Midnight Quills

On Thursday 25 of February, I sat down for an hour for a ‘live blogging’ session with Will Hodgman, leader of the Tasmanian State Liberal party regarding the upcoming election in March.

To be honest, I was quite impressed with many of his answers. Of course, now comes the test to see if the Tasmanian Liberals get elected, and whether they can actually stand up to the list of promises that have been made in the campaign war.

One thing that I was decidedly unimpressed with, though, was Mr Hodgman’s comment regarding same-sex unions.

The question came from Tim, asking Mr Hodgman:

“Can you tell me what the Liberal policy on same-sex relationships is?”

Will Hodgman:

“Thanks Tim. The Liberal party believes that marriage is a union reserved for a woman and a man. We have supported moves to provide greater protection and equity for people in same-sex relationships.”⁽¹⁾

I am quite perturbed to hear that there is an official party policy on something that, quite frankly, I believe should be a conscience vote if and when it comes before Parliament.

Even more so, though, is the claim of providing “protection and equity for people in same-sex relationships” whilst still advocating such discrimination against them by refusing to recognise the equality and validity of commitment between a same-sex couple.

The same day as the above mentioned chat session with Mr Hodgman brought the news that the Australian Senate began the debate on introducing gay marriage to Australia.

Unfortunately again, we find that the issue appears to be tainted by party lines at a federal level also. World News Australia from SBS reports that “same-sex marriage is unlikely to go to a vote because both the government and the opposition remain united in the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”⁽²⁾

I continue to be astounded that this is even a topic of debate.

Especially given the situation of life that we live in now.

Let’s remember that we’re talking from a legal and political perspective for a moment. Religion is not to enter the argument.

Thursday was a busy day for the topic of marriage I guess, because that night I watched A Current Affair report on a website that is specifically aimed at providing married people the opportunity to have affairs. There are actually many of these types of online dating services available out there, for people who might want to spice up their life with an extramarital fling or two.

This is not illegal under the law. There is no current Australian legal or political problem with having an extramarital affair.

Let me just also point out that I don’t personally agree with extramarital affairs. My own belief is that the commitment made to your partner in the ceremony of marriage is one of absolute fidelity and loyalty. However, this does not change the fact that legally the sanctity of marriage really has no standing.

We live in a society and culture that yes, was formed by Christian beliefs. However we’re past that. The Church is a religious institution and no longer has a place in secular society. We live in a society where upholding the sanctity of marriage is not a legal requirement.

Australia has grown into a secular culture, and as such there is no place for religion of any sort to be dictating the rules of what is permissible.

I have heard the most ridiculous arguments against gay marriage, and all from people who claim to respect the rights of same-sex couples but don’t believe that they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples in respect to marriage.

As Julia Melland of the Australian Democrats said in a press release following Thursday’s Senate debate:

“Of course it is discriminating against same sex couples and homosexual people generally to continue to ban same sex marriage. Saying you oppose same sex marriage but aren’t prejudiced against same sex couples is like saying you think Aboriginals are a lesser people but you aren’t racist.”⁽³⁾

It’s time to move on from this and stop with the hypocrisy and discrimination. When it comes to a legal standing, same-sex couples should have every right to receive the exact same recognition as any other couple.

There is no legislating love, or the commitment of two people who love one another. So please, Australia, stop trying to do so.

_{CoveritLive’s Transcript of the Live Blogging Session with Will Hodgman}

World News Australia – Same-sex marriage debated in Senate (SBS News)

Vote and Debate on Marriage Equality “Shameful” – Australian Democrats Press Release

We are just under two weeks in to the Tasmanian election campaign, and already it’s clear that politics has little to do with policy and everything to do with mud-slinging.

I do give credit to the Liberal party for at least giving some idea of what their policies are in their advertising. Whether the goals in the end are realistic or not, there does at least seem to be an effort being made to get their policies out there.

On the other hand, we have David Bartlett sitting down talking about leadership, and how good a leader he’s been and so on. Is this a new attempt at drawing that line in the sand, Mr Bartlett?

But on both sides of the couch there’s been the negativity. Liberal’s “memories” campaign reminds us (as if we needed reminding again?) of the negative headlines associated with the past few years of Labor Government, and Labor has been so busy pointing out that twelve years ago the state was in a bad position that they seem to have missed the details that twelve years ago there was all of one current Liberal politician sitting in the parliamentary chamber. Mr Rene Hidding.

Now I know that my comments in the past contain a Liberal slant and I’m not going to deny the fact that in general I have supported the Liberals over the Labor Party, however I’m not impressed with these tactics from either end of the spectrum.

I think I speak for a large amount of people who are interested in politics in saying that we’re getting tired of the negative politics.

We youth of today aren’t as stupid as many of the older generations seem to believe we are. Yes, we have different priorities in our life, especially at this younger point in it. Yes, we look at the world differently. Yes, we grew up with technology and therefore expect things faster.

That doesn’t make us stupid. In fact, remember, technology is what makes us more informed than any party before. We can look up the details of supposed negative information. We know how to use Google and find the actual context of a quote.

We’re optimistic but cynical. We’re friendly but cautious. We don’t just take what you say at face value, we wonder what’s behind it, we wonder about the context. We know there’s a second side to every story.

I’m very doubtful that negative campaigning is winning much support from the younger generation, and don’t forget who the future of this state and nation are.

I’ve just, as I was writing this, seen the EMRS poll for February 2010. Since the last poll in November 2009, support for Labor has fallen a further 3%; support for the Liberals has fallen 7% and support for the Greens has gone up by 5%.

I can’t help thinking that the way Nick McKim carries himself in Tasmanian politics is actually a part of this. One thing I have not seen in political advertising is much in the way of a smear campaign from the Greens (of course, if I’m wrong feel free to post a link below).

If the politicians of Australia really want to earn the trust, confidence and vote of the younger generation, then they’re going to need to start looking at things a little differently.

Congratulations to the Australian Senate on voting down the CPRS and ETS legislation from the Rudd Government today.

Let’s get one thing straight before I go too deep into this discussion.

I’m not a Climate Change skeptic. I do think that the human contribution to the Global Warming phenomena has been blown out of proportion; however I am 100% certain that we as humans need to start lessening the impact that we have on this planet. I am, therefore, completely in support of any legislation that contributes to the reduction of pollution by humans.

What I’m opposed to, is the ridiculous concept that money will fix the affects of human pollution on the Earth. Recently there’s been a maelstrom in Australian politics as the Government attempts to pass its so-titled “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. The foundation of this entire process for the reduction of Carbon Pollution is on the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Essentially, what happens, is that companies are given a cap as to how much pollution that they can emit. If they go over this, they receive massive fines.

Sounds great, right? I agree.

However, let’s add some more information in here. Companies who know they are going to go over their cap are able to buy additional permits for Carbon Emissions from companies who are going to be below the cap. So, rather than making changes to their processes, high polluters simply need to ensure they’ve purchased enough Carbon Credits to cover their pollution in any given year.

So the money that these big polluters might implement in order to lower their own Greenhouse Gas Emissions by changes in practice or method, now has to be spent purchasing Carbon Credits so that they don’t end up being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Add onto this the fact that the Rudd Government wants to lead the way on this measure, and we really run into trouble. The US, and more importantly India and China (and many other nations) have nothing implemented against their own emissions to make grand reductions.

By the year 2030, it is projected that China and India combined will be responsible for 34% of the total world carbon emissions. Over one third! 29% of this is from China alone. Neither of these countries are subject to emissions limits under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol(1).

Clearly, on a global scale, there is much more that needs to be discussed and agreed to.

Now let me clarify something else – I am in no way saying that we should have the attitude that because we’re not as bad as others, we don’t need to do anything. What I am saying is that we need to ensure that we have all the aspects of this global problem covered.

As Australians, we need to take care of the Australian Economy, first and foremost. No matter which way you plug it, the ETS is not a commercial scheme, it’s a tax on Carbon Emissions. More importantly, it is going to drive costs of everything in Australia up. It will drive up the cost of running business – so why wouldn’t a business seek offshore movements, where they are not taxed on their pollution?

In 2005-06, Coal was Australia’s largets commodity export – 19% of Australia’s commodity exports were Coal, bringing $A24.5 Billion into the Australian Economy(2). Now Fossil Fuel burning alongside Deforestation are the two most important human contributors to Climate Change, as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel that we use, so obviously there is a major issue by itself. Something there needs to change.

However, Coal is also one of the most important driving factors of the Australian Economy. It is an industry that, without a global agreement on Climate Change reduction that includes the largest polluters, Australia cannot afford to lose!

The Rudd Government wants to reduce Australia’s emissions by 5%. Australia’s overall contribution to global Greenhouse Gas Emissions is 1.5% – yes, that’s a lot for a small nation; however, 5% of 1.5% makes a total of .075% or 1 in 75000 while nations like China have no reduction obligation whatsoever, inviting Fossil-Fuel production companies to their shores with open arms.

That .075% is the reduction, remember. So Australia’s Carbon Emissions on a global scale would go from 1.5% to 1.425%.

The fundamental flaw with the Rudd Government’s ETS is that there is so little gain, and so, so, SO much cost.

Senator Penny Wong spent so much of her debate time accusing opponents of the CPRS that if they did not vote for it, then they were voting to take no action on Climate Change. What rubbish, I think the majority of the population of Australia recognizes that something needs to be done – but how about we take action against the cause itself? Let’s promote green and renewable energy resources. Let’s invest in Carbon-neutral or even Carbon-positive schemes.

Instead, the Rudd Government just wants to do what they did with the Financial Crisis – throw money at it and hope it goes away. Funnily enough, we’ve now seen three months of interest rate rises as Rudd’s Stimulus band-aids begin to wear off. Now is when we begin to see the effects of the Rudd/Swan economic management really come into play.

But that’s another topic.

I would love to see Australia take strong action on Climate Change. I would love to see Australia lead the world in reduction of Greenhouse Gases. I would love to see Australia set the standard for tackling global warming and pollution of this wonderful planet that we live on.

So let’s tackle the problem. The IPCC has already established that the two highest contributing factors to man-made climate change are the burning of Fossil Fuels and Deforestation. So let’s look to that. How can we invest in non-polluting forms of energy? And how can we minimize Deforestation?

I watched the American news reports with interest as last week the laws enabling same-sex marriage were overturned by popular vote.

It’s amazing how in a world where we have come so far in regards to equality, that this fight is still going on. Even more amazing is that at the moment, it’s a fight that’s being lost.

In yesterday’s blog I made mention of Australia’s multi-culturalism. Once again I’ll say that this is a nation that has welcomed, with open arms, people from almost every culture and civilisation around the world.

Yet in spite of this, we still have so many aspects of our culture that are steeped in that British origin of modern Australia. Including our concept of marriage and family.

We don’t live in 1901 any more! It’s the 21st century, and humanity has moved forward over the past one hundred years or so. Women now have the right to vote, Aboriginals are not second-class citizens and we’re no longer “White Australia”.

But yet in spite of all this progress, a large part of society still has difficulty in acknowledging the equality of people based on their sexuality. A large amount of people still are unable to accept that a homosexual relationship is just as valid as that between a heterosexual couple.

Now no one expects change to come over night. Every step towards equality has been a fight; but we’re slowly starting to get there.

Interestingly enough, though, on Monday November 9, The Mercury reported on the number of weddings that are being performed in a church against civil ceremonies. According to the article¹ almost 3 times as many couples have been wed in civil ceremonies over religious weddings in 2009.

Why do I bring this up? Well, perhaps one of the biggest arguments against same-sex marriage is that of the religious connotations. Religion tells us that marriage is a union before God between a man and a woman. What we’re seeing, though, is that religion is becoming less of an influential force when it comes to this legal recognition of a couple’s commitment to one another.

Stay with me here.

Our foundational laws are originally based in Christian tradition. Western Civilisation, as far forward as it has come and as much as it proclaims a separation of Church and State is still dominated by that religious foundation that it was built upon.

Certainly, many of the laws that come from that foundation are beneficial to society; however, the dominance of religion in the law is on its way to an end.

Australia may be, according to the legislation, a Christian nation. However we are a multi-cultural society, and in practice, that Christian foundation has all but fallen by the wayside. It’s one more reason to be proud to be Australian – we’re free. People in Australia are free to practice their beliefs and cultures without prejudice.

However the fact that we refuse to legally recognize same-sex marriage is a black mark on that record of freedom. The legal definition of marriage is based still in those Christian origins – yet almost three quarters of weddings are not based around religion!

Another argument that I heard recently made my mind boggle. It was the argument that legalizing same-sex marriage would take away from the rights of married heterosexual couples!

Of course, the actual invasion on “rights” was never explained. I’d like to know how granting rights to same-sex couples takes anything away from anyone else.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems that we have in this issue, though, is the fact that there are so many different definitions of a relationship. One couple is married, the next is de facto, another are partners and the fourth is a same-sex relationship. Amazingly enough, regardless of which definition a couple applies to themselves, their entitlements on separation are in most cases viewed the same way.

How sad is it that we can acknowledge a couple’s equality in a legal sense if/when they separate, but we can not when they wish to make a commitment to one another! Way to place faith in people’s ability to stay together.

In spite of this progress, and the fact that when separating at least, couples are thought of as having equal rights whether married or not; there’s still a sacred element to the institution of marriage.

So the question is, how do we correct that?

The first step is to acknowledge that regardless of their gender, any couple wishing to make a public commitment to one another before their friends, family and the law should be entitled to make that declaration and have it recognized equally. There is no objective, rational reason not to take this step.

As with everything in society, as time passes, definitions change and purposes get reassigned. The 21st Century Marriage is no different.

¹_{Tassie Couples Keep it Civil}

An interesting couple of things have occurred in Australian Politics in the past week.
First of all, we have the latest big thing. The “Ute-Gate” scandal. What a roar this has been! Everyone’s involved: Treasury; the Australian Federal Police; the Auditor-General; the Prime Minister; the Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition. Heads are being called for from both sides of the parliamentary floor. It’s gossip column politics, nearly at its best – and be prepared for more.

Does anyone remember the days when politics was about debating, policy and people? Today’s politics certainly don’t appear to be. Scandals, sex and sleaze is what most of it’s about. If only Godwin Grech had been sleeping with someone – it would have made the news reports so much more exciting still!

On the serious front of this matter, though, there are still questions.

The “Utegate” Scandal surrounds a federal government plan to provide financial assistance to car dealerships during the financial crisis. A constituent and neighbour of Mr Rudd – John Grant – applied for this assistance, and allegedly received preferential treatment. The climax was reached when Treasury official Godwing Grech testified before a Senate inquiry that he had received an email from the Prime Minister’s office putting pressure on getting assistance for Mr Grant as a priority.

This email, of course, has been investigated and has been determined to be false. It was not actually sent from the Prime Minister’s office directly, but rather that it was sent from a computer in Treasury.

This of course begs the question. Yes, Mr Turnbull accused the Prime Minister of providing preferential treatment to someone. The information available was, perhaps, not enough to leap onto so adamantly; however it was sufficient circumstantial evidence to definitely.

Mr Swan, however – still refuses to clarify the reason why Mr Grant’s case was handled by him personally. Mr Swan claimed in Question Time today that the reason why these particular emails went to his home fax, was simply because someone had hit “reply all”: what an amazing coincidence that it just happened to be this case where “reply all” was pressed!

Sorry, Mr Swan, I don’t believe it – you’re treading water and starting to flounder. It’s shown in your own dismissal of any questions asked of you as to any other personal treatment of car dealers in the OzCar program, and it’s also shown in the distraction tactics being used by your compatriots.

It’s amazing listening and reading to some of the polls I’ve seen on this topic. Had Mr Turnbull left his sights strongly on Wayne Swan, then it would be doubtful that the Treasurer would have anywhere to go but out of parliament. However, in taking one man’s testimony of a single email and shifting his sights to the Prime Minister himself, it would appear that Mr Turnbull has ended up shooting himself in the foot.

The focus is now on the email, rather than the preferential treatment afforded John Grant by the Treasurer. The Labor government has managed to pull the public view around to the “false, fraudulent and forged” email (so beautifully alliterated by our Prime Minister) that Joe Public is now looking at Mr Turnbull instead of Mr Swan.

The email, by the way, came from the Treasury department. It was still there, it wasn’t a non-existent email as Prime Minister Rudd would have us believe. The email was there – the only difference being that it came from somewhere in the Treasury department, rather than the Prime Minister’s office. Regardless of its origins, it was still sent.

The fact that Mr Turnbull snatched hold of this email and launched an all-out assault on Mr Rudd, though, has given the Government some respite. With the attention now turned onto Mr Turnbull and the fake email, Labor may well be able to sneak Mr Swan’s questionable actions in the entire situation under the radar. It may just be a diversion good enough to get Wayne Swan through all of this.

In the development of the Capitalist Society, one of the key foundations of the entire system was, of course, trade and commerce. The idea that if I do something for you, then you’ll do something for me.
This certainly was never a bad thing: After all, we’re a communal race

However, the world is changing. We’re in the middle of a Global Economic Crisis, watching the balance of power begin to shift, and it’s not an unreasonable admission to say that we’re not really sure what’s going to happen, or where we’ll be left at the end of it.

Which begs the question, what do we do about it?

First of all, and this should have been a priority before hand anyway, but first and foremost, we should be ensuring that we are able to take care of ourselves.

From a Tasmanian perspective, this is perhaps more important than other places. Even with the world shrinking, communication getting easier, and Princess Mary pointing out that Tasmania is not a place in Africa, we’re still isolated. We have our own little slice of paradise down here, and our first priority should be that place.

As Tasmanians, we have a special community and most of us recognize that there is a bond with one another. It’s like going overseas, standing in a French airport and hearing an Australian accent. You’re automatically friends, and can trust each other just because you’re both Australian. Well on a narrower scale, that’s the case with us Tasmanians. When you meet one another internationally, or even interstate, there’s that automatic connection of origin.

As a community that recognizes that bond that we have with one another, it is perhaps something that we need to give more credit to, and recognize ourselves as Tasmanians.

The point being that our priority should be each other and ourselves.

So what should we do?

First of all, we should be taking steps to ensure that Tasmania’s future is secure, no matter what happens to the rest of the world. I don’t mean financially secure, either. What happens when we come through this Economic Crisis and face the next one?

No, security has a different face now. It’s not about financials, it’s about stability and survival.

Our priority, I propose, should be first and foremost on ensuring the basic needs of life, and ensuring that every Tasmanian has access to them. Food, water, shelter, clothing, power.

Let our government provide support to our Tasmanian farmers. Encourage those farmers to ensure their produce stays in Tasmania! Let King Island Abbatoir stay open – we maintain the jobs, we maintain the steak, and we maintain the security!

Our government should be investing in the assurance that no matter what happens on a global scale, we as Tasmanians will be prosperous. Again, I don’t mean prosperous in a financial sense, but prosperous in the sense that we have more than what we need to survive.

Let’s find ways to encourage Farms to produce food, milk, fruit and vegetables in and for Tasmania. Let’s encourage the growth of raw materials such as cotton and hemp, and then encourage the production of local clothing from these products. Let’s ensure that everyone in our state can have a roof over their head, a warm meal at night, and a blanket to keep away the cold Tasmanian winter.

Here in Tasmania, we quite easily have the resources available to at least look after ourselves. With a few changes, we would have no need to import any necessity from interstate or overseas.

In a time of crisis such as that which the world is facing now, it’s time to stop looking outward and start looking back inwards. Let’s divert our attention for the time being as to where we fit in the world, and let’s just work out how we can flourish in our own back yard.

What propositions do I suggest?

Primarily, I would say that our first priority should be to our existent resources. Tasmanian farmers are not doing it easy, but there is no doubt in my mind that as a community, Tasmania can support its farmers. Let’s take a look at our import/export ratio, and set a point that ensures that Tasmanian products first of all stay in Tasmania, sold at a price to Tasmanians that is fair to both the farmers and the consumers, and if we have leftovers, that’s what we can consider selling to the rest of the world.

Our Government should be getting behind a plan such as this, ensuring that Tasmanian farmers will be looked after properly, will not be taken advantage of by international corporations who will continue to drive down their own purchase price while driving up the price at the checkout.

I would urge all Tasmanians to support our own local producers in purchasing locally produced product whenever at all possible.

Providing Government support for Tasmanian product-based industries is also called for, ensuring that resources such as Tasmanian wool and cotton can be produced locally and remain local as Tasmanians manufacture the products.

A self-sustainable Tasmania is not only achievable, it is a necessity for Tasmanians as we continue to move forward through the upcoming years and decades.

The debate has been reignited.

On Friday February 13th 2009, the Liberal Opposition party in Tasmania released their proposal for a refurbishment and reconstruction of the Royal Hobart Hospital on its existing site. Immediately it managed to reignite a debate that has actually gone quiet over the past couple of months. I don’t think there would be too many people who would disagree on the fact that Hobart needs a new hospital facility. Professor Ray Lowenthal of the AMA called it a “Rabbits’ Warren” while pointing that the existing facility could “never” be transformed into a state of the art facility. While my voice is a lot quieter, and most likely carries a lot less weight than that of Professor Lowenthal, I must still, respectfully disagree. I wonder if he realizes that no matter which way you build a construction as complex as a hospital, you’re likely going to end up with a “rabbit warren” of corridors, halls and alcoves leading from ward to ward and level to level.

From what I have gleaned thus far about the Royal Hobart Hospital debate, both previously and the latest pieces of information, there seem to be three main concerns: Construction, Location and Parking. Thus far we have two main proposals put forward: the Labor Government would like to build an all new hospital on the waterfront at the old railyards. To be honest with you, when I first saw this plan, I did actually think that it looked quite nice, extending Davey Street out to the railyards and surrounding the hospital with hotels and cafes. It did look pretty. Then came the debate of rising sea levels through Global Warming; building a hospital next to Hobart’s working port and of course the fact that the Labor Government want to spend $1.2 Billion on the construction of this all new hospital – construction, by the way, would not be complete until 2018. On the other hand, the Liberal Government have put forward now their plan to redevelop the existing location, at a cost of around $360 million for the first two stages of redevelopment, stage three is yet to be costed, but by the sound of it, I would be doubtful that demolishing and rebuilding Block H would cost the $840 million to equalize the expenses. Redeveloping the existing site nullifies the concern of the working port, and as for Global Warming – hey, if the sea levels rise that far, I doubt it’s going to matter which of the two locations is chosen. The Liberal party have also suggested that the redevelopment will be able to increase bed space at the existing site by over 60% by 2014 – four years earlier than a Labor waterfront hospital would be ready.

Another question that has been raised by several people regarding this entire debate is the Award-Winning new emergency department. $15.4 million was spent on this development and the Labor government wishes to simply throw all of that money away. Alternatively, one would think that it would be logical to continue a facelift of the entire hospital after building what then Premier Paul Lennon described as: “Australia’s most modern specialist emergency medicine and trauma centre.”

Especially when the cost is a little over a quarter of the expense of developing an all new hospital.

If you would graciously also allow me a moment to consider the external consequences also, the Hobart Business community has thrown their support behind the idea of redeveloping the existing site also. It’s not really a surprise; the Royal Hobart Hospital employs over 3000 staff and then of course there are the University of Tasmania medical students, and visitors to patients. Where are all of these people going to go for their lunch and other shopping? After all, one thing that is notable in Tasmania is our reluctance to have to travel too far for anything – which leads me onto the point of parking.

The biggest complaint that I have seen from members of the general public when it comes to redeveloping the existing hospital site is the fact that there’s not enough parking. Never mind the fact that there are 680 parking bays right across Argyle Street, and an additional 755 spaces in Market Place car park right across Collins Street. The problem appears to be that these car parks actually cost money, and that any free parking (such as on the Domain, the Regatta Grounds or other locations) require someone to walk for at least ten minutes to get to the hospital. I’m sorry, but neither of these arguments hold any real weight in my opinion, the costs at both car parks are negligible at worst, and if you’re able to walk for ten minutes, then you don’t even have to worry about cost!

In conclusion, as is clearly apparent, I am quite happy with the idea of redeveloping the existing Royal Hobart Hospital. I believe that the (much) lower expense, the benefit to Tasmania and Hobart’s economy and the significantly faster construction time far outweigh any perceived problems associated with the project.