Archive for Politics

| January 21, 2013
2 comments

Starting a PhD

Following completion of my honours year in 2012, I applied for and received admission to a PhD program at the University of Wollongong, and an Australian Postgraduate Award.

I’m looking forward to beginning work on the project, but at this stage it is still in the very early developmental phase so I’m finding it hard to get genuinely excited about the work. Nonetheless, I think I’ve developed an interesting, challenging and valuable research proposal. Partly in a bid to launch myself into this project, this post outlines my research project – largely without the academic language that the actual proposal is littered with – and the key topics in my project. Then, whenever someone asks me what I’m studying, I’m handing them a URL!

The topic makes good use of my experience and studies in communications and media, and also builds on my interests in politics.

Title 

I set out to keep the title of my thesis simple, but my supervisor suggested it needed to include more detail. So, while I liked simply “Hyperlocal eGovernment”, it now is appendaged with: “participatory media practices by local government authorities in NSW”. Posed as a question, it would basically be ‘How do NSW Councils use participatory media?’ Ah, but what is participatory media? And what the hell is ‘hyperlocal?’ Read on!

Key Topics

  • Hyperlocal: this term has largely come from a new media form of journalism that focuses on neighbourhood news. ‘Hyperlocal’ news is specific to distinct small communities. It is a somewhat fluid term, but denotes geographic areas much smaller than Australian (and American) states, and also smaller than regions such as “the Illawarra“. For my purposes, I am finding the boundaries of ‘hyperlocal’ at the edges of local government/council areas.
  • eGovernment: short for ‘electronic government’, this term largely relies on communicative technologies and strategies. Governments of all sorts are beseeched to communicate more and better with employees, citizens, visitors, businesses and others. The term also refers to delivering government services and processes via electronic resources. I’m interested in how well this term applies to what local governments do with electronic tools, including the internet. Does the term apply to how they do business? If not, why not? Perhaps there is need of a new term, or perhaps the term needs to be redefined to encompass the practices of local governments.
  • Participatory media: participatory media in this context refers to the tools and processes by which the citizen communicates with and accesses the eGovernment referred to above. This relies on participatory culture, which links strongly to to participatory journalism (and hyperlocal journalism).

Key theorists

  • Jay Rosen, who theorises the “people formerly known as the audience” in a media context. These phrase could be rewritten as the “people formerly known as the citizen” in that the idea of a citizen as someone who votes once every few years is uprooted by opportunities to continually participate in government processes.
  • Henry Jenkins and Howard Rheingold have both both written extensively on participatory culture.

Methods

This project will involve development of a framework to collect and analyse data from Councils including published documents and plans that are both broad and related specifically to eGovernance. In addition to analysis of these documents, I anticipate that there will be surveys and focus group research with Councillors and Council-staff. The existing literature on e-Gov, and other research on local governments, will also be useful.

Significance

This study is intended to have a definite impact on the participatory media practices of local government authorities, both in New South Wales and elsewhere. It will develop a framework for effective use of participatory media which is intended to guide local governments in their thinking about e-governance and participatory media. Further, the challenge to the efficacy of the term ‘e-governance’ could have wide ramifications in communications, media and political academic circles.

Category: Media, Politics, Social Media, Uni, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
| April 24, 2012
No comments

I’m no economist, but…

Australia’s consumer price index measures the changes in costs of average goods to most households. If the CPI rises, then wages and pensions need to rise so people have the same amount of money, in real terms, to spend on everyday items. That’s the simple explanation. A longer one is provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of changes, over time, in retail prices of a constant basket of goods and services representative of consumption expenditure by resident households in Australian metropolitan areas.
The simplest way of thinking about the CPI is to imagine a basket of goods and services comprising items typically acquired by Australian households. As prices vary, the total price of this basket will also vary. The CPI is simply a measure of the changes in the price of this basket as the prices of items in it change.
…
For practical reasons, the CPI basket cannot include every item bought by households, but it does include all the important kinds of items. It is not necessary to include every item that people buy since many related items are subject to similar price changes. The idea is to select representative items so that the index reflects price changes for a much wider range of goods and services than is actually priced.
The total basket is divided into a number of major commodity groups, subgroups and expenditure classes. It covers items such as food, alcohol and tobacco, clothing and footwear, housing, household contents and services, health, transportation, communication, recreation, education and financial and insurance services.

Got it? Good. The CPI measures increases. It does not provide a justification for further increases.

In the case of items like insurance and rent, it is obvious why they will go up in line with CPI increases – the providers need to cover higher costs. Rent is someone’s income as much as it is someone else’s expense while your insurance will need to keep pace with the value of the items being insured. But I cannot work out why CPI increases are used to justify government charges like train fares, etc. See this quote from the Sydney Morning Herald:

there has been no real increase in CityRail fares since 2010. The former government effectively froze fares in its last year in office, while the current government lifted 2012 rail fares only enough to offset consumer price index changes since 2010.

Wouldn’t further increasing charges to keep pace with CPI just keep pushing the CPI up?

There is a cynical explanation – cost saving. But most government charges are percentage or bracket based anyway, so they get increases through payroll and income taxation, GST, etc. If someone has a non-cynical explanation for how such increases can be justified on the basis of CPI increases, I’d love to hear it.

Category: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
| April 17, 2012
One comment

Pleading the Second in NSW

cartfam1

When Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) visited a high school in upstate New York in May 1991, he received an unexpected civics lesson from an unexpected source. Speaking on the timely subject of school violence, Senator Schumer praised the Brady Bill, which he helped sponsor, for its role in preventing crime. Rising to question the effectiveness of this effort at gun control, a student named Kevin Davis cited an example no doubt familiar to his classmates but unknown to the senator from New York:
It reminds me of a Simpsons episode. Homer wanted to get a gun but he had been in jail twice and in a mental institution. They label him as “potentially dangerous.” So Homer asks what that means and the gun dealer says: “It just means you need an extra week before you can get the gun.” (Cantor 1999)

The NSW Government has recently announced some changes to gun laws to help restrict the flow of weapons and ammunition in the wake of a series of shootings.

Most people would not disagree with two aspects of the proposed changes, being (1) a specific offence for drive-by shootings and (2) an increased gaol term for firing at a home as part of an organised criminal activity. Most people would also not take issue with the plan to tighten ammunition sales and carry gun licences when the weapons or their ammunition is in your possession. After all, to drive a car, you need to have your licence with you.

However, those involved in the gun trade, plus farmers and recreational shooters are seemingly outraged, as the Central Western Daily reports:

Bullets & Bits part-owner Ray Hawkins said it was unfair that law-abiding gun owners would be restricted by the proposal.
“Why should we have to prove it [ownership]?” he said.
“It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction.”

Yes, why would anyone need to prove they have a right to access lethal weapons?

Not to be outdone by the Central West’s esteemed publication, the Port Macquarie News reported:

PROPOSED changes to toughen laws around the ownership and sale of ammunition will not reduce firearm crime, a dealer says.
The draft laws put forth by the NSW Government aim to combat organised crime by making it more difficult to buy ammunition for stolen and unregistered weapons.
But Port Macquarie ammunitions dealer David Lenord said the legislation was “stupid”

As this thread on Seabreeze.com.au shows, the discussion can sometimes get a little unruly and nonsensical:

will appease the wallys in la la land that good ol uncle Barry is doing someting tho .Too lttle too late .Just do away with the war on drugs ol mate and the problem will be solved

(I think he was saying gun crime will go away if we stop targeting drug crime?)

Unlike Homer, Barry’s law doesn’t mean you’ll have to wait an extra week to get your gun or ammunition, even if you are “potentially dangerous”. In NSW, it will only mean you wait until you sign the paperwork.

Reference
Cantor, P., 1999. Atomistic Politics and the Nuclear Family. Political Theory, 27(6), pp.734-749. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/20688622 [Accessed April 1, 2012].

Category: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
| March 15, 2012
No comments

It’s Not Easy to be a Green

Warning: Rant Ahead.

One of Bob Brown’s major tag lines is that the majority of the population agrees with the Greens on issues like climate change and social policy. I suspect he’s right. But the problem for the Greens is the majority of the population – those who see the world and politics in oppositional binaries (good/bad, Liberal/Labor, male/female, black/white, or whatever) – can’t agree with the party’s more radical ideology.

Most people generally support the idea of environmental protection, even at the expense of jobs, as the recent anti-mine movement attests. Most people agree there should be universal access to healthcare services including dental and disability. Most people like the idea that there will be a strong safety net there when they most need it. But they cannot accept that we should legalise marijuana and they cannot accept private schools ought not receive any public funding. These are part of The Greens’ platform in the public mind. The descriptions I’ve given might not be accurate, but they are prevalent, and that’s where The Greens fall down with most of the voting public. They have an image problem because they allow the ideas to linger. They allow radicals within the party to promote these as legitimate policy platforms. Instead of consigning their radicals to the dustbin so a broader range of community support can be gained, they carry on as is.

And that is why the Greens will not achieve the power they crave. Their platform denies entry to those they need most – voters on the margins of the major parties who do support their broad environmental and social policies. They don’t make it easy to vote for them, much less participate in the party as a member or even candidate, because they alienate too many.

Category: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , ,
| February 27, 2012
No comments

Year of the Dragon

How to Ruin A Country in Ten Days

On Monday, Kevin Rudd strode into Parliament a white knight leading a small band of fierce yet determined foot soldiers. He was there to do battle with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. From his pronouncements, we can imagine Rudd sees Gillard as an unfathomably evil creature who robbed him. She was the red dragon that stole his crown jewel.

The contrast is stark in Rudd’s mind. He escaped from the nasty coup in 2010 wounded but free of mud. He had jousted with the dragon and lost, because she had gathered an army of minions. This time, Rudd lost again. The minions were now senior Ministers, and they duped the caucus into believing Rudd would tear the Government apart. Again, he claims the moral superiority. His challenge was open and honest. He calmly approached the gates of her lair (having left fortress Brisbane far behind) and fought openly, while Wayne Swan and others ambushed him even as Gillard loomed in sight. His tears in 2010 were pure, borne of shock and a sense of betrayal. Today, Rudd knew he would lose. He will retreat to the backbench for now.

The whole fantasy of Kevin Rudd the White is a story that has been well-told by Rudd and his supporters. If only Labor had managed to enthrall the electorate with the tale.

They could have used their time since 2007 to draw up a neat map of successes. They warded off the plague of the GFC, saw a carbon tax through the roughest of media seas, delivered increases in pensions for the villagers, and began laying down the information infrastructure that will keep the kingdom strong. They have delivered much more. In contrast, Tony Abbott careens wildly throughout the countryside, trying to find the cracks that will let him climb into the castle.

Instead of trumpeting their successes, Labor has given Abbott the chance to show that you can slay a dragon – and a whole bunch of her colleagues – without offering a credible alternative. Where other Liberal leaders have articulated clear vision, Abbott has just been casting spells and hoping that one of them won’t turn him into a toad.

Gillard’s victories include the aforementioned carbon tax, plus the health agreement and the pay boost for community services workers. These are her reforms. But they have barely been mentioned outside of the media and the Government. Gillard has not been able to write the Government’s story. This is partly because she lost the ability to narrate it once Rudd was deposed. Instead, the clear voice of the brave knight has been reading it his way. He was the victim and the classic fairy tale storyline kicked in. He had to be returned, because that would be natural justice. That is the ending the public have been seeking.

When Rudd broke from the pattern last week and resigned as Foreign Minister, he once again seized the role of narrator. He told us the Gillard reforms began while he was in charge and he now sought to take credit for them. He stepped into the role of the Knight as we had hoped. He evolved into the worn down hero who has had enough of tyranny and would lead the revolt. But Rudd had not counted on the venom from those he had worked with. Nicola Roxon, Wayne Swan and Simon Crean let their arrows fly as soon as Rudd’s drawbridge was down. Only bit-part Ministers (with the exception of Anthony Albanese) joined his party. The villagers cheered for Rudd as he rode out, but it was not their battle to fight. The members of the Labor caucus would decide this winner and many showed their disdain for the interference of the public.

It remains to be seen whether Gillard will take vengeance on those who supported Rudd. Her refusal to accept Albanese’s resignation suggests that they will be treated well. But as the White Knight retreats to mend his armour, the prospect of ongoing disunity in the Government is strong. Their best hope is to tell a compelling story. It needs to be a page turner. The successes need to be seen and celebrated. If not, another army may rise to challenge Gillard, even if the flaxen-haired ex-PM is not part of the charge.

Category: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries  

Switch to our mobile site