Journalism 101 - SYN Radio

On the 16th June 2012 I did an hour-long show for the Experimental Hour segment on SYN radio in Melbourne. I talked first with Margaret Simons, Director of the Centre for Advanced Journalism at the University of Melbourne about journalism education. I next spoke with media writer at The Australian Nic Christensen about getting feet in doors. They were followed up with a long chat touching on almost everything, including political journalism, with host of ABC's Insiders, Barrie Cassidy.

Podcast is here.

Group of Eight proposes to scrap contributions cap

The national Group of Eight (Go8) lobby, which makes representations to the government on behalf of Australia’s most prestigious universities, last year released a paper (or ‘Policy Note’) suggesting the government cap on individual student contributions be scrapped.

The report noted that students whose parents paid to put them through independent schooling in the hope of increasing their chances to get into university “benefit disproportionately from public subsidies” and concludes that parents are “unable to contribute more to the cost of their education, although in many cases they would be willing and able to do so.” 

An increase in individual student contributions may free up government money which, in light of the recent policy change allowing a theoretically infinite number of students to enrol, universities claim is desperately needed. Seeming to anticipate this shift, the government was urged by the 2008 Bradley Review of Higher Education to provide a 10% per student increase in funding to universities. Mike Teece, the Director of Policy at the Go8, said the government had conveyed to him that “the cupboard is bare,” partly due to the governments’ insistence on returning to surplus in the next financial year. 

While declining to give his opinion on student contributions, University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor Glyn Davis told Farrago: “We have to be cautious about imposing high taxes to support higher education on lower income Australians who don’t get the direct benefits of higher education. There is a case for public support, but it must be sensitive to the private benefits of higher education.”

Anxieties about the egalitarian nature of publicly subsidised tertiary education were high on the minds of students we approached. These concerns are predicated on universities providing some sort of incentive for parents, who despite their wealth may be unwilling to increase their level of contribution. 

Sebastian, a first year Bachelor of Arts student who attended private school “as a family tradition thing” despite an average single-parent income, said: “It’s a slippery slope – next thing rich families might be able to pay out the uni so their kids can attend. Where do you draw the line? I think everyone should pay the same amount, so it’s equal.”

This concern was shared by Jared, who while relaxing on the South Lawn hypothesised: “I can just imagine people would be allowed to have certain things that the rest of us couldn’t because they would be willing to pay the extra money, kind of snowballing … into some sort of elite class.” 


“In a lot of countries what happens is if you are paying more tuition fees … the government in return gives you tax benefits,” explained Shantanu, a Masters of Development Studies student from India. Shantanu also made the point: “The money that [parents] spend, when they give more fees, will be used for their own children’s benefit, in terms of more infrastructure in college and university."


Amardeep, also from India, proposed: “The money [government] saved can go to more scholarships, and maybe those students who actually can’t afford it, their fees can be reduced because of that.”

These ideas would undoubtedly draw ire from those who see it as invoking redistribution of private wealth. 

The Department of Innovation, which deals with tertiary education, did not respond before deadline.


This article was originally published in Farrago.

Malcolm Turnbull - the divine leader?

Every time Malcolm Turnbull makes one of his appearances on ABC’s Q&A program there is inevitably a few minutes devoted to a cheeky Liberal leadership question; when will he return to face off the Prime Minister at the dispatch box? The inevitability of this is apparently a universal wish among the young idealists who adore Turnbull.

It took a new turn recently when one whipper-snapper urged him, on live TV, to found a new ‘broad church’-style party to relieve the country, particularly the youth, of the current political malaise. Writer Clementine Ford dismissed the idea, but asked Turnbull when he was going to “take back the rightful leadership of the Liberal Party that belongs to him?”

Earlier in the program rhubarblover tweeted “the sensible and sensitive Malcolm Turnbull drips leadership”. MezOlsen followed up with “you’re my hero Malcolm”.

Turnbull is undoubtedly popular in certain demographics. He has a sophisticated, socially progressive, charming and nonpartisan demeanour that appeals to the young, educated and idealist. This is a complete contrast to the man who stole his job, Tony Abbott. He is seen as simplistic, backward and a doyen of the suburbs, who the urbanites loathe.

But the reality is that Malcolm Turnbull was not always this popular, and his leadership was characterised by a lacklustre opposition, political misjudgement (anyone remember Godwin Grech?) and ultimately party disunity. Abbott, on the other hand, has been a runaway electoral success.

Turnbull was dumped by his party and replaced by Abbott on the 1 December 2009, after party members were increasingly peeling away from Turnbull’s insistence that they allow the amended Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to pass through parliament.

Senior frontbenchers had announced they were resigning, Turnbull declared he could not lead a party that did not share his belief in the ETS and the leadership came to a spill, which Abbott won by one vote.

The commentariat generally agreed that, in his intransigence and inflexibility, he was the master of his own undoing. Leaders need to have a confidence in their decisions and of their convictions. But they also require the ability to negotiate and artfully placate internal divisions when it becomes apparent there is immense disquiet in their party regarding policy decisions. This key political capacity was evidently lacking in Turnbull.

Tony Abbott also divides people, but more in the electorate than inside the Coalition party room. His party are being held in line by their current comfortable standing in the polls, largely due to Abbott’s laser-like abilities to milk the government’s own goals.

Turnbull, who was leader albeit concurrently with the incredible Rudd honeymoon era, was never able to bring home the kind of electoral bacon that would have allowed him to crack the whip in the party room without fear of destabilisation. But crack it he did, and he duly paid the price with his leadership.

Turnbull does not have Abbott’s tack of speaking directly to suburban and regional voters—‘Howard’s battlers’. Aside from the business community, who have more confidence in Turnbull’s ‘capital ‘L’ Liberal’ economic philosophy than Abbott’s populism, Turnbull comes off especially well with youth and the more educated ‘small ‘l’ liberal’ professional class, who see him speaking to them across the partisan political divide.

The Q&A questioner demonstrated this is a strong allure, in days where people are decrying the low standards of political debate. But it is also his political Achilles heel. His inclination to assess policy from the reference points of merit and his economically conservative, socially progressive worldview—instead of from a populist standpoint—means he is far less regular and effective in attacking the government.

Writing in The Australian the day after Turnbull’s deposition, Mike Steketee wrote: “The reason Abbott is Liberal leader today and Malcolm Turnbull is a backbencher is because, in the political ring, Abbott packs a bigger punch.”

Furthermore, the growing disaffection in his own party, mirrored with growing support of progressive minds, was demonstrated in the days leading up to the spill. Newspoll analysis showed that Turnbull was the most popular he had been since the OzCar affair—but among Labor voters, not his own side, who had abandoned him in droves.

Under his leadership there was a less invigorated, indeed often disenfranchised, Liberal base and a blurring of the lines between the two major parties in the wary eyes of the electorate. Tony Abbott obliterates any possible lingering confusion with the sheer force and regularity of his opposition.

But does this unconvincing and lonely depiction gel with the Malcolm Turnbull we are always told about? Descriptions like “combative” and “relishes in confrontation” abound. He was a masterful, if ultimately unsuccessful, campaigner in the 1999 Republic Referendum. It is reasonable to assume he will thrive, as Clementine Ford clearly does, if he were to slide back into the Opposition Leader’s chair.

Malcolm Turnbull is most effective at debate, persuasion and—crucially—politics when it is his own personal passions and beliefs he is defending or promoting.

The catch is that those passions and beliefs are not necessarily shared by the party he once led, and on whom he ultimately depends for support.

This article was originally published in Farrago on 18/04/2012 under the name 'Jacob Aitken' (sic).

UN declaration no saviour of the Palestinians... say Palestinians.

Palestinians living in Australia hold significant reservations about the Palestinian Authority’s attempt at gaining international recognition of a Palestinian state currently before the UN, labelling the strategy “hollow” and lacking in strategic nous.

As Mahmoud Abbas returns to a raptuous welcome in Ramallah and onlookers predict the debate at the UN could drag on for months, local Palestinian advocates, while in principle supporting any diplomatic activity aimed at breaking the deadlock, have questioned the tangible gains it will bring to Palestinians with and without of the West Bank and Gaza.

Samah Sabawi, the Education Officer at Australians for Palestine, who was born in Gaza,  says that the bid is “not a good idea in its current form,” as “it leaves too many questions.”

“When Mahmoud Abbas comes back from New York, he will still require an Israeli entrance permit to get into the West Bank,” she said, citing that reality as an example of the move’s futility in changing the ‘facts on the ground’ in the Israeli-occupied territories.

The bid for full statehood, aimed at the creation of a recognised nation without the determination of borders or key sticking points with Israel, is doomed to failure at the Security Council, where the United States will utilise its veto power.

However there is a bigger chance of success in the General Assembly, where the likely outcome is the upgrading of the status of Palestine to non-member observer status, giving it access to several UN bodies, critically the International Court of Justice.

Ms Sabawi perceives that outcome as aimed mostly at improving the PA’s position in peace agreement negotiations with Israel, in her opinion showing “a lack of innovation” on behalf of the Palestinian leadership.

“When looking at the bigger picture, the move seems to be quite hollow.”

“It won’t change the facts on the ground, Israel will continue to build the settlements, at the moment Palestinians are just cheap labour for Israel, and captive consumers. Negotiations only work when the two parties have the same level of power. We currently have negoations where one party has complete power and the other is completely powerless.”

Bassam Dalli, an Executive Member of the Australian Friends of Palestine Organisation, speaking from Canberra, agreed, saying that an outcome whereby the PA entered into negotiations with an only slightly improved position would be a disappointment.

“After years of supposed negotiations, [the international community] have recognised Israel but not Palestine. Palestinians are human beings too. Palestinians have rights just like everyone else, they don’t have 80%, 70% of rights.”

Ms Sabawi was particularly critical of perceived sidelining of refugees and Palestinian civil society by the PA in its focus on UN membership.

She said “the Palestinian Liberation Organisation needs to regain its legitimacy, through the involvement of Palestinians in the civil process, including Palestinian refugees, who have so far been left out of the state.”

In addition to supporting refugees, Ms Sabawi believes the PLO needs to move to openly support for non-violent protests and the controversial Boycott, Divestement and Sanctions campaign which has been widely lampooned in Australia.

While expressing his anxiety over the likely outcome of the current UN wrangling, Mr Dalli, a Palestinian born in northern Israel, savaged suggestions that the exercise will be wholly fruitless.

“The alternative is to pretend there are real negotiations. The alternative is to return to the status quo, with Palestinians living in the world’s biggest prison, with Israel making their lives miserable.”

In 1993 the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords, themselves the product of direct negotiations, established the PA and direct Palestinian control of swathes of built-up residential areas in the occupied territories. Israel sees the circumventing of negotiations by the the Palestinians as a way of avoiding having to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and give up the dream of a Palestine "from the river to the sea". 

Firebrand Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermann has been reportedly suggested tearing up the peace accords in response to the reinvigorated Palestinian diplomatic drive. Israel also holds millions of dollars in tax money which it collects on behalf of the PA, and the U.S. Congress recently moved to cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in aid.

Mr Dalli was adamant that Palestinians are so tired of the lack of improvement in their position that they are prepared to cop major economic hits in order to achieve more serious international recognition.

“If it means they will starve, they will starve.” 

Tales of Kurdish refuge in the Lucky Country

IN JUNE last year, in the southern Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas, Saman Zaheri was in hiding. 

He was being hunted by the basij, an elite religious paramilitary unit directly answerable to Iran’s Supreme Leader. He and two friends had been asked to distribute pamphlets a month previously in the city of Kermanshah, calling for a demonstration to protest the execution of five Kurdish activists who had been charged with guerilla activities.

One of the trio was arrested by the basij. Probably under torture, he supplied the names of his two fellow conspirators.

Mr Zaheri was tipped off by his father that the basij were aware of his identity and he quickly went underground.

The second friend was later arrested. He has not been seen or heard from since.

Mr Zaheri arrived in Bandar Abbas and managed to track down some people smugglers who were selling unmolested passage out of the country. A payment was organised and after some time he was put on a boat with a few others and, via a small island in the Persian Gulf, shipped quietly across the water to the United Arab Emirates.

Back then he imagined establishing a new life in the United Kingdom. But the people smugglers didn’t take destination requests.

Mr Zaheri now lives in Launceston, where he works at the PizzaKom takeaway on Charles Street, under the benevolent ownership of Mevlut Kilinc, who is originally from Turkey. Mr Zaheri and Mr Kilinc, 41, share the same language and ethnicity — they are Kurds.

The Kurdish people, infamously stateless, are spread across a region encompassing parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. They have faced many years of discrimination, cultural repression and forced assimilation as minorities in those four countries.

Mr Kilinc arrived in Sydney in 1992, after refusing to serve in the Turkish armed forces, which is compulsory. The Turkish government was at the time engaged in a bloody and protracted struggle with

armed Kurdish insurgents and had just violently put down a peaceful celebration of the Kurdish New Year, killing at least 91 demonstrators.

‘‘I didn’t want to go because . . . the state, imposing on you, to go to military service, to try to kill your own people — that didn’t make sense to me,’’ Mr Kilinc explains. In 2000, the Turkish government cancelled his citizenship in light of his objection. He now holds only an Australian passport.

Mr Zaheri didn’t see that he had a choice in leaving Iran, fearing that his arrest could mean torture, forced confessions with a fudged trial, public humiliation, beatings, rape and even death. All of which are well documented phenomena inside Iran’s labyrinthine security infrastructure.

After receiving a new, falsified passport from the smugglers in Dubai (his own had expired), he was put on a plane to Indonesia. He spent only one day there, for which he considers himself supremely lucky. Some asylum hopefuls spend months, even years, in that country attempting to arrange passage Down Under.

In the pouring rain he and the others were taken off a beach on dinghies and onto a larger boat anchored offshore. They set sail in the continuing downpour, with no shelter, while the smugglers kept dry under their own, refusing to share with their human cargo.

On the second night, in tempestuous seas, the ship’s helm disconnected from the rudder and the captain lost all control of steering. The ship simply drifted from side to side on the enormous waves, Mr Zaheri and the others feared it would capsize at any moment.

They eventually fashioned a system of controlling the rudder manually, before the pump which flushed water out of the boat failed. The refugees had to try and bail the water using buckets.

The next day, the weather calmed. Then the drinking water ran out.

On the third day both engines failed and the tide was carrying the boat into the Indian Ocean.

Mr Zaheri recalls with fondness a fellow traveller, a Pakistani mechanic, who fixed both engines without any proper tools or assistance.

On the same day Mr Zaheri thought he could distinguish a hazy shape on the horizon and checked with other passengers that he was not just delirious. He wasn’t, and some time later an Australian Customs vessel pulled up a few hundred metres away, and observed their leaky vessel without making communication.

Women and children cried with visceral relief and the men stopped bailing water from the boat and celebrated. The passengers were wild with joy — an Australian vessel had come to scoop them from the merciless sea.

The ship then promptly turned its rear to them and motored off.

That night, they made it to Christmas Island. Two Navy ships boxed the boat in and the passengers were fed and watered. 

Mr Zaheri spent the next nine months on Christmas Island while his application was processed.

After he was found to be a legitimate refugee, he was handed a piece of paper. His Kurdish interpreter told him it was a ticket to Tasmania, a beautiful place with clean air.

So far, he likes it.

Kurds are still a long way off the levels of self- determination they would like to see for themselves, except in Iraq, where an autonomous and democratic Kurdistan was established after the American invasion in 2003.

Statehood is an issue which the Middle Eastern autocracies will not humour, yet Mr Kilinc describes it as a ‘‘utopia’’ in the collective Kurdish imagination. He says that, however ‘‘from the pragmatic perspective, that probably won’t be achievable’’.

In Turkey’s June elections, the Kurds rallied behind the Peace and Democracy Party, who gained an extra 16 seats in the Turkish parliament — ‘‘a victory for the Kurdish people’’ reckons Mr Kilinc.

Mr Zaheri describes the Kurdish people in Iran as ‘‘a herd surrounded by tigers’’. He wants full autonomy for the Kurdish region while remaining a part of Iran.

Mr Kilinc thinks that achieving equal cultural rights ‘‘would probably be the best form, in a way, of autonomy’’ for the Kurds of Turkey.

He continues to run his successful business and has just completed a course in international relations and history at the University of Tasmania and occasionally travels to Turkey to visit his relatives. Mr Zaheri regularly speaks on the phone to his family back in Iran, but only a tectonic shift in the political situation there could lead to a reunion, at least on home soil.

This article was originally published in the Sunday Examiner on July 24 2011