The audacity of Obama's peace prize

I only just caught up on Saturday afternoon with the news that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm amazed, and puzzled. I'm wondering: just what peace has Obama meant to have brought that is worth the Nobel? Iraq? Still tatters. Afghanistan? War. Well?

I haven't yet decided on Obama – on whether he is progressive enough and will be the catalyst for abiding positive change in the US and globally, or be another moderately liberal US President, like Clinton, hemmed in by powerful vested interests and neutralised by the desire to hang on to power. But based on his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, which I really enjoyed listening to the audio of, I’m open to seeing what he can and will do, and I hope it will be many good and important things. As well as something big on climate change. Because we certainly need it.

It is the kind of hope that I never really had for Kevin Rudd (other than that he take Howard from power). Thus, while I feel less disaffected with Rudd (having expected less of him and the ALP and, perversely, received even less), I do feel we have more to lose if Obama falters.

But this Nobel Peace Prize is another matter. My partner reckons it will damn him. Everything he does now will be judged against the Prize. Will we always be asking of Obama, 'Is he living up to the Peace Prize?' She has a point. Will this mean that the small but crucial steps to peace that he may (need to) put in train will be seen to count for less? We will always expect the grand gestures for peace – even if such gestures are often empty?

In an email to supporters, international human rights online campaigning site Avaaz.org is more open to Obama’s Peace Prize, and sees in it the opportunity to push him to take stronger action on pressing issues of world peace, including climate change:

Obama himself says he's "surprised, humbled" and doesn't yet deserve it -- but he's accepted the Prize as a call to action, "to confront the common challenges of the 21st century" together. On too many pressing issues, the US President seems boxed-in by stubborn interests and has not yet taken courageous action. He deserves to hear our congratulations -- and our message to be bolder.
…
In his Cairo speech this June, Obama spoke of “the world we seek” -- one where “extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own” and nuclear energy does not trigger conflict -- a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all are respected.

Obama’s words have offered a vision of profound change: all this can perhaps not be achieved overnight. But his push for Middle East peace has not yet been strong enough to overcome the resistance of hardliners in the region. Meanwhile, hawks and conservatives in the US are pressing him to commit 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, instead of changing course to focus more on peace, development and diplomacy.

There is a real risk today that the hope of change will be lost. Leaders are judged finally by their actions, not their words. Only by following through with courageous, transformative action for peace can Obama fulfil his promise -- and only then will history judge that this Nobel Peace Prize is truly deserved.

Avaaz.org see nuclear disarmament, climate change, and peace in the Middle East and Afghanistan as needing Obama's focus and action in the coming months. They are calling on people globally to support Obama and prompt him to stronger action through an online petition:

Only by following through with courageous, transformative action for peace can Obama fulfill his promise -- and history judge that this prize is deserved.

Let's define this moment as a challenge to be bold -- let’s send Obama a million messages of encouragement and urgency, pressing him to turn hope into real and lasting change!

What do you think? Is this Nobel prize audacious? Will our hopes be dashed?

[Image: cliff1066™'s photo of Shepard Fairey’s Portrait of Barack Obama, used
under creative commons license]

Read more!

How dumb can the Liberals get?

Let me get this right – the federal Liberal Opposition's spokesperson for Women's Affairs, Sophie Mirabella, employs a male staff member who after three days on the job sexually harasses a number of women at a public event. (Allegedly, but what else do you call trying to or asking to fondle/touch their breasts?)

At last night's Mid Winter Ball hosted by the Parliamentary Press Gallery, no less?

What?

Tony Scrinis is his name. He was the shadow spokesperson's media adviser! I saw 'was' as he has 'resigned' today. You can't spin your way out of this one, mate. Talk about career suicide. Does this guy have any clue about this work, or was this just a job for one of the boys?

Importantly, does the Liberal's Sophie Mirabella have any clue about hiring the right people? I mean, this is Women's Affairs, for crying out loud!

How stupid can these people get?

Read more!

The one about the budget

Instead of twittering away my thoughts and ideas and never get around to committing them to this blog, I'm taking a leaf out of the Blogging Amnesty inspired by Crazybrave and others and getting down my ideas, however short, about the federal Labor government's budget. And I'm going to pinch outrageously from others' thinking to do so. That's the original beauty of blogging, isn't it?

According to The Australia Institute's early budget analysis sent to subscribers of its email newsletter, the budget is 'all sizzle, no sausage'. They pretty much capture my thinking about it where they distill the the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the second Labor budget:

The good: Paid parental leave
The bad: More money for the fossil fuel industry than for the renewable industry
The ugly: Those who missed out—sole parents, the unemployed

I support the paid parental leave, but I want it rolled out sooner.

On the ugly side of the ledger, I'd add that there's no really significant spending to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage. I'm increasingly concerned that 'Close the Gap' is going from being a powerful rallying point for social-justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to being a feature of the Rudd spin-cycle that masks Labor's lack of significant action in addressing Indigenous disadvantage.

In a subscriber only article for Crikey.com (so I can't link to it yet), Jon Altman of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research says:

“This Budget is about maintaining the status quo with the hope that economic recovery will see Indigenous re-engagement with the mainstream. This is a limited vision that might in itself not accord with the aspirations of Indigenous Australians. If the goal is to close the gaps, this approach just will not be enough.”

The other sorry-ass problem with the Rudd/Swan budget is that it fails to invest enough in renewable energy and climate change initiatives – but favours carbon industries and initiatives instead.

As The Australia Institute says:

The new solar flagship program is a scheme designed to establish as many as four solar energy projects generating electricity for the national grid with capacity up to 1,000 megawatts. The budget papers admit that that is merely the equivalent of one coal-fired power station. This project should not be sold as anything other than a modest initiative.

I think that Crikey.com's John Hepburn (the whole article is worth reading) says it a lot harder – and more accurately:

Of course, the decision to give another $2billion to support the coal industry is just a political sop to an industry that has the Government over the barrel.

Is this corporate welfare to the coal industry really worth the giant deficit the government is trying to convince us is needed to secure jobs? Surely we need more green jobs, rather than carbon jobs. What worries me is whether the government is going to have us over the barrel soon.

Read more!

Help Save Reconciliation Victoria!

I just want to quickly share the news of this very important campaign. I got this call to action via email from ANTaR Victoria, and because I believe that the work of organisations such as Reconciliation Victoria is so important, I want to urge you all to help by taking whatever action you can:

Reconciliation Victoria (Rec Vic) is currently facing the possibility of forced closure, having received no future funding commitment from the Victorian Government for the coming financial year.

ANTaR Victoria is supporting Rec Vic in its cause, calling on the Brumby government to provide ongoing and increased funding, as a key aspect of its closing the gap strategy. In addition to this, ANTaR and RecVic are asking for your help to put pressure on the government, as it is only through organisations such as RecVic that the hard work of changing community attitudes can happen to make Victoria a culturally safe place for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Learn more about how you can help save Reconciliation Victoria.

I'm taking a quick break from a terribly busy time at work, so apologies for a lack of details. When things settle down, I'll provide an update on the campaign and share why I think such organisations should be supported.

Read more!

Hanging by a thread

We began this week with the news that the Wilkins Ice Shelf was at astonishing risk of breaking off the Antarctic continent. The European Space Agency has been tracking the progress of the disintegration of the land bridge that connects the Wilkins Ice Shelf to the rest of the continent. Its splintering increases the possibility of the ice shelf shattering into a thousands icebergs, blocks and shards of ice in the southern ocean.

It is more evidence that humans are heating the planet at faster rates than scientists had predicted, with increased risk that ocean levels with also rise faster than projected. When – not if – the plug of the Wilkins Ice Shelf finally breaks away, the continental ice it was holding back with crash into the ocean much faster, and flood more fresh water into the ocean – water that has been locked into the ice for probably centuries.

Ironically, the other iceberg of human ingenuity – the global financial crisis – is drawing from us a response that is directly inverse to the one required to deal with the increasingly urgent threat of global warming. Instead of curtailing our unrestrained, debt-fueled consumption of stuff and the resources required to make, cart around, sell and operate this stuff – especially fossil fuels – the most compelling thing our governments are asking us to do is spend – spend our way out of the economic crisis that, it strikes me, greed and over-spending got us into in the first place.

We are expected to trust our governments as they urge us to spend, spend, spend at a time when we need to tighten our belts and learn to sew on buttons, patch holes, and reuse, reduce and recycle to conserve fossil fuels and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. After all, who needs another of what Laura Carroll last Saturday so insightfully called in her essay 'Inconspicuous Consumption' in The Age's A2 supplement a piece of "billion-year-old carbon frozen in the humiliating form of a large, green Incredible Hulk doll".

I'm currently reading a collection of Kurt Vonnegut's non-fiction writings, A Man Without a Country, which includes various recent addresses and speeches on the war in Iraq and climate change. In a piece on fossil fuels and climate change, Vonnegut tells us:

We are all addicts to fossil fuels in a state of denial. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we're hooked on.

And all for the sake of keeping the gunky wheels and cogs of the economy rolling and chugging along. I sincerely do appreciate that Rudd's stimulus packages are to inject more consumption cash into the market to keep businesses going and keep peoples' jobs.

But when the ice of Antarctica is about to go crashing into the ocean at unprecedented rates, I really wonder if we are being so short-sighted and have lost sight of what's truly at stake – and consequently are not thinking deeply and creatively enough about what we need to do. If anything, we don't need to slow down or speed up the nasty treadmill of the neo-liberal economy. We need to get rid of it and build something else. And preferably something that works.

[Image is from the European Space Agency (ESA) website]

Read more!

Creativity, colour and noise put global warming on Melbourne's agenda

I've had a chance to upload my photos from Saturday's Walk Against Warming to flickr, so I can tell the story of that successful rally through pictures. There are more photos at that link to my flickr site.

The anti-nuclear power message was strong at Walk Against Warming in Melbourne.

But bicycle power was a very strong favourite instead.

As was turtle power.

People's creativity was shining through in the many banners, placcars and protest props people brought to make their message clear. As was the cooperation and community involvement evident in some of the larger and more elaborate ones.


The Walk Against Warming in Melbourne finished up at the steps of Victoria's Parliament on Spring St, to pressure the Brumby government to take strong action on climate change. At issue was its foot-dragging over 'Feed In' tariffs to pay those who feed solar-powered electricity into the grid.


This placard caught my attention at the steps of Parliament where the Walk Against Warming ended.


See also the reverse of that placard.

The samba percussion band and dancer were a huge hit at Melbourne's Walk Against Warming. Their loud, cheery dance rhythms and the colourful dancer really lifted the mood of the march, and got people cheering, clapping and dancing up the street.

Wasn't it Rosa Luxembourg who said 'If I can't dance in the your revolution, then I don't want any part of it?'*

I do believe that the big crowd, the creativity and the spirit of those marching on Saturday are strong signs that people believe that climate change is still a major issue that requires strong, urgent and concerted action from government – all governments: local, state and national, and international – and from the community.

To an extent, I do think that the upcoming local government elections will be a test of the extent to which the community will hold their government representatives accountable for the pace of action and policy work on this issue.

And it has the potential for being a litmus test for how Victorians perceive the Brumby government is acting on this and other enviromental issues – including logging old growth forests and the threat that extending clearways holds for local neighbourhood strip shopping and communities.

Let's keep an eye on this one, eh?

I have to say, though, this is still one of my favourite placards at the march, and it was a favourite of many others too.

*Yes, yes, it is probably one of those myths of the activist left that this saying is attributed to her, but hey, I love the sentiments…

Read more!

Lemmings or wildebeest?

In case you need further proof that stock market traders and other capitalist flunkies are a bunch of lemmings collectively hurling themselves off the cliff – taking our superannuation savings with them – in a fit of irrational fear, then heed the words of these scientists.

Paul Zak of the Centre for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University in California says, "There is this sort of herd mentality over-reaction".

"I am not a financial genius. I do know that when you see millions of people in the market essentially freaking out, that spills over into your brain and you get this impulse to do what everyone else is doing," he said.

I just wonder if these traders and investors are wildebeest stampeding to escape predators or base-jumping lemmings. If they are just wildebeest, they'll stampeded until they tire themselves out and look around sheepishly when the dust settles. The irony is they are terrified of the results of their own handiwork.

Read more!

Message to Garnaut: we want to stop global warming

We are at another of those turning points in the effort to reverse, halt or even moderate global warming, with Professor Ross Garnaut about to finalise his report on how the Rudd government should tackle climate change. This report is crucial as it will be the basis on which the government formulates its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions and position Australia in the world effort to halt global warming.

Going on Garnaut's draft report, those advocating stronger action have criticised Garnaut's proposed greenhouse gas emission targets as too little and too slow in effectively slowing CO2 build-up, and slowing global warming and the knock-on effects in dangerous climate change.

According to global warming campaigners, including Clive Hamilton, Get Up Australia and Avaaz.org (amongst others), Ross Garnaut must strengthen the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in his plan in order to more effectively reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. The crux of the matter is that Garnaut doesn't believe that Australians are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices – including paying higher prices for energy and slowing in economy growth – in order to effectively cut our greenhouse gas emissions.

As Avaaz.org outlines it:

Solving the climate crisis will only happen if we can muster the political will for change, but Australia's leading climate change advisor Professor Garnaut, who is delivering his long awaited report to the Prime Minister at the end of the month, doesn't think Australia or the world has the mettle to face the crisis.

Avaaz.org wants as many Australians as possible to sign their online petition calling for stronger targets to be delivered to Ross Garnaut this Monday – hopefully in time to influence him as he prepares the final version of his plan to the government. Help them to get 20,000 signatures!

Clive Hamilton's concerns with Garnaut's plan hinge on the issue that while Garnaut recognises that climate scientists agree that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be reduced to 450 million parts per million in order to avert dangerous global warming, his plan advocates a lower target:

…Garnaut has decided that keeping warming at 2°C is too hard, at least for the next decade or more, so instead he says we should aim to stabilise at 550 ppm. Climate scientists believe that allowing the atmosphere to reach 550 ppm will dramatically increase the likelihood of catastrophes and runaway climate change, such as an irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet resulting in sea-level rise of seven - yes, seven - meters.

There have been a lot of information sheets, briefings and explanations explaining Ross Garnaut's draft report floating around, but for the time-pressed who can't digest these, I highly recommend Get Up's excellent video clearly explaining the report's recommendations, Get Up's reactions to them and suggestion of what really needs to be done (see the still from the video below).

Meanwhile, we have a small window of opportunity this time round to influence the global warming policy agenda in favour of stronger targets. We have the opportunity to show the government – and each other – that we are prepared to have the foresight to do what it takes to stop global warming. And we must show each other that we aren't alone. As Clive Hamilton says in the article I've already referred to:

Does anyone believe that Australians would be less happy if they had to wait an extra six months before they became twice as rich? The absurdity of the situation set out in the Garnaut report suggests our obsession with economic growth is so powerful that we are unwilling to contemplate sacrificing a tiny amount of consumption to sharply reduce the risk of irreversible damage to the Earth's climate.

I, for one, am prepared to join the thousands of others who are prepared to pay the price now to stop global warming, rather than making my children pay the price.

As I said at the start of this post, we are at one of those turning points in the effort to stop global warming. We can either continue to fiddle around the edges of policy and emissions targets while this continent burns – and other parts of this globe flood – or we can hold the Rudd government to its rhetoric and force its hand to pursue something more effective in stopping global warming. Something that is more befitting the futures of our children and grandchildren, rather than the profit margins of carbon polluters.

It is time to put a plug in the carbon economy, rather than continuing to pander to the carbon polluters.

[Images: 'flying over Greenland' by Doc Searls, Creative Commons licensed, found via Alex Steffen at WorldChanging.com - btw, Alex Steffen's article 'The Tyranny of Small Steps' is well worth reading – and still from Get Up's video on Garnaut]

Read more!

Shame, Fairfax, Shame!

Fairfax staff – journalists, columnists, sub-editors, and printing staff of The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, and some other small papers – are on strike this weekend in protest against the publishers' massive job cuts. And rightly so.

Now, Fairfax has sacked SMH columnist Mike Carlton because he refused to write his column for tomorrow's SMH – because he was also on strike. Shame, Fairfax! Shame!

Being an Age reader, I'm not familiar with Carlton's work, but he has brought us such wonderful pieces as this lovely demolition job on sports commentators mangling the English language. If you are not familiar with his work, you can take a look at his tongue-in-cheek, wry, dry and withering pieces online.

It is indeed a shame they sacked him, but not only for the loss of his talent. It is the act of true corporate scumbaggery to sack striking workers – and worse to hire scabs to replace them! The union is now arguing that Carlton's sacking is illegal.

This affair has boiled over pretty quickly. Fairfax announced earlier this week that 550 Fairfax staff would be sacked. Very soon on the back of that news came the shock sacking of The Age editor-in-chief Andrew Jaspan.

SMH journalist Gerard Noonan told ABC News, "the cuts will threaten the media's ability to hold politicians and the powerful to account." Yes, he is right.

Meanwhile, Fairfax is trying to go on as if there is no strike and trying to put its media content out. You may have noticed that The Age Online is still churning out stories and updates as if there is no strike by the journalists – but appearances are misleading. Most of the stories since about midday today, if not earlier, are off the newswires – AFP, AAP and others. It appears as if some online staff may be left to tidy up the newswire reports, but that is uncertain.

In fact, a news item on the tropical storm hitting the Carribean bears the disclamer: "This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units." So apparently there are not enough scabs to tidy up all the newswire items and editors are just plugging them in to their system.

Sloppy. Cheap. And nasty.

You can contact the journo's union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, to show them your support and solidarity for the strikers, remembering that a fair few of them will be relatively low-paid reporters, printers, and quite likely bloggers and online content staff...

Read more!

On how to dump a king

Strangely, the South-Asian continent comes into my view today, as the news breaks that Nepal has abolished its monarchy. After a long period of internecine fighting between the Maoist rebels and government forces, the now Maoist dominated elected assembly has democratically abolished the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy in favour of a secular parliamentary democracy. They have asked the latest, unpopular manifestation of the Hindu dynasty, King Gyanendra, to pack his bags and leave his palace within a week.

They plan to turn the palace into a museum.

And ten years ago today, Pakistan tested a nuclear device – in effect, a bomb – in an underground explosion. It's hard to believe that the two South-Asian continent nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, have nearly come to war at various times, particularly over Kashmir, and are now in a somewhat less than troubled détente.

Perhaps its is because Pakistan has been too busy chewing through its democratic opposition to try picking fights with its neighbour.

It is worth remembering that the previous Australian government wanted to sell uranium to India, despite the fact they have a nuclear weapons program and have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I wonder if the Rudd government is game to try that as well.

[Image: photo of the Royal palace in Kathmandu is by germeister (cc) ]

Read more!

Have you been paying attention to this 2020 thing?

I have been trying to pay attention to Rudd's 2020 Summit, but the flood of media coverage is hard to keep up with it. I've had to keep abreast of some – small – part of the issues for work, but even that is hard.

From what I can gauge, it appears that there are at least a couple of camps on it (probably many more). One camp seems to think it is a waste of time because it is either a spin-fest by Rudd's Labor government and lacks substance, or because it is just a talk-fest and nothing concrete will emerge from it.

Another camp thinks it is a great opportunity for people with good ideas, ranging from specialists to generalists, to openly discuss what could work best to put Australia on a good track for the next 20 years and beyond – whether that's in tackling global warming, social inequality, Indigenous disadvantage, or making machines that go ping more efficiently.

A significant number of commentators are straddled somewhere between the two responses - and I haven't made up my mind over whether this is fence sitting, or just the nature of critical thinking in an time and ethos suspicious of political spin. Or maybe because I'm somewhere in the middle on this too.

What about you?

Read more!

Should we boycott the Beijng Olympics?

I think it is time to revisit the call to boycott the Beijing Olympics.

Various groups and campaigns have called for public boycotts of the Beijing Olympics, because attending the Olympics would be seen as turning a blind eye to the Chinese Government's domestic human rights abuses, and its role in the human rights abuses of other regimes. Foremost amongst these have been those campaigning for human rights and freedom in Tibet.

Reporters Without borders has information on the campaign to boycott the Beijing Olympics.

Not long ago, I supported the boycott call as a way to highlight how the Burmese military dictatorship is supported by China – in terms of political support, international legitimacy and trade dollars – and to pressure the Chinese to drop their endorsement of the Burmese regime, thus allowing the Burmese democracy movement room to breath.

More recently came the news that Steven Spielberg, following the example of other Hollywood celebrities, had pulled out of his involvement in the Beijing Olympics because many argued that such involvement was seen as an endorsement of the Chinese government – which was unacceptable in light of the Chinese's continuing arms sales to the Sudanese government, and how those arms are used to oppress the people of Dafur, and other minorities in Southern Sudan.

Now, according to ABC Radio 774 AM this morning, Australian Senator Andrew Bartlett has called for an Australian boycott of the Beijing Olympics because of China's brutal crackdown of protesters in Tibet who are highlighting China's brutal treatment of Tibetans in their homeland.

Now, you can consider how realistic a boycott of the Olympic Games would be – considering Rudd's attitude towards China, it is not surprising that Australia has rejected the call for an official boycott of the Games. Nor can we expect enough pressure to mount in this short time for other countries to formally boycott the games. In these changed geo-politics, we won't see the tit-for-tat Cold War tactics that led to the official Moscow and Los Angeles Games boycotts.

Howevever, in light of the brutal crackdown on Tibetan rights protesters, we must not allow China to once again brush off insipid international criticism and the UN's glacial, byzantium manouverings of registering its 'concerns'.

The fact is, China will put on a multi-billion dollar pageant for the world in only a few months – in the guise of an international sporting competition – that will be a huge propaganda exercise to show a modern, stable, prosperous, peaceful – and unified – China. And we should not buy it. Literally.

In an age of consumer awareness and growing public consciousness, and the tools available to us, the possibilities of a consumer boycott of the Games are stronger. Don't go to Beijing for the Olympics, and if you, like me, can't afford to travel to China anyway to watch the Games, don't buy Olympics merchandise associated with the Beijing Olympics.

You can write lots of letters, emails and faxes to your Chinese embassy telling them this is how you feel and what you are doing, and write similar letters to your local papers, mention it on talk-back radio, and leave such comments on blogs and online forums (as long as they are relevant to the topic, of course – I wouldn't endorse off-topic comment spam!).

You can tell your friends and family – especially if you know of people who are inclined to buy the inevitable sports clothes, tracksuit pants, predictable panda bear mascot and other paraphernalia emblazoned with the Beijing Olympics branding that we know will be made cheaply in Chinese factories with poor working conditions – that you don't want any of this stuff for either yourself or your kids (if you are parents), and why you think they should join you in boycotting it.

It worked with delegitimising South Africa's Apartheid regime, and it can work with China.

Let's not let China's regime off the hook for its deplorable human rights record.

[The image is of Tibetan monks who were beaten by Chinese security forces during the recent brutal crackdown on protests, from the ABC]

Read more!

"A beautiful, beautiful day"

The moment so many, many people longed for finally arrived – Kevin Rudd, as Prime Minister of Australia, and the national parliament this morning offered a formal apology to the Stolen Generations for their removal as children from their families and communities, and the terrible hardship, pain, grief and suffering they experienced as a result.

So many people were feeling excited, but mixed with a solemn sense of remembering, in the lead-up to the apology at 9.00 am. This was particularly so amongst the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across the country, but especially the surviving members of the Stolen Generations and their families. There was a palpable buzz around Melbourne this morning as people gathered at various places to watch on big screens the apology broadcast by the ABC from parliament. I heard there was a big crowd at the Aborigines Advancement League and a huge one in Federation Square.

Of course, there was the great convergence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous supporters from across the country in Canberra, and they gathered on the lawns of Parliament House.

I watched it at work with my colleagues and a few other visitors.

From the text of the resolution that Rudd read in parliament, and his speech in favour of the resolution, it was clear that this apology was pretty much what so many people, the Stolen Generations in particular and their supporters, were hoping for. It was also very apparent from Rudd's speech that he had caught the mood and hopes of people around Australia - Stolen Generations members, others in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, other advocates for Reconciliation and people generally. It was clear that Rudd did 'get it'.

Despite the speculation in the lead-up, Rudd had made it clear that his apology would mention the word 'Sorry'. What was not clear was whether he would bow to the Liberal opposition's pressure to not use the term Stolen Generations in the apology.

Although Rudd was not overly passionate or animated in his delivery – he is clearly not the type of Labor orator that Keating or Whitlam were – he clearly showed respect to the Stolen Generations, and honoured their pain and suffering, and was sincere in his apology in terms of his words and intent. It was also clear that he was speaking to them, to the Indigenous community overall, and to the whole of the nation as well.

On the other hand, I could barely bring myself to keep listening to Opposition leader Nelson's speech. I thought it mean-spirited, terribly insensitive, and had many comments that were so out of place for this event. It was terribly narrow because it, in the main, appealed to the Liberal party faithful, rather than the people of Australia as a whole, or the Stolen Generations directly. I wasn't sure if Brendan Nelson just didn't 'get it', as some people suggested to me, or that he did get it but was capitulating his moral beliefs for his leadership and position in the party and saying what the party wanted to hear from him. I am still making up my mind which is worse. Ultimately, it was Nelson's lost opportunity, and ultimately the Liberals' lost opportunity.

All the same, if you consider how over the last 10 years of the Howard era it seemed impossible to imagine this national apology by the government - and the parliament - actually happening, Nelson's position was not surprising. It doesn't make it less distasteful.

The strength of feeling by people across the country against Nelson's mealy-mouthed speech is quite clear. But it was most clearly demonstrated to me by an event this afternoon.

I had gone down to Federation Square this afternoon with my colleagues to catch the last half-hour of the free concert – to hear Archie Roach and Ruby Hunger perform – to celebrate the apology. When I was catching the tram back to work from Federation Square, a rather distinguished looking elderly man waiting for a tram saw that I had the Aboriginal flag on my t-shirt, and started to ask me how I felt about the apology. Unsure what reception I'd get, I told him I was happy about it. He then told me how pleased he was at Rudd's speech and the apology, and how disgusted he was at Nelson's speech. He wished me well and popped on his tram. I was touched that this apology had reached out to touch so many people that I wouldn't have expected it to.

Later, when I got back to work and trawled through the internet coverage of the public reception to the apology and the speeches, and saw footage of crowds, clearly upset at Nelson's words, booing him and turning their backs to him during his speech, and there on screen I saw the same elderly man with the shock of white hair yelling 'Get him off' at Brendan Nelson!

However bad people may be feeling, and however much we may resent Nelson for stealing this day's attention from the Stolen Generations, all in all we know that this day means so much to the Stolen Generations, and Kevin Rudd helped make that possible.

As Archie Roach said to us as he wrapped up his set at Fed Square, "it's a beautiful, beautiful day!"

––––––––
Update: The full transcript of Rudd's speech is available for download (PDF) from the Parliament website. However, if that link stops working (for instance if the Parliament House website people move it off the front page and the link breaks), you can download it (PDF) here instead. You can also hear/download (MP3) the audio of Rudd's speech off the ABC website.

I've added the image above to capture how I feel about the moment. It's off The Age website, photo by Glen Mccurtayne.

[Updated 10:47 am Thursday 14 February 2008]

Read more!

Put the pressure on Rudd at the Bali global warming negotiations

There's been growing concern at Kevin Rudd's softly-softly approach to the proposed targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to be discussed at the Bali negotiations to frame the next international agreement on cutting emissions. I think that this is where Rudd's avowed economic conservatism will collide with the expectations of the Australian voters who elected Labor into government on the hope – and promise – that Labor will do far more, and urgently and effectively, than Howard's government to stop Australia's slide into climate change oblivion.

Many developed countries are supporting the proposed cuts (to be made by developed countries) of 25 to 40 percent below 1991 levels of greenhouse emissions by 2020 being discussed at Bali. Some scientists and environmentalists are saying this doesn't go far enough, so it would be a huge concern if this gets watered down further.

Meanwhile, Rudd claims his new government needs to do more research and modeling to see how the proposed cuts will affect Australia - economically. (Interestingly, I haven't heard talk from Rudd's people about how the cuts could help Australia's experience of global warming!) I reckon Rudd is effectively trying to buy some time so that he and his team can figure out their bargaining position at Bali. It may come down to a question of how much developed countries should cut their emissions compared to developing countries.

It is troubling move, or lack of movement I should say. Especially as the United States is now pushing to derail any attempt to mention any figure of emissions cuts in the Bali declaration – they are still playing the 'uncertain science' card! Any push to soften target from Australia could strengthen the USA's hand at Bali.

We need to keep up pressure on Rudd to commit to binding emissions targets that will be effective in slowing the rate of warming – to avoid the 2˚C rise in temperature that scientist say will lead to dangerous climate change.

You can do this by supporting the Get Up Australia petition calling on the Rudd government to take a stronger position on cutting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and to support the cuts proposed at Bali.

For a more international tact, you can also support the petition jointly organised between Al Gore and Get Up Australia (amongst other campaign groups) to lobby for strong action at Bali.

I'll try to keep up with the movements at Bali and the campaigns, but it has been so busy, especially at work and with the lead up to Christmas at home, that I'm getting little time to blog.

Update:
The 25 – 40 per cent cuts by 2020 are medium-term targets they are arguing over, and the growing consensus is that strong medium-term targets are what is needed to make an impact on emissions and slow the rising temperatures. Now the United Nations is also putting the pressure on Rudd to declare his support for medium-term targets at Bali:

The United Nations says Australia must officially declare its position on short-term emissions targets when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd arrives at the climate talks in Bali today.

UN climate negotiator Yvo de Boer says developed countries must commit to a global emissions reduction by 2020 if a new Kyoto deal is to make progress.

"Every week that you don't make clear where you intend to go is a another huge capital investment in a potentially wrong direction," he said.

[Updated 10.00 am 11 November]

Read more!

Small joys in life

Coalition crumbles, leaderless and lamenting

It is this title of Michelle Grattan's article in today's Age that sums up why I'm feeling so pleased today, despite suffering a cold that won't let go its giant-squid tentacle grip on me, really bad hay-fever over the weekend away, and various other physical vestiges from the wedding.

And being able to read blogs, and write, again.

Makes up for the knife-edge wait to see if Victoria gets its first Greens senator, and whether the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate.

Read more!

Thanks, Bennelong!

As I'd previously said, we were away for a wedding on the weekend (Congratulations Andrea and Liam!), and so I wasn't able to blog the election results as they became evident. That has not stopped me from being incredibly pleased with the result!

I did a naughty thing at the wedding celebration, held in the garden of A & L's new home: I brought a little portable radio along, and from about 5.30 pm on, after the polling booths had closed in the Eastern states (with daylight savings!), I would occasionally duck off to a quiet spot and check ABC Radio 774 AM to see what the news was.

It was not so much excruciating, as a test in patience. As the evening progressed, I would dampen my enthusiasm by reminding myself that exit polls "have a checkered history" as the ABC reported, that with only 20-odd per cent of the vote counted it was too early to see a swing, that the WA polling booths were still open, that while Howard could possibly lose his seat, the count could change when they started counting from booths from more conservative suburbs etc etc.

It was only after over 50% of the vote had been counted did I dare believe that Labor had truly won the election. And even then, it I felt a bit numb.

But I couldn't dare believe that Howard lost Bennelong - even after one of the wedding guests returned in the evening to announce that news, to everyone's joy, I went to double-check with the ABC on radio, and they wouldn't call it, as it was so very close!

Three days later, they still won't call it. However close the result, I am very thankful to the people of Bennelong (well, 51.7% of them), who voted against John Howard in favour of Labor's Maxine McKew. If Howard really loses Bennelong, this will be only the second time in Australia's history that a serving Prime Minister has lost his seat in an election!

I'm disappointed that by the time we left the party, got back to our rented cottage, got the sleeping kids out of the car and into bed, and turned the TV on, I had missed Howard's concession speech (saw the tail end of him making his exit through the crowd). At least I caught Rudd's 'victory' speech – probably the only upside to Queensland not having daylight savings. But I agree with Barista - it was a rather pedestrian speech. Nothing to write home about, really. And Barista's right about the fact that election night belonged to the Labor women.

What made up for it all is that we came home on Sunday afternoon to the front page of the Sunday Age with this headline:

Rudd romps to historic win as Howard is humiliated

I think I'll frame that.

Read more!

Election 102 – or 'Don't hold your breath'

Okay. It's two days to go and I've laid my cards on the table and shown how I want a change in government – mainly because I believe we need a change in the country.

But don't get me wrong. I am under no illusions over what an ALP government can or will achieve in these issues. For all Kevin Rudd's talk of 'New Leadership', the ALP still supports mandatory detention of undocumented asylum seekers, and sees itself as a party that can wage war against terrorists, whether in Afghanistan or Southeast Asia, rather than make peace with the poor. Kevin Rudd supported the government's NT Intervention in Aboriginal communities, and their treatment of Dr Haneef, and while Rudd's policy on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is far better than Howard's, it falls short of what is urgently required now.

I am also under no illusions because I remember how much I hated the Keating ALP government when it was in power. Admittedly, I was younger, more radical in my politics, and heavily involved in the education campaigns of the day – against Keating's HECS increases, moves to replace Austudy with a loan scheme, and the bottom-line driven underfunding of universities. I also opposed the Keating ALP government's collaboration with the Suharto regime over Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, the ALP's support for the PNG government's war in Bourganville, and Hawke's support for the first Gulf War.

It is amazing what my memory can dredge up when I bring my mind to it.

I vividly remember how much my friends – especially fellow activists – and I hated the way the 'lawyer-dominated', right-wing of the ALP so profoundly controlled the party and federal government, and how we detested the economic-rationalist zealotry of the '80s-'90s that changed this country in a mean-spirited, money-grubbing, bean-counting way. Does that sound familiar to you? Deregulation and free trade meant thousands of manufacturing workers losing their jobs, and why you can barely find a wool jumper made in Australia in the shops these days. Or anything else made in Australia that isn't designer-, boutique-, or hand-made, for that matter. We also saw the deregulated finance sector squeezing low-income people where it hurt – with account keeping fees and increasing transaction fees.

It was 'economic rationalism' in the early 90s. How different will it be from Rudd's 'economic conservatism' of today?

We witnessed (with mockery, mind you) how lefty and union ALP members and supporters shook their head in disbelief and waited for the day when the their beloved party would forsake its right-wing capitalist turn and return to its roots. Hah. Do you see that happening under Rudd's economic conservativism?

Why am I saying any of this is now? After all, there is an almost palpable fear amongst those who want to see Howard defeated that if we were to speak the truth about what we fear of Rudd's ALP, that the spell will break and Howard will not be defeated. There is a belief that Rudd is only saying what he needs to to get into power – hence his 'Me Too'-ism – and then everything will change and come out all right after the election. And there will be a return to the ALP long hoped for by the True Believers. And milk and honey will flow down the Yarra.

You could say that the nation waits with baited breath, for the massive change to come under Rudd. But I don't. We will probably let out a collective sigh of relief. But then the hard work of rebuilding will come. And, for all his talk of education and infrastructure revolutions, I think Rudd is an incrementalist, rather than a revolutionary.

That is why I've come to the opinion that who holds the balance of power in the Senate will be more crucial that we think. Whoever does so will have the power to push through stronger responses to climate change than the government is prepared for, to temper cost cutting so that it doesn't hurt the disadvantaged, to to insist on more far-reaching changes to the industrial relations regime, and to ensure we don't turn to nuclear power at the expense of renewable energies. And of course on the range of other matters I raised when I expressed why and how I believe this country needs to change.

When I've raised this with friends and colleagues, I'm greeted with 'The House of Reps is what matters', or 'Oh, no, it's not a shoe-in, the ALP is not guaranteed government,' and 'Now's not the time to be voting Greens!'.

But I think many people do get it - perhaps far more deeply than I do, and more realistically. It would explain, for one, the financial and moral support some trade unions are offering the Greens for this election.

I admit that a return to power for the Howard government, or a Costello government if Howard loses his seat or retires, will be devastating for Australia – and the world, if Australia fails to support the development of a credible, viable international agreement to stop global warming.

And, while I'm not convinced that a Rudd government will bring us the groundswell of social, political and economic change and renewal that this country needs, I do believe that a growing majority of people sincerely do want that change – that they're not just toying with a change of government because they're bored with Howard. This is something that the media commentators have not given voters credit for.

But it is a question of when people will start being disheartened with a Rudd labor government not fulfilling the hopes of people (rather than the promises they've made, which are pretty slim so far…) for the change we seek.

And then we will see the first disagreements with the new government – over how far they're prepared to dismantle WorkChoices, how far they are prepared to cut greenhouse gas emissions, how soon they will bring the troops home from Iraq, and whether they will support more asylum seekers to settle (without trauma) in Australia. And that's also when we see the Senate, and those who will hold the balance of power, come into play.

I'm not sure which will be the first major, defining fight that will end the (hypothetically future) Rudd honeymoon – the split between the unions and (hypothetically future) Rudd government over Workchoices, or the split with the green movement over greenhouse gas emissions and the Bali negotiations. But it will come.

And then hopefully, we'll more and more come to realise that we – each of us, individually and together – will have to make the change we want, and not just proxy it to our government.

Read more!

Election 101 - or why we need a change

Regular readers would have no doubt about how I feel about John Howard and the Coalition government. You would think though that with this election bearing down on us, I would have written a lot more about it than I have. Perhaps it's just exhaustion – by the time the 'real' election campaign took over from the 'fake' campaigning, I was pretty much sick of it all.

That hasn't stopped me from following what I can in the news, especially ABC radio most mornings, some online reporting and the weekend papers. In all I've been digesting what this election means to me. Not deliberating who should win government – I know full well who I don't want to form government. But more reflecting on what this election means for me, my family, and the kind of community and country I want to raise my sons in. What has spurred me to now write on the election so late in the piece is actually what John Howard has been saying of late.

In trying to scare people over the dangers of changing the government when, as he believes, his government has been running the country well all this time, Howard has been warning us that changing the government will change the country – as if that were such a terrible thing!

I do what this country to change! In a fundamental, profound way.

I believe that the decade of Howard government has changed this country, and as I struggled to express how and why I think so, I find that Pavlov's Cat has already done a fine job of expressing it:

But we've now had eleven straight years of a government that has stayed in power by shamelessly playing to our weaknesses and our worse natures: self-interest, literal-mindedness, mean-spiritedness, fear and greed. And after eleven years of fear and greed being indulged, reinforced and rewarded by policies (and their accompanying rhetoric) in, especially, economics and immigration, you have to worry about what it's done to us as a people: positive reinforcement is a powerful thing, for better or worse. We all take it for granted that it is we who create the government, but that relation is actually a complex two-way street, involving the re-calibration of personal assumptions and the re-setting of social norms.

I believe that Australia is at a tipping point – after over a decade of 'head-in-the-sand' denial and inaction overy global warming by Howard, we cannot afford for Australia's government to drag its feet on real action on global warming. The next three years – not decade as I've previously thought – is when we must make the necessary changes to our economic, consumption, and social practices to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

We must stop the Howard government from prevaricating over our need to wheen ourselves from carbon-dependency and hamstringing renewable energy in order to shore up their mates in the coal and fossil fuel industry. We must also stop global warming being the excuse to unleash the nuclear power genie.

After a decade of the Howard government, Indigenous life expectancy is 17 years lower than the rest of Australia. Life expectancy (and other well-being markers) amongst indigenous peoples in Canada, USA and New Zealand has improved – why not Australia? This government has derailed Reconciliation and Indigenous self-determination, and allowed this situation to worsen.

On top of that, it has undermined the Racial Discrimination Act and the Northern Territory Land Rights Act to pursue its pig-headed, machismo Northern Territory Intervention – which is simply another attack on Aboriginal self-determination, something it has been chipping away at since it came to power.

When the news that the Navy had rescued some people from a leaky boat of the Western Australian coast, I was concerned for a moment that we would witness another Tampa – that the government would finally have its dog-whistling moment to finally wedge the Rudd Labor Opposition and win back voters through a fear of the Asian invasion, the Muslim menace or terrible terrorist. Thankfully, that hasn't quite happened.

For all the talk of economic conservatives, interest rates and budget surpluses, I still believe that this election will be an accounting of how the Howard government has treated asylum seekers, especially their mandatory detention in god-forsaken desert concentration camps, curtailed our rights and freedoms in the name of the war on terrorism, and marginalised the Muslim, African and Asian communities. And let's not forget the fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction and the war in Iraq.

Despite the Howard government's much lauded economic credentials and the celebrated economic 'prosperity', Australia has become more unequal in significant ways. More young people, low income earners and first home buyers are locked out of home ownership. Australians owe far more today on credit cards and personal debt, which suggests to me that people are struggling financially. Despite lower than historical interest rates, households are paying more of their incomes in interest weekly repayments. And this on top of the increased insecurity, disadvantage, inequality and tension in workplaces since WorkChoices came in! Let's make economy work for us, not the other way around!

This election not just about making government accountable and answerable to the people of Australia. It is not just about who can reign-in the increasing cost of living, or who can help making housing more affordable for those of us locked out of buying our own homes one – although these are really important to many of us right now.

It is about ensuring there we tackle the urgent crisis of globbal warming, that our future is not of a parched, burned land with dwindling biodiversity, and neighbouring nations who have the seas lashing at their doorsteps.

This election is about the change we need. It is about the kind of future we want for our children.

[Image is one of mine (cc) used earlier this year]

Read more!

Global warming – the next three years will determine our future

The news broke over the weekend that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s new report says that climate change is "unequivocal", and may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impact. The report is a synthesis of the three previous reports by the panel, the winner, with Al Gore, of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

I have to admit that today's sweltering temperature in Melbourne – the first of many hot days expected this season – and the news of the devastation Cyclone Sidr brought to Bangladesh, have helped focus my mind on the IPCC's report.

The IPCC is trying to alert us to the fact that the changes caused by global warming are worse, and occuring sooner, than originally estimated. According to BBC Online, the IPCC projections include:

• Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C
• Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C
• Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm
• Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century
• Increase in heat waves very likely
• Increase in tropical storm intensity likely

According to Time magazine, the IPCC reports,

that the world would have to reverse the rapid growth of greenhouse gases by 2015 to avert the worst consequences. The clock was running. "What we will do in the next two, three years will determine our future," said Pachauri [the IPCC's chairman]. "This is the defining challenge."

The challenge is for all of us, not just for our political leaders (in or out of the Bali discussions), as the press would have us believe. Election or not, we cannot afford the parties to manipulate and politic the issue of global warming into justifications for inaction. Or poor action.

Read more!

Australia is now a world leader in unaffordable housing

And you can bet that this is something that has bothered the hell out of me and my family.

There has been extensive coverage of rocketing prices in Melbourne and Australia, and it appears there is something to complain about. Prices in Melbourne have more than doubled in a decade. And interest rates in Australia are now the sixth-highest in the OECD. They are higher than in Britain, US and most of the EU.
…
Australians paid 6.6 times the median household income for a median-priced home.

Yes, those who have already bought their houses and have high mortgages are feeling the pain from the recent interest rate rises, including last weeks'. But for those of us who feel locked out of being able to buy our own homes, the news of Australia's, especially Melbourne's, increasing infamy for poor housing affordability just adds to our continuing demoralisation. And further pain.

The Age has the story here.

Read more!