I came, I saw, I promised

  

Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly and the statue Ethos (Tom Bass, 1961) Photo taken by Adz, 11 August 2005

If elections bore you, you can change that. An election is one of the few times we get to interact with our democracy and are allowed to have a say in it. Elections should encourage us, but they don’t. 

Why? Because we get the same thing every time from the major parties. Promises, promises, promises that mean nothing; unless you are gullible enough to fall for them. 

The title of this article does not carry the same weight as Veni, Vidi, Vici. This is the Latin phrase attributed to Julius Caesar that boastfully states, I Came, I Saw, I Conquered. Imagine that today, a politician saying what they meant and did. With most politics today, there’s no weight to it, just promises. 

So, what’s a voter to do? If you are unhappy with politics as usual, and you don’t like any of the major parties, you can either start a party of your own or look to a minor party. 

In the coming A.C.T. election, many minor parties are running. The minor parties know they are going to struggle to get your vote because it’s hard for them to get noticed. They don’t have the budgets of the major two parties. But, the minor parties can make a major difference in how this territory is run. The minor parties can hold the government accountable, and they can better represent Canberrans and their concerns. 

As a member of the Canberra Progressives, I’ve seen firsthand how this party operates. They don’t have social or political ideologies as Liberal and Labour do; they have values. Their principles are ethics over influence, evidence over opinion, and collaboration over collusion. 

If you are sick and tired of complaining at the news every time you hear a new government decision that you don’t agree with or see some ex-party member getting a cushy “job for the boys”, then in the coming election you have a chance to do something about that. You can change these things, but you have to vote for a minor party. Hoping that a major party is going to change their ways and do what you think is right is not going to happen. Major parties are for the party and not for the people. 

A minor party could hold the balance of power in the A.C.T. assembly. For members who sit on the crossbench, a deciding vote can come down to them. They can put forward policies. They can give you a voice inside the government and not just at election time. 

The Canberra Progressives have 7 candidates in 3 electorates: Kurrajong, Murrumbidgee and Yerrabi. If you put them first on the ballot paper this election, you will see the difference that a minor party can make for you. 

So, instead of being bored by elections, get involved, get interested because it’s your future that is going to be decided by elections. It’s your money governments will be spending. Governments get to have a large say over your life and they can make it better or worse. What do you want?

The ABC and Me and You

 

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been with me my whole life. I’ve been listening to ABC radio since I was a baby. My parents always had ABC radio on; classical music and local ABC radio were on the whole day in our house. At night we sat down to watch ABC news and programs on television. The ABC filled our house with the arts, education, news, and entertainment; it still fills my life.

For me, and many other Australians and people in our neighbouring region, the ABC is vital. Because it provides services, information, education, and entertainment that are not accessible from anywhere else in the world.

I’ve been lucky enough over the years to have worked with a few people from the ABC. My first collaboration with the ABC was in 2003. PoeticA, was a National Radio program that ran from 1997 to 2015. It provided a weekly resource of poetry readings and happenings from around Australia and the world. PoeticA was like a religion to most Australian poets and poetry lovers. The poet and presenter Mike Ladd and producer Krystyna Kubiak were the heart of PoeticA. They were both wonderful and helpful people to work with.

The program, Ekphrasis, that I organised with PoeticA, aired on Saturday 22 February 2003 at 3:00 PM. You can listen to that program here, of course, copyright restrictions apply to all content.

The second time the ABC and I developed a program was again, for PoeticA. This time the program was about all things poetically Astronomical.  Here’s the ABC blurb, “A feature on the poetry of the cosmos including classical works as well as poems by contemporary Australian writers. Based on an idea by Robert Kennedy, the program grew out of a project called “A Poetic Journey Into the Cosmos”, a series of readings held last year at Sydney Observatory”. They aired Astronomical on Saturday 27 March 2004 at 3:00 PM.

When I was in my early 20s, the ABC took on an all-encompassing presence in my life. I was hooked. I couldn’t get enough of what the ABC offered. It seemed there was, and still is, something for everyone. I listen to and watched almost everything that the ABC produced. The ABC had me hooked even from an early age. If you grew up in the 1970s, Countdown was a music program that had to be watched. I never missed a show.

One of the things I love most about the ABC is Radio National (RN). Today they have more than 60 programs. I specifically loved the program Airplay, which aired on what is now known as RN. Unfortunately, this program is no longer broadcast, but it provided so many great Australian and international radio plays and offered the first voice to a large number of current Australian actors. Airplay broadcast from 1997 to 2013.

Before Airplay there was The Sunday Play on what was then called ABC Radio 2, or 2FC, which stood for Farmer and Company. That was the original owner of the station before the ABC took it over. Back in the early 1980s, the ABC used to produce a guide just for their radio stations. It cost 40 cents. I kept a few copies which you can see in the picture in this post. I gather they are worth a bit more today.

You will see in the photo above how I used to highlight in red the programs that I wanted to record. The rest I usually heard live.

The mellow toned voice of Jaroslav Kovaricek presented two of my most cherished ABC programs. These were Dreamtime and Innerspace. I recorded over 100 broadcasts because the music was so unique. I heard sounds that could not be found in almost any other place. I still use these recordings every week when I need some headspace relaxation time. The music on Dreamtime has inspired me to write many of my compositions.

Jaroslav Kovaricek produced hundreds of Dreamtime programs; over 500 from memory. Innerspace never ran for that long but offered a new sound experience. I recorded only a few of those. Unfortunately, there is almost no record of either of these programs today anywhere. I may be the only person that has recordings of these amazing soundscapes.

Other than the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), there is nothing like the ABC on this planet. I can’t imagine living without the ABC. Yet, the ABC might soon be gone.

Successive Liberal governments have been trying to kill off the ABC. They want to see it gone because, in the words of former Liberal party leader and former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, they (the ABC) are not on team Australia. The hard right of the Liberal party wants the ABC to be sold off to private interests. Why? Because according to these people, the ABC does not represent their ideology.

If you don’t know what the Liberal party ideology is, just take a look at the state of imbalance, greed, political spin and lies pushed out by this unaccountable government. It’s sad to say, many people in Australia want to see the ABC gone too. They believe the Liberal party spin and follow them blindly.

If you don’t want to see the ABC sold off, or dismantled, you should do something about it. Write to your local member and ask them to increase ABC funding so it can be maintained. They need to be able to go on to provide the necessary programs that they have been creating for almost 100 years.

If you don’t want the ABC gone, start talking to your friends and relatives about how you, and they can save this national treasure. Because the ABC is as important as Uluru, the Sydney Opera House, and the Great Barrier Reef - just imagine all these treasures gone. 

Indigenous Constitutional Recognition

 

The National Indigenous Australian Agency says, (2019, p.1) “The Australian Government is committed to recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in the Constitution.”

This suggested commitment has come about due to other countries that have moved to recognise their indigenous peoples in their constitutions and through treaties. It is also due to growing support from indigenous and non-indigenous people and groups across Australia over many years.

Michelle Grattan said (2019, p.1) “The Morrison government plans to hold a referendum in the next three years on whether to enshrine constitutional recognition of Australia’s Indigenous people”.

Reconciliation Australia CEO, Karen Mundine said that the news of the constitutional recognition announcement is (2019, p. 3) “a step in the right direction”.

However, there are groups and people who oppose the constitutional recognition of indigenous people for a variety of reasons. Oliver Milman of the Guardian said that according to the Naidoc lifetime achievement award winner Tauto Sansbury, (2015, p.3) “I’d say 60% to 70% of Aboriginal people are interested in treaties rather than constitutional change”.

Some conservative members of parliament and people in the news media are resisting the change for an indigenous voice in parliament.  Former Deputy Leader of the Liberal party Barnaby Joyce suggested that a new voice in parliament would cause a third chamber. Rosemary Bolger of the SBS reported (2019, p.1) that Joyce later retracted his statement and apologised saying that he got it wrong.

Most states and territories identify indigenous people in their constitutions. Indigenous Australians are recognised in the NSW constitution, (2010) but only in the preamble. However, these changes do not allow for any specific legal or political rights. They do not include land rights or reduce discrimination, which would help to make our First Nations people feel more included and respected in their own country.

Essential Media Communications took a poll in (2019) which shows that most Australians want indigenous recognition in our constitution and for them to have a voice in parliament.

My position on this issue is that any change is unlikely. I base this on the fact that the Morrison Government have only offered a plan for a referendum in the next three years and have not created a system that will produce a definite outcome. This shows that they are not as committed to recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians as they say they are.

There have been years of inaction on this subject from all governments. It is likely that only upon being forced into action by the Australian people will the Morrison Government move towards recognising indigenous peoples in the constitution. But as this matter is not consistently at the forefront of the mainstream media or in public debate, it is difficult to maintain momentum on this issue.

Because of the lack of passion and commitment from the present and past governments towards indigenous recognition, this has created doubt about what the effects of recognition will mean to all Australian people. The social, financial and possible governmental changes that might occur because of constitutional change has many people and parliamentary members worried.

There are fears and uncertainty around this proposed change because issues on this subject have not been clarified by anyone from either side of the debate. Mainly because no one can decide what the issues might be, regardless of all the past reports and studies. As there is no clear path or plan for indigenous recognition, this makes it look all too difficult and confusing for the Australian people, so they might vote against the reforms.

It is clear from polling that the majority of Australian’s want indigenous recognition. However, the figures are not so one-sided in favour of a change. As of September 2016, only 57 per cent of Australians polled are in favour of the change. As shown in the Essential Media Communications poll. (2019)

The Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt who is tasked with leading a national debate on indigenous recognition now says that Australians will not be asked whether they want to see an indigenous voice in parliament if the referendum happens in the next three years.

This statement from Wyatt reported by Paige Taylor from the Australian (2019, p.1) adds more confusion to the debate that the Australian people thought they were having on this subject. This could create a backlash among the wider indigenous community as it appears that concerned voices and groups have not been consulted about this decision.

While the Federal Labor Party has not been vocal on this subject, they are now pushing for an indigenous voice in parliament. Fergus Hunter of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Labor's Indigenous Australians spokesperson Linda Burney says, "Doors that [Mr Morrison] has already shut can be reopened." (2019, p. 8)

The fact that other countries have recognised their indigenous peoples in their constitutions and can live in social harmony shows that the same can be achieved in Australia. If Australia’s indigenous peoples are recognised in the constitution and they get to have a voice in parliament like other countries, this would most likely lead to greater social harmony between all Australians.

If these reform proposals do get voted upon and are passed, it could also improve the social balance and understanding between Australians. Recognition would help Australia’s indigenous peoples self-determination and decision-making around issues that directly affect them. (Davis, M 2015)

If they vote the proposed reforms down, or, it never actually gets up, not only might the debate never happen again, it could further increase the social tension of Australian society and deteriorate the rights and hopes of our indigenous peoples. This reform could help our indigenous population and all Australians to better understand one another. It could help increase social cohesion while benefiting our country in ways that are yet to be realised.

Reference List

Bolger, R 2019, Barnaby Joyce admits he was wrong to call Indigenous voice a 'third chamber', SBS, Crows Nest NSW, viewed 29 August 2019, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/barnaby-joyce-admits-he-was-wrong-to-call-indigenous-voice-a-third-chamber

Davis, M 2015, ‘Indigenous constitutional recognition from the point of view of self-determination and its exercise through democratic participation’, Indigenous Law Bulletin, vol. 8, no.1, pp. 10-14. Essential Media Communications, 2019, Indigenous Recognition Referendum, Haymarket NSW, viewed 19 August 2019, https://www.essentialvision.com.au/indigenous-recognition-referendum

Grattan, M 2019, The Morrison government proposes an Indigenous recognition referendum this term, The Conversation, Parkville Vic, viewed 26 August 2019, http://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-proposes-an-indigenous-recognition-referendum-this-term-119998

Hunter, F, 2019, 'Doors already shut can be reopened': Labor's plea for action on Indigenous voice, The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney NSW, viewed 30 August 2019, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/doors-already-shut-can-be-reopened-labor-s-plea-for-action-on-indigenous-voice-20190828-p52lom.html

Indigenous Australians recognised in NSW constitution 2010, video, ABC, Sydney, Juanita Phillips (Host); Kristina Keneally (NSW Premier); Linda Burney (NSW Community Services Minister)

Milman, O 2015, Indigenous Australians want treaty, not constitutional recognition, says elder, The Guardian, Australia, viewed 18 August 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/12/indigenous-australians-want-treaty-not-constitutional-recognition-says-elder 

National Indigenous Australians Agency 2019, Constitutional Recognition, Canberra ACT, viewed 15 August 2019, <www.niaa.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/constitutional-recognition> 

Reconciliation Australia 2019, Constitutional recognition announcement a positive step towards reconciliation, Canberra ACT, viewed 27 August 2019, https://www.reconciliation.org.au/constitutional-recognition-announcement-a-positive-step-towards-reconciliation/ 

Taylor, P 2019, Wyatt rules out indigenous voice in people poll, The Australian, Surry Hills NSW, viewed 17 August 2019, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/wyatt-rules-out-indigenous-voice-in-people-poll/news-story/60672a9a4b05f1b80805abc671ca6e96

Whatever you do don’t talk about morals

What horrifies you more, a politician talking about morals or The Exorcist? 

I use the movie The Exorcist as an example of something that is universally accepted as horrifying, well; it is by me. However, is it less scary than a politician talking about morals? 

Whenever you read something about a politician talking about morals in a newspaper today, it usually comes across as, “who are these people to talk to us about morals?” The outrage is palpable from columnists and in opinion pieces when a politician dares say anything that even sounds like the slightest expression of morality. 

Simon Jenkins who writes for the Guardian wants his readers to “Dive for cover – Boris Johnson is invoking 'morality' in his Covid policies”. The COVID-19 issue has raised moral concerns like never before. It has even affected the sacred moral ground of professional sport, according to ESPN and politicians. “Premier League stars lack morals in coronavirus crisis –politicians”. 

COVID-19 has brought out many moral issues, but can people please stop calling me a monster for scratching my face. Or giving me a look of horror if I dare to cough in public. 

According to some newspapers, a certain political leader has a diminished moral capacity. Yet other papers tell you that the same person is the only moral hope for the world. Guess who I’m talking about? I won’t go into the moral wrongs surrounding climate change, regardless of how real they are. But why aren’t politicians talking about morals outside issues like the pandemic? Do they really have no morals that they can talk about? 

Of course, they do. They are just as human and just as vulnerable as everyone else. But why aren’t politicians talking about the moral good? When Nietzsche killed off god in 1882, did the ability to talk about morals die too? Or is it that politicians think that we don’t have any morals so there’s no point in talking about them anymore? Or is it vice versa? 

Politicians are scared about discussing morals because they have created a vacuum of silence around morality. When we see things like an Australian government bugging a neighbouring countries government to gain a political and monetary advantage, and then try to silence anyone who points out their illegalities, it’s no wonder politicians don’t talk about morals. 

However, that aside, if it’s possible, our leaders need to be talking about morals so we can open up debate about what is right and wrong. A vote once every three or four years is nowhere near good enough to express our moral concerns. And for that to begin, we need our leaders to lead the way. How do we do that? 

In the 2019 book, Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump by the American political scientist Joseph Nye, he has constructed a scorecard for judging future presidents. Maybe it's something like this that we should use to gauge the moral reasoning of not just foreign policy, but all policies by politicians. 

Imagine that. A moral scorecard for every policy. Imagine thinking through and debating the moral issues surrounding national affairs. Hold on, I hear you say, that’s why we have elected representatives. But are our politicians debating the moral concerns around political matters? I think not. In fact, I’m positive they do not. Our new moral scorecard could be something as simple as a 1 to 10 rating that all voters could have a show of hands on.

If we can elect governments electronically, why not a vote on policies electronically? Sure it would mean a lot more voting for us to do, but as politicians cannot be trusted to do the right thing, it’s a small price to pay to get morally just policies into action. If politicians are not going to look at the moral implications when implementing policy, something needs to be done. 

You could say the moral of this story is, it’s immoral to disregard the moral issues of any policy.

It's still happening today

 

History like people can't change  

I've been watching the sentencing of this person who shot and killed 51 people at two mosques in New Zealand in 2019.[1] The relatives of the murdered spoke at the sentencing about their loss and grief. Some talked of their hatred of the killer, others forgave him. He sat silently and refused to make a statement. He just didn't care - history like people can’t change.

Anyone who has studied history will know that what happened thousands of years ago still happens today. While at university, I recall my fellow history students expressing their incredulity at how our ancients treated one another. A common theme among the responses of the students when learning about historical crimes, wars, racism, and murder was, “my God, it's still the same today, nothing has changed”.

So, what might change people's attitudes?

Laws do not change people's outlook. For some, it may change their actions through fear of fines or incarceration, but laws do not change people's prejudices.

School education does not change people's underlying bigotries. Societal pressures, the advice of loved ones and friends, does not and has not changed people.

Throughout history, and today, people look towards their leaders for guidance and ethics, and to set the standard for society. When was the last time you heard a leader speak out and voice a moral opinion, or offer guidance well before something devastating has happened?

Our political and social leaders have failed us because they are too busy reacting to situations and covering things up rather than talking to and listening to people. Most of us remember and follow our parents' guidance and rules. Most of us carry these things with us throughout our lives. Our parents are not just parents, they are also leaders. But there are parents who have not taught their children moral lessons.

There are lots of nasty and shabby things about our lives. But what lies at the heart of our problems is that we do not want to know ourselves. We fear ourselves. We hide from others thinking that they will think badly of us if we reveal ourselves. We blame others for our mistakes and our failings; we have always done this.

Most of us have the desire to change, to be a better person and to improve things. Unfortunately, most of us don't have the ability or the tools to achieve that change. This is where a good leader can step in and offer advice.

Almost every political leader throughout history has spent a large part of their life attaining leadership. Political leaders claw and fight for the top job, but when they get there, they do little more than grandstand. They know what it takes to get to be a leader, and again, unfortunately, they don't know how to be leaders. The confidence that we have in our political leadership is as low now as it has ever been. And it's our fault that our political leaders don't have what it takes to guide us. We don't ask enough of our political leaders before we vote them into power.

One thing about history is that we know we can't change it, but we can learn from it. We've seen the effects of past actions upon societies, but continually keep falling into the same traps and repeat history.

Maybe our political leaders haven't studied history, but generally, that is not the case. Many of our leaders have multiple degrees and are highly educated people. Except for a few, most of our leaders lack insight and empathy, yet we voted for them. We voted the problem in.

If our leaders showed some backbone and came out and made statements about how the world can be a better place, and about how we should all treat each other better, that could be the catalyst for change. Our world is led from the top, yet those at the top are not leading. A few well-chosen words of advice, a statement or two on courage, strength and simply doing the right thing would go a long way to help guide people in a better direction.

Politicians think they must be political all the time. They are human, yet they rarely show it. They seldom say how they feel, and they never offer advice. This world needs good and confident leaders. We have enough spokespersons for causes and factions.

A 10-minute pep talk once a week from our leaders about how we can improve things would help solve a lot of problems in this world and give us direction. Just like the series of evening radio addresses that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave in the 1930s and 1940s.[2] It’s not much to ask to show us that you are as human as we are; we know you can be, show us, help us.

Words are powerful agents of change. Words inspire and lead us into action. Good leaders can change the world with their words. It’s time we heard from our leaders. It’s time they began to help us help ourselves and change society. Then maybe, people like the person who shot and killed all those Muslims in New Zealand might never have turn out the way he did.

---

[1] BBC, Christchurch shooting: Gunman Tarrant wanted to kill 'as many as possible', https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53861456

[2] History.com, The Fireside Chats, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireside_chats

Who-What-When-Where-Why

Who
Rob J Kennedy.
What
This blog is about my experiences as a university student
When
It began on July 1, 2019.
Where
Canberra, the capital of Australia.
Why
So it might inform and help others.

July 1, 2019.

Can you have sober reasoning?

If you research and study anything for long enough, you will come closer to understanding the basis of your subject. For most of my life, I had a reason for everything I did. But continually, my reasoning was based upon expediency. You see, I followed what I thought was the Epicurean pleasure principle. Not the real one, but the one that has been widely promoted in the general media.

I thought that when Epicurus said, “The end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear”, I assumed that he meant I should avoid pain and fear. But with me, it was much more than avoidance, it was denying pain and fear. And not only in myself, but in others too.

I didn’t want to know other people’s pain or grief. I didn’t want to know my own. My main thought was, if I’m happy, so is everyone else around me. And if they were unhappy, I didn’t want to know them. If I became discontented with them, I pushed them out of my life. However, I could not escape myself. I still had a lot of pain and fear. I was unhappy all the time.

I avoided discomfort by leaving painful situations. I dodged fear by never looking at it or finding out why I had feared. I simply dismissed these things and moved on to somewhere or someone new. When I found that I was in pain or fear again, I ran away.

I thought that if I avoided pain and fear, my life would be full of sensual delights. That wasn’t the case, it was the opposite. I found that I had Agliophobia, which is a persistent, unwarranted, and often an irrational fear of pain. In every situation, with every person, I found the same old fear and pain. I had abandoned myself to a life of bodily desires and found that I didn’t actually have a life. Eventually, I got tired of running and hiding. I had exhausted myself more than anything else. It was simply too much trouble to start over again and move on, to try to escape my fear of fear and pain.

So, how did I get over my Agliophobia and achieve this miraculous enlightenment and change? I didn’t. I have not altered one solitary thing about me from the age of 20 until now in my 60s. I spent 40 years in pain and fear for no reason.

I’m still the same greedy, dipsomaniac liar that I have always been. Nothing has changed my view of pleasure or the world. Pleasure is still the goal of my life and I place it above other things and other people.

I found no pleasure in reasoning. All analysis showed me was how I had wasted my time analysing things. Because evaluating, considering, exploring, and probing only made things worse. My unexamined life gave me the pleasure I had always been seeking.

Sounds counterintuitive? Not to me. What I’ve found is that the best life is the longest life lived in pleasure. Though I avoid overt greed and sloth; they are too much trouble to attain. I have resisted the urge of the real Epicurean principle and built my own world of pleasure that is defined by my terms and no other. I don’t have that outer classic life of hedonism like a rock star or a billionaire, but inside, I do.

From the outside, people see me as a sober, calm person of caring and understanding. They see me this way because that’s what they want to see, that’s what they expect other people to be. I’m not an ancient Roman who takes what he wants and kills anyone who stands in my way. I don’t have to be a Roman, or anything else. I let people believe that what they think I am, I am.

This is how I killed off all my pain and fear. Other people did it for me. Other people granted me a life of sober reasoning, at least from their point of view I was a restrained person of logic. Regardless of how irrational and dangerous my life really is, I am seen as a soul of calm and empathy.

Maybe, in the eyes of others, the only way to have a life of sober reasoning is to be seen to have sober reasoning. It looks like Gandhi and Mother Teresa had sober reasoning, but it’s way too difficult to be like them. With the hell and trouble that other people cause you, it’s best to let them think what they want. This is how you can have sober reasoning. Let other people think what they want of you. Inside, you can be anything you desire.

If you let other people think that you are what they think you are, they will leave you alone to get on with your life of pleasure.

Should Australia have non-compulsory Voting?

 

A democracy’s electoral system is fundamental to its legitimacy.

If we are to have a legitimate democracy, the people of Australia have to be engaged and involved with democracy, they are not. And, there are good reasons why.

 The University of Canberra survey of June 2019, shows that “65% of Australians said they have little or no interest in politics”.

Many people say that they only vote, because they are forced to vote.

How do we turn this around?

The Museum of Australian Democracy, and the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra, have begun the Democracy 2025 campaign to halt the decline in the lack of trust with our democratic system.

Democracy 2025 say, and I quote, “By 2025 if nothing is done and current trends continue, fewer than 10 percent of Australians will trust their politicians and political institutions — resulting in ineffective and illegitimate government, and declining social and economic wellbeing”. End quote.

It is not hard to imagine how we got into this position. But, is it too late to halt the decline in trust?

I’m suggesting that we change to a non-compulsory voting system. There are many arguments against compulsory voting, such as…

• It’s undemocratic to force people to vote
• You have to vote even if you don’t like anyone on the ballot
• Reports show that Australians are less politically interested than countries that have non-compulsory voting
• Compulsory voting increases the donkey vote
• People leave their ballot paper blank because they are forced to vote. There were 720,915 informal votes in the 2016 Federal Election. In the 2019 election, 1.5 million people on the roll failed to vote. That is the worst result since the mid-1920s
• Plus, It costs more to check for and prosecute people who have not voted

Non-compulsory voting would make politicians more honest. Because, they would have to produce policies that are more relevant to what the voters want. 

If Australians did not have to vote, politicians would have to work harder to convince the people who vote, that their policies will be good for the nation. Because the people turning up to vote, they would be the ones with a vested interest in their policies. 

An additional point, non-compulsory voting would prove if Australians are as political apathetic as it is said we are. But, I think we know that already. 

Voting was voluntary in early federal elections. Compulsory voting for federal elections was introduced in 1925. 

The turnout figures in the early elections were,

1901 - 56.68%
1903 - 50.27%
1906 - 51.48%
1910 - 62.80%
1913 - 73.49%
1917 - 78.30%
1925 – 91.31%

Compulsory voting did increase the number of people who voted, but this is my point, did it make the politics and the policies any better? 

The Democracy 2025 campaign is trying to change the perception of our democracy. Some of the key points they aim to foster are, 

• rolling out innovative best-practice solutions to the liberal democratic challenges faced across Australia and the Asia-Pacific
• creating active, engaged and informed citizens
• positively influencing democratic leadership, capacity and practice
• promoting excellence and innovation in democratic governance

I’d like to suggest that other than simply changing the perception of our democracy, that the Democracy 2025 campaign, also include an option, to look at non-compulsory voting. 

Unquestionably, non-compulsory voting would provide an immediate indication of how Australians feel about our democracy. If the turnout figure went down to around 50%, like it was in the early 1900s, it would indicate that half of us are not interested in politics. Would it also indicate, that voters see there is no point voting, because they end up with the same politicians, and the same policies all the time, regardless of whether they vote or not?

Yes, it would. 

So the system needs to change. And, we can start to change the system by making voting non-compulsory.

Politics 2120

 

“The system that led us into our environmental, social and economic position, is not the system that can lead us out” - Anonymous

In whatever year you read this, there are just three possibilities of what your current political practice looks like. 1 - your political system is the same as it has always been. 2 - you maintain a better political system than the one I lived under in 2020. 3 - your political system is worse than mine.

To change yourself is hard enough, but to improve a political system means amending the way things have been done for hundreds of years. Only by changing the mindsets of people who are in a political system, can we change a political system. As the public is not allowed to help improve our political system, that is the greatest failing of the system we have.

Why does a political system in a stable country like Australia need to be changed? If what we have a system that favours only one section of society, which is the political ruling class, then to be fair and equal, it should be changed.

The political system that exists now, in 2020, is the same system that existed in 1920. In one hundred years, there has been so little progress that it is almost impossible to see any improvement.

Countless numbers of political parties and people have come and gone who wanted to change things. Some tried to improve our political system but were thwarted by those in power. Their efforts amounted to nothing. We still maintain the same types of politicians implementing the same kinds of policies as they did in 1920.

The reason we kept the same political system is that what our forefathers set up is constructed not to be changed. Almost no politician has had the will to create any real change. And that is because the system holds the same people with the same ideologies in power. Our system is governed by white middle-aged conservative males who have at their heart, vested interests in keeping white middle-aged conservative males in power. These people deny others who do not fit their way of thinking; their ideology. They keep change out by preventing people from joining political movements based on their race, sex and ideology.

Like a lot of countries, Australia has an almost equal number of males and females. Our current elected government is the Liberal Party (LP). There are 11 women in the LP, just one is Caucasian. The LP consists of 61 males, all but one is Caucasian. There is not one woman in the LP executive, and they are only Caucasian.

Our system prefers the same people who not only think the same, but they must look the same.

Today, there are about seven million people here who were not born in Australia. They have moved here and become citizens or permanent residents. The population of Australia sits at 25 million; so, 28% of Australians were not born here. However, in the LP team, there are two non-Australian born people out of 72 in total. So less than three per cent of people in the LP were not born here. And, only 11% of people in the LP are women. While in Australia, over 50% of the population are women. I offer you these figures to highlight how our political system works. Just in case you think I am giving you fake news; you can research my claim. The figures show that our political system supports by far just the one type of people. But, what’s more important, these people all think, vote and make policies that benefit their system and their ideology.

So what can you do to change the system?

Your voice is important. Being heard is important. However, by the time you step up to the microphone, it's too late. The system is set; the stage is set for another show that contains more of the same dialogue surrounded by the same worn-out ideology.

Nothing will change if you get up to the microphone to scream or cry out, because the system is still the same. You can't change the system after it is set in place. You can scream and cry if you want, but you will be screaming into a void where people cannot voice change, and no one is listening. As the rock band, The Who said in their song Won't Get Fooled Again, ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’. The new boss learnt everything he knows from the old boss.

You need to set up a new system if you want to affect change that gets rid of bosses running everything.

The old boss learned to master the game of politics many years ago. Now, the game can only be played within their rules. But, rules can be remade. The game can be redesigned.

The past democratic political systems have many attributes that are worthwhile including in a new system. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel; you just need to make sure it well lubricated with the right balance of fairness and equality. Injustice is the block in the road that holds back progression. To remove that blockage, the system needs to be changed.

When the major roadblocks in our political system are removed, the road to further change will become much easier to achieve. We can then start to see real progress and achieve equality for all.

Empathy Deficit Politics: Time for a Direct Democracy

Few people need to be taught what empathy is. But, after recent comments by our Prime Minister maybe he can use a few lessons.

Our Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently attacked Labor’s suggestion to increase unemployment benefits claiming it as “unfunded Newstart empathy”.[i] Then there is his government's uncaring, perhaps soon to be judged illegal, and dehumanising Robodebt scheme.[ii] The results of which have seen people actually taken their lives because of being hit by a computer-generated letter that tells them that they are in debt to the government and must pay it back now.

If anyone wanted a picture of what a lack of empathy looks like, they need look no further than the Robodebt scheme operating under this Liberal Government.

When it comes down to understanding each other and sorting out issues, a conservation is the best method to achieve this and not a letter of demand from an artificial intelligence system that has been poorly set up and poorly managed.

Companies that have policies that show an affinity, association, or a relationship to their customer's needs do much better than companies that have little empathy for customer requirements. “How this traditionally soft skill yields hard, bottom-line results for organizations big and small”.[iii]

Empathy is an innate, and a learned skill. However, for political expediency and trying to destroy the opposition because that is the way a government dominates political discourse, when a government shows no empathy, then they are failing the majority of the population and lacking a basic human quality.

Empathy killers are,

·        Jargon

·        Poor education

·        Intolerance

·        Haste

·        Looking the other way

·        Criticising others without putting yourself in other people’s shoes

·        Judging people 

Another strong reason for everyone to learn and show empathy is it is good for the health of our nation and for the health of our citizens. Just imagine having an unempathetic doctor or nurse? What if Scott Morrison went to a public doctor and not his private personnel doctor who is paid for by the public purse and the doctor said, sorry, you haven’t funded us properly, I can’t treat you. I wonder what he’d think about unfunded empathy then?

The decline in compassion and understanding shown by certain politicians in Australia, especially when it comes to Aboriginal people, refugees and the unemployed, all the people who have had their voices taken away, has had a serious effect on their health. In turn, the health of our nation in the eyes of the world is seen as poor and failing, which it is.

Empathy has limits on what it can achieve. And, that’s why we need more than empathy. The Australian people need to be able to vote directly on policies that affect the health of our nation in our eyes, and in the eyes of the world.

A direct democracy where people get to decide on policy initiatives would save us the time to teach politicians empathy, which they should have learned through their life but clearly have not. You and I getting to vote on primary legislation that directly affects us would mean that we get policies that are aligned to what we want and not what a select few in government want to maintain their ideology and power over us.

If we want to improve our political system, we have the power to insist on direct democracy by writing to your local member, or by forming a new party.

[i]ttps://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/29/unfunded-empathy-scott-morrison-pushes-back-on-growing-calls-to-lift-newstart-rate

[ii] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-18/hundreds-have-already-beaten-centrelinks-robodebt/11523278

 [iii] https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/322302

Learning about Journalism

Where do I begin?

One of my favourite things is to listen to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) news every morning.

I choose the ABC because I beleive that they have the most informative and balanced news reporting in Australia. In fact, a lot of what I know about the world comes from ABC programs. Plus, no ads. I also take in as much news as possible from many other sources.

The ABC has a greater range of investigative news, ideas, and programs than any other media outlet in Australia. It's the same for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the UK, but I have to say, that the BBC does it better than the ABC. They have been doing it longer, but only by 10 years. ABC began in 1932, the BBC in 1922.

Below are the sites, papers, and magazines I read every day. I subscribe to The Guardian because, for me, it has the best-written content and a greater variety of coverage and stories outside the ABC and the BBC.

Non-subscription
ABC
Deutsche Welle
BBC
NPR
SBS
Google News
The Saturday Paper
The Monthly
Smart News app and Feedly for journalism stories

Subscriptions
The Guardian
Wired
Skeptic
Minerva
World Literature Today
The Philosophers Magazine
Philosophy Now
Australian Quarterly

Learning about journalism is similar to learning about music. Both can be done, to a point, by listening and reading. There is a large variety of journalistic sources to choose from on the internet, but not a lot locally. Most of the interesting and informative sites on journalism are international ones.

I go twice a week to my university library to find suggested reading for the course and also at the National Library of Australia to select books related to the study of Journalism. I hope that this course will offer me the hard facts about journalism.

Here is the course I am doing.  Bachelor of Communication and Media (Journalism) - ARB102

July 3, 2019.

Should a reader have to fact-check a story?

What's happened to journalism in the past five years?

When did the idea begin that a reader should have to fact check a story in a Newspaper? Editors and reporters are supposed to do that, not the public. Does this mean that every article in every newspaper has to be fact-checked by the reader to confirm if it is not fake news?

The News and Media Research Centre, which is part of the University of Canberra produced the Digital News Report: Australia 2019. Contained in the vast amount of information they state, "One of the biggest divisions between news consumers stems from differences in education and income. Consistently, those with lower education and income consume less news, are less interested, are less likely to pay, and are less likely to fact-check news."

I assume that their findings bare out this statement, but, I wonder how many people in the world fact-check the news? 

How does a reader fact-check an article? 

The independent American media organisation National Public Radio (NPR) offers some hints. Fake Or Real? How To Self-Check The News And Get The Facts

FactCheck.org, which checks stories mainly about the USA is another site to head to for fact-checking. 

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) have their Fact Check site.

The independent news website Crikey have their fact-check column. And there are others.

You can go to these sites and check on stories and, you can even ask them to run a fact-check for you. But who checks the checkers?

How do you know that these sites are not more fake news? The truth is, you don't. Unless you want to run your own check on the information on these sites. But who has time to do that? Do we just have to at some point say, OK, I believe this? But how can you trust them? 

The nature of fact-checking is a tricky business. Finding actual truths or hard facts are hard to uncover. 

Whatever method you use to check the truth of a story, it is clear that with the proliferation of fake news in the world, that you have to do something to check on what you are reading, hearing and seeing. It's a sad fact that we have to do this, but that is a fact. Maybe that is the only fact we can truly know. 

July 7, 2019.

What is Journalism?

Defining anything is hard, but can it be done?

What I've learnt so far is that today, and maybe since journalism was invented, journalism is meant to hold up and represent values that are similar to what religion and the police force are meant to represent, or is that do?

It's suggested that Julius Cesare invented journalism when in 59 BCE he had posted in public spaces his Acta Diurna (Daily Acts). In other words, news. It was not all the news that was fit to print, but it was a start.

Journalism didn't become a specialised and autonomous filed until the 19th century. But, professional news people existed as far back as the 17th century. The first privately published English newspaper was the Corante. Its first edition was printed in 1621.

The functions of journalism are said to be...

• To act as a mirror of society
• To help keep the people in power honest
• To act as an agent for good
• To protect, inform and promote democracy
• To tell the world what is happening
• To protect the public interest

These edited six points come from News as it Happens, 2nd Ed by Stephen Lamble.

This list sounds unrealistic to me. Because few people in the world operate by these rules, or morals if you like, so why should they choose to obey these rules just because they work for a newspaper? If you've read any newspaper, you will see that they don't, though several try hard.

Today, creating news without views seems impossible. Editorials I find a waste of time. How is it that an editor thinks that they have a right to tell the public what is right for them just because they edit a newspaper? Even if editorials are written, or edited by a group of skilled writers, no newspaper has the right to tell people what is the right way to think about a subject.

Once, some person came up with the idea that NEWS stood for North, East, West. South. In a way, this is a good description of what news is. Because it comes from all directions with all the usual inflections connected to this information. An editorial comes from one direction and it is meant to tell you what to think. Rarely does an editorial suggest. Have a read of any editorial and you will find the word "must". Editorials tell you what you must think. They tell you what others must do. 

You will notice in the six functions of journalism above that none mention you must listen to and act upon what an editor tells you. If I had a friend who told me what I must do every day, they would not be my friend for long.

Journalism is not about telling people what they must think or do. For me, journalism is about informing people about what is going on in the world. News should be news not views.

July 4, 2019.

The need for journalism

Do we need journalism?

James Madison Jr. was a Founding Father of the United States of America. He also served as the fourth president of the USA. Madison said, "A well-informed citizenry is necessary for a democracy."

I say that a well-informed public is the foundation of democracy.

The importance of news is measured by the public, not by journalists. After personal research among friends, I found that few cared about journalism and few trusted what journalists created. This shocked me. These same people glue themselves to the news every night in front of the TV. I wondered if it was because they wanted to be informed about what was happening in the world or they wanted to be entertained as they ate their dinner. I have not found the answer to that, but it seems it is more about entertainment than news.

Like most things in the world, people only care about a matter when it directly affects them. However, when it does affect them, the problem is out of their reach because they have let it slip by through not being concerned or informed. Then they scream at the TV, like me.

Journalism has changed so much since the internet that I am not sure what journalism is anymore. Is it hard news from an established and trusted source? Is it blogs, Twitter tweets, Facebook posts or is it simply an image on Instagram?

The need to define things like journalism, music styles and movie categories have basically gone since the year 2000. But journalist scream from the rafters that journalism is still important and necessary, even when no one can define what journalism is anymore. It seems that good journalism and bad journalism are both slopped into the same bucket today.

When someone shouts fake news when a journalist points out their mistakes, and this person is in power, people become blinkered and say, yeah, all news is fake unless the person that I follow tells me whether it is fake or not. So journalism loses. 

The trust that has been built up over hundreds of years in journalism is now gone because of people shouting fake news. How did we get to be so gullible and ignorant that we let a few people decide what is right and wrong for us? But this is the case. How do we combat this?

How can journalism make its point if it has been branded untrue even before stories are written? 

We have to take ownership of our education and not let anyone tell us what is right or wrong without the facts. And that's what good journalism is about. Facts are more important than views, editorials or opinions.

News people need to report only facts. There is no such thing as and there never will be a post-truth world. Truth is permanent and it cannot be altered unless you let it be. When you stop believing in yourself and start believing in others without the facts, because it's easier, you have let yourself and the world down.

Do we need journalism? If you want to be cheated of your rights, you don't need journalism. If you want views and not news, you don't need journalism. If it's alright that crime and corruption flourish underneath our society, we don't need journalism. If you want to be lied to and in the end wind up feeling like you've been robbed of your rights, dignity and your livelihood while others get rich by not paying you a fair wage, you don't need journalism.

July 5, 2019.

What's so good about Journalism?

Why Journalism?

Why would anyone in their right mind want to begin a journalism degree today when it looks like the news industry is falling apart? Why would someone who is almost 60 and was supposed to have their working career behind them start out on a new path?

Circumstances can lead you anywhere in life. But, there's one thing that has never changed for me over my life, and that's a love of the truth. That's not to say that I am always truthful and above reproach, far from it. However, as someone who as an inbuilt bullshit detector that is always on, becoming a journalist is something I should have done much earlier in life.

If there's one thing that life has taught me, it's that no one tells the truth all the time. Only liers say they tell the truth all the time.

And, that's OK. Every person who ever lived lied for all their lives. Most of the time, the lies are small, non-life threatening and are used for expediency. Why? Because no one believes the truth and it's the quickest way to get you out of trouble, so you and I think. Why is it that the truth almost never sounds real? Why do we think that even in the most minute of ways that telling the truth will make us out to sound and look like a lier?

Humans are unrealistic. We place all sorts of unrealistic expectation on ourselves and others. When we fail to meet these expectations, we lie. A lie is seen as the easiest and quickest solution to explaining why we didn't do what we said we were going to do or what we were asked to do.

Over the years of this journalism degree, I aim to turn my bullshit detector on myself and write without editing, except spelling, without pictures, unless absolutely necessary, and to never include links to articles supporting my view. I will not include comments from anyone. I don't want my writing swayed by others or taken in directions that I didn't start out heading towards.

Journalism has always been the best medium for telling and exposing the truth. Regardless of where it is today that fact has not changed. That's what is good about journalism and that's why I am doing this degree and writing this blog.

I hope this will be enlightening, informative and entertaining - now, onto the journey.

July 2, 2019.