Don't take Marriage Equality to an Election

SINCE the Supreme Court of the United States delivered its landmark decision to allow two people of the same sex to marry one another, the hard-right conservatives of the Liberal Party have undertaken their own coming-out stories in a co-ordinated media approach.

Several senior cabinet ministers opposed to marriage equality have come out and made it seem as though they don’t want to see Tony Abbott as prime minister after the next election.

One after the other, Eric Abetz, Cory Bernardi and Concetta Fierravanti-Wells released statements condoning traditional marriage and supporting the notion of a nuclear family.

 But not only did they give the bird to the gay and lesbian community, they called for their fellow heterosexual Liberal cabinet members who supported equality to lose their jobs. As the saying goes: if you can't win the debate, end it.

It’s a lot easier for three senators who aren’t elected by a constituency to make such ill-conceived claims. 

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, they don’t need to convince an electorate that they are the right person, they just need to tell the party faithful that they aren’t the wrong one – chalk and cheese. 

But nonetheless, they continue to put  Abbott government re-election hopes on the line in marginal seats across the country. 

From the Central Coast to Southern Perth and everywhere in between – this is an issue at the forefront of many people’s minds. 

With the support for marriage equality being so high across the nation, there is emerging only one reason why conservative MPs stand opposed to change – they don’t want a Prime Minister Abbott come 2017.

Be it a wild conspiracy theory or not, if the Liberal/National parties seek to make marriage equality an election issue, ipso facto they will lose to their Labor counterparts nine times out of 10 – a result that could seriously derail any hopes of governing beyond next year.

In no part am I suggesting that the Liberal Party adopts a policy agenda of popular politics – because marriage equality isn’t one of those issues. 

Sexuality isn’t a phase, it isn’t fashionable and definitely not something you can change – to suggest contrary to this flies in the face of the many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LBGTI) Australians who have lived this experience their whole lives. 

Alternatively, the Liberal Party needs to have a grown-up, sensible and fair discussion about not only granting a free vote across the parliamentary team, but granting two Australians the right to consensually engage in marriage with the person they love. It seems pretty simple to me.

But, unlike those outspoken conservatives, I want to see a re-elected Abbott government in 2016. I want to see the party that I support continue with its plan to support small business and give Australians a fair go.

 I want a stronger economy, where real growth creates more jobs and I want a safer and more secure Australia. 

But first, we need to act on marriage equality and there has never been a better time than now. 

A Vote for Revitalising Newcastle

   Newcastle means a lot to me having been born, raised and lived here for the last 18 years of my life. I am passionate in every sense about releasing the potential our city has for small businesses, local families and the thousands of tourists who come to explore the wonders we so proudly boast. From the boutique cafes of Islington to the expansive coastline and everything us locals know exist in between - there is a lot to be appreciative of. I have come to this conclusion having recently moved away from my hometown city, and often compare my experiences elsewhere to that of Newcastle’s. Whether it is the overcrowded roads of Sydney or the lack of beaches in Darwin, Newcastle will always come out on top for me and I know I am not alone.

But seeing Newcastle prosper like we all imagine it does, and dream it can, doesn’t just come through good luck or chance. Over recent decades the transition from the hard-working blue-collar city we once where, to the steadfastly cosmopolitan and diverse place we are now has been the hard work of so many. These people share the grand vision of a city that embraces businesses, fosters growth and encourages investment, whilst also providing the social platform we all desire. These people have come from a range of backgrounds and experiences, which has put us in good stead to suit the needs of so many going forward.  But this hard work over the last decade has the potential to be halted by the backward views and political motivations of a certain few. Newcastle’s rejuvenation cannot risk this.

The NSW State Election on 28 March provides an opportunity to either continue this positive path of renewal, or forget what has been achieved to please minority groups stuck in Yesterday’s Newcastle. What these people seem to have forgotten is that BHP did close in 1999 and that the needs of 20^th century Novocastrians is disparately different to that of today. It seems James A. Belasco was right in his book ‘Flight of the Buffalo’: Change is hard because people overestimate the value of what they have—and underestimate the value of what they may gain by giving that up. Newcastle has and continues to change for the better, and those who oppose this must recognise that they overestimate the value of a Newcastle held back in potential as Belasco has poignantly postulated.

The staunch opposition to progress from the likes of Labor’s candidate Tim Crakanthorp is disappointing given the position he finds himself in. It is people li
ke Tim who should be the stalwarts of renewing the CBD, not figureheads of a movement that goes against what has already been achieved. What’s most disappointing is the political motivation behind Labor’s backward plans for Newcastle, rather than providing a reasonable alternate route to creating a world-class city.

Tim Crakanthorp’s opposition to the $340 million injection from the lease of Newcastle’s Port and $120 million investment from the Hunter Infrastructure fund, on top of the hundreds of millions GPT plans to spend in the East End shows his naivety in the face of a great deal for our city. This blatant aversion to revitalising Newcastle is startling and brings into question his aspiration for office, given that it is clearly not to see our city thrive.  This makes true that putting Labor last means putting Newcastle first.

With Karen Howard and the Baird Liberal Government planning Light Rail through the CBD, promising to support new and existing businesses and creating a conduit from our city to our harbour by removing the heavy rail – the choice could not be more evident.  It’s a vote for a candidate that wholeheartedly supports the creation of a world-class city through various revitalisation projects, or a candidate with a penchant for empty shopfronts on Hunter St and would cancel the current plans if given the chance.

As a young Novocastrian, it is at the forefront of my mind what Newcastle will be like when my peers and I inherit it as the adult
s of tomorrow. Will there be businesses that want to open in our CBD? Will there be an open connection from Hunter St to the Harbour? Will there be Light rail that connects the best aspects of our city? Will there be any reason to come into the city? This rationale has shaped by belief that we should act now, for the sake of the future, and so that we have the infrastructure, transport and economy that will be able to meet the challenges the coming years and decades will most definitely hold.

On March 28^th Novocastrians have a great opportunity to vote for the Newcastle we all love and enjoy. A Newcastle that is vibrant, energetic, dynamic and connected. A vote for Karen Howard will undoubtedly ensure this and I would encourage you all to support her plans to make a NEWcastle. Let’s see our city move forward, not backwards. Let’s make Newcastle the city we all know it can and deserves to be. Let's say YES to Karen Howard! 

The Nile Inquiry and Moving Newcastle Forward

On Friday 21 November 2014, I entered Newcastle City Hall ready to deliver an address on behalf of the young people of Newcastle ahead of major decisions being made that aimed to contribute to our city's renewal. From the moment I entered the room I felt excluded, I did not fit the crowd. Piercing eyes hit me like lazers and in Julie Bishop style maintained their intensity for the duration of my time within the Inquiry room. They knew from that first moment that I wasn't a Save Our Rail sympathiser, rather that I had a plan and vision to cater for Newcastle's youth that didn't fit their post-colonial agenda. Below is the speech that I presented to the inquiry amidst jeers and taunts from the noisy minority of backward Novocastrians:

"My name is Matthew Newman, I am an 18 year old Novocastrian not concerned, but excited about decisions being made in Newcastle. For the first time in Newcastle’s history we are seeing record levels of investment and interest on an international scale which promises to deliver a city that is vibrant and energetic whilst maintaining its character.

I aim to use this opportunity to spell out the need to create a city that is Workable, Liveable and Connected for the adults of tomorrow. Today’s youth, often labelled Generation Z, are pragmatic, intelligent and insightful in everything we do, despite this, young people have not been included in the renewal discussion. Newcastle needs not be created to accommodate Australia’s aging population and turn into a macro retirement village. We need to embrace the talent, innovation and charisma of our city’s youth so that Newcastle is ready to accept the challenges the future undoubtedly holds. 

Some of you might have per-conceived expectations and opinions on how to renew Newcastle, and no matter the response you gauge from the community your solidified opinions will not wane. I understand this, but I would request that you take the time to consider my point of view and why it is so important that the progress that has been made in Newcastle is not halted. I am going to explore 3 key aspects of Newcastle’s renewal that are central to creating a city for the future. We need a city that is workable, liveable and connected.

To my first point, making the city Workable. This means supporting and developing a means by which employment can be sustained in the long term. The current proposals for the East end development, light rail implementation and the Wickham interchange will create thousands of construction jobs for a decade which will then translate into retail and commercial positions looking into the future. Bringing thousands of additional people into the city on a daily basis presents obvious economic benefits of the city and will generate a culture of prosperity whereby people will want to start up and support new and existing businesses contrary to the once derelict and deserted situation.

This leads into my next point of making the city liveable. This starts with bringing people into the city to live and delivering the services to support their lifestyles. The GPT group’s plan to build 500 apartments in the East End on top of the thousands that plan to be built in other projects stretching throughout the city will provide a population to support the small to medium enterprises that will occupy the currently empty facades. 

Whilst on this note it is important to consider transport situation. A noisy minority have rattled about the removal of the rail line as the end of all efficient transport solutions in the city. This couldn’t be further the truth and all arguments they put forward are entrenched in emotion, neglecting the facts presented in the Review of Environmental Factors submissions report and the AECOM transport management and accessibility plan. Both outline an effective and reliable transport network that includes buses, light rail and I believe could be bolstered by an extension of the city’s ferry network – including terminals at Wickham to support the interchange and an additional one at Nobby’s beach to support the crowd who come to the city for our world class beaches. This would subdue any pressure on the existing and new transport systems whilst providing an added benefit to the city.

Lastly, let’s make Newcastle connected. First and foremost we must remove the rail line that divides our harbour from the city. Interestingly when the rail line was first installed in 1857, Community sentiment was staunchly opposed to its construction with fears that it will ‘divide the city’. Ironically, as was the case some 157 years ago, again the noisy minority made a case of opposition to progress in the city, and how history has repeated itself! It seems is the case that there are people who fear the future, who fear progress and who fear development. We need to move forward and connect our city, with our harbour whilst embracing our beaches and West End. Imagine a city which is not limited in potential and can prosper with an open planned layout.

Our representatives need to stop their political opportunism and constant endeavors to create political advantage through emotion filled campaigns based on fear. We as a city do feel let down by the ICAC revelations, but our mission to see this city prosper should not be perturbed. Newcastle needs us to unite and work with the decisions that have been made rather than continuing a debate that has raged longer then I have been alive. The current indecision is hurting business confidence and the positive steps that have been taken as part of this long journey are being put at risk. We need to create a city that will support and accommodate the wants and needs of the adults of tomorrow and I implore this committee to not disturb the progress that is being made. When considering the contents of your final report, consider the young people of Newcastle and consider your role in creating a workable, liveable and connected city for us to inherit"

Are you a young Novocastrian who also wants to see progress continued in our city? I'd love to hear your thoughts!

 Email: youngandpolitical@outlook.com

Have you got any Idea?

 I believe there is a desperate need to change the way the Australian parliament operates. Most particularly, the role of oppositions, and the crucial role they play in the development and progression of this country. Although I am going to use the Federal Parliament as an exemplar to highlight the issue at hand, the need for reform applies to all tiers of government. 

My point of view might be hard for some to grasp, seeing as I negate the need for oppositions to do what their title suggests: oppose. It has become penchant for oppositions to simply oppose all measures that a government offers. In no way am I weighing into the legitimacy of the 'mandate' debate, but rather believe that the people we elect into opposition, as dichotomous as that sounds, have more of a role to play than simply voting against the government, be it an ideological indifference or otherwise. 

For as long as I can recall, oppositions derived from all sides of the political spectrum have failed to provide alternate options to the ones they oppose. Being only 18 years old, I have only had the capacity to grasp the last 5 years or so. Despite only engaging from the last years of John Howard, and ever since, I can easily say that a trend has emerged. And it is getting worse.

Now, I don't want to be misunderstood here, but I do understand that people reside in different political parties because of their ideological beliefs. And in that, have every reason to not agree or support the policies of a rival party. But what we young Australians want, isn't an opposition who can criticise a government for having a go and offering their policies, but one that too gives forward their alternate solution. 

In the world of the 24 hour news cycle, parties have become obsessed with winning votes, and somehow lost sight of the real task at hand. That task being the development and progression of Australia and its people. That sentence really rolls off the tongue, and to most seems an easy phrase to enact. But our politicians forgot that somewhere along the line. And today was a perfect example..

Today the Australian Labor Party launched it's new way to win back votes - a website to expose Prime Minister Abbott's lies. And in doing so, used their imagination and called it 'Abbott's Lies' - how ingenious I know! By all accounts, the glossy and well developed site is no small feat, and in this internet age is bound to convince some people to change their opinion.

But for all the time, money and effort that has gone in to developing, producing and now advertising this site; couldn't the ALP have developed a series of policy alternatives to what the government is opposing? That's what we not only want, but expect. It is no secret that the Labor Party wants to return to government at the next election - no party ever wants to lose. But it is their hubris in believing that they can wait till the election to offer any ideas. 

We need oppositions to realise this. We need them to create a competition of ideas well before an election campaign begins. The young people of this great country deserve more, and would revel in the opportunity to choose between solutions and moreover, offer our own ideas. If we spent more time solution focused, rather than playing politics - think of how much better of this country would be. 

Have you got any idea?

Generation Z - The Unknown Generation

Walk up to a friend or family member and get them to tell you about Generation Z. I bet most people wouldn't have a clue what they stand for, what defines them and who actually falls into this category. I must admit, a few days ago I didn't realise that I fell into this generational category. That's because most people have no clue about our existence. That isn't because we aren't pragmatic or because we are so caught up in our plethora of technological devices - quite the contrary actually. It is because most of us have thought we belonged to Generation Y. The term has been so interchangeably used to describe young people for so long, that we unknowingly fell into the wrong group.

Although Generation Y and Z have similar characteristics, having grown up in not too disparate social and physical contexts, the pair are worlds apart in their attitudes, approach and expectations. This piece aims to clarify the parameters in which today's youth are generationally categorised, and implicit positivity and opportunity that is mandatory to being the typical Gen Z.

This whole notion of Generation Z came to me from reading an article published in The Australian. It cited that Generation Z was 'a more driven, less vain, more puritanical cohort that is poised to make its mark on the world' - and I totally agreed. I continued to read and I came to the realisation that I and people my age fitted the mold almost perfectly. I got to the end of the article and was overwhelmingly fascinated with the concept that, only a few minutes prior, was completely foreign to me. I suppose I could equate it to being told you were Australian, after 18 years of believing you were a Kiwi (oh the horror!). I and everyone else my age have gone around, living out our youth, accepting that we were Gen Y. Now that I know that I am not, and never was a Gen Y, I can look back and honestly say that I never really belonged there. 

Without creating an 'us and them' mentality - Generation Z are the envy of all other generations. We are the kids who were born after 1995 and were able to catch televisions shows such as the Teletubbies, always wanting that endless supply of custard that Laa-Laa and Po enjoyed daily (And yes, if you don't get the analogy, you are probably not one of us). We were caught up not only in the turn of the century, but a technological shift like no other. We were those awkward children who were unsure whether to play outside or play computer, and somehow managed the right equilibrium. Of course, because the social context has changed so rapidly over the past decade, it is impossible to set out a clear cut experience for those fortunate enough to fall in Gen Z. The dynamic nature of modern times, adds to the complexity of a clear set of generational experiences, dissimilar to those previous. In my attempt to clarify Generation Z, I am merely setting out my experience, expectations, attitudes, hopes and dreams.

Looking into the notion of 'Gen Z' taught me a few very valuable things: that you cannot simply define a generation, especially given the pace of change in today's world; and secondly, that Generation Z is a very poor choice of title given the uniqueness of our worldview, our ingenuity and our pragmatism. To simply (and lazily) name every generation alphabetically disregards their individualism and identity - not only Gen Z, but every generation is worth more than that. Social commentators have self-fulfillingly called us iGen and TechGen, and I return the serve with my middle finger, because generalising doesn't sit well with me. I would prefer a name along the lines of the Diverse Generation. Not to be politically correct, or to be morally righteous by not excluding anyone, but it is the only way to properly associate the almost 2.2 billion people worldwide who fall into this category. The title also espouses the strong sense of social justice and equality that is common among us. This whole idea of the right name for the mundanely accepted title of Gen Z, raises the question: Do we need to group people by their generation of birth? I'll leave that for you to decide.

Despite my opposition to laying a generalised and broad statement to define the most diverse cohort of people on the planet, these are a few of the attributes that set us apart from the rest. Generation Z requires constant and ever changing stimulation - we simply don't accept the norm, rather, we challenge it and seek to know the answers to the questions that come our way. We are constantly seek the to ensure that we are not settling for second best, for both ourselves and the broader world. We push ideas, motions, proposals and projects to their limit, so that we can be satisfied that the best result can be achieved, with the knowledge that we gave it our all. 

Generation Z searches for meaning in their life experiences, whether it be the tennis match with friend or a bush walk in pristine forest. We understand the shortness of our existence and embrace every moment. This links in to our new and unlimited interconnectedness with the those closest to us and the outside world. We express our meaningful embrace of life through pictures on instagram and updates on Facebook, unlike generations gone by. 

A recent pictorial developed by Mark McCrindle, author of 'The ABC of XYZ - Understanding Global Generations' painted a setting of the things that we should expect being a part of Gen Z. To just name a few:
- We will work on average 17 jobs and live in 15 different homes;
- When we reach retirement (2063) the average salary will be $222,000;
- We use technology 10 hours and 19 minutes of every day;
-  And, use acronyms more than any generation previous.
The picture is a daunting one, with figures and estimates that seem well out of our reach, but nonetheless, we will take it in our stride and be solution orientated rather than entrenched in the expectations.

Having grown up in the face of global warming, international political instability and recent economic crises, we have a sensitivity and expectation of maturity well beyond our years. We are more socially aware than any generation before us, yet our engagement in politics is at an all time low. We have every opportunity to know what is going on and how it affects us, yet Gen Z doesn't care. I myself buck the trend, and live to expand my generations interest in such an important aspect of life. The ability to influence decisions that will affect you should not be underestimated, and the importance of getting young people both involved and engaged is paramount. We are a pragmatic, thoughtful, aware, connected, diligent, prudent, puritanical, positive and opportunistic generation with only one more yet to be our defining character, Political. 




If you want to learn more about the illustrious Gen Z, check out www.generationz.com.au

Are broken promises all bad?

 The Broken Promise Paradigm

I’m not going to promise you anything, but I promise you that broken promises are not going obsolete. Over the last three terms of government, the broken promise has been a central part of their political disposition – whether they (the offenders) believe it or not. 

The broken promise as a tokenistic centre piece of political point scoring from oppositions is certainly not limited to the last three terms of government – it has coexisted with the Australian political sphere since federation. Democracy itself fosters broken promises, with politicians saying whatever they need to, to win over the votes of the populace, then reverting back to ideological viewpoints once in government.

The last three governments, which consisted of: Rudd, Gillard, Rudd and now Abbott –have seen a paradigm shift in the public’s perception of a broken promise. The public now perceives it as ‘the norm’, and accept politicians for the liars they are termed to be. Of course, not all politicians lie to get into office, but those who do allow for these generalisations to generate.

The political headway that Oppositions once received after a broken pre-election promise was called for what it was – has however become obsolete. In polling conducted after the Federal Budget, it wasn’t the broken promises that cost the Abbott government desperate points, it was the widespread affect the budget had, and the so called ‘shared pain’ as Treasurer Joe Hockey has repeatedly described it.

Previous to this ‘budget of lies and deceit’ that Labor has prefixed to all Question Time utterances since the 13 May delivery of the Liberal Economic Plan, Labor too was guilty of the broken promise. In the 2010 election campaign, Prime Minister Gillard decreed that ‘there will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead’, yet it developed into Labor’s signature climate change policy.

Since no one is immune from the scourge of broken promises and public deception, do we as a nation not hold the government to account? The answer to that I would hope is self- evident, but there are two interestingly different sides to this argument.

Firstly, of course we as the voters, the taxpayers and the broader Australian public have the intrinsic role, in the form of democracy, to hold the government to account. We need to ensure that political parties, no matter their origin, develop sensible policy and explain it to us before we vote. We cannot become complacent and allow the broken promise to become the accepted norm, and just hope for the best. The political framework of Australia isn’t metaphorically comparable the good old family board game, where you hope no once is cheating, and lay faith in their morality. Because we all know that the moral compass is easily skewed when power and influence is at play, and the prosperity of a future Australia isn’t worth the risk.

On the other hand, it is inevitable that people (who funnily enough comprise the parties we vote for) have the tendency, to not only change their mind, but change their standpoint. It’s human nature. And if these changes are for the benefit of everyone and this nation as a whole – why should we oppose this?

Of course, significant policy changes on big issues allow parties to be termed as inconsistent and superficial. Sure, this is entirely possible. New parties such as Palmer United are the perfect example of this. Within a week of their new senators taking up the role in the upper house, Palmer has provided dichotomous points of view on everything from the Carbon Tax Repeal to the Freedom of Financial Advice laws. I think we can safely assume that Palmer United doesn’t know where it stands, and breaks promises based on naivety and lack of understanding – fitting this category perfectly.

However, the big political back flips that were formed by the Labor and Liberal parties was not one of political stupidity, rather, they were considered decisions for the benefit of Australia as they respectively saw fit. Labor decided, with the coaxing of the Australian Greens, that a Carbon Tax and later Emissions Trading Scheme was the right way to tackle and force Australians to consider the issue. In much the same manner, and in more recent political times, the Abbott government’s decision to cut funding in areas of government that had previously been cordoned off, amounts to their way of tackling a debt they see as a detriment to future prosperity.

It is inevitable that broken promises will remain a part of the Australian political demographic, however they are not all evil moves that oppositions like to make out for political point scoring reasons. As sensible voters, we have the responsibility to judge broken promises for what they are. We must not become complacent and accept them as the norm, or let them become obsolete. They are a part of the democracy we work and live in, we need to accept that, and continue to campaign for a better Australia, not continue to look back and play politics. 

It is sensible and responsible policy, not politics, which will move us forward. It is the youth of Australia, whose voices will be that of adults of tomorrow that will drive us forward. That, is something I can promise.