Tuesday 31 December 2013

22. New Year

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the celebration of the Christian calendar that is New Year’s Eve. While there may not be much that is Christian in the average New Year’s Eve party – apart from a wish to turn water into wine – it is a celebration of the end of a Christian chronological unit. If we were a truly multicultural country – rather than simply a tolerant one – we would have equal but different celebrations for the Chinese and Greek New Years, the Buddhist Calender, and so on. But we will in fact be entering the year 2014 AD – atheism denied.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not averse to either a beer or a holiday - but if we are going to have a day to reflect on a year then let’s do it properly.

No doubt the TV will be full of banal retrospectives featuring the Crows, the Australian cricket team, James Hird and Tony Abbott – probably in that order. But despite our obsession with sport, the Adelaide Thunderbirds’ netball championship probably won’t feature: women don’t realy count in sport, or politics apparently. Julia who?

A Filipino cyclone might get a look in to the 2013 retrospective because the pictures were dramatic, but those people are overseas and aren’t really relevant. People overseas only become relevant when they arrive by boat, but since the boats were going to stop when the government changed, there can be no more news about that.

That said, Nelson Mandela will feature in the 2013 flashback, despite the fact that he trained with foreign revolutionaries and led an armed insurrection – a fact which does not diminish the legacy of one of the world’s truly great leaders, but should make us question our current Hollywood notions of terrorism.

In a year when “gender explains part of” the demise of a prime minister, climate change deniers got elected to parliament despite a year of horrendous bushfires following a year of record temperatures, Holdens (unsurprisingly) put the interest of international shareholders above those of South Australian workers, same sex couples still were not allowed to marry, the rich got a superannuation bonus at the expense of the poor, and literally thousands remain homeless or sleeping rough in Adelaide, it is hard to know what to make a New Year’s resolution about.

Somehow, I don’t think beer, chocolate or exercise will do it.

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-22/ 

 First Broadcast: 31 December 2013

Tuesday 24 December 2013

21. Christmas

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about – well, Christmas, of course. What else could one grumble about in this season of peace and goodwill to all men.

Where to begin? Maybe with a simple bah-humbug, but it is such a cliché - and Dickens sold Scrooge out with a change of heart.

So, where to begin? The enforced Christianity, the social assertion of the supremacy of the biological family, or just the crass commercialisation? Or maybe that our society degenerates into a gaudy, wasteful festival of greed and over-consumption. The simple and good notions of a holiday and getting together with family and friends get commodified and polluted, while those who do not fit this happy Christmas picture are pushed to the edge.

Of course there are many acts of generosity at Christmas time, sometimes in thoughtful present-giving, and sometimes in acts of charity and support for those who are not doing so well – but just maybe, at least some of those people are not doing so well because of the pressure and social exclusion that is the inevitable outcome of the Santa Clause culture. And let’s not forget that Christmas is not just an occasion of mirth and giving, it is also an occasion of increases in offensive drunkenness, domestic violence, road carnage and suicide.

There are many Christians in our society who have a right to celebrate their days of religious significance. Ok, yes, I know it was originally a pagan festival that was taken over by western Christian churches in a colonial process which pre-figured the more recent colonisation by a fat man in a coca-cola-sponsored red suit. But if I have to hear one more banal Christmas carol, I don’t know what I’ll do. It is why I usually try to head to a mountain somewhere at this time of year. I am sure that if there is a god – singular or plural, of whatever description, they are more likely to found in the glory of nature and the call of the wild than in artificial religious ceremonies or in Department stores selling useless objects as meaningless gifts.

So, I hope listeners have a good break and get to share time and themselves with friends and families. But personally, I want to imagine a day when our society’s main festival isn’t a celebration of religions of either the theological or commercial kind. But until then, I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-21/ 

First Broadcast: 24 December 2013

Monday 16 December 2013

20. Bike Riding

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about bike riding – and I do this having just completed a 9-day ride along the Great Ocean Road with about 5,000 others. My grumble is not about the lycra – yes I know it looks appalling and turns people into lurid billboards, but it is by far the most comfortable clothing to cycle in, and over a long distance that matters.

And my grumble is not about bike riders not obeying road rules – most of the rules and road infrastructure were not made for bikes and are often inappropriate ‘car-thinking’, and sometimes unsafe. Although having said that, I do support helmet laws as I have twice cracked a helmet on the road without any harm to me. That’s two points for the so-called “nanny-state”.

My grumble is about the commercialisation of riding. I know that large groups of middle aged men combining high disposable incomes and a sport full of machines and gadgets is a marketer’s dream. But now the charities have got in to the market and I am sick of being asked to ride to cure cancer or some other injury, disease or condition, or to help a particular charity. They may be good causes, but if I really wanted to “ride for a reason”, it would be because it is cheap, keeps me healthy, is good for the environment, saves the community money, gets my brain working and is just plain fun.

The charity imperialism reached a farcical point for me earlier this year, when I went to register for a major community ride – on public roads I have ridden many times – only to find out I needed to raise several hundred dollars for a charity first. Frankly, if I was going to raise money for a charity, it would not be for that particular one. But the bigger issue is, what is it that requires us to ride, run, walk, shave, wear a ribbon or grow a ridiculous moustache to get donations for good causes.

It is the logic of a contract – that there must be an exchange to make it legitimate, or that you must do something to “earn” the charity dollar.

Personally, I dream of a community beyond such commercial logic, a community which gives what is needed, simply because it is needed, not because of some sporting indulgency. Imagine that, being able to fund good things on the basis of issues, not gimmicks!

I am Greg and I am grumbling – and riding, for fun.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-20/ 

First Broadcast: 17 December 2013

Monday 9 December 2013

19. Birthdays

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about birthdays. I do this as I have a milestone birthday ending in a round number. But really, what is there to celebrate – simply surviving another lap of the sun? I may not be completely above the self-indulgence of a birthday, but what does another lap really matter? And is it actually anyone else’s business, and does it really require a round of consumerism with compulsory present-giving?

The fact is I had no say in being born, and with luck and good health, and with the privilege of living in what songwriter Penelope Swales calls “a beautiful place in a time of peace”, it’s a statistical probability that I will wake up each morning for 365 days in a row. No big deal, and no particular reason to celebrate.

Of course for people living under oppression or struggling with illness, a year’s survival is an achievement of note, and a reason to celebrate. But for most it is just habit.

The more important question is what has been achieved and contributed in a year. This can take many forms. Some people create loving households and raise children– but in that case a child’s birthday should be a celebration of the parents, not the one who was born on a given date. For many, a contribution is made by the work they do – but that is rewarded by pay packets and marked in years of service, not birthdays. Others contribute above and beyond, through the volunteer work and projects that care for others, build community or restore the environment. All power to them.

But for me, social celebrations are more important than individual ones. An acknowledgement of significant steps towards a fairer and more sustainably society would be a better celebration than any one birthday. For instance, today, 10th December, is International Human Rights Day, the birthday of the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would be nice if we better celebrated that major social achievement, rather than the 1 in 365 chance that someone was born on this date.

And given that the Declaration has reached the ripe old age of 65, we could perhaps look forward to a day when human rights are indeed universal and it can retire, having done its job.

Now there’s a birthday wish. But until then I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-19/ 

First Broadcast: 10 December 2013

Monday 2 December 2013

18. Smokers

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about smokers. Not smoking, smokers. Yes, I know smokers are just people addicted to a noxious substance and we should really feel sorry for them. Their addiction means that they pay daily tribute to some of the biggest and nastiest corporations around the world – an immoral profit based on dependence and a history of insidious advertising and a denial of science.

I should be compassionate because I know that statistically smokers are likely to suffer more from cancer and other diseases and die earlier than non-smokers, and I know that people on low incomes, and people who are desperate or stressed and those who suffer depression and other mental health problems are all more likely to smoke than those with more resources or for whom life is easier. Should I really begrudge people a short term relief from a simple smoke?

I should be more understanding, but sometimes I simply resent having to hold my breath as I go in and out of buildings, or having to have a conversation with someone whose clothes and breath fill the air with the putrid aftermath of their craving. I resent the colonisation of our-door spaces at various venues, and I particularly resent people coming up talk to you when they are smoking, or light up next to you completely oblivious to how obnoxious and anti-social that is.

I won’t even dignify the notion of smokers’ rights with a grumble because at the point where smokers are imposing their smoke (and their medical bills) on the rest of us, it is not about their right or choice whether to smoke, it is a public health issue. And of course where a corporate sponsored addiction is concerned, it is never really about free choice anyway.

So, I actually want to congratulate governments over the last 20 years for a range of public health responses which have de-legitimised and de-glamourised smoking, and which see us no longer having to share aircrafts, music venues and restaurants with the offensive smoke. Even while I grumble about smokers, it is worth remembering these good changes – our lives made better by preventative health approaches.

We could learn a lesson from that for all sorts of addictions and health problems where prevention (or at least risk minimisation) may be better than cure. Alternatively, we can call this a “nanny state” and just continue to plough money into a completely unsustainable health system that remains dominated by expensive tertiary-end care. However, unlike my dashes into buildings, I won’t hold my breath for a policy change there.

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-18/ 

First Broadcast: 3 December 2013

Sunday 1 December 2013

17. Asylum Seekers

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about asylum seekers. I won’t grumble about border protection and the race to see who can manage desperate people in the most inhumane way. That is beyond a simple grumble.

But while the public debate focuses on distant shores, right now there are around 4000 people in Adelaide who have come to Australia seeking asylum and who are living in our community on bridging visas or in community detention awaiting determination of their claims. However, under Federal government policy these people are prohibited from working and have to live on 89% of the already below-the-poverty line Newstart allowance. To add insult to injury, the state government seems to deem them ineligible for housing and a range of other community supports as this is seen as a Commonwealth responsibility, or because the HealthCard [which they are not eligible for] is the criteria for eligibility.

This exclusion has hugely detrimental impacts on those people’s mental health, sense of self and on their chances of finding a place in and contributing to the community (both immediately and should their application for asylum be successful). The risk is that desperate people will turn to anti-social ways to find sustenance and identity – as you would if you were living in overcrowded and temporary accommodation in a hostile environment. Or alternatively they arrive at the doors of already over-stretched charities to ask for a help – which is fine, but it is just another example of charities picking up the pieces of failed government policy.

It is time that government, both state and federal got beyond demonising asylum seekers and provided simple services to people who are really in need. And is it really too much that these people be allowed to work? They already face such daunting challenges they are unlikely to be competition for those already looking for work, and are perhaps better in award-paying work than in the informal economy. Given the current policy that no asylum seekers arriving by boat will be settled in Australia, there can be no argument that relaxing these restrictions will provide an incentive to others to come to Australia.

Such a change of policy is desperately need just to treat people in our community with some basic measure of dignity, and it can be done without any impact on our border security, our national identity or our ability to bully our nearest neighbours.

I am Greg, I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-17/ 

First Broadcast: 26 November 2013 

Monday 18 November 2013

16. Australian Wars

Hi. I am Greg and I want to mourn more than grumble today. Last week we celebrated Armistice Day, the end of the war to end wars. And we unveiled a memorial to Aboriginal soldiers who have fought for our country. Lest we forget.

But did we forget or fail to memorialise the Aboriginal soldiers who first fought for their country – against the European invasion? And what about the Australian militia that went to New Zealand to quell the Maori uprising in the 1860s, or the ten South Australian contingents who fought the Boers in South Africa and the Boxers in China at the turn of the last century.

After the war to end all wars, there were Australians in the British forces that fought on behalf of the aristocracy in the Russian Civil War, and a few brave volunteers who were the first to fight fascism in the Spanish Civil War before the second world war swapped one dictator for another in Poland and ended in nuclear holocaust in the Pacific.

And after that Australians saw service in the Korean War and the Malayan emergency in the 1950s, and the Indonesian confrontation beginning in 1963. And then came the disaster in Vietnam and a generation’s respite before we went to defend a feudal regime in Kuwait against a dictator in Iraq – I’m sure it had nothing to do with the oil. Then there was the second Gulf War searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and the invasion of Afghanistan which ended up being our longest official war.

And to finish this list, we must remember the Australian peace keepers in Africa, the Middle East, Timor Leste, the Solomon Islands and elsewhere.

Overall, a pretty mixed list – from heroic and necessary fights in defence of highest principles to cruel adventures for imperial self-interest.

I have no experience or even real comprehension of what those who fought these wars endured and make no judgement on them. But when it takes my whole 2 minutes to list the wars of our nation’s short history, I wonder at what point should our remembrance question the militarism of our heritage?

It’s not just about history, it’s also about culture and current priorities. Not just our foreign policy, but more locally, do we really want the second largest research organisation in the country to be dedicated to warfare, or our manufacturing base to be built on warships in the Port River? And is it ok to take over my local school with Maritime Courses to provide the kids of western suburbs a job in those industries? Perhaps it was forever thus for workers, but can we imagine a less militaristic future?

I hope so, but until then I am Greg, I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-16/

First Broadcast: 19 November 2013

Tuesday 12 November 2013

15. Climate Changes and Taxes

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about climate change and taxes. Ok, this is a recurring grumble, but it is particularly topical this week as Tony Abbott’s legislation to scrap the carbon tax is introduced in the Federal Parliament. This was a flagship policy of the election campaign and we were promised that it would reduce electricity prices and ease cost of living pressures – his Bill to reduce our bills.

Except that now key business leaders are saying that we won’t see any big price reductions. Where were these voices during the election campaign I wonder? And where was the reporting of the current wave of economists who think that putting a pricing carbon is more effective and efficient than the proposed direct action approach to reducing carbon pollution. And that is without even questioning the manifestly inadequate pollution reduction targets of both schemes.

But the hip pocket question remains: will our power bills come down if we are without a carbon strategy – sorry, I mean a carbon tax? I don’t know, but I do know that carbon prices were always only a small proportion of the massive recent hikes in energy prices. Adelaide’s electricity prices went up 18.2% in the quarter immediately following the introduction of the carbon price, but only about a quarter of this increase was down to the carbon tax and the general inflation rate increased by only 1.5%. For most households, and particularly for the poorest households, this increase was more than covered for by the government’s compensation package.

The good news is that even if the carbon tax is scrapped, we will keep the compensation package. It is currently worth about $7 a week for pensioners, less for some other income support recipients. It’s not much, but it seems only reasonable to keep it after last week’s announcement that the Federal government would give the richest households a huge bonus by dropping the proposed tax on superannuation earnings over $100,000 a year (ie. for those whose super-pot is a couple of million dollars). And they announced that at the same time as announcing the dumping of the rebate support for low income earners’ contribution to super.

Who knows, after that bit of robbing from the poor to give to the rich, maybe the government figured it owed the poor one.

Shame about the planet though!

I am Greg, I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-15/

First Broadcast: 12 November 2013

Monday 4 November 2013

14. AGMs

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about AGMs. Yes, it is that time of year when community organisations, sports clubs and local groups have their Annual General Meetings – the highpoint of grass-roots democracy where volunteers and members have a say in community organisations big and small. A time where organisation leaders can reach out, talk to and inspire their members, and where members can ask questions, stand for election and elect a management committee of their choice. Yeah, as if.

What often happens is that the AGM is almost a non-event, where formal business is rushed-through before getting on with the “more important” business of organising the next fundraiser, working bee or event. Alternatively, the AGM is a grand ceremony where self-important office holders present long, selective and uncritical propaganda reports on the year’s activities and finances. Unless members have other sources of information, there is no chance for real discussion and all sorts of problems are hidden.

Often when you get to an AGM, there are not enough volunteers to go on to the Management Committee or Board, so there is no election. Current committee members or their friends are dragooned into putting up their hand, and the same faces continue – sometimes with inspiration and passion, sometimes just keeping a seat warm. But in that dynamic there is no accountability, and with that comes a culture of power and entitlement and no culture of democracy and participation.

The peak body Volunteering SA&NT can help with skills for volunteers and volunteer engagement to enable better member participation, and there are a host of possibilities to make AGMs more interesting, but can I dare hold out a vision of governance beyond the AGM? Of participatory rather than representative structures? Do we really need hierarchic and largely self-appointed committees claiming to represent the organisation or community? Can we even dream of genuinely open structures without “office-holders”, one where decisions are made by those with knowledge, experience and interest rather than those who happened to be elected by a largely non-representative group of members at some antiquated ceremony? It would take some work, some radical changes to the way we do things, but it might also better mobilise and truly “represent” the community.

But in the meantime, we have the AGM. All those in favour?

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-14/

First Broadcast: 5 November 2013

Tuesday 29 October 2013

13. Payroll Tax

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about tax, and payroll tax in particular. Taxes are never popular, but payroll tax is particularly unpopular, being labelled as a tax on employment. However, given that it helps pay for vital state government services, the Productivity Commission speculated that it might be better accepted if it was called a hospital or schools levy.

But in any tax debate, we have to remember that Australia is not a high taxing country by world standards – the 4th lowest in the OECD, and South Australia is not a high taxing state. As a share of the economy, state taxes are about the same as the national average, and per head of population state taxes in South Australia are $300 a year less than the national average.

However, state taxes – especially payroll tax – have long been a bugbear of business and this week the Liberal Party promised a big cut in payroll tax from 2015 if they are elected in March.

I think payroll tax does need an overhaul, but I am not sure I would have done it the way the Liberals have proposed. They are not promising to cut the rate of tax, just to raise the threshold for when businesses start paying the tax. 8,000 more businesses will be exempt from the tax, but any threshold creates a tax disincentive for businesses expanding over the arbitrary threshold. I would have preferred a broader based tax with a lower tax rate for all businesses.

But I also think that simply playing with rates and thresholds is a missed opportunity for tax reform. One of the biggest problems facing workers today is insecure work. Far too many people are struggling on short term contracts or in casual employment. This creates uncertainty and stress for staff, and limits their ability to access loans, housing and to plan and build a secure life. If payroll tax relief is called for, wouldn’t it be better to offer it to employers who offer more secure forms of employment than to employers who maintain workers at the margins but who sneak in under an arbitrary threshold?

Obviously this proposal needs discussion and modelling of its effects – not least because many low paid casuals rely on the loading in their pay to make ends meet. But if we are going to have an election based just on cutting taxes, then I am going to grumble.

And looking at the opening pitches of the election campaign, I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-13/

First Broadcast: 29 October 2013

Monday 21 October 2013

12. Festival of Ideas

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the Festival of Talking which was held in Adelaide on the weekend.

University halls were packed with people who clearly didn’t have to work, do the shopping, clean the house, take the kids to sport, or do any of things that people have to do on the weekend. There was discussion of science, of arts, of feminism and of politics, and there were interesting and occasionally provocative ideas being delivered from platforms on high.

But what made me grumble was the lack of analysis of power and material interest in the sessions I went to. For instance, we were told that we are going backwards on climate change because the narrative does not fit with the way our brains are hard-wired. Apparently as a species we have trouble grasping and acting on abstract concepts, so facts about a distant threat posed by an invisible gas just don’t cut it. And so with classical liberalism, we were implored to talk about climate change differently and to build bridges to each person’s individual experience.

Now apart from thinking that abstract concepts like nationalism, god and democracy have historically mobilised masses of people, I wondered where was the analysis of power in society? Where was the discussion of the power of transnational fossil fuel corporations who successfully lobbied to gut climate legislation in face of popular support for action on climate change, where was the querying of an economic model based on particular types of growth or an understanding of the self-interest of living a resource-intensive lifestyle?

Now I am happy to try to adapt messages to maximise their impact, but let’s not kid ourselves that the ultimate issue here is one of discourse – of the way ideas are explained. Liberal ideology might credit ideas with changing history, but feudalism, the divine right of kings and Soviet communism were all defeated not by the idea of democracy but by the wealth created by capitalism and the power of the capitalist class – albeit mitigated (and legitimised) by a social democratic state. And that is the order of magnitude change we may need.

These may be unpopular ideas in a festival based on the idea of ideas, but perhaps if we focussed more on power we would be discussing the organisation of politics rather than its language, equality rather than innovation, and poverty rather than “true crime” (Thanks John Saffron). Why was it that in a festival at the end of anti-poverty week, there was no session on ideas for addressing poverty and sharing wealth?

Don’t get me wrong, ideas are important – and better when entertaining and inspiring, but the key thing about ideas relates to who has power in our society, who benefits from which ideas and how ideas are mobilised in defence of (or in opposition to) that power and privilege.

So, call me an old-fashioned materialist, but I am Greg, I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-12/

First Broadcast: 22 October 2013

Tuesday 15 October 2013

11. Poverty

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about poverty, or about how as a society we talked too much about poverty – and then we stopped.

It seemed like a good idea in the early 1970s when a bloke called Henderson headed an inquiry which set a benchmark for how much income would be required to meet the basic needs of a family of two adults and two children. It was a narrow family stereotype (well, it was 40 years ago) but conceptually the idea of such a benchmark poverty line is not too different from what another bloke called Justice Higgins did way back at the start of the last century when he set a minimum wage that helped make Australia a more decent society – even if defined in masculine terms of a male bread-winner.

But far from shining a light on poverty in Australia, the poverty line generated endless debates. The academic ink flowed not just around the maths and methodology, but around whether poverty was defined by a set of basic needs or as relative to how much others in the society had.

The debate went on, until others pointed out that money was a narrow measure and there were a whole range of other social barriers holding people down. Education, class, race, sex and sexuality combined in various and often brutal ways to create disadvantage and deprivation, and it was clear that money alone was not the answer. And then it became too hard or just too old-fashioned to talk about poverty and the middle class focus went elsewhere – even though the poor were still poor and the gap between rich and poor was growing.

Sadly now, in anti-poverty week, those still wanting to highlight poverty can’t give you a simple answer as to what the poverty line is, or how many people are living below it. Instead they have to chant ritual incantations about poverty being multi-dimensional, and qualify statements and apologise in advance before talking about income levels. In highlighting the complexity of the problem, we robbed ourselves of the language to talk about poverty.

Of course education, class, race, sex, geography, health and a range of other things are important determinants of poverty, but I have a fairly strong suspicion that if you are missing meals or your electricity is cut off because you can’t pay the bills, or if you are trying to live on $35 a day on a Newstart allowance, lack of money is pretty fundamental.

So let’s talk about all the power structures, cultures and barriers that keep people poor, but show me the money as well! And let’s have a debate not about where or how to draw the poverty line, but about what to do about poverty in our rich country.

But until then, I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-11/

First Broadcast: 15 October 2013

Monday 7 October 2013

10. SLAPP Suits

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about SLAPP suits. SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. The name is American, but unfortunately law suits against activists voicing community concern are alive and well in Australia.

Perhaps the most famous Australian example was the Gunns 20 case where the Tasmanian timber giant Gunns sued Bob Brown, The Wilderness Society and 18 others over protests against logging old growth forests. The case dragged on for five years before it finally collapsed with Gunns having trashed their own reputation and paid over a million dollars in court costs.

But there have been other cases. In South Australia environmentalists got sued for saying a developer was chasing “fool’s gold”, and for saying that you would have to have “rocks in your head” if you wanted to build a housing estate in a particular place. And then there were the animal activists sued over a T-shirt about battery hens, and the social justice activists sued for saying that there had not been adequate consultation with Aboriginal people over a particular project.

I grumble about this because I spent 10 years of my life defending these cases, but I was a lot more than grumbling last week when I heard that the Victorian Supreme Court had just slapped injunctions on protesters who had been blocking the building of a new McDonald’s at Tecoma in the hills outside of Melbourne. Now I don’t know the protesters, or whether their concerns about local businesses, culture and environment, healthy diets, or the rights of the local community are widely held or well-founded, but I do know that they have a right to effectively protest the burger-isation of their town. Such political issues should be sorted out in public debate, not by a court process where a global corporation has all the resources and rights.

But what is even more outrageous in this case was that the judge made a “representative order” – effectively gagging whole groups of protesters who were not even parties to the case. So, if you were one of those protesters upset by this particular Hamburglar and you now go to protest by symbolically occupying the site for say 10 minutes, you might not only be charged with trespass by the Police, you could be sued for tens of thousands of dollars and be guilty of contempt of court to boot!

I blame McDonald’s, and I blame the judge and the lawyers, and I blame the legal system that makes court cases so expensive and stressful. But mostly I want to see legislation to ban such attacks on the right to protest, and no, I won’t have fries with that!

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-10/

First Broadcast: 8 October 2013

Tuesday 1 October 2013

9. Fact Checking

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about facts. Well, actually about journalism and facts.

During the Federal election there were at least 3 Fact Checking websites set up to check the factual accuracy of things politicians say. The ABC had a staff of about 10 people in their “Fact Checking” unit, while the US-based “PolitiFact” set up a branch in Australia to keep an eye on our pollies' claims. This added to Crickey.com who was running a regular fact checking service, “Get Fact”.

Now don’t get me wrong. Independent fact checking and calling our politicians to account is a good thing. By why is it needed? Isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do as their day job?

Apparently not. Tight news cycles and inexperienced journalists mean that most of the political news coverage we get is he-said/she-said competing claims with no analysis and no way the public can work out what the truth is. Journalists could check with independent experts and either present those views, or inform themselves and make an assessment of the facts and issues and then tell us the story. But instead what we often get is simply a packaging of sound-bytes from political leaders. The “news story” is not about the issue, but what one person said about what the other person said about the issue.

And then there is the issue of balance. Any journalist actually trying to do an assessment of issues and present facts about who is right or wrong on a particular issue will inevitably be the subject of a complaint of bias. This is particularly the case if they work for the ABC – not because the ABC is biased, it is just easier to complain about. And so, we get an even more extreme version of political debate where if one view is put, “balance” requires that the opposite view be put. The views may be bizarre, offensive or incredible, and such balance may make shows like Q&A unwatchable, but it is balanced – apparently! Well, I’m sorry, the earth is round, climate change is real, and you can’t live properly on a $35 a day Newstart Allowance – and I don’t need to hear from someone providing me “balance” on this.

So, good luck to the fact checkers checking the facts that the journalist fact checkers don’t check. And long live community radio where you can actually discuss issues.

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-9/ 

First Broadcast:1 October 2013

Tuesday 24 September 2013

8. CAPTCHAs

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about CAPTCHA. You may not recognise the name, but it stands for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart. Now that name alone should tell you something of the complexity of the beast, but in less formal language, CAPTCHAs are those bloody annoying text and number patterns that you have to enter on an increasing number of websites before you can post online messages or sign up to services.

I’m sorry, maybe my brain is not abstract enough, but sometimes I just can’t see letters in the patterns, or the letters are so distorted that they could be any of 3 or 4 different ones. So I sit there reloading the screen until I get a set of letters and numbers that I can actually read. And I am told that the audio versions are no less confusing.

Now given that I have spent the last seven weeks grumbling about elections and matters of national importance, you might think that issues with CAPTCHA are a bit trivial. Well, if you have a vision impairment or are using one of the various programs designed to assist you to read online – and therefore to connect to the digital world, guess what, the very secure CAPTCHA system just blocked your participation in that world. Ditto if you have a learning disability like dyslexia. You won’t be able to sign up to basic services like gmail and skype, comment on that article that everyone else is talking about or do that business transaction online. Ah, I think that’s called discrimination!

And what does it say when a device that is designed to tell humans from non-humans, excludes someone with a vision or learning disability from the category of “human”. Would we accept any real person saying that someone with a disability was not human?

It is not even clear that CAPTCHA is needed for security purposes. I am sure it wasn’t needed (but it was there) on my online inquiry last week about whether a particular caravan park had a vacancy at the end of the year. Even on more serious transactions, there are several alternative methods of proving web users are human rather than spamming computers. Some of these also have drawbacks, but as a spam-busting device, the discriminatory CAPTCHAs are not necessarily “bot-proof” and can be defeated by equally smart non-humans.

Now it is not just me grumbling about CAPTCHA. The leading telecommunications consumer voice, ACCAN, which is the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network – has begun a campaign to “kill CAPTCHA”. They are calling on organisations with websites using CAPTCHAs to phase out the skewed and confusing text devices. There is also an online petition which asks for their phase out. Sound good to me.

Let’s kill CAPTCHA – but until then, I am Greg and I am grumbling. 

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-8/ 

First Broadcast: 24 September 2013

Tuesday 17 September 2013

7. The Cabinet

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about Tony Abbott’s new cabinet. Yes, I know it is predictable grumble, but I am not actually going to grumble about the embarrassment of having only one woman in Cabinet. Nor am I going to grumble about the stream of commentary and Twitter outrage at the notion of quotas or some mechanism to promote women. Apparently these are an attack on merit and individual rights, as if there are no social processes and power structures which disadvantage women or define merit in a gendered way. But I will leave that alone.

I am not even going to grumble about the fact that the Ministry is never appointed simply on merit as there is always a juggling of positions and balancing of numbers, between factions in the Labor Party or party wings in the Coalition, and between country and city representatives, between members of the Liberal and National parties, and between members of the upper and lower houses. If I did that, I would have to wonder why gender balance could not be included in that balancing process.

Alternatively I suppose, I could just accept that this was in fact a merits-based process and that there are just far fewer women than men with the skills to be a Cabinet Minister – but then I would have to spend my weekends painting picket fences and tinkering with the FJ Holden in the driveway. So I won’t go there either.

What I really want to grumble about is that in the lead up to the election, the Coalition’s Policy for Disability and Carers promised that there would be a “Minister for Disabilities and Carers”. Now apart from the problem of the name focussing on the disability and not the actual person living with a disability, I searched the new Ministry and there is no Minister for Disabilities and Carers. There is a someone with responsibility for the NDIS (Mitch Fifield, the Assistant Minister for Social Services), but that is not the same thing. I checked the fine print of the original policy statement, and it says that, and I quote “The Coaltion will put all policy and programmes for employment of people with disability under the Minister for Disabilities and Carers”. This is clearly beyond the NDIS (which thankfully will return to that name rather than the ill-fated Disability Care), but the title of the proposed minister is capitalised, suggesting a separate Minister – not subsuming the position in a broader portfolio.

Personally I am happy to be rid of portfolios where we had the Minister for A,B,C,D, E, and F, but having a dedicated voice at the cabinet table is important. And this Cabinet has no singular voice for disabilities – or for mental health for that matter as it is subsumed into health. But unless this is the first broken promise of the new government, we still wait for the appointment of a Minister for People with Disabilities and Carers – which would be a great recognition of the importance of the issues and of people living with disabilities. And who knows, we could even have a woman appointed as Minister.

But until then, I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-7/
First Broadcast: 17 September 2013 

Monday 16 September 2013

6. The Final Election Grumble - How to Vote Cards

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about the election. Yes, I know it is over, but I want one more grumble – not just because I am like that, but because even as we speak millions of pieces of paper with candidates faces and how-to-vote recommendations are on their way to be pulped, or worse, to go to landfill.

Thousands of people all over the country spent hours and hours on polling booths handing the brightly coloured advertisements to voters, almost all of whom didn’t want to know or didn’t care. Running the gauntlet of the line of how-to-vote spruikers is part of our electoral tradition, but it is a pretty wasteful one. Think of all the trees, bleaching chemicals and toxic inks that went into the leaflets whose life-span is a nano-second in environmental time. And think of all the good community work that could have been done by that army of volunteers if they had been channelled into something more useful.

Now don’t get me wrong. As long as one party does it, all the parties need to hand out how-to-vote cards, and I confess I was one of that army of volunteers spreading the paper trail.

Yet I find it a profoundly depressing experience. Partly this is because of the ignorance and apathy of so many voters, and partly, to hand out how-to-vote cards you have to believe that someone will vote for your candidate on the basis of the banal advertisement, the false smile or simplistic slogan you have given them.

How come our system of government, one of the most successful democracies in the world, has so alienated people that they feel they have no stake or interest in who governs us?

The issues here are huge and complex, but I continue to dream of a system of democracy which is more than a vote once every 3 years – a system which engages people and where real decisions that affect people are made in the community and not in distant government forums or corporate board rooms. But until then, I get stuck spending election day handing out how-to-vote cards.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-6/
First Broadcast: 10 September 2013 

5. Election Debate

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about the state of the election debate, in particular about the contribution of leading journalist, Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.

Last week he published a column claiming that there is not much difference between the two major parties in terms of economic management credentials, but there is in fact a big difference in relation to who wins and loses from their policies. He pointed out a whole range of policies like superannuation, the abolition of the mining tax, paid parental leave and the fringe benefits tax treatment of company vehicles where Tony Abbott’s policies will disproportionately benefit those who are better off. And then there are policies like the plan to abolish the twice yearly supplement to the pitifully small Newstart unemployment allowance which take directly from the poor.

But Gittins also savaged Labor which refuses to talk about inequality and which, to its unforgivable shame, has repeatedly refused to increase the poverty level-rate of Newstart.

Taken together, he says there is class warfare going on and the rich class is winning.

Now you may be thinking that whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, Gittens has given us an important analysis of policies. So why am I grumbling? Well, I am grumbling because of what it says about the political debate and how far we have drifted. What does it say about the policies at play in this election when the Economics Editor of one of the bastions of the establishment media is driven to warn us of inequality and impact of the policies on the poor!

Still, if Ross Gittens wants to put it out there, I say yep, let’s vote for a fairer share of wealth. And more than that, let’s vote for justice, for the environment and all the things that are important. Let’s vote for community and for compassion, and not for the purveyors (of any political colour) of so-called “tough love”, or of greed and economic self-interest.

As the great English songwriter Billy Bragg put it many years ago, vote not for the iron fist but for the helping hand.

We’ll see what happens on Saturday, but until then, I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard or downloaded at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-5/

First Broadcast: 3 September 2013

4. Transportism

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about transportism.

Transportism is a little-understood problem in our society. Just as racism is discrimination on the basis of race, and sexism is discrimination of the basis of sex, so transportism is discrimination and disadvantage on the basis of one’s mode of transport.

Transport is important because it allows us to participate fully in society. Lack of access to transport or discrimination on the basis of transport means we can’t fully participate

If you drive a car, you have to have a licence, but it does not get checked every time you get in car. But when I catch the train home from work, I have to show my ticket to get on to the platform, walk 50 metres and show the ticket again when I get on the train, and then have a guard come by 5 minutes later to check that I have a ticket. That is petty transportism.

When I combine a bike and train trip home, only to get to the station to find that I can’t get home because “buses have replaced trains”, that is transportism. And when there is just no public transport available in many regional areas, or when the city transit system is built around office commuting and barely provides a service outside of that, that is transportism as people are disadvantaged because they rely on a particular form of transport.

Every time someone in a wheelchair can’t get into a building, or has to wait way, way longer than anyone else for a taxi because there are too few access cabs, that is transportism. People are being disadvantaged because their mode of transport is a wheelchair rather than by foot.

And then there is transportism in our immigration policy. Unfortunately in our world many people are forced to flee violence, dictatorial governments, religious intolerance or persecution. If they can fly to Australia they may ask for asylum and be treated with some respect and be offered support and protection. But if they arrive by boat, they will get shipped off to a tropical prison never to return to Australia. Their trauma, their claim for asylum and their need for protection may be equally as valid as someone arriving by plane, but different rules apply simply because they arrive by boat. They suffer discrimination and vilification and are denied equal protection under the law simply because of their mode of transport. That is transportism. I mean, really, what else could it be?

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard or downloaded at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-4/
First Broadcast: 27 August 2013

3. Election Preferences

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about election preferences. Now preferences are a good thing – having your vote still count if your first choice candidate does not get elected gives you a much better say in the election and gives us all a much more representative government.

However, the preference system needs to be open and accountable, especially in the Senate. Unlike in your local seat where you direct your preferences, in the Senate the parties direct the preferences in the vast majority of case – those where votes are cast above-the-line.

Personally, I am a fan of the Senate and the proportional representation system which gives a broader range of voices in the parliament. I think that it is vital we have this breadth of views to have accountability and close scrutiny of legislation. Unfortunately though, the election process is so complicated that voting and counting is far from transparent and the results can be a lottery. I am not going to grumble about that today, but I do want to grumble about parties whose preference deals undermine what they stand for, or mislead voters or make voting on principle or policy difficult.

In the South Australian Senate race there are the usual assortment of parties on the right preferencing eachother, and those votes will probably eventually find their way to the Liberals. And there are the competing groups of leftish or social-issue candidates whose preferences will flow to the Greens or Labor. That is fine and relatively transparent. My grumble is about some other parties.

Do the warm fuzzy supporters of the Animal Justice Party, the Sex Party or the Hemp Party know that their preferences will go to the climate sceptics before they go to parties and candidates who have moved legislation in support of their causes? And will the voters for the Australian Christians know that they will be preferencing the climate sceptics ahead of other nominally Christian parties like Family First and the DLP. Curiously, the Australian Independents are preferencing a political party (Family First) before any other independents, and the Socialist Equality Party is preferencing all the major parties equally!

And what do we make of Senator Nick Xenophon’s decision to split his preferences between the Liberal and Labor Parties. He is most famous as the no-pokies MP, but the Liberal Party never supported poker machine reform and the Labor Party tore up the pokie reform agreement in the last parliament. So why did Senator Xenophon preference these parties above the Greens who, like him, have campaigned for good reforms like mandatory pre-commitment and one-dollar bet limits on pokies? Where does that leave those who care about the harm caused by gambling in our community as voting above the line becomes difficult and contradictory.

Is it really too much to ask that political parties make preference decisions based on policy and principles, so that those who want to vote above the line can be confident that their vote won’t end up somewhere they don’t want it to go?      I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard or downloaded at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-3/
First Broadcast: 20 August 2013

2. Election Posters

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about the election. No, I am not going to grumble about the blandness of Sunday night’s Presidential debate where the man with the blue tie and the man with the red tie seemed incapable of answering questions in any detail or without abusing the other tie. I am not going to go there.

I want to grumble about the visual pollution of those core flute election posters which an army of party volunteers put on stobie poles and fences the moment the election is called. The posters are a product of PR firms who are paid a small fortune to get the magic mix of colour, font and image, and members who have no real say on anything important in their centralised and media driven parties compete to put them up in the most visible locations – or least above the other candidates’ posters. Such is the local electoral contest.

But what do these election posters really tell us? The Liberal and Labor posters tell us nothing other than the name of their local candidate. But if we are to elect these people to represent our local community, surely we need to know more about them than simply whether they play for the blue team or the red team?

Lacking the brand power of the major parties, the smaller players have slogans on their posters. The Greens urge us to vote Green if we care, the Christians will save our nation, and Family First has “strong values”. But I am not sure what I should care about, what the threat to the nation is, or what values are strong.

And so we are left with the smiling visages of politicians looking down at us from light poles all over Adelaide. Presumably the posters are supposed to reference other political propaganda or remind us of candidates we have seen or heard elsewhere, or is it that we might just vote for someone because of the way they look?

I want to see election posters that talk about addressing homelessness and housing stress, about raising income support payments to the poorest people in society and funding services to vulnerable and disadvantaged people – and about using taxes and government policy to make a fairer society. When I see those posters, I will know there is a real election contest.

But until then, I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard or downloaded at: https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-2/
First Published: 13 August 2013

1. Taxes

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about taxes. I know everyone grumbles and about taxes, and nobody wants to pay them, but I want to grumble about people not paying tax. We are about to have 5 weeks of an election campaign with politicians mostly promising to cut or abandon taxes.

But taxes are important. They pay for our schools, universities and hospitals, for our roads, trains and buses, for our police and our public spaces, for environmental protection and for sports and big public events. And dare I say it, they pay for defence and border protection! Taxes also pay for social services for those in need, and they pay for pensions and for a safety net for those who can’t support themselves. In short, taxes underpin the social fabric of our society.

But you would not think that listening to the public debate. Just look at what happened recently when the government moved to close a rort in the Fringe Benefits Tax. Outcry. It was simple proposition – that people should not get a tax benefit by having a car paid for by their employer. Everyone else has to earn the dollars, pay their tax on that income and then buy a car. But some people got a car as part of a salary package, and that was counted mostly as a work vehicle and not as part of their income. And now, oh my god, they have to keep a log book if they want to claim it as a work vehicle, or pay tax the same as everyone else as part of their income. Howls of protest from the parasite industry that has been built around this rort. Unfair, the end of the car industry and civilisation as we know it!

Please.

But there will be more of this stuff during the election. So what I want is every time a politician talks about cutting taxes, I want them to name the service they will cut, the homeless or domestic violence shelter that will shut, the species that will die, the train that won’t run or the section of road that won’t be repaired, or the social security payment which will fall further behind the cost of living. And then we can have a real grumble about taxes.

This Grumble can be heard or downloaded at: https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles/
First Published: 6 August 2013