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.