It's all my fault. The result of the election on the weekend - mea culpa. I told everyone to vote Green, and they did, and now we're stuck with no majority government.
Okay, so maybe not quite. I've thought of many a thing to say about the outcome of the weekend, but they are mostly summed up by this post by Ben Pobjie.
Please, please, PLEASE go read it. It saves me a whole lot of time and energy, neither of which I have a lot of at the moment.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Why I'm voting Greens (and you should too)
Disclosure: I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the Australian Greens, or any affiliated state party. This blog is written based on my own beliefs and understanding of politics and The Greens policies.
Secret ballot be damned - I'm voting Greens on Saturday. Greens in the Lower House and Greens in the Senate.
There are many reasons for this.
The Upper House (the Senate)
In a bicameral system (such as Australia has), the Senate is the Upper House of Parliament, and the Constitution confers upon it specific powers and responsibilities. It is through the Senate that legislation must be passed before it can be assented to by the Governor General. The key purpose of the Senate is to ensure that legislation is rigorously tested before it is passed.
I personally believe that it is important that a non-major party holds the balance of power in the Senate. I think it is hugely important that the major parties are not simply allowed to run their idea of 'good legislation' through Parliament with little to no resistance. I think it is important that legislation is rigorously tested and that a (relatively) objective moral standard is applied.
I believe in what the Greens stand for, and I believe that (whoever wins), the Greens policies will ensure that whatever legislation is passed will look more like what I believe is important for Australia than the policies of the current Government, and the Opposition. I discuss this further below.
Votes for the Upper and Lower Houses are cast upon different ballot papers. Senators are elected on a state basis, rather than an electorate basis (as in the Lower House). For this reason, there are many, many candidates on the Senate ballot paper. This year in Queensland, there are 60 candidates to be voted for.
(Side Topic - Preferential Voting)
As you probably already know, voting is preferential, and you can vote above the line or below the line on Senate ballot papers. If you vote above the line, you simply mark '1' in the box next to the Party that has your primary vote, and your preferences are determined by that party. To find out where the preferences are going, this ABC guideline is very helpful.
Alternatively, you can number all 60 number of boxes below the line in order of preference. This seems HUGELY daunting, I know, given the number of candidates. However, Below The Line has made it easy for you. Enter your state, check the preferential listing, and if you're not happy - customise it. Once you're happy with the preferences, you can print it out and take it along to the polling booth and copy it out! If you make a mistake, go back and ask for another ballot - if you cross out numbers your vote will be invalid. Make your vote count!!
The Lower House (The House of Representatives)
This is the house that gets everyone's attention. It is from the House of Representatives that the Prime Minister comes, and most of Cabinet. This is the one you know from Question Time where the leaders of the parties are slinging insults at one another and everyone is laughing in the background. This is the one where the majority of seats have to be won in order for a party to be declared the victor of the election.
A lot of people say that if you don't vote for one of the major parties in the Lower House it is a waste of a vote. To them I say: "DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT?"
Sure, if you cast your vote for Labor or Liberal, you are effectively voting for either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott and can go about your daily life believing that you elected or kept out one or other that you either wanted or didn't want. So that's fine.
But if you really want to make a difference, you need to vote in the best candidate in your electorate, and forget about who is going to be Prime Minister.
Similar to my views on the Upper House, now more than ever I think the lower house needs a balance of power. This election campaign has made it blatantly obvious that the major parties are more interested in keeping votes than in making actual advances in policy.
In the areas of climate change, human rights (for example gay marriage and indigenous issues), mental health, foreign aid, immigration and refugees, people are asking for change. And none of this conservative 'stop the boats' crap, but real change that makes a difference to peoples lives. And both major parties are too afraid of losing votes to make any real concession on these.
The Greens policies, (which can be found here) tackle these issues head on, and as far as policy statements go, are close to my heart. In respect of the above canvassed issues, the Greens state the following goals:
Climate Change & Energy
Secret ballot be damned - I'm voting Greens on Saturday. Greens in the Lower House and Greens in the Senate.
There are many reasons for this.
The Upper House (the Senate)
In a bicameral system (such as Australia has), the Senate is the Upper House of Parliament, and the Constitution confers upon it specific powers and responsibilities. It is through the Senate that legislation must be passed before it can be assented to by the Governor General. The key purpose of the Senate is to ensure that legislation is rigorously tested before it is passed.
I personally believe that it is important that a non-major party holds the balance of power in the Senate. I think it is hugely important that the major parties are not simply allowed to run their idea of 'good legislation' through Parliament with little to no resistance. I think it is important that legislation is rigorously tested and that a (relatively) objective moral standard is applied.
I believe in what the Greens stand for, and I believe that (whoever wins), the Greens policies will ensure that whatever legislation is passed will look more like what I believe is important for Australia than the policies of the current Government, and the Opposition. I discuss this further below.
Votes for the Upper and Lower Houses are cast upon different ballot papers. Senators are elected on a state basis, rather than an electorate basis (as in the Lower House). For this reason, there are many, many candidates on the Senate ballot paper. This year in Queensland, there are 60 candidates to be voted for.
(Side Topic - Preferential Voting)
As you probably already know, voting is preferential, and you can vote above the line or below the line on Senate ballot papers. If you vote above the line, you simply mark '1' in the box next to the Party that has your primary vote, and your preferences are determined by that party. To find out where the preferences are going, this ABC guideline is very helpful.
Alternatively, you can number all 60 number of boxes below the line in order of preference. This seems HUGELY daunting, I know, given the number of candidates. However, Below The Line has made it easy for you. Enter your state, check the preferential listing, and if you're not happy - customise it. Once you're happy with the preferences, you can print it out and take it along to the polling booth and copy it out! If you make a mistake, go back and ask for another ballot - if you cross out numbers your vote will be invalid. Make your vote count!!
The Lower House (The House of Representatives)
This is the house that gets everyone's attention. It is from the House of Representatives that the Prime Minister comes, and most of Cabinet. This is the one you know from Question Time where the leaders of the parties are slinging insults at one another and everyone is laughing in the background. This is the one where the majority of seats have to be won in order for a party to be declared the victor of the election.
A lot of people say that if you don't vote for one of the major parties in the Lower House it is a waste of a vote. To them I say: "DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT?"
Sure, if you cast your vote for Labor or Liberal, you are effectively voting for either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott and can go about your daily life believing that you elected or kept out one or other that you either wanted or didn't want. So that's fine.
But if you really want to make a difference, you need to vote in the best candidate in your electorate, and forget about who is going to be Prime Minister.
Similar to my views on the Upper House, now more than ever I think the lower house needs a balance of power. This election campaign has made it blatantly obvious that the major parties are more interested in keeping votes than in making actual advances in policy.
In the areas of climate change, human rights (for example gay marriage and indigenous issues), mental health, foreign aid, immigration and refugees, people are asking for change. And none of this conservative 'stop the boats' crap, but real change that makes a difference to peoples lives. And both major parties are too afraid of losing votes to make any real concession on these.
The Greens policies, (which can be found here) tackle these issues head on, and as far as policy statements go, are close to my heart. In respect of the above canvassed issues, the Greens state the following goals:
Climate Change & Energy
- 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (based on 1990 levels)
- development of sustainable and renewable energy sources - 30% renewable energy as source energy by 2020
- create a role for Minister for Climate Change
- 'polluter pays' system.
Human Rights & Care for People
- Adopt Australia's human rights obligations into domestic law
- Fully fund the Australian Human Rights Commission
- Reform 'counter terrorism' legislation to fall in line with international human rights law standards
- Reform Australia's Migration Regulations, especially with regard to freedom from arbitrary detention, protection of the family unit, and other United Nations guidelines
- Marriage for all
- Equal right to parent
- Identity recognition for people who identify as intersexed.
- increased funding for services and education for the prevention and early detection of mental illness.
Those of you who know me will understand why these issues are dear to my heart - but there are so many more policies on the Greens website that resonate with me. I really and truly encourage you to check it out - if you click the title of this post, it will take you straight to the Greens policies page. If you want to know more about a specific topic, click on that topic above to be taken straight to that page.
As for being a waste of a vote, this post at An Onymous Lefty beautifully outlines why a vote for the Greens is not a wasted vote. Basically, he explains that if you vote green and preference Labor, it's a signal to Labor that they need to represent progressive views or risk losing seats to the Greens.
Sure, it might not mean that your candidate gets in at this election, but it does mean that the more votes the Greens get, the more the other parties need to sit up and take notice of the Greens policies.
I think Labor will get in this election - not because I think that they have the better policies or have fought a better campaign, but just because I think that people aren't stupid enough to vote Tony Abbott in. The Liberal Party still haven't got their shit together from the leadership spills of the last 18 months, where I think Labor really got back on its feet after Kevin got the chop.
But I want them to get in knowing that they've lost a whole chunk of voters by playing it safe and not actually getting into the issues. Ultimately, that's why I'm voting Greens. Because:
a) The Greens have policies that I can really get on board with; and
b) I want to stick it to the major parties.
Why don't you stick it to them as well?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Refugees
A few weeks back, my mum sent me a fowarded email about the benefits that refugees receive from the Australian government. It went a little something like this:
It makes me angry that lies like this can be spread, simply because people are ignorant of the truth, and don't do any fact checking of their own.
Even if I wasn't studying human rights (with a particular focus on refugees), I would have been mortified by this email. I know that it simply is not true. But I was particularly incensed by the fact that there is absolutely no basis in fact for any of this. At the time, I didn't have the time to go and find the statistics for myself, but whilst discussing it with my mother on the weekend, I tried to inform her of some of the truth. I don't think I did very well.
However, today Kochie (from Sunrise), posted a brilliant blog post about this very issue, busting the myth and doing some excellent education in the meantime.
As a way of trying to spread a bit of the education myself, I replied to everyone who I knew had received the fowarded email with the following:
If you've received that email, and maybe passed it on, please give consideration to sending an email similar to mine above to educate people about refugee issues so that all Australians know the truth, and aren't simply acting (and voting) out of the fearmongering that such emails cause.
The Australian Government does it again...
Australian Government Refugee Allowances vs.Aust Pensioners
It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a Single Refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580. 00 in Social Assistance, so a total of $2,470.00 per month.. Family of 4 can receive $9,880.00 per month or yearly $118,685. A single Australian pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Australia for40 to 50 years, receives only a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and GuaranteedIncome Supplement. (Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!)
*Let's send this to all Australians so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we are forced to submit to theGovernment in taxes.
* KEEP Forwarding to every Australian to expose what our elected politicians are doing to the over-taxed Australians
It makes me angry that lies like this can be spread, simply because people are ignorant of the truth, and don't do any fact checking of their own.
Even if I wasn't studying human rights (with a particular focus on refugees), I would have been mortified by this email. I know that it simply is not true. But I was particularly incensed by the fact that there is absolutely no basis in fact for any of this. At the time, I didn't have the time to go and find the statistics for myself, but whilst discussing it with my mother on the weekend, I tried to inform her of some of the truth. I don't think I did very well.
However, today Kochie (from Sunrise), posted a brilliant blog post about this very issue, busting the myth and doing some excellent education in the meantime.
As a way of trying to spread a bit of the education myself, I replied to everyone who I knew had received the fowarded email with the following:
Hi All,
Some of you know me, and some of you don't. My name is Erin, and I'm (my mother's) daughter. I'm a solicitor and I'm currently undertaking my Masters of Law in Human Rights, with a special interest in development, indigenous rights and refugees.
I wanted to bust the myth that this email was sending around.
Refugees do not receive more in benefits than Australians do. In fact, whilst on the books as an asylum seeker, their allowance (which is 89% of the Centrelink allowance) is paid by the Red Cross and they are, therefore, not supported by the government (financially). Once they are granted permanent residency (which is not an easy process), they are entitled to the same benefits as any other permanent resident of Australia, including people from South Africa, New Zealand or England who have been granted permanent residency.
There are many more statistics about all of this, but Kochie from Sunrise has compiled an excellent list of facts about the true state of affairs for refugees in Australia. It's not long, and I ask that you take a couple of minutes to read what he has to say and be informed about refugees in our country. He also links to a number of sites which provide more information.
Then, if you forwarded this email on to anyone, I ask that you send my email on to those people, so that they too may be informed about this genuine issue in Australian culture. Thank you so much for your time in reading this email.
Please be assured that I will not use your email any further after sending this one.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to email
me.
Thanks again.
Erin.
If you've received that email, and maybe passed it on, please give consideration to sending an email similar to mine above to educate people about refugee issues so that all Australians know the truth, and aren't simply acting (and voting) out of the fearmongering that such emails cause.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Freedom of Speech vs Common Decency...
I am a passionate advocate for freedom of speech. One of my favourite quotes of all time is by Voltaire: "I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I believe that in a free and democratic society, free speech is fundamental and should be protected at all costs.
I'm also a Christian, and am passionate about people of (every) faith having the right to express their views and beliefs.
But something about this story just doesn't sit right with me.
I mean come on. This soldier's family is mourning. Believe what you like about the deaths of American soldiers being God's divine punishment for homosexuality (no kidding), is the funeral of one of those soldiers the right place to make your stand? Protesting behind the weeping family, picketing the graveyard? Is that really the message you want to present? Is it really even going to make a difference?
Those in authority are going to see the publicity stunt by this church and dismiss them as a bunch of religious whack-jobs with no respect for the dead or the mourning. It's not going to change the mind of a single power broker in Washington about whether or not soldiers are sent to war. I highly doubt it will prove the connection between homesexuality and wartime deaths either.
Free speech is all well and good. I don't deny these people their right to say what they believe. But pick your time and place, please. I wonder how they would feel if I rocked up at their son's funeral and told them that their son was dead because of God's punishment against them for, say, not following Islam. If I gathered a group of people together and stood behind them as they interred their beloved one, chanting hate-filled slogans and being disrespectful of their right to mourn their child.
To me, common decency dictates that even if you believe that someone dies as a result of something you consider wrong, their loved ones are still entitled to peacefully lay to rest that person. Hell, even Carl Williams' family and friends deserve that much. I find much of Carl Williams' life abhorrent, but I wouldn't rock up at his funeral and spit vitriol at his mourners. Is that just me, or is that a common decency that we all share?
I don't think that issues like this should be left up to the law. Because you know what, if it comes down to a reading of black letter law - that church group is entitled to say and do what they want all in the same of free speech.
But surely somehow, somewhere, sometime, someone has got to step in and say 'you know what? This isn't right. We may be entitled to do this, but that doesn't mean that we should. Let's find another way to get our message across, that doesn't cross all bounds of common decency'.
Of course, the litigation-friendly society that we have become doesn't see it that way anymore. If you are entitled to do something, if it is your right, then you should exercise that right regardless of the consequences, or so it appears to me. And so we see stories like this, where grieving families are slapped with costs orders for attempting to maintain some kind of civility at the funeral of their loved one.
Come on people. Really? Is this the best we can do?
I believe that in a free and democratic society, free speech is fundamental and should be protected at all costs.
I'm also a Christian, and am passionate about people of (every) faith having the right to express their views and beliefs.
But something about this story just doesn't sit right with me.
I mean come on. This soldier's family is mourning. Believe what you like about the deaths of American soldiers being God's divine punishment for homosexuality (no kidding), is the funeral of one of those soldiers the right place to make your stand? Protesting behind the weeping family, picketing the graveyard? Is that really the message you want to present? Is it really even going to make a difference?
Those in authority are going to see the publicity stunt by this church and dismiss them as a bunch of religious whack-jobs with no respect for the dead or the mourning. It's not going to change the mind of a single power broker in Washington about whether or not soldiers are sent to war. I highly doubt it will prove the connection between homesexuality and wartime deaths either.
Free speech is all well and good. I don't deny these people their right to say what they believe. But pick your time and place, please. I wonder how they would feel if I rocked up at their son's funeral and told them that their son was dead because of God's punishment against them for, say, not following Islam. If I gathered a group of people together and stood behind them as they interred their beloved one, chanting hate-filled slogans and being disrespectful of their right to mourn their child.
To me, common decency dictates that even if you believe that someone dies as a result of something you consider wrong, their loved ones are still entitled to peacefully lay to rest that person. Hell, even Carl Williams' family and friends deserve that much. I find much of Carl Williams' life abhorrent, but I wouldn't rock up at his funeral and spit vitriol at his mourners. Is that just me, or is that a common decency that we all share?
I don't think that issues like this should be left up to the law. Because you know what, if it comes down to a reading of black letter law - that church group is entitled to say and do what they want all in the same of free speech.
But surely somehow, somewhere, sometime, someone has got to step in and say 'you know what? This isn't right. We may be entitled to do this, but that doesn't mean that we should. Let's find another way to get our message across, that doesn't cross all bounds of common decency'.
Of course, the litigation-friendly society that we have become doesn't see it that way anymore. If you are entitled to do something, if it is your right, then you should exercise that right regardless of the consequences, or so it appears to me. And so we see stories like this, where grieving families are slapped with costs orders for attempting to maintain some kind of civility at the funeral of their loved one.
Come on people. Really? Is this the best we can do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)