Marginal or Vulnerable?

So Julia Gillard has hit town in Western Sydney...

The story, as I understand it, is the PM will address the concerns of some of the most vulnerable; families, single parents and low income earners, telling them her vision for the west. The other story, as I understand it, is the PM will be attempting to shore up support in eleven marginal seats. The price of failure is an election loss come September.

Nothing particularly sinister here, especially if you're in western Sydney and have the ear of a politician. Except that between Abbott and Gillard western Sydney must be feeling like the birthday kid that everyone wants to sit next to, just to get a bigger piece of cake!

'Battlegrounds' is what the yanks call it, we prefer terms like 'safe' and 'marginal'. But be they regional, inner city, battler, conservative and green, these are all voter groups whose votes are being courted or ignored in the lead up to the election. The politicians will talk; promising and politicking about why they are best, and expect us to listen.

So how does it feel to be a demographic more than a person?

I find it alienating and also a little confusing. I mean I feel strongly about human rights issues, rent and think infrastructure development around the country is important for all Australians. That barely begins to describe my opinions but buggered if I can find someone speaking to me.

Come election time I'll have to make a choice that may not address all the issues that concern me. Other people may find themselves making a choice over one issue that concerns them.

If you choose based on which party is addressing child payments and tax cuts maybe you're identifying with the 'families' demographic. But if you're voting on environmental action and the carbon tax, you're more of a 'green' demographic. Perhaps you're concerned about financial regulation and your investments from a 'conservative' demographic position. There are other positions though.

Consider those who don't get a vote...

Kids don't get a vote, hell even young adults don't have the chance to poll their opinions which sucks if you've left school and are working and paying taxes but not yet eighteen. This means that parents must give some consideration to their youngsters when they think about who to give their vote to. Childcare and education become issues long after school. Not to mention the health care system and welfare.

Foreign aid, development as well as asylum seekers takes in thousands of people who do not get to vote in our elections. As a globally engaged country Australia is committed to initiatives overseas as well. Holding a seat on the UN security council, more than ever we have an obligation to consider how we act on behalf of refugees, people in crisis and those in war torn nations.

One vote and then three more years. Whatever 'demographic' you ostensibly fall into that's not enough and there's so much more we can do. Don't wait to be a demographic the politicians need to win, demand their attention now.

The people in western Sydney didn't have to wait for the PM to visit. At any time they could write, email or tweet:*

The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
email: 'Contact your PM'
twitter: @JuliaGillard

Or perhaps the alternate PM:

The Hon Tony Abbott MHR
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House
RG 109
Canberra ACT 2600
email: 'Contact Tony'
twitter: @TonyAbbottMHR

Or even the balance of power in the Senate:

Christine Milne's Office
GPO Box 896
Hobart TAS 7001
email: 'Contact Christine Milne'
twitter: @senatormilne

Once every three years we vote to give them all a job. Let's not forget that the rest of the time we can hold them accountable for doing it.

_________

*All contact details were taken from the relevant pollies website and twitter pages. Apologies if they are not correct but good on you for trying to get in touch to try them out!

Our 'problematic' use of language

There is a conspiracy of misinformation at work in our daily lives. We are all guilty of this sometimes and we all fall victim when the truth is obscured from our sight. Misinformation occurs when the truth is glossed over with convenient catch-phrases, half truths or blatant omissions. Our politician's use these techniques to cloud their political reality and we suffer a lack of transparency about the society we live in. Those who suffer most however are those with the least ability to speak out and consequently to be heard.

I read an article in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald reporting Department of Immigration communiques describing suicidal and self-harming asylum seekers as 'Problematic'. The report goes on to detail other instances of obfuscation such as 'voluntary starvation'. This gem of a phrase details asylum seekers efforts to protest their conditions. Presumably by emphasizing the 'voluntary' aspect of the protest mitigates any blame for those responsible for the conditions being protested.

Every year people throughout the world flee their homes and their homelands because of civil war, internal strife and ethnic differences. When these people flee they travel, sometimes great distances to seek safe haven in countries and claim asylum under international law. They have the right to make this claim and be assessed in a timely manner. One of the countries that extends this right is Australia.

Within Australia the arrival of asylum seekers is not greeted with general approbation, you might say we can be hostile. I think one of the reasons is the way we talk about, and consequently understand who these people are...

Let's start with the names we give to asylum seekers; the one I found frequently repeated in the article above is 'client'. The term 'client' is used by both politicians and those working in detention centers. It sounds rather benign, perhaps even safe to the average reader who is frequently a client of various services. The term 'client' connotes someone who is accessing a service, and straight away we have fallen into the widespread use of doublespeak that distracts clear thought. For asylum seekers and refugees are not 'clients' accessing 'services' they are people fleeing violence and persecution in their homelands. All the name 'client' does is desensitize us when the government tries out the phrase 'access denied'.

George Orwell claimed the purpose of such political speech and writing was "the defense of the indefensible". He felt that some truths were "too brutal for most people to face"*, but more importantly that these truths couldn't be spoken by politicians who wanted to keep their jobs. Hence the use of fancy terms until asylum seekers and refugees become better known in popular vernacular as 'boat people' and 'queue jumpers'. The use of pejorative terms makes it much easier for everyone to look away when people are being locked up, or towed back out to sea on leaky boats.

The use of this sort of doublespeak is not limited to simply classifying a group of people. Half truths and loose terminology is used in describing all aspects of Australia's immigration detention program. In a short survey of Sydney Morning Herald articles dealing with asylum seekers for the month of February I found politicians and government officials quoted on the following:

• accommodation found wanting by United Nations officials was described by the Department of Immigration as "in line with living standards for local PNG residents"                                       (no description of how these local residents live was provided)
• in response to claims that children in detention were legitimate refugees the government maintained it was "prudent" to conduct its own checks
• in responding to reports of hunger strikes, suicide attempts and cutting with razors by asylum seekers, the Department of Immigration described a "significant decrease in self harm incidents" (no baseline or comparison data is offered)

The picture the government is attempting to create is one where they are working toward a solution to a 'problem' and making some progress. What this picture ignores is the significant harm, both physical and psychological, that occurs while inadequate action is taken. Oh and if you think the alternative is better, the opposition repeatedly promise that the government is too soft and that they would 'tow the boats back'.

I am not stating absolutely that all asylum seekers arriving by boat are mistreated and deserve more from Australia. I think many are. What I am telling you is that it is difficult to get a true impression of their treatment through the media.

Before making up your own mind on this issue, or any issue in the upcoming election, it is imperative that we all examine the evidence we are offered and demand more if it is inadequate.** Tomorrow the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will move amendments to the Migration Act that would allow media into offshore detention centers. Such scrutiny should at least provide some context for the message we've already received on asylum seeker's conditions.

It is important to support these efforts towards transparency and to question anyone who attempts to hide the truth. We are the keepers of our democracy so best we keep these politicians, our public servants, accountable...

______

* George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946)

** Orwell himself was wary of being guilty of "the very faults I am protesting against". If you find me so guilty, or have any other fault with my arguments please drop me a line. This is not the sort of discussion that ever ends, or where we ever stop learning... 

What's in a name?

I see Fred Nile wants to change the name of the NSW Upper House. This would mean that members of the legislative council would go from being known as MLCs to newly minted Senators. Apparently it's sexier this way and besides there's been a spate of mistaken identity cases where insurance salesmen have been mistaken for legislators.

Supporters of the name change maintain that it will reduce public confusion over the role of MLCs. Opponents maintain that with all the navel gazing it's probably better if people don't know what they do.

Meanwhile Green's MP Adam Bandt has been labelled a 'self-proclaimed homosexual' by Australia's newest political wannabes 'Rise Up Australia'. Rise Up's outing of Minister Bandt's presumed sexuality seems to ignore the understanding of gay people, Adam Bandt, oh just so many people that being out and proud is nothing to be ashamed of.

But while we're name calling, am I the only person to note the similarity between the name 'Rise Up' and the popular, independent advocacy group GetUp! A cynical person would think that the right wing crazies were trying to ride the coattails of an established identity by mumming their name.

Names are kind of important it would seem. We know this and that's why you can be 'Smithy' to your mates but Mr Smith to your colleagues (sorry to all the Smiddies out there but it's too easy). Names carry weight; in them we find title, prestige, respect or sometimes shame.

Shakespeare postulated that names are little more than words, what matters is who we are inside. But then again 'Romeo and Juliet' were just trying to get laid, so they would say that. Being a Montague screamed enemy to Juliet's family before anyone took a moment to meet the guy.

So we throw around labels and pretend they tell us all we need to know about a person. It's a survival instinct and frees up a lot of time for movies, books, online gaming (euphemisms are another type of label). No more taking up precious time getting to know the person, we have 'assumptions'; but the label is never the thing itself.

Think about that next time a party like 'Rise Up' use the term homosexual to denote someone not worthy of respect. Now maybe Adam Bandt doesn't deserve your respect. Perhaps you disagree with his political views, or maybe you just barrack for a different AFL team. Respect the man and not the label though. Homosexuality is not a political football to be tossed around by every right-wing bigot trying to make a name.

And while we're talking respect, it's worth questioning political name calling. Maybe MLC is more obscure than Senator but perhaps that reflects on the performance of the members. I'm suspicious of anyone who believes they might change opinions in name only.

...

This was a political article (just in case I was being too subtle before). I believe there are certain presumptions that pervade Australian (if not global) politics, and we are most definitely going to confront them throughout the coming election campaign.

It's not for me to say who's right or wrong, left or right, left or wrong. I just want to ask questions about our assumptions. I intend to do this throughout the campaign and to maintain pressure where I see politicians attempting obfuscation over truth. Stay tuned...

Trust...

The opening salvo of election 2013 has been fired.

Tony Abbott has declared the election to be about trust. In this statement he has sought to frame the whole election race; if you trust me then you will make me your prime minister he says. What he doesn't really clarify is what this elusive virtue trust is, or how we might apply it to politics.

Fool! 

(I hear you loudly declare) 

Trust is simple and you have it or you don't; that PM we currently only kinda, sorta like betrayed our trust when she kept promising things and then changing her mind.

That statement sounds so obvious that I refuse to trust it without giving it a good once over. That's the thing trust, it shouldn't be given blindly. Things are rarely what they seem (especially in politics) and if someone is shouting loudly trying to get you to look at what they're doing with their right hand, there's a good chance they're robbing you with their left.

Firstly let's consider the 'trust me, I don't lie' claim. Every election, large or small, parties (frequently two) claim and counter claim against their policy platforms. They announce plans and schemes for what they will do when they obtain office. The thing is only one party will get into office and that means only one party will be judged on whether they come good on their plans. This makes it simple for the other party to say trust me; they haven't yet been tested. If elections were decided on trust and this was the standard we used it is likely we would swap governments every election. Trust has to be more than simply tallying the plans not enacted because the incumbent will never win.

But ol' Tony may still have a point, Julia did use words like promise and pledge when she was talking about the carbon tax and the budget surplus. Were they promises she could reasonably make? Did she jump, or was she pushed? In both these situations, circumstances outside the party lead to them abandoning their earlier statements (read: breaking their promise). The Greens compelled a scheme that put a price on carbon as part of forming a minority government and global finances, particularly a downturn in China forced a recount of the pennies in the piggybank.

Don't even get me started on whether these 'broken promises' were a good thing. A mechanism for forcing polluters to pay for pollution - tick! A reevaluation supported by the majority of economists - tick! Do we really want politicians of any colour or flavour that are unable to respond to changing circumstances?

So the second point to consider is whether election platforms are the sort of promises that are brought down from the mountain in stone or whether they might be something else. At present the coalition are fairly thin on the ground when it comes to presenting policies. Tony Abbott's reputation as 'Dr No' stemmed largely from his lambasting government policy without offering alternatives. Such a position, viewed in the light of the argument above, seems shrewd. No promises, platforms, positions then there's no chance of being accused of lying if you have to change track. The coalition is waiting for the best time to announce a platform they know they can back. Now we already know the world isn't always kind like that, so let's hope nothing comes up to surprise them.

Even the Greens, ever the hardline, firm statement types have announced a new policy platform filled with 'aims and principles'. Sounds like they know what they want to do, but are smart enough to give themselves a little wriggle room just in case reality gets in the way. 

Sounds like Tony Abbott's trust platform isn't quite what it seems. I don't want a politician so set on a particular agenda that they ignore the rest of the world. Our democracy only allows us to personally effect change once every three or so years. In between I want to be able to trust our politicians to think about the issues and move with new circumstances.

Political mistrust seems more the domain of back-room dealings and corrupt politicians. We've seen plenty of that across the board over the last few years, with both parties splitting at the seams on more than one occasion. As far as trust goes though, I'd rather see this election run on policies...