Some Memories.

An Uphill Battle For Women.

We reiterate our conviction that the great body of Queensland women do not want the vote, we are perfectly sure that in the end it will be for evil". So reported the Brisbane Courier Mail on September the 1^st 1900. With attitudes like this it cannot be argued that it was anything but an uphill battle for women. It was a battle which women and their supporters fought with tenacity, pride and determination. The women of the world have succeeded in achieving much of what was fought for – equality, rights and opportunities but the battle is not over yet. Young women, myself included must continue to fight the battle… to be a force in today’s society and make our mark on our communities and our world so that the fight of the women before us is not wasted.  We must honour them by making our contribution worthwhile and a true justification for their struggle. The women who came before us fought the uphill battle and earned the right to vote– > today’s women must now take up the fight and make that vote count. 

After the efforts of the suffragettes’, little over a hundred years ago, Queensland joined New Zealand and South Australia in granting the vote to women. The argument for the vote were astonishingly obvious.  At the meeting forming the Women's Equal Franchise Association in Brisbane in 1894, the speaker eloquently summed it up when she said, >"It appears manifestly unfair that almost one-half of the adult population should have to submit to laws enacted by the other half and that although they bear their share of taxation, they are prohibited from exercising a voice in the selection of the representatives of the people in Parliament." 

The arguments against the vote were far more entertaining. Donald Mackintosh, a member of Queensland parliament said "Women who go about forming women's> electoral> leagues and so forth should stop at home and mind the children.  By and by, there will be no more children at all." The Brisbane Courier Mail went on to say "Suppose she thinks for herself.  Over the dinner table, wife is to quarrel with husband and sister with brother.  Political faction is to divide the home and drive man's helpmate from his side.

Despite this, as history records, the vote was won and women have forged ahead in many areas. While there remain some valid complaints of glass ceilings and too few women in Australian board rooms and lower pay in some instances, we have still come a long way and we have continued to forge ahead.

We now have legislation that would have been unheard of when women were given the vote.  We have domestic violence legislation to prevent intimidation, harassment and violence.  We have anti-discrimination legislation to prevent people being disadvantaged because of age, disability or gender.  We have the Family Law Act which protects people from exploitation on separation or family disputes.

So that uphill battle to gain recognition and equality may be won but there is another uphill battle facing women today. That is to ensure that the rights and vote so strongly fought for are not wasted. With women commanding 50% of the vote, have we truly been influential in forming our Government and their priorities?  I, for one, hope not.   I hope that some of the decisions made by governments are not reflective of women’s values and desires. I hope that we are still to realise our full potential and power in shaping our world. 

Relatively speaking, we have only just extricated ourselves from the shame of the White Australia policy which enshrined bigotry in our legislation. Both sides of politics supported this for 60 years, including many women. It took a long time to realise it was unacceptable for 14,000,000 white Australians to occupy this vast land but then prevent others from sharing it on the basis of skin colour. 

We then began the long process of reconciliation with people whom we had displaced and oppressed – the first inhabitants of this land.  So began a culture that Aussies loved to say we promote – > that of a multicultural nation one of diversity and acceptance.  But what on earth happened?  As the light of tolerance began to grow, it seems somebody turned it off and the mood of intolerance was heightened by talkback radio and politicians producing bigotry unseen in this country for 40 years.  What did women do to respond to this?

The level of bigotry released into our community grew daily. The response to the appalling Tampa episode and the climate of fear fostered in the shameful use of detention centres were reflective of the growing prejudice.  Few of us really understood – fed by politicians on one hand and by media on the other.  But if any of us could really understand the reality of life for the inhabitants who fled persecution and misery and war, we could not possibly stand by and let people, especially children, live in despair in wired compounds. Even if we faced an uphill battle, we should have fought it. We the women of today who were given a say by the efforts of our sisters before us should have fought it more strongly. We should have said No to this prejudice and bigotry.

Why did we not know, or is the question why did we not care?  Why did we not collectively rise up when families, after years of trauma and humiliation, were loaded on to a chartered aircraft in the middle of the night and returned to their places of persecution?                                                                                                                                               

The women who came before us fought the uphill battle and earned the right to vote– today’s women must now take up the fight and make that vote count. 

We must stand up for what we believe – we must seek to bequeath to our children a world free from violence, oppression but, more importantly, bigotry and prejudice.  As Women we can bring a sense of peace, a sense of justice and true compassion. And as women with the vote, we must make it count. It is the only way to honour those who fought the battle to gain us this privilege.

The Honorary Justice Foxton said in November 1901 – "I do not believe in the vote for women.  I believe in short that a large number of women are apathetic."

I don't think so.  In fact, I know they’re not – we just need a reminder now and then to stand up and be counted – to face any battle even if uphill. We must make our vote count to ensure that our society is one of which we can be proud, truly multicultural and free of prejudice and bigotry. By bequeathing this to our children we honour those who bequeathed our rights and opportunities to us. 

JOUR1111 Lecture 8 - Ethics.

In 1994, Kevin Carter won a Pulitzer Prize for his haunting photo of a vulture stalking an emaciated Sudanese girl. The photo, first published in the New York Times in 1993, stirred an emotional response in its viewers who then questioned what had happened to the girl. It was later revealed that neither Carter nor the New York Times knew what happened to her. Carter become notorious for sticking to the journalistic principle of being an observor and not getting involved - he left after taking his photo and no more that shoo the vulture away, he did not provide further aid to the girl. This story raises the question of ethics? Shoul Carter have provided more assistance to the girl and either carried her to the feeding-station close by or at least notified someone or was he right in sticking to the basic principle of photography in not getting involved and acting as a simple bystander?

The notion of ethics in communication, public relations and journalism has long been disputed. Ethics is a term that can be defined as

1. Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behaviour.
2. The moral correctness of specified conduct.

Just as Potter Stewart, the late US Supreme Court judge said, “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”

Donna Meiklejohn, in today's lecture, highlights how all ethics fall under one of the following three categories, that is;

Deontology
Put simply Deontology dictates was is fundamental right or wrong based on a set of written principles. Deontology stems from external rules, principles, and duty and all ethics codes are deontological. Meiklejohn describes how it is duty-based ethics which is focused on the actions of people and the consequences of their actions. 

Consequentialism

Essentially, consequentialism is results-based ethics.  Meiklejohn  described how consequentialism is based on getting a "good" or "wrong" outcome that matters and it doesn't matter how we got there; the ends justify the means. Consequentialism looks beyond the ethical behaviour and is solely focused on the outcome and that the greatest good is for the greatest number of people. The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy gives a plain and simple definition of consequentialism: “Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall actions.” 

Virtue Ethics
Virtual ethics is an innate code of ethics meaning it is based around the character of a person and does not stem from an external guidebook. It is based around the idea of moral obligation and the notion that "goodness" comes from morally good habits (or dispositions) of character. The separation of right from wrong directly aligns with moral obligation and a persons characteristics. Aristotle identified "virtues" such as courage, justice, temperance and prudence. Essentially Virtue Ethics are good habits of character, and provide moral direction in one’s life.

Further stemming from the idea of Virtue Ethic s if the Doctrine of the Mean.
Essentially the Doctrine of the Mean highlights how certain characteristics can go too far one way or not too far another. For example courage is the mean between too much: rashness and too little: cowardice. Justice is the mean between injustice of overzealous and excessive law and the injustice of lawlessness.


This is the AFA’s code of ethics.

• Act in the best interest of my clients to extend their financial life and abide by the laws and regulations under which I conduct business.
• Strive to achieve the highest standards of professional competence by maintaining and improving my knowledge and skills.
• Hold in strictest confidence and consider privileged, all business and personal information pertaining to my clients’ affairs.
• Present accurately, honestly and completely, every fact known to me which is essential to my clients’ decision making.
• Use all ethical means to educate my clients about their present and future financial needs.
• To provide an appropriate level of service to my clients and their beneficiaries.
• Maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct to reflect favourably upon the profession of Financial Adviser and serve as an example to others.

Factual Story - A Literary Love Story.

Six children, twenty-two grandchildren and twenty great-grandchildren. It was a life partnership that started with one letter and five simple words; “Give it to me then”. Five seemingly innocuous words that had a lifelong impact on Les Dwyer. It was not the most auspicious or romantic of beginnings however it was a lasting love, 59 years to be precise.

Les and Lola, Thailand 1998. 

The year was 1946. He remembers it well. For him it was a year of starting afresh and new adventures. It also happened to be the year Lola came into his life. Les Dwyer had returned to St Brendan’s College Yeppoon to complete his final year of school as a boarder. He had taken the previous year and a half off to assist his father and then mourn his death and finally arrange his affairs including the selling of a small business. Upon his return he remembers that he was enthusiastically greeted by all his old friends.

However like all school boys, they often sought a reprieve from the repetitive hustle and bustle of the school day. One boy, whether out of boredom or pure brazenness entered all the names of his ‘mates’ into the Church Magazine and listed them as wanting a pen friend. Les recalls that the responses were numerous and varied from the “ages of fourteen to forty.”

Les and Lola - 2002

 “We were seated in the refectory in three row tables with six at each table. I was the captain of my house – the Hayes house. It was dinner time and the mail was always delivered at the night time meal. John Murphy received the letter and read it out.” It was from a girl, more than 3,000 kilometres away in the small city of Geelong. She too was in her final year at school and a boarder at a catholic college. Les then asked one simple question, one that he did not know would result in “such far-reaching effects.” Was John Murphy going to answer the letter? “Not on your Nelly” was the response. Les remembers replying “Well give it to me then.”  Those innocuous words would have a lifelong impact. So the letters commenced and a friendship grew to a close relationship. In years to come Lola always said that if there was one thing Les could do, it was write a good letter.

Les and Lola meeting Queen Elizabeth - 1970

It was 1951 and while the letters continued, accompanied by the occasional photo, the two still had not met. Les worked hard in his business and travel was not easy or cheap. No doubt though his letters to and from Lola filled a void in living a life in an isolated region in Queensland. Receiving Lola’s letters from Melbourne where she began work was a medium to a different and exciting world.

Les had purchased a sea-side business at Seaforth in 1949 with the money left to him by his father and at the tender age of 21 he was working as the sole operator. It was in this year that Lola wrote to him and told him she would be travelling to Sydney with two friends for a holiday. “I remember thinking that it’s time to make more direct contact with her.” So with his mother minding his shop for the few precious days Les set off to Sydney to stay with a long-time college friend and most importantly to finally meet Lola. 

Lola and Les - 1951

The day still remains clear in his memory. Les is a fine storyteller and has regaled many audiences with the love story.  “She had booked into a hotel and I was going upstairs to meet her but she was coming down and we ended up meeting half way on the staircase. And you know what that brazen, forward girl did to me? She kissed me!” The next day Les and Lola had their first date at Luna Park in Sydney which obviously went well! Discovering their physical attraction was as strong as the bond built through five years of corresponding, Les proposed.  Lola obviously felt the same and they were engaged to be married that night. “The next day we went shopping and I asked her what sort of ring she wanted. Sapphires she replied and so we went into a little jewellery shop where I bought her a sapphire ring with a diamond on either side.”

Lola was to get a taste of her future when she travelled to Mackay to visit Les and his family.  It was 1951 and a flight from Melbourne to Mackay was a long ordeal but then a four hour bus ride to Seaforth – a beachside community near Mackay must have felt like she was going to the back of beyond.

Les and Lola - 1952

Les recalls with some mirth that the driver dropped her off with instructions to follow the track through the bush and she would find the beach and Les’ shop. It was dusk and as she wandered through she became aware of a flicker of light through the foliage. As she emerged into a clearing she was taken aback as a group of aboriginal women sat in a circle fanning a fire. The dry fear rising in her throat dissipated as the stunned looks on their faces gave way to the biggest smiles and through gleaming white teeth one said “you must be Lola.” With great fondness he recounted that those women were to become her close friends for years to come. Lola returned to Geelong to organise the wedding and prepare to move over 3000 kilometres to a new life.

The two were married the following April in 1952. It was a Geelong wedding with Les only flying down several days before the wedding to be introduced to the bridal party and his best man. He did not have a lot of family and it was expensive to travel for his friends. They returned to Seaforth and worked together in the store and post office before relocating to Koumala – Les’ hometown south of Mackay where they remained until 1961 when they relocated to Mackay.

 Les and Lola's family at their 50th wedding anniversary - 2002

Les and Lola were married for fifty-three years before her death in 2005. They have six children, twenty two grandchildren and twenty great-grandchildren to date. For both Les and Lola there was never anyone else. And to think it all began with a simple prank of one school boy and the chance that the boy who received the letter read it out was sitting at my grandfather’s table.

Australia's Moral Obligation

‘For those who come across the sea, we’ve boundless plains to share.’

So states this nation’s anthem. All across this land, this anthem is sung with pride and enthusiasm, but is it with integrity? Are we really prepared to share this countries resources and boundless plains with those who come to Australia? Australia has  a moral obligation to accept its fair share of the world’s refugees and asylum seekers. Our country is vast and plentiful, rich in resources, and comparatively the number of asylum seekers is very small. Quite simply the arguments against allowing refugees into our country are often based on prejudice, misinformation and lack humanity.

The graves of two little girls are unmarked on the rocky hillside save one large rock. Through his grief Abdul Azmin Rajabi tells his story in the documentary THE RETURNEES.  Like many asylum seekers, he was forced to flee from his country after being persecuted and terrorized by the Afghanistan Taliban. The reason for such persecution was simple; Abdul married for love, to a woman whose faith was not Islamic, a crime worthy of death in some nations. It was only after Abduls Father was brutally tortured and murdered for protecting his son and keeping his whereabouts unknown from the Taleban that Abdul fled his country seeking Asylum in Australia. With his wife and two little girls hidden with relatives, Abdul made the long journey by boat and like all refugees was placed in mandatory detention. Soon after, Abduls was a offered an ultimatum, Australian immigration would pay him $2000 to return ‘voluntarily’ to his country or otherwise remain in Nauru detention centre indefinitely. His chances of staying in Australia were almost non existent under the government policies. Immigration officers assured him his country was safe to return to. He reluctantly accepted the return to his safe homeland  and after two years of separation reunited his family in Afghanistan. .

Little more than four months later a targeted grenade struck his home, killing his two little girls, who were playing with their toys, close to the window. Local authorities believe the Taleban was behind the attack, which was specifically aimed at the Rajabi family. 

How can Australia honestly say they did all they could for this man and his family? What reason could possibly justify our actions and intentions towards this man and other refugees in similar situations? This is just one story out of  millions. , it is true we cannot accept all of the world’s asylum seekers however we must accept our global responsibility and take our fair share of the dispossessed. Our previous polices towards the refugees were shameful. Whilst the current government has wound back the policy, political pressure and considerations continue to dictate the future of the asylum seekers rather than fairness and humanity.

Australia is the only western country that still maintains the practice of mandatory detention of asylum seekers and has been branded as the most severe. The mandatory detention of refugees in Australia goes against the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The conservative government of former Prime Minister, John Howard took a hard-line approach, resulting in mandatory detention and the deportation of many refugees. This policy divided the nation and many organisations called for a more humane approach.

History will no doubt record the impact of Tampa on Australian society as significant and shameful. The appalling politicalization of these oppressed people driven from their homeland by persecution created an unjustified fear and division not seen in Australia since we cast off the chains of the white Australia policy.

The level of bigotry released into our community, from the Tampa episode and by the climate of fear fostered in the shameful use of detention centres grew daily. Few of us really understood – fed by politicians on one hand and by media on the other.  But if any of us could really understand the reality of life for the inhabitants who fled persecution, misery, war and the harsh dictatorial regimes, we could not possibly stand by and let people, especially children, live in despair in wired compounds.

Australia is a vast and resourceful country “our land abounds with nature’s gifts. However at present Australia fills a resettlement quota of 9,000 refugees yearly, compare this to an estimated 42 million refugees. This is just .00015% of the world’s refugees. Australia is ranked fifteen out of the 30 OECD wealthiest countries, yet we are contributing the least. Compared these statistics to smaller countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands who annually accept over 40, 000 refugees. It is time Australia starts pulling it weight and takes a stand for humanity and principles.

The arguments against the refugees are completely baseless and unjustified. Many argue with out evidence and based on prejudice that thee asylum seekers are illegal, they are queue jumpers and majority of them are terrorists. However under the Australian and International Law any person is entitled to apply for refugee asylum in another nation when escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights states that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” Even boat people who arrive on our shore with no documents are not classified illegal as many are forced to leave in haste with oppressive authorities preventing migration.

The myth that boat people are queue jumpers is nonsense as Australia currently has no diplomatic representation in Iraq or Afghanistan, the top two nation in which asylum seekers flee. Therefore there are no queues to jump, only countries to flee.

Statistic show that only 3% of Australia’s new arrivals arrive by boat, the other 97% by plane. In fact the biggest numbers of illegal immigrants are queue jumpers as they are British and other European tourists who overstay their visa to live here.

As a final resort many argue that asylum seekers cannot be trusted and will only terrorize out country and citizens. The escalation in world conflict since September 11 has seen unprecedented numbers of asylum seekers worldwide parallel to an increasing fear and distrusting attitude towards the refugees. However, statistics show that only eleven people out of 13 500 who recently sought Asylum in Australia were rejected based on ‘character grounds.’ The terrorist’s movement is a well funded and highly organized with training and much planning put into the attack. Logically they are not going to risk the effort by attempting to arrive here by a boat which has traversed a dangerous and perilous route. Many refugees are in fact families fleeing persecution, oppression and are searching for a higher quality of life.

So why do we continue to demonize these people? Why do we allow them to be treated so badly or at least turn a blind eye? Why did we not collectively rise up when families, after years of trauma and humiliation, were loaded like cattle onto a chartered aircraft in the middle of the night and returned to their places of persecution?  When an action flies in the face of our multiculturalism and our banner of tolerance meets with little response, it is time we reassessed our values and our commitment to what it right.

It is time we ditch the fear and loathing approach that has lain beneath so much of Australia’s political psyche over so many years, and give a rational approach a go. It worked in Prime Minister Fraser’s era of the Vietnam War and it will go so again. Come on - Fair go Australia.

Australia need to start pulling its weight, if small nations like Sweden with a population of only 8 million can accept 40000 and provide for them as human beings why not us? Together, we must strive for human dignity.  We must welcome people and understand that they all have the right to a life free from oppression and persecution.

It is time for a change; we cannot continue to turn a blind eye. We must collectively rise up and to welcome those from across the seas. For those who’ve come across the seas

We’ve boundless plains to share. So with courage let us all combine to advance Australia fair.

JOUR1111 Lecture 7 - Public Media

Public media, often coined as 'our media' or the peoples media is essentially media that is not driven by profit but rather strives for public value. Where commercial media's main focus is on creating revenue, public media is predominately funded by the government and is focused on quality. Whilst commercial media survives or fails on the success of the business and therefore censors its content to gain the most viewers, public media has the luxury of reporting  the news without the pressure of answering to anyone. According to Nigel Milan, the Former Director of SBS, "The difference between commercial broadcasting and public broadcasting is the difference between consumers and citizens".

The WGBH Educational Foundation Conference defines Public Media in the following statement. "In general, media whose mission is to serve or engage a public. Public media include traditional publiclyfunded broadcasters and networks … as well as public uses of  new platforms and distribution mechanisms, such as the Internet, podcasting, blogging. Increasingly the term "public media" is less associated with taxpayer supported media; it may be for profit so long as its ultimate purpose is to serve the public and not to turn a profit."

An important feature that public media should have is public value. Public value, according the BBC is embedding a ‘public service ethos’, value for licence fee money, ‘weighing public value against market impact’and public consultation. Public Media places importance over interest and therefore holds four main functions, that is; nation building, national heritage, national identity and national conversations. A a result of these factors public media is often the least bias when reporting news and is often presented in a broadsheet style. 

The Broadcasting Research Unit in 1985 defined public service broadcasting or otherwise public media as

involving the following features. 

• Geographical universality. Broadcast programmes should be available to the whole population.
• Universality of appeal. Broadcast programmes should cater for all tastes and interests.
• There should be special provision for minorities, especially disadvantaged minorities.
• Broadcasters should recognise their special relationship to the sense of national identity and community. Broadcasting should be distanced from all vested interests, and in particular from those of the government of the day.
• Universality of payment. One main instrument of broadcasting should be directly funded by the corpus of users. 
• Broadcasting should be structured so as to encourage competition in good programming rather than competition for numbers.
• The public guidelines for broadcasting should liberate rather than restrict broadcasters. 

However although public media is still the predominate source of news for majority of Australians, over recent years there has been the slight commercialisation of public media. For example the ABC has opened up franchise stores which generates a small amount of profit however of which is all put back into the business. 

Elwyn Brooks White, the American writer, sent a letter to the Carnegie Commission, outlining his dream of public television. "Non-commercial TV should address itself to the ideal of excellence, not the idea of acceptability -- which is what keeps commercial TV from climbing the staircase. I think TV should be providing the visual counterpart of the literary message, should arouse our dreams, satisfy our hunger for beauty, take us on journeys, enable us to participate in events, present great drama and music, explore the sea and the sky and the woods and the hills. It should restate and clarify the social dilemma and the political pickle. Once in a while it does, and you get a quick glimpse of its potential."

Essentially public media, as adequately put by ABC Managing Director Mark Scott, "is not accountable for profit but it is for quality". It is for this reason alone that I believe public media is integral in maintaining quality and considered news reporting . Whilst Public media is often more serious and sometimes seen as elitist and even out of touch, it is considered the last bastion of long form investigative journalism.

 

An analysis.

A personal analysis of Pauline Hanson's Maiden speech and the persuasive techniques used to position her audience into accepting and ultimately adopting her dogmatic opinions and views.  

Pauline Hanson, former Australian politician and leader of the ‘One Nation’ political party, expressed many views and personal opinions in her Maiden Speech, targeting key issues of concern to the Australian public. Hanson’s speech was underpinned by many cultural assumptions about the immigration process, Aborigines, the Australian Government and many of its enactments, which at the time were significant concerns of the Australian public.

By positioning herself as an ordinary but patriotic Australian, Hanson gives authenticity to her views and thus leads her audience to identify with and ultimately adopt her view. Through her emotive language and her appealing to the needs and desires of her audience, Hanson presents Aboriginal welfare as an undeserved privilege, immigrants as a threat to Australians’ jobs and lifestyle and progressive legislation such the Family Law Act as the cause of social ills.

By employing methods and techniques such as strong, emotive language, repetition, generalizations, clear bias, authoritative tone, fact and opinion and several analogies, Hanson attempted to persuade her audience that the government’s policies need to be ‘radically reviewed’ and Australia could not possibly be ‘strong and united’ without abolishing multiculturalism and halting the process of migration.

Hanson quickly establishes herself as an everyday Australian to whom other Australians can relate. Forming this connection in her opening paragraph she stated: “I come here not as a polished politician but as women who has had her fair share of life’s knocks.” Hansen continued the relationship technique of identification with ordinary Australians throughout her speech. By the use of other various statements such as “as a mother of four children, as a sole parent, and as a businesswoman running a fish and chip shop” she reinforces this position. Hanson forms an understanding and an empathy with her audience, who can relate to her as a ‘battler’ and an average woman who understands the reality of life for many people. She states she represents Oxley, “which is typical of mainstream Australia.” This provides her with an authenticity which sets up a springboard from which she can launch her message.

Having established her credentials, she compounds her position by appealing to the needs and desires of her audience through statements that posed either negative or positive connotations, depending on her viewpoint. As a person in a position of power, Hanson was able to gently persuade her audience to a preferred position and thus accept her belief and opinion on the matter. Hanson stated that the government daily performed ‘reverse racism’ by favouring Aborigines above other white Australians. Through further statements such as “politicians… are not truly representing all Australians” and the government was “not prepared to take action” Hanson’s attempted to underline the government’s lack of nationalism and ‘commitment’ to the Australian public. Hanson then went on to challenge the government to be “fair dinkum" and face the reality of their policies. Through these statements, Hanson captured her audience’s approval, instilling a sense of trust in her, whilst appealing to the parochial side of her audience and all the time creating a need and desire for a more efficient government.

Hanson further applies the technique of appealing to the needs and desires of her audience by appealing to their ‘hip pocket nerve’. Having attracted their interest and approval, she then presented the ‘unjust’ and ‘bias’ system of reparations to the indigenous population. During her speech Hanson paints the Aborigines as over-privileged Australians who deserve no extra benefits for “something which happened 200 years ago.” She goes on to say that Australia tax-payers should not have to pay taxes which would ultimately contribute to compensation and to the welfare of Aborigines. This approach no doubt appealed to the ‘hip-pocket-nerve’ citizens of Australia, who instantly react negatively at the mention of additional taxes or payments and thus appeals to the need and desire to save money.

Emotive language peppered Pauline Hanson’s Maiden Speech and nowhere in her speech is this emotive language more evident than in her comments about the Family Law Act. Hanson’s selection of words infer a negativity with Hanson stating the Family Law Act created “upheaval” within families and “brought death, misery and heartache to countless thousands of Australians.” Hanson further commented that the financial demands were “punitive” and Senator Lionel Murphy, who introduced the act was “disgraceful” who “should be repealed.” This technique of emotive language negatively reflected the Family Law Act and was intended to sway the reader against the legislation and thus the government.

However emotive language was also effectively used to highlight many positive aspects of Hanson’s campaign. She particularly appeals to the patriotism of her listeners and when referring to her ‘One Nations’ political policies, Hanson describes her actions as necessary to result in “peace and harmony’. Abolishing multiculturalism she says will pave the way for a “strong united country.” Positive emotive language further litters Hanson’s speech whenever reference is made to the ‘One Nation’ party and the related themes such as when she states “we must have one people, one nation and one flag.”

Tone was also employed by Hanson in her speech to create a sense of righteousness in her arguments, reflected through the language used. In attempting to persuade her audience Hanson uses words such as “I worked for my land. No one gave it to me.” to establish her credentials as a ‘worker’ in contrast to Aborigines who gain extra benefits without working. Hanson subtly implies a sense of displeasure at the reparations allocated to the aborigines that the tax payers ‘ultimately’ pay for stating “Welfare is killing them (aborigines).” Hanson’s attitude towards the matter soon becomes clear through her use of perceptive tone and choice of wording.

Ms Hanson further compounds this barrier to impartiality by the use of generalisation which reinforce her views. Through the use of broad, outlandish statements such as “Immigrants must be halted in the short term so that our dole queues are not added to by… unskilled immigrants not fluent in our language”, Hanson appealed to the individual self-orientated audience. By making veiled threats to their jobs and the burden of dole payments she again generalised immigrants and lured her audience into a mindset of concern. Many of the public were already drawn to her views and persuasive speech but personal threats close to home enticed her audience further, aided by the air of fear Hanson had created.

Through several of these techniques including bold statement that appeal to needs and desires, strong emotive language and many generalisations, Hanson’s subtly leads her audience towards her biased viewpoint. Hanson, throughout her speech makes several comments regarding numerous ethnic and cultural groups. Hanson representation of Asians citizens included influencing statements such as “Asian immigrants… have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.” Soon following this is her comment of “I believe Australia is in danger of being swamped by Asians.” This use of generalisation, emotive language and  the appeal to her audience’s needs and desires, all help create an authoritive, although biased view, which is transmitted to the reader and subtly prevents them from being impartial.

The presentation of Ms Hanson’s opinion as facts was yet another technique employed by her to further cement her arguments to the audience open to her persuasion techniques. Arguments such as “Abolishing the policy of Multiculturalism will save billions of dollars and allow those from ethnic backgrounds to join mainstream Australia paving the way for a strong,  united country,” were read and considered as a fact, however when closely analysed are indeed another opinion of Ms Hanson.

 It is now easy recognizable that the arguments presented by Pauline Hanson in her maiden speech are extremely biased, do not correctly represent the true values, beliefs and attitudes of the different cultural groups and misinform the audience through persuasion of accepting her views and beliefs on many matters. Hanson clearly has conservative views reminiscent of ‘The White Australia Policy’ era but through her establishment of identity, appeals to the needs and desires of her audience, emotive language and many other techniques, touches the vulnerability of her audience to leads them to think as she does.