Blog Archives for January 2011

What Price Is Free Speech?

Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 11th January 2011, 9:47am
by AndrewMcGarry in

To paraphrase a popular international ad campaign - Buying that dress on special: $150; new digital TV: $1000; supporting free speech and the protection of whistle-blowers: priceless!


Australians have been taking part in the post-Christmas sales, and credit card companies have been doing a roaring trade; as usual facilitating the purchase of bargains at various stores around the country.


Thankfully, the only reason customers are denied the opportunity of buying those bargains is if their budgeting is a bit off and they have overshot their credit limit. For people who want to use their credit cards to donate money to WikiLeaks, however, it is a very different story.


As the US and Australian governments got grumpy about their dirty laundry being aired by leaked cables to WikiLeaks, MasterCard and Visa last month chose to block their cardholders from donating money to the whistle-blowing organisation.


A spokesman for MasterCard, Chris Monteiro, was quoted as saying the company's website suspended dealings with WikiLeaks because "MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal".


There are a number of problems with this statement. The first is that despite the angry rhetoric from embarrassed governments, no one has found a law that WikiLeaks has actually broken, either in Australia, Europe, the United States or anywhere else. What WikiLeaks has done is publish information which it has received from various sources, in the same way that media organisations do every day.


On this precedent, News Limited customers would be barred from using their plastic dosh to pay for newspaper and online subscriptions.


The second problem is that MasterCard and Visa - which are dominant in market share of credit card holders - have trampled on consumer rights by stopping people from being able to choose what to spend their money on.


This is a very slippery slope, when financial institutions are telling people what is and is not appropriate use of their money. Today it is WikiLeaks ... who will it be tomorrow? What will stop MasterCard or Visa going further in future and blocking transactions, wherever they occur, because they believe a product, cause or issue is too politically unpopular or controversial?


If no explicit laws prohibit sending money to a particular cause or organisation - such as those that apply to outlawed organisations like terrorist groups - then there should be no question of impeding Australians' freedom of choice.


Unlike the debate over banking choice, these credit companies have a monopoly on the credit card business - so while Visa and MasterCard can "boycott" WikiLeaks their customers don't have the same freedom.


The key issue here is that consumers have no real choice to move their business if they disagree with MasterCard and Visa's actions.


The situation is already changing, however. The Australian government has had to admit that WikiLeaks has broken no laws. We will have to wait and see whether MasterCard and Visa follow suit. To see the US Government apologise - now that would be priceless.


This blog post was previously published on the National Times website. Click here to view the blog.


 

Thinking about the floods and those in their wake

Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Monday 17th January 2011, 3:58pm

The floods that have devastated Queensland and parts of NSW, Victoria and Tasmania have taken a terrible toll with lives lost, homes, businesses and crops destroyed and whole communities faced with the overwhelming task of rebuilding and starting again. The Australian Greens, like all Australians want to do everything in our power to reach out to those affected, to offer them our support and to help in whatever way we can.

We support the immediate payments of flood relief and we know that people will be worrying about whether their home and business insurance will cover the damages and how they will cope beginning again. We know that community leaders will be seeking financial support from the state and federal governments to replace critical infrastructure like bridges, roads, water and sewerage treatment plants. The Treasurer Wayne Swan has already said that the financial costs will make it hard to meet the Government's aim to be back in surplus by 2013 without cutting other areas of the budget.

So to ensure that the federal government has sufficient funds to meet the costs of reconstruction without cutting other areas such as health and education, Senator Brown called for the federal government to restore the full Super Profits tax as it applies to coal mining companies. Such a move would need to be instigated quickly if the funds are to be forthcoming in the required timeframe.

Senator Brown singled out coal mining companies as having a greater responsibility to contribute to the restoration effort because the burning of fossil fuels which is related to their core business is the major contributor to global warming which is causing the greater intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. As the oceans become warmer, there is higher evaporation and higher rainfall. This will be more intense in a La Nina period. Australia has always had floods, cyclones, fires and droughts but global warming is making these events more intense and more frequent. Whereas once terms such as one in a hundred year flood or drought had meaning, now these levels are being exceeded more frequently. The last decade has been the hottest globally since records began.

It was only a few years ago that former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie promised to build cyclone shelters along the Queensland coast recognising that cyclones were likely to move further south and be more intense. Governments and the coal industry know the risks.

The coal industry is multinational in its ownership and its profits largely go overseas. Australia is one of the major global exporters of coal and whilst the industry will be affected, it is well insured and will invoke "force majeure" provisions to avoid penalties in failing to fulfil supply contracts. Whilst spreading doubt about global warming, this industry is well prepared for the impacts of its actions on its own bottom line. Whereas thousands of Australians were unprepared and are now struggling to come to terms with what has happened to them.

Why shouldn't the full risks and costs to the community be taken into account when setting the tax rate for coal companies? Why should the community shoulder the burden through federal budget cuts rather than have the coal industry internalise the costs of its ongoing operations?

To avoid a case of privatising the profits and socialising the costs, it is time that the shareholders who accrue private profit from mining coal, bear their fair share of the costs of the consequences of their actions and pay the super profits tax.

When the federal parliament resumes the Australian Green Senators together with Adam Bandt will work with the Government to facilitate recovery programs as quickly and efficiently as possible. This is the time for everyone to work together in families, communities and the parliament to ease the pain, address the immediate needs and anticipate future risks.

Bob Brown in Good Weekend Magazine

Blog Post | Blog of Bob Brown
Monday 24th January 2011, 1:27pm

Senator Bob Brown was interviewed in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend Magazine, talking about "The Getting of Wisdom".

If you missed the weekend papers, you can read Bob's lessons learned from an extraordinary life by viewing the pdf below.

AttachmentDateSize
[file] AgeGWMagazineBB.pdf24/01/11 1:24 pm127.81 KB

Who Is The Fairest Of Us All

Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 25th January 2011, 1:46pm
by RobertSimms in

What is the purpose of the Australian of the Year award? Recognition of past achievements, recognising Australians who uphold our values? Endorsing role models for the rest of the community? Or simply rewarding hard work and determination?


Are we looking for ordinary people doing extraordinary things, or extraordinary people doing ordinary things? What measuring stick do we use to define the qualities of a person who captures the essence of our diverse and always changing Australian society?



For instance, Alan Bond was once celebrated as a national hero and awarded Australian of the Year, only to be exposed for fraud years later.


At first glance, the award winners of the past 40 years show a cross-section of the community - sporting personalities rate quite well, as do actors, musicians and the odd scientist and doctor. But out of the 40 recipients, only seven have been women, and only one woman has been awarded the honour in past decade.


Tonight we will find out who will be the 2011 Australian of the Year. The finalist list is impressive - eight Australians who are leaders in their fields of work, mentors in their communities and advocates for the causes they believe in. But who will make the most of the honoured position?


Last year's winner, Professor Patrick McGorry, will be a hard act to follow. One of the biggest challenges facing the mental health sector is that mental health issues are so often hidden. The professor has successfully used his position as Australian of the Year to shine a light on the crisis facing our communities and give a voice to an issue that affects one in five Australians.


He has been buzzing in the ear of politicians and helping other community leaders and businesses to understand the importance of mental health, particularly among young people. Above all else, he has given thousands of families who are struggling with the challenges of mental health issues someone to write to, ask advice of and look to for support.


I'm not suggesting that other recipients haven't done great things with this prestigious honour. But in this past year Professor McGorry has certainly set the bar pretty high.


While its job description remains unclear, the title of Australian of the Year provides the recipient with a platform to strongly advocate for social, cultural or political change. Professor McGorry's role in leading public debate on (the all-too-often-ignored) issue of mental health, in an election year, is a prime example.


But, let's not forget, there are plenty of other people out there who warrant being recognised for their incredible contribution to our communities - ordinary Australians doing extraordinary things.


For instance, last week I wrote about the courage of Queenslanders overcoming adversity and other Australians who have been digging-deep to help them. Not to mention the countless Australians I have met during my time in the Senate - tirelessly advocating for the issues they care about.


This year's nominees would all be deserving recipients. But whomever wins tomorrow we should also take a moment to reflect on all those ordinary Australians who work every day to make this country the wonderful and lucky country it is


 This blog post first appeared on the National Times (The Age Online) on January 25.