Life sentence imposed on families.

With the execution of Australian citizens, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, the Indonesian government has imposed a life sentence on people who are innocent of any crime.

The families of these men, and the other six people murdered with them, have not been convicted of any crime, yet they have been sentenced to grief for the rest of their lives.

What right does any government have to do that? How are these murders okay? And they are murders. There was deliberate intention to kill.

I had hoped that someone, somehow, would have have managed to get the pictures so the world could not hide from the barbarous reality of what has been done. It seems unlikely as all precautions were taken by authorities to stop this happening. If there's nothing wrong with the actions taken, why hide?

If there are Indonesian citizens being held awaiting execution anywhere in the world, the certainty of their deaths was cemented last night.

I wonder why effort was put into rehabilitation if it was all to end like this.

I also wonder about the Constitutional Court appeal due to be held on 12 May. Whatever the outcome, it is surely tainted.

Paying tax - why?

I received my tax assessment today. Before you stop reading - tax is hardly the most thrilling subject - I want to talk about what else was in the envelope.

There's a tax receipt which explains where my tax dollars were spent. It shows how much and what it was spent on. I think this is an excellent way to educate about the value of paying tax, but for some reason it feels like a cynical exercise.

The first thing I noted was that the level of Australian Government gross debt has increased from $257 billion to $320 billion. That increase has happened under PM Abbott and Treasurer Hockey who used to talk about a "debt and deficit emergency" but now they say there isn't one.

Unsurprisingly, welfare is the biggest proportion and payments to unemployed people is the smallest share (apart from "other").

Health is second highest, then the list gets interesting. Defence received more of my tax dollars than education ($5 more to be precise). I'd like to know more about health spending - for example how much of it goes on subsidising private health insurance for people with money compared to mental health services.

Recreation and culture gets the smallest amount. Luckily I prop them up by paying to go to art galleries, concerts, plays and other cultural activities.

Any mention of the environment is screamingly absent and I can only hope that some of the money going to "fuel and energy" is for development of renewable energy.

There's more information on the website. I love their commitment to plainspeaking:

Understanding tax

Australians pay tax so the government can provide services to the community.

Good to know.

Immigration is the category that upsets me because I know that I have no choice but to financially contribute to the immigration detention centres where innocent people are kept in concentration camps.

I wonder what would happen if tax payers could direct where our share of taxes was spent? I know that it wouldn't necessarily be practical, but it would be interesting to ask people. My decisions would be very different from those of the current government, but I don't resent paying tax.

Thanks to the Australian Government for the information!

Human rights, death sentencing, freedom of the press - it's all linked.

I am unequivocally opposed to capital punishment. I don't care what the crime is or what the situation is. State sanctioned murder diminishes the humanity of us all.

The two Australian men currently on death row in Indonesia, part of the so-called Bali Nine, will apparently be murdered before the end of the month. The state will take a series of steps which amount to premeditation and will result in Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran being shot by a firing squad.

I also believe that crime is bad and criminals should be punished. They should also be rehabilitated. In the event that their sentence will see them re-entering society, I want them to have the best chance to have options other than crime for their survival outside prison.

I want to be assured that inmates are treated as human beings while they are imprisoned. Poor treatment, institutionalisation and dehumanisation does not help criminals develop empathy for their victims or reduce the risk of recidivism.

This is my moral philosophy and I'm happy to declare it.

Last night's episode of 4 Corners took us inside the campaign to save the lives of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. It struck me that these two men are getting on with their lives and are valuable members of their community within the prison. It's clear that they view their own actions of almost ten years ago as wrong and mistaken and that they are reformed. Their families and wider community outside prison have rallied around and would hold them accountable for future behaviour.

We saw inside Kerobokan Prison last night. We heard that even the head of the prison had pleaded for mercy on behalf of the two men. They're not asking to be released, just to be allowed to live.

I started to think about the Australian Government's representations and what support they may be offering to these men and their families. I wondered about the credibility of a Government arguing against the death penalty when they are running concentration camps, where they incarcerate innocent asylum seekers indefinitely.

Then it struck me that we have seen more of the "notorious" Kerobokan Prison than we have of our own immigration detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru. As critical as we can be of a country that carries out the death penalty, Indonesia seems to at least be committed to the concept of freedom of speech and the role of the media as the fourth estate.

I don't understand how the Abbott Government seems to have no central moral philosophy. On one hand they can advocate for a free press in the case of the unjust imprisonment in Egypt of journalist Peter Greste. At the same time, they can be denying the media access to immigration detention centres. UN investigators aren't likely to gain access either. This is all happening against a backdrop of the royal commission investigating institutional abuse where the themes of transparency and independent advocacy to ensure accountability are being shouted daily. They can plead for mercy from the imposition of the death penalty, yet can rob all hope from asylum seekers and leave them in ignorant despair. The stealing of hope is also a kind of death sentence.

It's all so complicated, yet it's also really clear. We either advocate for human rights and all the mechanisms that ensure they are upheld, or we don't. It's not something we can pick and choose about.

I really hope that Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukamaran are spared. They seem like they have turned into excellent young men and learned from the stupid, serious mistakes of youth.

#IStandForMercy

What do you think?

Stop calling me a "squealing pig" - community rallies against paid parking

There's a good thing that happens when governments and councils do things the communities they represent don't like - the community bonds and you meet your neighbours.

We don't need #nopaidparking.
© 2014 divacultura

This morning Melbourne's inner west villages of Yarraville and Seddon rallied and marched against plans by the Maribyrnong Council to introduce paid parking. On my way to the village, I joined with Caroline and her dog Kaiser and we chatted and walked together to the rally point. At the rally I spied Erin from my dance class and we walked together with Dave and Holden the dog (he has the world's softest ears). We talked about our community - the place where we live - and discovered we share many views.



Melbourne presented us with perfect rally weather - around 20 degrees Celsius, slightly cloudy with a light breeze - and I was told by one of the local councillors that 400 people had been counted in the march from Yarraville to Seddon.

The council claims that paid parking will increase turn over and therefore provide more parking. There are currently time restrictions on parking but I don't see them being well enforced.  I've seen no evidence that supports the idea that paid parking will improve turn over. It may free up parking as people choose to go down the road and shop at the Coles supermarket or Highpoint Shopping Centre where parking is free and plentiful.

Unhappy rate payers.
© 2014 divacultura

I've lived in Yarraville since 2007 and love the village feel. I often tell people that it's like living in a country town with all the convenience of being in a big city.  I generally walk to the village, but on occasion I'm in my car - usually when I'm on my way to or from somewhere else. I drove over on Thursday because I had a wine delivery to collect from the post office. I parked for 5 minutes and was gone. It would take me twice as long to find coins and walk to the machine, pay and put the ticket back in my car if I had to pay.



Retailers are naturally concerned that forcing people to pay to park will drive their customers away. A community-led study has been conducted and shows they have reason to be concerned.

It was great to see two of the local Councillors representing the Yarraville ward at the rally. Martin Zakharov and Michael Clarke were vocal in their concern, while clarifying that the law prevents them from stating which way they will vote when the proposal is brought to Council. Armed with the mobile numbers of all Councillors I contacted each of them by text message. Councillors Zakharov and Clarke received a thank you to acknowledge their presence. Each of the others received this message (including my full name):

"I'm disappointed that you're not here to talk to Yarraville and Seddon community about why you think paid parking in our villages is a good idea. Where are you?"

So far, one councillor, Sarah Carter has responded. She had just landed from an overseas flight. I will follow up with an email.

Hear! Hear!
© 2014 divacultura

There's one aspect of the community organising that I don't understand. Councillor Catherine Cummings has been quoted and reported to have commented about local residents "squealing like pigs". The parking study revealed a highly educated population, so why we would be asked to buy into this and squeal like pigs at the rally is beyond me. I'm not a squealing pig; I'm a concerned resident who is engaged with my community and has heard no good reasons for the introduction of paid parking. I'm worried about the damage this will do. This does not make me, or any of us, squealing pigs.

Walking back home after the march, I discovered a new shop and ran into Councillor Zakharov (you can see him on saxophone in the first photo above). We walked together for a while and talked about the events of the morning. It was great to have the opportunity to acknowledge him in person.

Council meets this Tuesday. We need to continue to be visible and vocal.

UPDATE:

I received a response to my text message from Councillor Cummings after publication of this post. She tells me that she decided not speak so Councillors from the Yarraville ward could speak. She writes that she was there to listen and help her decision making process.

Don't know how she could vote "yes" then!

"Sorry" - pondering the art of the apology

Lately I've been thinking about apologies. I think this is partly because the evening news is filled with stories of the day's proceedings at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The personal stories are harrowing and I find it difficult to comprehend that what now seems like an epidemic was hidden for so long. The stories are also littered with brave souls deciding to speak up and then being further victimised in the way the institutions responded to the complaint. Often one of the things being sought was an apology. Frequently, the institution receiving the complaint was a faith based organisation. I can imagine these organisations are proud of values like compassion, respect, justice and empathy. Money was usually offered and usually rejected as the apology remained missing in action.

Australia's most senior Roman Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, recently apologised to abuse victim John Ellis. As I watched, I didn't notice what was said because I was so overwhelmed by the fact that he wasn't looking at the person to whom he was apologising. It just looked like a person going through the expected steps, rather than demonstrating any heart connection. (I can't judge intention, but am reflecting on what was being transmitted on the visual communication channel.)

Tonight I also heard that two years ago, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, apologised to the families of people killed at the Hillsborough soccer stadium twenty-five years ago.

Apologies are so often sought. I wonder at the satisfaction when they are received. What is the essential quality that causes the apology to be received in a way that it goes some way to repair damage and hurt?

Australia has its own long record of grappling with the question of saying sorry to our indigenous people. I could always embrace the idea that one should be offered because it just seemed like the decent thing to do. In February I was listening to the radio in the car, while I drove across town. The show was being broadcast from a concert to mark the anniversary of the apology which was eventually delivered by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Kutcha Edwards talked about the wound that indigenous Australians have as a result of the removal of children (the stolen generations). He talked about that when you're wounded you have less capacity to deal with further pain; while ever that wound is left unattended it will fester and ache and ooze and weep. The wound needs to be tended to, so that it can begin to heal.

I listened and the tears rolled. It was the most humble and sensible description I had ever heard.

We know the power of words - to heal or inflict pain - so why is it so hard to say sorry with truth and sincerity? Perhaps it' s the surrender of the ego as wrongdoing is admitted. In order to reach this point, empathy needs to be felt and demonstrated.

Kutcha Edwards also made me rethink my working definition of empathy when the broadcaster raised the family metaphor of "walking in another's shoes". Mr Edwards pounced and said that this was not enough; the understanding needs to be deepened so there is appreciation for why a person is in a particular pair of shoes.

Yes!

I was in Federation Square in Melbourne, as the community gathered together to hear the Prime Minister apologise on behalf of white Australians. I cried. I stood amongst others who were also moved.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard also apologised to mothers and their children who were separated at birth through policies of enforced adoption. It was overshadowed by the internal political shenanigans of the Labor Party at the time, but I remember being just as moved.

It seems we have a lot to say sorry for as a country and probably as individuals too. Have you apologised lately? Perhaps you've received an apology - what made it work? or fail? 

State of the Union - there's an elephant in the room

Tonight I attended a Fifth Estate session at Melbourne's Wheeler Centre  called "State of the Union". The panel was hosted by Sally Warhaft and included John Howe, a labour law specialist and Lisa Fitzpatrick a current official from the Victorian Branch of the  Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. (Alan Boulton from the Fair Work Commission was ill and unable to attend.)

It's a timely discussion to have, given the back drop of the Abbott Government announcing a royal commission into union corruption, the announcement of a Productivity Commission inquiry into working conditions like penalty rates and Craig Thompson's guilty verdict for misusing union members' money. The Abbott government is ideologically hostile to the idea of unions, while labelling themselves as the "best friend of workers", so bad behaviour by an individual is pounced on as justification for actions with wide ranging impact.

The conversation started with the wide question of whether there is still a  place for unions in modern Australia. The lawyer said yes on the basis that unions monitor compliance and enforce standards set in agreements and Awards. He specifically differentiated the capacity from that of government regulators by noting that unions are "on the ground" and see things that others can not.

The question to the union official was about the credibility and culture of unions. She rightly highlighted the difference between what members think about the unions they belong to and the image of unions peddled by tabloid media.

Over the course of the hour, many references were made to past successes of the union movement. The current context was framed around dwindling membership numbers of unions generally.

There's always an elephant in the room when the discussion happens: unions are still linked to single sectors or industries, a design that fundamentally ignores the changing face of where work is, how people work and what workers worry about and want.

I don't mind using myself as an example. I was a union member for over 15 years. I have spent a large portion of my working life in the union movement in voluntary, elected and employed positions. Since 2008, I have been a member of a union for about 15 months. At the time I was working in a bank part time and then full time for a few months, so I joined the Finance Sector Union. While I worked part time, I also worked for the Victorian AIDS Council. Financially, it made no sense for me to be in two unions. From a personal point of view, it made a lot of sense to be represented as a union member in both work places, but there was no way to do this.

Fast forward to now and my work situation is even more multi-faceted. Apart from being self-employed, I also work on a casual basis for a private health care organisation, several universities, professional colleges within the health sector, as well as being a freelance actor and writer working very broadly.

With the union movement still designed to align with industries, sectors or crafts, there is no relevance to the way I participate in the workforce. I'm a committed unionist and there's no space for me in the current arrangements. What about younger workers who have no experience of the good that unions can do and little connection to how they benefit from union representation at the bargaining table or in the courts enforcing their rights and conditions? Or the ambivalent worker? There is little hope of recruiting them while ever the structure is tied to old identities and has no focus on the changing needs of the workforce.

It's okay for nurses and teachers - their occupations mean they tend to work in hospitals and schools and are less dispersed across a variety of sectors. A nurse who works for two days in aged care and three days in a boarding school is still a nurse wherever s/he works, but people like me who are highly mobile and have generalist skills will be doing different things in a wide variety of places. I know that I'm not the only one.

I tried my hardest to talk about the elephant in the room when question time came. My hand was up the minute the invitation was issued, but I didn't get a look in. Four blokes in their 60's spoke about "militancy" and "the great strikes" and put positions focussed on recreating past glories, rather than asking questions. To me, this is a representation of the old ways and one of the problems with these kinds of discussions. The last question was posed by a young woman about the casualised workforce and the need for unions to appeal to these workers and I was happy the issue had been raised. 

The answers left me uninspired. The lawyer spoke about legal mechanisms to roll over to permanent employment. The union official said it was something she didn't need to consider. 

Right there is the problem - solutions reliant on things external to the unions themselves and a complete lack of imagination and strategic thinking. While ever the focus of unions is on their own survival, they are not paying attention to their potential members who are grappling with a fast changing world of work. It makes me sad because unions have an important social role to play. Ideas that people with no power or little power are able to represent themselves on an equal footing with their employer are ridiculous. 

You can listen to a podcast of tonight's discussion (and other topics) here.

What do you think about unions in the modern world? Are they relevant? What's their role? Why are you/aren't you a member? 
If you were at the Wheeler Centre, what did you think about the discussion?

I'd love to continue the conversation on this page or over on Facebook.

Union corruption inquiry - what's it really for?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's announcement of a Royal Commission to investigate corruption in the union movement is hardly surprising. He can't very well legislate to bring down unions in the way the Howard Government's Work Choices was designed to do, so instead he's done something even more potent. The frame for discussion whenever unions or union officials is mentioned is that fundamentally both are corrupt and they have to prove that they are not. This is probably politically more effective than resurrecting the "dead, buried and cremated" Work Choices legislation.

As a former union official, I know the effort, dedication, sacrifice and commitment that I brought to my work. I also saw it in those around me. I didn't see corruption and believe that I would have stood up if I had. I hope so - I was never confronted with that situation, so it's hypothetical anyway.

Today I agreed with Tony Abbott when he said: ""Honest workers and honest unionists should not be ripped off by corrupt officials and honest businesses should be able to go about their work without fear of intimidation, corruption (and) standover tactics."

Listening to union leaders and Labor parliamentarians respond to news of the Royal Commission is less than inspiring; to me, they sound defensive. The only possible answer is to say "Yes! bring on the Royal Commission. We are confident about our governance. If you do find corruption then we'll say thank you because we are not corrupt. Fundamentally, we are good people doing noble work, ensuring workers have a voice." I suppose it's hard to answer that way when you know that there's an agenda to destroy you and the organisations of which you are a custodian.

The practical problem arising from the Royal Commission is the cost of being involved. There won't be financial assistance for unions required to give evidence, surrender records and be represented. These costs will come from members' dues as members' dues are the main income for most unions. While unions are busy complying with the directions of the Royal Commission they'll be stretched thin and distracted from the business of representing members, negotiating agreements, enforcing agreements and so on. Eventually, the whole thing makes them look self-interested.

It's also interesting to hear the Government rhetoric about breaches of trust and officials inappropriately using money given to them by the people they represent. Goodness me, but that's how I describe Liberal parliamentarians going to social events like friends' weddings and claiming tax payer funds in the form of travel allowance to cover their costs. I can only hear tumbleweeds when this is mentioned. I doubt we'll ever hear Prime Minister Abbott say that honest tax payers and honest citizens should not be ripped off by corrupt parliamentarians using funds to attend social events - especially if they're on his side of the House.

The worst thing is that corruption within the union movement has the ability to cause deep harm to people who are vulnerable. When Malcolm Turnbull used the term "workers" on ABC TV's Q and A last night, it sat very uncomfortably - they are not the party of the workers.  Unions are important in a just (Capitalist) society.

If I was leader of the union movement at the moment, I'd be organising two things: firstly, a coordinated plan to share the burden of the Royal Commission and secondly, buying SPC Ardmona at Shepparton and establishing it with workers as the shareholders (ie a cooperative). The first is practical and is probably happening; the second would be both brilliant PR and have a practical effect, keeping employment and opportunity in a regional town which relies on fruit growing and canning as the mainstay of its economy. It would be pretty hard to think unions are evil when they're the only ones who've done anything to save jobs.

I have a problem with governments handing gifts of money to large, overseas owned companies (in this case Coca-Cola Amatil). I don't think it should happen. However, if there's a flood of people onto the dole queue, then the $25 million sought by Coke will soon be overshadowed by the welfare bill, social costs and flow-on effects to other businesses in the region.

I'm not leader of the union movement, so I'll have to wait and see along with the rest of you. I'd be surprised if these these ideas are not being considered. In the meantime, I have changed the way I describe my past experience. I will now be describing myself as a "community campaign leader" as I see no benefit in carrying around the smelly baggage I've been lumped with as a former union official.

Mind the gap! It's between now and the future, Yarra Trams.

Yarra Trams has responded to feedback about dangerous overcrowding at the tram stop between Federation Square and Flinders Street Station.  My original story is here and the follow-up a couple of weeks later is here.  As well as writing about the problem and my experience on my blog, I also provided feedback direct to Yarra Trams via their website and twitter.

After the follow up post, where my frustration at the lack of response must have been evident, a lovely and diligent customer service person from the feedback team contacted me.  He was in regular contact to let me know the progress of the investigation of my issue.  Gold stars on that front.  Not only did he seem to genuinely appreciate feedback from a customer's perspective, he was prepared to engage in a conversation about what's happening.

So let's put this stop into perspective.  Here are the numbers:

• the stop was refurbished to its current design and location in about 2002/2003.
• patronage of the tram network in Melbourne has increased 30% in the last seven years.
• 477,000 commuters "use or pass through" this stop each week.

That's a lot of people.  The numbers support my argument and evidence that the stop is very busy.  What I've experienced a few mornings recently is not a blip.

The current strategy to deal with overcrowding during the morning and afternoon peaks is to have customer service officers at the stop telling people to step back from the doors of the tram.  Have a look at those photos of the crush again.  Now review the current strategy.  Now place inverted commas around the word "strategy".

That's it.  That's what they've got.  

This reminds me of one of the occasions I was trapped in lift by myself.  I was in there for about 40 minutes.  When the bloke arrived to get me out, he yelled into the lift, "Stand well back!" I went from being terrified (he's going to blow the doors open and I'll be killed in the blast) to amazed (oh wow, they're going to blast me out) to apathy (what's the point of moving back, there's no where to go, I'm going to die).

Relief flooded through my veins when I learned that there is also a long term strategy being worked on.   Neither the details of that strategy nor the possible solutions can be revealed.  The time horizon for "long term" is unspecified at this point, but I imagine the steps involve:

1. Gaining awareness that there's a problem.  Complete.
2. Thinking about the problem, including consideration of a) whether there's really a problem.  Part a) complete, overall phase still proceeding.
3. Consult with commuters.  Progress unclear.
4. Formulate response to apparent problem, including options.  Progress unclear.
5. Liaise with stakeholders (Public Transport Victoria, Melbourne City Council etc).  Progress unclear.
6. Thrash out a deal in a way that resolves the actual problem rather than being subject to political expediency (although why these concepts should be mutually exclusive is a point of grave confusion. A long way off.
7. Negotiate all aspects of implementation of the Solution.  Are we there yet?
8. Implement solution.  Hmmm.
9. Realise that solution would have worked five years ago, but is now inadequate with another 36% increase in tram patronage.
10. Go back to step one.

Clearly all of this takes a really long time, but the actual time frame unclear.  Luckily, there is a long term solution!  In the meantime, we must be content with the "strategy" of telling people to stand back.

The next question I asked the nice man from Yarra Trams was, "And what's in between the current situation and the long term?  You know, the mid term strategy?"

I think the answer was either "there isn't really one" or "it's the bit between now and the future" - probably an amalgamation of these two ideas.  They shouldn't be in quotation marks - image they aren't there, I don't want to be accused of putting words in anyone's mouth.  Happy to put ideas in their heads though.  Oh, and it's definitely on the agenda.  And it's a priority.

So "mind the gap" has taken on a new meaning.  It's the gap between the current inadequate reality and the long term, far away foggy future; the gap between now and then, now and later.  Yarra Trams would do well to mind the gap themselves.

To avoid wearing out my eyeballs (all that eye rolling every time I'm told to move back in a human sardine can), I'm going to experiment with waiting on the footpath and using the TramTracker app on my iphone (also available in android) to determine when I should attempt the move to the platform.  I figure if I have eight minutes to wait until my tram, I could avoid adding to the platform crush but not waiting on the actual platform.  I'm worried about the fatal flaw in this plan - it could take me eight minutes to get onto the platform to catch the tram!  We'll see.  Anyone else going to join me?

Yarra Trams says they love to receive feedback from customers.  I believe them.  They just need to move a bit faster!  Why not give Yarra Trams what they love and tell them about your experience on the trams of Melbourne?

Door knocking - to open or not?

When people knock on my front door and I'm not expecting them, I don't usually open the door.  I'll ask who it is as I look through the fish eye peep hole and that will be the end of the encounter.  They are usually sales people and I'm not in the market for what they're selling.

They want to put me on a plan which will only work if I combine my gas and electricity. I entered into this conversation once and said at the very beginning that I don't have gas connected.  They said it didn't matter.  The deal sounded good.  They got all the way to the end and then realised that I really wasn't kidding about not having a gas connection.  I wasn't eligible for the deal.  What a waste of time.  I don't talk to them anymore.

Or they want to sign me up for pay TV.  When I told one salesman I wasn't interested he told me he didn't believe that I wasn't and wanted to know why.  I told him that I really didn't have to explain myself.  He called back (through the still closed door) "it's because of the internet isn't it?  They're not the same you know?"  It wasn't because of the internet but even if I was interested in paying to watch television that I would hardly ever see and when I did there would be nothing to watch, his tone wasn't making me inclined to let him sell it to me.

When I have opened the door I have flashes of Bernard in the first episode of Black Books avoiding doing his tax.  He invites the religious door knockers in and engages them in conversation.  They don't know what to do; it's never happened before...

Today, the door knocker was one of my local councillors. Today I opened the door.  On a fairly hot afternoon he is out door knocking the neighbourhood and talking to constituents.  He was from the ALP, but I would have been happy to talk to anyone who is prepared to pound the pavement and engage with the community.

I commented that I'd been impressed that the Mayor had come by a few months ago.  I was sorry that I had missed the opportunity to speak to him but pleased to come home and find a card and his invitation to call him about any local issues.

Door knocking is hard work, but it can win elections - especially if you're the only one doing it.  There is nothing at all like the power of the face to face conversation at a person's home.  I learnt this during the 2007 federal election campaign where I led my union's Your Rights At Work campaign in the crucial seat of Solomon.  (It was held by the other side, sat on a thin margin and was seen as necessary for Labor to win federally.  We won it, with an even thinner margin. As it turned out, if we hadn't won it, Labor would still have won government.)

Michael who visited today was friendly and interested, a good start for any conversation.  He asked me if there was anything I was particularly concerned about locally.  I put in my pitch for the return of the pop up park to Yarraville village.  Now that the warm weather is back, I realise how quickly the pop up park had become the heart of the village. I miss it.  I asked him how his door knocking was going and he said that people are generally pleased to talk to him.  He'd only had a couple of refusals and a few people who wanted to argue.  Nothing wrong with an argument, I reckon;  it's better than apathy.  Argument at least shows a level of engagement.

He was about to turn away and I asked him if he would like a cool drink.  He looked like he was going to say no, but then he said yes.  I gave him a cold glass of sparkling mineral water and it looked like it went down very well.  (One of the tools of influence is to accept hospitality when offered.  He also looked thirsty.)  We stood on the front step continuing our conversation.  I discovered that he saved two years' worth of annual leave so that he could door knock for this election.  Whatever else could be said about him, that deserves respect - it says something about his commitment to the community.

It will be interesting to see if anyone else comes knocking.  I'll be equally happy to speak to them and even offer a cool drink.

"It was nice to talk to you," he said has he waved and walked down the steps.

Who has knocked on your door lately?  Do you talk to them?

Buried in government paperwork

After being away for a week, my post office box was chock-a-block.  I carefully sorted through and handed back the stuff that is addressed to my post office box but is for someone else and also the letters that have just been missorted.  Once I'd completed that, there was still a lot to go through.  One of them was an envelope from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

I opened it and discovered the energy, Water and Environment Survey 2011-12.  Initially I was quite pleased.  I don't mind providing my opinion and I'm passionate about the environment.  My enthusiasm was quickly quelled when I saw it was addressed to my business and the booklet had 23 pages.

I sighed.  I braced myself.  I opened the booklet and took up my pen.  From the first moment, it was clear that this form was geared towards miners or manufacturers or electricity generators.  I'm a single person operating from my kitchen table!

Back to the front page, I read the instructions on the front to see if I was required by law to complete the form.  The wording was vague.  My "cooperation" was sought.  If needed, the Australian Statistician is empowered by the Act to "direct" me to provide the information sought.  Yes, but would I be fined, jailed, sneered at or scandalised if I was defeated by the form?  I called the phone number.

I've never called the Bureau of Statistics before.  I'm not sure that I've ever spoken to a statistician before.

A woman answered and I immediately knew the conversation was going to be hard work.

"I've received the Energy, Water and Environment Survey.  It looks like it has nothing to do with me.  I'm just a one person operation.  Do I have to fill it out?"

The response was in gibberish.

I tried another tack.

"What happens if I don't fill it out?"

"You need to fill it out."

"When you say I need to fill it out, what happens if I don't?"

"It's really not that hard.  It looks daunting...just tick "no" to everything."

"I'm not just going to tick "no" to everything.  That's ridiculous.  Am I required by law to fill it out?"

"Oh, you've only got the short form.  You should hear the people who ring up who have a copy of the long form!"

I almost fainted.  There's one that's longer than 23 pages?

"You mean there's one that's longer than 23 pages? Is that really the short one?"

"Oh, you've got the long one...You really should fill it out.  For example, look at question 1."

I surrendered.

Before I knew it, I'd ticked "no" to everything, especially the questions about my electricity generating activities.

20 minutes later I was done.  If I hadn't called, I'd still be going.  I'm still unclear what my obligation is, but at least it's done.

Before I had my own business, I thought that small business people who whinged about government compliance obligations were wimps.  Now I understand.

Someone slap me if my politics drift!

Dome lights the way

I took this photo of the dome of the Supreme Court on Saturday night after my dinner at Movida Aqui.

(c) divacultura 2012

In these days of suggestions that democracy has been trashed and the presumption of innocence is being ignored in the case of the federal member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, I look at that light at what it represents.  To me, it's about the law shining a light in dark places;  the law being an instrument of enlightenment; and the law being a shining beacon of justice and fairness.

I'm not sure if that's what it's meant to mean, but that's what it means to me.  I'm feeling uneasy that the right to a presumption of innocence continues to be ignored.  What hope is there when we see the procedural battles in Parliament following Craig Thomson's statement to Parliament yesterday?  I even heard a suggestion that he wasn't to be believed because he called no witnesses in his defence!  This was a speech in Parliament, not defence counsel argument.

The local tabloid paper has even set up a "jury" to deliver their verdict based on Thomson's speech.  I think this is irresponsible and also devalues the media's legitimate role as the fourth estate in a healthy democracy.

So while this sorry business looks set to go on and on and on, I am posting my photograph of the lit dome of the supreme court as a reminder about the foundations of our society which are valuable and should be honoured and upheld, not taken lightly and torn to shreds:  everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence, regardless of who they are and regardless of the allegations against them.

What's needed? Code of conduct or brave leadership?

I am closely following the story unfolding around the former Health Services Union official and now Member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, and the governance of that union.  (You can read the latest news story here and the full 1127 page Fair Work Australia report into the HSU East Branch is available here.)  At times I am angry about what's happening and at other times, I am just plain sad.  Tonight I'm banging my head against the wall wondering when it will all stop.

As a former union official (working for members of a different union, not the HSU), I know what a privilege it is to have the people you worked with elect you to represent their industrial interests.  I felt the weight of this responsibility heavily and tried to exercise my advocacy consciously for their benefit.  I resent the fact that when I reveal my past to people they get a look in their eye and then want to know how I used my union credit card.  By sharing a job title on a CV, hard working and sincere men and women are looked upon as corrupt - or at least corruptible - by others.

I had a credit card and so did members of my team.  It was very clear to me and to my team how we were to use this credit card.  Rules for usage and accounting were in place and there was no tolerance for anyone who went outside these boundaries.

Discussions about what the findings of the Fair Work Australia report mean for a sitting member of Parliament in recent days has been focussed around developing a code of conduct for parliamentarians and establishing rules spelling out powers Parliament can exercise in relation to someone in Craig Thomson's situation.  It amazes me that in most situations where it is suggested that people with stewardship of an organisation may have failed to act in accordance with community standards, rewriting of the policy handbook is one of the first responses.

I have not yet read all 1127 pages of the Fair Work Australia report.  I have followed the story closely in the media and also talk with friends who still work in the union movement.  Whether Craig Thomson himself is ultimately found to be guilty of fraud or negligence, it seems likely that a culture had developed within the union which allowed loose governance to become the norm.  How is a code of conduct going to help in a situation like this?  If people think it's okay to use the union (or company credit card) to procure prostitutes and all the checks and balances within the organisation fail to correct this, writing another policy is not going to protect the members of the union or shareholders of the company.

As a member of any organisation, I have a reasonable expectation when I join that the governance structures and processes will be facilitated honestly and conscientiously by the people who happen to be the custodians at the time.  If I was worried about something before I signed up, I wouldn't sign up until my worry was demonstrably resolved.  If I joined and then had concerns I would ask questions inside the organisation.    But what happens when you're a relatively low paid health services worker who feels powerless at work and joined the union because you saw it as a way to secure a better deal at work?  The last place you'd be thinking of fighting is your own union.  You'd probably have enough on your plate at work and at home.  Imagine then that you'd become active in your union and volunteered some of your own time to help organise your workplace.  You had a sense of pride and achievement as you grew membership in your workplace and helped resolve issues.  Perhaps this had even extended to supporting an official or a staffer in their quest to further represent workers by standing for election as a member of the political arm of organised labour, the Australian Labor Party.

Imagine then, how you must feel each day as you go to work, each week as you pay your union dues and consider whether it's worth it.  How would you be able to wear your union's t-shirt, jacket or badge again with anything other than shame?    This is what makes me so angry.  The trust and comradeship of ordinary workers has been violated.  That's just not fair.

A few weeks ago, I saw three member organisers of the HSU interviewed on television.  Their hearts were breaking as they talked about their betrayal.  My heart broke as I listened to them until their final words made me cheer: "It's our union.  We are the members of the union and the union belongs to us.  We want it back!"

The rallying cry of these three women is what it's all about.  It's not about people exploiting power which has been entrusted to them and it's not about writing a policy or a code of conduct.  Anyone who thinks it's okay to use the union credit card for any personal expenditure (whether it's buying prostitutes or buying bread and milk) because there isn't a written rule that says it's not allowed, is not fit for office in any organisation.  Any organisation that discovers such a person in their midst should not hesitate to remove them.

Decisive leadership which supports the values of the organisation they lead is the only answer.

What do you think?

If myki is the solution, what the hell was the problem?

myki discovery centre at Southern Cross station
(c) divacultura 2012

Last week I had the misfortune of arriving at Southern Cross station during peak hour and witnessing first hand the difficulties with myki now that the parallel Metcard system is being aggressively phased out.  Having survived the train journey itself where I experienced what the live cattle trade might be like, I travelled on the escalators to the concourse without incident.  It was here that I reached the myki bottleneck and witnessed one frustrated commuter after another hold their myki to the reader with no result.  Then it was my turn and my normally well behaved card failed to open the barriers for me too!  

Swimming against the tide of a mass of people pressing to exit the station is not an easy thing to do, especially when everyone is wet from the rain and frustrated that the tickets have so many problems.  I finally emerged, frazzled by the glares of my fellow travellers and noticed the statement proclaimed by the myki "discovery centre":  "myki - Victoria's new public transport ticketing solution".

This left me wondering what the problem was.

The paper Metcard system which is being replaced by myki seemed to work pretty well.  Occasionally there would be a glitch and a card would think it hadn't been validated, but in my experience this was rare.  As a user, my experience was that it was easy to use and I knew exactly what I had left on my ticket.  What more could a girl want?

There were a few problems with Metcard.  

One was the litter caused by people throwing their expired tickets on the ground.  That's not really a problem with Metcard, that's a problem with people.  myki has solved this problem.

Keeping track of business travel expenses and GST was time consuming and individual expired tickets needed to be kept as evidence.  Yawn.  myki makes this process MUCH easier.  With a registered myki I can download a report into a spreadsheet that tracks my trips, costs and GST.  All I need to do is cross reference it with dates of travel for business.  It's a dream.  Of course it would be better not to have to collect tax for the government, but that's a different story.

To cover unpredictable, irregular travel patterns, I had to have a poker hand of cards in my purse to ensure that all situations were catered for.  myki travels with me and adjusts fares automatically which means I don't have to think.  

That's pretty much it, I think.  So again, I wonder what problem myki is actually solving?  These three issues are fringe issues that are good to fix, but are they worth the millions of dollars that has been spent?

Generally, my experience with the routine of touching on and off at train stations and on trams has been fine. I've had a couple of times where the barrier won't open, but given the amount of travel I do on public transport, this is negligible.  When it comes to any of the back office processes though, it's a nightmare.  (There are links to my previous posts on these subjects at the end of this post. )  It seems that as more and more people are being forced onto myki because of the phasing out of Metcard, the system isn't coping very well at all.

There are brand new, purpose built myki barriers at the Bourke Street end of Southern Cross station, but these are not in use all day.  Why this is the case is one of the myki mysteries as people tell me that the so called "frankenbarriers" which have myki readers retro-fitted is the reason so many commuters have problems.  Busy commuters, trying to get where they are going will not be paying attention to these subtle differentiations - all we know is that we can't get out, or in! 

So tell me again - what was the problem that myki was solving?  What's it the solution to? It's really hard to remember. I was pondering these things as I completed a screening survey which is the first step in the process to be selected for the myki customer experience panel.  I was stumped when asked how I felt about myki.  Was I positive or negative?  I don't know.  Some things work and some things don't and it seems ridiculous that after so long and so much money everything is not working properly.  I think most people would think it's reasonable to believe that myki should be working; or else, don't roll it out.

Then I noticed this sentence over on the myki website:  If you use these stations, prepare for the change by ensuring you understand the myki system and by buying a myki in the next weeks.  (Italics are mine).  This is not an achievable task! Especially not in a short time frame.  I've been using myki for over a year now and I'm still making discoveries about how it works!


The readers are so touchy that an education campaign to explain how to use the myki tickets is now underway.  The slogan "Touch. Hold. Go" becomes "Touch. Hold. Go to another barrier and see if that one will let you out. If it doesn't see if you can find a staff member to help release you from this commuter hell."


Patronising signs abound in the city stations admonishing us not to "wave", "swipe" or do anything other than "touch".  If the average person needs educating to this extent then the system is flawed.  Let's face it, most people aren't average!

Apart from all of that, I really miss Metcards - they were handy as bookmarks. And they worked.

Here are some other posts I have written about myki:

Myki: it's your key to bureaucratic frustration

Ombudsman report covers myki debacle

Myki - Liberal Member's response

Myki campaign - contact local members

Minister response - myki may change

Calling the government - EPA, FWO and myki

The one where the call centre guy tells the truth. Twice.

It's not very often that I find myself confronted with breathtaking honesty and in that moment wish that the person had said something different!  I was in that situation today.

As I arrived at the train station to travel into the city for a lunch meeting an announcement came over the public address system advising that all trains were cancelled until further notice because of an unspecified problem somewhere else on the line.  With no staff to assist or answer questions, the disembodied voice directed us to the stop for the replacement bus. We obeyed.  I was on a tight schedule today and needed more information so I could decide whether to attend the meeting or reschedule.  I called Metlink.  They provide information about travelling on public transport.  It seemed like they should be able to handle it.

I've done this before.  I should know from my experience that it is futile, but it has been a while and I have faith that the organisations serving the public improve over time.  All I wanted was a rough idea of how far away the replacement bus was...15 minutes or 50 minutes?  Fifteen minutes I could just live with; fifty required rescheduling.  Other people who were waiting were trying to get to work or the airport to catch flights, so their need was more critical than mine.  

From the beginning the man who answered the phone caused my eyes to roll.  I explained what stop I was at and where I wanted to go.  It soon became apparent that I also needed to give him information about what was happening and educate him about the stations on Melbourne's train lines.

The problem was a signal fault at Newport.  It was the second one for the day and each time it happens, transport in the south western suburbs screeches to a halt.  

The answer to my question about the bus was, "I have no information about that."  This was followed by a partial explanation about the complexity of the relationship between the train operators and the owners of the buses.  Not that I care.  while it might be an interesting subject for a hard hitting documentary or sit-com one day, it wasn't relevant to me at that time.

I tried again, asking just for an idea if the bus was even on its way.  This time I received the breathtakingly honest answer:  "I have no idea."

I asked if anyone had any idea.  He asked if he could put me on hold.  I said yes.  

He came back and said:  "No one here has any idea where the bus is or when it will arrive.  Ma'am."

After a beat of silence he added, "Would you like me to put you through to the feedback line?"

What a terrific idea!  Smooth operator.  

After sitting on hold for almost ten minutes, my call was answered.  As I was explaining the situation, a train approached the station.  People started to run from the stop where the fictional replacement bus allegedly arrives, to the train platform in the hope that they wouldn't miss the train.  The guy on the other end of the phone couldn't believe it.  "Is it going to stop?" he asked.

The next part of our conversation took place from the comfort of the almost empty train.  He said there should have been an announcement then realised that none of us were on the platform to hear it - we were all over at the replacement-bus stop.  No announcements reach that wilderness.  

I suggested circus music should be playing.  The guy on the other end of the phone hummed a few bars.  

Say no more.

Minister response - MYKI may change

Yesterday I was told that the Minister and the Minister's office was aware of me and the issues I have raised about MYKI.  At last!

After receiving the news from Liberal Member, Mr Andrew Elsbury, that the current processes for switching MYKI cards to match changes in concession status was "suitable" and that bank cheque refunds would continue to be used, I am pleased to let you know I have a better story to tell today.

Wade Noonan MP is another of my local representatives whom I contacted about the MYKI refund debacle which I've written about a few times.  (I'm still trying to work out state representative structures in Victoria!)  Today I received a letter from him, along with a letter from the Minister for Transport, Hon. Terry Mulder MP, addressing the issues I have been raising since May 2011.

The Minister opens with a conventional thank you for raising the issues and notes that he has also been contacted by another local representative.  I'm pleased to see my local representatives following up issues raised by their constituents.

Then we have the inevitable political point scoring in the second paragraph: "The Coaltion Government inherited myki from the previous Labor Government. myki was substantially over budget and behind schedule. The Coalition Government is continuing to work to fix these problems."  This whole paragraph seems to have little to do with me. I know what happened with myki and just want to deal with the present and the future.  Since the letter is actually written to Mr Noonan, I guess some sniping at the political opponents is inevitable.  Shame it's not useful.

Some history of what actually happened in my particular case is then recounted.  It is emphasised that the closing balance of 94 cents was refunded to me in full. by cheque.  Then: "The bank fee of $10.00 is a fee charged by Westpac and is not controlled by the TTA" (Transport Ticketing Authority).  Oh look, that's true.  It's a little amusing to see the government engaged in the national sport of  bank bashing, albeit at a low level.  The bit that is controlled by the TTA (or the government) is the decision to use bank cheques to provide a refund, rather than use the smart card technology to place the balance on the new card.

The lead is buried right in the last paragraph: "The process required when a myki user changes concession status may change in future to allow a balance transfer from the old myki card to the new myki card.  The TTA has advised me that it expects to have an improved process in place by December 2012."

Light the fireworks! The bets are hedged with the "may change" in that first sentence, but I'm pleased that at least this ridiculous process has been acknowledged and there is now a time frame of December 2012 in place to "improve" it.  Time will tell.

My reason for writing about this is to encourage others to take up issues of public interest.  Users of the ticketing systems are the ones who know where the problems are and also suffer when these problems are not rectified.  Our elected representatives are there to represent us.  Today with email, it is relatively simple to correspond with them and stay in contact.  Give them feedback.  Ask them questions.

I noticed that there is a red sticker on the Metcard machine at my local unstaffed suburban train station advising that it will be turned off on 27 February.  MYKI is being rolled out to everyone, so now is the time to identify the issues and fix them.

Now, when will they widen the exit points and put in more readers so we can actually get out of the station during peak hour?

Calling the government - EPA, FWO, MYKI

Calling government departments was my main task for the day. Or you could say I was living in the land of acronyms.  I called the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to some work I'm doing for a client.  I called the Environment Protection Authority to report a terrible smell in the neighbourhood and I made various calls as part of my ongoing quest to bring to light and have fixed the wasteful and complex processes which sit behind the Myki ticketing system.

It is quite interesting to reflect on the different approaches and qualities of  the various departments.  I discovered that it takes quite a bit of persistence to move from being "handled" within a process to finding someone with whom to have a real conversation.

It was my first time calling the EPA.  The sound of the call centre in the background was so loud I had to repeat everything I said at least twice.  I've never logged a smell before and had to answer quite comprehensive questions about the quality and nature of the smell.  I'm not sure how successful I was.  It was sort of sulphury and had a chemical edge, kind of like a bad chemical sewerage smell!  Then they wanted to know which way the wind was blowing.  I almost wet my finger and stuck it in the air, but decided that was overkill.  I think I decided it was south-west, but I don't really know.

Then I was asked to say where the smell was coming from.  I imagine that if I knew, I would just call and say the local pet food factory is stinking up the neighbourhood again!

Imagine having that job.  Working in a call centre where your job is to log complaints about smells. She was very nice, but that would drive me crazy.

Anyway, I have another reference number to add to my collection of reference numbers from government departments.  Maybe I should turn them into art one day.  How depressing that would be.

My calls about Myki started by calling the actual government.  I posted about the two line email I received from a staffer of one of my state government representatives (Andrew Elsbury).  I followed up the response with a further email.  When that elicited no response I called the office and was advised that it would be "looked into".  Ah, the sure statement that nothing will happen.  Mirrors are what you look into! Then I received an actual letter (sent to the wrong address, but oh well) dated 6 February.

The letter thanks me for my email and includes the predictable blame shifting sentence: "Myki was a system inherited from the previous government which had significant problems."  I can't tell from this whether Mr Elsbury is claiming knowledge of the ticketing system or the previous government - which one is he saying had significant problems.

I am then assured that "Since coming to Government the Coalition has sought to improve this system to deliver a better public transport system for Victorians."  Well they would say that wouldn't they.  We do know that the old Metcard system is to be phased out by the end of the year.  One would hope that the ongoing back office problems with Myki need to be sorted out quickly. Seeking to improve and actually improving are not necessarily the same thing.

Then there's the interesting bit: "After looking into your matter (sounds like a weird science project) and speaking with the Transport Ticketing Authority they have informed me that they will continue to use bank cheques for refund purposes." So this is what I already knew from the two line email I received from the staffer.  What has not been addressed is when and why this changed.

I have previously written about the advice I received through the Transport Ticketing Authority when I made a complaint to the Public Transport Ombudsman.  They advised that the process of issuing bank cheques to return money stored on the "smart" Myki cards would be replaced in the "near future".  So I'd like to know what has changed and what has informed this decision.

It's really quite hard to find out.  When you ring your local member, you get the staffer and unless they happen to know about the issue you're raising, they will generally know less than the person they work for.  Their main focus is to deflect and divert your attentions in the hope that you will give up and go away.  I'm sure my name must be on a list somewhere by now.  They should consult that list and realise that I will persist.

The final sentence of the letter is very revealing: "While the delay you faced for such a small amount is understandably frustrating I believe that this method has been used as it is suitable for the majority of situations."  Apart from largely missing the point of my complaint, I love the naive faith that the system would only have been designed with the best in mind.  I suppose it would be okay for the government to be the last people using cheques. Didn't they get the memo about the dawn of the digital age?

I've called the Transport Ticketing Authority to follow up why the plan to change to a sensible refund process that's compatible with "smart" card technology has been abandoned.  I'm waiting for a call back.  So I called Myki again today to see what else I could find out.

I learnt that people complain about this issue regularly.  We all need to do this if anything is going to change.

I learnt that there are people who believe that there is money actually in the card.  They believe that exchanging cards results in a need to get the money out of the card and return it to the person who put the money on there.  This must be why money can be put on the replacement Myki when the reason for changing cards is that the old one was lost, stolen or defective.  It says so on the form.  Although, it still takes 10 days for this to happen.  I was told today that the reason it takes so long is that the money has to be removed from the old card.  The reason it can be done at all in this situation is that the card is being "replaced".  In the situation of a new card being issued because of a change in concession status, the card is being "refunded".  This is an enormous difference.  Apparently.

I feel like taking my card to the Myki Discovery Centre and cracking it open so that it can be seen, once and for all, that the money is not physically stored in the card.

So I'll add another reference number to my collection - this time in the special section indexed as "M" for Myki.  And contact the other members of parliament whom I have already contacted about this issue.  It will be interesting to hear what the Minister for Transport has told them.

In the meantime, I believe that we all need to make our voices heard when we come across wasteful and stupid government processes.  You can do a lot by email if you don't want to go through the call centre experience.  Soon there won't be the back up of Metcard as a second ticketing system.  These problems need to be fixed now!

I'd love to know your experiences with Myki - especially the "back office" processes.  Have you complained?  What were you told?