Poll Result

You may have noticed a poll I was running with the question:

"What's more important for a Senator?"
1. Commitment to Party 19%
2. Education history 0%
3. Prior work experience 5%
4. Critical Thinking 76%

Critical thinking was the overwhelming choice of respondents. Lucky for me that my whole professional engineering career has been developing my ability in this area for 20 years. Critical thinking is just something I do.

Critical Thinking requires skills in:

• Analysis – examining it in detail
• Thinking creatively – different perspectives and possibilities
• Problem solving – considering available information before making an appropriate decision
• Reasoning – making links between ideas and information
• Evaluating – assessing relevance and/or a context, and reliability

Critical thinking is also about:

• Open-mindedness – examine multiple points of views, including your own
• Flexibility – ability to change your point of view
• Persistence – following a line of reasoning
• Interpersonal sensitivity – respect the opinions of others
• Intercultural sensitivity – respect diversity

I have what it takes to be a sensational representative.

Climate Change Economist Nicholas Stern

Nicholas Stern - one of the most influential voices in the international debate putting the environmental issues into an economic context - was recently interviewed by Kerry O'Brien on Australian television ABCTV's 7:30 Report.

Here's a link to the full interview transcript.

One of the most interesting comments for me was the following:

"KERRY O'BRIEN: Do you believe that China has the will and the commitment now to go to Copenhagen ready to embrace reasonable targets?

NICHOLAS STERN: Yes, I do. And here's why: China is very analytical about water, very analytical about engineering, examines what's involved in growth and energy in great detail. Chinese leadership, many of them engineers, many of them from the best engineering university in the country - Chinqua. They look very carefully at what the dangers are and what can be done. And that discussion and analysis has been going on for some years now. It's remarkable how it's changed in the last two or three years in China.

And in that analysis, China recognises very clearly that they're extremely vulnerable. They're major cities are on the coast. Their major rivers rise in a few hundred snow and ice covered kilometres of the Himalayas. They know that water is already being disrupted by climate change and would likely to be much more radically disrupted by climate change. They know also, as well as recognising their vulnerability, they know that they're potential deal breakers, that if they refuse to play an important part in this story then there's unlikely to be a global deal."

I have mentioned before in previous posts the importance of having real problem solvers in parliament and in leadership. I will say this again - as an engineer I am trained to solve problems not to create them. As a possible engineering politician I believe I can contribute significantly to helping Australia on the right path.

Productivity Commission has got it wrong

I was reading through the Productivity Commission's (PC) Annual Report 07/08. In it contained some interesting views - views that I don't think are helpful in trying to deal with our society's over consumption and materialistic view of the world.

The PC seems to have the "Growth Fetish" (from Clive Hamilton's book of the same name), whereby growth at all costs is the mantra (or disease) inflicting the group.

In the PC's own words it says: "Why the emphasis on productivity growth for the future? Future income growth provides the means for dealing with emerging demographic and environmental challenges, reducing the need to forgo consumption or living standards." In the same sentence it has suggested that in order to help the environment we must consume more via income growth.

In the very first sentence of Chapter 1 the report says, "Productivity growth is important to Australia because, through income growth, it contributes to our community wellbeing." Once again we have a view that says wellbeing can ONLY be achieved via monetary means - which is a false notion.

Countless upon countless international reports have shown that "wellbeing" has little to do with monetary rewards but everything to do with sense of community connectedness, social inclusion, self-esteem, to name but three. These things reply heavily on non-monetary mechanisms. I believe in order to move toward universal wellbeing there MUST be a paradigm shift in the way we see ourselves, our connection to each other and to the world around us. No more must an inanimate object such as a pair of jeans or a car define who we are.

I believe that our government must put in place policies that enable everyone to achieve wellbeing through non-monetary means. The biggest impact I believe would be achieved through an overhaul of the advertising and marketing sector who have been telling us for decades that inanimate objects like cars, sunglasses, beverages will make us happy. This needs to end.

Refer to Previous post

My previous post - in case you didn't realise - was suppose to be read with Australia in mind. The fact that America struggles to see the big picture is also a potential flaw in this country. As a country we need to start thinking about how we fit into the "system". By "system", of course I mean the world - not just in a political sense (not even) but more so how we operate as a nation with our neighbours and other countries in mind. Some may think, "why worry about others?" It's not so much "worrying" about others e.g. I don't consult my next door neighbour about what I'm having for dinner, but I will let them know if I am going to have a large party just so they can expect a few more cars parked in the street etc....

So too it goes with countries in our region. A good neighbour will operate in a manner that considers others. What about our neighbours like, PNG, NZ, Indonesia, Pacific Islands - how do we treat them? I'm a little upset by Australian mining operations in PNG (for example). Some of the actions of mining companies are akin to having a bad guest for dinner - they arrive, accept your hospitality, eat lots, drink lots and leave you with empty glasses and dirty plates - having got what they came for. I think Australia needs to be a better neighbour, and we need to re-think how we relate and behave in our region.

Analysis and thought

I have written a couple of times about the importance of things like, systems thinking, decision making, ladders of inference, diversity, thought processes etc...One of my favourite commentators on all things Global is a fellow by the name of Joshua Cooper Ramo - author of a book entitled, "The Age of the Unthinkable". He has written a few other books (on China) but the thing I like about him is his ability to get people to think about new ways of approaching problems. My wife says I'm a "thinker" so I guess its one reason he appeals to me.

Here's some bits and pieces from an interview with Joshua published by the Huffington Post on the GFC (Global Financial Crisis). The full article can be viewed by following the link.

You've said the GFC could turn China into a superpower. How likely is that?

The Chinese have been actively building systems that are capable of surviving all kinds of shocks, and they are more suspicious of markets than we are -- they see everything as having the potential for collapse. As a result, China has developed a more resilient command-and-control economy.

Some experts say there is a fundamental difference in the way people think, are the Chinese better able to see the big picture?

It's not so much that they see it better, just that they see it differently and take in a wider range of influence and possibility. For the Chinese context is everything.

Is the inability to see context a growing problem for Americans?

Yes, I think it is. We often miss the fact that the problems or dangers we face are parts of a complete system and not just isolated blips of risk. For example, we thought we could contain the subprime crisis before we noticed our entire financial system was in trouble. We focused on removing Saddam before we understood all the forces swirling around him. Americans have a view of the world that is rooted in one of the most ancient concepts of Western thought: we believe that to understand something complex you must break it into smaller pieces. But this approach may no longer be suitable to today's world.

China now has an underground base in the South China Sea that can launch nuclear submarines without being observed from the sky. Does the U.S. fail to appreciate just how quickly new technology is answered by newer technology?

It's less about tactical innovations like particular submarine bases and more about understanding the Chinese philosophy of war and conflict. The Chinese approach to warfare is very different from ours. For example, rather than building 500 fighter planes to intercept every American fighter plane, they would try to take out our satellite navigation system.

In your book you argue that real power isn't always loaded into obvious implements like armies.

Today real power is the ability to adjust and come back strong when you're faced with an unexpected shock. That's because in the future we will be constantly surprised -- sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. All of the things that are changing our world, like jet travel and violence and financial markets, are what make us modern and we accept the risks that go along with them. But they also make our world more interconnected, so now a shock to one part of the system presents a greater risk to other parts of the system.

Younger people tend to be more resilient. What does that say about President Obama's cabinet?

You hate to generalize, but I do think young people are more accepting of change. It's no accident that Obama won the presidency on the motto of change. The younger generation has seen so much change in their lifetime, they have a very different perspective. But it's really not about age. You can be 30 years old and very conservative. What matters most now is an innovative spirit and a belief that it is possible to have radical, disruptive change for the better.

We need fresh minds thinking about interesting ideas that could inform the policy-making process.

Not Just Green

Since my blog is starting to attract some decent traffic I thought it appropriate to try and spread the message that the Australian Greens are NOT JUST GREEN!

Here's a link to our Federal Policies that you may like to absorb.

Some of my favourite snapshots are these:

From our Economics Policy, "equity of access to the essentials of life and promoting equality are central goals for a civilised society".
From our Education Policy, "all people are entitled to free, well-funded and high quality, life-long public education and training".
From our Drugs Policy, "policy and programs should be adopted that are evidence-based and subject to continuous evaluation."
From our Peace and Security Policy, "non-violent conflict management is the most effective means of promoting peace and security in the international arena."

Follow the link above and find that we are NOT just Green but we are a viable, definitive, responsible third alternative in Australian Politics.

Leadership and Authority

It is reasonably clear to me that the major political parties present an image whereby their "leaders" are also shown to be their group's "authorities". "Authority" has traditionally been seen as the ability to command or make decisions - something that the major parties would have us believe KRudd and Turnbull do. Scratching beneath the surface, however, reveals that these two "leaders" are constantly walking a tightrope within their parties because I, for one, believe that decisions they make are simply trying to appease the factions within their own party.

In the Australian Greens we do not have an appointed leader, and for the most part I do not believe we need one and here's why: authority needs to be shared, without shared authority there can be no shared creativity. If you and I work together, we see ourselves as "co-creators." We may continue to make individual decisions, but we do so with full knowledge of our shared purpose, and of what each other thinks and feels.

This may cause people to ask, "Who makes the tough decisions?" This question suggests that "tough" decisions involve allocating painful effects (e.g. higher taxes on everyone) and that a team is incapable of understanding them, let alone making them. However, the other view is that because these decisions are so critical, and effect so many people, they demand involvement from people who will be affected or held accountable. How do you keep decision makers honest? By making sure that everyone is aware of the long-term implications, that no one's individual interest can dominate the proceedings, and the information shared by everyone is as complete and accurate as possible. (extract from "The 5th discipline Fieldbook")

So do the Greens NEED a leader? I personally don't think so, but it may serve a purpose to appoint a figurehead.

Feeling a little confused

Last night I attended my local Greens group meeting. It was a good meeting with the usual suspects present. One of the topics of discussion was the pre-selection process I'm going through. I was asked to give my impression of the process - which I did. I also spoke about how I think many of the Greens members I have met still seem to have blinkers on with regard to environmental issues - this reinforces what I have been saying about the Greens being perceived as a one-dimensional party (or single-issue-party, which ever tag takes your fancy).
I was explaining how important I think it is to ensure that non-Green voters are aware of our other fantastic, progressive policies. I was somewhat bemused by a statement that if we talk about economics or anything else then we will be just like "them" (them being the major parties).
My total argument is that we need to talk about our non-environment policies because it is these policies that differentiate us the most from the major parties, and it is these policies that show people that they have a definitive choice between business as usual or advancing the country toward a more equitable and sustainable society. But for some reason this message seemed to fall on deaf ears. It makes me think that maybe, just maybe I have been wasting my breath!
Last night in the same discussion I also mentioned how our current Federal Senators could all be described as either an environmentalist, activist or conservationist and that we need diversity and we need to choose a Senate candidate that can relate to a wider audience, not choose another activist or conservationist who may struggle to attract non-Green votes. This was also met with some disdain. All this is very surprising to me.
Maybe I have got it all wrong. Maybe we need to fill Canberra with activists so that everyone thinks the same and stifles creativity in decision making and problem solving. Wait a minute that is already happening but instead of activists we have lawyers!
It was a little discouraging but as I do...I soldier on.

What is Poverty?

I've been reading a book entitled "Creating Unequal Futures?" edited by Fincher and Saunders. It is a book on rethinking poverty, inequality and disadvantage. Not exactly easy reading for a Sunday afternoon (if you are so lucky). However, since I enjoy reading about facts, thoughts and theories I'm doing OK.

The media often talk about "the poverty line", but what exactly is this "line"? Well, the above mentioned book suggests that there's not even consensus on what poverty actually is. Here's a snippet from the book:

"....there is no correct, scientific, agreed definition of poverty because poverty is inevitably a political concept, and thus inherently a contested one. Indeed, alleviation of 'poverty' or the 'social question' could be considered as one of the primary goals of politics itself. The ways in which different societies conceptualise poverty or their own equivalent to poverty are likely to reflect the complex political balances and forces within that society.....
.....Most studies of poverty have done so from an economic perspective. Commonly they are concerned with material living standards rather than broader welfare concepts, such as satisfaction with life, levels of security, social isolation, subjective evaluations of income adequacy, or feeling of stress."

It is my believe that consecutive federal governments have held the following defintion of poverty (also from the book)..."The real problem is not poverty but welfare dependence and the growing underclass, which are caused by the welfare state policies ostensibly designed to alleviate poverty and inequality" or worse still "policy should be concerned with economic growth, which can reduce poverty and alleviate the worst excesses of inequality."

I hope it is clear to all that reliance on monetary policy to 'reduce' poverty is never going to work. What we require is a fair society where EVERYONE is valued and given the opportunity to contribute in some way. Through contribution and self-worth come increased levels of well-being.

Wellbeing NOT Gross Domestic Product

Something I have been losing sleep over in recent times is that much used acronym GDP (Gross Domestic Product). One source has the GDP defined as a "basic measure of a country's economic performance". According to the IMF (International Monetary Fund), Australia's GDP was ranked 14th in 2008. Why has it kept me awake at nights? Well, from my humble perspective (i.e. non-economist) I feel the GDP is like a test result that you get back from the doctor.....

Doctor,"Mr Butler come in, I have your test result".
Me, "How is it? Good?".
Doctor, "Your GDP is over 30,000 per capita".
Me, "Wow is that good.....that's good right?"

GDP gives no measure of my well-being, in fact it isn't designed to measure well-being at all - that's not its purpose. So to me, as a regular citizen, when the media gives the latest GDP figures it is just another meaningless number.
The government of Bhutan uses an entirely different measurement of performance, they use something called GNH, Gross National Happiness. They have decided that it is more important that their citizens be happy rather than concentrating on material "wealth". I quite like this idea but I don't think it will catch on. Why? Because for far too long we have been conditioned into a state of mind that makes us believe more money, bigger homes, more clothes will make us happy.
Instinctively we know this is not true, yet as a society we continue to pursue this path. Why? Because we don't know any other way. This is where "the Greens" come in. We offer Australian society a viable, happy alternative to the consumerism and liberal mindset of the two dominant political parties. The Greens offer distinct policies that pursue a more equitable, democratic and sustainable society.
We have one big problem - no-one knows how great life could be under Greens leadership.

Danger of Mental Models

Continuing on from my previous post.....Today at the Maitland MTC forum I believe there was an audience member who had formed a "mental model" around my decades long military service and me suggesting I'd be good at the defence portfolio if I was to be in parliament. I think the inference was that my background and portfolio preference would be in stark contrast to Green's philosophy.

Nothing could be further from reality!

It is precisely because of my background that I think I would make a superb Greens candidate (with the defence portfolio topping it off). If the Greens are going to break free from their "single issue party" tag then people like me need to put their hand up and tell everyone that being Green is not just about being a conservationist, activist or environmentalist! I don't fit the "with-in" party stereotype which means I certainly don't fit the outsider's stereotype of a Green and that's got to be good!

Just what is Climate Change?

When we say the words "climate change" we already have a mental model about what we mean when we say those words. Our (your own) mental model may be different to everyone else's. For example, to me "climate change" is human induced accelerated detrimental changes to our climatic patterns that has implications for our continuing existence. For others, it may simply mean bad weather events, or more drought, more flood, or others may think warmer planet/hotter summers.
Like me, people may not know the "official" definition of climate change and for many it may be irrelevant. My point is that your own mental model on climate change will impact (or influence) how you react to what you see as people's apparent apathy. Or your mental model may cloud or hinder your ability to engage in effective dialogue on the problem of climate change. Your mental model may also prevent you from appreciating other people's approaches to the issue.
Effective dialogue on any issue can only start when you leave your mental models at the door!

Renewable Energies Create Jobs and Economic Growth

Here's an old news item out of Germany (dated 15th March 2009). I would like you to read this with consideration to the decisions that have been made in this country to continue to give subsidies to the coal and electricity industries....it astounds me and makes me upset to think we are soooo far behind in this "clever country".

"Renewable energies once again proved their importance for growth and employment last year. According to the latest figures, the number of employees in this sector rose from 250,000 in 2007 to almost 280,000 - an increase of more than 10 percent. The reason: strongly increasing domestic turnover of around 30 billion euro in 2008 and a significant rise in the renewables' share in electricity and heat production. According to provisional estimates by the Working Group on Renewable Energies Statistics, renewables enable savings of roughly 115 million tonnes of climate-damaging CO2 per year in - 57 million tonnes as a result of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) alone.With a share of around 10 percent in final energy consumption, renewables have further strengthened their role as a key pillar of sustainable energy supply. They have a share of 14.8 percent in gross electricity consumption and 7.7 percent in heat supply. In 2008 the renewables sector recorded a significant increase in turnover. Total investments and revenues from plant operations rose last year to around 30 billion euro - almost 4.5 billion more than in the previous year. With almost 13 billion euro, investments in plant construction were almost 20 percent above the previous year's figure." Source

Why oh why are we wasting our time??????

Bringing Carbon back to Earth

I'm a keen functional gardener, I don't grow things because they look pretty but I do it so I can grow food. This approach serves a few purposes; 1. I know where my food comes from, 2. ZERO food miles, 3. my kids get to see how things work - thus planting a seed in their head!

I'm a member of the Digger's Club - they are a group of people who practice VERY responsible gardening, promote sustainability and advocate heirloom fruit and veges. In their latest newsletter there is an article on Carbon Sequestering - but not the type you think you know about! Here's a snippet from the article:

"Solving climate change by bringing CO2 down to earth (i.e. sequestering carbon) has seemed like a utopian idea until we tested our soils this year. Most experts agree that Australian soils on average have less than 1% organic matter when 5% is generally regarded as optimum of good fertility.
Low organic levels are caused by many factors, chiefly the destruction of micro-organisms that live in the soil on which the organic basis of long term fertility depends.
One of the quickest ways to solve climate change is not to change to renewable energy like solar or wind power because that just holds our current CO2 at its current level. The quick solution is to bring the CO2 back to earth by growing trees or sequestering carbon in our soils.
This is a complex issue but in simple terms if we could increase our organic carbon levels by 1.6% across all the planet's cultivated lands then that would bring so much CO2 back to earth we would be in equilibrium again. Furthermore, for every 1% increase in organic soil content we conserve 14.4 litres of water/metre."

This is not a new concept...people such as Peter Andrews of "Back from the Brink" fame has been talking up this type of methodology for years. When are we, as a nation, going to listen?

Systems Thinking

I thought this particularly relevant considering the outcome of the budget and my previous post on short-term thinking. It never ceases to amaze me how systems thinking can help us address many of the problems we have - one big reason The 5th Discipline is my favourite book. Here's something from the book to get you thinking (with a few of my edits and add-ins).

Systemic thinking is a discipline that integrates.....fusing "things" into a coherent body of theory and practice. Systems thinking allows us to comprehend and address the whole, and to examine the interrelationship between the parts allowing us to tackle complex issues. In order to understand this there are one or two elements of systems thinking you need to know. First, one of the key problems we face is that rather simplistic frameworks are applied to what are complex systems. We tend to focus on the parts rather than seeing the whole, and to fail to see issues as a dynamic processes. Second, a better appreciation of "systems" and what they are leads to more appropriate action in looking at the problem.

‘We learn best from our experience, but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our most important decisions’, Peter Senge (1990: 23) argues with regard to organizations.

When faced with a problem, it is the ‘solutions’ that are close by that we focus upon. Classically we look to actions that produce improvements in a relatively short time span. However, when viewed in "systems" terms short-term improvements often involve very significant long-term costs. For example, cutting back on R&D can bring very quick cost savings, but can severely damage the long-term viability of an organisation. Part of the problem is the nature of the feedback we receive. Some of the feedback will be reinforcing (e.g. we are saving money so that's good) to this short term thinking. But in longer term the decline in R&D activity may have severe penalties. An appreciation of systems will lead to recognition of such reinforcing feedback, and also an understanding of the place of balancing feedback. The systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward the long-term view. That’s why delays and feedback are so important. In the short term, you can often ignore them; they’re inconsequential. They only come back to haunt you in the long term.

People often have a problem ‘seeing’ systems, and it takes work to acquire the basic building blocks of systems thinking, and to apply them. On the other hand, failure to understand system dynamics can lead us into ‘cycles of blaming and self-defense: the enemy is always out there, and problems are always caused by someone else’.....sound familiar?

Myopic Budget

Now that the (much anticipated) budget has finally been released I am dumbfounded, once again on the lack of forward planning.

Here's a "cut and paste" from the SMH (Peter Hartcher)"...Rudd and his ministers, so anxious to please, have lost their boldness and their roar...the Rudd Government holds 22 seats in Parliament by a margin of 5 per cent or less. Rudd's budget exposes him as a leader governing with this fact uppermost on his mind. He is quick to please, but loath to offend - even if the national interest demands it. The Government will tell us, ad nauseum, that Australia's fiscal position is vastly better than that of the other developed countries. And it's true. It's not the result of his own labour. He has shown with this budget that he is more interested in strengthening Labor's position than Australia's."

The myopia on show by our elected officials (time and time again) has me thinking that they are incapable of vision and long term thinking. A quick look at China....there are many engineer-politicians in China and this goes hand in hand with a certain way of thinking. An engineer’s job is to ensure things work, that the bridge stays up or the dam holds. The process by which projects get built is usually secondary. Engineers are supposed to focus on the long term; buildings have no merit if they will collapse after a few years. So too with our economic health.

I'm not an economist, accountant or rocket scientist. But the lack of money available for long term industries like renewable energy, transport and, agriculture absolutely astonishes me. Let's not talk about unnecessary debt. Oh boy...we are headed....

Cars and all things personal

My friends know that I am a not a fan of cars. In fact I will go as far to say that they are one of the biggest burdens we have in our modern western style of society. I haven't owned a car for well over a decade, bicycles, public transport and the occasional motor-scooter are my preferred forms of transport (in that order). Unfortunately my wife doesn't really agree with me on this front - that's fine. She is like the many millions of people in this country that have been convinced by clever advertising that they NEED a car. The appalling state of public transport in Sydney doesn't help either - people simply find it "easier" to get around in a car - I just happen to disagree (strongly) with that.
Anyway the reason for this post is that Peugeot have recently developed a single occupant concept car that looks fantastic (see image) - its called the RD3. As an engineer I love the look and clean lines however I can't help thinking imagine what we could come up with if our energies and brain power were put to better use to solve real problems in our world not just to create another consumer item that benefits only a few and continues to take from the world not give back. Over one third of our land space in Sydney has been cleared and transformed into exclusive space for the use of cars and other motor vehicles. Not a pretty statistic! Imagine for a moment if just half of that space was transformed into forests and native habitats! Dream on Adam, dream on!
Finally, ride a bike, it is fun. Consider it as giving back to nature.

Knowledge

My professional experience has taught me quite a number of things. These things help me do my job (and do it well) and they also help put dinner on the table because being an engineer is currently what I get paid to do. Unfortunately having an encyclopedic knowledge of public policy ISN'T what I get paid to do and I don't think it is necessarily important. However, in the recent MTC forums I had the feeling that people were "testing" me on this - fair enough I suppose. I'll put my hand up now and say don't bother testing me 'cause I'll fail.

Food for thought - when Sarah Hanson-Young was involved in her pre-selection for SA Greens did anyone ask her about Veteran's Affairs? They should have because that's one of her portfolios. My point is this....Sarah probably knew nothing about VA, but she is still a senator and VA is still her portfolio.

I have a great capacity to learn....my Masters, PhD and varied professional background are testimony to this. My experience has taught me to adapt quickly to a changing professional environment. Having a capacity to learn is a quality needed to be a successful representative.

Unfortunately I fear that I will be discounted in the pre-selection because government related acrymns don't roll off my tongue like melted honey or because I can't quote environmental policy verbatim. I fear this is a potential mistake voters may make.

What is your favourite colour?

My answer: blue.

A seasoned campaigner's answer: Well that's a good question thanks very much for asking. It was some time ago when I speaking to a colleague about this issue that it raised some interesting points. I mentioned this to the director of HSBC just the other day while I was there for a meeting about something completely different when it actually come up as a point of concern and he raised a few issues related to this very thing. It reminded me of something that happened during a campaign and I was immediately concerned what should be done about it. It wasn't so long ago that these sorts of issues weren't even considered but thanks to the good work of some party faithfuls I'm able to assist in helping people resolve this.

As an engineer I get straight to the point.

To tread carefully

Just got back from a weekend of speaking with other NSW Greens members in a couple of regional areas. It was an interesting, enjoyable, and a challenging first experience for me. I'm not an experienced campaigner by any stretch of the imagination, this actually being the first time I have done such a thing. I had no idea what to expect, so everything was a surprise.

My biggest concern after the weekend is that I'm not convinced members totally understand that "Joe or Josephine Average" has a totally different view on life and society. As I have mentioned in previous posts - there is a danger that a candidate will get selected that is not able to relate to non-Green voters and therefore the party will not obtain the votes needed to gain a Senate seat in Federal Parliament. But I have to tread carefully when I say these sorts of things.

It is easy to socialise with people of a similar background and/or political persuasion - I don't. Not on purpose, but simply because I don't know people of a "Green" persuasion - this results in being in an almost constant debate and also challenges my convictions (which is a good thing). This is why this issue concerns me. People will select who ever they think is the best candidate; but I want to encourage people to think about their reasons.

Away from the desk

I will be away for a couple of days hopefully convincing people that I'm not a freak and that I'd be great to have as a Greens Senator. New posts when I get back.

Inspiration

Political ideas today seem to have lost their capacity to inspire and political leaders their ability to lead. If the Greens lose our political idealism we will just be seen to be converging to the ALP and Liberals, like they have done already (i.e. converged). I say this because of the Greens apparent "compromise" in the latest round of the ETS and GHG debates. I don't believe we have compromised anything but we must be careful.
Far-reaching changes involve titanic political struggles and progress means the defeat of entrenched forces (neo-liberalism). It is naive to expect otherwise. Power structures are complex and multi-faceted but in our society tends to be localised to the business community. Staying "in-line" means the government has to pursue policies that keep "the market" (a.k.a big business) happy e.g. via fiscal discipline, low tax on the wealthy, restrained unions and the big one...."free" trade.
With a lack of inspiration in political leaders and policy, people vote on the basis of personalities. If we show that we are truely different on all fronts and highlight our Green alternatives it is more likely that people will be inspired because we do have unique policies compared to the traditional parties.
In the 2005 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes 47.8% of people agreed with the statement that political parties do not give voters real policy choices.

Problem Solving and Decision Making

I consider myself fortunate to be an engineer. My engineering experience has taught me some pretty effective lessons in problem solving and decision making. Most of my engineering decisions in my professional life have been motivated by trying to solve problems (either design or people’s problems). As much as we would like to believe that we do not have any prejudices or biases, the fact is we all do. These prejudices stem from the “ladder of inference” that I have mentioned in previous posts. The more aware you are of your own ladder of inference, the better off you will be, and the better decisions you will make.
Making mistakes has caused me to become frustrated and even discouraged at times. But I have found that if I take time to collect my own information, instead of relying totally on others, I am better placed to form my thoughts around a more thorough analysis and this makes me more likely to choose an alternative that is best. There are some common decision making mistakes that I have experienced and read about.
Relying on "experts". Often, people place too much emphasis on what "experts" say. Remember, experts are only human and have their own set of biases and prejudices just like the rest of us. By seeking information from many sources, you will get much better information than you would if you gathered it from only one source.
Overestimating the value of information received from others. We will be biased in our thinking if we assume someone knows more than we do. Ask yourself: Do they have better information than I do? What is their experience? Does it match mine? Are their values the same as mine? In other words, keep their opinions in perspective.
Underestimating the value of information received from others. Just the opposite of the above, we can devalue information from those we have less respect for. It can be difficult when people may use entirely different values and perceptions in their answers to your questions. Ask yourself why you might be discounting the information you receive from anyone.
Filtering. Collecting, and registering only data in relation to what you want the answer to be. If we have expectations or biases that we are not aware of, we tend to see what we want to see. The key is to be aware of your own ladder of inference while at the same time staying open to everything that comes into focus.
Not accepting your "gut instincts". If your heart or your gut say "this is wrong", you should listen. Our subconscious tries to send us messages all of the time for situations like this. It provides clues to the answer through feelings or gut reactions. Tune into your intuition, and consider it as one more piece of data. You will find that you will make much better decisions in the long run.

My biggest concern for the Greens

As a Greens Member I am little concerned at the lack of diversity in my own party at Federal representative level. Of the FIVE senators we have, ALL five are described as an environmentalist, activist or conservationist. That’s fine if we want to continue to be known as a one-dimensional party. I understand that within the party it is easier to relate to people similar to us in philosophy, however, facing differences can be uncomfortable but ultimately more enriching. Furthermore, the solutions that come from a diverse team are better than a uniform group; the problem is that at the outset, it takes time and energy to overcome differences. Patience is the key because in the end diversity will prevail.

I wouldn’t be a member of the Greens if I didn’t share the absolute concern for the environment, however, I am of the opinion that in order for us to be taken more seriously on a Federal level we have an urgent need to show that we are not just Green. This is why I, as an engineer, am running for pre-selection. I thoroughly believe we need a more diverse representation in parliament.

Importance of diversity in parliament

I’m continuing my discussion on the lack of diversity in parliament (e.g. too many lawyers). For French carmaker Renault, diversity means increased creativity, imagination and performance. "Whenever we have a problem we cannot solve, we put together a cross-functional team and I am always amazed at the solutions they come up with," says Carlos Ghosn, President and CEO of Renault and Nissan. Ghosn says that there is no limit to the amount of diversity he would accept because diversity is not only right; it is a powerful source of performance.

How can parliament represent, know and understand the population when they are not as diverse as the population? We need more engineers in Parliament.

Carbon and GHG Debate

It seems to me that the government is trying to con as many people as possible with this latest "effort" on reducing our carbon emissions (read story here). I'm sorry but it is hard to be upbeat on this one. As well as trying to con (in my opinion), the PM is trying to appease as many people as possible with one big swoop of a very small brush.

It is difficult to say what is happening behind closed doors with all the lobbying by various (self)interest groups (environmentalists not included). We can all suspect that big business (read coal miners and smelters) are banging down KRudd's door with all sorts of doomsday scenarios. So too the "opposition" party with their narrow minded agenda. So what to do? Well you can't please everyone. If decisions are being held up because of a lot of "what ifs" then investigate those "what ifs" to take them out of the equation. The only thing that is CERTAIN in this debate is that climate change is real and we are destroying our planet.

Here's my opinion of how we can possibly reach a "happy ending" on what appears to be a very complicated situation. The government NEEDS to LEAD and commit to unconditional ambitious reduction targets (e.g. 40%). Then they need to gather all the stakeholders and say, "here's the target (which is not negotiable), how do you suggest we get there?"

One would suspect that even big business and the liberal party have a few intelligent people amongst them. You would think that given a goal these people would be able to come up with a strategy to reach that goal. The goal is a common goal, set by the government, adhering to the people's wishes of significant reductions in emissions. If they can't come up with their own path to the target then the government needs to take the lead and do what it has to do to meet the unconditional and ambitious reduction of 40% by 2020. By the way I'm not a fan of so called "emissions trading" - seems to me that big boys will beat small boys on that one - then we all lose.

If we can't come to some conclusion on this then I don't think we can ever call ourselves "the clever country".

Video Up

Here's the link, please view and share with all and sundry!

My First Video Message

Hi all,

today I made my first video message for the pre-selection process, it should be on YouTube very soon. Thanks to my sister, Christine, for filming. I'll post a link ASAP.

It was a great weekend, the weather was fantastic and this is helping my garden continue to grow. Looks like I will have a bumper crop of mandarines this year. My cherry tree, apples, pears, nectarine, almond are all starting to close down for winter with leaves turning and falling off (good compost and mulch!). My lemon and lime trees are still doing OK, but I've been a bit neglectful of my macadamia tree (not enough time in the day).

While I'm on the subject of gardens, if we all grew our own fruit and veggies we'd decrease our food miles significantly. If I can do it anyone can.

Act locally, think globally!

Why you.....Swine!

I've been taking some interest in the media reporting of the so called "Swine Flu". The cynic in me says it is a great way to sell papers and get people to watch "news" reports on TV.

Does anyone remember the SARS virus of 2003 and how we "could" "potentially" see millions die?

Reports lately have often referred to the great influenza epidemic from 1918 which was apparently responsible for 100 million deaths! Yeah pretty serious. My great grand parents were so concerned they sent their eldest son (Charles) over to Canada to help reduce the risk of the family dying out. He went on to play ice hockey - lucky him (true story) and no-one in the family died (except from old age).

Last night on ABC-TV's Q&A show the SA Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young was asked to speak about a Greens proposal of putting a question on the ballot paper at the next federal election. The question would be something like, do you want Australia to become a republic...yes/no.

She was hammered by all sides!

HOW CAN WE THINK ABOUT BECOMING A REPUBLIC RIGHT NOW!!!??? They all shouted (Garret, Joyce, Goward). After all there's the "GFC" and "Swine Flu" to think about.

I think they forgot that the next federal election isn't until 2010 at the earliest!

I must admit to being a little astonished at the reaction from seemingly "rational" people.

So why do I mention this? Well the media have a habit of contributing to mass hysteria and this gives the pollies a chance to posture for attention and show how "great" they are at dealing with a "crisis".

How can we think about a republic right now....seriously.....what a joke! Here's a link to an independant view on the Swine Flu reaction. You may find it partly explains the reaction to the republic question on TV last night.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Swine Flu is not important - just keep it out of politicians' (who are mostly lawyers) control and we may just be able to deal with it.