Palm Sunday
Nick Everett's reported expulsion (GLW #480) and the continued exclusion of DSP members from the organising committee of the Sydney Palm Sunday rally represents an unnecessary distraction for genuine left forces in Sydney.
As a delegate to the Greens NSW state delegates council held last weekend I and 45 other activists carried a resolution objecting to the exclusion of the DSP from the organising committee.
The NSW Greens have written formally to the organising committee to register our objection.
Our delegates were concerned about excluding DSP members.
I hold the view that we on the left should be constantly seeking to strengthen solidarity in action through events like Palm Sunday (and S11 before it), not gratuitously provoking division.
The world desperately needs progressive-left leadership and in order to provide that leadership, the views and opinions of those politics should be welcomed when public protest is being debated and organised. We will get better outcomes that way surely, or have we become fearful of real debate?
Let's hope good sense and "inclusion" prevails and that we can move on constructively.
Dave Bell
Turramurra NSW
Sexist reporting
A recent article in the Geelong Advertiser reported on a motel break-in in Corio during which a woman was raped. The article finished with a statement from Senior Constable Liam Sherman, of the Sexual Crime Unit, saying that the woman received minor injuries.
I was outraged by the article as it basically gave the impression that the woman merely suffered a few scratches or bumps, that the rape wouldn't have any effect on her and doesn't really count as a crime.
This type of reporting by the mainstream media only reinforces existing sexist assumptions and stereotypes — that women have somehow brought it upon themselves or have an ulterior motive to their allegations of rape.
Until there is a strong and independent women's liberation movement to challenge these stereotypes and educate the mass of people about the rights of all women, the media will continue to get away with portraying rape in this way.
Bronwyn Jennings
Geelong
Centrelink
I recently spoke with Rick Woodhouse, a meatworker who was sacked by the Packer-owned Consolidated Meat Group's plant in Rockhampton. He's been out of work for nearly three months now. He has been able to stay on top of his house payments because he busted his guts last year with extra payments, but now they have been exhausted. He has since separated from his wife. To make matters worse, Rick has no income whatsoever.
The stories I hear about Centrelink no longer surprise me. There is no consistency in their work. How you're treated depends upon who you are. Rick cannot get unemployment benefits, nor can his partner and their son. This is due to the fact that Rick doesn't have a birth certificate (yes, something so trivial!).
To obtain a birth certificate from the registrar you are required to provide ID such as a driver's licence, bank accounts, etc. However, Centrelink will not accept these forms of ID.
Rick has been paying tax for more than 10 years; he pays rates and all the other bills that prove he is an adult. So why can't Centrelink accept them?
It disgusts me that someone in desperate need is denied their legitimate entitlements because of some ridiculous regulation.
Rick can not afford the $44 to obtain his birth certificate without some sort of income. So how does Centrelink expect him to get it?
Terrica Strudwick
Rockhampton
Migration
It is regrettable that the recent Melbourne conference on population saw migration continuing to be overwhelmingly debated in the context of the question: What would be best for people already living in Australia, or who will be born here, regardless of the policy adopted? The morally relevant question is: What would be best from a global perspective?
Allowing more people — especially disadvantaged people — to migrate to Australia would significantly benefit the additional migrants. This leaves two important sets of questions: 1. Would greater emigration harm the countries losing people? If so, could this be satisfactorily offset by increased foreign aid? 2. Would greater migration be financially disadvantageous for Australia? If so, would the money foregone have been better allocated to overseas aid?
Environmentally, Australia has far more fresh water per head than most nations and I rather like Bob Katter's rejoinder to Bob Carr: "let him explain [domestic environmental concerns] to the 100 million people nearby who go to bed hungry".
Brent Howard
Rydalmere NSW
Ansett
The bungling of Australia's aviation industry is the direct consequence of competition policy. The Howard government's refusal to take over the ownership of Ansett last year is the immediate principal cause of the mess. This refusal is explained by aviation minister John Anderson as "the government not wanting to use taxpayers money to buy or underwrite Ansett".
Let's hear now from these taxpayers. Most may well support the opposite.
The madness of the "small government" philosophy is obvious. Australia is not the US. In Australia a government-owned airline is a vital element in the totality of a healthy aviation industry operating in a huge country with a small population.
Unless the government acts now, 3000 jobs will be lost, prices will go up, and several regional routes will remain unserviced.
A government-owned airline will provide essential flights for less profitable regional routes and will act as an important counterbalance to the other two operators, especially to the likely near-monopoly of Qantas (privatised by the Keating government).
Howard said he would "fix" Ansett after the election. Now he says it's not his business. Time for another election?
Klaas Woldring
Pearl Beach NSW [Abridged]
From Green Left Weekly, March 6, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.