TEENS OUT OF CONTROL + INTERNET = HYSTERIA

Look out to hear more internet bashing in the Australian press as news of a boy, making a bomb from the net, was killed and his friends hand was blown off. Of course, the press is playing on parents' fears of The Internet. It stems from a misunderstanding many older people have about it, and it is a misunderstanding and fear based on one main thing. The internet destroys the power relationship between parents and children. That children are more proficient with the internet and perhaps gaining more intelligence in areas that society is now valuing big time (computer skills) is a significant concern for many parents who find that their incompetence with new technology - or their belief that they can "neever" learn to use the technology. This lack of knowledge not only destroys part of that power relationship but also allows the mainstream press to exacerbate the power breakdown by scaring parents into believing all their kids will be making bombs as soon as they go online. How positively nerdy a society have we become when the threat to youth is not rock'n'roll (which used to equal sex) or a late night out: but a kid who stays at home in front of a computer screen for a few hours a day. Was it Focault who said power = knowledge. If only I paid more attention at uni. Well, whoever said it was making a very insightful remark - because this is a reason why the media is able to incite so much fear in parents over the internet. As I see it, if a parent supervises the activities of their children with diligence by placing the computer in a place where they will be in view, then children will not succumb to the evils of the net. Governments are already reacting to these fears by censoring porn cites in Australia. Soon, sites with "how to make a bomb" info will be targetted, then race supremacist sites, and so forth. The internet will soon be a more insidious bastion of Government control and manipulation on a scale that Mr Orwell predicted. While the net may be "too big" to find all these bomb making cites, it is theoretically possible for a Government to control net usage and the way people access it. Thankfully, enough of us have got a taste of the freedom of choice the internet offers. Hardly anyone has been converted to white supremacy because there are racist sites on the net, and if so, maybe more have been converted away from it through the vast array of information out there. Similarly with the bombing incident, why will people not see that before the net, there were those detonators used on train lines - many more children were injured by that than by any bomb making instructions on the net. In the end however, it will always come down to what we really want from society. Do we begin to ban sites because the end result could be death? Many would argue these sites are dangerous because they can turn impressionable people into bombers, thus increasing the risk of bomb attacks. These are serious considerations. But so far, there has been no noticeable increase in net related violence (except when it has been widely publicised in one-off cases). Stanley Kubrick once said that "Society should not do the wrong thing for the right reason" and when it comes to the hysterical reaction that can be brought up anytime a disillusioned youth does something wrong - lets not interrupt the use of the net, freedom of speech and the benefits it gives because a few idiots decide to blow up the world. It's like the teacher that gives the whole class a detention for the bad behaviour of one. It wasn't fair then and it isn't fair now.

There are a few quotes I'd like to add at this stage. In looking at an interview on a Clockwork Orange and on some stuff I have read about the author, there are a few things to say (for my review and a link to the Kubrick interview, click here). Firstly, I think Kubrick was amazingly perceptive in 1972 when he said this:

"Certainly one of the most challenging and difficult social problems we face today is, how can the State maintain the necessary degree of control over society without becoming repressive, and how can it achieve this in the face of an increasingly impatient electorate who are beginning to regard legal and political solutions as too slow? The State sees the spectre looming ahead of terrorism and anarchy, and this increases the risk of its over-reaction and a reduction in our freedom. As with everything else in life, it is a matter of groping for the right balance, and a certain amount of luck."

Look at his comments on terrorism and anarchy - this is exactly the tools with which the Governments are trying to exercise control over the internet - it's how the FBI or the CIA or our very own spying agencies are gaining unparallelled powers to hack into the computer systems of any systems to collate evidence. It is based on these apparrently "looming" spectre of terrorism. As for the youth thing - you'd think the youth of today were soomehow a bunch of disfunctional people. Well, I would have to say that if ever there was a more conservative group of people growing up at the moment, then I'd like to see them. Firstly, the coalition vote among young voters increased 4 per cent in the last election. Young people face much more responsibility, especially in a time when a job cannot be guaranteed, even for the most educated of people. The media has always focussed on the problems of adolescence and the threats they cause - perhaps it is almost a threat to traditional sources of power with each lot of the "youth" that grow up - a matter of controlling the means by which they feel most comfortable (the internet). Considering the youth are disenfranchised until they are 18, Governments should be more careful in legislating away rights of these people. But because they are under 18 and do not vote, they become easy targets - harsh laws can be introduced because young people do not protest (when they do, they are depicted as Communists - see anti-Hanson rally example) and the reaction against them will be interpreted as the laws working cause the kids don't like it. Obviously, if juveniles don't like the law, then they are working as intended! Anthony Burgess also wrote this in notes on A Clockwork Orange:

"...and it was in Britain, about 1960, that respectable people began to murmur about the growth of juvenile delinquency and suggest that the young criminals were a somehow inhuman breed and required inhuman treatment... There were irresponsible people who spoke of aversion therapy... Society, as ever, was put first. The delinquents were, of course, not quite human beings: they were minors, and they had no vote; they were very much them as opposed to us, who represented society."

How relevant this dialogue even today. Sometimes I think that now in the nineties that it is still all youth who are tainted by this, not just isolated delinquents. Police to this day however, still search out prior convicted felons in investigation of crimes, focus on them as "preventative" initiatives (this scheme of following and keeping tabs on released convicts is apparently having major impacts on reducing crime - tele mirror monday 12 august) or to focus on specific high crime areas or people of certain ethnic or racial backgrounds because statistics indicate they are more prone to criminality. While I'm not saying the police believe that some races are more prone to crime than others - the statistics suggest that and police are doing what they believe is right in targetting their resources at those groups to prevent further crime from hapenning. But if Police employed similar tactics in Mosman as they do in one of those high crime areas - how long before the society would cry out in anger. Could you imagine Kerry Packer walking through double bay only to be pulled over by the police for a knife frisk check? The law is there for a good intention but does it make it right. The beauty of A Clockwork Orange is that his character is not innocent. And that is the point - while society had good intentions in stopping the criminality in him - was it the right thing to do? Even if the person is genetically prone to violence and crime, are some laws targetting youth as a whole correct? Is censorship correct in order to stop a guilty person? These are all questions we have to ask ourselves - and from history, wherever there has been censorship, as well intentioned as it was, behind it lies authoritarianism and control. If power and knowledge are so closely aligned, the internet, in giving people as much knowledge as anyone else, becomes a very dangerous medium for those who currently hold power. Already we are seeing the powerful take control of the medium through legitimate commercial ventures (AOL immediately pulled the web site of the Denver Colorado massacre leader) - however, Government intervention is possible more dangerous, especially if they are acting on behalf of powerful interests.

KUBRICK RETROSPECTIVE IN SYDNEY

Stanley Kubrick's films even if you think they are crap, boring, dumb, etc., are worth serious study because they are technical masterpieces that have influenced the film makers of this generation - and no doubt, the film makers of tomorrow. Every genre he ventured into, he revolutionised and gave the best of. The Shining is a brilliant horror film (that I found boring) in sections, and the performances are legendary. Its influence is far reaching, even parodied with affection in a Simpsons episode. Barry Lyndon has been gaining esteme as the pre-eminent costume drama. At first dismissed as an indulgant bore, Lyndon contains some amazing scenes - including sections shot using only candles for lighting. A Clockwork Orange is a masterpiece that reverberates even more strongly in today's age of Law and Order, Censorship and the endless struggle to understand humanity (again, parodied on the Simpsons with affection). 2001: A Space Oddyssey is one of the most remarkable Sci Fi films and has influenced countless directors. Steven Spielberg acknowledged its influence himself when he made Close Encounters (he even used similar production peopke), while it is undoubtedly his most optimistic view of human nature - of a humanity that can be redeemed and born again. I had trouble getting this film - but what I do understand and what I have read has made the film increase in my awe of it. Full Metal Jacket is a top war film. Full of the irony and social statements that Strangelove made (though not on the same level of comic genius), the first third of FMJ contains the most memorable scenes of the training experiences of many PIs. It gets into the mind of a human being, the fascination with weaponery is again dealt with, this time more explicitly. Kubrick is certainly different to someone like Croenenberg who believes that machines are us - are extentions of us. Kubrick sees it with far greater scepticism - just because we create it, doesn't mean it is us. The latter 2/3rds of FMJ is shot in England but represents Vietnam. The abstractivity of that section mark it with greater resonance. And the classic "me sucky sucky" lines are made even funnier when thinking about SOuth Park's Cartman saying them. Finally, Dr Strangelove - many would rank this as the greatest comedy ever. It most certainly is the greatest satire. The performance by Peter Sellers is genius - he plays three or four different characters including Strangelove himself. This movie is everything a satire should be and more. When I said that FMJ has technology and sex more explicitly - that doesn't mean it's not done in Dr Strangelove. The opening sequence of a refuelling airplane is extremely funny and the psychotic seargant who has lost his "precious bodily fluids" compensating with phallic references and military power is another visual gag. For a man who only did ten or so films, it must have been gratifying for him to know almost every single one has become a classic, exceeding its field, particularly in visual design and technical achievement. THe saying quality is better than quantity applies to Kubrick, and his films are a testament to the amount of time he spent on perfecting them. One can only hope that Eyes Wide Shut will come close to the brilliance of the others. In the meantime a retrospective is showing in Sydney. Here are the sessions I will be seeing.

Friday, 30 July

8:45pm The Killing

Saturday 31st July

2.00pm Paths Of Glory
4.00pm Lolita
7.00pm Dr. Strangelove
9.00pm 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sunday 1st August

2.00pm A Clockwork Orange
4.30pm Barry Lyndon
8.00pm The Shining

Mon 2nd August

6.45pm Full Metal Jacket

THE MUMMY: CRAPORAMA DONE TONGUE IN CHEEK

It has been a while (Godzilla) since we've seen a really cheesy movie come out. I think The Mummy might have been a more enjoyable experience for me than Godzilla - though I recall laughing out loud in Godzilla at similar inanity throughout that movie. The Mummy however is one of those pieces of cinema that is so self conscious, so aware of itself, so knowing of the genre's limitations - that instead of expanding them, it takes all the bad points, all the corniness, all the cliches and stereotypes it, then amplifies it. And this is in the end what I found interesting about a film that is so cynical yet so standard. And because I could see through this cynical manipulation (masterfully done if you look at it), I didn't sit back in awe, I actually thought, I don't want to watch movies like this. The reason why Indiana Jones was so good was that it was aware of itself but didn't say "look here" - Instead, the story spoke for itself and the adventure, suspense, good editing, great sound, blah blah took over the in-jokes and turned them into genuinely good films. Instead with the Mummy, for example, we get amplified stereotypes of Arabs - so much so that they remain funny to a broad audience, but they're funny to an audience familiar with film convention of the idiot arabs (who may laugh because they almost cringe at the way it's being used). Here is what Philip Kolker in A CINEMA OF LONELINESS wrote in the eighties about Raiders of the Lost Ark:

click here to continue reading

NEVER BEEN KISSED - never too tired genre?

If you haven't worked it out by now, there's a certain formula to teen films that often leaves one confused as to which is which if one were to watch them in quick succession. Was it Disturbing Behaviour, 10 Things I hate About You, She's All That or Never Been Kissed that introduce us to the segregation that exists within the school? And what about the Bimbo cliche since Clueless? Dah, we've seen that a million times - so much so that there's this cloning of girls to play the roles - perhaps its the same girls who have come up with the niche of "bimbo losers" (nevertheless, they still manage to look great AND be endearing in their own way - I genuinely feel sorry for them everytime the nasty stuff happens to them in the end - i.e. when the favourite for prom queen doesn't win, or when some disgusting fluid is poured all over her prom dress, or when - wait for it - two of those bimbo types are caught wearing the same dress!!!!!). Nevertheless, of all the films I've seen in this genre, with all the predictable twists and turns, there is something in the familiarity, in the amplified fantasy of many of these pieces of film, that I do not hate them, even though I still shudder at some of the over-the-top acting, mushy dialogue and clearly unrealistic endings. This is fiction though - not reality - and the two shouldn't be confused.

click here to continue reading

KUBRICK FESTIVAL TO GREET EWS

The Sydney Morning Herald has revealed that Eyes Wide Shut, the new film from one of the greatest auteurs of cinema, Stanley Kubrick, will be preceded by a special series of screenings to be held a week before the film's opening. Ten of his films (practically all of them) will be in the festival, with the exclusion of Spartacus. This is one of the rarest of occurrences as Kubrick films have hardly received any screenings due to tight controls he has placed on his films. Also, while Kubrick had to digitally alter explicit scenes in Eyes Wide Shut, Time Magazine reported that the rest of the world would see the full scenes (without digital blocking): However, Warner Bros has announced that Australia will get the same version as the United States. It appears as though, in death, the standards that Kubrick has set are already dropping and the studios will weaken their quality control over this film. Below is the full article from the Sydney Morning Herald, 04 July 1999. Most of you would have bought the paper, so I'm putting it here for convenience.

By GARRY MADDOX Film Writer

The opening of Eyes Wide Shut early next month is turning into a Kubrick fest. Not only is Roadshow planning a wide release of 220 prints for the revered director's last film, which reportedly shocked stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman on their first viewing. But Palace Cinemas has pulled off a coup by securing new prints for a week-long retrospective and Warner Home Video is re-releasing the director's works on video. The build-up to the film has prompted one industry observer to describe the Eyes Wide Shut opening as being like Star Wars for grown-ups. Nicolas Whatson, the general manager of Palace Cinemas, said he was doing backflips when Warner Bros confirmed the company could screen 10 new prints on the way to a British Film Institute retrospective. He saw it as a unique opportunity to assess the career of lone of the most important artists of the century".

The films in the retrospective will run in chronological order from July 29 and culminate in a screening of Eyes Wide Shut at 12.01 am on August 5 - its opening day. The film is due to premiere in Sydney earlier that week with Cruise and Kidman attending. The retrospective, at Paddington's Academy Twin, includes Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Lolita, Dr Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. "Some of these films haven't been shown in cinemas for years," said Watson. The only major film missing from the retrospective is Spartacus, which Whatson believes Stanley Kubrick regarded as a clean-up job on another director's work rather than one of his own films. Even after his death, the director's concern about how his films were presented means the prints have to he approved by his estate before being dispatched to Australia.

Meanwhile, a Roadshow spokeswoman has confirmed that Australian viewers will see the same version of Eyes Wide Shut as that which is screening in North America from July 16. Time magazine has reported that to avoid a restrictive NC-17 rating in the United States without cutting the film, Kubrick digitally added figures to partly hide the most explicit 65 seconds of one scene. It said the rest of the world would see the full version.

BIRCH BASHING - AUSSIE BANDS SUCK!

July 1 1999

Think back to Atlanta 1996, Closing ceremony and the sight of kids on bikes with blow up Kangaroos. Pure Birch. And what a sight it was, full of the kitsch that makes an olympic ceremony so special, Birch was able to make us blush in embarrassment while the world got a full taste of the cliche in which we are perceived. But in all seriousness, Birch is probably the most qualified person to run an Olympics, and the 2000 band member idea was a stroke of genius. 2000 people, 1500 kids from Japan and America and 500 kids from Australia would play in the largest band ever amassed for LIVE music (not taped) at an Olympics. Those children would stay in Bathurst for their periods, would pay not only the airfares but the accommodation. The economic boon for Bathurst would have been great and also the international coverage would be priceless exposure for the place. However, now the matter is in the hands of the lawyers where, instead of the State receiving the 5-10 million boon, it could indeed make a pay out. What a disgrace. And what about Aussie bands? Whatever they say about them, they can't march properly - sure they can produce good sounds - but our army bands are appalling, so what do you expect of civilian bands. Of course, once John Laws, ACA and a few old pensioners who play for an ANZAC march parade (and god aren't they an exciting mob)make a big stink, and don't let the other view sink in - SOCOG thought it was the entire State against the band. WAKE UP! Just because the Olympic Games is in Sydney, doesn't mean everything has to be done by Australians. Anyway, no doubt, SOCOG will have to make a decision to reverse its swift but stupid action to ruin the dreams of so many young americans and japanese and australian people who were to be part of this band. God, I can't wait to see the opening ceremony if we rely solely on Australian talent. Just look at the Rugby league, opening of Stadium Australia and any other major event - and you'll shudder at the thought of how good even Birch can make the olympics look.

BUGGER THE PALM D'OR

The Golden Palm award for advertising (Cannes) went to the "Bugger me" ads of Toyota. Don't ask me why, but apparently the jury found it hilarious. No more needs to be said - but at least Australia continues to do well.

KOURNIKOVA OUT BEFORE WE GET IN

All that's left in Wimbledon 1999 is Steffi. Kournikova is out and Hingis is out. And we hardly got to see any Kournikova in her rightful place in between ads for 0055 numbers over her time in Wimbledon. Yesterday night, bleary eyed, I fell asleep before her doom was cemented. And only one other game of hers was televised, and again at infomercial hours. Midnight would usually be good to see Kourni in action - but no, they had to put on Dokic. In all fairness to Dokic, she is a Fairfield girl - and my aunty knows their family from the local Karate hall. If you want an ordinary person striking it big - it's Dokic. Well, I suppose we'll have to put up with Dokic and her lip spots for at least the quarter final (unless the Lesbian attracting Stevenson wins). Meanwhile, I don't understand how Australian tennis has made such a revival. We have two men's players in the top ten, and now Dokic into the quarter finals. Why is it that I somehow expect them to choke. That's what we do best - but Rafter and a few other Australians seem to finally be defying that trend of choking in big games. Who knows, Dokic and Rafter could well be doin' the dance the day after Wimbledon.

TIM FISCHER RESIGNS

Wednesday 30 June 1999

Tim Fischer's resignation from Parliament today came as a surprise to me after reading Alan Ramsey's rather long piece a few Saturdays back assuring us that all the rumours were false. Often we don't comsider the value that Mr Fischer has been to the coalition. He has been leader of the National Party for quite some time - being leader through the Liberal leadership of John Hewson, Alexander Downer and John Howard. Let's not be fooled by Tim Fisher - I think he was one of the cleverest and hard working MPs in the Howard ministry (that might not say much though). And I think the Nationals would have been in disaster had he not led them through the last election. You see, Tim Fischer gives off this air that he is no politician - that he is in fact a true battler fromm the country. His skill and experience shows otherwise. But this very air that he lets off has I think been valuable to Australia. I think that as a rule, people find his difference refreshing - and I'm sure it has helped in many trade missions overseas (that Akubra hat is what fascinates and entices people to Australia - that a deputy PM and trade minister goes around wearing one sets us out as different to other countries - and in a world where homogenity is the norm, this becomes a valuable asset).

His importance to the National Party has been two fold. Firstly, his normalcy image means that he relates to rank and file members. Secondly, his economic vision was no different from any of the major parties and he was able to ideologically move the Nationals out of the loony fringe while appealing to it at the same time because of his non-politician image. He was able to articulate Free Trade arguments better to the constituency than any other person in the National Party at a time where the negative affects of Free Trade on Australian industry was being felt. He was able to criss cross the country tirelessly during the election campaign and show to the people that he was not one of those Canberra politicians who cared. God only knows how many One Nation votes were not received due to these visits. In fact, Tim Fischer's pre election flights across the nation are one of the major ways he got John Howard out of the mess he created for his own coalition by not criticising Hanson (or, as he says, criticism through silence. For me, his silence was a green light for Hansonism - and indeed, the events that took place afterwards - including increased intimidation of Asians and Aborigines was evidence of that). Tim Fisher was one of the first who actually attacked Hanson. He understood her potential to tear apart his party. That he was able to hold Bob Katter in line and his party after the stunning defeat in the Queensland election is further testament to the amazing political abilities of this man.

However, anything I write about his strengths are overshadowed by his position on social policy that while in line with National ideology - I found distasteful. One could argue that he had to take these positions because of his party and the people who voted for him - but for me that excuse doesn't warrant an escape clause. You have to be accountable for your words, no matter how much you don't mean them. By now you might have guessed I'm talking about his stance on Aborigines and NAtive Title which was shameless. The Howard ammendments to the Native Title Act Tim Fisher claimed would have "bucket loads" of extinguishment. And indeed, the legislation had that in spades by making already harsh eligibility criteria harsher and protecting the interests of multi national corporations. Native title legislation has a lot to do with rascism - because when you go to the bush, you'll realise how much the Aborigines are looked down on. Only in a position of subserviance are Aborigines accepted - and many elections in the bush are about race and Aborigines. We often don't realise it. So, Tim Fischer's comments are understandable in the light of a politician appealing to his rascist constituency. But much of that fear of indigenous people was based on the misconceptions spread by the Farmers Federation after the initial MABO decision. The nationals benefitted from these fears in the Keating election - and they deserved the struggle against Hansonism because they were the ones that fanned up extreme rightism in the Bush (and I mean extreme). If instead, proper explanations were made to the constituents about the implications of Native Title - and had the Courts and Parliament worked better to resolve the NAtive Title problem, we would have all had less of this attitude. The other thing that annoyed me was his promise to put "Capital C conservatives on the High Court." Don't get me wrong here, but the High Court hardly consisted of any radicals - you don't have to be a Houdini to realise that things like Freedom of Political Communication, and the acknowledgement that Australia was not Terra Nullius in 1788 are "radical" thoughts. So, Capital C conservative meant that you'd get people even more conservative than the already conservative people. And no surprise than do we get the highly unethical and bigoted Callinan to the High Court. He will no doubt bless the Court with his love for the rule of law, Justice and a recitification of 200 years of white occupation of Australia.

Tim Fischer is no doubt a loss not only for the coalition, but for the National party itself. It is suffering from an identity crisis - there are urbane nationals and the bush type - and they don't agree in many policy areas. Fischer was a good bridge between the two, and it appears highly unlikely that John Anderson will be able to keep those bridges mended - especially with his reputation in the outer regions. Only time will tell if the Nationals will grow without him - but what can be said is that he was the consumate politician, reaching the pinnacle of his career in the highest office a National can hold. He leaves with the respect of I'm sure most people in the parliament, in spite of his popularity pandering stance on indigenous people and the High Court.

GST VICTORY - HOWARD THE MASTER

Tuesday June 29 1999

Whatever people say about Howard, and however we think of him - and it is mostly negative - this Prime Minister is the greatest Liberal leader since Sir Robert Menzies and would have to rank as one of the most astute and enduring figures of Australian politics. Personally, the man represents the odious undertone of the older generation "decent" Australians. At heart, an ordinary man, working for ordinary people - but a symbol of repression of indigenous people and the poor (and smacks of old fashioned biases). That being said, and under our present circumstances - this doesn't say much. Most Australians are neither substantively concerned for the Aborigines (except on opening ceremonies, admitting some form of guilt, showing that we do care about them) or for the welfare of the underpriveleged (except on Red Shield appeal day, where we put in a couple of bucks). And herein lies the success of Howard as a leader of this country. He more than any other person understands "middle Australia" and has tapped into their desires for economic security. And a vast mass of this nation consists of people who would come under this category. Enough to ensure election victories. So, it was with no surprise that I saw one of the biggest political victories occur today - the passage of the amended GST legislation. Even at the lowest point of Howard's term - when Harradine rejected the GST - I had a gut feeling that the Democrats would negotiate with Howard. And even though the Democrats had the upper hand - they couldn't even keep to their election commitments of such cornerstone things as making books and education totally exempt (and food - not only fresh food). What this amended package means to the Howard Government is an almost certain election victory in 2001 if it can be pulled off with a smooth transmission (and barring a recession). Why? Firstly because even if the complicated food arrangement causes havoc in the small business industry - the Government is able to say: "it's not what we would prefer, but we negotiated and got the best deal out of it." That is, the Democrats would bear the brunt of community outrage. The second reason is that many of those businesses will probably have a year extra of not paying taxes because they won't have to pay the tax in advance. This will offset the quarterly requirement of the tax package (Paul, I hope I'm right on these two points). Thirdly, the tax cuts are substantial when people begin earning 40-50 thousand dollars per year.

WHO WILL BE BETTER OFF?

Well, the deal with Meg Lees will have a very positive affect on the short term for the lower middle class upwards. This is a vast majority of the country. The exemption of fresh foods from the scope of the GST will have substantial benefits. Education relief will also be handy. However, over the long term, the GST is a regressive tax - subject to further broadening and increase through legislation. Bracket creep will make the what were once substantial income tax savings - non existent. But in our current low inflation economy - it seems highly unlikely that we are tto see such a trend hapenning within the first ten years of its introduction. Indeed, if inflation remains low under a GST, it is highly likely that our economy will be experiencing one of the major periods of economic growth and rejuvination since the end of WWII. This is thanks to the hard work of economic reform taken by the Labor Government in the 1980s which led to the recession in the 1990s but guaranteed a fundamentally strong base from which the current Liberal government has built upon (albeit to the detriment of the poor and disadvantaged). The Democrats say they have achieved more than they ever have with this deal. Well, I would say - no they haven't. Just because they put in place a few compensation measures - the structure of the GST is likely to stay in place. If Labor were to repeal the GST - business would have spent millions on implementing the structure. It's funny how when it comes to social policy, it is easy for one Govt to overturn any things another Government has done - yet, with a GST, it will be next to impossible without lifting income taxes or reverting to the Wholesale/Sales Tax regime.

THINGS CHEAPER?

One of the great political moves of the Government has been to get WST on luxury items (32%) down to 22% after July 1 1999. This means that televisions, stereos, videos, etc. will go down substantially - with further savings in July 2001, where the rate will go to 10%. However, it's not very often that we spend money on these products - so the saving is negligable in the greater scheme of things. But think about how a GST will weave its way through every service - gas, phone bills, electricity, hotels and accommodation, restaurants, plumbers, electricians. And the fresh food exemption is welcome, but a very real hassle for businesses. The GST on books is a disgrace - and it's not exactly clear how broadly "education" and "health" will be defined. Already there are arguments over the fact that frames for glasses are being taxed while contacts are exempt. Also the pill is not taxed but Condoms are. Needless to say, these may be small problems in the grander scheme of things. I believe that eventually - the fresh food exemptions will disappear as soon as the Democrats lose the balance of power. Then there are those promised state taxes on banking, etc. that were supposed to be abolished. But since fresh food is out - what happens? Well, State Governments will say "sorry, it's not all the revenue we were promised, so we can't take away this tax and that tax." Then there is talk of the constitutional validity of the legislation - but I'm not sure if the High Court would be brave enough to over rule such a substantial change to the system after its installation even if constitutionality was breached - no doubt there'd be a way around it. And remember, while the Wholesale tax was on product from the factory - the GST occurs at point of sale and includes a tax on the profits a company makes at point of sale. The WST did not include the profit of the retailer itself. So, you should not see the 32% to 22% tax cut as a full ten per cent. With Supermarkets, there'll be a lot of profit taking on decreases.

CONCLUSIONS

While the introduction of a GST is a sad day for Australia, there is no choice now but to live with the consequences of a system that taxes our most profitable industries and impacts on the poor the most. THe Democrats have done much to improve the package, and they were able to achieve many of their stated aims. However, they could have gotten more out of a Government on the ropes. It is a testamant to Howards amazing political abilities that he was able to come out of this the winner - outdoing Peter Costello yet again, and showing why the Liberals will be crazy to even start talking of successors.Howard has been the best thing for the Liberal party since the mid 80s. While Peacock and co cost the Liberals Government for at least six years, Howard's leadership has produced a period of economic success. Howard's major goal is in the economic area (no matter what he says about reocnciliation etc) and he has achieved 85-90% of that goal. Hardly any political leader can lay claim to that. The poor will again have to suffer, but then again, if you're making 40-50 thousand a year, that 5000 dollar saving in taxes will more than pay off the extra bill for electricity, gas, etc. (unless you buy a house!!! Only first time house owners will receive up to 7000 dollars rebate - everyone else pays 10%).

VSU IS DEAD... FOR NOW

Monday June 28 1999

The AV has always been critical of moves towards Voluntary Student Unionism. Firstly, it is part of the Coalition's form of "political correctness" - wherein they seek to silence or disable their critics through withdrawal of funds. They've done this to pensioner groups and to youth groups who have been critical of billion dollar cuts to welfare spending. While Howard's Government has attempted to irradicate "political correctness" they have been far more insidious in these attempts at silencing critics. But in the end, what made VSU such a hypocritic and dangerous act was that its supposed aim was to foster choice - when the Universities would have had no choice of whether to make unionism as a compulsary aspect to its structure - funding would have been tied to the foorced introduction of VSU. Secondly, compulsary student unionism is an integral part of a University structure. People say: "well, I go to uni for the subjects I do and the degree I do." That may well be correct - but if that were completely true, a whhole host of subjects would not exist because demand would make them cost prohibitive. Why for example do law students who pay up to three times more for their degree than arts students - don't get a better quality of funds for their courses. THe simple answer is that the university SUBSIDISES other courses. The Government also subsidises our university costs by providing infrastructure in which classes take place. So, you are not only paying for your subject - you are paying for the buildings in which the subject is housed and for the electricity in which the subject takes place, and the footpath you walk on to get to your subject. More importantly - as a student of that university, you have an implicit committment to the university. Just like not all citizens of this nation adhere to or agree with its laws (taxation, driving, etc); they accept them because there is some goal with which we see a positive effect hapenning (or at least, we hope it is happenning). Richer people pay more tax so as to help poorer people who need services that would normally not exist if those who made more weren't paying for. Similarly, a university is a microcosm of that society - in this age of the internet, we may not see a University as a community - but it is an integral part of the democratic process of this country. From universities we have seen the launch of great revolutions and upheaval in political thought. There is hardly a form of uprising against tyranny that hasn't arisen from the structure of universities in the past century. The challenge to Soeharto in Indonesia reinforces it. But more importantly in a country such as Australia, where tyranny is confined to such issues as silencing government critics through legitimate exercises of economic power or the perceived injustices of a GST, University unions provide services for low income people who would have no where else to go. The cutting of compulsary unionism would result no doubt in the further nail to the legal aid coffin. And the problems are worse for rural universities, where student facilities provided for the union have helped many students in crisis. With Government cutbacks in university funding - student bodies have been able to maintain services for poor and marginalised people. "So what?" may be the cry from the priveleged (in my books, that's anyone who lives in a house, maintains a decent social structure around them and can live without relying on the generosity of others outside their families). Why should we have to foot the bill for such a small proportion of the student body? What am I getting out of it - I haven't gotten a cent out of my funding? Just with taxes, the purpose of unionism is not to give you your money's worth. It provides a better environment for the university and helps achieve a diversity in opinion. As warped as the left leaning papers may be - it's a refreshing change from the conservatism of Piers Akerman and the Telegraph. Who for example, would have read the anti-McDonald's crusade in full were it not for student activism? Who would continue to engage in satire and parody that challenges the hegemony of the law? In the end, it comes down to whether people subscribe to the me, me, me, me attitude - where every piece of reform is judged by how it affects me. Is it so hard to perhaps consider the benefits that student unionism has given to many students?

WASTE AND CORRUPTION

A common thread that seems to emerge from those backing up their claims for VSU is that a lot of money gets wasted on such stupid initiatives as the "womens' room", free telephone calls for uni reps, trips for delegates to other states and other similar forms of waste. Of course, the same accusations were made against ATSIC in order to support a non-racist form of silencing another oppressed minority group who was critical of the Howard Government. Admittedly, there are many things the student body does that we cannot accept as legitimate. Why should the union allocate funds to organisations which are at the very margins and have dubious ideological standpoints. Well, maybe it's because a university is supposed to have this sort of diversity, no matter how artificially the words "university" (and for that matter "society") are constructed. ANd ifstudents are so angered by these inititatives - why not exercise the vote for student reps in order to achieve action over waste. I've only voted in one Student union election in my entire time at Macquarie, and while I think some things are stupid (and I know how easily reps rort their priveleges), that does not lead to the conclusion that VSU should be introduced. In every stage of our lives we find coersion. If we don't want coersion, we can go the Brett HAll option and live in the desert somewhere. Being part of the university means you join the union - and it is different from any other union because of its integral nature as part of that structure the university is (no matter how disconnected you feel to it as an institution). If you're not happy with it, don't go to uni.

SUPPORT FOR CSU in STRANGE PLACES

The Daily Telegraph reports that "There has been strong opposition to the legislation, under which government funding to universities will be dependent on them halting the collection of compulsary fees (as a side note, I think a number of people who initially disputed this fact, have been strangely silent on it). National Federal MP Bob Katter has publicly attacked the plan, claiming he has the support of more than a dozen Coalition members worried about the effect on universities, particularly regional areas." That Bob Katter would be supportive of student unionism is indicative of the clear political nature of the proposed bill those in the government (David Kemp and Tony Abbott) have. They hate student unionism because very rarely is the conservative side given a chance to flourish. The question I ask is, why not try to get conservative people to vote for you instead of cutting of unionism. But in fairness to David Kemp, the telegraph says his point of view is that "student union fees of $350 a year are an unfair burden, despite universities saying they help fund vital services..." Well, it's great to see the concern of Mr Kemp. Was it an unfair burden before HECS charges went through the roof under a coalition Government. Was it an unfair burden before cuts to universities made our courses feeling cheaper and less valuable as assessments of merit? But it seems as though after months of consideration, even those tentavely supporting voluntary unionism have changed their minds. They have seen the WA student union on the verge of bankruptcy - they have seen the effects it has had on poorer students in Victoria. Indeed, Cardinal Edward Clancy was a signatory to "a full page statement appearing in today's (Monday 28 June) The Australian newspaper calling on the Senate to reject the legislation." Union bodies have not been very kind to the Church and to its policies - and that's one thing I don't like about the unions, but it doesn't mean that you have to exercise a vendetta in such an ugly fashion as forcefully enforcing the demise of a significant part of university culture.

CONCLUSION

VSU will probably be dead for at least this term of the Howard Government. The Democrats have vowed not to pass it (though, with Meg Lees under Howard's spell, I wonder if she might not change her mind as she did with GST on books) and the 30 influential signatories, including the head of the Catholic Church in Australia, have helped made the Government look foolish and inept in its handling and propoganda campaign against student unions. What we can all do is to try and make those unions better places. Criticism is integral - and if no-one criticised the student unions would they provide important services efficiently. In fact, one could argue that the Government's threatened action has made student bodies even more efficient providers of services to the needy. They, like every other organisation that has a compulsary source of income from often unwilling parties have to show that they are doing something substantial. At Club Mac - the student body has mostly upheld its principles. At the UNSW apparently, they are sadly lacking and overcharging students while they're at it. In rural areas however, unions are even more vital to the well being of the student body as a whole. If anything - we should be aware of agendas of certain parts of the Government and also of the union body. Admittedly, most will be unhappy about the lack of support for Compulsary unionism in the parliament - but in the end, whinging over the $400 is a small price to pay for what is a small way of balancing the vast inequalities that society leaves us with.

Quotes from The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), Monday June 28, 1999, at page 4.

Badgery's Creek Airport - The ONLY option?

CLEMENT BECOMES FIRST HIT MAN

The Australian Voice hit counter has been visited by Clement Wong three times as the tally after day one reached a staggering seven hits, four of which were by the editor. The editor claimed it was an "historic day for the AV. Just knowing how vastly hit this page is is an astonighing insight." It is projected that the four digit hit counter will re-set after reaching 9999 by the year 2005. The editor called this figure "a realistic, though somewhat optimistic count. No doubt, I'll be pressing the refresh button three thousand or so times to get it over the line."

return to archives

return to main page