One last blog entry

It was time to get back to the US. Our year in Australia was filled with new friends, funny animals, beautiful weather, and fascinating cultural contrasts. But here in the US are our family, friends, and home. We have our funny animals, too:

We live in a town that was incorporated 140 years before the First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay. Annapolis, the capital of the state of Maryland, is steeped in American history, it abounds with it. For one year, 1783-1784, it was the capital of the US. The architecture bears witness.

That building on the right: George Washington really DID sleep there.

But back to observations on Oceania. Australia had an election since we left. I'm aware of some positive developments that resulted: deeper engagement with Indonesia, particularly regarding asylum seekers but also on a wide range of issues; new ideas on how to help lift Australia's indigenous population out of despair; and some pro-business economic policies.

Being in the space business, and a space enthusiast, I found it disappointing that Australia sees no advantage to having a space program, or a space agency. Nations that are smaller, poorer, and less technologically advanced than Australia are getting into space in ever-increasing numbers. It's a strange phenomenon. People explained it to me as resulting from "fear of failure," or being the "lucky country" that gets sufficient space data from other nations' satellites at little cost.  Australia needn't try to support an entire space industry; it certainly can't support a car industry. But engaging with other nations via a space agency, and developing some space-related technologies in Australia itself, would have enormous economic and workforce development benefits. Australia should be positively embarrassed at its backwardness in this sector. Perhaps the new government will take another look at this.

Having no qualifications as a futurist, I will nevertheless speculate on where Australia will be in 20 years. It will be a Chinese colony. An early indicator of this came to light in the 2011 Australian census, which found that Mandarin was now the second most-spoken language.Chinese businesses continue to show interest in acquiring Australian properties. The population pressure within China is an inexorable force for emigration, and Australia will not be the only nation to be affected. But Australia is more attractive, one would think, than many others, with its strong economy, plentiful land (but not water), and low level of corruption. A country of 23 million, Australia can probably support 40 million. I would expect the first-generation children of Chinese immigrants to begin appearing in local, state, and Federal governments in increasing numbers, where they could facilitate Chinese purchases of property and businesses. A Chinese takeover of Australia would have no military component; like Hong Kong, it will just happen.

I miss my friends in Australia. But I'm hoping for visitors. I'm only one hour from Washington, DC by car, so if you are going to be a tourist there, stop on by. I'm a great tour guide, too.

An apology to Australia, and a warning

Probably half a dozen entries in this blog have been on encroachments on Aussies' freedoms--speech, press, silence--by their governments. I can't even bear to reread the posts at this point, but surely there was a note of smugness: "We Yanks value our freedoms so much, you should take a page from our book."

OK, I'm sorry.

At the time, I didn't realize that the US Justice Department was collecting reporters' phone calls. I didn't realize that our National Security Agency was collecting all the phone records in the universe, nor that it had co-opted Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and God knows who else. I didn't realize that the Internal Revenue Service had become an agency of political persecution.

I am ashamed of my government.

Maybe, though, this has something to say to Australia after all. When the Communications Minister proposed the Public Interest Media Czar or whatever his title was, the argument was that although the Czar could conceivably use his power to suppress anti-government articles, he wouldn't actually do that.

Really? What would stop him? If the Last Bastion of Freedom, the United States of America, has a government that can run amok and trample our Constitutionally granted rights, why mightn't Australia's government? Do you think that some unwritten social compact will stop them, if the "compelling need" is there?

Maybe this is an excellent time for an Australian conversation about a written Bill of Rights.

Yeah, I know, it didn't help us in the US. But perhaps it's better than nothing.

A local assault on Aussies' right of silence

In addition to freedom of expression, there are some other freedoms that we tend to think of as pretty fundamental. One of them is the right of silence. The Miranda warning given to American suspects upon arrest begins, "You have the right to remain silent." Our Supreme Court required that of all law enforcement agencies, so that they could not subvert the right. It's the famous Fifth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights: "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Well, as I may have mentioned before, Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.

There's an interesting little bill, actually an amendment, that was passed in March by the New South Wales Parliament. It's called the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence). It says, in brief, "You still have the right to remain silent. But then we have the right to infer negative things about you because of your silence." Negative things such as, "You're guilty."

Support for the bill was not unanimous. Greens member David Shoebridge made this speech prior to passage. He points out how the right of silence is one of the keystones of all common law. Didn't matter, it passed anyway.

What was driving this incredible erosion of fundamental freedom in an Australian state? Evidently, it is the increasing power and violence of "bikie gangs" and a perceived "wall of silence" that causes difficulty in bringing them to justice.

Some of the provisions are a bit surreal. As finally passed, the possibility of negative inferences only pertains if silence is maintained in the presence of one's lawyer. Which, one commenter said, evokes the following image:

DETAINEE (on phone to lawyer): "I've been arrested. I didn't do it, but there are some strange circumstances. Come down here and help me!"

LAWYER: "You don't want me there. If I come and you remain silent, they can infer that you are guilty. Stay silent and I'll stay away. You and I will get together some other time."

One can imagine the problems that will arise within the legal system here. In fact, two professors have imagined them and don't like what they imagine.

But what's more striking, to this visiting Yank, is that it's happened at the same time as well publicized assaults on freedom in the US: the Justice Department obtaining huge, unwarranted volumes of phone records from the Associated Press; the Internal Revenue Service suppressing organizations' tax exemptions based on their conservative political views. 

Just goes to show: eternal vigilance is truly the price of freedom.

Some good thinking on the US-China-Australia relationship

In today's The Australian, two prominent Australians have given their thoughts on how to fit in with Australia's two most important partners.

John Howard, former Prime Minister, believes that the Australian debate about choosing between the US and China is "infantile." His view is that the fascination with China and its economic size misses a big point--that it is GDP per capita that is the important measure of prosperity. On that metric, Mr. Howard says, China has a long way to go.  

Kim Beazley, former head of the Labor Party and presently Australian Ambassador to the US, places his emphasis on investment opportunities. He notes that the mutual investment between Australia and the US is over $1 TRILLION. China may be Australia's major trading partner, but the US is her major investment partner. He also cites the recent US energy discoveries and nearing energy independence as reasons to enhance those investments.

On a personal note, I corresponded with Ambassador Beazley prior to coming to Australia. He offered to have his staff find a place where my technical background could be put to good use. I must write him again and tell him how it's going. Which is to say, fantastically.

A public airing of the free speech issue

In this ABC interview, Senator George Brandis expresses his satisfaction with the defeat of various Government efforts to curtail freedom of speech and of the press in Australia. Those are the efforts I've mentioned in earlier posts.

It's interesting to watch political figures be interviewed on Australian telly. The interviewers are much more aggressive than we see in the US. You'll definitely see that in this one.

Senator Brandis' final point was a challenge to the media itself. The interviewer said to him, "Don't you think that all of us in the media are defenders of free speech?" He said, "I wish you were. I wish there had been more outrage when these measures were proposed." Why wasn't there? ABC, of course, is a publicly funded entity, so probably feels some reticence to criticize the Government. But you do have to wonder what people really care about. Someone said to me, "The US is about freedom and Australia is about fairness." How can people forget that the latter will disappear without the former?

I'm currently reading a wonderful novel from 1975, Poor Fellow My Country by Xavier Herbert.  It is a sweeping, involved panorama of Australia in the first half of the 20th century, through the first half of World War II.

The novel is so incredible that it will be the subject of a post dedicated to it. But check this out: the hero has been incarcerated, wrongly, on suspicion of seditious activity (he's one of those guys who speaks bluntly and doesn't curry favor with anyone.) His lawyer says to him (a close paraphrase), "Don't look for protection of your right of free speech in Commonwealth Law. There is no Bill of Rights such as found in the United Kingdom or the U.S.A. Free speech can be denied at the whim of any Chief Justice. And of course, His Honour's wig is the property of the Attorney-General's department."

Still true 70 years after the fictitious incident, and 40 years after the novel was written.

The nanny state meets Yes, Minister in Australia

Being employed at a university, working on research funded by the Australian Government, I have had the opportunity to observe the bureaucracy at work. It has not always impressed. A particularly poignant moment was the Government insisting on a progress review of our work. They said it wasn't "getting the buzz that other programs were generating." Buzz? I thought we were supposed to be doing research. At any rate we held the review, with our presentation full of brightly colored pictures. At the end, the Government was quite impressed. "Did you really do all that?" My boss was compelled to ask, "Have you read the dozens of high quality research reports we've sent?" Their answer: "Well, the reports were so dry." Meaning no, they hadn't read them. Sigh.

The particular field I'm in, space research, has a funny relationship with the Government as well. In 2009, the Australian Senate studied the dismal performance of Australia in space programs, and issued a report entitled "Lost In Space." But the Government has had one over-weaning priority: a balanced budget--actually a surplus. So they formed a Space Policy Unit of bureaucrats, none of whom were scientists or aerospace engineers, with the mission of dealing with the damning report. One can almost hear the charge to the bureaucrats: "Make this report go away. And don't you dare commit any funds."

Which, a mere four years later, the recently announced space policy, actually titled the Satellite Utilization Policy, admirably accomplished. A precis of the policy: "For decades, Australia has received data from satellites built and launched by other nations, for little or no cost. We have accepted none of the risk of those space programs. We like it like this." The press lauded the release of the policy, with the exception of one intrepid SBS reporter who noticed its hollowness--and had the good sense to interview me about it!

But this isn't about space; it's about an outsider's observations about the Australian Government, its decision-making process, and its attempts to create fairness at any cost--such as freedom of speech, and of the press (the subject of earlier posts).

Recently, another outsider has made similar observations. A senior editor at The Australian (a paper not known for its friendliness to the Australian Labor Party), Nick Cater has expanded his criticism to include the bureaucratic side--the permanent staffs, not the elected officials. He has found commissioners who take guidance from international organizations rather than Parliament. And from the article, "He notes with dismay how we have permitted the intrusive expansion of bureaucratic intervention into ever more intimate aspects of Australian life through the education system under cover of terms such as "social justice" and into homes through an expansion of the role of public health." I hope that, somewhere, he also notes those assaults on personal freedoms.

The elections will be September 14th. I wonder whether a change of government will even matter--the "fairness" theme seems to have hypnotized a large segment of the voting public; and the bureaucrats will still be there.

The next king of Mudgee

As a break from blogging about social turmoil and political fiascoes, this entry is going to be about two pleasant subjects: wine, and lovely hard-working people.

Mudgee is one of the small wine-producing regions of Australia that is rarely seen on the shelves of bottle shops. Like Rutherglen, Orange and Margaret River, it has its local aficionados, and most of the wine is sold at the cellar door. We were introduced to Schuetz Wines of Mudgee through a random inclusion in a selection prepared for us by a local wine merchant.

Called Epica, it was truly a memorable wine. So, months later, being in the Blue Mountains with visiting friends, we decided to extend our road trip to take in the curious place called Mudgee.

We had called ahead to let Ernest Schuetz know that we were hoping to buy another case of his wonderful wine.  We got an unexpected response: "Well, I don't have a cellar door yet. But if you come out to the vineyard, we can do a tasting and I'll have a case there for you." No cellar door? This was a surprise because the Epica bottle was so elegant, and the wine so beautiful, that we assumed that Schuetz was a major producer.

After  back roads and wrong turns, we finally made it to the vineyard, to the elegant Schuetz residence:

...a one-bedroom, no-frills house overlooking the 10-hectare vineyard. There we met Ernest  and his wonderful wife Jo. And we began to be completely charmed.

Ernest Schuetz is a man who takes his winemaking very seriously. His understanding of his fruit and how it will impact his wines is deep, his vinting decisions informed by years of experience, and it's all driven by an intense passion for winemaking.

He is also a man who brings his work home with him.

I don't know many vintners who dry grapes in their own living room. But Jo has only herself to blame: it was her idea to produce an amarone-style wine, which requires the drying of grapes to intensify the sugars.

Ernest had generously selected a wide range of his wines for us to taste.

They even included a 10-year-old shiraz, the first vintage he produced, a real museum tasting. This happened to be the 10th anniversary of Jo and Ernest meeting, and the 10th year they have produced wine. We were privileged to be included in its tasting because we were the first to visit their "temporary cellar door."

I don't want to give the impression that these are cute people who will succeed "some day." They are already succeeding in spectacular fashion. Low yields, good weather, ruthless selection of the best clusters, intelligent vinting--these have added up to at least 5 gold medals and one trophy (sorry if I forgot any, Ernest) in only ten years in Mudgee.

And those medal winners were what we were offered. I have had many tasting experiences, but not one as pleasant as this one: sipping these elegant, gold medal-winning wines at the Schuetz table,  Jo's baking adding pleasant background smells, while dreamily looking out over the vineyard.

A number of small things have added up to create Ernest's present success and bright future. One is his good choice of associates. His winemaker is Jacob Stein of Robert Stein wines, who recently was selected as Australian Young Winemaker of the Year.

But the real secret is Ernest and Jo's willingness to work hard and long toward a goal. They live simply (although they do have a house in North Sydney in addition to the spartan vineyard residence). While Jo works at an expedition planning company, Ernest drives around Sydney selling product.  They have recently arranged for a beautiful new "real" cellar door in Mudgee. They make jams and honey, which will supplement wine sales there. They arrange for friends and family to help with the pickings (they almost roped us in as well!) and pay them with barbecue and cakes.

Generously, Ernest offered to deliver our new case of Epica to our Sydney flat. We couldn't simply let him do that and walk away, so he and Jo accepted our invitation to dinner with our visiting friends:

Just to make it a little more special, Ernest brought some barrel samples from the 2012 vintage. I have to tell you, those were so good they were more like finished wines than barrel samples. 2012 is going to be a great year for Schuetz.

Hard work, knowledge, dedication, humility, and drive. I give you the next King of Mudgee: