When the rich are hurting, the poor suffers their losses too

When Aitken stated in 'From Heroes to zeros' (The Goodweekend magazine, November 29, 2008) that 'the last thing we want now is for entrepreneurial Australian's to lose their mojo' I nodded in agreeance. Whilst the broader public certainly won't cry for the down and out investment banker, we must remember that when the rich are hurting, the displaced minorities within our community will suffer their losses too. Entrepreneur's quite often become philanthropists, which fuels not for profit organisations that act as a crux of support for many. Whilst I agree with Rudd that risk takers have been rewarded illproportionately, we must not forget the important positive role that entrepreneur's play in our society. Whilst our economy flounders, we must ensure our support for ingenuity does not, especially at a time when 'out of the box' problem solving skills are needed the most.

Rudd's reforming government

My recent blog “‘Soft on terror? More like soft on democracy…” raised some interesting questions for me to consider in answer to Justin’s critical questions about the capacity of international law courts to monitor the world’s international concerns.

Justin was right in pointing out that there is currently a lack of an appropriate mechanism to facilitate such international discussions and he asked me to further explain my optimistic view in relation to the capacity of nations to engage in international dialogue to tackle international issues.

I’ve just finished reading Robert Manne’s essay in the Monthly title ‘What is Rudd’s Agenda?’. Manne states “since Gough Whitlam, no prime minister has arrived in office with a greater interest in foreign affairs than Kevin Rudd.” This has excited many a Y-Gen, a generation longing for change and upheaval. A generation of well-travelled tweens and adults, that have seen (from their very own privileged eyes) worlds different from their own, linguistically and culturally, and I feel that with the election of Obama, and Rudd’s commitment for Australia to become a key player in the international arena, we may just have a world leadership that could change the direction of international law as we know it.

Manne states that the Rudd government’s policy is three-fold; close relations with the United States, strong support for the United Nations and active engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. Under the Bush administration Howard was pushed into choosing between the US and the UN. With Obama’s commitment to end America’s involvement in the ‘war on terror’ the Rudd government won’t have to choose between the US and the UN, but will in fact be better placed to work alongside both towards common international goals.

Rudd’s commitment to increasing Australia’s involvement in the Asia-Pacific region will also go towards enhancing communication lines with some of the world’s biggest international players, such as China and Korea, two countries instrumental in bringing about change in the areas of disarmament and climate change. Manne writes that relations in the region are of particular importance because of the growing instability due to an accelerating arms race and because of new disputes over resources in a region of ‘steeply rising population and accelerating climate change’. It seems more critical than ever that our government is well placed to deal with these potential threats and tensions. I feel that Rudd’s ability to play the role of negotiator and mediator in the international arena will ensure stability for the Asia-Pacific region and will advantageously assist Australia’s strategic political position internationally.

When Rudd addressed the UN General Assembly he reiterated his commitment to his belief in the international arena. Rudd has put Australia right in the middle of the current international negotiations over the financial markets’ meltdown. He has specified that, for the first time, Australia will be a part of combating extreme international poverty, and he has consistently said that the biggest challenge for the next generation will be battling climate change (of which Obama this week supported).

Justin also asked me: Do you believe that domestic Courts should be given the power to determine whether an issue is connected to a matter of 'International Concern'? Or, do you believe that nations should act multilaterally to address these issues? To me, deciphering between domestic and international issues is becoming increasingly hard in the global community. It seems that all our issues are, or should be, of global concern. Terrorism transcends physical, political and moral boundaries. Climate change has shown the world how trouble in one region can be caused by the actions of a community on the other side of the world. And the ramifications of the failure of a country’s economic policies have proven to be globally devastating.

Perhaps education can be seen to be a domestic issue, but if Australia’s education system fails to meet international standards our children’s prospects and ability to move within the international job sector will suffer. Rudd appears to understand this. He has openly rejected the view that ‘society has no obligation to others unknown to us’ but instead stands by his traditional Christian values ‘that in giving you receive’.

So I have hope that Rudd’s values, and his commitment to further Australia’s international influence, will lead to great political change. To me, change is on its way. For instance, the US and Australia have the worst standards of maternity leave than any other country in the OECD. The Rudd government is changing this and policy reform will be seen within months.

Australia also has a horrible history of racial discrimination and an inability to go beyond ‘tolerance’ in the face of multiculturalism. The Rudd government is changing this. The Rudd government has said ‘sorry’ to the Indigenous people of our land, and has quietly dismantled Howard’s asylum-seeker policy. No more will people be detained inhumanely, an independent authority will monitor the short detainment of adults, and temporary-protection visas will no longer be issued.

As Manne states, the Rudd government is a ‘reforming government’. The major challenge for the Rudd government though is going to be the ability to bring about change in this economic climate, quickly enough to dim out the naysayers. Many have criticised Rudd of all speak and no action, and of using symbolism to hide a lack of reform, but I think this is unfair and I remain committed to the idea that knowledge is power. The utilisation of think tanks and inquiries makes perfect sense to me and I believe that the strength of symbolism and political rhetoric is not to be undermined. Whilst actions certainly speak louder than words, words fuel the battle and incite hope. This is why I’m optimistic. We’re heading into exciting times.

Soft on terror? More like soft on democracy...

Howard and the Liberals once claimed that Obama was 'soft on terror'. Now the Liberals have done a back flip. Shadow Attorney-General Senator the Hon George Brandis has stated that Australia "cannot allow extraordinary measures to become ordinary". Perhaps the minority party are making a bid for votes? Regardless, it seems times are a-changing. Obama is planning on closing Guantanamo Bay, our Government will this week receive a report into the shameful handling of Dr Haneef, David Hicks has served his time and has pleaded for a stop to his control order so he can move on with his life, and as Getup reported the Opposition has joined with the Greens in a call for an independent watchdog (something they didn't do when they were in power).

This week Getup pleaded with Australians to sign its petition against our 'Anti-terrible laws': "Sedition, preventative detention, control orders, evidence obtained by torture, extraordinary rendition - as the world moves on from the Bush-Howard era of draconian anti-terror laws, Australia can't be left behind."

The Howard Government created 44 new laws that directly dealt with counter-terrorism post September 11. Our existing criminal law, which covers criminal activity such as murder, violence and the destrictuion of property, was deemed insufficient by the Howard Government in dealing with terrorism. This led me to consider the use of domestic law for an international issue. If our domestic criminal law wasn't/isn't apt in dealing with the supposed 'global enemy insurgency' then why would we create new domestic laws? How would they be effective in dealing with this international problem? Well the answer is that they haven't been effective and won't be. International law was disregarded by Bush and Howard as an effective tool, but I don't think it should be ignored as a valid option in dealing with global issues in general. Why shouldn't the world leaders get together and create international laws, breaches of which are dealt with by the already existing international courts? Excuse me for being optimistic, but Obama's 'yes we can' speech has given me hope.

The most alarming aspect of the current counter-terrorism laws has been the expansion of the powers of ASIO. These new powers allow for the abandonment of three fundamental principles of the rule of law: they remove the right to silence, habeas corpus (the right to a fair trial) and they reverse the onus of proof (you are presumed guilty rather than innocent). They allow for forced confessions, undue police pressure and unfair convictions. Privacy rights have been impinged and the freedom of expression has also been hampered - by the way the laws proscribe the definitions of "seditious" and "radical" speech. The relatively low threat of a terrorist attack in Australia makes these laws all the more illogical and ill-proportionate.

To be safe, we have become willing to be less free, and this does nothing for the advancement of democracy and the way of life in Australia. Let's ensure we get our laws back in line with our democratic society and get on with life.

Y-Gen dealing with the economic crisis

You know you're a Y-Gen living in the current economic climate if:

1. You are devastated about your parents and or grandparents recent financial losses because
a) you were planning on asking them for another loan;
b) you were looking forward to your inheritance;
c) they've lost their super and may rely on you more;
d) all of the above.

2. You think twice before buying that second, third, fourth coffee/beer/wine - but you buy it anyway;

3. You learn a new concept called 'disposable income' and realise that you're not supposed to spend your entire weekly income;

4. You are mystified about the sudden concern of job losses (but start thinking about using the skills you were taught at uni just in case);

5. You are so glad that you got your parents to clear your credit card debt before the bubble burst;

6. You bless your cotton socks that you're single, child-less and that if you actually own any property your parents can or do cover the monthly payments.