Citizenship test

It has been proposed that a new compulsory test for citizenship. It will require a "functional" level of english and a test on Australian "values" and culture.

I think its not a bad idea for a more stringent English test for Citizenship since this won't affect peoples migration patterns (only their ability to become citizens). However, I do have a problem with a test of "Australian Values" and "Culture".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - who defines "Australian Values?". And, for that matter, "Australian Culture"? For one, the Australia Howard sees with rose-coloured blinkers does not exists. Australia's "culture" has been in constant flux, due, in large part, to multiculturalism and migration. What values do we preach? And are these "values" apolitical. As far as I'm concerned, 'values' are a product of upbringing and beliefs - and this is an individual (or at best, family)-centric concept. If we suddenly have the Australian "culture and values" codified, we are inherently thinking conservatively.

And, on the English language front, what about the elderly? They often struggle with their own language, let alone learning a new one. I believe that this proposal is more about posturing, than any really thought out policy. Anything to keep the media attention off AWB.

And Anzac Day, Private Koslo, the Tasmanian Miners trapped, and the Port Arthur Anniversary, have certainly done that.

More worker exploitation

SMH investigation into young worker exploitation.

Anzac Day

The Melbourne branch of the RSL has, for the first time, allowed the decendents of Turks who fought at Gallipoli, to march with the Anzac Day march. I applaud decision, if not the reasons for it.

The RSL has said the turks were "Honourable Enemies", and for that reason, they should be allowed. However, they would still consider it offensive for Japanese or Germans also to march. I think this is terribly inconsistent.

War is terrible, no matter which "side" you are on. And there are plenty of "honourable" Wehrmacht soldiers who deserve to be afforded the same rememberance as any American, British or Australian troop. To classify enemies as "honourable" or "dishonourable" inherently politicizes what should be a reflection on the tragedy of war.

We "commemorate" Anzac day for the wrong reasons. Instead of reflecting on how terrible War is, and the great human cost, we glorify the "sacrifice" of these young men for a "greater good". Whilst this was the case in WWII, World War I was a war of nationalism between 2 coalitions. There was no greater good being pursued by either side. Anzacs were sent to Gallipoli, blindly following the "motherland" into a war we didn't have any business being in. And furthermore, we were treated as cannon-fodder.

Unfortunately, in the current climate Anzac day is a glorification of sacrifice for the greater good, and doesn't allow for questions of if we should be in a war. The "greater good" is taken for granted, but we are not allowed to ask exactly what that greater good is.

Today more than ever, people should look at Gallipoli, and ask... are we blindly following commitments to war from our new "motherland"? Why are we making this sacrifice? Should young men and women be asked to place themselves in danger because politicians want to beat their chest?

And one more thing: we always talk of the diggers "Giving their lives to fight for our freedom" in specific reference to Gallipoli. This is simply not true. Australia was never threatened. We were fighting an imperialist war on another continent for a "motherland" who considered us expendable.
They gave their lives for a war that did not affect us, in a conflict we had no reason to be in, and for incompetent Generals and politicians who oversaw the most terrible and ridiculous military campaign ever seen. Lest we Forget.

Also - just a quick one on Guantanamo. Apparently, when soldiers enter and exit the facility , in typical US Army style, they have a code phrase. It goes something like this:
To honour and protect...
The freedom of democracy
AND THEY SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE!! Actually, they're American - they're probably too damn stupid to understand the irony.

A disgraceful day for Australia

So - Indonesia is still not happy with the West Papuan solution. They want the 42 original asylum seekers sent back, apparently. As far as I can see, they are acting like bullies. And we have given them every reason to believe they can bully us.

In a disgraceful act, the Government changed Australian Immigration Law (without consultation) to essentially excise the entire Australian Mainland from the immigration zone. That is to say, regardless of where you land in Australia, refugees will be "processed" offshore - and the official policy is that if they are deemed to be true refugees, the first preference for resettlement is in a third country. This means NOT in Australia. So we are essentially saying, we don't wan refugees here. Go away. I believe this is a terrible development, which will result in even more human rights abuse ("processing centres" are offshore, with little media access - who will policy the conditions and how long people are locked up for?). We are setting up our own little "Guantanamo Bay's" free from scrutiny.

What is even more galling, is that this step was taken by our spineless, gutless Primeminister at the request of the local bully boy. We have kowtowed to their demands and guess what? - we have sent them a clear message that Australia will change our rules to suit the requirement of other countries, so long as they excert enough pressure. Its an embarrassment.

Howard has somehow got the mantle of having "restored and clarified a pride in traditional Australian Values". How he got this is beyond me. He has outsourced policy making to other countries (whatever the U.S. wants - eg "free" trade deal - and now, whatever Indonesia wants). We also bend over backward to please China and India (well, in India's case, thats not such a bad thing :p ). He has shaken national pride, and made the population believe that unless we appease our neighbours, Australia will be in big trouble. So much for national pride.

Shame on you Howard.

Hardware Vs. Software

...Why engineers are infintely better than computer scientists.

Firewall

Saw the movie "Firewall" starring Harrison Ford. I would give this one a miss. The acting was absolutely abysmal, with the exception of Ford and Paul Bettany (the bad dude). The plot had glaring holes. There was not even the most glancing reference to an actual firewall, and the tech-stuff was limited to the usual scrolling lines and beeping keystokes. Mind you, they did actually show Windows XP running on the computers - it looked quite deliberate, so I think it may have been one of those product placement deals. Anyways, this was just another bland family man/action movie. Disappointing.

2 Bank Main Frames out of 5.

Economy flight

I enjoyed this little piece by William McInnes (Sargent Schultz of early Blue Heelers).

What are we paying them for?

Ministerial responsibility is an oxymoron in Howard's vocabulary. In typical Liberal "born to rule" style, Downer, Vaile, and now Howard - claim nobody told them nothin', they saw nothing and no firm evidence was presented. BTW, where were these rigorous "evidence" requirements when we invaded iraq to stop the 'clear and present danger' of their 'significant WMD arsenal'? Cole's hands are also tied, in that his government can't be investigated for negligence or breaches of international law under the current terms of reference, and they have placed Cole in a position where it would be against protocol for him to ask for an extension of terms of reference in this area. So, as expected, the questioning was simple, direct and very careful not to overstep the mark. Again, as expected, nothing more that the bland excuses and stonewalling were provided to the questions asked. See this article on his appearance at the Cole enquiry.

What do we pay these guys for? To do press conferences, get invited as dignitaries, and spend 1/3 of the working year behaving like schoolkids in the "big green room"?!? The shift of blame is almost farcical - Vaille blames the Downer. Downer says nobody told him, and the Prime Minister says that there is no problem, this is how filtered communication in the government work!

Also, that little snivelling rat, Peter Hendy, of the Chamber of commerce has decided that Australia's huge organisations are carrying too much of the tax burder (boo hoo - they only made $2.8Billion this financial year!). But he's apparently got some heart. He feels urgent tax relief is needed for some of Australia's most deserving people - those earning $125,000 and above. I say - keep the tax cuts, and fund public services. The equality and prosperity enjoyed by the majority of Australians today was a direct result of public services investment. If we don't invest, the broad-based wealth of the country will be no more - we will become like the States, where 99% of the wealth is concentrated in 1% of the population.*

*Not an actual statistic

Indonesia - pull your head in!

I'm surprised at how strongly the indonesian public (and for that matter, academia) has responded to the granting of Asylum to 42 Papuan refugees. An Indonesian trade council is actually boycotting AUstralian imports!! I never realised they were so nationalistic. Apparently, they are terrified of Papua becoming independant, because it has massive gold reserves.

For once, the immigration department has it right! Asylum is not a political toy, it is a humanitarian gesture offered on a case-by-case basis. Who can forget the days when we were condemming Saddam as a genocidal dictator, but if Iraqi refugee's arrived, we locked them up indefinitely.

One thing that politicians don't seem to understand is that the issue of boat people is not about them. People don't uproot their whole family (or worse - leave them behind), then put their life at risk to cross the seas in a leaky vessel, just to annoy politicians. For that matter, they don't run themselves through such personal trauma just to offend middle-class Australia. These decisions are not taken likely, and it is only out of desperation that they come.

Anyways, Indonesia - take a note. It is very simple. People will not try to flee your country if you don't violate their human rights. Stop abusing people (abuse that is well documented by Amnesty and other organisations). Include them in your country and give them a voice. Then they won't want to run away. Problem solved.

IR litmus test that never happened

The Cowra meatworks case has proved to be a frustration. Initially, 29 were fired, and 20 jobs were on offer, with salaries of $200 a week less. Unions were up in arms, and the case got heaps of publicity. It was going to be the first test on the interpretation of the new Laws. The company had more than 100 staff, so theoretically, they shouldn't be able to fire without reason.

Then Kevin Andrews sent in Officers from the Workplace Advocate. Suddenly, a few hours later, the company reversed it's position - the jobs were to stay (although the pay packets were to be re-negotiated.

What is frustrating, is that Kevin Andrews refuses to say whether the actions would have been allowed under the new system. Moreover, the case never went to court for the laws to be properly interpreted. We still don't know just what is possible for employers.

A the heart of this, is that there is a potential for companies to site "Operational Reasons" for termination, if they have more that 100 workers. Now, what defines operational reasons? There is no clear information from the goverment on this - rather they say "you can't just sack workers willy-nilly". Thats not a whole heap of comfort. And who will question a company as to what the exact 'Operational Reasons' are? Certainly, initially, there will be a great deal of media scrutiny, but once the fuss dies down - who is watching the companies?

I have read many comments by those on the SMH opinion posts, saying that if you are a good worker, you're fine. You'll only go if your not good. These people must be living with their heads up their butts. You might be an excellent worker in a company of less that 100. But you disagree with your boss. How long do you think you will last, if the boss decides he doesn't like the way you are interfering with his power structure? Sure - economic conditions are good now - so it is true that it is a worker' market. But we don't make policy to suit current conditions only. Should there be an economic crash, this will really bite. And after a precedent of such high profit levels, companies will be under pressure to maintain these. Culling workers is an easy way of restoring profit.

Worlds fastest Indian

Its funny, but this movie is just coming out now - but I saw it last December on a flight to Perth. Go figure.

The World's fastest Indian is a story about Burt Munroe - an old Kiwi motorbike enthusiast who wants to go to the Utah Salt Flats to try and break the world land speed record on his modified Indian Motorcycle.

Its definately worth a watch. Anthony Hopkins plays the old kiwi to perfection. Not a trace of an accent - and not overdone or caricatured as you might suspect of Hollywood. It probably helped that it was an Australian Director. Hopkin's performance can best be summed up as "subtle, but effective" - even within the realistic portray of a kiwi, he puts on one of the most believable roles i have seen him in.. Based on a true story, the movie never gives into overt sentimentality or maudlin, even though this was at times, very touching. It has moments of gentle humour, never reverting to cheap american sit-com style.

4.5 bald tyres out of 5.

Play with Bush

Hours of endless entertainment. No.. this is not dirty :p