Being (Senator) Andrew Bartlett

By Claudette Vaughan

Senator Andrew Bartlett has been a friend to animals for many years now. He’s never been afraid to speak out in Parliament on behalf of the non-human animal kingdom. He’s a seasoned animal activist who has made himself available on a range of animal-related issues over the years and he’s an important part of the animal rights movement in Australia.

Abolitionist: You have been calling for the abolition of Australia’s Live Export Trade for many years now. Why hasn’t this happened yet and what’s the latest up-date on the issue, Andrew?

Andrew Bartlett: I think it’s like a lot of other areas where there hasn’t been much progress. The power of Industry and the very short term focus of Government. It’s so frustrating that in this area in particular there’s a clear alternative that would address most of the concerns about lost earnings, jobs and those kinds of things. The alternative is not being taken up because Government do not want to upset the interests that are making the money at the moment. Some people would obviously lose out of abolishing the live export trade but other people would win. I guess it’s more not wanting to upset those that would lose and not wanting to deal with any short-term political pain. Partly this is because there’s no interest in long term thinking at all given to the welfare of animals.

Abolitionist: Do you think it was to animal activists detriment – that is from all quarters, the most conservative to the most radical - that we have taken the pressure off them as things have slowed down a bit now? Should the Australian animal rights movement have kept the pressure on them?

Andrew Bartlett: Continuing pressure is always important but I do recognise that it’s extremely hard to maintain at the level of energy and it’s very hard to maintain the public and media interest in the issue. One of the ways the Government has dealt with it, every time an out-cry builds up through a particular incident or some extra media exposure, they will response with some short term enquiry or review, enough for the issue to get off the front pages then a few months down the track it’s basically back to business as usual. People shouldn’t ignore some of the smaller improvements that have been made. There are improvements in conditions and monitoring that’s 100% down to the efforts of people who are concerned about animals but obviously it’s nowhere near what is needed. The live export trade is not one that you can modify to a reasonable standard. It’s possible to do small things to improve the circumstances the animals are in but you can certainly never get it anywhere near a satisfactory standard but there’s really no alternative from a welfare point of view to abolishing it.

Abolitionist: Is it difficult being an animal rights senator in Parliament being surrounded by people who aren’t or who have never given any thought to animal rights before?

Andrew Bartlett: I feel regularly guilty that I don’t do more on animal issues. It’s particularly hard in federal government because you’re continually told it’s a State issue even though with the live export trade as well as other issues, it’s a federal issue. We saw the case recently with the importing of Thai elephants to Australian zoos. That was a federal issue and the federal government failed, in my view, to give due weight to welfare issues. I do find it frustrating and disappointing clearly greater awareness and support for animal issues. I think it’s actually gone backwards. Everything has become focused around a few key issues of the day and around economics first and foremost there’s a real feeling in parliament that this is a fringe issue. It’s also frustrating because I know governmental indifference doesn’t reflect community views. People might change their vote on the Live Export Trade issue or animal experimentation or something else.

Abolitionist: What are some other issues that you are passionate about Andrew?

Andrew Bartlett: Well, I’m always happy to lend support to any issue that the community and animal advocate groups are giving prominence to and to that extent I guess I see my role as trying to provide support and encouragement to people in the community not just to keep pressure on the Government but to raise awareness in the community. As with many other issues Government tends to lag behind the community and the key challenge is often to change community behaviours and attitudes sufficiently then Governments follow behind.
I have always looked for opportunities to always drop in, in reference to environmental impacts as well as the suffering involved in meat production. I don’t know how much impact it has but I think even in debates like climate change I frankly find it totally unsatisfactory and hypocritical that campaigners on all sides of the debate will talk about all sorts of things but something as fundamental as diet is ignored. Giving up eating meat is a clear issue where something can done that’s very straight forward and it won’t have any negative economic impact in total on the meat industry but can be balanced out by gains in other industries. It’s an easy thing that virtually anyone can do that doesn’t detriment their health and usually it’s to the benefit of their health, it’s good for the environment, great for the animals and clearly a positive on climate change and water consumption, the other big environmental issue.

Abolitionist: Premier Beatty has gone out on a limb over re-cycling sewage for drinking. What do you think? Have you any figures on how safe it is?

Andrew Bartlett: Yes, I have been looking at that issue. There was a referendum in Toowoomba in Queensland about the use of recycled water for drinking as well as for industry usage. I personally think that as long as you have enough checks in the process and this proposal for Toowoomba did include this condition, it’s certainly preferable to destructive and expensive mechanisms like building dams. Recycled water means you don’t rely on rainfall, your water is there so you don’t have to hope that it rains on the right spot. Governments have not even done the easy thing of recycling for industry and other uses rather than drinking purposes but frankly the scientific evidence is pretty clear that if there’s checks along the way for any for systems failure then it’s safe and desirable from a environmental part of it. It’s not the sole solution but it’s certainly part of the equation.

Abolitionist: Have you seen Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” yet?

Andrew Bartlett: Yes I have. I thought it was very powerful.

Abolitionist: Do you think this is the reason why Bush is changing his position on global warming and why he is finally addressing the issue?
Andrew Bartlett: I think it’s played a role. I think there’s a combination of factors that finally come together to reach a critical point where people like George Bush and by consequence John Howard feel like they cannot ignore it anymore and have to do something about it. That’s obviously good but if you look at our Government’s record on pretty much anything where there’s a controversy, their solutions very much tend to be short-term, the quick fix. They want to look like they are doing something to get it off the front pages. I don’t think climate change will get off the front page because it will be continually with us because there’ll be continuous incidents and examples coming up. I think the potential problem means there’ll be a few packages released and some policies released to give the impression that it’s all being addressed, rather than the real systemic change that we need.

Abolitionist: Do you think that Australia will follow America on climate change?

Andrew Bartlett: There’s no doubt the Australian Government will take a similar tack as the US. Both countries have elections coming up. The US has a significant one in the next couple of weeks. Australia’s is next year and the US has one the year after that so its got the potential that this issue will shape the votes and hopefully shape policies from all parties on what’s done about it. Again, it’s that short-tem political interest factor that’s put ahead of the long-term good of the community.

Abolitionist: What views do you hold on the war in Iraq?

Andrew Bartlett: I very strongly and publicly opposed the war in Iraq when it was being initiated in large part for some of the reasons that unfortunately have turned out to be true. I would have liked to have been proven wrong and that it might have been quick and smooth with a functioning democracy in place promptly, but I think that was a pipe dream. The lack of planning for what occurred afterwards and that includes Australians and the lack of interest in it just shows how shallow the reasoning was that was put forward at the time. It’s a disgrace frankly. I am astonished that the Australian Government hasn’t worn more political damage as a consequence.

Abolitionist: They have done such a good job at stitching any dissent up, how is that done?

Andrew Bartlett: A lot of people did protest when war broke out and I know a lot of people felt very disheartened by the fact that the biggest protests ever seen in the country, certainly in Brisbane, were just brushed aside like it was of no consequence. I think a lot of people felt very disempowered by that but people, to use a clique, need to “maintain the rage”. This doesn’t necessarily mean they need to follow the same tactic, marching backwards and forwards, but they need to continue to voice their concerns through other mechanisms and make sure that the principles involved there are given more priority than unfortunately they seem to be.

Abolitionist: I noticed on your website you have made several declarations calling for an end to Muslim bashing and for a calm head to prevail over Sheik Taj el-Di al Hilaly’s latest comments about women.

Andrew Bartlett: I have a couple of concerns about that. We always need to try and keep a balance in public commentary and that’s about any issue that people feel strongly about. This doesn’t mean that you can’t be critical or make comments but the Sheik has made a number of comments over the years that’s not been good but there’s a problem when you use that to slander, vilify and marginalize a whole group of people that’s always a risk particularly with minorities and you see it again in a much lesser form with some of the smears thrown towards animal rights activists. One aspect that does concern me, and you see it with the Muslim community with the sub-text always there that there are potential “terrorists” around the place, and all they have to do is use the word “terrorist” to touch all the buttons and immediately enables a whole group of people to be dismissed. I have been very worried when I’ve seen examples of this happening, and I have seen it. The ex agricultural minister Warren Truss used to call animal rights activists “terrorists”. They use this easy label now for anybody who’s against the Iraq war. As if everybody against the Iraq war is somehow a supporter of Saddam Hussein. Alexander Downer did this repeatedly. It’s disgraceful but they are looking for a way to neutralize and negate an entire argument just by smearing people out-of-hand.

Abolitionist: Is this an escalation towards a new world order?

Andrew Bartlett: It’s a consequence of the concentration of power. I think the growing arrogance from a Government, and this means any government who’s been in power for a long period of time, particularly since this one as it has control of the Senate, they feel like they rule the world. All opposition, defence or alternative views is seen as somehow unAustralian to be attacked or shot down. It comes with excessive partisanship I guess. It’s seen very badly in the US at the moment where this construct is put up where anybody who criticises the government is not just anti-government but anti-country and if they are anti- country they must therefore be aligned with our enemies and then you pretty quickly get a situation where it’s seen as criticizing the government is somehow giving support and aid to the enemy. It’s a very dangerous situation to be in particularly as there’s also a concentration of power where there is only a small number of mainstream media owners that you can get campaigns waged if you can get the mainstream media to target particular groups of people – very dangerous frankly.

Abolitionist: You used to be the spokesperson in the Democrats for gay, lesbian and transgendered rights. What’s your views on same sex marriages?

Andrew Bartlett: It’s a position that the Democrat’s have always held and that is a person’s rights shouldn’t be determined by the gender of the person you happened to fall in love with. People do, and always have formed strong and interdependent relationships with people of either gender the fact that it’s only a minority that people with the same gender doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the same legal rights as others. The real problem with the same sex marriage issue is there was a conscious decision by the federal government to attack the concept and to escalate it to an issue whilst there was a desire by some in the gay and lesbian community to have same sex marriages, it wasn’t at the top of the list. There were more immediate things happening with regard to existing discrimination under law for people in same sex relationships but this Government particularly chose to specifically amend the Marriage Act to eliminate the concept and in the process, made a lot of very public attacks on the whole notion of same sex relationships and I think that was very destructive and socially diversive. Obviously they were acting out of political motives so it’s made it more important to stand up for the notion of equality because the Government is clearly going to target it. At the same time there is finally some movement from the federal government in acknowledging the widespread community view that people in same sex relationships should not be actively discriminated against in tax law, superannuation and a whole range of other areas. Those areas should be removed from federal law. I accept that there is less community support for same sex marriages although I strongly support it but there is clearly community support for removing discrimination in other areas and that’s one that we should get on with straight away.

Abolitionist: Australia is not even close, and it’s not even on the agenda for a Treaty with the Aboriginal people of this land. You have been very forthright in your support for indigenous people. Will a Treaty make an iota of a difference Andrew?

Senator Bartlett: It would depend on what was in the Treaty. The key aspects of things like a Treaty, and you are right – it’s not on the agenda at the moment and it’s not even like fundamental concepts like self-determination is seen as passé, which I find extraordinary but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to continue to fight for it. I think terms like “self-determination” and “Treaty” have become politicized and very loaded as a lot of people think a Treaty means splitting up into separate nations which it doesn’t. I think the key thing is just the acknowledgement and respect and genuine control over their own future for indigenous people. The positive aspect of a Treaty is it actually involves acknowledgement not only of past wrongs but acknowledgement of continuing existence and a unique component of modern day Australia. Personally I think it’s important to emphasize it’s important not to think of it as being seen doing something nice for indigenous people but it’s in our entire countries interest and we have as much to gain, if not more as indigenous Australians, by fully acknowledging the unique role they have in our present as well as in our past. It provides a key opportunity for all of us to move ahead as a Nation in the future.

Abolitionist: There are two things that trouble me on the Aboriginal score. It’s discriminatory for Aboriginal people to be penalized through their welfare cheques for not going to school etc etc and second, spending millions of dollars to find an alternative fuel to stop young Aboriginal people from petal sniffing, to my eyes, is backwards looking.

Andrew Bartlett: I’m am prepared to consider anything if it’s got a prospect of working. I think Australia as a whole has failed in this area more than anything else and that’s right across the political spectrum. I think the key issue is more that any actions has to have the involvement, support and control of indigenous Australians. Some of the issue s to do with welfare and other substance abuse things, in some communities developed in consultation with those communities. If they are in control of taking them forward, and they support it, then I’ll support it. The other key aspect is that other indigenous communities across the country have different solutions and work in different areas. You must have the involvement of people at a community level to find a solution. What might work in Cape York might not work in some other remote indigenous communities let alone in the cities where of course we have some of the biggest Aboriginal communities in the country and then there’s completely different issues for them to grapple with.

Abolitionist: What does the future hold for Senator Bartlett?

Andrew Bartlett: I’m focusing on my contest in Queensland. There should be more awareness this time around about the importance of the Senate and the need to return the Senate to being an independent and that it’s not controlled by any one party. My role in the Queensland contest, obviously hoping the party does well, but I can only control my own contest and basically I’ll be putting a key question to the voters about making the Senate an effective House of Parliament again and I believe it’s important that I stay there. As long as I get that question out to them, even the lack of advertising and the media’s fixation on the two major parties, as long as I get people to think about that question they can make that decision.

Abolitionist: It was sad to hear about the passing of Don Chipp, founder of the Democrats recently, Andrew.

Andrew Bartlett: It was a sad occasion although it was inspirational as well. He was inspirational in life and now even in death. The occasion gave us a chance to remind ourselves in the importance in maintaining passion and commitment to your beliefs. Even it served as a strong reminder in what he attempted to do through the Democrat Party in promoting animal issues. It was partly in reviewing what he did during his time that made me feel, in a parliamentary sense, he had a deep concern for animal welfare and it was much higher up the priority list in the 80’s and 90’s when we saw a Senate committee devoted to it and it produced a lot of influential reports. Then there was people from right across the political spectrum having to engage with the facts and engage with the issues. Now they have just dismissed them all completely. I recently had a disappointment when I referred my private senators Bill on animal welfare to a senate rule committee and I think you couldn’t get less interest from the others. There was a lot of public interest and a lot of public submissions but no interest from parliamentarians.

I think in the federal political arena today it boils down to a much narrower political agenda and there’s only a small number of issues being addressed. Even they are being dealt with in a narrow way and also the ability to ignore the fact, use political spin and rhetoric to create a reality that shuts out anything inconvenient but again, people shouldn’t be so dispirited by that to give up but, rather, to look at changing their strategies and tactics a bit. There’s important and effective work being done in raising community awareness. Once that happens even politicians can’t shut out reality forever.