspapers are mostly saying this isn't a very "exciting" election. At first glance, they may seem right.

But we should remember the last seven years, particularly the last four. Nothing has happened in Victoria except waste and mismanagement. Melbourne was becoming the most exciting city in Australia and now we are falling back behind. Under Steve Bracks' watch, we have seen a long list of companies deciding not to set up in Melbourne in favour of places like Peter Beattie's Brisbane. Steve Bracks seems invigorated now, but if he wins we will see the Government retreat imediately back to its normal glacial pace as more inquiries are set up and a suite of laws are passed to satisfy the moaning special interest groups. Then it's four more years of slowly bleeding Victoria and stuffing the tummies of public servants at the expense of dynamism and growth.

I hope Victorians don't let this opportunity escape them.

What about Bracks?

THE LETTER PUBLISHED

The Age letters editor always gives me such boring headlines! Anyway, Paul Austin, their state politics guy is barely able to conceal his distaste for the Opposition and it makes me angry. Although, I will give credit that as the campaign has developed he has actually toned it down. His articles are incredibly tough on Ted Baillieu and the Liberals, yet take any Bracks promise or policy and regurgitates it without question. This is frustrating when it is the Bracks government that has shown itself time after time to be untrustworthy and unable to meet its own commitments.

ANOTHER article by Paul Austin suggesting Ted Baillieu and the
Opposition are being irresponsible in their spending commitments ahead of the
election ("Baillieu free ride needs delivery", 23/10). But what about the Bracks
Government's record of blowing the budget on almost every major project and
development during its tenure, not to mention the steadily increasing cost of a
bloated and inefficient state public service. I expect The Age to be critical of
both sides in the lead-up to an election.
At least Mr Baillieu is coming up
with ideas for a better Victoria; what has Mr Bracks offered us over the next
four years?

Petrol

Use less of it

Advance Australia Fair

The AFL Grand Final is quite an event for Victorians, as well as many disparate people across Australia. That's a lot of Australians.

There was furore over Delta Goodrem singing at the prematch show. But to her credit, she was Australian. No doubt about it, she looks and sounds Australian and that's what we'd expect at a truly iconic Aussie event.

Sadly, much of the rest of the entertainment (excluding perhaps Dame Edna) was American. This includes the tragedy of a parade of 'Australian' idols singing Waltzing Matilda in American accents. I may be a drama queen, but that was a most distressing experience for me.

And the only male singer? Michael Buble from Canada. Sure, he did a good job. But there are countless male Australian performers who would have loved to sing to us in the spirit of the day, Buble was just performing a promo show for a new Album.

Shame on you AFL, we're used to it at many cultural events that are celebrating an already Americanised Australian culture. But there is nothing American about Aussie Rules and I wanted to feel Aussie on Saturday.

Worlds Apart 2

The whole purpose of this blog is for us to debate issues, so I'm glad that a letter writer to the Age has chosen to rebuff my letter published yesterday on Aboriginal welfare.

Read it here (last letter on the page, from Andrew Hall) and let me know what you think.

I'll rebuff his points for you here if you like:

1. Perhaps it's "blinkered' or "unenlightened" but it certainly is the most logical way forward. The easiest and best way to achieve the living standards that industrialised nations have achieved through modern technological advances and a commercial market economy is to adopt those yourself. Just as south & south east Asia are doing today.

2. I agree! For heaven's sake I say I'm very happy for Aboriginals to continue living their traditional lifestyles, it's great! Just don't expect long life and health and Nobel physics prize winners. I'm sure the Aborigines themselves don't expect that.

3. I didn't ridicule him? What do my readers think? This cliche 'applauded not ridiculed' is used so often in articles and it really reduced any force in his argument, not to mention the one that comes next...

4. I didn't murder, rape, enslave or destroy anyone, especially not an entire people. Thanks though, Andrew, that was sweet of you and a very valid argument.

I care about improving the quality of Aboriginal life now not trying to make up for the past, that's done now.

Maybe a better quality of life comes from being freed from houses, schools, wells & clocks and reverting to a completely original way of living. If so, let it be. Health outcomes will be lower than us, and they won't go to university. But if they are happy, what business is it of ours. The white hand wringers like Mr. Hall are forcing our conception of a quality life onto people who may not see that as quality.

Or maybe they're right. Maybe Aboriginals do want long life on a quarter acre block, 16 years of school, 1 and a half kids, 3 cars and a 50 year 9-5 career. If so, let them have that.

Funny

Same Sex Skills Shortage

THE LETTER PUBLISHED

The media lately is all over a supposed skilled labour shortage in Australia. I read about this side of the story from B News, a Melbourne gay community paper. Read the article here.

Perhaps John Howard's campaign against legitimising homosexual relationships is a part of his new plan to get closer to Asia? Certainly it's dragging us further behind Europe & North America, and even our poor cousins across the Tasman.

Sir,

In the debate over the skilled labour shortage in Australia, there is one group of willing and able immigrants who are overlooked by the immigration department and the media.

They are doctors and accountants who have trained and practiced in otherdeveloped countries. People who are so attractive to employers in Australiathat companies and hospitals have already sponsored them to come here. Somehave even quit their jobs at home, assuming they will have no problem moving to another western country to work for a sponsoring employer. Only to find the immigration department wants them, but not their partners. Because their partners are the same sex as they are.

Same sex unions are recognized in some form by several states in the USA, along with Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK, among others. We are sticking our heads in the sand and falling behind the rest of the civilized world by not recognising the love and commitment in these relationships.

Worlds Apart

THE LETTER PUBLISHED

I submitted two letters today, the first was spurred by this article about Aboriginal land rights. We've heard these arguments a million times over and they continue to confuse me. But try as hard as you might to get logical explanations for them, you can't. Just by asking, you will be labelled a racist.

The way I read it, these people want Aborigines to continue to live their remote existence (and that's fine by me!) and have a standard of living comparable to white city dwelling Australians (I'm fine with that too!!). I just don't see how any reasonable person can propose to achieve one without it being at the expense of the other?

The desired outcome seems to be that indigenous Mum & Dad go out and hunt & gather food all day while the kids study calculus & Shakespeare. Then everyone meets up at home later where they each have their own bedroom and ensuite (yes there's 8 kids and the grandparents and some nephews live there too, so the house has 21 rooms, but apart from that it's just like yours or mine!). Mum cooks up the bush tucker using the modern kitchen appliances and then it's time to prepare for the corroboree. Everyone goes and showers and exfoliates before applying their ochre paints and heading out to the clearing. If someone gets ill it's no problem we'll just whisk them down to the modern 24 hour medical clinic filled with top class doctors. Sure the town (nomads live in towns?) has only 150 people and is 500km from the nearest big city (1500 people) but a hospital is sustainable.

It's just not logical to me. If Aboriginal people want to live in their traditional way surely they don't want the houses or roads or doctors or schools. So why do we force it upon them yet continue to tell them to live in their natural way. It can't work and it's just prohibitively expensive given the distances and small communities involved. Because the people affected are so minute, the cost spread over all the taxpayers is small. This makes it seem like good value to wash away some of our coloniser's guilt. In reality it's quite wasteful and helping no one.

Sir,

Galarrwuy Yunupingu says that Aboriginal people should be
able to livetheir lives according to their ancient "values and customs."
Pre-industrialcivilisations don't have long life expectancy or high quality
health care,or individual rooms per person. Mr. Yunupingu then goes on to say that Aboriginal Australians desire improved quality of life. By this he means longer life, higher education and better general health. To achieve this they need access to first world quality health and education.

Like many non-indigenous Australians, I remain confused as to how you canhave it both ways. We welcome Aboriginal people into a first world society and the living standards that come with it. To achieve those benefits some customs have to be abandoned, among them are remote living and communal property rights.

God Save Birmingham

If you’re passionate about democracy, your stomach will probably churn if you read this, or this. My eyes were wide open at the first one, especially the last quote that seems to be conceding; “we’ll behave according to the rules, but we don’t believe in them.” I cannot understand how any culture or any person could think it ok to steal other people’s votes, and appear puzzled by their prosecution for it. The last paragraph of the first article is chilling.

Thank God for Richard Mawrey QC is all I can say to this one. Below is a letter I submitted to The Times.

Just as an aside, something that really bugs me is the referral by some people (ie. Americans) to The Times as “The Times of London” or “The London Times.” Thankfully, the proud and historic Times is not submitting to this themselves - yet.

The American media has this horrible tendency to call the New York Times “the Times.” It’s an excellent paper and I read it regularly, and it’s certainly understandable that New Yorkers would call it the Times, but likewise wouldn’t LA residents call their paper the Times as well? Just as Sydney Siders call theirs the Herald. But for people across America, for whom the NYT is not their local paper to call it “the Times” and the genuine Times the “Times of London” is a little presumptuous.

I think the URL’s for the papers speak clearly on this one, only The Times, does not have it’s city name or initials in their web address.

And that’s my rant for the day, I’d love to hear other views on that one, leave comments! Letter follows:

Dear Sir,

The recent reports in your paper of election fraud are most concerning, even to a citizen of another proud democracy.

Compulsory voting in Australia means there are far fewer voters who don't turn up, limiting opportunity for votes to be stolen. But there were numerous reports of postal voting fraud in the USA prior to last November's election, somehow it seemed less startling there.

Perhaps we expect these things to happen in a republic where ultimate power is in the hands of men. We expect one of the advantages of leaving ultimate power in the hands of the monarch to be less corruptibility of process.

There has been talk recently in America of allowing internet voting, as well as postal voting, to encourage youth turnout. I’m 25 years old and I wonder is it so much to ask that we spare thirty minutes or so every fewer years to go in person and help decide who will determine the future of our country.
I agree with your contributor Camilla Cavendish (on April 5) that all voting should be required to be done in person, unless extenuating circumstances can be proven.