Sparliament : Politics In Action

This story from ABC News and Sydney Morning Herald articles. First ABC News:

No-one in immigration detention should be held for longer than 12 months unless they pose a significant risk to the community, a parliamentary committee has recommended. The limit on detention is one of 18 recommendations made to the
Federal Government by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration today in its
report, Immigration Detention in Australia: A New Beginning.
...
The report recommends that the Immigration Department make public what the criteria is for deciding that a detainee poses an "unacceptable risk" to the community. It also says health checks should be completed within five days and if the
Department of Immigration can not establish a person's identity or a security
assessment is incomplete within 90 days that a procedure should be developed
where they can be released from detention under certain conditions such as
strict reporting requirements. The report recommends that a person detained for
longer than 12 months have access to judicial review and those being held be
no longer charged for their detention.

First of all: they were charged for their detention? OUCH. Like it's not bad enough that you've been persecuted in your home country, you then are locked up in conditions which have been compared to high-security prisons. After I dug around a little, I found a Crikey article which talks about this very issue, claiming that 18 months' detention came to a cost of AU$160,000 for asylum seeker Kasian Wililo, who at the time of receiving the bill was already a NSW resident living with his wife and children and holding a full-time job. Here's a slice of ridiculous pie for you:

Mr Wililo is not alone. As of the 30 June 2008, there were 386 persons with
active detention debts amounting to $7,705,576, according to Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) spokesperson Sandi Logan.

Any former detainee not granted a Permanent Protection Visa or
Humanitarian Visa is billed for their time in detention, and any
costs associated with their subsequent deportation.

According to Logan, "... the department has a standardised cost charged per day for
detention across all mainland facilities. $125.40 a day is now the standardised
rate charged across all mainland centres. The daily maintenance amount is
never more than the actual cost of detention incurred by the
Commonwealth."

So Wililo was being charged the equivalent of a low-to-medium-range Sydney hotel rate in order to be treated like a criminal? Apparently so.

If you're going to charge them the price of a hotel, treat them like they're in a hotel. There's no reason to assume that any asylum seekers are bad people aside from racist presumptions and prejudices. If we follow the judicial model, these people are innocent. They have not committed offenses apart from being 'unauthorised', which is not exactly surprising given that they're refugees, they are obviously not going to go through a paper-trail process which is traceable back to them and which may take years to execute.

Knowing that, we should be happy that these recommendations have been made in the report, right? Well, yes and no. On the one hand, it's a great step forward in ensuring that the atrocities of detention centres prevalent during the Howard years are not repeated, particularly in regards to children in detention and long terms while awaiting trial. Nevertheless, these changes are not nearly enough.

One of the issues which continues to irk me is that of deportation of asylum seekers whose applications are denied. A recent case is that of Muhammed Hussain, an Afghan man who was rejected under Howard's "Pacific Solution" and was returned to Afghanistan accordingly:

[He] was thrown down a well by gunmen, believed to be the Taliban. Then in
front of onlookers including members of his family, the killers threw a hand
grenade down the well and he was decapitated...Accounts of the killing were
given to Phil Glendenning, director of the Edmund Rice Centre, this week. He
told the Herald he has verified the events with four different sources in
Afghanistan.

Mr Glendenning met Mr Hussain in January in Kabul, where the Australian was
filming a documentary, A Well-Founded Fear, about asylum seekers rejected during
the Howard years.

Mr Glendenning wants the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, to reopen the
cases of the rejected Afghans "as a matter of urgency". He also wants the
Government to "put in place processes and policies to make sure this never ever
happens again".

Let's hope that Chris Evans does indeed do so, as human lives are at risk here and the ridiculous notion of sending people who have outrightly said they are at risk of murder in their home countries do not do so lightly.

Yet even when refugees are released from detention centres, the visas on which they are put are ridiculously inadequate.

Paris Aristotle, writing in The Age newspaper, produced an article which states well the inadequacies of the current system, which begins by discussing an Iraqi man identified only as 'Ali':

He fled Iraq in the wake of Saddam's persecution of Kurds and Shiites. His
village was raided by Iraqi soldiers killing hundreds of people, including his
father. They are searing images in his young mind, haunting his life and
challenging his faith in humanity...

After eight years in Pakistani refugee camps and the threat of repatriation
to Iraq, Ali and the remains of his family resorted to people smugglers to
escape. They made it to Australian territory only to be locked in detention at
Woomera for more than a year.

Razor wire, regular protests, open displays of self-harming and widespread psychological distress — this was the antithesis of what an already traumatised teenage boy needed. Ali and his family were eventually granted refugee status but their three-year temporary protection visa (TPV) meant they were not be entitled to English language classes, assistance to find employment or other settlement services, and the time did not count towards obtaining citizenship.

So even when a family is deemed as requiring protection, the TPV turns out to be extremely inadequate in equipping refugees with the skills and support needed to integrate and contribute effectively into the Australian community. So you might be asking: How many people are actually released from asylum? Surely it must be riddled with terrorists?

Well no, in fact the same article goes on to say:

In reality, more than 90% of asylum seekers held in mandatory detention in
Australia and as a part of the "Pacific Solution" were granted protection in
accordance with the law. Of those remaining, in detention for several years
more, most ultimately received visas also. Many of those visas were granted for
compassionate reasons, not necessarily due to their asylum claims but because
the system had harmed them so severely.

So we spend millions of dollars creating and maintaining centres which treat people, human beings fleeing the governments we denounce, like criminals. The state of these detention centres is extremely psychologically damaging. As Paris Aristotle says, "Razor wire, regular protests, open displays of self-harming and widespread psychological distress — this was the antithesis of what an already traumatised teenage boy needed." Yet that is exactly what Ali received upon arriving to Australia in an attempt to start a new life and escape the memories of oppression and genocide.

I should point out, however, that there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Although these recommendations are a good start, there are some politicians who are taking a stand against them. Surprisingly enough, the two who have made their voices most loudly heard can be found in the Liberal party in the form of Petro Georgiou, Alan Eggleston, and Sarah Hanson-Young. The official dissenting report can be found here (PDF).

1.5 We strongly disagree that public servants should have such unfettered power
to detain for 12 months without independent external scrutiny which can ensure
the release of people whose detention is assessed as being unnecessary with
respect to the specified criteria.
1.6 If the detention criteria are enshrined in law as the Committee recommends (Recommendation 12), a detained person should not be denied the right for 12 months to have a court examine whether the executive’s decision to detain him or her is in accordance with the law.
1.7 This is a grossly excessive period.

I strongly suggest reading the dissent in full, as it provides many more quotes and statistics too broad to post here.

There are many objections to pushing for improved refugee rights, and most of these are addressed in the Edmund Rice Centre's document: Debunking Myths about Asylum Seekers. In terms of which myths I've heard most in my conversations, three stick out from this document.

Myth #4: That we're being 'swamped' with boat people: Ignoring the Hanson-esque phrasing of this ridiculous claim, we have to look at international figures regarding refugees. The best document for this comes straight from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has published a document called 2007 Global Trends. In every indicator, Australia ranks in the lowest category, and in some graphs doesn't appear at all due to our exceptionally low intake rate. Australia is one of the few countries with a humanitarian refugee 'quota', which was this year raised to 13,500 places by the Rudd Government. However, since 2006 that quota has never been reached. When we compare this to international statistics, it becomes clear that Australia is one of the least-affected countries in terms of refugees. Over 300,000 refugees arrive in Europe each year, and in 2000 Iran and Pakistan hosted over a million Afghan refugees, according the the ERC myths sheet. The UNHCR makes it clear in the Global Trends information sheet that between 83 and 90 percent of refugees remain in their region of origin, usually hosted by countries neighbouring their home country.

Myth #5 and #10 combined: That they're not real refugees but actually terrorists: To quote the Debunking Myths document:

97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking
asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine
refugees. Therefore, under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay
in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate
refugees and are able to stay in Australia.

This is incorrect. Just 11 of more than 13,000 people who sought asylum in Australia last year were rejected on "character grounds". Only one was regarded as a security risk because of suspected terrorist links. He had come by air, not by boat.

Government intelligence briefings concerning the threat of terrorist attacks have not
mentioned asylum seekers. There remains no evidence that any asylum seekers
currently arriving by boat have any connection to terrorism. Those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks did not arrive in the United States as Asylum Seekers. They flew first class using valid papers.

Myth #7: There is no alternative to mandatory detention: Again quoting directly from the Debunking Myths document:

Asylum seekers claims need to be assessed for legitimacy. Australia is the
only Western country that mandatorily detains asylum seekers whilst their
claims are being heard. Asylum seekers are not criminals and detention
should be minimal. Community based alternatives to mandatory detention can be found internationally and within the current Australian parole system.
A select Committee of the NSW Parliament has costed alternatives to incarceration
including home detention and transitional housing. The average cost of
community based programs are (per person, per day): Parole: $5.39. Probation: $3.94. Home Detention: $58.83. These options are clearly more economically efficient, and much more humane.

Sweden receives similar numbers of asylum seekers as Australia, despite having less than half the population. Detention is only used to establish a persons identity and to conduct criminal screening. Most detainees are released within a very short time, particularly if they have relatives or friends living in Sweden. Of the 17,000 asylum seekers currently in Sweden 10,000 reside outside the detention centres. Children are only detained for the minimum possible time (a maximum of 6 days).

Again I recommend you read the document in full, as there are a lot of strong statistics there. you can also find further 'mythbusting' documents via the Refugee Action Committee page Facts and Myths about Refugees.

Overall, there remain many problems not only with mandatory detention, but also with how refugees and asylum seekers are treated after they have been accepted. Significant flaws in the TPV system remain, and the notion of forcing former detainees to pay for their time in detention, which is usually extended by fault of slow judicial process rather than by that of themselves, is ridiculous. hopefully this review is just the first step of many on the path to treating refugees and asylum seekers with respect and acknowledgement of their human rights.

Further recommended links:

• The Refugee Council of Australia: Full of good information in an easy-to-navigate form, I recommend the FAQ section if you're new to the issue
• Rural Australians for Refugees: An organisation of over 15,000 members in support of refugee reform and ongoing support
• Asylum Seekers Resource Centre: If you are or know of a refugee or asylum seeker who is in need of help and assistance, or if you're interested in volunteering with asylum seekers in any number of roles, this is the place to go.

Labels: human rights, refugees

Sarah Palin's Alaska Office, image courtesy of The New York Times I would be surprised if you told me you had never heard of Sarah Palin before. Personally I am irritated by the way she is taking press away from Barack Obama when she is the VP candidate and not even the presidential candidate. BUT she is a phenomenon which needs to be addressed. So just some little points on why Sarah Palin should not be hailed and voted for by women. A woman candidate is not the same thing as a woman's candidate. There are so many reasons why Sarah Palin is against women's rights. Firstly she cut funding for a program in her state for young women who found themselves pregnant and wanted (or were forced) to carry the pregnancy to term. As the Washington post states in its 2 September article: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live. ... According to Passage House's web site, its purpose is to provide "young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives" and help teen moms "become productive, successful, independent adults who create and provide a stable environment for themselves and their families." Secondly as Mayor of Wasilla she ensured that the state no longer paid for rape kits for victims, instead insisting that the rape victims of Wasilla pay between US$300 and US$1200 to have the police take evidence for a crime, despite protestations by the police chief himself. Thirdly she is staunchly anti-choice - even if you yourself would never get an abortion, that does not mean that clinically-safe abortions should not be available for women who may not be so lucky. The fact that Palin spoke about her daughter Bristol's "decision" (and the family's "decision") to keep her child is infuriating when Palin herself would refuse to give any other girls/women/families a "decision" in such a matter - especially if we change the word "decision" for say, "choice". Their words: "We are proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents." [emphasis mine] See this hillarious clip from the Daily Show to see how much the word "choice" instead of "decision" made Republicans squirm at the Republican Convention: Fourthly (that's totally a word), she has stayed mysteriously quiet on the Equal Pay for Equal Work bill which McCain voted against as a Senator, despite questions being raised over the issue after Obama targeted her stance on the issue. I have no doubt that Palin supports the idea of more women in positions of power, however this does not equate to being feminist nor does it equate to being 'pro-woman' if you are against women in other financial, medical, or emergency situations. Furthermore, to say that attacks on Palin based on her (minimal) experience are sexist is to completely miss the point. When republicans and some Obama supporters attack Clinton based on her 'pantsuits' and the sound of her voice, that is sexism. When democrats attack Palin based on her inexperience and lack of foreign policy knowledge, that is critical debate. The same attacks would have been made on "Samuel Palin". I absolutely understand that sexism does exist for Palin, but most of this seems to be coming from the Republican party itself: VPILF badges and rumination (see this article on how "Palin will become the country’s first VPILF": this quote makes it clear that 'VPILF' is a male-over-female term and not just talking about good looks amongst politicians), action figures with a 'catholic schoolgirl' outfit, continuous talk on her role as a hockey mom, the list goes on. Sarah Palin is the same as every other fundamentalist christian conservative right-wing candidate. She holds the same, sometimes even more extreme, views as they do. She is pro-drilling in national wildlife reserves; she is a climate change disbeliever; she is "pro-life" when it comes to abortion but "anti-life" when it comes to prisoners, wildlife, or raped women; she has been involved in a corruption scandal; she talks 'local' but is really a part of the elite who are blessed with white genes and lots of money and want to keep giving money to big business in hopes of a 'trickle-down' effect which never seems to eventuate; she thinks both creationism and abstinence-only education should be taught in all schools; and last but not least she believes her foreign policy experience is up to scratch because her son is going to Iraq and she can see Russia from her house - and still thinks nuking them is a nice option to have on the table. When republicans continue to focus on her gender as the issue, they are attempting to draw attention away from all of these very contentious problems facing Sarah Palin. Particularly since such policies put her a lot closer to the Bush mandate. The amount of press she has been getting has been successful insofar as it has sucked a lot of life out of the political momentum being gathered by Barack Obama. It's no coincidence that McCain announced his VP nominee within a few hours of Obama's extremely successful Democratic Convention speech. So the question is, once people realise that a female candidate is no different to a male candidate, will they take the issues to her? Or will they be so scared of being called "sexist" that they'll let her get away with anything? We can already start to see this in the Obama campaign's decision to focus only on McCain, as they are very savvy to the fact that if they attack Palin, they'll be seen as "bullies". This, to me, is the sexist attitude: that the republicans feel Palin needs to be protected from those big bad boys who keep attacking her resume. Well I, personally, like to be able to check and criticise the background of all candidates, be they male or female. To deny people that right is to deny people freedom in the democratic process. So let's get over the fact that she has two X-chromosomes and look at the simple fact of the matter: Palin is an old-school, run-of-the-mill conservative fundamentalist Republican. Actually, now that I think about it: if the voting record of the American public over the last eight years is anything to go off, maybe she will be elected after all.

Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, rape, Republicans, Sarah Palin, sexism, US Elections

I entirely admit that this should have been posted a while ago, but better late than never!


So I've been working for a client these last few days who is very interested in issues of climate change and a carbon emissions trading scheme, and that has allowed me to hear a lot of perspectives (some more informed than others) in regards to the scheme. I get to hear political commentary, news bulletins, talk back programs, announcers rabbiting on about how God'll take care of the weather, you name it!



So what's all the fuss about? Well basically, the new Australian Government, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, is fulfilling one of its election promises in regards to fighting climate change, which is bound to have a drastic effect on Australian economic and social factors, particularly in terms of agriculture. So Rudd commissioned a report from his Climate Change Advisor, Ross Garnaut (pronounced GARR-NO), in order to establish what industries should be included in an emissions trading scheme, what goals should be set, and who will be most effected.



The trading scheme is bigger than the GST, and represents probably the largest economic policy this government will make. The first step of the carbon emissions trading scheme involves collecting information from businesses about how much carbon they release at this time - this is the step being undertaken now, as businesses are required to keep records from July 1 2008. This information is then used to cap (or limit) the amount of carbon to be released throughout the country. Businesses pay for carbon credits to be given to them, basically giving them permission to pollute to a certain point. Some will obviously get more credits than others, and should a company fall short of using up all their credits, they are allowed to sell those credits to other businesses, who basically want to pollute more than the government thinks they should. As a result, businesses are punished for polluting more (as they need to pay more) and rewarded for polluting less (as they get money back from their credits). In this way, not only are carbon levels capped, but they're actively reduced as the capitalist system seeks to build profits and cut expenses as best it can. Basically it allows the environmentalists to exploit capitalism, as opposed to the other way around.



The problem which has arisen is that the federal opposition, which originally supported an emissions trading scheme, seems to be coming up with whatever excuse it can to get the Australian public to turn against the idea. This is despite former Prime Minister John Howard supporting plans for emissions trading at the release of the Shergold Report during his time in power. Let's have a brief look at some of the main opinions, oops I mean 'problems', to do with carbon trading:

1. Prices will rise: Naturally! When businesses pay more, these costs are transferred on to the consumer. The thing is that the industries in which we'll see most price rises are those which we should be discouraged from using! Most notably, energy and petrol. Both of these are, of course, necessary for everyday use, however one of the basic principles of economics is that prices change behaviour. If we really are going to commit ourselves to cutting the carbon levels of this country, we need to both change corporate behaviour (through emissions trading) and change person behaviour. Yes it hurts, but the truth is that ever since global warming became a big issue in my mind, and ever since petrol prices started going through the roof, I have been actively not asking as much from the car, using more public transport and foot power, and turning off my computer at night, as well as lights and heaters. As the Garnaut report confirms, the poor will be those worst effected by a trading scheme, but if the Government follows Garnaut's suggestions, they will also receive compensation drawn from the extra money made by the carbon tax. Similarly, public transport investment would increase under the system, allowing for those who previously relied on cars to take a train or bus and help reduce carbon emissions personally.

2. We should wait until other competing export economies such as China and India adopt a similar system: The basic premise behind this argument is that Australia's export economy will suffer under an emissions trading scheme. This, I believe, is true. What this argument does not address, however, is the fact that Garnaut's report suggests investment and support for export industries so as to allow Australia to remain competitive. I heard a very good analogy from economist Peter Martin, in which he told the following story: A town decides one day that it wants its dry and empty well to bring up milk for just one day, so all the townsfolk agree to place a cup of milk in the well during the night. So the night passes and in the morning all the townspeople flock to the well for the novelty of seeing the bucket come up with milk, but all that comes up is water, because every family has thought either "nobody will notice if we don't put in a cup of milk" or "we'll just wait to make sure the other families do it first before we put milk in, because otherwise we'll lose our milk and nobody else will". The point is that if we just sit around waiting for other countries to take action, and those countries are sitting waiting for other countries to take action, then what ends up happening is that no action is taken at all. As one of the big players in the Australasian region, we need to take a leading role and show that we are committed to combatting climate change. This in turn will lead to other nations understanding when we make climate change requests as part of our diplomatic discussions, as we have already shown our dedication to the issue. Furthermore, it is important to add that most European nations have already committed to an emissions trading scheme more rigorous than that which is being proposed by Rudd. Also, the state of California has also implemented such a program. India and China already have rates below those of Australia for most exports - the reason people choose to import from Australia is because of quality, not price. If they had simply wanted the cheaper product, their business would already be with one of the lesser developed nations.

3. Climate change isn't even happening anymore: There are numerous scientific studies showing a continued increase in global temperatures as carbon output increases, and this is not just correlation but causation. For more details from people much smarter than me on meterological and scientific issues, see the World Meterological Organisation's website or skip to their 2007 climate report.

4. It's such a complex system that it will be too easy to get it wrong: This is the most upsetting and frustrating of all claims. If governments were to shy away from complex policy, then policy would not exist at all. The tax system? Complex. Education system? Complex. Health system? Complex. Stupidity and an 'easy ride' should not be embraced - so let's look at what the 'complex' issues are, address them, and get on with turning climate change around. We've already waited long enough.

5. Australians will lose jobs: The Garnaut Report, as well as numerous studies have shown that job loss will not be an issue under emissions trading so long as the appropriate levels of education and training are provided to switch 'dirty energy' workers into the new 'green collar' jobs. In a Sydney Morning Herald article of September 7 this year, the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union (CFMEU) stated that carbon emissions would change such industries, but "there will be other technologies deployed along the way and our members ... have got every reason to have a bright future across a range of different energy sources". So even those in mining are feeling positive about carbon emissions trading.

All in all, this is an issue that can't have us sitting on our hands humming "God Save the Queen". Rather, we should take some time to assess the different options, use the recommendations of the Garnaut report, and start up the program in 2010. I am also very passionate about his suggestions to utilise some of the extra revenue gained from carbon emissions to go back into assisting those who will be hardest hit such as single-parent families and pensioners. Furthermore, investing in public transport is something which is desperately needed across Australia, particularly in Sydney where the situation is, well, bad to say the least. Hopefully new Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull will take a different approach to Brendon Nelson and embrace the idea of tackling climate change ASAP. If we could have bipartisan support of such measures, then things would move a lot faster and effective change - as opposed to needless and unhelpful 'opposition for opposition's sake' - could finally eventuate.

So let's get moving, no more waiting!

Labels: climate change, emissions trading, Garnaut report, Kevin Rudd

It seems a bit strange that my first post should be about something that's not technically a political issue, but I was so disgusted when I read this article that I felt I needed to have my say about it.

CHRISTINE HODDER, 38, was a much-loved woman with a husband and a three-year-old daughter, and had almost completed her Bachelor of Nursing degree when she killed herself in her backyard.

Ms Hodder, after enduring years of bullying by male colleagues at Cowra ambulance station, where she was the first and only female officer, hanged herself on her child's swing in April, 2005.

The article goes on to talk about her frustration, and how despite approaching the issue with a sense of humour at first (I'm sure everyone knows how it feels trying to "laugh off" insults), she started questioning herself, doubting herself, and basically talking herself down. She took multiple bouts of stress leave and lodged two formal complaints.

She could not even leave her car at work because the tyres were let down, her toilet at work was urinated "all over" and she was constantly ridiculed by fellow officers in front of patients...In a five-page complaint dated February 20, 2005, which has been made public, Christine Hodder said she felt she had never been accepted there because she was a woman.
"In the past six years I have been badly treated as other staff members collectively bullied, belittled and intimidated me," she said.
"The staff in this station has constantly alienated and attacked my character and physical appearance since my arrival."

The harassment and bullying of women in male-dominated workplaces is something which must be addressed. So after an investigation finding that bullying had indeed taken place in Cowra, what did the report suggest?

It recommended staff receive training in workplaces free of harassment and bullying, that the service should explore how to change the behaviour of staff, and that no female officer be appointed to Cowra for six months. No officer was disciplined.

Hmm.. not particularly effective, I would argue. How about instead of stopping women from entering a workplace, you show the bullies that there are consequences for their actions. Even if this doesn't involve firing those involved (peer pressure can, after all, turn most nice people into bullies), but at least making them take anger management or anti-harassment classes, reducing them to a lower pay bracket, or even officially charging them. Three strikes should mean that the officers involved are fired. I don't mean three incidents against different female officers, I mean ANY three incidents.

If we were talking about your average office environment, with a 50/50 split of men to women, then behaviour like this would never be tolerated. Instead, we find a male-dominated workplace happy to scare and intimidate women at work, which has led to keeping women out of that work! If anything, the opposite stance should be adopted - bring in more women and ensure that management is there to support them rather than simply maintain the status quo.

However, thanks to inactive management, no disciplinary policy, and an investigative report which effectively suggests nothing, a good woman who was helping to save lives has taken her own. Good work, fellas.

Labels: bullying, harassment, sexism

Hi there and welcome to the first post for Sparliament : Politics in Action, a political blog aimed at informing, expressing opinions, and letting you in on why all this stuff should matter to you. I'll also be aiming to provide you with as much objective, fact-checkable information as I can, complete with links (and wikipedia entries!) so that you can form your own, probably-different-than-mine opinions in an intelligent and informed way. First a bit about myself: My name is Anna Jean McDougall and I'm currently a student of Media and Communications (with a minor in Spanish and Latin American Studies) at the University of Sydney, Australia. I've been working casually in the media industry during my studies for almost two years, and my current job is at Australian Associated Press as a Broadcast Monitor. As such, my work allows me a lot of time listening to news headlines, reports, interviews and discussion panels on a variety of political issues. Also a warning: I have a tendency to get distracted so at time the posts may veer off from the course of mainstream politics and delve into a philosophical theory, an event or issue that ticks me off, or simply the cultural and social landscape of other parts of the world or other problems ranging from human rights to vegetarianism to something funny I've noticed about the differences between Spanish and English. It's free range opinion day, every day, here at Sparliament. As such I always welcome comments involving constructive criticism, and I don't mind a nice clean debate that doesn't debase itself with insults or a closed mind. So all in all, I hope you enjoy Sparliament and all it (eventually) has to offer! Yours truly, Anna McDougall P.S. If you feel there's a topic you would like me to look at, or an issue you're currently dealing with, you can send it to me at anna.mcdougall@optusnet.com.au

Labels: First post, Introduction