Continuing to keep the bastards honest

The Democrats have been at the forefront in promoting government accountability over the years. Our senators today are just as committed as Don Chipp was to “keeping the bastards honest”. But it’s a hard task. We’re fighting against a government that is prepared to do just about anything to stifle dissent and avoid embarrassment.

I attended a press conference last week at which Democrats senator Andrew Murray, from Western Australia, launched the party’s accountability platform. He stressed the importance of strengthening freedom of information laws and ensuring ministerial accountability. Senator Lyn Allison, who was also at the conference, talked about the need to place limits on government advertising — especially in election years — and to have fixed parliamentary terms.

But, sadly, keeping the bastards honest would seem an impossible task. Yet that doesn’t stop us from exposing their deceits, and the Democrats have a strong history of doing that. I hope that we have the electoral support to continue doing it well into the future.

Laura Chipp, who is our candidate for the seat of Isaacs and the youngest daughter of Don Chipp, has pledged to carry on her father's tradition. Channel 7 last week aired a great segment on her campaign.

Melbourne climate change forum

I spoke at a climate change forum on Sunday. There were candidates from four other parties represented. The organisers were very keen to know about greenhouse gas reduction targets, particularly our target for 2050. Generally, there was probably too much focus on targets and not enough on solutions.

I spent a bit of time talking about converting to renewable energy, but the focus of my speech was on energy efficiency. It's one aspect of the climate change problem that is rarely discussed - and yet energy efficiency is perhaps the cheapest and easiest way to make significant cuts in our emissions.

There's no national strategy on energy efficiency. But hopefully that will soon change. The Democrats recently introduced a bill in the federal parliament to set up a special scheme to promote energy efficient appliances, buildings and equipment. It has been referred to a Senate committee.

Why is it that we can still buy appliances with a one- or two-star energy efficiency rating? Why is it not mandatory for all new buildings to have double-glazed windows? And why do we not have a hybrid car industry in Australia? We need national leadership on these issues.

The federal government's Climate Clever advertising campaign is about about shifting the blame for our climate change failure from the government to individuals. It's also about giving the impression that the government is taking the challenge seriously - but it isn't.

We've seen some great green initiatives in business, and we've seen some great initiatives at the local and state level of government. The main player letting us down is the federal government.

I organised a Democrats movie night last night and we saw the 11th Hour, which is a new film about climate change. The main message is - now is the time to act. One way to act on climate change is through the vote.

Fix the system - fix parliamentary terms!

I think people are a bit over not knowing when the election will be. The Democrats think we should have fixed parliamentary terms - to provide certainty for business and voters. Letting the Prime Minister choose when an election will be gives the Government an unfair advantage. Here's a video Democrats leader Lyn Allison posted yesterday explaining why:



The Democrats will start its TV ad campaign soon. Here's a sneak preview. It features Don Chipp's daughter Laura and Democrats leader Lyn Allison:



And lastly, I was heading home on the tram last night and I came across this photo in MX. It's me dressed as a koala! It seems the Democrats are the only ones who have vocally opposed this new citizenship test.

The PM's new citizenship test

Our YouTube on the "un-Australian koala" was shown on most TV channels across Australia on Monday (see below). I think that the Democrats have done a good job of highlighting the absurdity of the Prime Minister's new citizenship test. I had an opinion piece published in the Geelong Advertiser about it today:

Patriotism, last refuge of ...

The prime minister's citizenship test, introduced this Monday, is the new Aussie cringe. It's all about mateship, explorers, diggers and the 'fair go'. Women barely rate a mention, and the contribution of indigenous Australians to our national character is disgracefully under-acknowledged.

John Howard's version of Australian history is masculine, conservative and heavily focused on war. But this citizenship test is more than mere jingoistic propaganda. It's an assault on democracy. We'll be denying people citizenship, and therefore the right to vote, because they're unable to memorise some pretty obscure and irrelevant facts.

And I bet even John Howard would struggle to answer some of the questions. I'm talking about the ones on 'Australian values'. For example, is freedom of religion and secular government a value that's important in modern Australia? Surely not. After all, it wasn't long ago that the PM rose in Parliament to proclaim Australia a Christian nation and Christianity the greatest force for good.

So perhaps equality under the law is an Australian value? Nope. Not so long as 58 federal laws deny same-sex couples the same financial and work-related entitlements as heterosexual couples.

Well, what about peacefulness? That doesn't seem right considering Mr Howard sent our troops to an illegal war in Iraq and the Government spends more money on defence than education. The answer, then, must be tolerance, mutual respect and compassion for those in need. But what about the fact we lock up refugees or send them to small island countries for offshore processing? This question has me stumped. And I'm sure it would confuse the prime minister, too.

According to Becoming an Australian Citizen - the information booklet given to people to prepare them for the test - all of these are Australian values. That must make our matey prime minister un-Australian - because he doesn't seem to uphold any of them. But, luckily for him, he can fail some of the questions but still pass the test. I'm sure he knows a lot of useless facts about symbols, national days and so on.

A true patriot like Mr Howard would certainly know, for example, that South Australia has 13 wine regions and Australia is 32 times the size of the United Kingdom. He would also know the Australian flag was first flown on September 3, 1901, and that Wattle Day is celebrated on September 1 each year. So perhaps he wouldn't flunk the test after all.

But my underlying argument remains intact: one's ability to memorise a few stupid facts about Australia isn't a good measure of one's suitability for citizenship. Australia will be worse off because of this test, which will deny citizenship to many good-hearted, hard-working, committed people.

If we really are home of the 'fair go' and the land of opportunity, then we surely don't need this ludicrous citizenship test. It flies in the face of the very values that it claims we uphold.

Also, The Age recently published a column in their Metro section on my anti-nuclear work in Africa earlier this year. I'm now on the management committee for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which is a fantastic new grassroots campaign to encourage governments to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear weapons. I wish our government would get involved in the fight, but it has said no. Democrats leader Lyn Allison has vowed to maintain the pressure.

My life so far

Melbourne University law student Tim Wright, 22, recently spent five months in Africa encouraging governments to ratify the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty.

You were volunteering for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. How did you get involved?

An organisation by the name of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War started this campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. It began in Australia because we managed to secure the funding for it.

I did a six-week internship with the Australian affiliate of the Medical Association for Prevention of War after I finished university classes last year and it was an inspiring experience. At the end of that I decided that I would go to Africa and make a difference by getting countries to ratify the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty.

Had you travelled much before this?

I travelled a lot with my family growing up and also just with my dad. We travelled mainly through Asia and a lot of those holidays were off the beaten track.

When I finished school I travelled through South America and Central America. I also lived in Russia for half a year on an exchange. I think I've been to about 60 countries now.

You met government officials and community leaders in 12 African countries. How was that experience?

It was quite incredible. We hear so much about African leaders and so it was interesting to meet some of them and try to psychoanalyse them. They're all incredibly jovial. You read about them in the media and learn of some of the terrible things that they have done and it's almost hard to believe.

I didn't meet any presidents. I met foreign ministers and defence ministers. I was 21 and looked young so they were quite taken aback but they did take me seriously.
It was nerve-racking in the beginning. My first high-level meeting was in Swaziland where I met the defence minister who doubled as the foreign minister. That was very intimidating. I went there expecting a really flashy building with lots of security but it was very casual. He was quite receptive to my ideas but the interview was cut short when the King of Swaziland called and beckoned him to the royal palace. He was whisked away in a black Mercedes.

What were your interests when you were growing up?

I was always politically interested but not always politically active. I grew up in Barwon Heads and went to school in Drysdale, just outside Geelong.

It was hard at school to do anything. I tried to begin a debating team but that was a flop. The only debating system that seemed to exist was among private schools and I went to a public school. I started a recycling program at school and I started up a student newsletter but it was always me having to show a lot of initiative rather than systems already being in place.

I started to become politically active at university.

Describe your family.

My mother is a teacher. My dad worked for the government for quite a number of years but he is now a photographer. He always had his camera out on our holidays. Now he's doing something he loves. I have a sister who has the travel bug. She has been away travelling for two years with her husband.

My sister and my parents aren't politically active. They laugh at some of the things I do, but they like it. Mum worries when I go overseas. Dad doesn't worry, he loves it. I think he wishes that I would take him along. He loves to look at my photos.

Do you work?

I have put university on hold this year and I'll return to that in February. At the moment I'm working for Australian Democrats leader Senator Lyn Allison. We're all in pre-election campaign mode. I've been working on peace-related issues with her. One of the main ones has been cluster bombs, which is another issue I'm really passionate about. Almost half the cluster munition victims are young children because they mistake the unexploded munitions for toys and pick them up. If they don't die, they might lose limbs or experience severe burns.

What are your hopes for your own future?

I'm running for Parliament in this election - I'm running as an Australian Democrats candidate for the seat of Melbourne. We can achieve a lot if we're represented in the Parliament so I'd like to carry my work forward there. If I'm not elected, I'd like to run again for the Senate.

I don't know that I like the idea of being a career politician but I would like to be a politician for some amount of time and then perhaps move to a career with the United Nations.

The un-Australian koala

The Prime Minister's citizenship test came into effect today. It's ridiculous that we could be denying people citizenship on the basis that they don't know, for example, that golden wattle is our national floral emblem or Edmund Barton was our first prime minister. This is an assault on democracy, because if you're denied citizenship, you're also denied the vote.

Laura Chipp and I caused a bit of a stir this morning when we posted a video on YouTube (below) in which we accuse a koala of being "un-Australian" for not knowing the answers to the questions on the test. Laura is the Democrats candidate for Isaacs and national spokesperson for the Young Australian Democrats.

I dressed up as a koala and stood outside the building where the citizenship tests were taking place. I held up a sign that read: "I failed the citizenship test. Does that make me un-Australian?" People stopped and talked to me, and many agreed that the citizenship test should go.

What do you think about it? Let me know.



Here's the press release that Democrats leader Lyn Allison sent out this morning:

Democrats candidates accuse koala of being 'un-Australian'

Australian Democrats leader Senator Lyn Allison today posted a YouTube video in which two Democrats candidates accuse a koala of being ‘un-Australian’ for not knowing the answers to the Prime Minister’s new citizenship test.

Laura Chipp, candidate for the seat of Isaacs and the youngest daughter of the late Democrats founder Don Chipp, asks the koala: “Dya even know who Australia’s first prime minister was? Or when Australia became a federation?”

Tim Wright, candidate for Melbourne, says: “The Prime Minister’s citizenship test is jingoistic propaganda — it’s the new Aussie cringe.”

Senator Allison also features in the video.

She says that the Prime Minister’s citizenship test “will mean that hard-working, good-hearted and committed people are denied Australian citizenship on the basis that they don’t know the answers to what are, frankly, some pretty obscure and irrelevant questions”.

“You can’t judge a person’s fitness for citizenship based on a test any more than you can judge a political party’s fitness for government based on its promises,” she concludes.

Making poverty history

I attended another forum on Friday. The purpose was to give people an idea of where the various political parties stand on overseas aid. The Make Poverty History campaign has been placing pressure on the Government to spend at least 0.7 per cent of gross national income on aid by 2015. Experts tend to agree that if all rich nations allocated that proportion of their respective budgets to aid, then we could achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

The Democrats believe that a rich country like ours, with a booming economy and successive budgetary surpluses, should easily be able to afford 0.7 per cent. In fact, there's no reason why we shouldn't exceed that figure. Several other countries allocate more than 1 per cent. Australia is currently only the 15th most generous aid donor in the world based on per capita gross national income. And yet, as individuals, we're the second most generous aid donors in the world. We're prepared to give our money to good causes, but the Government isn't.

Tim Costello, the head of World Vision, opened the panel. He was inspiring as always. Greg Hunt, the federal member for Flinders, also spoke. He said that the Government is committed to poverty alleviation, and meeting the Millennium Development Goals, but that it wouldn't put a timeframe on reaching the 0.7 per cent target. He argued, correctly, that cluster munitions are a development problem - they clog up hospitals with amputees, destroy entire villages in one hit, and prevent agriculture for decades. But he lied in saying that Australia is leading the movement for their abolition. Australia is in fact in the process of acquring cluster munitions for the first time, and we're thwarting international moves for a blanket ban.

The focus of my talk was on what I consider to be one of the greatest impediments to achieving the Millennium Development Goals - war, or militarism. I considered it appropriate to focus on this given that it was the International Day of Peace. The audience didn't need a reiteration of the problem of poverty. They know how many people live on less than a dollar a day and how many people die each year of preventable diseases. But very rarely does anyone argue the war factor.

We spend US$1.4 trillion a year on militarism. That's US$184 per person per year. More than one-third of this is United States expenditure in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the United States abandoned its nuclear weapons program, we'd have an extra US$40 billion a year to spend on development - that's almost enough on its own for us to meet the Millennium Development Goals by the target dates. Australia also spends a ridiculous amount on militarism - about A$20 billion. This year, for the first time ever, we spent more on defence than on education federally. These are disturbing facts.

I've put together my first YouTube video. I hope you like it - please post comments. It's about the poor record of the Howard Government on social justice issues and how far we lag behind the times.

Peace and anti-nuclear activism

Here are a couple of press releases I sent out this week. The first was to notify the media of my pre-selction as the Democrats candidate for Melbourne. I explain that one of the focuses of my campaign will be on challenging the Government and Opposition over their stances on nuclear issues.

Dems pick anti-nuke campaigner for Melb

The Australian Democrats have chosen Tim Wright , a 22-year-old anti-nuclear campaigner and
Melbourne University law student, as the party’s candidate for the seat of Melbourne in this year’s federal election.

Tim spent the first half of the year in Africa persuading government ministers to ratify the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. He is now on the management committee of the
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

“Nuclear will be a big issue this election. Australians are justifiably alarmed that our Prime Minister seems happy to sell uranium to just about anyone who asks for it. We no longer exercise caution in this area,” he said.

“Australia once led the world in promoting nuclear disarmament. Now we’re very much contributing to the problem by nestling under the United States nuclear umbrella.

“My greatest fear is that it’ll take another Hiroshima or Nagasaki before we finally muster the political will to ban the nuclear bomb once and for all.

“The Government also seems hell-bent on developing a nuclear power industry for Australia . Of all the stupid ideas it has come up with over the last decade, this it surely one of the stupidest,” he said.

“Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, uneconomical and unsustainable. We should be concentrating on renewables, which don’t produce waste that is harmful to human health.”

And here's a press release I sent out this morning about the International Day of Peace, which is tomorrow. Once again, the Government has refused to support a global ceasefire for the duration of the day.

Government snubs Peace Day

The Australian Government has refused to support a 24-hour global ceasefire which the United Nations is trying to broker tomorrow for the International Day of Peace.

“What’s the point in having a peace day if the guns still fire and the bombs still fall?” asked Tim Wright, president of the Melbourne-based Peace Organisation of Australia.

“Australia said yes to a UN resolution in 2001 which made Peace Day a ceasefire day. But each year since then it has refused to do anything to help bring about a break in hostilities.

“Its excuse this year is, bizarrely, that to actively support a ceasefire would jeopardise the security of our servicemen and servicewomen. But I suspect the Government is just being lazy on this.

“The ceasefire idea has huge merit. Families can be reunited. Aid workers can access areas that are ordinarily off limits. And people are spared the daily burden of fear for their own lives and the lives of each other.

“But, most importantly, it gives people in war zones time to look beyond the barricades to see if there’s an alternative path. One day of peace could conceivably lead to two days or three. In fact, there's no limit.

“I find it absurd that, in 2007, we still consider warfare a legitimate way to resolve disputes. Let's try to stop killing each other - at least for one day,” he said.

I'll be speaking at a couple of public forums tomorrow about peace and poverty alleviation. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think that one cannot exist without the other.

Kicking off my campaign

I’m deeply concerned about the direction our nation is heading in. It’s an honour to have been chosen to represent the Australian Democrats for the federal seat of Melbourne in this year’s federal election. I think the events of the last few years have made it very clear that we need a strong progressive third force in the Australian Parliament — to knock off to harsh edges of extreme laws like WorkChoices and to prevent the enactment of other laws that breach fundamental human rights.

The Democrats also play a vital role in helping to shape the political agenda in Australia. Over the last two years, I have worked for Democrats leader Senator Lyn Allison on several important campaigns. The first was a campaign to prevent the Australian Government from acquiring and using cluster munitions. Though Lyn’s private bill hasn’t passed, and probably won’t be passed in its current form, our campaign was important because it put the issue in the public consciousness. The Australian Government is now engaged in negotiations for a treaty banning cluster munitions.

Another campaign I’ve more recently been involved in is the campaign to afford same-sex couples the same financial and work-related entitlements that heterosexual couples take for granted. Last week I coordinated an ad hoc parliamentary inquiry into the matter. The committee members will release their final report later in the week. I’ll keep you updated on this.

During the public hearing last Thursday, Liberal MP Warren Entsch relayed a conversation that had taken place at the weekend between Malcolm Turnbull MP and US President George W Bush. Bush supposedly asked Turnbull what the main social issues are in Australia at the moment. Turnbull told him the gay rights is a big issue. Bush said that same-sex marriage is a big issue in America, but his administration didn’t support it. Turnbull said gay marriage isn’t a big issue in Australia, but equal financial and work-related entitlements is. Bush expressed surprise. He said that this isn’t a moral issue — it’s just a matter of fairness and social justice. He’s right. Hopefully our Prime Minister takes note.

I recently wrote a letter on this topic for MCV, a Melbourne paper. The heading was ‘The cost of equality’:

Equality is a big ask. Or so the Federal Government would have us believe. How greedy it is that same-sex couples expect equal treatment, under the law, to their hetero counterparts. It’s a queer old world indeed.

Equality is costly, for starters. If we removed discrimination from our statute books, same-sex couples would be entitled to all sorts of pensions, concessions and other benefits they’re currently denied.

But cost shouldn’t be part of the equation. Imagine using “cost” to deny equal entitlements to some other group in the same way. It wouldn’t happen. So why is it still OK to discriminate against gays and lesbians in such a blatant fashion?

Well, equal entitlements could — heaven forbid — lead to gay marriage or, worse, gay adoption. The foundations of this nation would crumble. (This kind of logic appeals to rational minds like our beloved Health Minister, Tony Abbott, and his partner in anti-gay crime, Kirby-basher Bill Heffernan.)

Then there’s that other cost to consider. The all-important one. Votes. What do equal rights mean electorally? In general, our pollies still shy away from being seen as pro-gay.

I fear that, in the absence of vocal and sustained public pressure, the Australian Democrats’ Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007 — a law to end financial and work-related discrimination against gay couples — will fall by the wayside.

My own election campaign hasn’t begun in earnest yet, but I’ve already had the opportunity to speak at a number of forums. My first speaking engagement was at an event organised by the Sri Lankan community in Melbourne. There were several other political representatives there, and I was disappointed that none of them was willing to speak about the human rights abuses and political violence taking place in Sri Lanka.

I also spoke at a rally about our country’s ridiculous anti-terror laws. I firmly believe that there are certain minimum human rights standards we must adhere to, even in the face of a threat as serious as terrorism. When you give ministers unfettered powers, they tend to show very little restraint in exercising those powers. The case of Dr Haneef exposed some of the grave flaws in both our anti-terror legislation and the Immigration Act.

I enjoyed speaking at a large demonstration about nuclear weapons and nuclear power not long ago. I’m very passionate about these issues and in fact spent the first half of the year campaigning on them. I’m really angry that our government now seems willing to sell our uranium to just about any country that asks for it. We once led the world in promoting nuclear disarmament — now we’re very much contributing to the problem.

A couple of weeks ago I spoke at a forum about making poverty history. I outlined the Democrats policy on aid and then made some comments about the Millennium Development Goals. I relayed some personal stories about poverty in Africa. I argued that women’s reproductive health and access to contraceptives is essential if we are to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030. The audience was predominantly Catholic, and many disagreed with me on this. However, almost all of them, it seemed, agreed with my argument that there’s a strong link between poverty and militarism. Wars plunge people into poverty or prevent them from escaping poverty, and military expenditure diverts money from development.


Last Wednesday I flew to Sydney to appear on the Susie Show speaking about the International Day of Peace, which is this Friday. For the last few years, I’ve been placing pressure on the Australian Government to support the observance of a global ceasefire on the day. Ceasefires are highly successful at bringing about sustained peace, and they allow aid works to access areas that are ordinarily off limits. During a ceasefire, families can be reunited and information is able to flow freely. Disappointingly, the Australian Government has once again said no to the ceasefire idea, even though it undertook to support it at the UN General Assembly in 2001.

This week was the Albert Park by-election, and the Australian Democrats received one of our highest results in a long time. I enjoyed speaking to people throughout the day about Democrats policies and the way our parliamentarians effect positive change. Everyone I spoke to was very positive. I think that participation in the by-election was a good morale booster for the party. It was a good opportunity for us to show that the party is still alive and well. I enjoyed working with the Democrats candidate, Paul Kavanagh, who is very energetic and committed to the community.