A Letter to the Prime-Minister Elect, Malcolm Turnbull

 

 Above:  Australia's new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.  Will we see a shift in the Liberal Party towards small 'l' liberalism?  This is a letter to the new PM, expressing the hopes, I believe, of many progressives.

Tristan Ewins

Dear Malcolm Turnbull: Prime Minister in-waiting;

The Abbott Prime Ministership is over.  Gone now perhaps are the scepticism about climate change; the bullying of the ABC; the broken promises and blatant breaches of mandate.  The night the change in Prime Ministership was announced the ABC coverage suggested that you and Julie Bishop would bring a ‘small ‘l’ liberal’ perspective to the Government. 

Certainly under Liberal governments across the country there has been cause to fear the withdrawal of civil liberties.  In Victoria freedom of assembly was compromised.  Now, though, can we hope that a Turnbull Liberal Government will recommit to civil liberties; and maybe even industrial liberties – as a genuine, philosophically-liberal outlook would demand?

Pluralism is also core to a robust democracy.  Tony Abbott attacked the independence of the ABC; and the independence and/or existence of various human rights commissioners. And he attacked the independence of charities who took positions contrary to his agenda.  Hopefully this ends now.  But further: what about a reformed National Curriculum that fosters political literacy and active citizenship?  Not ‘one sided indoctrination’ – but exposure to the whole gamut of political opinion ; preparing students to make informed choices as active citizens?

Hopefully under your leadership the Liberals will now remain within their mandate.  No cuts to education, no changes to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and SBS. 

But some of us will be hoping for more as well. The austerity of the 2014 Budget was obviously  ‘a bridge too far’.  Yet austerity needs to be questioned more broadly as well.  We already have ‘small government’ in this country by OECD standards.  We don’t need to venture further down that path.  We don’t need to bludgeon the poor and vulnerable any further.   Neither do we need to venture further down the path of privatising infrastructure.  A non-Ideological view would be open to a mixed economy – letting the public sector do what it does best.  Though of course as a liberal you want the private sector to do what it does best as well.

What is more we don’t need to dilute the progressive nature of our overall tax mix further. Towards the end of his Prime Ministership John Howard made it clear he believed in the principle of progressive taxation.  Mr Turnbull: there is a chance now ‘to break the consensus’ of ‘broadening the base’ in a regressive way.  And if balancing the Budget is a priority, withdrawing superannuation concessions for the most privileged needs to be considered first before hitting vulnerable or average Australians. There is an opportunity to genuinely occupy the centre-ground with a position of small ‘l’ liberalism. 

On climate change I understand you are committed against an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) or a Carbon Tax as a condition of many of your colleagues’ support.  But what about much more robust ‘direct action’?  What about ‘direct action’ in the form of a multi-billion dollar investment in renewables research and renewables infrastructure?  This can be done without a breach of mandate, and without a breach of trust with your colleagues.

Malcolm; On the rights of refugees, Australia can do more.  We can do more for Syrian and Iraqi refugees especially: whose plight has arisen partly as a consequence of earlier interventions which we contributed towards.  The wars in Iraq destabilised the region; they weakened Iraq, leaving it with a sectarian Shia government; and this emboldened the Iranians with their nuclear program. This was the background to the Syrian civil war. Sectarian government in Iraq was also a contributing factor to the Sunni ISIL movement – which was fuelled by Sunni resentment.

Now minorities and oppressed groups are suffering in a region torn apart by war, with maybe over 300,000 dead.  We can do more and we should do more. And we can use our diplomatic leverage with the United States and other countries in the Pacific region to do more as well.  On QandA American folk-singer and progressive activist, Joan Baez pointed out that if the United States accepted refugees on the same proportionate scale as Germany that this would mean support for some 3 million humanitarian migrants.  For Australia’s part we can also radically increase foreign aid – such as to assist Syria’s neighbours to provide for literally millions of refugees.

Finally, here: I don’t often find myself agreeing with Conservative commentator, Rowan Dean.  And I have a history of supporting non-discrimination in Australia’s humanitarian migration program.  But maybe the argument that Christians in these war-torn countries don’t have many places to turn within their region deserves to be considered with an open mind.  I’m not saying Rowan Dean is right.  I am saying his claims deserve to be assessed critically, rigorously and honestly.

Malcolm: I hope this doesn’t cause you to discount all that I have to say – but certainly I consider myself as being on the left-wing side of the political spectrum. So for instance I would believe in a more extensive public sector than you would as an economic liberal. Yet listening to John Hewson speaking regularly on QandA it is evident that the Liberal Party has made a quantum leap to the Right over the past few decades.  Amidst this, Hewson’s politics have remained steady. For progressives, the hope will be that a revivification of the Liberals ‘Wets’ faction will see a shift of the relative centre towards something more compassionate, generous and just. As well as an outlook which is more tolerant of pluralism, debate and dissent.  Egalitarianism was long part of this country’s culture, and of our identity.  Let’s celebrate that; and let’s not emulate the American ‘Tea Party’ movement with its extreme social Darwinist Ideology.  Instead let’s see some policies aimed at our most vulnerable Australians: those who experience the most intense human suffering.  Get the National Disability Insurance Scheme done. But what about a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme as well? 

With many others no doubt, I am hoping with your ascent to the ‘top job’ we can look forward to a new tri-partisan consensus around human dignity and human rights; and around compassion and respect for the rights of the poor and vulnerable.  Please do not crush that hope.

(nb: the author is still Labor to his bootstraps ; but consensus in areas of progressive public policy should be what we're hoping for as well - a shift in the relative centre)

QandA's Virtues and Vices - and the self-censoring of the Left

 

 

Above:  Tony Jones  is the most talented candidate for hosting QandA ; But he has appeared obviously uncomfortable in the wake of Conservative pressures to exclude Left-wing and other critical opinions

 

Despite the continual carping on by the Conservatives in this country – to the effect that the ABC harbours ‘an ‘obvious’ left-wing bias’ – I have come to fear that rather the opposite is becoming true.  Programs like ‘The Drum’ seem increasingly slanted towards having Conservative or right-libertarian viewpoints at the core of their programs.  Pluralism is certainly no bad thing. But the impression I get is that radical-Left viewpoints are often excluded.  (though I am relieved when I see figures like Australia Institute spokesperson Richard Denniss included on the ABC) 

The most recent example of the QandA broadcast from the “Festival of Dangerous Ideas” was perhaps an exception to the trend of silencing radical perspectives – and one that had host Tony Jones appearing very nervous and uncomfortable. Naomi Klein’s confident and powerful presentation of genuinely radical viewpoints – including opposition to the detention of refugees, and her arguments for Western responsibility in the face of the Syrian refugee crisis – certainly would not have pleased Abbott.  Nor would have her fluent, articulate and effective critique of capitalism.  Jones’ absence from recent QandA programs perhaps hammers home the point that ‘the show might go on without him’.  Though he is arguably still be most talented and competent candidate for the job.

‘QandA’ especially has been ‘under siege’ for years now; with the assault picking up substantially over recent months.  QandA has a long history of supporting pluralism in the sense of including left-of-centre viewpoints neglected in much of the monopoly mass media.  This is what Abbott cannot stand.  We have a Government which doesn’t really believe in democracy and pluralism at all.  It wants to shut-down and silence opposition where-ever possible.  Not just the media, but for instance charities who dare to engage in political criticism as well.   And of course the age-old aim of ‘smashing’ the trade union movement and leaving all working people vulnerable to the whims and agendas of employers.  A country without an effective labour movement probably would not have identified the threat of ‘WorkChoices’ until it was too late.  WorkChoices is not 'buried and cremated'.  It has been locked away to be redeployed some day when peoples' memories have faded; and the labour movement has become too organisationally weak to mobilise public opinion effectively.

At the same time decidedly Left-wing participants have sometimes appeared quite uncomfortable.  (well, that is my strong impression)  And I would suggest that this is because such participants have been under pressure ‘not to come across as being overtly radical’ lest they ‘play into Abbott’s hands’.   For example I remember noticing how with Billy Bragg’s appearance there was very little in the way of discussing socialist politics.  I hold Billy Bragg in the highest regard and cannot understand why else he may have come to sidestep the question with his appearance at QandA.  Yet if we hold our tongues for fear of a Conservative fear-campaign we largely concede the field to our enemies.” 
Yes QandA should be ‘balanced’.  In the sense that it should include Left, Centre-Left, Centrist, Conservative, liberal, and even libertarian viewpoints.  Even if the ideal of a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ (Habermas) is impossible to realise perfectly – that’s not to say we shouldn’t quest after that ideal.  But once we understand that Abbott’s agenda is not about ‘balance’ – but rather about SILENCING opposition – we should appreciate how futile it is to adopt a policy of appeasing him.

Furthermore on this theme: The ‘Zaky Mallah’ incident was blown grossly out of proportion.  It was run with as a weapon with which to bludgeon the program into compliance.  While his (Mallah’s) sympathies may not be ours, nonetheless the observation that anti-Islamic rhetoric was contributing to ‘radicalisation’ was not far off the mark.  The fear campaign  - a ‘moral panic’ that was whipped up in the aftermath of his comments - was ridiculous. 

We have a government who are basically pursuing the aim of transforming the ABC into a State propaganda mouthpiece.  No longer about facilitating a diverse and participatory public sphere, the government wants an ABC which proclaims the position of ‘Team Australia’ – so-called. 

Here dissidents are considered traitors – and considered guilty of some ‘treason’.  Pluralism is to be ‘stamped out’.  In reality the dissidents who defend rights and liberties against the reactionary push to stigmatise and delegitimise them  could be seen as the real ‘patriots’.  We see it in the mass media all the time now: consistently unfavourable coverage of protests, strikes etc.  And I don’t mean that the dissidents are ‘patriots in some jingoistic sense.’   But in the sense of defending that which perhaps is most worth celebrating and defending in this country.

Finally, the recent Tweet on QandA that subjected Abbott to vile innuendo did nothing for the cause of defending free and inclusive speech, as well as genuine pluralism – through the platform of the ABC.  We cannot ‘vacate  the field’ when it comes to values, legitimate interests and policy.   But we must not allow blatant ‘provocations’ that will probably just ‘blow up in our collective faces’.

Perhaps the Left would be stronger, here, were we less ambiguous when it comes to free speech.  The Conservatives talk about liberty when it comes to Andrew Bolt’s speech.   But they want to delegitimise industrial liberties as well as free assembly and civil disobedience -  with an eye to crushing the social forces they oppose themselves to.   Yet when George Brandis talks about ‘peoples’ right to be bigots’ – as anti-intuitive as this may be ; and as dangerous it is to ‘let that Genie out of the bottle’ – there are real questions about the boundaries of free speech.  The tighter we limit free speech the more likely it is that our enemies will apply those standards to us as well one day.  The Americans turned free speech into an absolute by making it a foundational element in their very Constitution ; and the associated ‘foundational myths’.  This can create a free-for all for bigots on the one hand.  But it can provide a shield for civil liberties and expression as well. 

Perhaps we need to be more reserved when it comes to limiting speech.  True hate speech and morally vile examples such as Holocaust denial – which one day could result in history repeating itself – are exceptions.  Let Andrew Bolt have his rights.  But remind him that we do not all have the platforms that he enjoys.  Remind him that genuine pluralism demands a more diverse array of viewpoints in the mass media.  Including the Murdoch Press.  Remind him that progressive viewpoints are systematically excluded in so much of the monopoly mass media – and especially the Murdoch Press which dominates the highly-influential tabloid market.  

For freedom of speech to be more meaningful it needs to be accompanied by OPPORTUNITY for speech.  That must mean a participatory public sphere.  But also it should mean reform of our educational curriculum with the aim of developing peoples critical faculties – including political literacy.  That is:  Not some one-sided indoctrination process; but rather encouraging people to be active and informed citizens ; empowered to make informed choices in keeping with the interests – but also their values.

Let’s defend a pluralist and critical agenda for QandA – serving as a platform for an inclusive participatory democracy.  But let’s not get in the habit of self-censoring ourselves in instances when there are important opinions of substance which deserve to be tested in the public sphere.

EVENT: Secure Jobs in a Green Future Conference - Organised by SEARCH Foundation

Just a reminder that the Secure Jobs in a Green Future Conference is on next weekend in Sydney at the University of Technology, Sydney. Please spread the word about the conference (see flyer attached and program below) and you can register with trybooking here

 

See: http://www.search.org.au/archives/3514

We’ve got a great program, including an international speaker, Costas Isychos, the defence and foreign policy spokesperson for the radical left SYRIZA party, who is coming straight from Cyprus, the current epicentre of the European crisis. SYRIZA leader Alexis Tsipras has just been touring North America, Latin America and Europe to build support for an anti-austerity, anti-racist politics that provides a radical alternative to neo-liberalism. He might well be the next Greek Prime Minister (see more in this New Statesman interview http://www.newstatesman.com/austerity-and-its-discontents/2013/03/more-and-more-people-realise-austerity-not-viable-there-no-oth ). We have a special session with Costas on the Saturday:  3.30pm-5.00pm Special Forum - SYRIZA, Greece and the European Left: challenges and opportunities in the crisis

 

above: The SYRIZA Logo

 

BELOW:  Timetable of the Conference

Saturday, April 6, 2013 9.30am Registration 10.15am Welcome to Country Sydney Trade Union Choir	Sunday, April 7, 2013 9.30am Registration
10.30am-12.00pm Participatory Forum I Building a Stronger Left Panel: Mick Gooda (Aust Human Rights Commission) Maree O’Halloran (Welfare Rights Centre) Andrew Dettmer (AMWU) Wenny Theresia (Occupy Sydney) Angelo Gavrielatos (AEU)	10.00am-11.30am Participatory Forum II Uniting to Fight the Abbott Coalition Panel: Sally McManus (ASU, NSW/ACT) Cate Faehrmann MLC (Greens NSW) Tad Tietze (Left Flank) TBC Labor Left speaker Hall Greenland (Greens candidate, Grayndler) Andrew Giles (Labor Socialist Left, Victoria)
12.00pm-12.30pm Speedgreets 12.30pm-1.30pm Lunch (provided) 1.30pm-3.00pm Workshop Session 1	11.30am-12pm Tea Break 12.00pm-1.30pm Workshop Session 2
Workshop 1 Understanding the Neoliberal Right and Australia’s Power Elite Panel: Damien Cahill (USyd) David McKnight (UNSW) Wendy Bacon (UTS)	Workshop 9 Progressive Futures Panel: Nick Moraitis (Centre for Australian Progress) Lucy Manne (Aust Youth Climate Coalition) Tim Scriven (Sydney Uni Post-Grad Students) Linda Scott (Sydney) Labor City Councillor
Workshop 2 Empowering Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities - Constitutional Recognition vs the Intervention Panel: Nicole Major (AEU) Heidi Norman (UTS) Paddy Gibson (Stop the Intervention Collective) David Shoebridge MLC (Greens NSW)	Workshop 10 Sustainable Futures Panel: Nicky Ison (Institute for Sustainable Futures) Anna Schlunke (Steady State Economy) Alejandro Rodriguez (Super Renewables)
Workshop 3 Feminism: Challenges and Strategies Panel: Eva Cox (Women’s Equity Think Tank) Margaret Kirkby (Women’s Abortion Action Campaign) Melanie Fernandez (Women’s Electoral Lobby)	Workshop 11 Campaigning for a Green Future Panel: Dave Kerin (Earthworker Cooperative) Jess Moore (Illawarra CSG campaign) Tim Thorne (Tasmanian sustainability) Phil Ireland (Labor Enviro Action Network)
Workshop 4 Equality, Race and Refugees in Australia Panel: Jock Collins (UTS) Dianne Hiles (Children Out of Detention) Ian Rintoul (Refugee Action Coalition)	Workshop 12 Secure Work in a Green Future Panel: Roy Green (UTS, Maunfacturing Report) Jill Biddington (ACTU Inquiry into Secure Work) Tim Ayres (AMWU) Rose Jackson (ALP Socialist Left, NSW)
Workshop 5 Learning from Elsewhere Panel: Peter Ross (UNSW) Adam Rorris (Greek community, Sydney) Thulsi Narayanasamy (Aid/Watch)	Workshop 13 Strategies for Stronger Trade Unions Panel: Jim Casey (NSW FBEU) Sally McManus (ASU NSW/ACT) Rita Malia (CFMEU NSW)
Workshop 6 A Strong Public Sector and a Fair Tax System Panel: Chris Stone (Centre for Policy Development) Jo-Anne Schofield (Catalyst Australia) John Kaye MLC (Greens NSW) Troy Wright (CPSU-SPSF)	Workshop 14 Australia, the USA - China Confrontation & the Asia-Pacific Panel: Peter Hayes (via skype) (Nautilus Institute) Jane Corpuz-Brock (Migrante Australia) Peter Jennings (Sydney - APHEDA) Amy Smith (ALP Socialist Left, NSW)
Workshop 7 Free Trade Agreements vs Jobs and the Public Interest Panel: Andrew Dettmer (AMWU) Patricia Ranald (AFTINET)	Workshop 15 Left Responses to the Global Capitalist Crisis Panel: Elizabeth Humphrys (USyd) Graham Larcombe (Economist) Jean Parker (UTS)
Workshop 8 Food and Resource Scarcity in the Capitalist Crisis Panel: Catriona Macmillan (Syd Food Fairness Alliance) Kathy Ridge (Ridgelegal) Jacinta Green (UNSW)	1.30pm-2.15pm Lunch (provided) 2.15pm Adoption of Declaration
3.00pm-3.30pm Tea Break 3.30pm-5.00pm Special Forum SYRIZA, Greece and the European Left: challenges and opportunities in the crisis Guest Speaker: Costas Isychos (member of SYRIZA’s Secretariat and head of External and Defence Policy)	2.30pm - 4pm Participatory Forum III Strategic Priorities for the Left Panel: Rob Durbridge (SEARCH Foundation) Holly Creenaune (United Voice) Keelia Fitzpatrick (Victorian Trades Hall) Maurie Mulheron (NSW Teachers Fed) Senator Lee Rhiannon (NSW Greens) Senator Doug Cameron (ALP Socialist Left)
5pm Drinks and Booklet Launch: Enemies of a Fair Society Frank Stilwell and Jenna Price	4pm Conference Close coffee, tea, water available throughout conference

Media Bias Systemic and Rife

above: Rupert Murdoch- Absolute Power?

In this new article Tristan Ewins holds that Australia's monopoly media is widely encouraging fear and resentment of refugees to create a 'wedge' against Labor.  Change is needed to genuinely promote the principles of inclusive and democratic pluralism in the Australian public sphere.  A media-democratisation fund - equally empowering all Australian citizens - could be part of this picture... 

 

 

nb also: If you find this article interesting PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Tristan Ewins, September 4, 2011

Reading Melbourne’s ‘Herald-Sun’ today this author was reminded of just how far the Murdoch media (and other media interests) have been willing to descend in order to destabilise the Federal Labor government in Australia.

The underlying implication is that those who wield real cultural power in this country by virtue of outrageous wealth will not tolerate Labor governments that attempt to introduce real Labor policies: that actually behave like real Labor governments. 

Labor is expected, ultimately, to ‘get the message’, ‘fall into line’ and then somehow we can continue with the charade of supposedly liberal democratic pluralism.  

Most commonly the behaviour of Australia’s right-populist  monopoly media has involved the cultivation of anger, fear, resentment and intolerance via various shades of spin, and sometimes outright lies. 

One core aim of this policy has been to fatally undermine Labor’s core working class electoral base.

 The means to achieve this include monopolisation of the print media market in Australia (approx 70% of the market is controlled by NewsCorp/Murdoch); a monopoly of the dominant tabloid market in many Australian states; and the dominance of broadcast media by concentrated interests willing to abuse their control to promote their agendas.

As this author has already noted on occasion: mildly redistributive elements of the proposed carbon tax have been consistently and repeatedly reviled as ‘class war’ in the Herald-Sun.  Individuals on well over $100,000 a year have been portrayed as ‘working class battlers’; and the government’s policies ‘an assault on aspiration’.

 Apparently, however, the flattening of tax scales, deregulation of the labour market, assaults on trade unions, and the dual phenomena of privatisation and user-pays – which see wealth redistributed from ‘battlers’ to the wealthy - ‘do not count as class war’ for the Herald-Sun, Daily Telegraph – and other vehicles of Murdoch propaganda.

Furthermore, the fiction of the ‘burden’ of any carbon tax is repeated like a mantra in the right-populist monopoly media; with rarely any recognition that the vast majority of revenue is pegged to be returned in one form or another to trade-exposed industry, to taxpayers, to consumers. The writers who beat up fear in this regard know very well the fiction they propagate: but apparently they are without conscience.

And today, on September 4^th 2011, there were another two prime examples of propaganda ‘Murdoch-style’ on pages 1, 8 and 9. 

 One headline proclaimed “Flying into Rage grounds refugees”. 

 Much of the monopoly media in Australia – in tandem with the Conservative parties – and especially Tony Abbott himself - has striven to dehumanise and vilify refugees. 

Again the intent has been to create a ‘wedge’ against Labor. 

 The monetary costs of detention, and on one occasion the cost of flying refugees to the funerals of their family members (after the Christmas Island shipwreck tragedy) have been portrayed as a ‘burden upon the taxpayer’. (not for a moment is recognition of their basic humanity allowed, with the sympathy this might engender)  And in today’s Melbourne Herald-Sun refugees who have been incarcerated in intolerable conditions – often for several years – were once more portrayed as ‘violent’.

 And yet there has been precious little mention of the violence of incarceration which has driven so many detainees to the point of self-harm – and on many occasions now even to suicide.  Rarely ever is the question put seriously: In a country of well over 20 million what ‘cultural threat’ are a few thousand refugees supposed to pose?

 Whatever flaws there have been in Labor’s asylum-seeker policies (and there have been many): so much of the monopoly media have chosen to portray the High Court’s recent decision on offshore processing as ‘yet another’ confirmation of the government’s ‘incompetence’; its ‘loss of authority’; its ‘instability’ – and as further cause for an early election. 

These themes have been systematically emphasised - again and again - by the likes of Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine as a part of a deliberate tactic of destabilisation.  No doubt this has comprised part of a broader strategy by this country’s dominant media ‘billionaire puppet-masters’: Murdoch, Reinhart, Packer and others.  Such that Australia’s media is increasingly characterised by the kind of blatant abuse many thought only occurred in Italy at the hands of Silvio Berlusconi.

Underscoring this assumption: there has been precious little focus upon the accompanying consequence of the High Court’s recent decision that the legality of the Conservatives’ migration policies – and their long history of offshore incarceration and processing – is ALSO seriously in doubt. 

And outrageously: much of the right-populist monopoly media has tried to ‘play the refugee issue from both sides’ – painting ‘desert wasteland’ Nauru incarceration as the more ‘humane’ policy – with Shadow Immigration spokesperson Scott Morrison posing as the ‘staunch defender of human rights.’

Another Herald-Sun Article today (4/9/11, pp 8-9) epitomised the ‘quality’ of tabloid journalism in this country.  The article was presented under two titles: ‘Rudd’s Ambush’ and ‘One Moon, Two Fallen stars’.

 To begin, the authors emphasised the “dysfunctional state of the federal Labor Party”, reiterating the ‘official’ line intended to wear down confidence in Labor, and erode Labor’s core base -via ‘cultural attrition’ over the long term; and promote instability. 

This attempt at ‘spin’ was further emphasised with another suggestion that Kevin Rudd may be intending ‘another tilt’ at the Labor leadership; and with the contention that separate meetings between Rudd and Gillard with UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon were ‘unusual’. In reality such separate meetings might be considered ‘routine’; but nonetheless the ‘angle’ was played for all it was worth.

 That said: again the Herald-Sun attempted to ‘cover its bases’.  With some of the media having been willing to suggest the viability of a Rudd leadership-challenge to ‘revive’ Labor’s fortunes – but only so far as to create instability in the current context - again now the authors attempted also to prepare the ground to meet any such ‘new threat’. While  such rumours are intended to destabilise, Rudd himself ‘would ultimately have to be dealt with’ were they ever to ‘come to fruition’.  

Hence the quote printed from ALP parliamentarian Michael Danby that Rudd is “seemingly devoid of any lightness or humour”; and from other ‘sources’ that “there is…loathing at the prospect of Mr Rudd’s return” and “fear he could seek revenge.” 

 Finally: a brief and isolated quote from Gillard was represented in an attempt to maintain the fiction of balance and inclusiveness: 

“Every day between now and then I will be fighting for Labor values, for the things I believe in, for jobs, for education, for opportunity.”

But as usual this is but a ploy on the part of the Herald-Sun: which includes pretty much every day articles full-to-the-brim with prejudice, misrepresentation and spin: but with a token sentence or two at the conclusion of their articles – to maintain credibility as ‘serious journalism’.  The token nature of such quotes is reinforced by the failure of Herald-Sun journalists to develop them fully: such that they could be interpreted and read as substantial and convincing perspectives.

 So what should Labor conclude from all this?

 To begin Labor needs itself to recognise the increasing tendency that liberal pluralism in this country is becoming nothing but a convenient legitimising fiction.  As is the accompanying fiction that billionaire media proprietors ‘do not intervene’ in the editorial policies of their ‘assets’.

 Just as when - for whatever reason - Channel Ten seemed to be ‘going against the trend’ - adopting a moderately and relatively leftist profile – multi-billionaires Murdoch, Reinhart and Packer intervened. Almost overnight the political profile of the network began to change.  Right-populist writer Andrew Bolt was given his own program; and employed regularly in other contexts as a political and social commentator.   While direct intervention has not been proven surely it seems a credible supposition.

The direct cultural power of big capital was also underscored by the earlier scuttling of the original ‘Rudd era’ ‘Resource Super-Profits Tax’ (RSPT); assaulted by a massive media propaganda campaign by the mining giants to destroy the policy and ‘send a clear message to Labor.’   Somehow the threat of an investment strike has been internalised alongside the fiction of liberal and democratic pluralism – despite the fact that the one is in contradiction with the other.

 The original Resource Super-Profits Tax could have rectified this nation’s “two speed economy”; diverting some windfall mining profits (from the natural resources belonging to all Australians) to bolster superannuation, and support manufacturing, tourism and education.  This at a time when a high Australian dollar is ‘supercharging’ mining industry profits; but undermining other exports. (that is, industries that between them employ many times more people than the mining industry)

At the time other areas of industry would not break the ‘united front of capital’ against any impositions; but surely the crisis is now so pronounced that this must again be questioned.

In the face of such abuses for Labor the challenge is to turn the fiction of liberal and democratic pluralism in Australia’s public sphere into a reality. 

 Attempts to promote media-diversification would no-doubt be (ironically) depicted as ‘assaults on free speech’.  But the tendency towards monopolisation in Australian media – and the abuse of that power - is itself an assault upon the inclusiveness of our public sphere.  And such inclusiveness is itself a precondition for genuine democracy.

Labor has nothing to lose at this point by going ahead with a full media enquiry.

 But in the process the government must be careful not to reproduce the same kind of abuses as those they would be seeking to challenge.  Rules regarding “fit and proper” people to own media could set a dangerous precedent.  Today the power of wealth contracts and shackles the public sphere: backed by state recognition and enforcement of the ‘rights’ that accompany wealth.  But EXCESSIVE or inappropriate state regulation of media could also set a dangerous precedent which could ‘come back to haunt’ the Left; providing a pretext for ideological censorship. 

The aim of a media diversification policy ought to be the creation of an inclusive and pluralist public sphere.  This is not compatible with the domination of the industry by a handful of billionaire puppet-masters. Nor is it compatible with the monopolisation of sectors of the industry – for instance the tabloid market in Melbourne where the Herald-Sun has no real competition.  (and in the broader market has a readership of about 1.5 million as compared with ‘The Age’ with a “Monday to Friday readership average of 668,000” – source: Wikipedia)

 Cross-ownership laws need to be tightened and effective monopolies broken up. 

 Certainly that would be a start.

 We need at least two major players in every significant market: effectively representing a wide and inclusive spectrum of viewpoints.  This includes more specialised markets: for instance whether we speak of tabloids or broadsheets.

 But we need a more pro-active policy as well.

To that end: a ‘media-democratisation fund’ could be a visionary solution to the question of representative and inclusive media in this country. 

A fund – perhaps $5 billion to begin at a very rough estimate– could be established and then distributed equally in the form of non-tradeable shares – to all eligible Australian voters regardless of personal wealth. (ie: as a right of citizenship) Shareholders would then be encouraged – and a framework established – for them to organise their investments collectively, equally and democratically in new media intended to create genuine diversity and inclusion of perspectives and viewpoints. 

All profits would be returned to the scheme to be reinvested: the motive being diversification and inclusiveness – not private financial gain.  This would not be an effective expansion of the state sector, however: as all citizens would have individual rights to determine their investments as equal and private shareholders.

 But to achieve the end of real and effective diversification – a real shift of cultural power – and in favour of diversity and inclusion - the scheme would need to apply in the billions - or at least hundreds of millions.  A ‘token’ scheme would not achieve that.  (Pls note again, though: I am providing only very rough estimates here as the author does not have access to such modelling as to accurately determine what would be necessary)

Maintaining and bolstering existing public media such as ABC and SBS undertakings: and ensuring a genuinely pluralist, participatory and inclusive outlook in these – would also serve these crucial ends.

If we’re serious about liberal pluralism: about democracy and inclusion – the time has come for change.

Of State Borders, Wars and Refugees

by Lev Lafayette  (picture above)

The fact that communities have always had policies concerning the movement of people into the lands held by that community should surprise nobody with even a modicum of understanding of anthropology and history. True, there are some rugged individuals who dream of a past or of a future, where one can simply wander with absolute freedom wherever they should like and perhaps many of these are well intention with a desire to interact with nature in solitude. But terra nullius was, and is, a fiction; the principle of freedom of movement is one that must be negotiated and balanced with present occupiers and their claims of jurisdiction. It must be acknowledged that capital will always be more likely to have greater freedom of movement than labour, for capital itself is not a moral actor. With technological and systematic development, such borders have developed from vague marchlands often defined by natural boundaries (forest, river, mountains) to very specific and precise designations, controlling both the movement of people and also the movement of animals, plants, and goods, not to mention the opportunity for rulers to acquire lucre through visa charges, excises and duties.

With the institution of landed property the negotiations between immigrant and established community ceased to be a negotiation between equals with the balanced tipped firmly in favour in the owners of estate. The opportunity now existed for one person or class of persons to acquire the best land to exclusion of the others. If the calculated risk was considered worthwhile, this acquisition was made force of arms in the pursuit of monopoly profit. Wars, both across state borders and within them, have challenged the effectiveness of administrative systems to smoothly operate in some cases, and in others the local jurisdictions have simply had to acknowledge the chaos as a quirky result; a most famous case being Baarle-Hertog (the Belgium exclaves in the Netherlands) and Baarle-Nassau (the Netherland's exclaves in Belgium), where the complexity arises from a number of medieval treaties, land-swaps and sales between the Lords of Breda and the Dukes of Brabant and ratified by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1843.



Whilst such borders seem amusingly anachronistic in a civilised and modern Europe, they underlie a much more serious concern; that fluctuating borders, between and within states, are often the result of violent conflicts which displace huge sections of the affected population, before, during and after the actual conflict leading to the presence of refugees seeking sanctuary. The contemporary definition of a refugee is derived from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which defined a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country. The 1967 Protocol expanded the original definition which was specific to "events occurring before 1 January 1951... in Europe". The Convention and Protocol combined do not have such geographical or temporal limits. Until a person is legally recognised as a refugee in a country where they seek sanctuary they are designated as asylum seekers.

Behind these legal definitions is the very real people themselves. At the beginning of 2006, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated the total number worldwide of such people at almost 8.5 million at the beginning of 2006. This figure excludes some 4.6 million Palestinian refugees classified under the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who are the only group to be granted refugee status to the descendants of refugees. Nor do these figures include Internally-Displaced People, those who have been forced to flee their homes for the same reasons as refugees (usually civil war) but remain within their country's borders. At the end of 2006 the number of these persons was estimated at 24.5 million, with some 40% of these being in Africa. Conditions in refugee and IDP camps is typically very poor and are rife with abuse and violence. For the large number of children in such places there is little opportunity for formal schooling. Asylum seekers, apart from often suffering physical wounds, often develop post-traumatic stress disorder (approximately 9% across several studies) and major depression (5%).

A common characteristic of both refugees and internally displaced persons is that the people involved are seeking sanctuary. An ancient times among both the Greeks and Egyptians it was held that a person who fled to a temple could not be harmed without inviting divine intervention. This religious right to asylum was included in medieval European legal codes, originally with King Ethelbert of Kent, c600AD. In modern times, significant numbers of people seeking asylum after the first world war to the establishment of the League of Nations' High Commission for Refugees in 1921, dealing with some 1.5 million people who were fleeing the Russian Revolution and the subsequent Civil War and soon after some 1 million Armenians fleeing the genocide in Turkey. International response however, was not always beneficial. The United States introduced the Emergency Quota Act (1921) and the Immigration Act (1924), aimed at reducing the migration of southern and eastern Europeans. As a result most of the European refugees - principally Jews and Slavs - fleeing Stalinism, the Nazis and World War II were barred from coming to the United States.

Often overlooked is the massive refugee crisis in the last months of WWII and immediately afterwards. During the war itself the Allied forced had created repatriation of over seven million displaced persons in Europe and China. However as Soviet forces advanced towards Germany, some five million German citizens fled northern and western Poland and Prussia. Further, Poland engaged in an ethnic expulsion program an issue further complicated as most of eastern Germany was under Polish administration. Large numbers of Germans were also expelled or left eastern Europe; an estimated twelve million in total and between five hundred thousand and a million perishing in the process.

Other refugee crisis in the second half the twentieth century and in contemporary times begins with the partition of India, leading to the largest movement of persons in history, with some eighteen million Hindus and Sikhs moving from West Pakistan to India with a smaller number of Muslims moving in the other direction. The Algerian War of Independence resulted in some two million Algerians either fleeing into the Algerian hinterland or relocating to France, Morocco or Tunisia, along with some nine hundred thousand European-descended Algerians. Decolonisation also led to approximately one million people of Portuguese descent leaving Angola and Mozambique and the Angolan Civil War caused four million IDPs and five hundred thousand refugees. During the Bangladesh War of Independence in 1971, more than ten million Bengalis fled to neighboring India. Following war and the establishment of communist governments in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in 1975, about three million people became asylum seekers, resulting in the term 'boat people' entering the vernacular. The civil war in Sri Lanka, from the early 1980s onwards, generated over one hundred thousand refugees and almost three hundred thousand IDPs. In the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, over two million people fled into neighboring countries. A civil war in Tajikistan has led to 1.2 million refugees and displaced persons. Africa's instability is so great that countries are often simultaneously countries of origin for refugees and countries of asylum for other refugees; the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the place of origin for over four hundred thousand refugees, but it is also the place of refuge for almost two hundred thousand. In contemporary Darfur, some 2.5 million people - a third of the population - have been forced to flee the homes after attacks by government-backed paramilitaries. The current war in Iraq led to displacement of some 4.7 million persons; 2 million seeking refugee status and the others as IDPs.

The reality is that whilst there are wars, with their heavy foundation in the existence of standing armies and the prospect of monopoly control of natural resources, there will be asylum seekers. Indeed, if scientific expectations have a degree of accuracy, in all probability the twenty-first century will witness huge displacements of people as 'climate change asylum seekers'; those whose homes and livelihood become no longer viable due to rising sea levels, deforestation and desertification, extreme weather, extinctions etc. With these affects monopolistic competition for resources will become greater, leading to more wars and increased numbers of asylum seekers in coming decades. In these circumstances it is probable that there will be a rise among reactionary nationalists who will oppose such asylum seekers, who will support their expulsion and detention and generally seek to overturn the Refugee Convention.

In contrast a policy that is dedicated to maximising human freedom promotes policies that allow anyone to settle in any area subsequent to basic health and security checks, limited by the carrying capacity of the region in question. Indeed, there is a utilitarian argument that refugees should be given priority over general immigration as their needs are greater as will be the change in their circumstances. As for specific settlement locations, these should be determined by smaller jurisdictions, not larger. As the Howard administration in Australia sought to reduce the refugee intake into Australia - and engaged in a particularly racist and heartless program of incarceration, temporary protection visas and even sending naval vessels to prevent the landing of those arriving by boat - many areas of regional Australia expressed great desire for further migrant populations to settle in increasingly deserted townships.

The detention of asylum seekers is another issue that is not going to go away, and it will be increasingly a favoured tool of popularist governments who seek to incarcerate asylum seekers pending determination of their status as a refugee, especially those who arrive by boat. In Australia, such "unauthorised" arrivals have been treated with outcry by a conservative media even though in 2008 the total number people who sought asylym in such a manner was a paltry 3.4%. Australia was the only country that mandated the detention of all such arrivals, and public claims were often made that this would deter people smugglers, although it was never substantiated how punishing the victims would challenge the perpetrators. Because application for refugee status is a universal right, one that transcends local jurisdictions, and the temporal vagaries of politics, the management of such applications should be determined internationally, not by the states in question. In other words, rather than processing of refugee claims and management of detention centres being carried out by states, they should be carried out by the UNHCR.

As a further emphasis on the universal applicability of the claims, concerted international effort needs to be directed towards those countries that are not signatories to the 1967 Protocol. Specifically this refers to a swath of countries across the middle-east and southern asia, including Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia among others. Of course, in some of those cases people may indeed be fleeing from the governments of such countries. Nevertheless, the existence of these non-signatories causes problems for neighbouring states, as these asylum seekers are supposed to seek refuge at the first country of opportunity. With the existence of 'non-countries' in between the source and destination, the real or imagined concern of selective choice weakens claims of asylum among the existing inhabitants.

Whilst these three policies - universality of the Protocol, UNHCR processing of asylum seekers, localised settlement of refugees - will certainly serve to provide greater justice for refugee claimants and local communities, reminder is drawn to the original points of this article; that whilst there is the possibility of monopoly ownership over natural wealth, there will be the the impetus for wars both internal and external to states. Whilst this problem remains unresolved, along with the lack of responsibility of damage to the environment, a genuine tragedy of the commons, there problem of asylum seekers, refugees and internally displaced persons, shall remain.

by Lev Lafayette, founder of Labor for Refugees (Australia)

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.
see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Rudd and refugees: the new racism

This article, by Leonie Bronstein, first appeared in En Passant. Both sites hope this can be the beginning of a comradely exchange of ideas and debate and discussion to help socialists and other left wingers better understand the world we live in. Leonie Bronstein is nom-de-plume.

Australia is a nation founded doubly on racism.

The British established Australia as a colonial settler state in 1788. Like other colonial settler states, such as South Africa and Israel, racism was essential to setting up the new nation.

This involved the de-humanisation of the original inhabitants and the concomitant deification of the invaders as a screen for driving Aborigines off their land and tying convicts and settlers to their British masters.

The second tranche of racism reflected itself in the unification of the states into one country, Australia.

The new nation was built on a grand compromise between labour and capital - protectionism, arbitration and White Australia.

One of the first Acts of the new parliament was the White Australia law.

This melded racism against the internal 'enemy', Aborigines, with racism against an external 'enemy', Chinese and other Asian workers.

This racism served (and continues to serve) both economic and ideological purposes.

It found a ready audience among many white workers and their political expression, the Australian Labor Party. The 1890s depression, and the defeats the labour movement suffered, saw both the birth of reformism and a further swing to racism.

Apart from the economic and ideological 'justifications' for racism, workers often find solace in a false sense of superiority over others as some sort of response to the alienated life they lead under capitalism.

This is refined and magnified by laborism which replicates and reinforces the ideology of the bourgeoisie in terms that workers can understand and which, in the absence of any anti-capitalist formation to challenge the dominant ideas, they can accept.

It is in the arena of ideology that the ruling class benefits too from racism. A divided working class is a weak working class.

In times of recession workers can question the legitimacy of the rule of capital. The ruling clique will resort to racism to divert that questioning away from the system to external factors.

That has been happening to some extent over the last 18 years or so as the benefits of the boom gushed to the bosses and trickled to workers.

But with the advent of the Great Recession the Opposition, bereft of relevance until now, has shifted to a more right-wing position on a range of issues.

The explosion on the refuge boat has allowed them to beat the drum of racism using code words like border protection, softness and 'illegals'.

Labor has responded not with a drum but a dog whistle. According to Kevin Rudd 'People smugglers are evil scum who should not only rot in jail but also in hell.'

The subtext is clear. 'See, we in Labor are tough on border control too, keeping out all those nasty dark skinned people.'

Rudd can't say so so straight out so his rhetoric concentrates on targets (like refugee travel consultants and being tough on 'border protection') that he thinks will resonate with those who oppose refugees for racist reasons.

When it comes to the evil scum stakes, I think Australian soldiers killing innocent kids in Afghanistan ranks much higher than any crime Indonesian people smugglers might commit.

Rudd Labor supports Australian soldiers killing innocents in Afghanistan in the name of defending rape in marriage. But that's OK. They were just darkies, weren't they? Killing them is alright because, nudge nudge, wink wink, they are not really human like us whities.

And I think the 1 million dead in Iraq that Howard and Rudd and Bush and Obama have killed or are killing makes a strong case for those bastards rotting in jail now.

People smugglers would be irrelevant if we set up quick process points near the borders of countries where people are fleeing war and poverty - places like Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Iraq or even in Indonesia.

Then the refugees could start their new lives in peace, not having to bear unimaginable horrors and the risk of death on the way to Australia.

Rudd thinks that politically he cannot allow the Liberals to dominate the racist centre ground. Yet he knows the old racism is unworkable in a country like Australia whose labour force is and will continue to be drawn from hundreds of countries.

He has developed a new racism - a balancing act which gives the impression of even handedness but in reality attacks those poor and defenceless who have dark skins.

The resultant 'soft' racism, which may be politically advantageous, also cons leftists who support Labor.

We assert our 'superiority' by attacking defenceless people fleeing war and poverty, war and poverty that our rulers impose on other countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a rational world people could move from land to land as they want.

Under the irrational world we currently live in, capital is free to move around the world but labour is not.

Some workers will be attracted to ruling class racism and this may only increase as unemployment worsens.

If unions started to fight to defend jobs and living standards, the siren song of racism would disappear as workers recognised that the enemy was the system, not other workers.

It's time for a rational world in which all human beings are equal - a world without borders, where no one is illegal, where we live in peace and harmony and prosperity for all.