Dean Wells argues against states' rights

I went along to QUT Garden’s Point campus in Brisbane tonight to listen to Dean Wells argue the case against state governments. He was speaking at a free Public Lecture organised by QUT's Law Faculty called “Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Why we could manage with two levels of government and how we could get there”. Wells is a Queensland state MP so is one of the few turkeys that might vote for this particular Christmas (pic: Dean Wells speaking at QUT).

Wells began by giving his audience a historical perspective. Initially there was only one form of government in Australia, the colonial government which is analogous to today’s state governments. The first local government was founded in Adelaide in 1840 with Sydney and Melbourne following two years later. Brisbane got its first council in 1859 just before the creation of the new colony of Queensland. These councils were deemed to be autonomous of state governments and were free to do whatever they wanted. But they remained a delegation of state governments who could (and did) abolish, segment or amalgamate them as they saw fit.

But the newly formed Commonwealth in 1901 had a different set of powers. Its powers were subtracted from the states but it was an irrevocable creation that the states could not go back on. Its powers were heavily subscribed and anything that was not on the list remained in the hands of the states. Though its powers were supposedly different from the states, there was a lot of duplication. Wells listed seven portfolios for the Queensland Dawson administration of 1899 (the world’s first Labor government) which had increased to 18 portfolios by 2009. Meanwhile at the federal the 1904 Watson administration had nine portfolios which had increased to 30 under Kevin Rudd in 2009.

Wells said there were three reasons for this federal expansion. The first was constitutional change which devolved powers from the states to the commonwealth. But given that most referendums failed, Wells said there was “precious little of that”. The second reason was modernisation and the creation of portfolios for areas that did not exist in 1901 such as social security and industrial relations. But the bulk of the increase, says Wells, is due to the third reason – duplication.

Wells says the Federal Government has two functions: what he calls “core functions” and the non-core operations subsidising the states often in competition to the state’s own functions. He defined the core functions as those of Prime Minister, Treasurer, Immigration, Defence, Trade, Foreign Affairs, Communications and the Attorney-General. He says the non-core functions included education, health, transport, environment, agriculture and resources. There was a major degree of overlap between state and federal departments in these non-core functions. The Federal Government, says Wells, has its fingers in every pie of every state.

Wells listed off the arguments why state and federal separation was a good thing. These included the likelihood that we were better off with a number of different approaches, we shouldn’t tamper with history, and we are running an entire continent. He even quoted Solomon in the Book of Proverbs: “in a multitude of counsel there is safety”.

But Wells dismissed all these approaches as “deluded federalism” and said we needed to rationalise duplication. He said that if we were starting from scratch we would have a system where federal governments would retain control of delivery of services to ensure all citizens have the same standard of living. We would only devolve to state governments all functions that would be better handled at a local level. In today’s world that list would include local economy items such as land registers, development and planning of housing, roads and rail (excluding Intercity), tourism, and local environment. Hospitals and education would remain a function of central government.

But Wells acknowledged that simply abolishing the states would be “dangerous”. There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop it but it would leave local governments as orphans reporting to “the dead hand of State Government”. The solution he said, might be found in Chapter 6 of the Constitution which allows for the creation of new states. Wells suggested that Queensland might break up into super-councils based on geographical location: South East, Central, FNQ, Western Qld and Southern Qld. This change could be done by legislation and would not require a referendum. The only danger, concluded Wells, is that these new entities would create their own councils maintaining the inefficiency of three layers of government.

Mark Bahnisch on books in the digital age

(photo: Kate Eltham from the Queensland Writers’ Centre (QWC) introducing Mark Bahnisch tonight.)

I went along to QUT Kelvin Grove this evening to listen to sociologist, academic and writer Mark Bahnisch give a talk on “Books in the Digital Age: The Future of Writing”. The lecture is part of QWC’s Wordpool series of three lectures for 2009 about the future of books, writing and journalism.

Bahnisch said his approach to the lecture would be sociological. He began with a quote from French philosopher Jacques Derrida from his work Of Grammatology which said that the death of the book announced the death of speech and a mutation in the history of writing which will happen over centuries. Bahnisch said it was on that scale we must reckon it here as the full effects of what is happening today may not be known for centuries.

Bahnisch used the example of the telephone in 19th century London where it was initially used to transmit musical concerts and church services into crowded drawing rooms. Despite these creative uses, no one considered using them for one-on-one conversational communication because the total number of telephones was so low. Its use as a one-to-one tool needed to wait for critical mass.

With that in mind, he turned to the issues related to books and printing at the start of the 21st century. Bahnisch said we all do a lot more writing than ever before, even if most of it is not intended for publication (eg texts, emails, notes etc.) though perhaps the meaning of publication has changed. He said this represented a return to a previous state. Books are a technology, he said, even if they do not have any whirring parts. The explosion of printed books occurred not only because of Gutenberg’s invention but also because of improvements in punctuation, and spaces between words. It was a process of democratisation that made books useful and saw them expand beyond their original remit of bibles, religious tracts and illuminated manuscripts. The sacrality of texts (the notion that there is something special about them) was being challenged.

Bahnisch quoted Bruno Latour’s We Have Never Been Modern which said that what we think of the characteristics of modernity are almost always an incomplete process. Bahnisch challenged the theory of the relationship between books and writing as a linear exposition. He said that was not how people read or retrieve information. He noted how Vannevar Bush’s World War II “memex” machine was the prototype for hypertext – an invention that predated the technology of the Internet. Bush’s insight was to realise that people retrieve information in non-linear ways.

Bahnisch then moved on to a discussion of digital culture. He dismissed the idea that there was such a thing as digital natives. Most 17 and 18 year olds don’t blog or use Twitter, he said. Most enthusiastic users are older and are active readers who understand references and are trained in the culture of attribution. And for a range of reasons there is also a lot more writing going on today than ever before.

The barriers to publication have come down and the boundaries between authorised professionals and everyone else has been blurred. This “dedifferentiation” may mean that the era of the professional writer has ended. The digital utopians and cyber-libertarians may have wanted “information to be free” but there is no longer one digital public sphere out there. Instead there are many communities and multiple publics to deal with. A lot of material is written for partial audiences and there are parallels here with Murdoch's plans to enforce payment for content. Writing will continue in large quantities. But the consequence, says Bahnisch, is that it will be “much less remunerative” in the digital environment.

Law professor calls for ethical approach to solve financial crisis

Irish law professor Justin O’Brien told a public lecture in Brisbane tonight that the cause of the global financial crisis was a failure of ethics. Speaking at QUT Gardens Point, O’Brien said the financial services bloodbath was no accident and could easily be repeated if all parties including governments, business, lawyers and the media do not change their ethical behaviours.

Justin O’Brien was promoting his new book called “Engineering a Financial Bloodbath: How Sub-Prime Securitisation Destroyed the Legitimacy of Financial Capitalism”. He is a research professor at QUT’s Faculty of Law & Faculty of Business and the lecture investigated the origins and implications of the securitisation crisis that swept the world in 2008.

He began by exploring the roots of financial capitalism in three books that all emerged towards the end of World War II. The 1944 Hayek book “The Road to Serfdom” promoted free market economics and was the inspiration for Thatcherite and Reaganite reforms. In comparison Karl Polonyi’s The Great Transformation written around the same time argued that laissez-faire capitalism causes massive social dislocation. Joseph Schumpeter explored a third approach in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy that saw capitalism transforming into advanced socialism.

The warning from these books was that economics would become detached from society with the rise of the market economy. This disconnect was almost complete by the middle part of this decade with the rampant greed disguised by the boom times. O’Brien disputed that the crisis that began to emerge in late 2007 was a “perfect storm” or that “there was no one to blame”. The problem was that almost everything that happened was legal and regulatory bodies did little except follow formal rules and principles. Those rules were interpreted within specific corporations for their own maximum advantage without any thought of the ethics involved.

Flawed governance mechanisms enhanced the need for short-term profit at the expense of the large picture. There were flawed financial models including securitisation (the process that re-packages assets into securities which are sold to investors). No one came out of it well. There were few internal controls, poor quality attestation by auditors, a lack of legal due diligence, poor calls by rating agencies, and a lack of investigation by the fourth estate. Social norms were destroyed by rampant greed.

The result is an electorate (particularly in the US, the UK and Ireland) where no one knows why the crisis happened. The anger is palpable and political and economic trust has been badly eroded. O’Brien said the focus needs to shift from government to governance to accountability to responsibility and finally to integrity. This requires inter-disciplinary collaboration and a move to behavioural economics. O’Brien discussed the New Institutional Economics (NIE) framework which frames economic activity in the wider social sphere.

What was needed is integrity which is a cluster concept consisting of actions, values and ethics. For example, lawyers can not simply get away with just knowing the law. There are moral and social responsibilities. O’Brien suggested three approaches. Firstly there is Kant’s categorical imperative which states that people’s actions should always correspond to a universally applied rule and people should never use people for our own benefit. Secondly there is the utilitarian approach that looks to the consequences of actions. Securitisation was not wrong in itself, said O’Brien, the problem was the way it was used. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, there is virtue ethics with its emphasis on the moral dimension.

Only when all three ethical approaches are used can the sins of omission, commission and collusion that caused the GFC be tackled. O’Brien noted that the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) has recently completed a review of its operations focussing on outcomes. But its success depends on business embracing its reform agenda. O’Brien called it ASIC's reform a “Trojan Horse” for moving forward. All professional groups, he said, must recognise ownership for ethical failure and look towards a new code of conduct. Companies must work with the regulators to weed out problems, which although possibly legal, have ethically difficulties that might contain the seed for the next crisis. Quite simply, said O’Brien, it was a moral issue.

Enrique Peñalosa speaks in Brisbane

Thanks to a notification from Public Polity, I was fortunate enough to hear about the visit to Brisbane of one of the world’s great public transport thinkers Enrique Peñalosa. He spoke tonight in front of a packed audience of 200 people at the Griffith Auditorium in Brisbane’s Southbank about his ideas and experiences. In the invite, Griffith University described him as an "urban transport revolutionary" who transformed Colombia's largest city from a gridlock of congested streets to a blueprint for sustainable cities.

Enrique Peñalosa holds a BA in Economics and History from Duke University, a master's in management at the Institut International D'Administration Publique, and a Diploma of specialized higher studies (DESS) in Public Administration at the University of Paris II. In recent years Peñalosa has advised governments on urban issues in several developing world cities and currently is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP).

Peñalosa served as Mayor of Bogotá, between 1998 and 2001. During that time Peñalosa revolutionised public transport planning in Colombia’s capital. About the time Peñalosa was elected mayor, Bogotá had a plan to build a series of multi-level highways. Peñalosa realised this was not going to solve the city’s problems and instead would create a huge negative environmental impact. He scrapped the project and for a fraction of the cost built the worlds most advanced bus rapid transit system called Transmilenio. He also created a network of bicycle and pedestrian pathways that are the envy of most cities of the world.

His speech tonight was entitled “towards a more socially and environmentally sustainable city” and it was sponsored by Griffith University’s Urban Research Program and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Transport Institute of Australasia (PedBikeTrans). Peñalosa began by saying his speech would not just be about Bogotá but about cities in general. He described transport as the most complicated issue a city faces. According to the UN, there will be twice as many people living in cities in developing nations in the next 30 years. Peñalosa wondered how sustainable will these cities’ transport policies be? How, he asked, should cities be?

Peñalosa believes the answer to these questions is related to the concept of equality. He defined two types of equality. The first was legal: all people are equal before the law. This constitutional sense of equality has practical implications. For one, it means that public transport should always take priority over private cars. If applied more radically, it could means that cars should be banned entirely. The second equality relates to quality of life. It means having equal access to public facilities such as schools, hospitals and libraries. The way we organise cities can much to increase this kind of equality. This includes decisions about transport systems and high density housing. But, said Peñalosa, this invites controversy. Talk about public transport is more akin to religion, he said, than engineering.

Peñalosa went on to discuss the impact of the car. Cities have been around for 5,000 years. Cars have been here for the last 90 years. He said children live in terror of cars and 200,000 children die worldwide each year as a result of car accidents. Yet we accept this as normal. Cars are to children today, he said, as wolves were to children in the Middle Ages. Was this the best we could do after 5,000 years, he asked. Peñalosa said the twentieth century will be remembered as a disastrous one in urban history. After five millennia of planning cities for people, in the 20th century we planned cities for cars. Yet no one goes to France and says “what great highways Paris has”. Peñalosa said that a good city is about pedestrian spaces, which, he said, were the only public spaces available for people. The rest is either privately owned or streets and roads where you are likely to get killed by cars.

These public spaces were a microscopic part of the available land, he said. This lack of space impacts the quality of life. The key ingredient for the growth of society was not capital or land, but people. A city is a collective work of art, he said and we needed to revisit the philosophies of the Middle Ages where they built gothic cathedrals that took hundreds of years to complete. Where is the thinking today, Peñalosa asked, that asks how a city should look in fifty or one hundred years time?

Peñalosa said there were three key facets to happiness. The first was that people need to be with people. Secondly was the need to walk (or cycle, which is merely a more efficient way of walking) and thirdly was the need to not feel inferior. People need to share their time with their family, not spend three hours every day in a traffic jam. We walk, he said, not to survive but to feel well. But we need attractive places to go. Every great city, he said, has a public space. He mentioned New York’s Central Park and London’s Hyde Park where billionaires could mix with homeless people on an equal basis. Peñalosa also said that a good city was one where people want to be outside not inside houses or shopping malls. Malls, he said, were designed to keep the poor out. Good cities that are safe for children, the elderly and handicapped are more likely to be good for everyone else too. To that end, governments needed to make decisions that favoured bicycles and pedestrians over cars.

Peñalosa said it was the number of cars on the road that was the problem, not whether they were polluting or clean. The biggest impediment to life quality is a continual attempt to make room for cars. If at the start of the 20th century transport designers had realised what problems cars were going to cause they would have built a parallel road. But the ‘horseless carriage’ didn’t look like a threat and were allowed to share the space until they eventually took it over. Every city these days, he said, has pedestrianised areas but what if instead of it just being a couple of streets there were 100 kilometres of pedestrianised streets. As mayor, he created 23km of pedestrian streets in Bogotá. These areas transformed the way that the poor people of Bogotá thought about themselves. Every transport decision, he said, should show humans are sacred. We need to design for human dignity.

Peñalosa also spoke about the sanctity of the waterfront. Waterfronts are so unique, he said, they should never be privatised. And many cities are now regretting their mistakes of building highways that destroy waterfronts. Engineers used to love building roads next to rivers because there were few intersections. But at the end of the last century, humans realised they have made a stupid mistake. Riverfronts should be pedestrianised, and roads should be on the other side of buildings, not next to rivers.

He then made the observation that transport presents a peculiar problem: it is the only problem that gets worse as a society gets richer. This was clearly not a sustainable model. In developed countries cities are trying to reduce car usage, while cities in under-developed countries are trying to facilitate car use. But more roads do not work. Despite its giant highways, Atlanta is getting more traffic jams each year. In Montreal the average commute time has increased from 62 minutes in 1992 to 76 minutes in 2005. Only Vancouver, which has not permitted highway development, has decreased travel time. Creating new roads does not work as all it means is that existing cars drive more. New roads generate their own traffic and may solve a problem for a year or maybe two or even five, but will eventually clog up like all the ones before them. Peñalosa said just as the earth going round the sun was counter-intuitive so is the fact more road infrastructure brings more traffic jams.

Under his regime, Bogotá chose not to build the $10 billion highways proposed by Japanese aid organisation JICA and instead restricted car use. They spent the money on quality public transport and had more than enough left over to improve the lives of the poor on libraries, hospitals and schools. Instead of an eight-lane highway, they built a 35km greenway. Peñalosa said there was no “natural level” of car usage in cities. It was not a decision for traffic engineers but politicians. It’s a simple fact that if you create more space for cars, there will be more cars. Heavy traffic is a signal that a decent public transport needs to be installed.

Peñalosa said that a good public transport system had two critical success factors: low cost and high frequency. He said legislators should not be afraid to force people to use public transport. Parking was not a constitutional right in any city. Governments have many obligations in areas such as public objectives behind health, education and housing, but not, he said, providing parking on sidewalks. Sidewalks were more akin to parks than streets and were places where people could meet other people.

He finished up with a few other innovations he introduced in Bogotá, such as closing down the city to cars on Sundays and having a ‘tag’ restriction system in place during peak hours. The Transmilenio buses were designed for heavy load and now carry 1.4 million people every day, funded by a 25 per cent fuel surcharge. He also created a bicycle network from scratch that is now used by 350,000 people daily to commute to work. But he warned that a bikeway that cannot be used by eight year olds is not a bikeway. They are powerful symbols of democracy and play a vital role in constructing community. In advanced cities rich and poor are treated as equals in public spaces. A good city is not made by great highways but by places where eight-year-olds can cycle safely. Peñalosa finished his speech to great applause from the 200 people gathered to hear his wisdom. Let’s hope some of Brisbane’s key decision makers were there. Our transport decision-making remains mired in archaic pro-car 20th century falsehoods.

Politics in the Pub – Brisbane electorate candidates meeting

Woolly Days attended the Politics in the Pub session tonight at the Brunswick Hotel, New Farm. Organised by the Community Action Network and New Farm Neighbourhood Centre, the session was attended by the candidates of the Brisbane electorate with the one notable exception. Yet again, a Liberal candidate absented himself from a community forum. This time, it was the turn of Ted O’Brien who failed to make the event and "offered his apologies".

The seat of Brisbane has been held by Arch Bevis since 1990 and he won in 2004 with a margin of 3.9 per cent. Bevis is a Labor front bencher and Shadow Minister for both Homeland Security and Justice and Customs and he was one of six speakers who did attend, the others representing Family First, Socialist Alliance, the Greens, Australian Democrats and the CEC. The session was chaired by Jason Wilson of Youdecide2007.

Family First (FF) candidate Mark White was first to speak. White started off by saying a passionate society began with a passionate community. White said democracy is precious and pointed out how lucky we were compared the problems in Pakistan and Burma. He said FF protected some of the less-privileged members of our society such as those on disability pensions, those affected by Workchoices and new arrivals. He said immigrants “need our compassion” and FF does not see them as “economic commodities”. He also said the party supports an increase in foreign aid. He found it “offensive” when people portrayed FF as extremist. He said the party had acted strongly on policies such as tax deductions for first-time home buyers, child care choices, reductions in the fuel levy and is in favour of imposing a carbon tax which does not disadvantage low income earners. He said the Senate contest was crucial this time round and endorsed Jeff Buchanan as a “sensible and committed” candidate to join Steve Fielding in the Upper House. He pointed out that FF voted with the government on 110 bills out of 197 which was a 55:45 split that showed the party's dedication to balance.

Arch Bevis was the second speaker. Bevis is seeking his seventh straight term as the member for Brisbane. He began by talking about climate change which he said was the “major national issue” dominating his thinking. He said Australia had “dropped the ball” on climate change in the last decade. He said under the Keating Government Australia was a major world player in global warming discussions and the lead up to Kyoto. By the time Kyoto was signed in 1997, John Howard was in power and he argued for a rise in Australian emissions which Bevis said was “an odd thing to do”. The Prime Minister then failed to ratify the Protocol. Ten years later and Australia does not have a seat with full voting rights for Kyoto 2. Bevis pledged that Labor would immediately ratify the Protocol and pledged a 20 percent reduction in energy targets by 2020.

In health, Bevis reiterated Kevin Rudd’s provision of $2.5 billion in funding and lauded Rudd’s promise that “the buck stopped with him”. He went on to discuss Workchoices which he denounced as “unfair and unAustralian”. He said that workers in the US have better rights than here, which he said “would have been laughed at 10 years ago”. Bevis said he was a union official and appears in those anti-union Liberal ads. But he said he was proud of the work he did as a union official. He warned that the government intervention in IR law was not yet complete. He quoted Senator Minchin whom he called “one of the Liberal hardheads” as saying the government would abolish the award safety net after the election if it won. “If after 25 November John Howard is still Prime Minister,” he said, “don’t think you’ll see the end of reforms”.

The third speaker was Ewan Saunders from Socialist Alliance. He began by saying this election was historic for “lots of people he knew” that only knew a Howard Government in power. He said Rudd’s Labor were not a real opposition and “not much of an alternative” to the government. He said the Socialist Alliance was founded in 2001 as a “desperate need” for a party to stand for workers’ rights. He said they would “tear up” all of workchoices, as opposed to Rudd’s “Workchoices Lite”. He said they would also deal with climate change “the issue of the century” by reducing 60 per cent of emissions by 2020 and 90 per cent by 2030. “Tomorrow is too late to act” he said. He also said the Socialist Alliance was opposed to such measures as nuclear power, the NT intervention, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the anti-terror laws. He said Socialist Alliance was an activist party that takes grassroots action for working people in Australia and around the world.

Elizabeth Guthrie from the Greens spoke next. Guthrie runs her own Interior Design business where she provides her clients with economically achievable and ethically sound design choices. Guthrie began with an allegory of a fire in the forest where all the large animals argued on the best way to put it out. Meanwhile while the arguments raged, a hummingbird was taking tiny drops of water from the lake to the forest to put on the fire. Guthrie said she was like the hummingbird “doing all I can” by standing as a candidate for election. She said she was unlikely to win in “a safe Labor seat” but was determined to “speak for the people in my electorate”. Guthrie said the Greens had “well rounded policies” but preferred to speak about the underlying values. “People want to be represented by an accountable, responsible government,” she said. “I’m prepared to stand up and fight for what I believe”. She finished by saying this election was “your chance to take a drop of water to the fire”.

Don Sinnamon from the Democrats spoke next. Sinnamon said that although “John Howard does not know what an apology is”, he did and proceeded to say he was sorry for the sufferings of indigenous people. He said people “were sick of the election” and the media had turned it into a litany of false choices such as Howard v Rudd and Howard v Costello. He said the election was a chance to “make our voices heard”. He decried much of the government agenda including its castigation of the hundreds of thousands of marchers against the Iraq war as “a mob”, the unfair treatment of the unemployed, asylum seekers and those in same-sex relationships. He said the silence of the ALP on these issues was “disgraceful”. He said Australia needed a Bill of Rights, citizen initiated referenda and direct democracy. He finished by saying the country “needed democracy, not a dictatorship of special interests”.

The final speaker was Nick Contario of the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC). He said that there was a looming global meltdown of financial systems due to the sub prime mortgage crisis in the US. He said Australia’s large public debt left it vulnerable and there are 1.8 million people who are ‘mortgage stressed’. He said the country was “living beyond our means because we have destroyed our means”. He said the CEC would reinstitute a government owned national bank and would restore “essential economic infrastructure” that would turn Australia into a “truly sovereign nation state not just a quarry”.

Moreton candidates forum at Griffith University

The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) held a candidates forum at Griffith University’s Nathan Campus today to discuss higher education issues. The campus is in the marginal Brisbane seat of Moreton, held by embattled Liberal Gary Hardgrave. Hardgrave was invited to the forum, but did not attend. This continues a poor trend of Liberal no-shows to similar public events in Brisbane and as well as non-responses to interview requests by citizen journalist organisations such as Youdecide 2007.

Those who did turn up were Labor candidate Graham Perrett, Democrat Emad Soliman, the Greens' Emma Hine as well as the Senate candidates Larissa Waters of the Greens and Senator Andrew Bartlett of the Democrats. Graham Perrett spoke first. This is Perrett’s second time running for Moreton (which covers the Southern part of the Brisbane council area). Perrett is the favourite this time round and needs a swing of 2.8 per cent to take the seat.

Graham Perrett was born in St George in south-western Queensland in 1966. Perrett is a former teacher, solicitor and union organiser with degrees in English and Law. Prior to the election Perrett was a senior policy advisor to the Queensland government. He began his speech by saying he was “living proof” that Labor’s education policy was all about opportunity. He said that if it wasn’t for Gough Whitlam, he would still be a farmworker in St George.

Perrett went on to say that education was “the enabler of the economy” and a “building block for long-term economic prosperity”. He decried “the shameful legacy” of the Howard Government that saw spending in public education in decline and is now well below the OECD average. Perrett said there was “a skills crisis in education” and the Federal Governments own research shows Australia will need 240,00 more skilled workers by 2016 to ensure the country’s economic future.

Perrett said Labor would invest $450 million in early childhood learning which would give 4 year olds maths and science lessons. Labor is also planning to invest $2.5 billion in “state of the art” trade training centres in all Australia’s high schools. Perrett said this initiative would turbo-charge the education skills of the next generation of Australians. Perrett also lamented the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) and the resultant de-funding of university campus services. He said Labor would not bring back the old “flawed” system but would soon announce a new “not out-of-pocket” policy in this area.

Greens local candidate Emma Hine spoke next. Emma is a PhD science student at the University of Queensland. Hine spoke about her $20,000 HECS debt which she hopes to pay off when she enters the workforce. She said she would also like to own her own home but it would be difficult to pay off a HECS debt as well as a mortgage. She also condemned the gradual reduction of resources in academic institutions. Teachers are spending more time doing administration work and less time in the classroom. Funding cutbacks are also impacting diversity of what is being taught.

Hine then handed over to Larissa Waters (an ex-Griffiths graduate) to outline the Greens’ education policy. Waters is the Greens Queensland senate candidate and with last Friday’s news that the Greens and Labor are moving close to a national preference deal, she now stands a very realistic chance of winning Queensland’s final senate seat. She said there was now “a good chance” the Greens would be the balance of power in the Senate and they would use that power responsibly. She said they would keep the government of the day “honest and accountable” and the party had 43 policies listed on their website on a range of issues.

She said the Greens supported a return to free education. The Greens would abolish HECS and HECS debts. “University education used to be free,” she said. “It still is free in Sweden, Norway and Argentina”. She said the Greens costed free education at $2.5 billion a year which wasn’t much compared to the $34 billion tax cuts announced last week by the government. Waters said the Greens would repeal the VSU legislation and she asked the question: what has happened to campus life? “Going to university is not only about getting a degree,” she said. “It’s about embracing a different culture”.

Local Democrat candidate Emad Soliman spoke next. Soliman was born in Egypt and has a degree in Computer Engineering. He visited Australia in 1991 and then worked internationally before settling in Brisbane in 1995. He is now working in an academic position at Griffith University. He began by saying that it was the “generosity of the education system” that attracted him to return to Australia. He said this was now being undone by the Howard Government actions. By shutting down funding for education, the Government was dealing with a threat from “enlightened minds”.

Soliman condemned the commercialisation of research and pointed out “30 years of achievements” in education by the Democrats in the Senate. He said the Democrats were in favour of (pdf) abolishing full-fee degrees for domestic undergraduates, removing VSU and HECS, and revising the indexation formula for university grants to accurately account for inflation.

Senator Andrew Bartlett, the Democrats Queensland Senate candidate spoke last. Bartlett would appear to be the likely loser if the Labor-Greens national preference deal goes ahead. But he is not going down without a fight. He said the Senate contest needs to be emphasised in its own right. He said that for higher education “the Senate result is crucial”. He said the VSU legislation got through the last Senate because the Family First senator “failed dismally in his judgement” and did not negotiate any sort of compromise.

Bartlett reminded his audience that the Coalition won the Senate that year by taking the last Queensland seat from the Democrats. Bartlett said the “large hike” in HECS fees prior to the 2004 election was also the fault of the independent senators who held the balance of power at the time. Bartlett hoped that if he did have to lose his seat, he would lose it to one of the minor parties. He said that if he lost the seat to the Liberals or Labor, then all Queensland’s seats would be with the major parties. But he believes he can still win. He said he was “effective and experienced and [has] delivered on issues”.

Senate candidates public forum in Brisbane

Last night, the Brisbane suburb of Mansfield held a Senate candidates forum at the Broadwater Road Uniting Church. The session was entitled “Your Faith, Your Vote, Your Voice” and was a community election forum organised by the local Uniting, Anglican and Catholic churches. It was moderated by ABC religious programming executive producer David Busch and featured senate candidates from five political parties: Liberal (Sen. Sue Boyce), Labor (Sen. Claire Moore), Democrat (Sen. Andrew Bartlett), Greens (Larissa Waters) and Family First (Jeff Buchanan). The five candidates all gave introductory speeches and then answered a series of questions from three panellists Rev John Parkes (Assistant Anglican Bishop of Brisbane), Sr Kathleen Tynan (Co-ordinator, Catholic Social Action Office) and Andrew Johnson (Uniting Church Justice and International Mission Advocate).

Aboriginal elder Aunty Jean Philips began the evening with an acknowledgement of the traditional owners of the land (interestingly, this was an acknowledgement reiterated by all candidates and panellists except for Liberal and Family First). After an opening prayer by the local Uniting church minister Bruce Johnson, Rick Sheehan (Chair of the Catholic Justice & Peace Commission) read a prepared paper about faith at the ballot box. The paper urged Christians to “take their democratic freedoms seriously and become involved in the political process”. It encouraged “people of faith” to include the test of the common good as well as their own interests when casting a vote and should ask who is the beneficiary of economic policies.

Larissa Waters of the Greens was the first candidate to speak. She began by saying she had noticed a “real shift” in the last election towards less compassion, more selfishness and less concern for the community – “not values I hold” she hastened to add. She spoke of the four key principles of Green policies to combat this tendency. They were: ecological sustainability, peace and non-violence, social justice and grassroots democracy. She said that if the Greens won the balance of power in the Senate, they would use tax cuts to finance clean, green, renewable energies – not “unproven clean coal or toxic nuclear waste". She also spoke in favour of public transport, dealing with poverty, free access to health and education, affordable housing and an end to our "pre-emptive strike" foreign policy.

Liberal Senator Sue Boyce spoke next. Boyce was elevated to the Senate in April to fill the casual vacancy left by Santo Santoro’s resignation after a share scandal. Because Santoro’s term expires in 2008, Boyce is up for re-election. She began by saying said one thing underpins everything else in this election: a strong economy. This allows the government to deliver universal medical care, education and equity. She said families have been better off under the 11 years of coalition government and only the coalition could effectively manage the prosperity to benefit Australia with new industries, road funding and indigenous programs. Boyce said the government have spent $660 million on climate change programs and said only they could deliver the innovation and choices needed to solve complex problems.

She was followed by Labor Senator Claire Moore, also up for re-election. She began by saying she was “one of those terrible union officials mentioned over the last few years”. She said the political system needed to be “valued and respected” and the need for a strong economy must be permeated by compassion and respect. Like Waters, Moore noticed a sense of division in the community and said politicians “must engage with people to ensure they are part of the future”. She noted this was anti-poverty week and we needed more compassion for those most disadvantaged in the community.

Jeff Buchanan from Family First spoke next. He said he was passionate about the family’s fundamental role in society and his values were informed by his faith and life experiences. He said he was the leader of Family First’s Queensland team and promised the party would be a voice in Canberra for families, farmers and small businesspeople. Buchanan said the party was objective and “no one’s lapdog”. He also said Family First doesn’t agree with WorkChoices and the loss of public holiday, overtime, penalty rates and redundancy entitlements.

Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett was the last candidate to speak. He began by saying democracy wasn’t working well at the moment. He said that diversity was not being taken into account in the political process. Bartlett highlighted the disadvantages of Australia’s first people and our inability to listen to their problems. He said there was a growing gap between the country’s haves and have-nots. Bartlett believed that the Democrats have demonstrated “sensible economic policies” over the years with a balanced approach to workplace issues. He said more needed to be done to recognise those people who bear extra burdens such as volunteers and carers for those with disabilities. Bartlett said that climate change was not just an environmental issue, it was a moral issue and we needed to focus more on what he called “the common good”.

The panel then got involved and began by asking the politicians what contribution they could make to achieve balanced democracy in the Senate. Bartlett said this was a crucial issue and the Senate was not getting enough focus in the campaign. This issue was “core business” for the Democrats. Senator Boyce rejected the charge that the government had stifled debate in the Senate. She said “standing committees and enquiries produce worthwhile results”. Senator Moore lamented the lack of knowledge in the public about how the Senate works. She said the Senate worked best in a committee system where it had “the opportunity to listen to the community and make recommendations”. Larissa Waters said that since the government won a Senate majority in 2004 it had cut committees and guillotined debates. “The house needs to become a house of review again,” she said. Buchanan agreed that it was remarkable how little most people knew about the role of the Senate.

The second question asked what the ends to the economy were. Senator Boyce saw a strong economy as an effective strategy to reduce poverty. She said that she believed in the power of work to overcome the gap of haves and have-nots. She said a million people had genuine reasons why they could not work and the system would support them, but, she added “work underpins it”. Waters decried the $32 billion tax cut election promise announced by the government this week. She said it was “not a proportional response” when hospital waiting lists and the costs of education were sky-rocketing. She added action on climate change was also crucial. Senator Moore said that policies “must include compassion”. People who have no choice but to seek welfare should not be labelled for it, she said. Sen Bartlett noted that many roles in society are not properly valued. He said community work “doesn’t measure up right” as productivity. This, he said, was not the government’s fault but society’s. He said the social fabric was not recognised.

The third topic was IR laws and whether there was a way beyond what panellist Andrew Johnson called “the dichotomy” between employers and employees. Buchanan said Family First’s dictum was “work to live not live to work”. He said work-life balance issues needed to be addressed in Workchoices and they would work with the government of the day to fix this up. Senator Moore spoke about the “demonising” of workers’ rights and said they should share in the prosperity and not just be valued as a “unit of labour”. She said unions don’t want conflict and the country needs to work together to achieve results. Senator Boyce denied there was a dichotomy and said “as an employer, I give a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work”. But she said that without Workchoices, there was no flexibility to encourage those with better work ethics. The majority of employers were small businesspeople “not oligarchs of industry”, she said. Senator Bartlett said that the only reason Workchoices existed at all was because of the 2004 Senate result. He didn’t recall John Howard saying before that election the IR laws needed repairing. Bartlett said that the gap between reality and political rhetoric was “huge”. Waters said that most people were worse off under Workchoices and it didn’t take into account that “happy workers are productive workers”.

The candidates were then asked about their views on the environment. Waters said that Queensland was the Sunshine State but we were not doing enough with solar energy. She said coal was creating problems for the whole world. “Climate change is an ethical issue,” she said. “The impact is disproportionate on the worse off”. Senator Boyce said that since 1998 the government has spent $3.5 billion in climate change initiatives in clean coal, solar and wind energies. She hailed the Australian led Asia Pacific Partnership and the Sydney Declaration at APEC to set targets for 2020. Sen Moore said that Labor would announce its climate change policy “soon” and Labor would work closely with the state government to achieve results. She said Labor “would not walk away from coal”.

The next question was what qualities Australians needed to integrate refugees and asylum seekers. Buchanan said the asylum laws were tight enough but we needed to process them more quickly. Sen Bartlett disagreed about the laws and labelled them “a disgrace”. He said putting refugees and their children into prison is a deliberate strategy of “stress and harm”. “We have a responsibility not to demonise or play on prejudices,” he said. “For politicians this is particularly unacceptable”.

The final question was how each of the parties would deal with indigenous issues. Sen Bartlett said we needed to make it a priority and “listen more” to what they say. He said the Senate only had one day to examine the 500 pages of the Little Children are Sacred report and its authors were prevented from giving evidence to the Senate Committee. Senator Moore said the evidence that was presented was serious but she too was unhappy with the lack of consultation. She said “the idea that child abuse is [just] an indigenous issue is criminal”. Senator Boyce said that 350 people did give evidence to the tribunal and Minister Mal Brough consulted with many elders and tribal women. She said “Brough was desperate to help”. Waters said that sending the army into the Northern Territories doesn’t help. She said indigenous people needed representation and abolishing ATSIC was not the answer.

This was a useful forum to hear prospective Senate candidates air their views. Queensland currently elects 12 senators (5 Libs, 4 Lab, 2 Nats, 1 Dem). Six of these (2 Lib, 2 Lab, 1 Nat and 1 Dem) are up for re-election this time. While predicting the Senate result is difficult to the complexity of preference deals yet to be revealed. It is likely that Queensland will elect 2 Labor, 2 Liberal, 1 National and a sixth to be fought over by the Democrats, Greens, Family First and Pauline Hanson. In 2004, the Liberals won the 6th seat from the Democrats on the 175th count (pdf), giving them an overall majority in the Senate.

The case of Abdul Bari Atwan: A disgrace for democracy in Australia

The Australian Government dealt another hammer blow against free speech in this country when it refused a visa for a journalist to speak at a Brisbane festival today. Audiences at the Brisbane Writers Festival were denied a chance to hear respected London-based journalist Abdul Bari Atwan speak at a festival event. Atwan is the Palestinian-born editor of the prestigious London based Arabic newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi and he was due to share a session called “Is Balance a Delusion” with renowned Australian journalist David Marr. Atwan was expected to talk about journalistic balance and also promote his critically acclaimed new book “The Secret History of al-Qa'ida”. Atwan interviewed Bin Laden in the Tora Bora Caves in 1996 but his book categorically rejected supporting the methods used by Bin Laden’s organisation.

Festival director Michael Campbell told the audience that Atwan had applied for a visa in London on 16 August and it was referred to Canberra a week later. Atwan and Campbell then queried Australia House on a weekly and then daily basis on the status of the request. They got conflicting reports that said variously it was in progress or it was not on file at all. Campbell rang the office of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews and was stonewalled. Eventually Atwan ran out of time and had to cancel his invitation to Australia.

Journalist and writer David Marr then spoke. He said this was “another day of censorship in this country”. Marr spent much of his day yesterday on the phone to Atwan and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the aptly acronymed DIC). He found out that DIC’s Character Section had sent Atwan’s visa request to ASIO. Marr said this was done for political not security reasons. It was done for two pre-election fear mongering reasons. Firstly to remind the electorate how frightening terrorism is (even though Atwan merely reports on it, not engages in it). And secondly to wedge the Labor Party into a “soft on terrorism” position if it opposed the government action. And indeed Marr and Campbell could elicit no response from Labor Immigration spokesman Tony Burke on the issue.

Marr said the freedom to engage in public debate has been deteriorating since the draconian anti-terror and sedition legislation (pdf) was passed in 2005. The government was enraged when ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope published the proposed legislation on his web site. Prime Minister Howard and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock were furious that the public could know what was in the security laws. Drafted in the wake of the 2005 London bombings, Australia passed laws that were more restrictive than those in the UK.

The legislation includes a clause that outlaws “association with terrorism”, a power that the government has used widely and with little scrutiny. Meanwhile the state governments were foolishly persuaded to pass the sedition laws on the condition that the Law Reform Commission would examine them in 2006. Ruddock has shown no inclination to act on any of their tabled recommendations.

Marr also condemned the refusal to remove academic studies from the scope of the legislation. In 2006 respected Monash University lecturer in security studies David Wright Neville reported that police had interviewed his students because they were buying and borrowing books about terrorism. Ruddock supported the police saying genuine academics ‘had nothing to fear’. But an Adelaide academic with a $1m grant into terrorism research was warned off talking to Hezbollah leaders.

In July 2006, the Government banned two 1980s texts on jihad after a heavily publicised moral panic campaign by the Sydney Daily Telegraph. Though the Tele described them as “books of hate”, Marr said they are still available on the internet and would not incite anyone to slaughter. Universities have removed books about terrorism and jihad from their shelves. “How are we better off for not knowing what they do?” wondered Marr.

Ruddock is not yet finished. In the last two weeks of parliament he has tried to introduce wider censorship so that anything that advocates terrorism or illegal activity can be banned. As well as jihadi texts this would include instruction manuals on how to make ecstasy. The wording around ‘advocates’ would be anyone ‘who directly praises terrorism where the risk that a person of whatever age or mental impairment might be encouraged to commit terrorism’ (Hansard 15 Aug). Marr suggested that no-one can begin to guess what texts a lunatic might use to commit terrorism. In any case, terrorists are usually not mentally impaired – just really angry.

Marr suggested that if the audience wanted to see Abdul Bari Atwan, they should go to Youtube where they can see Atwan debate the Iraq war with Richard Perle (architect of the Afghan invasion) on a PBS documentary. Marr said that unlike Australia, the US still had a high regard for debate. In the US the culture is to answer questions, here the culture is to avoid answering questions. Atwan told Marr this is the first time he has been refused entry into any country in the world.

Marr said the reason Atwan was not allowed to come to Australia was purely political. If he came here he would have been the focus of media attention. His support of the Palestinian cause and his opposition to the war in Iraq would have achieved a wide audience in the lead-up to a general election. Atwan was not only due to speak at intellectual forums such as the Brisbane Writers Festival and ABC Radio National but also on high-rating media such as Channel 9’s Today Show and the Alan Jones radio show. Marr said there was a political dividend to the government to keep him out. “This is a very sad day for the country and I’m disgusted to be a witness to it”, he said. Marr finished with an unambiguous description of the decision makers: “These people are scum”.

Andrew Bartlett launches senate re-election campaign

Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett launched his Senate re-election campaign today at the QUT Gardens Theatre in Brisbane. Bartlett has been a federal Senator for Queensland since 1997 and is now seeking his third term. Around 250 people turned up today for the launch and heard a speech from former Queensland Democrat senator John Cherry, endorsements from high profile citizens such Julian Burnside and Frank Brennan and finally the keynote speech from Senator Bartlett.

The launch was kicked off by Democrat State President Liz Oss-Emer who asked Aboriginal elder Aunty Carol Currie to issue the welcome to traditional lands. Then former Senator John Cherry spoke. Cherry was a trenchant choice of speaker. His defeat in the 2004 election by 1 per cent after 159 counts elected Liberal Russell Trood and handed control of the Senate to the Government for the first time since 1981. Cherry stated he was the victim of an electorate that “forgot to think” and it must not happen again. Cherry stated that the Democrats were instrumental in turning the Senate into the most powerful and effective house of review in the world prior to 2004. They now have three months before the next election to put their case and urge the voters to “think before they vote”.

There then followed five testimonials. Julian Burnside QC described Bartlett as “completely honest” and performing a crucial role in senate committees. Yassmin Abdel-Magied (young Australian Muslim of the year 2007) praised his support of Muslim youth. Afghan born and former Nauru detainee Chaman Shah said that Bartlett was the only politician who gave the detainees hope. Bobby Whitfield of the Liberian Association of Queensland praised Bartlett for his practical approach and support for those marginalised and oppressed. Finally Frank Brennan paid testament to the “power of good” Bartlett did especially for minority groups.

Andrew Bartlett began his own speech by thanking those who turned up. He appealed to his supporters to take the campaign out in the community as he cannot compete with the advertising budgets of the big parties. He said Senator Cherry reminded the audience of how the Democrats began after the constitutional crisis of 1975. Bartlett pointed to the pledge made by former Queensland Democrat Senator Michael Macklin where he promised not to abuse power by blocking supply and bringing down the government. Bartlett made a similar pledge.

Bartlett then launched into policies. He was critical of the Howard Government’s WorkChoices legislation which he said “must go”. Bartlett called for more flexibility in the workplace without exploitation of employees. He re-affirmed his commitment to fight nuclear power and condemned what he called “the drastic decline in numbers of Senate enquiries”. Bartlett said we needed laws to protect our freedoms and called for a Bill of Rights.

Internationally he supported those in China, Vietnam, Burma, West Papua and Zimbabwe who fight for freedoms we take for granted in Australia. Bartlett claimed that the independent voice of the smaller parties gave them greater freedom to speak out on human rights issues. However he also supported “those who have no voice” in this country. He pointed to the example of ex-service personnel who are often neglected on their return.

Bartlett opposed what he called the unrepresentative views that emerged in 1998 in Queensland epitomised by the Pauline Hanson scare campaigns. But, he said, it was not about opposing Hanson herself but opposing the anti-refugee actions supported by both major parties, as well as opposing the “anti-migrant dog whistling” and the public attacks on African and Muslim refugees. Bartlett pointed out there was a great diversity in the wider community “if only we listened to them and gave them the opportunity to speak”. Bartlett said a strong democratic framework does not occur by accident, it must be encouraged.

Bartlett then went onto indigenous policy. He said the first priority must be clearing the massive backlog of land rights claims. The Stolen Generations report needs to be addressed as well as the Stolen Wages Inquiry. Bartlett said that “no one should wrap themselves in the flag” without acknowledging that Aboriginals lack what most of the rest of the population enjoy. He also said the wrongs of the past cannot be undone but must be acknowledged. Bartlett supported the move to protect NT’s children but it needs sufficient resources to make it work for as long as it takes not for “the ten second grab”. Bartlett said he wanted to see action taken against child abuse in all communities.

Bartlett then addressed the problem of growth in greenhouse emissions. He said the Democrats were responsible for the first parliamentary enquiry on the subject in 1991 and that government inaction since then amounts to “culpable negligence”. He said the decisions we need to make are tougher now than they were 15 years ago. The issue demands “honesty, common sense and working together” and everyone must change their behaviours. Bartlett discussed his own goal to be carbon neutral, cut emissions and offset the rest through a trading scheme.

Bartlett then discussed taxation and said “the easiest thing to do is offer tax cuts”. But Bartlett reiterated the Democrat position since the 1980s that what was required was indexation of income tax thresholds. He also reiterated his position against the proposed new dams in Queensland at Traveston and Wyaralong which he condemned as a “waste of money”.

Bartlett concluded by saying this federal election was “like no other” and Queensland was a key battleground. He exhorted his supporters to “take on the job to continue the fight”. He said the Democrats offer the community a “strong, effective voice for the issues that matter”. He closed the launch by repeating his campaign slogan “choose common sense” and asked his supporters to make every vote count.

Andrew Bartlett is a former leader of the Democrats and is now its deputy leader. The party has been long embattled with a declining vote in the last two elections. They could lose all parliamentary representation in the next election. The term of all four remaining senators (Bartlett, Andrew Murray, Natasha Stott Despoja and leader Lynn Allison) expires in June 2008 with both Murray and Stott Despoja announcing their intentions not to re-contest.

In 1997, he was chosen by the Queensland parliament to replace Cheryl Kernot after she defected to Labor. In his maiden speech (11 November 1997) Bartlett described his first political experience as a nine year old helping his mother hand out how-to-vote cards for the DLP outside his local school. The event introduced Bartlett to political disappointment at an early age; the DLP was wiped off the political map in that election.

Andrew Bartlett graduated in arts and social work from the University of Queensland. During this time he also played in local bands and became involved with 4ZZZ community radio both on air and behind the scenes. After a year of social work, Bartlett got his break in politics in 1990 when he was appointed electoral officer to Democrat senator Cheryl Kernot. After three years he left to work for another Queensland Democrat senator John Woodley whom he served until his own appointment to parliament.

Bartlett is a strong Senate campaigner, a thoughtful blogger and an active citizen who is often found at protests, demonstrations and public meetings throughout Queensland and elsewhere. He has served on numerous high profile parliamentary commissions including A Certain Maritime incident (Siev X) and is a strong believer in the power of the Senate as body of review.

With his party polling at five per cent or under and a strong challenge likely from Larissa Waters of the Greens, it will be a very tough ask for Bartlett to win re-election. In his favour is his strong image of integrity and excellent record in the Senate. Depending on how well he does on preference deals with the slew of other parties expected to line up, he may yet be returned to parliament for a third term.

Brisbane public meeting: anti-terror laws

Woolly Days attended a public meeting this evening. The meeting theme was "ANTI TERROR LAWS - SILENCING DISSENT AND ATTACKING OUR RIGHTS" and was held at the CPEU headquarters at 41 Peel Street South Brisbane. The meeting was held to commemorate the first anniversary of the passing of Australia’s latest draconian anti-terrorist legislation, the Commonwealth Anti-Terrorism Act 2005(Revised). About 30 to 40 people attended and the following is my notes of what the speakers said. I apologise in advance if I have in any way misrepresented their opinions.

There were four speakers, Michael Cope (president of the Qld Council of Civil Liberties), Sasha Jesperson from Amnesty International Australia, Andrew Bartlett, Qld Democrat senator and Salim Al Beraby (spelling may not be accurate) a Muslim youth activist.

Cope spoke first. He mentioned that not many decisions have yet come to court as a result of the new legislation. But the legislation does not stand up on the basis on constitutional, common and international law. There are inadequate safeguards. Control orders can last for 12 months and then be rolled over. There is no evidence that the previous laws were deficient. The new laws create an unjust system of arbitrary detention and may have precisely the opposite affect as intended. It will increase paranoia and hostility in those who believe the laws are aimed at them and may lead to recruitment to terrorism.

The government has consistently failed to demonstrate the need for the legislation. In the US the odds of dying from terrorism are 1 in 88,000. The chances of a ladder falling on you are 1 in 10,000. Car crashes kill 15 times more Americans that terrorism. The laws are based on fear and the strength of the legislation is not appropriate to the risk. People may be deprived of their liberties on the basis of what they might know. The presumption of innocence does not apply. The laws undermine fairness, reduce the capacity of the right to a proper defence. Convictions can be based on what the accused might know and it is entirely probable that innocent people will be incarcerated.

As well as the detention orders, the act has provision for control orders. Jack Thomas is subject to a control order despite being was cleared of all charges by a court. His contest against the order comes up in the New Year. Victorian Court of Appeals threw out the case against him based on a forced confession. The control order was obtained by Federal Police and ASIO on the balance of probability that Thomas might do something. The orders allow government exclude lawyers seeing prosecution evidence on nebulously defined security grounds.

The Federal law is mirrored in legislation in each of the states. Peter Beattie made an undertaking to parliament and the Council for Civil Liberties that the law would be reviewed this calendar year but that has not happened yet. The Qld legislation is stronger than the Victorian and ACT equivalents in that it allows police to issue a detention order not just a judge. This allows police to act as judge and jury. The law is ambiguously worded and it is not certain whether defendants have the right to cross-examine witnesses. Qld defendants are not entitled to legal aid either. It also requires every conversation between defendant and lawyer to be recorded and monitored by a police officer. The standard of proof should be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ not ‘balance of probabilities’ as it is now.

The sedition provisions were the subject of an enquiry by the law reform commission. However Attorney-General Philip Ruddock rejected the recommended changes. The law should not criminalise expressions of support for terrorist organisations. Ruddock has also obfuscated on the issue of obtaining evidence under torture and declared sleep deprivation not to be torture.

The English House of Lords declared torture to be illegal in common law as far back as 1628 when the Duke of Buckingham was assassinated by John Felton. Felton was threatened with the rack but King Charles I asked the opinion of the courts who found against torture. Torture spreads like an infectious disease hardening and brutalising its users. The writ of habeas corpus is a touchstone of English legal principles and Howard’s government claims to the inheritor of these principles. When confronted by the UN Declaration of Human Rights article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Ruddock would only accede to the right to life and security but left out the liberty. The UNDHR was written by those fighting Hitler in World War II. These new laws elevate Osama to a status he does not deserve. Cope concluded his speech by saying the price of these laws is the violation of freedom.

Sasha Jesperson from AI spoke next. She stated that AI condemned the new laws and saw them as part of a global pattern of secret detentions, extraordinary renditions and house arrests in many jurisdictions of the world. ASIO has over 40 new powers as a result of recent law changes. There are no safeguards and the control orders amount effectively to house arrest. The laws could be interpreted as including political and industrial action in their gamut. If involved in the training for a terrorist activity it is a 25 year sentence. If the person does not realise the training is for terrorist purposes but acts ‘recklessly’ to continue, it is also a serious offence. The Attorney-General has the power to ban political organisations which disallows people from membership, raising funds and freedom of association. It may be unconstitutional as the High Courts showed when they struck down the ban on the Australian Communist Party. ASIO can hold any person over 16 years without charge for up to seven days. The person cannot reveal ASIO’s involvement for 2 weeks or if an operational matter for 2 years. The person is not entitled to a lawyer of his or her choice, and is subject to change. Jack Thomas, the control order victim is only allowed to use a mobile phone given to him by police and is not allowed to use the internet for 12 months. Human rights laws are not an optional extra during times of international terror.

AI commission Roy Morgan Research who found that 95% of people think that human rights are important but only 31% thought the anti-terror laws affected them. It is not true. The anti-terror hotline gets 300 calls a day that are passed through to ASIO. Jessica Moore, the Wollongong Uni student activist was contacted by police to say she was being investigated as a Hamas supporter after she attended a political meeting about homophobia. Jesperson concluded her speech by saying Moore thought the whole issue was absurd but lawyers are advising her (Moore) to take the matter very seriously.

Andrew Bartlett spoke next. He wanted to put the issue in a political, legal and social context. It is important to note how government behaves to avoid scrutiny of their new powers. There is only one parliamentary committee charged with holding ASIO to account. That is the Joint Standing Committee on intelligence and security. There are no minor party reps on this committee and most of its work is done in camera. However in the two public reports it has produced recently, Labor heavyweight Robert Ray has complained that the committee is not getting the information it needs from either ASIO or the government. There is no justification provided as to why Hezbollah and the PKK (Kurdish party in Turkey) are proscribed organisations. ASIO are not following their own guidelines, a trend which is deeply worrying.

The wider problem is that the precedents in the anti-terrorism act spreads to other legislation. The recent environment law allowed for powers of strip searching and seven day detention without charge. It is aimed at illegal fishing but it done so that the fisheries management act is in line with the migration act. The migration act also has mandatory sentencing provisions. The government are constantly arguing why these types of changes are justified. These are political arguments which are why issues such as due process for David Hicks and Nauru solutions are so important. The visa of US peace activist Scott Parkin was cancelled and he was imprisoned pending deportation. Government officials refused to explain to Parkin or his lawyers the basis for re-assessing his status.

Meanwhile a refugee was detained for five years due to a security assessment that was based on false identity. The refugee was unable to challenge because he was never able to see the evidence against him. The government also practice vilification against Jack Thomas while Ruddock continues to slander David Hicks. They build public support through the media and use labels to great effect including calling indigenous leaders “terrorists” when they respond to issues of black injustice.

Pine Gap protesters have been arrested and charged with obscure 1952 legislation brought in during the Cold War. If found guilty they face seven years’ prison. Then there are the recent changes to the Electoral Act to close the rolls on the day the election is called. This deliberately disenfranchises transient people. There is a link to the new proposed citizenship test which has the rationale of ‘weeding out the undesirables’. Another example of the government squashing dissent was the recent refusal to issue a visa for a member of the Tipton Three when he wanted to come here to promote the film "The Road to Guantanamo". The government is self-serving, dodgy and has shown contempt for due process. They treat the committees with contempt because they can get away with it and there is hardly anything anyone can do about it. Bartlett concluded by saying the only thing people can do is to either vote them out of power or at least restore balance to the Senate.

Salim Al Beraby spoke last. She gave her experiences as Lebanese born Muslim migrant to Australia. She pointed out Health Minister Tony Abbott’s speech about culture shock that Muslim must feel in Australia as well as the uneasiness felt by Australian seen Muslims wearing burqas. Al Beraby said she didn’t encounter culture shock as being Australian meant the freedom to wear what she wanted and if that Abbott was shocked he needs to get out and meet some Muslims to understand why they wear the veil. But since the new laws were enacted she worries about how people view her. She met the Attorney-General and asked him ‘what does terrorism mean to you?’ He got angry when she compared Western soldiers killing Iraqis to the way the law treats people here. She finished by saying it would appear to be ok to kill in Iraq but not in Australia.

public meeting in Brisbane: Nuclear matters

On Tuesday 11 July, an anti-nuclear alliance group held a public meeting in the Abel Smith lecture theatre at the UQ campus, St Lucia. The meeting was entitled “Nuclear Matters: Mining, Energy & War”. The meeting was hosted by the QNFA (Qld Nuclear Free Alliance) in conjunction with another group called SOS (Students of Sustainability). Together they have formed an umbrella Brisbane group called Just Peace.

The four invited speakers were Professor Ian Lowe (President of the Australian Conservation Foundation), Senator Kerry Nettle (NSW Greens Senator), Speedy McGuinness (Kungurakun-Gurindji elder from NT) and Dr Ibtissam Abdul Jabbar (UQ research scientist). Senator Nettle was a late apology due to her visit to Papua New Guinea and she was replaced by Senator Christine Milne (Green, Tasmania). The meeting was attended by approximately 200 to 300 people.

Annette Brownlie opened the meeting by describing Just Peace as a Brisbane organisation that were seeking alternatives to war and to Australian reliance on the US military. Its aims are justice and peace. It plans to do this by exchanging information, conducting dialogue and offering support and fellowship. She asked that attendees take time to stop and remember the Aboriginal forebears and traditional owners of this land. She then introduced Professor Ian Lowe.

Professor Lowe also gave thanks to the traditional landowners. He started by exposing a great myth. That myth was that nuclear power is greenhouse friendly. Dr James Lovelock had raised the alarm with his “Revenge of Gaia” in which he said that climate change damage was irreversible and we should “think the unthinkable” and embrace nuclear power. Professor Lowe said he has thought it and believes it is still unthinkable. He has also thought about uranium exporters who have shown no interest in climate change. That lack of concern also exists at government levels and there is no support for practical measures either in the coal industry, for renewable resources, or more energy efficient solutions. Nor does nuclear power address emissions from transportation. In short the argument for nuclear power is as transparent as before. Lowe then talked about the 1975 Fox Report. The Fox Report supported limited regulated uranium mining endorsing sales to countries that are signatories to the NNPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty).

The report was the start of the 3-mines policy at Nabarlek, Ranger and Olympic Dam. It gave then PM Malcolm Fraser the chance to sell uranium to an ‘energy starved world’. It was a grubby moral imperative. Nuclear accounts for barely 10% of the world’s electricity and 3% of the world’s energy. It was a dishonest policy 30 years ago and is dishonest today. As an energy source it is quite expensive and subsidised by governments. And it would be 15 years before any new nuclear power stations would fire up in anger. We cannot wait 15 years for a solution. The rush to build nuclear power stations in the world is itself a cause of the energy crisis.

Professor Lowe then turned to the matter of water. Nuclear power needs lots of water. The Roxby Downs plant (site of the Olympic Dam) eyed off the Murray river only to find out that the Murray doesn’t contain much water these days. They then turned their attention to the Great Artesian Basin but that was stymied by a letters campaign to the SA government. Now, BHP Billiton are building a desalination plant. We are now exporting uranium to China, how does that contribute to world peace? By 2020, the industry may grow to be one third the size of our cheese industry. But unlike cheese, when we export uranium we not only give it to current governments but we also give it to future successor regimes whose actions we have no control over.

While the world dirties its collective nappy over Iran’s nuclear weapons program, we forget that the Americans gave the original technology to the previous regime of the Shah. We cannot guarantee that future administrations will turn uranium into fissile material for bombs. Prof Lowe concluded that “if nuclear is the answer, it must have been a very silly question”.

Dr Jabbar spoke next. She was born in Baghdad and has an M Sc in immunology and a PhD from UQ. She works at the Centre for Immunology & Cancer Research, University of Queensland. She spoke using a set of Powerpoint slides and had three issues to discuss. The issues were ignorance, health effects and moral consequences. She started by describing the phobia and fear around the topic. She visited Iraq in 2003 for the first time in 23 years where she saw for herself the damage done by nuclear weapons on people. She then showed a brief video from CNN which displayed people’s ignorance of where Iran was on a world map.

There has been limited success with nuclear weapons in the 1963 Partial Ban Treaty which prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, underwater, or in space. However there are still 50 nuclear weapons tested every year. 55% of these are US, 30% are Russian and the remaining 15% is spread across China, UK, France, India and Pakistan. Radioactive Weapons, called Depleted Uranium (DU) were first used in Gulf War I (GW1) in 1991. Many more were used in GW2. These weapons have “somatic toxicity”. Dr Ernest Sternglass author of “Secret Fallout” believes 400,000 infants in Iraq may be affected by DU. Freeman Dyson, the British-American physicist and mathematician has corroborated Sternglass’s figures. Dr Jabbar also believes the risks are greater at lower radiation levels. Dr Asaf Durakovic, a professor of nuclear medicine at Washington’s Georgetown university admitted the US Veteran’s Association made him lie about the impacts of DU.

Dr Jabbar then cited a 1997 experiment where 30% of GW1 vets had suffered from Gulf War syndrome. “When we went, we were healthy” they said. There are only 256 entries in Pub Med (a US National Library of Medicine service) on the topic and only 2 papers on Iraq. 1kg of uranium provides 5kg of DU. DU is “organotropic” (related to the attraction of certain chemical compounds or micro-organisms to specific tissues or organs of the body). It gets into the skeletal tissue and has been traced in urine 16 years after the event. It accumulates in bones, the kidney and even the Central Nervous System. It alters DNA, causes carcinogens, cell death and mutation. It can also alter chromosomes. The Iraqi population has now been hit twice in 12 years with DU.

Al Eskan disease is closely related. Discovered in 1992 the disease is a condition triggered by the exceptionally fine sand dust of the Central and Eastern Saudi Arabian peninsula. The inhalation of this sand has caused fatigue and worse. The morality aspect is important too. We have legitimised a side effect which says it is ok to use civilians as a target. It is a moral disaster. Science needs to take the road of the darkness. The truth is regulated by the authority in the shape of tanks and bombs but also by computers, TV and the Internet. Dr Jabbar finished with a quote from Albert Einstein “from the basic power of the universe, there is no protection”.

Speedy McGuinness spoke next. His speech was a plea for a wake-up call. He spoke first in his native Kungurakun-Gurindji dialect. He paid homage to a powerful black woman at the back of the auditorium who was a tribal elder from the Gulf of Carpentaria. He then apologised for not being a speaker in the same league as Professor Lowe and Dr Jabbar. He promised not to swear too much and then said “fucking war, eh?” He talked about the peace pilgrimage he took with others from Brisbane to Nagasaki, a journey of 4,500kms over 8 months. He discussed the impact of the atomic bombings with monks in Japan. They described bodies of women and children floating in the river. It was a war, just like there is a war between black and white in Australia. This was not political “crapotology”. The war is still going on. And they are still dropping uranium bombs in Australia at Bradshaw camp and Delemere Range in NT. McGuinness said he was proud of his 30 year campaign to save Australia from uranium mining.

He discussed the Rum Jungle uranium mine 65km south of Darwin. The place got its name when the wheels fell off a bullock wagon containing rum bottles destined for the miners. The bullockies drank the rum there and then. The nearby East Finnis River is still contaminated from the old Rum Jungle uranium mine. For nearly 30 years, contaminated mine water collected in the dry season, only to wash into the river in the wet. The Rum Jungle is closed now but the government want to re-open it as a nuclear waste dump. And they can do this because federal law overrides the NT government. The government are getting rid of the cycads in the area near McGuinness’s property in preparation. And after all, what good are trees only pumping oxygen into the air?! The cycads were cut down by contractors and sent to labs in Alabama. Now McGuinness needs to plant another 500 of them. It’s his job.

McGuinness apologised again for the rambling nature of his speech but said “you’ll get the full story, somehow”. They gave the land back to the Aboriginal owners back in 1993. McGuinness discussed Japan again. In a country the size of Victoria, there are 54 nuclear reactors. No-one feels safe. They are bombing with uranium in Iraq and it is the children who suffer most. McGuinness is a translator for his people in courts and hospitals and said the things he sees there ‘spin me out.’ He was invited by the SOS to this meeting in Brisbane but was not keen to come to a meeting where people come along and listen and feel good before going home and forgetting all about it. But it was the magic word that convinced him to attend: Students. SOS is "Students of Sustainability". Students are ‘feral’ but they are also talkative. Next week they might be talking about me (McGuinness) but they will also be talking about the Rum Jungle and the contamination of the East Finnis River. You won’t read about that in public schools. We need to encourage the smaller ones. It’s as scary as all hell. McGuinness ended by saying to the students “I’m putting my faith in you”.

The final speaker was Senator Christine Milne. She started by acknowledging that she was on Aboriginal land. She recently led a Green delegation to the Mt Everard Aboriginal settlement in WA. This is one of the proposed sites for a nuclear waste dump. It is only 4km from a defence site and is the likely choice for the dump when the government finally decide. The Greens do not support the federal government overturning NT state rulings or using traditional land for waste dumps. She is ashamed that Bob Hawke proposed Australia to be the nuclear waste dump of the world. According to Hawke there are plenty of ‘empty’ places we can store it. He said “nobody lives there and any nearby Aboriginals can be moved and compensated”. We have learnt nothing from the past. And now the Government assures us that nuclear power is safe. At a global meeting on conservation in Switzerland, Senator Milne was approached by a Russian delegate Alexey Yablokov who demanded to know of her “what on Earth are you Australians doing?” He was talking about nuclear waste. He mentioned that the sarcophagus built around the Chernobyl site is now leaking and is likely to break open in a few years time.

But the problem is also here and now. Senator Milne stated that on June 14 this year, the US air force did a nuclear test on the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean. They tested Minuteman missiles that can travel 4,800 kms in 30 minutes. This fact was not mentioned in any Australian news media. Then on June 30, the Russians launched a ballistic missile in the Bering Strait which landed on its target 5,500kms away on the Kamchatska Peninsula. Again there was no media coverage in Australia. India too launched a missile test as recently as last weekend. Why was there no Australian reaction about any of these events compared to our grandstanding over the recent North Korean tests? While we continue to export uranium, Australia has no moral authority to exercise power globally. Australia should be an honest broker not a deputy sheriff. The uranium should stay in the ground. The NNPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty) should be applied equally and fairly. We should be campaigning for the total elimination of the nuclear arsenal worldwide. But at the moment, we are trying to pick winners and losers.

Senator Milne then recommended a book by international lawyer Philippe Sand called “Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules”. The US has systematically undermined international law: the refugee convention, the Geneva convention, the NNPT. But these are the only frameworks we’ve got. Now we are in this mess. As Professor Lowe said it is nonsense to think that selling uranium to China will somehow prevent climate change. China’s ambassador to Australia has stated that the reason China imports uranium is that it does not have enough for civilian and military uses. So either directly or indirectly, Australia is facilitating Chinese nuclear weapons. Alexander Downer would like to assure us that safeguards will apply. But the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association) has confirmed that they do not have oversight of Chinese facilities. To say that Australian uranium can be ‘tracked’ safely is nonsense.

The current situation in Australia is driven by the need to create new export markets for uranium. First China and next India. The problem with selling uranium to India is that it is not a signatory to the NNPT. Australia cannot sell uranium to India without infringing the treaty. America also wants to work with the lucrative Indian nuclear market so Bush and Howard are keen to establish new ‘arrangements’ outside the treaty. The US has yet to sign off on a deal with India and the Australian government has refused to answer questions on its stance. Within the NNPT Sweden and Switzerland will block any moves to engage with India. So Bush has created a “Global Nuclear Energy Plan” which will encourage multi-lateral nuclear agreements outside the control of the NNPT. A nuclear supply centre will lease enriched uranium to countries and the suppliers will take back the nuclear waste. This apparently demonstrates stewardship. Senator Milne called to watch out for the use of the word “stewardship” in all official nuclear industry documentation. The Labor lobbyist for the industry, Martin Ferguson uses the term “stewardship” continually. This needs to be contested at every opportunity. It is a travesty of the real meaning of the word.

The Age journalist Richard Baker put in an FOI (Freedom of Information) request to the government to release details of his nuclear talks with American officials. But the request was denied out of hand because of the documents’ “sensitive nature”. The plan involves expanding exports to China, supporting the India as part of Bush’s global plan, mine for uranium at Olympic Dam and transport it to Adelaide on a Halliburton owned railway line for export. The plan concludes with a scheme to take back all the high level waste. This will all be drawn up under the PM’s hand-picked Task Force on the Australian Uranium Industry Framework. The group is led by John White who has a major conflict of interest. He is also the head of uranium exporters “Global Renewables” and helped draft Bush’s “Global Nuclear Energy Plan”. The government business case for uranium will revolve around the “safe” return of the waste so that it cannot be enriched for weapons use. The argument has already started. They will wedge Labor on their three-mine policy and their refusal to take back the high-level waste

The US is now talking to Russia about leasing enriched uranium to Iran and taking back the high-level waste. The US now supports this idea and is putting its faith in Putin. Putin will approve a dump facility which has potential profits of $20 billion. This is because the US cannot store its own nuclear waste and a Russian dump will do as well as an Australian one. The Asian situation is extremely volatile. Every day Howard meddles in situations for which he cannot control the long-term consequences. China has signed major oil and nuclear contracts with Iran. So has Russia. Russia itself has retreated substantially from democracy under ex-KGB member Putin. The Asian arms race gathers pace. Indonesia won’t stand idly by. If any of these regimes are overthrown there is no knowing what the successor regimes might do with nuclear fuel. Selling uranium to these regimes is irresponsible. Australia has a moral obligation with 40% of the world’s uranium. We should leave it in the ground. Senator Milne concluded by saying “it is part of the sustainability that will bring about peace”.

Annette Brownlie ended the forum by thanking the speakers for their excellent contributions and opened the session to the floor for a question and answer session.