In 1999 I applied for a job in Adelaide. The job was to establish a new program for young deaf people focusing on developing positive mental health. The man who was groomsman at my wedding was the boss of the organisation offering the job.  One might have thought that I would be a shoe-in for the role. Unfortunately not.  My friend recognised, very early, that to be part of the interview process would be an enormous conflict of interest on his part. He stepped out of the process and appointed an interview panel of neutral people even though he had a keen interest and passion for the position on offer. Such integrity is very rare. In a world where people seek control and power my friend wanted to make sure the process was as fair as possible and that no-one could claim that it was one of those JOBS FOR THE BOYS. Subsequently I won the job and had the misfortune of having to share  an office with my friend for over a year. He is not a morning person, he makes my wife seem like a Teletubby in comparison.

In 1998 I applied for another job as Services Manager. The make up of the panel was a stark contrast. The panel consisted of two people that lived together, the CEO and the chair of the organisation. The person that interpreted the interview was the girlfriend of the CEO and the chair was the sister of the interpreter. Very much a family affair. I had been part of the board of this organisation for a number of years. I had come into conflict with three of the people on the panel when part of a selection panel for the new CEO in 1995. It was acrimonious. What had occurred is that a woman had come out on top of the process – three votes to two. Two of the panel members refused to recognise the decision. To cut a long story short somehow the panel managed to select the person for the job that had originally finished last in the selection process. A classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. In my interview for the Services Manager position at least three of the panel of four had a clear conflict of interest but chose to remain part of the interview process. Not surprisingly I didn’t win the job and it is alleged, though I have never been able to prove it, that the eventual winner of the position was a close friend of the Chair.  Perhaps the eventual winner won the position on merit BUT the conflicts of interest of the panel members that needed to be addressed were not. It cast  unnecessary doubt on the integrity of the whole process.

In more recent times we have seen that people who are employees of service organisations for the deaf that are also part of peak bodies that potentially could be required to handle complaints or campaigns directed at the organisations that employ them. Indeed we have seen the situation where a person employed by one organisation competed against another organisation that the same person was part of the Board for a services contract. Now I am not suggesting that anything underhand happened but again this is a clear conflict of interest. Potentially the person could have inside information that could benefit one organisation over the other. It is not likely to happen but because the conflict of interest exists it raises questions over the integrity of the process.

Now clearly the  deaf sector is very small. It has a pool of talented people and most of them know each other. Some have come into conflict and some have skills that they want to spread as far as possible to benefit deaf people.  Very often there are glaring conflicts of interest. I firmly believe that one should not be involved in an interview process where past conflicts or relationships are likely to lead to a person prejudging an applicant. Because the deafness sector is so small and everyone knows everyone this very often happens. There are also potential conflicts of interest for individuals who have a business stake in the deaf sector.  Can you imagine, for example, if the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank had millions of undeclared dollars invested in the National Australia Bank? In politics imagine if the Government was about to select the organisation to roll out the National Broadband Network and the minister responsible had a share portfolio with Telstra. Such scenarios would and have caused scandals. There is a reason why conflicts of interest must be declared.  Sure the deaf sector is not quite dealing with issues of the scale in these examples but when glaring business conflicts of interest exist they need to be addressed or it casts a shadow over the integrity of the sector and sadly the usually well meaning individuals as well.

Currently I also have a conflict of interest. I write for The Rebuttal and am part of the Board of Deafness Forum Australia. In The Rebuttal I raise issues that are sometimes not the position of Deafness Forum Australia, in fact they sometimes are in direct conflict with the position of Deafness Forum. I am sometimes critical of Deaf Australia and by being critical I directly contribute to the conflict that exists between Deafness Forum and Deaf Australia. Although I get no financial gain from The Rebuttal I realise that the views I express are really a conflict of interest in regard to my position on the Board of Deafness Forum. While I believe strongly in the values of Deafness Forum it may well be the organisation is better served and has more integrity if I am not involved. It is a dilemma that I am currently mulling over very seriously.

Conflicts of interest in the deafness sector are the elephants in the room. Some exist at political and business level. There are people involved who could be accused of flogging their own agenda to death for financial and political gain but no-one will speak out about it.  There are whispers in the background but no-one will come forward and openly discuss it.  Perhaps it is time, for the benefit of the whole sector and for the development of integrity and trust, that the elephant is acknowledged and tamed.

One of my pet hates in life is to have to constantly prove that I am deaf. You know society mistrusts everyone so much that you must show that you are the real deal. Often it is necessary because people do take advantage.  For example they will try to de-fraud Centrelink of Disability Pension money by pretending that they have a disability of some sort.  Sometimes proving one has a disability is just logical. Often it is not. In fact  it is often just a down right abuse of human dignity.

For example, a deaf person going to University might meet one of the University disability support staff to try and work out the most appropriate type of support that they can get. Perhaps it is captioning or perhaps an interpreter is required. Some may just simply require a hearing loop so that they can utilise their hearing they have more effectively. The deaf person will rock up for the initial interview. They will show their hearing aids, they might even have an interpreter for the initial interview. It will be obvious that they are deaf. They may have a deaf voice, they may sign to communicate or simply they will have a cochlear implant for all to see.

So they will have their initial interview and they will work out the support that they require to study. It may be technology or it might be a sign language interpreter.  The assessment interview might take an hour. The disability support person will know clearly that the person is deaf simply because deaf person spent the last hour signing their answers to them. Yet despite this they will insist that before any support is given that the deaf person must provide an audiogram or a letter from their Doctor verifying that they are deaf. I mean hearing people just decide for the fun of it that they will pretend they are deaf, book interpreters and have their lectures interpreted  for them … you know simply because its fun. Lots of people are weird like that – go figure. Sometimes a little common sense is required.

So it was with great dismay that I found out today that to participate in national or state deaf sporting events in the future that I will have to provide an audiogram. I mean I have only been involved in the Deaf community for 28 years. I entered it when I was 18 and have partaken in three Australian Deaf Games, numerous national and state deaf golf championships, a few Southern Cross Soccer Championships and even a Deaf Mixed Netball Championships. I thought that everyone knew that I was deaf.  Apparently not.  You see – all these years they have actually suspected that I might be hearing and because of this I now must submit an audiogram before I partake in any official Deaf sporting events ever again. I must do this to prove to them what I and they already know – that I am deaf.

Of course I do not have an audiogram. I have not seen an audiologist since I left school. So I must pay some money to a doctor or an audiologist to show that I am deaf.  Bugger the fact that I must pay registration fees, travel and accommodation costs to participate in deaf sporting events, I now must pay an additional sixty bucks or so to verify I am deaf. I thought they already knew. How could I have been so stupid. I am a hearing person in disguise and I did not even KNOW!

You know  deaf sport is really corrupt. We find the best hearing people we can, just to win, and make them pretend that they are deaf. Yeah, and then these people go on to represent Australia pretending that they are deaf. Real deaf people miss out because hearing people are just wanting to replace deaf people in everything! Winning is so important that deaf sports teams are gonna stack their teams with elite hearing athletes. There is no financial gain involved. These hearing people actually have to pay for the privilege of pretending to be deaf and partaking in deaf sport. They are queuing up to abuse the system – they are everywhere! Yep, they will pay thousands for the honour. ” Hey I am hearing, I am so good I represented the Deaf Tiddley Winks Team in Nepal, and paid $10 000 for the privilege — HE HE HE HE —- Ain’t I sneaky???”

Ok I am getting a little cynical but the Deaf community was the last bastion in the world where I could just be deaf and not have to prove it. I didn’t have to see a doctor for a report that said my mid range frequencies were at the mega hertz levels while my lower range ones were in the mini hertz levels. The Deaf community was somewhere where my deafness was just accepted as a normal state of being. Medical models, doctors and audiologist did not exist. Sadly, not anymore!

Now I have heard all the arguments about why we must now prove that we are deaf. The international deaf sporting bodies demand it. It ensures deaf sport remains deaf sport and it allows data to be gathered that can be used to apply for additional funding,  I am sorry but I don’t buy any of these arguments. If you get picked at international level then why not get an audiogram then. Surely deaf sport at national and state level has more value than simply winning!  Data is available everywhere. If you want to know how many deaf people were fitted with hearing aids  just ask Australian Hearing to provide you with longitudinal data . Hell, if you look hard enough you might even find the information on the Web. Contact the Eye and Ear hospital for information about how many kids have been implanted in the last 20 years and at what age. Its not difficult to develop a statistical argument for deaf participation in sport using this sort of data.

The people that are insisting on this new strict audiogram policy for participation at Deaf national and state sporting events are actually very good friends of mine. I know they have made the decision to demand audiograms with the best of intentions. Unfortunately this time I think they have got it very wrong.  Deaf sport at a national or state level, to me anyway, is about fun, socialising and memories. Winning is way down the pecking order. I find this new policy lacking in common sense. I find it autocratic and overly officious. Hell, they are threatening disciplinary action if audiograms are not provided. The Deaf community, particularly its sporting events, was the last bastion where I could be a person without the medical crap following me – sadly this is now no longer the case.

The most recent article about deaf kids in schools re-awakened the frustration that I’m sure many of us share when thinking about deaf education.  It was very interesting  to read about the difference between “coping “and doing  the best that you can. Without getting too technical, this was the subject of an appeal in a deaf education case Hurst v Education Queensland.   We initially lost this case  in the Federal Court, because the judge found  that the deaf girl, Tiahna,  was discriminated against  because she was not provided with Auslan,  but she could “comply” which is a legal  word.   He also used the word “cope”.   We appealed this case to the Full Federal Court who found that the judge had made a mistake. To “cope” is not good enough, they found.  Thank heavens.
Imagine a man with cerebral palsy  who uses crutches to walk, and to get into a building must have a ramp.  If there were only steps, I guess what he could do is throw himself on the ground, drag himself up the steps, get up again at the top and enter.  So maybe he could “cope”, but does he have the same access as an able-bodied person who can simply walk up the steps? No.

Deaf education continues to be a shambles.   Each school can decide what sign language should be used (as if there was anything other than Auslan).   The Department of Education  has no policy about this. A client of mine recently wanting to move to Victoria from another state rang a number of schools with deaf units.   She was told by most of them that her daughter would not get a full-time interpreter, because there was not enough money.  Many “interpreters” in schools  are not qualified. Teachers of the Deaf do not have to be fluent in Auslan.
The million-dollar question – what is the deaf community doing about these things???
Julie Phillips
Anti-Discrimination Advocate

The elections are not yet over. We were all hoping that Australia would have a new Prime Minister today. But Australia could not decide. It was not a case of having two high quality candidates it was a case of vote bad or vote worse. Clearly Australia couldn’t decide who was worse so as I type the two major parties are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Why? because who ever gets in will be at the mercy of the independents. Australia’s political system is, today, at the mercy of five individuals who are not aligned with either the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. These five will basically decide the future of Australia’s Government. So much for democracy.

But is this a bad thing? Bob Katter is one of these independents. He used to be a member of the Coalition between the Liberals and the National Party. He was a minister in the Queensland State Government in 1989. He joined Federal Parliament in 1993. He is seen as a bit of a red-kneck and a lose cannon so to speak. But he is also a strong believer in representing the people that elected him. Being from a regional area he felt the old Howard Government were pushing policies that were destroying the bush, so he quit and became his own man. He has virtually won every election since in a landslide. Whatever the rest of Australia believe, his electorate believe in him and he has been prepared to stand by his principles rather than sell out the people that voted him in. He now finds himself as one of the select the King/Queen makers. How ironic is that?

In an age where people are expected to toe the line and to spout the party line, whether they believe it or not, perhaps what we need now is for the major parties to be held accountable. Do you want Tony Abbott as your leader? A man whon stabbed Malcolm Turnbull in the back to become leader? Malcolm Turnbull is no saint either, having stabbed Brendan Nelson in the back. Julia Gillard did likewise to become leader. She led us all to believe she was the loyal deputy while people like Bill Shorten did the dirty work behind the scenes to get her into the hot-seat.  Squeaky clean she was not. There are whispers that Shorten was even prepared to elect Gillard as leader knowing that she would face an up hill battle to be re-elected and thus paving the way for himself to become leader.  Did Tony and Julia become the leaders simply because they wanted to serve Australia? Don’t be daft, they were power hungry and sold their souls for the top job. Australian’s saw through both Tony and Julia but unfortunately could not decide which was worse.  So now the likes of Bob Katter and Tony Windsor will decide for them. (Just for the record, although Bob Katter is an ex National/Liberall he supports Labor’s National Broadband roll out for the benefits it will provide the bush. In fact all the independents who were ex Coalition members do, so previous party alliance will come to nothing. –  http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/coalition-refuses-to-budge-on-broadband-20100823-13ejm.html)

Recently I was criticised in a meeting because I was prepared to speak out about decisions that were being made by a committee I am part of. Readers may recall that I was very against accepting the original deal that was struck between the Big Four Cinemas and our advocacy organisations in regard to cinema captioning. It was a deal that most Deaf and hearing impaired people, throughout Australia, seemed to be very much against. Over 450 people put in public submissions on the Australian Human Rights Commission’s website asking that the deal be rejected. But still our advocacy organisations refused to change their approach.  To me this is wrong. I was told by one group that speaking out as I did was wrong.  “Only two of us in our organisation can publicly comment on issues”  said one person, “What you do as a member of your organisation is your business” It was a none to subtle way of telling me I should SHUT UP.  Another said that if I must speak out to use a pseudonym. That way what I say cannot come back to the organisation. My view was quite simply that I am on the organisation to represent the views of deaf  people and when those people I represent overwhelmingly make a statement it is that view I must represent. Soladarity is one thing but autocratic control by a minority such as a committee is another.

And this is what independents can bring to the table in Government. Because they are not part of the party machine they can dissent and publicly too. In short they can hold whoever gets into power accountable. The problem is that they can also abuse that position. They can hold Australia to ransom for something that they believe is essential and stop important decisions going through. Imagine, for example, if Pauline Hanson won a seat as an independent and controlled the balance of power. Technically she could demand a halt to all Asian immigration in return for allowing the Broadband Bill through Parliament. I have enough faith in people to think that they would tell Pauline to go jump BUT it can mean important decisions that need to be passed will be unnecessarily held up.

So, it is down to the independents. Is this a good thing? Who knows. But for now lets hope that the major parties get the message that the electorate have sent – Not that they believe that Liberal and Labor are equally good, but rather that they could not decide who was the worse deal. Hopefully this will, on its own, make the major parties clean up their act. And pigs might fly but there is no harm in dreaming.

The little girl was sitting at the classroom table with her friends. At the end of the table sat her “interpreter”. The teacher asked the class to write about their weekend and the “interpreter”, signing effectively, relayed this information to the girl. The little deaf girl nodded and got cracking. As she worked the “interpreter” assisted other kids around her table. They asked questions, the “interpreter” clarified what needed to be done. There was chatter around the table and the kids traded stories with each other about their weekend and what they were going to write about. The little girl watched this chatter but the “interpreter” strangely interpreted nothing of this. The little girl looked at the “interpreter” hoping for a little bit of information but still the “interpreter” did not interpret. The teacher said something and the “interpreter” decided that this was important information and interpreted this for the little girl. It was all very strange.

Recently I was asked to observe a young deaf girl in her classroom. The deaf girl uses Auslan as her first language, has deaf parents and is well adapted with excellent language skills. The mother wanted someone to observe her daughter in the classroom who had some knowledge of deafness, particularly in regard to interaction and learning. I was more than happy to help out, took a day off work and drove out to assist. What I saw actually scared me.

The school principal actually contacted me to invite me to the classroom. The mother had requested that she do so. The school principal asked me to sit in the classroom and “reassure” the mother that her daughter was doing fine and that there were no problems. She didn’t ask me to give an honest assessment, she asked me to “REASSURE” the mother. This in itself raised alarm bells in me.

What I did witness was an obviously very intelligent young girl making the best of a less than ideal situation. During the opening activity, where the kids were writing about their weekend, I actually asked the “interpreter” to check with the young girl as to whether she had understood anything her class peers had been talking about. Not surprisingly the little girl said she had not understood anything. What was puzzling is that having made it clear she did not understand what her peers had been discussing the “interpreter” still did not interpret anything that the little girl’s peers said.

The little girl demonstrated some classic deaf behaviour. Deaf people will know that when they are in a large group of hearing peers and doing an activity, whether it is learning or physical, they will be constantly looking around them to make sure they have not missed anything and are doing the right thing. As the little girl worked she would take quick glances around the room to make sure she had not missed anything.

 As she wrote you could see her looking out of the corner of her eye just in case she would miss the action. She could “hear” her teacher when the teacher spoke but not understand. If the teacher spoke she would look up to see if the activity had finished and if she needed to be somewhere else. Even at this early age she is aware and has developed coping strategies. It was like looking back to my own years being deaf in a hearing classroom.

It was fascinating to see the strategies that she had developed. For example if she was working with a group of peers she would focus on the one student that appeared to talk the most and take her cues from that student. During one such activity I signed to the little girl that I was deaf and needed her to interpret what her friends were saying. She admitted to me that she could not because she did not know.

During another activity the class were reciting number patterns in the form of multiplication tables. The teacher had the multiplication tables on the board and would point to the first number and the children would recite the pattern 2 – 4 – 6 … and so on. To the casual observer it might have looked like the girl was fully involved but if you have a trained eye you will see that the little girl joins in at about the third number. She watches the teacher point to the board, catches the rhythm of the class reciting the numbers and then joins in.  You will see her counting and listening, just moving her lips slightly, until she feels she has the rhythm and she will join in – 6 -8 – 10 … It was fascinating to watch.

It was also frustrating to watch. Story time is something most kids love. The kids gathered round to listen to the teacher read the story. The “interpreter” interpreted what the teacher was reading. The teacher asked the class a question using prediction strategy. Prediction is a teaching tool where you read a story and then to test whether the kids are following the story ask a question like, “… and when the lizard scurries up the tree how do you think the cat will feel? ..” At this all the kids will put their hands up to give their views. The problem is that in the little deaf girl’s classroom when the kids answered the “interpreter” did not relay their answers to the little deaf girl. Of course this means that the little deaf girl misses out on language and ideas that are provided by her peers through this natural interaction.

The little deaf girl, despite the less than ideal learning environment, was doing really well at school. A lot of this is down to the fact that she has come to school with a solid language foundation from being able to interact easily with her family. She is doing really well and in the school’s eyes that is all that matters. But how much better could she be doing if she could access the banter of the classroom and not just what her teacher is saying?

I really could not understand why the “interpreter” did not interpret everything. After all is that not what interpreters do? I wrote a report for the school. In it I outlined that the “interpreter” was more correctly a communication aide and did not interpret. I highlighted the good stuff. For example the classroom teacher went out of her way to ensure the little deaf girl was a respected part of the class by allowing her to lead things like “sign singing”. She also spoke very clearly and structured the class so that the little deaf girl could see and be involved. BUT, I pointed out to the school, peer interaction and access to what peers are saying is an integral part of learning. I emphasised that the “interpreter” was an efficient signer but needed to INTERPRET.

Apparently this wasn’t what the school wanted. They wanted me to provide REASSURANCE so that the mother would relax. The “interpreter” upon reading the report threatened to resign. The mother felt the school was dismissive of her daughter’s needs. Apparently it was not my place to write such a report and that my assessment was “tinged” by my friendship with the mother. It really was sad because the school would not acknowledge any of the issues that were raised.

Is this what our deaf kids are facing every day? Well if it is it’s a tragedy that needs to be addressed quickly. Doing well is not enough, deaf kids have the right to achieve their full potential. If this is to happen access to peer interaction is a must.

The Rebuttal is known as a biff bang mag. We are sesion and awareness. Sometimes, perhaps, a line is crossed, but always the intent is to create debate, awareness and to hold those that make decisions on our behalf accountable. We certainly are not angels and have made mistakes, particularly this author (Gary) but the motive is not to hurt, more to inform and hold our representative organisations accountable.

We are not always angry. Sometimes we celebrate things like in our recent article “From Whence We Came”. Sometimes we vacate our platform and allow others to vent their spleen – the recent contributions from Rebekah Rose Mundy are an example of this. Always we air both sides of the story without censorship. One of our most controversial articles, From the Slums of Mumbiah, is a great example of open uninhibited debate. Go to the response to this article of the now departed CEO, Paul Flynn, and you will see that we are prepared to take what we dish out. It’s simply a case of , “People in glasshouses should not throw stones.”  We at The Rebuttal are not in a glasshouse, though I sometimes require a helmet and cricket box.

BUT there is a time when anger has to stop. You cannot be angry forever. There is a time when constant bickering and criticism becomes counter- productive and, certainly, I will put my hand up and say I have pushed the odd barrow for a bit too long. But it is not just me. Deafness Forum and Deaf Australia still have not resolved their differences. They are at least trying. It does not look like either side is going to give ground anytime soon but they are at least trying to find a way forward. The conflict between Deaf Australia and Deafness Forum is definitely counter-productive. BUT they are trying and that is the main thing and hopefully through trying they will find a way forward. It wont be anytime soon, there is much to resolve, but one needs to be upbeat. The time for healing is now.

I, for example, have been a heavy critic of the Deaf Service Australia concept. Earlier this year  Deaf Services Queensland ended their partnership with Deaf Children Australia.  Rather insensitively I wrote a savage I TOLD YOU SO type article. Was it necessary for me to write such an article? In hindsight, no. Whether you agreed with the concept of Deaf Services Australia or not the motive behind it was sound. Many people worked hard towards it feeling that it was the best thing possible for deaf people in Australia. A nationwide organisation, one brand and with consistent representation was the target. OK, it didn’t work, lots of money went down the drain, but the majority of people that worked towards a Deaf Services Australia did so because they thought it was a workable concept. There was no ulterior motive just people working towards a better Australia for Deaf people.

Were there benefits? Maybe there were. It was pointed out to me recently that it is possible that the Deaf Services Australia agenda led, in part, to the early intervention program announcements by Julia Gillard last week. It was pointed out that the presence of Deaf Services Australia in Queensland may have assisted, indirectly, to the $30 million Auslan program provided by the Queensland Education Department. Indeed without support from DCA it is possible that Deaf Services Queensland could have closed. (My observation) Maybe, maybe not – but the point is the Deaf Services Australia objective was sound. It is just the way that services and funding are delivered in Australia is not conductive to it at this time. Will this change in the future? Who knows.

The point is that while we have all been fighting, and again I put my hand up for my part in this, much has been achieved, particularly this year.  Look at what has been achieved with cinema captioning! Look at what has been achieved with the early intervention program announced by Julia Gillard!  In Victoria the Government allocated $9.2 million to improve education for the deaf! In all of this some not so great stuff has happened too. There are individuals who have been treated shabbily. There are things that have happened which are truly shameful that we can not comment on because of legal ramifications. BUT much has been achieved and we must celebrate these victories for they remind us that all of the hard work and heartache is, in the long run, worthwhile.

I know that there will be cynics but I don’t care – I was truly inspired by Kevin Rudd yesterday. Here is a man who has every right to be bitter and angry. Here is a man who has been treated like dirt by his colleagues. Here is a man who just a few days ago was in excruciating pain after having his gall bladder removed. And yet he found it within himself to get up and speak publicly and rally his party.  What courage it must have taken for him to face the nation after being unceremoniously dumped as the Prime Minister of the country. His personal turmoil must have been immense. Yet he spoke in support of his team and he did it with immense dignity. He forgave because he knows that there is a greater good.  He knew that the time for healing was now or otherwise everything that he and many others had worked so hard for could be lost. You can be a cynic about it if you want but for me his actions spoke volumes about his character.  If he can move on so too can we, the time for healing is now!

It is Election Time again where all the political parties come out in the public, kiss babies, throw out ambitious policies here and there, toss a few millions of dollars in some areas, promise better lifestyle for families, businesses, make some snide remakes about their opposition, face numerous negative television campaigns about why you should not vote for the other, play poker by upping whatever the other party is offering and then ‘raise it’ by a few million more.

In between that we get cluttered with party scandals and history lessons of what the Labor and Liberals have done in the past and how the country will be worse off with any of them.

Then you would get a knock on the door from your local Federal MP candidate – who you have never seen in your life- and who claims to ‘truly understand your needs’ (cough, cough – remind me again where you live? Ah… a suburb not part of my electorate! And so what are my needs that you claim to know? Then he goes on about climate change, transport, schools etc? I remind him again “Thats great BUT what are MY needs? Then he realizes I am Deaf and is stumped.) And that’s just the first 17 days!

Then we get caught up in the spin of multi-million dollar promises. $5m provided for disability programs here. $1m provided for programs there. $4m for mentorship program for Reach Foundation here. But hang a sec, that’s over four years not one year and this needs to be dispersed nationwide. Big numbers they may be but one needs to do the maths.

I was asked if I was a candidate at the election for X-Y-Z Party what I would be offering:

These are just a snap shot and are not exhaustive. Many other policies have some value. Nevertheless we should be reminded that ‘our vote counts’ and we should challenge our parties as to  just what  they will REALLY offer that meet the NEEDS for AWD.

In any case I’m reminded of a good line from the Indiana Jones movie that I watched with my son.  In the movie Indiana had to choose the Holy Grail amongst many other various types of holy ‘cups’ in a cavern. The ghost of the legendary King Arthur, or was it King Richard the Lionheart, gave Indiana stern but calm words of wisdom before selecting to….”Choose wisely.”

Come Election Day, so should we.

I had a Gi Joe when I was a kid …. yes I played with dolls! And I had an Action Jackson too. One of them, Joe or Jackson – I cant remember, had a rip cord. Oldies like me will remember the toys that had a piece of string with a white ring on the end. You pulled this string and the toys would say things.  In a robotic voice the toys would say things like, “YOU – ARE – IN – DANGER” or “ACTION -JACKSON -IS- MY- NAME- BOLD- ADVENTURE- IS- MY- GAME”  After a time the string would break. Secretly Joe used to find his way into my sisters Barbies and get naughty – just like on Number 96 … SHHHHHHH that’s my secret.

Tony Abbot reminds me a lot of Action Jackson. He has the same firm jaw line … his hair, even his chest hair, is never out of place even after swimming 200 kms and cycling for another 15  000.  And I swear he has a rip cord tucked away in his Speedos. Pull it and he will repeat verbatim –  “I promise to end the waste, to pay back the debt. To stop the big new taxes and to stop the boats.”  What fun, lets do that again RRIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPP – “I promise to end the waste, to pay back the debt. To stop the big new taxes and to stop the boats.” ONE MORE TIME – RRRRRRIIIIIIIPPPPPP – “I promise to end the waste, to pay back the debt. To stop the big new taxes and to stop the boats.” WOOOOO HOOOOO!

Julia is of course GI Julia – She has a rip cord too. Pull Julia’s cord and you will hear Peter Costello’s  mocking voice saying, “Merving Ferward” making fun of her apparent nasally tones. This is her catch cry and it means MOVING FORWARD.  Julia will be talking about something or other, usually about Tony Abbott and his love affair with Work Choices. Julia will say, “Tony Abbott is determined to bring back Work Choices and he will stop Australia ….”  At this point one of her staffers will pull her rip cord RRRRRIIIIIIPPPP and she will say – ” … Merving Ferward”  Or she will be claiming credit for Australia weathering the global financial crisis – “Labor’s economic policy has seen Australia have the lowest debt in the Western World. Because of Labor Australia is …..”  – RRRRRRIIIIIPPPPPP – “.. Merving Ferward.”

I for one am fed up with our politicians treating us like Morons. Everything is stage managed and detail is limited. It is not too much to expect our politicians give us credit for intelligence. They can kiss all the babies they want, they can fillet fish, wear hard hats, swim to Tasmania and have touched up photo shoots in Women’s Weekly – All I want is to know the detail. Give me that and I will know which way to vote. At the moment I just see these two stage managed puppets with no personality. It is looking more and more like its the donkey. Donkey for PM I say !

I met Tony Abbott once in his office at Parliament House in Canberra. Kevin Rudd had recently come to power and Tony had been shafted to the backbench. He was the shadow minister for employment and community services or something other.  I went to talk with him about employment issues for Deaf and hearing impaired people. He is nothing like he comes across on television. I actually found him quite engaging.

Prior to meeting Tony we had gone to meet Brendan O’Connell (or was it O’Connor) the minister responsible for employment who was in the middle of a national disability consultation about employment issues. Brendan got stuck in question time and we got to meet his staff.  The staff were nice enough and listened to us but offered nothing constructive. They just nodded and noted basically. They were more concerned with making sure their minister didn’t make a cock up.

It was quite fascinating really because Parliament House has televisions everywhere. These televisions beam question time to the offices of Parliament House. Brendan was about to speak and when he did our interview was suspended while the staffers watched him and took notes. They made off hand comments about his style and I swear they rolled their eyes a few times. Presumably because Brendan did not stick to the script.

After meeting Brendan’s staffers we made our way to Tony’s office. Tony was late. He too had been held up in question time. Apparently the Liberals had moved a vote of no confidence in Ruddy and it was a case of all hands on deck. After about half an hour Tony strolled in. He apologised profusely, “..It’s a mad house in there.”, he said.  He asked to be excused while he attended to some, ” .. Personal needs.” (His exact words.)

After a short time he came back and shook our hands. It became apparent what his personal needs had been as his hands were still a little bit wet. He gave a new meaning to the term – a wet handshake. He led us into his office which was immaculate and on the walls were adorned some wonderful Australian paintings. He organised coffee, sat down, placed his feet on his coffee table – (where you could see the hairy gap between his trousers and socks), placed his hands behind his head, leaned back and asked us to make ourselves comfortable.

Being the cheeky sod that I am I asked if I could put my feet up too. He chuckled and said, “… sure!” It is about here that I warmed to him. I warmed more to him during our talk. Why? Simply because he did not patronise us. If we  said something like, for example, deaf people need lifelong access to hearing aids and repairs he would question us. “Why should you get that while others do not get free access to spectacles?” or “How will that be paid for in terms of a budget that must meet the needs of carers?”  He did not promise anything.  He listened, he challenged and he questioned. In short I felt he treated me like an equal. He did not just smile patronisingly and feign interest. He WAS interested and he engaged in discussion and debate. I liked that.

Now last week my mate Tony caused an uproar. He apparently made light of the cinema access issues that we have all fought for so hard over the last few months. I was contacted by Bill Shorten’s office and told that Tony had called the issue of cinema access WAFFLE. A media release was to go out and we were asked to support the media release.

This is fine, but the problem I have with this is that it is not what Tony said at all. Tony had actually been talking with Laurie Oakes on Sunday morning television. At the bottom of this article there is a link to the interview.  Poor  Tony had been torn to shreds by Oakes.  Oakes made Tony look like a man who changed his mind at will to suit his need for power and Tony was totally unconvincing in his responses.  BUT … he did not call cinema access waffle!

What Tony had been talking about was of question time being wasted. He was suggesting that ministers chew up question time to make themselves look good. They waffle on to promote themselves or avoid answering questions. Tony wanted answers to questions to be more controlled and to the point. He wants real debate to happen in Parliament, not just waffle and old men and women yelling at each other.

Below is a transcript of his offending statement:

“.. The problem in Parliament Laurie is that all people see is Question Time, and Question Time is basically adults, responsible adults, shouting at each other. It’s not a good look and it doesn’t actually enhance our system of Government. So what I want to do is to try to get away from the ferocious adversarial partisanship of Question Time, and one way to do that or — to help do that, is to limit the length of ministerial answers, to limit the length of questions. To try to ensure that the answer is directly relevant to the question. And to make sure that we go straight out of Question Time into the matter of public importance debate without waffly ministerial statements on things like the accessibility of cinemas. So I will change or I will seek to have the standing orders changed.”

Now make of that what you will but my interpretation is that ministers should not big wig themselves on things like cinema accessibility and I fully agree. By all means call it progress, by all means publicly praise the people involved and celebrate it but do it in a bipartisan way that does not try to score political points to help with re-election.

Not having seen what was said in Parliament about cinema access I cant really pass judgement on the minister. But having watched question time often I can tell you that ministers are full of themselves with their answers to planted questions from their colleagues. In my mind I can imagine a backbencher getting up to ask an obviously rehearsed question, “.. and can the minister explain what is happening with cinema access …” Whereupon the minister answers the question in a way that makes it look like it was central to Government policy since time began and that those nasty Liberals don’t know what they are doing.

Tony’s mistake was touching on a disability issue and being seen to make light of it. In my view he did not.  He was actually talking about something completely different. Unfortunately it looked like he was making light of the issue and his political foes pounced on it. They took what Tony said way out of context and blew it out of proportion. I for one thought it was all quite shambolic. To his credit Tony saw the error of his statement and apologised. I wonder if his political foes will apologise for using us all to score cynical political points. Some how I doubt it.

Let us make one thing clear, I have never voted Liberal and never will. I once voted Democrats many a year ago but I vote Labor or I vote nothing. It is not a particularly socially responsible way to vote but that’s the way 80 percent of us vote. We have an alliance and we stick to it. BUT I believe in fairness and I think Tony was hard done by in this instance.  Call me naive but it is the principle of the matter. All is fair in love and war they say but in this case I think the response was over the top and demonstrated everything that is wrong with politics today.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE OAKES AND ABBOTT INTERVIEW