The possibility of genuine peace and better understanding of all nations have been a pursuit of the world for generations often without success. Famous idealist, soldiers and statesman have tried hard but the problems of exception management and leadership in so many tragic situations encountered so often — as for example in Northern Ireland until recent years, the conflict in Spain of the Basque separatists, the racial wars we know of in the case of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the tragedy of the Vietnam war and so many other well known in the countries of the blue diamond in Africa and indeed the release from apartheid of the people of South Africa. There is also the terrible test to major powers and the human race in the struggle for identity and freedom in the Middle East, so well known to Australian military even in the case of Afghanistan, Indonesia and the small micro states more familiar to Australians in the South Pacific.
The use of force
The Australian forces and indeed those of the main powers including associate countries such as Canada and New Zealand, the UK and the major democratic power the US, have been give terms of engagement to use force of arms to resolve conflict (when first implelemented pretty well indefinitely) but little attention has yet been paid to develop an appropriate strategy of peace which indeed which we should not loose sight of in Australia as it is an important democracy. There has been too much emphasis on containment only rather than understanding and rapport with the various aspects of diversity and change and so familiar in the Australian case but often too great a hurdle for the inexperienced or volatile areas of the underdeveloped countries particularly of Africa and the Middle East.
The lack of Australian power but not leadership skills.
Australia simply does not have the capacity or power of the European States, America and a great society such as China. So some of the prospects for change we can offer to others are limited but nevertheless we have gifts as a federal (a diverse) society that should be celebrated and explained to countries that need to change from violence.
Australians are best equipped therefore to help such societies to understand the benefits of resolving conflict primarily through the electoral process and indeed without violence or sabotage of each other – pointing out there has never been a civil war in Australia-and that the Australian forces in this country do not play a political role — this would be a significant change in many conflict ridden countries because the national standing Army for example or indeed guerrilla groups has been the main channel relied on by many vulnerable societies to develop leaders — but Australians can demonstrate such reliance to develop leaders is mistaken and counter productive-our leadership programs ( found in commerce, government, the forces and the trade unions) offer many more chances and encourage diversity and therefore provide the right approach to the functioning of a robust public domain and the wider nature of democratic government — which should be the expectation for all men and women, making possible through living in harmony but in open competition of ideas and leadership skills to secure solutions — particularly in the big picture areas critical to national leadership and also where necessary — to support other societies but this should be only of a temporary nature as armed occupation as undertaken in the Middle East-should only be a temporary means to secure order so peace can follow.
What should be done?
If the implementation of military force looses context i.e. peaceful government then is unattainable, military intervention should be strongly criticised on moral and humanitarian grounds— this now seems to have occurred in many critical aspects of the violence in the Middle East. Many nations need to benefit from a reality check that reconciles the ideals of personal conscience and tolerance (internal peace) and military control — usually through martial law (the big fist) until democratic government can thrive where there was once a battlefield.
This indeed has already happened in the case of South Africa so it is achievable but it needs courage by Government to bring men at arms and civilians, back from the brink, so the immediate questions are one of governance and not loss of life and injustice. A world based series of meetings and initiatives is needed to bring forward the context for peace especially in the Middle East — too many young soldiers for example have died to justify unquestioning commitment to militarism and any misunderstanding particularly of the world’s important religious faiths and the wonderful diversity of the many races. The possibilities for peace need much more exploration and implementation in the decision-making processes of world leaders.
The constitutional crisis in Australia in 1975 has been one of the most written and talked about events in Australian modern history. Many observations have therefore been made to gather the facts of the circumstances and collect the understanding of participants and observers because of the significance in national politics but also because of the precedent like circumstances which could be replicated also in Australian state and territory political situations in cases where an upper house continues to revise policy, legislation and the like.
Prime Minister Whitlam (now an elder statesman) came to power in 1972. His government was innovative very often and tested the then boundaries of a pathway forward. For example the Whitlam government introduced modern no fault legislation making possible divorce when a relationship had broken down. This policy placed responsibility on the judgement of those in a marriage to make their own minds up about the future without having to resort to criteria and evidence that was too tough or exploitive by solicitors or private investigators usually at a very high cost financially. When the enabling legislation for this policy was introduced the reaction of many well intended but opposing approaches in the minds of parliamentarians was so strong that the controversy surrounding the innovation would prevail for quite some years way beyond the Whitlam government.
The Whitlam government innovated in many other areas of significant policy in the 1970s for which so many now are thankful. The provision of funding for states and territories by PM Whitlam meant the timetable for the provision of sewerage services to most in the big cities and towns were a milestone change in policy for Australians. Also the work of PM Whitlam in the creative arts and communications areas- art and media such as films and the dramatic arts were all considered break throughs that no other PM would support because they lacked capacity to make an appropriate judgement or simply lacked the daring to give Australia a way forward to lead these sectors from the doldrums where they did not belong. PM Whitlam also led a funding process to revolutionise the provision of child care (long day care with services of nurses for the very young and teachers for those preparing for kindergarten) and the expansion of preschools so all infants and the young preparing for primary school were catered for.
There were many other innovations at the political level. The debates and conflict of opinions in parliament and within PM Whitlam’s party led to rivalries and disputes, which were difficult for the PM Whitlam to manage. In the cases of some observers and many politicians threats of a challenge arose because of internal confrontations in the governing party or opponents in the parliament from other political organisations. For example the development of the modern Australian Post Office and the Whitlam decision to organise the Australian forces in a democratic but unified command basis because these policies met the criteria of many technical and top political observers led to political pressures because of the PM Whitlam’s break or break through approach to not waste a moment to get the job done for Australia. These progressive factors were often the background to review and often hostility of the Australian Senate in the early 70s-for example PM Whitlam won another election in 1974 to reinforce his role but the outcome politically in the Senate was not crucial to the survival of the PM Whitlam government in 1975. Until 1975 the convention that an upper house reviewed policy and did not reject money bills (the budget) was not under threat but all this altered in 1975 because of very strong opposition by the Queensland Premier Mr Petersen who broke an aspect of the convention concerning the senate by nominating a senator from Queensland who was not an Australia Labor Party member when a colleague of Mr Whitlam in the senate passed away (as far as I can recall given the circumstances were so many years ago). This appointment and the politics at the time (which included the sacking of other colleagues of PM Whitlam) made possible the rejection of the budget in 1975 leading to the situation where government could not continue and so an election was forced with the support of the Governor General (President) of Australia with a negative outcome for the Whitlam government. PM Whitlam lost office.
The 1970s are a long time ago but personal circumstances also played a part because of as you may be aware of my novice involvement in an unexpected dilemma because of internal politics within the then Sydney branch of the Federal Department of Education in 1973 and 1974. These events followed PM Whitlam’s confrontation after a political meeting at Parramatta (western Sydney) which led to many misunderstandings on my part about how to bring about the then dream of modern child care and preschool policies for the community. PM Whitlam was a fierce opponent of nonsense, having a go at my judgement as though he was offering a bribe. I was completely out of my depth of course. Also the situation in the office-which needed major changes-was not helped by me claiming to have the right answers and brave claims of infallibility which did not hold up to scrutiny. The leader of the opposition offered me no sympathy and pressurised the situation in any way desirable for his party but not my privacy. He was very hostile about my request to be left out of things because national politics of this nature was not my cup of tea. Other politicians including Mr Doug Anthony the head of the County Party (now the National Party) let me know they would not let me down. Overseas supporters surprisingly came from the United States-looked just like Mr Carter-but the events were a long time ago. The Americans made it clear that everyone has their day and therefore the claims by the leader of the opposition Mr Fraser for an immediate enquiry and that PM Whitlam should stand down were similarly regarded by me as right over the top. Fraser insisted dire consequences were to follow and that myself and the Whitlam government better accept this but this was not necessarily supported by the Americans-keep in mind please that it was a long time ago and my clarification may not be so pure but I am attempting to inform the reader of what took place.
The environment in the agency in Sydney was so jaded that it would not settle down-at least not settle down with me being there-so I received a minor promotion to work in Canberra where I have spent the majority of my work and political experience which of course continues. I am very thankful despite the continuing nature of personal responsibility that I was able to leave for what was for me one of the worst workplaces I have ever taken part with.
When arriving in Canberra I was free of all this pressure and nonsense but not Mr Whitlam. The conflict between Fraser and Whitlam had not improved it was worse (as we know) than ever. Fraser was busy feathering his own nest and seeking a way to be condemnatory of the Whitlam period and my experiences in Sydney. Mr Whitlam endeavoured to be personally supportive of me getting back on my feet and to function effectively the way I then felt qualified as a mature public servant which is all I felt able to do.
Some wonderful things did happen. I took part in the final negotiations to end the Vietnam War with the Governor General (President) being the chair and US and Russian leaders also taking part, and when approached also helped decide the day for the famous double dissolution-remembrance day-because that day more than any others reminds us to make the right call for democracy to take shape and all benefit. The Governor General and the PM Whitlam made it clear they were very personally supportive but I would have a lot to face up to and better develop my leadership skills to solve what would be imposed and most likely to take place because in a similar situation most would do what was best only for them-in effect the highest bidder-an not act nobly in the circumstances.
When Mr Fraser approached me or indeed Mr Whitlam or the Governor General-as far as I was ever aware-but keep in mind the squabbles were enormous and my memory scrambled at the time and still is. Fraser acted in too aggressive fashion but made clear he was not going to tolerate even as childish what had happened in Parramatta and would follow up even if it meant an unexpected poll-because Labor simply could not put its house in order and this was obvious to his immediate and long term advantage.
When PM Whitlam and the Governor General-spoke to me-obviously suffered from the blues-they tried to give friendly warnings of what might happen. I am not a lawyer nor do I have perfect memory or judgment. For example distinguishing what took place in Sydney in the 70s is an egg I cannot successfully unscramble. However when the Queen and her husband visited Sydney to open the Opera house-at least I think it was at that time but cannot be sure-the head of State-the Queen – signed legal documents-taking the pressure off me-so media coverage of all this sad and over the top event in Sydney need not go to air. Fraser detested this approach.
Pressure like this was not renewed until the dismissal period evolved. On winning public office Fraser renewed the pressure and put all participants including VIPs such as the Governor General and the Head of State on notice to account for them. As you can imagine Stephen Kendal was very scared about what was being attempted and that Fraser lacked the capacity of a balanced call about an event, which should be forgotten about. This additional pressure on the Whitlam government contributed to break and break through mentality when bringing forward policy, as the sands of politics seemed uncontrollable. At this point I became a fun organiser of the Australian American Association and found many friends there as well as a sympathetic Ambassador who genuinely liked me. But as they say everyman has his day. Life is like that.
Fraser kept the pressure up-in my opinion-as if a war was necessary-to repudiate PM Whitlam and those who made possible taking the events in Sydney away from the media for immediate community understanding. The atmosphere at that time was unpleasant. Unpleasant enough to be fearful of being repudiated publicly rather than being given understanding and liberty from nonsense. Consequently as time passed and only when necessary-it was decided to have a full blown-confrontation-about the constitution-especially the constitution oath. So something unusual but supportive of the constitution and those responsible for how it works was devised-to take place blow by blow-much needed-was devised to take place in Saint Christopher’s Cathedral-a catholic place of worship.
Admittedly this was an unusual approach-but clearly justified when Fraser announced-in the place of worship-a royal commission to investigate and recommend the process of justice-he thought required-concerning those who had been supportive of me ducking the issues in Sydney-including the head of state-who had only acted conscientiously. He went right over the top and stating the British High Commission must close and that diplomatic relations severed. I simply could not believe my ears when this all happened All of these things I considered absolute nonsense.
The US and Russia (Carter and Brezhnev were supportive). For example at a highlight of what was said by Fraser-that the Queen must stand aside and be investigated for her role-all commonwealth nations spoke directly to me ridiculing what was said. Mr Carter also made clear that nonsense such as stand down of the head of state and Fraser’s desire of a referendum then to establish a republic was way over the top. Carter made clear that what was done was far from enlightened and would be disruptive of the fundamentals of peace and disarmament throughout the world. Premier Brezhnev endorsed the approach completely. Mr Gordon Brown of the UK was present personally and opposed vigorously what Fraser intended. Leading the process of discussion from the view point of the soverign.
The catholic church-from its stand point-offered the diplomatic and sacred public exposure of the Christian Eucharist-as a sign of trust-common understanding and enlightenment of those seeking a settlement to what had transpired. No one doubts the sincerity or strength of commitment made. For example while speaking to all assembled Carter called the participants of the war between Egypt, Palestine and Israel to put down their arms and in referring to the events in Australia was able to arrange a cease fire voluntarily imposed by each of the parties. The drama of Carter’s intervention was fundamental to acknowledgement of him as a world leader leading to recognition later for a Nobel Peace prize.
For these reasons I believe a different interpretation of the dismissal being brought about by America for its own purposes seems quite misjudged but being then inexperienced and a baby was not part of any wind up talks with the US hierarchy. What followed in Saint Christopher’s is contrary to any stereotyped interpretation. It is often now claimed that the Liberals felt so let down that that in some numbers at least they are hostile and critical of the US role in Canberra.
Rumoured to be India’s most expensive film at between $18 and $25 million, ‘Blue’ has a weak storyline, but makes up for it with some strong action and chase sequences and marine splendour. However, the lavish canvas with sweeping backdrops were inadequately utilised for maximum effect.
Said to be Bollywood’s first underwater thriller, it sees three treasure hunters who not only grapple with sharks, but also their own conscience with most of the drama emanating from the unpredictable friendship between fisherman Aarav (Akshay Kumar), his employee Sagar (Sanjay Dutt) and his brother Sam (Zayed Khan).
Dolphins just loved swimming with the gorgeous leading lady Mona (Lara Dutta, former Miss Universe). There’s also a cameo appearance by the glamorous Katrina Kaif.
While the picture postcard Bahamas is inviting, there are obvious shades of ‘Jaws’ and ‘The Deep’, but the treasure hunt should have been more perilous, the sharks could have been meaner and the danger more palpable instead of a tame ending.
First-time director Anthony D’Souza had an ambitious project, but he got so involved with orchestrating the big-name stars, the equally big sharks and the awesome scenery that he forgot to focus on the basic need for a noteworthy script.
Nevertheless, Pete Zuccarini (‘Pirates of the Caribbean’) has done some amazing cinematography in Bangkok and the Bahamas with eye-catching action above sea level, some stunning biker mayhem, on top of trains, alleyways and countryside.
The music score and design by India’s two Oscar winners – A.R. Rahman and Resul Pookutty – is nothing out of the ordinary.
Out on DVD as well, this film has to be seen on the big screen for major impact.
All that money and talent has gone to waste: instead of a thundering climax, there was a soft whimper. Perhaps, a sequel is on the way?
Media standards for countries boasting of democracy need scrutiny and development on a regular basis. The standards which are appropriate should not be taken for granted because the expected outcome of high standards is freedom of discussion and interpretation throughout the community and in the case of more important events other countries or even worldwide. Freedom of this nature ensures transparency and accountability and is a fundamental requirement if human rights are to be safe in each of the world’s communities. Its unrealistic to believe that without such fundamental rights that individual liberty would result in a mature and sustainable form.
Political and moral progress without freedom of discussion and freedom of information is too restricted without media standards that make it possible for the advantages of democracy to be widespread. This does not mean that freedom of information is always required in an absolute sense because there are privacy concerns protected that modern legalisation makes possible for a variety of reasons to protect without unnecessary disclosure personal details such as individual and family names, or personal information which should be restricted such as addresses and contact details so long as the individuals and families believe would fairly need and prescribed to make this possible. However this can mean when access is granted to materials such a public records many individual words and paragraphs and possibly pages are not given to enquirers to protect individuals who are or have been in authority, as well as restrictions stemming from secrecy provisions (such as military or other intelligence concerns) for very long periods.
The sensitivity and secrecy often surrounding milestone events of importance therefore means that introduction of public discussion which might otherwise be expected in parliament and the media suffers significantly or prevents introduction of resulting restricted material for use in debate or by journalists because information needed to be effective in these ways to challenge or determine outcomes readily therefore is to restricted or not possible. The secrecy and sensitivity even if known off the record of a key issue may scare off or in effect prevent opinion makers and law makers for developing appropriate questions of sufficient warrant, accuracy and sufficient time to resolve an issue and defend the community who are due better service and proper accountability when such matters are apparent and require action to sort out the facts and remedies appropriate for the community.
The purpose of parliament and public accountability therefore can suffer greatly as milestone events which need debate and scrutiny cannot be independently scrutinised because of red tape (often of a temporary but sometimes long term nature) prevents the introduction and maintenance of a public agenda which means the working of democracy is effective or ideally superior and timely for individual communities, other countries and the world. If you have attempted to introduce new issues to parliament or the media you no doubt would have been surprised also of the barriers imposed by red tape and associated legislation which has the effect of raising the risk profile which would stem from an individual seeking to lead discussion of new issues
because the restrictions prevent knowledge of what might best be possible if a balanced call is made or indeed what this maybe without having all the facts.
Restrictions concerning older issues can also make it difficult or not possible to lead discussion referring accurately to past positions (especially if not resolved) or be able to seek supportive advice when appealing or otherwise seeking correction to a decision- this can mean that the restrictions prevent compensation because of the catch 22 nature of restrictions of information believed too sensitive but essential for accountability especially in cases where compensation is expected for an incorrect decision or unjust decision which needs correction. In these circumstances without better knowledge the restrictions have been imposed most likely to make less likely new decisions, which would open doors to further discussion and complaint even if this might be justified if the restrictions did not apply.
Freedom of access to information in the ideal world should not be an aspect of regulation, which is too restrictive, or intended or otherwise detrimental to liberty, which is the foundations stone of democracy, and transparency required for the public and related domains.
The boast about government in Australia is that it is one of the significant democracies and consequently freedom of information to enable freedom of discussion and association are the fundamentals believed necessary and of the greatest importance to protect and maintain individual liberty especially freedom of conscience.
However in practice there are many breeches of these ideals in Australia and other democracies because disclosure of controversial information for example in the case of military or political intelligence may disrupt the environment where the military for example are engaged in daily conflict (as say in the case of Afghanistan) and compromise the reputation and safety of soldiers or others in the field such as police or other investigators. Disclosure in controversial circumstances can lead to public disorder (as in the case for example of race riots) threatening public safety when disclosure of sensitive information has not been provided through planned news feeds making possible disclosure of a controversy without community peace and order being disrupted. Controversies of this nature need to be introduced in the public domain only after careful planning so the effects are not disruptive and counterproductive.
Consequently the media-press, television and film-are expected to be empowered to report events and when controversies occur ensure fair reporting to the community about issues raised in the political arena to make possible the disclosure of the facts and the discussion needed to find solution to current and past controversies. However the realities are that if the issues are too sensitive because of their dramatic nature, or their disclosure may unfairly highlight individuals or groups responsible-the media my be too wary of introducing the circumstances for public dialogue using evidence that might be suggestive of poor leadership or even wrong doing because making the circumstances available may prejudice the outcome of judicial, jury or widespread public opinion and not therefore determine fairly the circumstances and any penalty which should apply by an appropriate fair process.
Public controversies are generally the responsibility of parliament to disclose and resolve. However the introduction of material for the public domain can suffer from significant lead times because the uniqueness of the issues and circumstances can mean conflicting interests within the party system responsible for day to day events in parliament. Party policy may have to be abandoned or severely criticised because new evidence places great pressure on members of parliament and consequently many members of parliament and the executive may be unwilling to be confrontational in public even at question time or when reviews of policy are undertaken in the upper house (the Senate in the case of the Australian federal parliament). Problems of this nature often spill over from parliament into the media which stands back from such circumstances because to act prematurely would endanger their standing in the community if later found to be premature or could lead to a break down in trust with parliamentary leaders (often Ministers) whose news feeds and relations make possible for clients access to the leaders to resolve individual issues of media clients such as industry organisations, companies of all sorts or prominent citizens. Circumstances of this nature occur frequently when a party conference has resolved new policy for the executive but the executive believing its judgement of the political situation means the policy should be modified, or not undertaken does not implement what has been decided.
Also interviewers and journalists responsible for reporting and discussing current events due to these restrictions therefore often have the inside running of public affairs before the problems concerned can be fixed. This gives the media the ability to be choosy as to who is given prominence as a leader or spokesperson. This ability to be selective can work positively with a Minister or other spokesperson to ensure a balanced account of what has to be revealed and the solution required to fix the problem concerned. However it can mean that interviews and other disclosures proceed on a mate’s only selective basis so a story can go to air but without all the sensitivities intrinsic to the problem being given much prominence in an attempt to lead the discussion successively so as not to overwhelm an individual spokesperson. It could also be that that some interviews because of problems of these nature-have questions agreed to before the spokesperson appears on the media concerned. This effort to work cooperatively can mean that the public interest suffers unless there are significant spills in parliament due to a controversy or staff roles in a media organisation are under fire and these are reallocated or indeed individuals dispensed with because the circumstances was insufficiently at arms length to be fair and mature.
These problems are not unique to Australia. They can be found in most contexts of government and media throughout the world. It is disappointing that the relationship between parliament and the media can be so imperfect that the ideals of freedom of discussion and personal interpretation and freedom of association can suffer significantly when the flaws which have been discussed here mean correction is too slow so that the lead time for making changes to the public agenda in parliament suffers greatly or indeed means change is not possible unless rebels in the parliament and media can find common ground and correct the circumstances.
The Marx Brothers movies were great fun and a sensation due to political issues prior to the onset of world war two. If you would like to make suggestions, join the team, be a sponsor or provide donations or goods in kind to support what should be a sell out event then please call – Stephen Kendal of Kingston ACT 0262910764 or mobile 0406377047.
W e need some expertise to plan, select a venue, do some background research on each of the shows, develop technical support to show the films on screen, plan a promotional time table and manage all expenses such as those of distributors for copy right or other intellectual or property rights which need to be paid so what is done is not just enjoyable but viable financially.
If what we get together proves the right way to go there may be scope to negotiate the festival for audiences in other locations-even interstate. Export to New Zealand may be a goer too but of course that is ambitious at this stage.
Freedom of discussion and access to government files and papers are amongst the foundation stones of democracies around the globe. However it is recognised widely that managed news through news feeds intended to assist public safety as when matters of great conflict are made clear is justified on balance so long as the facts are released at a later date when the community is cool and better able to apprehend the nature of the risks stemming from a particular concern. An example of this type of intervention is the use of censorship to steady the political climate back home when members of the forces for are engaged in high-level conflict with enemy forces. The legislature and the national press generally cooperate with the authorities so the staff of the armed forces and the public in general so such military campaigns can proceed without storms in the public domain and within the forces staff engaged in battle. Often due to the controversies of such news full details are not made available for many years to assist the peace process especially of importance in the case of fledgling democracies.
In the case of personal information much modern legislation makes it very difficult to reveal details such as a persons name and personal details such as staff reports, details of a personal nature such as family history and details including family trees. Transparency of this nature should be respected but details such as criminal charges and convictions are a controversial matter. The controversy associated with withholding such police records is sometimes justified when an individual needs a fresh start and needs secrecy of this kind to get a fair go from the public. However criminal charges associated with sexual crimes in Australia and some other countries are required to be notified to the public because of the need to protect children and other people. There are also other examples, which should be considered. For example the details of the natural parents of an adopted child are highly personal information and consequently there is often strongly opposed positions when considering transparency of this nature. Identifying the natural parents for an adoptee could well be the straw that broke the camels back and an unnecessary pressure given the difficulties often faced by those in this situation.
The ideal of absolute transparency in the public domain although often lauded has never been totally achieved. Human beings for example in public administration and those of public affairs are only human beings. This means that due to the sometimes-risky nature and uncertainty faced when making decisions, the performance of managers and legislators is assessed using standards that are unfairly too high to identify present and future performance. Another example also is the dilemma sometimes of personal histories, which could undermine a current success story despite the fact that an individual or firm had put the past behind them. In such circumstances there is not a balanced call about the qualities and performance of an individual or organisation concerned.
However there are exceptions to this generalisation. For example recently through the Internet I was able to locate a copy of the telephone directory of the US State Department. Such a document can be extremely helpful and assist enquirers to direct there questions pertaining to an individual country or region. The phone directory gave no names but extension numbers and virtually no explanation of the function and responsibility of each desk officer. Using that particular document was very unhelpful and the phone book then largely redundant. However when I recently approached the CIA offices in Washington I found very little help to direct a query except through what appeared to be a generic email address-one of several- that could have meant I would have received no reply but luckily I did. These examples of government failure to maintain a highly idealised form of openness may suffice most situations but what of an out of the blue disaster when communication to important areas of the US government is needed. However people in glasshouses should be careful as these examples of restrictions of information because of poor management or insincere commitment to open government also take place in Australia. Also web design and capacities are changed regularly in the case of major public and private organisations around the world so the circumstances identified such as discussed above are often only temporary in nature.
New issues of the regulation of the Internet have arisen and society is only just getting together great ideas to protect this technology. For example parental screening of sites for the benefit of children has been made possible through the use of settings and filters to prevent access to dangerous sites operating outside the law. Sharing wireless services to have access to the internet is also an area of concern as others may be able to listen in with the result all privacy has been lost and important confidential information made available to unauthorised people. A similar approach is used by some governments to preclude some satellite and cable television services into their countries by intervening directly through legislation to prevent extensive foreign competition to locals and also report of what is regarded as unsatisfactory political news.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom but arranging time on a radio station, or debate in a legislature is often way beyond individuals with strongly justified complaints. It is sadly true that when a particular event has been gross, regulators and the media are reluctant to report it believing time will heal all wounds, because it’s a fact of life no one is perfect and some very imperfect and consequently the past is best put aside to rescue the situation. Such dangerous situations occur even in the policing responsibilities of the government because it becomes believed ideal procedures must be abandoned for the sake of the good of all. Absolute freedom to information through the media (including documents) has never been observed fully but the danger of ignoring review and change in this area when needed to support freedom and integrity if access to information is prevented. For example over regulated media and access to documents was an unfortunate feature of the apartheid era in South Africa. In this instance, which is very typical of over regulation, human rights suffered massively by a consistent hardline approach to make democracy in South Africa impossibility. We must all learn from that lesson.
Individuals when identifying poor ethical and performance issues are often attacked and can in some countries suffer imprisonment even if their criticism is based on accurate information and is a balanced call. Victimisation can occur directly to the person identifying the issues concerned to make others account for what has been done. Some countries have adopted (as in the case of Australia) protective legislation for whistle blowing of this kind. However although support like this is welcomed but the political process is far from perfect when wrong doing is made clear and consequently protection on offer to whistleblowers may be insufficient. Whistleblowers may be intending to help the rest of us but when altering the reputation of others but the price can be too high when those vulnerable to the criticism facedown their opponent.
Consequently discussion in Australia in the past few years has been focussing on the possibility of a human rights scheme at the national and state and territory levels to protect basic freedoms such as public discussion and access to public information as there is no equivalent for most jurisdictions through a charter concerning human rights but this situation looks likely to change because of the strong need observed to protect integrity in the public domain as well acknowledge the human rights especially of those facing down wrong doing and poor performance.
Julie and Julia: This adaptation of two best-selling memoirs is an engaging, though overly long, glimpse into the fairly ordinary existence of two women and how their lives changed as a result of their love for food.
Even though the two stories are separated by five decades, the narratives are well intertwined for easy grasp of the plot.
The two lead players – Meryl Streep and Amy Adams – have worked together in ‘Doubt’.
In this film, as the legendary TV chef Julia Child, Meryl Streep is impeccable with her accent and mannerisms. Stanley Tucci is a good choice as her doting diplomat husband.
In the role of Julie Powell, Amy Adams lacks conviction. Instead, she lets her married life be dominated with her obsession.
While Julia was looking for a career, Julie feels creatively stifled and is talked into starting a blog by her husband (Chris Messina). However, she appears restricted when it comes to documenting the trials and tribulations involving the 524 recipes in 52 weeks from Child’s ‘Mastering the Art of French Cooking’ . Perhaps, that’s due to the tiny confines of the apartment kitchen.
On the other hand, Streep appears to get the best scenes and lines. Contemporary New York backdrops are fine, but Julia in Paris are marvellous.
Good support also comes from Jane Lynch as Child’s sister and Linda Emond as the cookbook collaborator.
Writer-director Nora Ephron’s adaptation of – Powell’s ‘Julie & Julia’and Child’s ‘My Life in France’ – make for a delightful film.
Since both the women were happily married, the successful recipe must lie with combining marriage and food.
''The Jersey Boys'' is playing at the Princess Theatre in Melbourne.
The fabulous Jersey Boys
By Rama Gaind
Re-acquaint yourself with Frankie Vallie and The Four Seasons – and you will not regret it!
‘The Jersey Boys’ is an all-singing, all-dancing musical experience which will have you dancing in your seat.
The show wowed Broadway and is now proving to be sensational at Melbourne’s Princess Theatre. The collective appreciation of the packed audience was patently audible during the matinee I attended. That was one afternoon of nostalgia which will not be forgotten in a hurry.
It’s the rags-to-riches tale of a group of singing scallywags (Frankie Valli, Bob Gaudio, Tommy DeVito and Nick Massi) from the wrong side of the New Jersey tracks.
It tells the story of the ‘60s idols Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons whose songs, with their infectious tunes and soulful falsetto vocal, are part of the most people’s memory jukebox.
It also includes darker tales of run-ins with the mob, acrimonious fall-outs and gambling debts.
They went on to become one of the biggest musical acts in the world, selling more than 175 million records in the process. However, they were very nearly destroyed by infighting, disastrous financial decisions and family tragedy.
With such classics as ‘Sherry’, ‘Big Girls Don’t Cry’, ‘Walk Like a Man’, ‘Oh, What A Night’, ‘Let’s Hang On’ and ‘Can’t Take My Eyes Off You’, they wrote their own songs, invented their own sounds and sold 175 million records worldwide – all before they were 30!
Whatever you do, don’t miss out on this opportunity to see not only a fabulously staged musical, but also your chance to remember some marvellous lyrics, music and to sing-a-long to your heart’s content!
Free Rain Theatre Company works its magic on Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Directed by Jordan Best for Free Rain Theatre Company, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is one of American playwright Tennessee Williams’s best-known works. It won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1955, has been restaged several times since, and was adapted into an acclaimed 1958 motion picture starring Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman
It’s the story of a Southern family in crisis, focusing on the turbulent relationship of a wife and husband, Maggie ‘The Cat’ (Jenna Roberts) and Brick Pollitt (Alexander Marks) and their interaction with Brick’s family over the course of one evening gathering at the family estate in Mississippi, ostensibly to celebrate the birthday of patriarch and tycoon ‘Big Daddy’ Pollitt (Tony Turner). Liz Bradley is Big Mumma, Cameron Thomas is Gooper and Michelle Cooper is May—this is an all-star cast in arguably one of the great American plays.
Maggie, though witty and beautiful, has escaped a childhood of desperate poverty to marry into the wealthy Pollitt family, but finds herself suffering in an unfulfilling marriage. Brick, an aging football hero, has neglected his wife and further infuriates her by ignoring his brother’s attempts to gain control of the family fortune. The recent suicide of Brick’s friend Skipper seems to be the catalyst for his indifference and heavy drinking.
Big Daddy is unaware that he has cancer and will not live to see another birthday; his doctors and his family have conspired to keep this information from him and his wife. His relatives are in attendance and attempt to present themselves in the best possible light, hoping to receive the definitive share of Big Daddy’s enormous wealth. Oy, what a drama!
WHAT: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
WHERE: Courtyard Studio, Canberra Theatre
WHEN: 30 October – 14 November
TICKETS: $18 – $28
BOOKINGS: 62752700
These three films are the best of those presently screening in Canberra.
Up: A delightful animated comedy escapade unfolds when a 78-year-old balloon salesman Carl Fredricksen fulfills his life-long dream of a great adventure after tying thousands of balloons to his house and flying to the South American wilderness.
Too late, however, he realises to his horror that he has an eight-year-old stowaway on board. Young Russell is an overly optimistic wilderness explorer, but their exciting journey sees them facing some precarious situations and coming into contact with some lovable creatures.
It features the voices of Ed Asner, Jordan Nagai, Christopher Plummer, John Ratzenberger, Bob Peterson, Delroy Lindo and Jerome Ranft.
This Disney-Pixar film from the Oscar-nominated director Pete Docter (‘Monsters, Inc.’) is a must to view! Mao’s Last Dancer: Veteran Australian director Bruce Beresford draws out the best in a rags-to-riches story adapted from a best-selling autobiography by Li Cunxin.
The script by Jan Sardi (‘Shine’) captures the perseverance in Li’s remarkable journey.
Li Cunxin was plucked from a poor Chinese village at 11 years of age by Madame Mao’s cultural delegates and taken to Beijing to study ballet. With incredible determination, resilience and vision, he graduated to become one of China’s best dancers.
He was discovered by Ben Stevenson, one of the world’s most respected teachers, choreographer and the artistic director of the Houston Ballet as part of the first US cultural delegation to communist China. He became one of the first two cultural exchange students allowed to go to America to study under Mao’s regime.
In the early 1980s he defected to the US in dramatic circumstances and went on to perform as a principal dancer for the Houston Ballet. He then went on to become a principal dancer with the Australian Ballet, married an Australian ballerina, Mary McKendry, and moved to Melbourne, where he’s now a successful stockbroker. Inglorious Basterds: Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, this is a World War II epic set in German-occupied France, which tells the story of two plots to assassinate the Nazi political leadership.
One of them is planned by a team of American solders called the ‘Basterds’, while the other is a young French Jewish cinema manager.
This is one of Tarantino’s (‘Pulp Fiction’) best.
Costello will play songs spanning his entire career at the Royal Theatre this week
“Elvis Costello is a legendary artist and a class act, I’m excited to see his fans coming out in droves to support him. He’s a true talent and so engaging on stage, Elvis solo will be something very special.” Michael Chugg.
ELVIS COSTELLO has followed his musical curiosity in a career spanning more than three decades. He is probably best known for his performances with The Attractions, The Imposters and his concert appearances with pianist Steve Nieve.
With a new album SECRET, PROFANE AND SUGARCANE just released, produced by T Bone Burnett, Costello has hit the road with an Australian tour this month.
This very special tour will feature Elvis, his guitars, his songs and his stories! Special guest support will be Australia’s own Shelley Harland who has just released her new album Red Leaf.
Costello has always been a favoured son in Australia having toured here many times since the late 70’s.
Boasting a back catalogue of over 40 albums including This Years Model, Imperial Bedroom, King Of America, All This Useless Beauty, The Delivery Man, North and Secret, Profane and Sugarcane, this concert will feature songs covering his entire career.
WHAT: Elvis Costello
WHEN: 14th OCTOBER at 8pm
WHERE: Canberra Royal Theatre
TICKETS: www.ticketek.com.au or 132 849
Girls acting as bully boys puts a new spin on Shakespeare
Review by Shanna Provost
Shakespeare’s works have been enjoyed by 16 generations since he put quill to paper: the Bard’s popularity over four centuries (and counting) could be put down to the many and varied interpretations of his works.
The Taming of the Shrew is often considered his most contentious piece due to its sexual politics and power dynamics that sees men making bets on their ability to browbeat their wives into subservience.
Bell Shakespeare Company commits to making Shakespeare’s work more accessible and palatable to as many Australians as possible. If the Twitters that flew around after Canberra’s opening night of ‘The Shrew’ is any indication, it has done its job well.
Beth Aubrey, Emily Brennan, Jeanette Cronin, Vanessa Downing, Judi Farr, Sandy Gore, Luisa Hastings Edge, Anna Houston, Ksenja Logos, Lotte St Clair and Wendy Strehlow join forces as women playing men, dressed as men in conflict with women playing women (dressed as women).
The sexist overtones in this farcical comedy could make post-feminist audiences squirm. The beauty of Shrew is that it can be held up by women (particularly feminists) at large for its casting a powerful light on sexism today.
Director Marion Potts has been very clever in enlisting an all-female cast. In our emancipated times, Potts knew that watching real men treat women so appallingly could alienate today’s audiences and distract from the real issues.
The overall feel of the play is quite sensual. The women playing women are very curvy and alluring, with the women playing men sitting comfortably in their ‘male’ bodies. We never lose sight of the fact that these women are clearly giving their take on an overtly chauvinistic script. (And the program makes for fascinating supporting material on the seriousness of their work).
The cast is strong with veteran actor Sandy Gore setting a high benchmark for her cohorts. It’s hard to pick favourites as they all do their job admirably, however Jeanette Cronin shines as the irascible Petruchio—a fortune seeker bent on breaking the will of the feisty Kate. Her commitment to the role sustains a high energy throughout and compels the audience to continually be engaged—a challenge for some audiences trying to grapple with the 16th Century language as it flies quickly around the stage.
The set is not as visually exciting as the company’s previous productions, but it serves the plot well in its simplicity. It’s refreshing to see The Playhouse pared back to bare minimum (no blacks on either side). The clock (which stayed resolutely at 5.50 throughout) was the only distraction aside from the bank of disco balls in the first act that sometimes created an unfortunate glare. Costumes were outstanding, particularly those in the ‘hat scene’.
The jury is still out for me on the karaoke interjects—they worked well to transition scenes, but I’m just not sure that they add much to the stage business really.
I would recommend this production to purists right through to those who haven’t been exposed to a great deal of Shakespeare. It is, in its deepest essence, a love story: a tale of two eccentric rebels who must fight and challenge each other before they will admit to being deeply kindred spirits—and in that process we (both men and women) get to re-explore our own positions on the power dynamics between our sexes.
I think younger audiences particularly will love this interpretation—in fact my Gen Y son says it is the best play he has ever seen, and believe me, I’ve dragged him along to a lot of productions in his 21 years!
WHAT: The Taming of the Shrew
WHERE: Canberra Playhouse
WHEN: Until 17 October
BOOKINGS: 02 6275 2700
The Australian Handball Federation [AHF] congratulates the members of the Women’s Squad on their successful training camp held during 25th to 28th September 2009.
This training camp is part of the preparation of the Australian Women’s Team in the XIX Women’s Handball World Championship to be held in Jiangsu, China during 5th – 20th December 2009. Jiangsu is a province in the east part of China, near Shanghai, the biggest city of China. The six host cities for the Championship are as follows: Nanjing, Changzhou, Suzhou, Wuxi, Yangzhou, Zhangjiagang.
The official draw held in July 2009 placed Australia in Group B, which will be competing in Zhangjiagang. The schedule of matches to be played by Australia as follows:
05 December vs Angola
06 December vs Austria
07 December vs Russia
08 December REST DAY
09 December vs Ukraine
10 December vs Thailand
11 December REST DAY
12 December Game
13 December Game
14 December Game
15 December Game (Final Placement for 13 – 24)
If your organisation would like to partner the Women’s National Team towards and at the 2009 International Handball Federation Women’s World Championships in China, please contact [email protected]
