One of the projects I've set myself these holidays is to work on getting some journalism written and published.
Journalism is a funny field in this way, really, because unlike doctors, or teachers, or engineers, you don't need a degree. If you want to do journalism, you need to go out and do it.
So when I found out about a
Greens forum in the city yesterday, I thought it would be a good idea to go along and cover it and try and get something published.
So I turned up, pen, paper, and clipboard in hand, and tried to be a journalist.
Feeling a little bit ridiculous, I had a chat with a man who was waiting outside as well beforehand. He described himself as a "not uncritical" Greens supporter, who was more interested in affordable housing than climate change. He also spoke of an interest in democracy, and his view that the Greens have a more transparent approach to this than other parties.
I spoke to newly elected Senator Christine Milne before the forum about her experiences with the balance of power and influence on policy. She talked about the conversion of the luxury car tax to a vehicle efficiency tax, which she said would work as a motivation to move towards more efficient cars, rather than function as a more arbitrary revenue raiser on luxurious cars.
I was considering asking her for an update on her
potatoes , but then the talk started and we went inside.
During the talk, Adam Bandt talked about how he'd found the balance of power, and the Climate Change Committee.
But it was Christine Milne, the Greens climate change spokeswoman (and Deputy Greens leader), who had the most to say about this.
In discussing the Climate Change Committee, she raised several interesting ideas:
- Having experts a part of the committee, rather than using them in a solely advisory role, prevents politicians from getting away with playing political games and deliberately attempting to derail or mislead. While experts are certainly not infallible, this did make sense to me.
- A committee will enable politicians to change their opinions and be supported by the consensus of a committee - defending them from words such as 'backflip' and 'dodgy'.
And one of the most interesting aspects of her speech (I must admit I was a tad seduced by her clearly framed, forthright arguments), was her discussion of climate change communication in general. I found this particularly interesting as it is something I've been learning about at university this year.
She outlined, like most climate change communicators, the danger of assuming human beings are rational actors. What academics term the 'information deficit model', this approach assumes that once the facts of climate change are filled in, people ought to appreciate and understand that something must be done.
The danger of this approach is to create fear without agency. People may agree that climate change it a problem, but may not know what to do with this newfound sense of urgency, anxiety, and concern. Hence, if they cannot act or change their behaviours in a way which complements their attitude, it is their attitude which must change. And it is usually a change to confusion and disillusionment, and the relegation of climate change to an issue of lesser immediate importance.
Instead, the dominant climate change communication discourse (which Christine Milne discussed) involves the 'ecological modernisation' argument, where climate change is presented not as a problem which must be solved through a series of actions which lead to negative economic growth, but instead as an opportunity for change, and the creation of a new economic paradigm where economic growth and climate change action are not incompatible.
As I left, I was filled with a range of thoughts and feelings.
I was unsure that I could turn what I'd seen and noted into a concise article that would be suitable for publishing somewhere. There were so many different threads and ideas. How could the article be balanced, if I was essentially reporting what the Greens leaders said to a small gathering of supporters? Yet it would seem inappropriate to me to counter what was said with another point of view from an irrelevant setting.
In the end, this is the article I came up with and have sent this morning off to an online newspaper for potential publication:
Perhaps owing to the rainy Melbourne weather, Sunday afternoon timing, or the end of year exam period for university students, it was a modest audience who greeted Deputy Greens Leader Christine Milne, MP Adam Bandt, and inner-city Greens candidates at yesterday’s forum on the balance of power and climate change, held at the State Library.
With the Victorian state election less than two weeks away, and the election of up to four inner city Greens candidates seemingly within reach, Senator Milne focused on how the balance of power the Greens won in the Federal election had been successfully harnessed as a “pathway to government”, citing the inclusion of Indigenous people and local councils in the constitution as an important gain.
She also looked to the opportunity that gaining lower house seats on November 27 would offer with “the linking of policies from local, to state, to federal.”
Particular emphasis was given to climate change and the Climate Change Committee negotiated by the Greens, which Mr Bandt described as “a reset button.”
Senator Milne discussed the inclusion of experts in the committee rather than involving them in a solely advisory role. “It is really hard to run political games when there are experts in the room,” she said. She also spoke on the psychology of the committee, which she said would give politicians room to change opinions and be supported by the consensus of a committee.
The meeting concluded with a sense of optimism for the coming election, as Brunswick candidate Ms Cyndi Dawes was hopeful about the result, “whether we win one seat, or three seats, or four.”
This is an outcome which became less likely last night, when the Liberal party announced its intention to preference the ALP ahead of the Greens in all lower house seats.
While The Age, the Herald Sun, and The Australian have all unanimously asserted that the Liberal’s decision will almost certainly enable the ALP to retain these seats, ABC election analyst Anthony Green had a different take on the implications, writing “the Greens can still win Melbourne and Richmond.”
I'm not sure that it's going to be published.
I don't feel that it's excellently written. It is jumbled, and perhaps tries to tackle too much in so few words (right up against the word limit for publication in this particular online newspaper).
But at the same time it has made me feel good, because it is a beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment