Speech: Hawken Scholars Dinner, 2009

A lovely friend suggested I share some of my speeches that I have shared over the years.  I don't often write down a script, but here are some that I have dug up from my archives. I hope you enjoy...

***

University of Queensland Scholarship Dinner for the Hawken Engineering Scholars, 2009

***

Travelling alone to a new country, with a different language, different people, and a culture I have never experienced before: might sound daunting, but trust me – it may be one of the best experiences you will ever have in your life.

Good Evening ...

Earlier this year, during the mid year break, I was fortunate enough to be a part of a wonderful three week experience known as the IIWE annual conference; held by the International Institute for Women Engineers.  Held in Paris, France, a total of 44 women (and 1 man) from around the world came together to share what is now known as the IIWE experience.

Participants came from all over the world including the States, Mexico, Norway, Nigeria, China, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Israel and ranged in qualification from a mere second year undergraduate like myself to a professional engineer who was working with the UN in Rwanda.

It was one of the defining experiences of my life.  And to be honest, I didn’t ever think it would actually happen.

A few months earlier, I was browsing through the Engineers Australia email newsletter and came across an advertisement for the ‘opportunity of a lifetime’ - a three week conference in Paris.  Although excited, I doubted I would take the plunge; “Its not my opportunity I thought”, but the thought remained in the back of my mind.  It wasn’t until I bumped into Professor Caroline Crostwaithe (the Associate Dean of the Faculty) that my fortune changed dramatically.

I mentioned the conference in passing, and instead of the dismissal I expected, the Professor encouraged me to apply and investigate sponsorship opportunities the University could supply.  Suddenly, the trip was no longer only a pipe dream.

What you must realise is that this conversation happened a mere month before the conference was scheduled to start – and just before the end of semester exams.  The next few weeks were a blur of applications, reverse engineering assignments, searching for flights, engineering drawings, approaching the University for funding, studying structures, organising my passport, conic section problems…and before I knew it, the time came for me to pack and head out.  What did I expect? I don’t think I had any idea for what was in store.

I won’t bore you with details of my flight, getting lost in strange airport or losing my luggage for 4 weeks, although those aspects of the trip certainly made it interesting.  I won’t even give you a blow by blow account of the trip, as enthralling as it was.  All I will do is tell you what I learnt and why you should seriously consider similar experiences.

As a group, we had the opportunity to visit world class companies including L’Oreal, Coca Cola, Societe Generale, Thales, Areva, IBM and the UNESCO headquarters.  We had lectures from world class professors about topics including Ethics in Engineering, the History of Engineering, Women in Engineering and Sustainability.  As part of the program we also had to keep a reflective journal, mirroring the record a professional Engineer is required to keep, and in groups we participated in a group project, redesigning a development so that it operates sustainably.   Both the structured and informal parts of the three weeks taught me a lot - how to deal with people without a common language for example: something we take for granted here in Australia, but you really do begin to appreciate knowing what people are talking about!

I don’t think I can accurately describe the effect that this trip had on me.  When I returned to Australia, I was surprised that everything looked the same…but yet, it felt different somehow.  A friend said to me, “Things haven’t changed here…you are the one who has changed.’  And it was true.  I had met people from around the world and it had changed the way I view the world.

The biggest realisation was that…there is so much out there! In Australia we are fortunate in that we are so isolated, but that also means we are almost cut off from the rest of the world.  No longer to do I think the only option for me when I graduate is to move up to the mines, no longer do I think that the way they teach Engineering at the University of Queensland is the be all and end all, no longer do I think the opportunities are there, but they are for someone else.

The opportunities are all there for us to take.  UQ is amazingly supportive in this aspect and there are so many opportunities that can provide you with a strong foundation for what you want to achieve in the future.  Don’t be afraid to try something new, no matter how daunting it may seem. Don’t think you are too old, too young, too busy, too shy, too lazy…I guarantee that it will be worth it.  In the words of a multinational corporation, Just Do It.

Crazy Rig Conversations: Part 7

One of my favourite parts about working out on the rigs is the crazy/hilarious/random/unexpected things people say.

Here are a few of the gems of conversations I have been a part of recently!

NB: In the interests of privacy and what-not, I have referred to individuals as Old Mate, or OM for short.

***

Me: Oh mate, I got woken up this morning by a cow! It was right next to my window like MOOOO!

OM: Oh you shoulda just opened the door and been like 'Oh mate, I don't do cattle'.

OM2: Yeh but then he woulda been like 'Oh but I'm built like a horse!'

OM: ...and hung like a donkey!

Laughter ensued...

***

I learnt a new phrase the other day...(apologies for possible offense!)

OM: Oh yeah we're doing a job up there for so-and-so

Me: oh yeah what kind of operation is it?

OM: Oh it's a bit of a n***a show.

I shook my head and made sure I heard correctly.

ME: A WHAT??

OM: You've never heard of the phrase n***a-rigging? It's when it’s real rough-like and you make do with what you've got. N***a rigging man! It's a worldwide thing!

I looked around. All the other guys seems unperturbed.

OM2: It’s true aye.

Me: *shock*

***

I was chatting to a colleague about things we did as kids...

OM: Oh I once branded my mum with a hot poker on her bottom!

I burst out laughing

OM: Yeah! We were on the farm and they'd been branding the cattle all day so I though that's what I should do too! I put the poker in the fire and then just poked her on the bottom.

She swears she's got the scar till this day...

She won't show us though!

***

I was chatting to a colleague from the United States' deep south.

OM: I guess I was lucky because I grew up not seeing colour... I mean, we've done that - everyone drinking from their own fountain and you can sit on the back of the bus...

Me: So when did segregation stop?

The Old Mate smiled.

OM: When did it stop?  We're still waiting for that to happen...

***

Everyone was doing it.

Originally written for Westpac's Ruby Connection

'Everybody else was doing it'...

That was the first answer that popped into my head when asked by my parents why, at the ripe old age of 10, I had decided to don the hijab.  The first answer, but definitely not the whole story…

***

The hijab is an Islamic head covering and an all-round code of dress that encourages modesty and self respect.  A simple piece of fabric and a mindset perhaps, but one that carries connotations and political ramifications beyond what I understood at the time.  It is now, 12 years on, it is an irremovable part of my identity and expression as a Muslim, but the decision to wear it is something that is constantly under question.

***

As I attended the local Islamic primary school at the time, the hijab was part of my school uniform.  It wasn’t therefore a huge jump; I was already a part-time ‘hijabi’ and this was my conversion to full time.  It was the year 2001, and the date I chose for my conversion was November the 10^th.  Why? It was the federal election, and I wanted to choose an auspicious date just in case I forgot.  Forward thinking, always!

I walked to the house door wearing a huge white scarf, wrapped clumsily around my head and shoulders, pinned at the base of my neck.  I distinctly remember my father looking at me with slight concern and asking,

“Are you sure you want to do this? This is it?”

“Yes, yes, I am sure”.  Off I went…

What I didn’t realise at the time of course, was that I had chosen to wear the hijab in a politically charged environment.  It was only a few months after September 11 and Muslims were now sharply visible and constantly in the media. However, wearing the hijab for my 10 year old self wasn’t about political statement or being forced into following a cultural expectation. I believed I had come of age and it was time for me to wear the scarf!  Other girls might have wanted to start wearing makeup out or be allowed to date as a way of ‘growing up’; I chose to cover myself.

***

Why? Why do you do it, people ask. Doesn’t the concept oppress women? Don’t you miss the wind in your hair? Don’t you miss wearing a bikini to a beach?

To be perfectly honest, I don’t think I understood the full implications and reasons behind the concept when I made the decision, however I have settled into it with heartfelt conviction.

***

The concept of the hijab is cushioned in the value of modesty and of personal freedom.  It means something different to each individual who wears it, that is certain.

For me personally, the hijab is about being judged for who I am rather than what I look like.  There is extraordinary freedom in that, especially in a society where a woman’s looks, physicality and beauty are of such ‘importance’.

It is about being visible and proudly so, of my religion and what it stands for.

It is about saving my body and its womanly ways for those who I choose to see it (i.e. the eventual husband! Women, children and family are also allowed the hijab-less experience. The idea is to be covered from those who are marriageable).

That is not to say that those who don’t wear the hijab or choose to interpret it differently are any lesser, let me make that point clear.  We tend to get very defensive about personal choices such as dress.  I have respect for every woman’s choice, and that respect is the basis of all interaction. This is just how I choose to express myself.

***

Yes, some versions of hijab, such as the Burqa, are used as tools of oppression and invisibility in places such as Afghanistan.  However, this is not the case around the world!  Particularly in the West, those who choose to wear the hijab are most often following a personal choice and conviction.  For some, it is their way of becoming closer to God (Allah), forgoing the material obsessions of this world.  For others, it is about public expression as a Muslim.  The reasons are as many and as varied as the women themselves.

In fact, the concept of wanting to ‘free’ the ‘oppressed’ covered woman is insulting to the personal choice being made. It is presumptuous; assuming that one idea of freedom of expression is socially acceptable.  If it strays from such a path, it clearly must be backward and oppressive, right?

Women do not give up their voice and their thoughts when they choose to wear the hijab.

In fact, part of its intention was to give woman more agency and capacity to interact in a society, taking out the judgement of beauty.

I personally find it freeing, and it allows me to be more creative with my outfits!

***

So when you ask if me and my hijabi sisters are oppressed, I’ll likely just cock my eyebrow at you.

Who was it that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011? Three women, all who were covered when they received their awards.

That’s what I thought.

Let’s move away from the conversation of being ‘saved’.  There are thousands of more constructive dialectics to be had – ones were hijabed women are partners rather than mere silent victims.

Isn’t it ironic that in the very act of ‘saving’ women from oppression silences them?

It could happen to anyone of us.

Salacious photos are not something to generally be given the time of day.  When the topic comes up as part of another 'scandal' in politics or a celebrity's life, I tend to shake my head and wonder what the person was thinking.

Notwithstanding this, a subplot running through this week's 'The Newsroom' episode was cause for reflection, particularly around this idea (or myth!) of privacy in today's world.

The subplot in question was explosively introduced in the opening scene. Nude photos of one of the characters, Sloan (a respected TV anchor), had been posted up on a site.  These photos quickly went viral, and the channel is left to deal with the results.  The interesting thing about these photos was that they were taken with her consent by an man she was dating and trusted implicitly at the time.  When she dumped him, he took the due 'revenge' he felt was 'owed' to him through by utterly humiliating her.

'I am feeling something very I don't know how to describe right now', Sloan says on the show.

Betrayal perhaps?  Insecurity? Utter helplessness?  One can only imagine what it must feel like to have a truly intimate moment be broadcast online.

Her confidante at the time said it was rage - or will quickly turn into rage.  Sloan finishes the episode in the boardroom of said jilted lover, punching him out and getting a little revenge of her own.

***

There are a number of interesting readings of this plot.  Sloan's character is a genius; she's a well respected economist and commands audiences of hundreds of thousands.  Surely, a thirty year old highly educated woman wouldn't put herself in this situation.  Surely she would think to delete identifying photos if they were taken, even if she had consented?

Well if recent history is anything to go by, people do very silly things with cameras and phones without seeming to think about the consequences (or in the case of Anthony Weiner, even seeming to care). In this case however, Sloan wasn't doing anything technically 'wrong', so that argument is less substantial.  It does raise the question about the line between an individual's public and personal life though, particularly in an age where this is becoming increasingly blurred.

She sights her implicit trust in this guy as the reason she didn't expect this sort of revenge. 'It wasn't a bad breakup - but even if it were, would this be okay?!', she asks, and rightly so!  Humiliation and the essential defamation can regularly - and do regularly - annihilate reputations.  We all know that reputations are the easiest things to damage and the most difficult to repair.  So the act of distributing the photos we can agree, is immoral.

Is it criminal?

Whose responsibility is it to ensure these things don't happen?

Is your privacy always your individual responsibility or should is there an implicit trust in relationships with people - and institutions - that should also bear part of the burden?

It feeds into a larger question about an individual's right to privacy, particularly with the exposing of PRISM, the actions of the NSA and even the likes of Google implying that privacy online is a myth.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult to effectively operate in this society without being online.  So how does one walk the line?  Are we all to always be on-guard and take precautions, accepting that being selective about what we share - even to our closest friends - is never really actually private?

What will happen when people growing up in this online society become leaders of state?  Will there never be any surprises because everything is already online? Will our moral appetites change because we become accustomed to every single infraction being displayed and obsessed with the world over?  Or will there be an industry based around the erasure of online profiles to give people an opportunity to 'start afresh'.

What do you think?

***

It is about the Vote People, not the Boat People (Part 2).

This is the second half of this piece: Check out Part 1 here.

***

As an asylum seeker who has arrived by boat to Australia, under either the Labour or Coalition, you will be treated as a second class asylum seeker, be discriminated against due to your mode of arrival, possibly be settled in a third world nation without the infrastructure to support you OR be allowed into Australia but only on a temporary basis, until you can be sent back.

WHY does this policy standpoint seem to work?  The arguments used by voters include:

1. We don't hate refugees, we just don't like those who are jumping the queue.

Mate, there is no queue.  If that doesn't answer the question, let's look at reasons people decide to jump on a boat.

Problem 1 - Difficult access to UNHCR processing locations.  In some cases, like those from North and East Sri Lanka, the only place where you can apply for refugee status via the UNHCR is in Colombo, down in the South and in the heartland of the 'enemy'.  The number of checkpoints between where the refugees are coming from and where the UNCHR processing location is means that more likely than not, you won't make it through. What is your other option? Jump on a boat somewhere and try your luck.

Problem 2 - No camp nearby.  The UNCHR has a number of refugee camps and processing locations around the world.  However, if you are in a situation where a camp is inaccessible, or worse, you find one and it is full, where do you go?

Problem 3 - The length of wait to be resettled.  This is one of the wedge issues.  If the average wait in a refugee camp is 17 years, does it not make sense that individuals will try other options to start their life?  Yes, there are those that go through the system, wait in a camp and get duly processed.  It is pure folly to believe though that everyone has equal access to the UNHCR's processing pathway.  If there is an option - no matter how dangerous - that means you may be accepted into a nation in a shorter period of time, that option will be taken.  

This is an aspect of the issues that requires a concerted international or regional effort to tackle.   It is a major factor which means that if resolved, or even partly so, asylum seekers will not have the same incentive to risk their life by jumping on a boat.  They will have belief in the system and will wait - if they believe the system works.  This can be done by substantially increasing the capacity of the UNHCR to allow them to process individuals at a much faster rate, something Australia can work on.

2. Why don't they stay in Indonesia and Malaysia?

Both of these countries are not signatories to the UN Convention and as such, offer no rights and protection to asylum seekers and refugees.  This means that they live on the edge of civilisation, unable to work or educate themselves and their families and in the constant fear of detection and persecution.  This lifestyle is simply unsustainable.  Many are often recognised refugees and are simply waiting to be resettled, however, it can take them up to 20 or 30 years to be resettled into a third country.

3. We have to protect our borders.

Burnside says it best here.

"Border protection" is a grossly misleading term, used by both major parties. It implies that boat people are a threat to us. They are not. We do not need to be protected from asylum seekers: they need to be protected from their persecutors. 

We need to stop this defensive, exclusionary discourse that implies this is an issue of national security.  If it were, it would be under the Department of Defence.  It isn't. It is under the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.  Which means it is an issue of immigration!

Some say that if the refugees were white, this wouldn't be a problem, alluding to this issue targeting the xenophobic vote.  This is true, to a certain extent.  Interestingly,

***

There is no doubt there are people who will try to rort the system, individuals who take advantage of kindness.

However, this should NOT dictate our behaviour as a nation.

If we want to be world leaders, if we want to play a part in the region as part of the 'Asian Century', we have to show that we are willing to take our share of an international situation that isn't going anywhere.  

***

At the end of the day, the attitude towards refugees and asylum seekers in this country may be deemed as legal, technically. It may be deemed as politically savvy, for winning votes in this election.

However, at the end of the day, there is no way it can be deemed as fair, just or morally correct.

For a nation with the resources that we have, with the pride in ‘fairness’ we tout, with the capacity to take on refugees and provide them with the opportunity to start a new life, it is sad that we are not willing to take part of the international responsibility to protect properly.  Particularly as in some cases, our armed forces contributed to the situations that are forcing people out of their homes (Afghanistan, Iraq).  

…and they wonder why people are disengaging from politics.

It is about the Vote People, not the Boat People.

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. UN Declaration of Human rights, Article 14 (1) 

How have we come to this point?

How is it the the nation of Australia, which hosts 0.3% of the global total of 45.2 million refugees (Source, 2012), has resorted to disregarding sense, moral obligation, compassion and fairness?

What happened to 'we've boundless plains to share?'

There are no words to describe the ridiculousness of the current asylum seeker policy debate. In fact, to call it a policy debate in disingenuous.  This isn't about policy. This is about, as others before have stated vehemently, a race to the bottom.  A way to capture a vote in the conservative, close minded and those who feel threatened.  A way to talk about 'security of our borders', as if the asylum seekers that arrive on our shores via leaky vessels are invading our nation when in fact they are seeking our protection.

 ***

It is an issue that evokes a strong almost visceral emotional response in almost every individual.  Good policy isn't about emotional pleas though.  'Good' politics on the other hand...well, it seems that all our politics relies on is emotion.  

Emotion aside however, the facts are simple.

1. We have an obligation to the United Nations 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which, as a nation, we signed and committed to (as well as the 1967 Protocol). This means that we are obliged to process asylum seekers who come to our shores.  We are NOT to discriminate based on mode of arrival.
2. 90% of boat arrivals who have been processed have been deemed refugees. Those who have not have been repatriated or held in detention. The distinction between asylum seekers and refugees is important. Asylum seekers are those waiting for their 'refugee claim' to be processed. Refugees are those who the UNHCR has already processed and are waiting to be resettled into a third nation.

***

The question that is often asked is 'why then have boat arrivals increased substantially since the Labor government came into power? Is this not due to the dismantling of the Howard Government's Pacific Solution?'

That is highly unlikely.

There are a number of factors that have contributed to the increase. This includes better organisation of the 'people smuggler' business, increase in zones of conflict (in 1999 we had yet to enter Afghanistan and Iraq) and the fragmented policy positions of the last few years. There have been multiple changes in the last three years – this encourages people to consider the option and helps the smugglers sell the proposition.

***

There are two aspects to the discussion. One is the morality of treatment of those who make the journey and arrive to our shores on boat. The second is the international effort to reduce the numbers coming by boat for their own safety, if this is something the Australian public truly wants (for the right reasons).

The policies being suggested may 'work', if by 'work' we mean reduce the number of individuals who arrive by boat, but this is to be seen.  The true issue however, is the intention behind the policy and the treatment of those who have already arrived and the opportunities they are afforded.

The Coalition's policy is a step backwards to the world of Temporary Protection Visas.  These reviled visas, implemented in 1999 by the Howard Government defeat the purpose of being granted asylum.

Being given a temporary visa means individuals are unsure as to whether they should start a full life in Australia or if they will be deported the moment the Government decides their country is safe to return to. It meant that you were effectively separated from your family permanently as you are not allowed to leave, but not given permission to help bring your family to Australia.  In this edition of the policy, refugees will also have to work for the dole indefinitely.

The only slight tinge of silver lining is that boat arrivals won't be counted under the 13, 750 humanitarian visa allocations for the year under the coalition government, meaning more refugees can arrive through the UNHCR process.  Ideally, this number should be increased substantially.

''The essential point is, this is our country and we determine who comes here,'' Mr Abbott said.

Well considering the largest proportion of illegal migrants are actually British and European visa overstayers, maybe that is who we should be turning our attention to.

***

I had too much to say, so find Part 2 of my thoughts here.

Behind the Scenes at #QandA

When I answered my ringing phone in early May, I had no idea that I was about to be offered the opportunity that every young politically-engaged Australian dreams of.

‘Hello Yassmin, I am so-and-so, one of the producers from QandA on the ABC…”

Almost had a heart attack!

***

The opportunity came up to be a part of the panel in mid-May, but a late confirmation from a well known politician (Queensland's own, Bob Katter) meant that I was briefly bumped from the line up. My rig job meant that the next two or three opportunities were also impossible. I didn't know if I should begin to despair: after all, one can only say 'no' so many times...

Eventually, we found a date that worked. August the 5th.

It was only confirmed a little over a week before the announcement: given the responsive nature of the show, panel members are drafted in quite close to the air date. The producers do an amazing job in this sense; sourcing and organising a new panel of people at such short notice week in, week out, must be exhausting.

So it was, on July 29th, the announcement of the 'next week's panel' that my name was announced...Ah! Let the games begin.

The ads were up and the news was out, but I still had no idea what to expect. I frantically began to read and research all manner of topics. I met with migration agents and department officials to learn about the true facts behind our asylum seeker and refugee policy, conducted little surveys via twitter and Facebook. Reading, reading, reading...

We were never given the questions that would be asked, but on the Friday before the show the producers send out an email with a variety of topic suggestions to the audience participants (related to the areas of interest for the panellists). This is to prompt questions from the audience. The topics were extremely varied - from the 'youth vote' (mine) to Fairfax to the umpiring decisions in cricket. My favourite topic of the moment, the PNG policy - not in sight!

At this point, I was simply holding my breath...

By some twist of luck, the election was announced on the Sunday afternoon. Just my luck :)

Monday rolled around and I hopped on the plane to Sydney (with 5 different outfit options to boot!). I dallied around a little, had a chat to the producers on the phone and began to get dressed. Admittedly, it took a few goes to settle on the option I did, but my op-shop-red-jacket is a favourite. The white dove brooch? Totes the statement piece!

So. Dressed. Break my fast (it was still Ramadan). Pray, ask for forgiveness and a little bit of on-screen luck.

Next stop, ABC Studios.

8pm - I head into the make up room. I say hello to fellow panel member Greg Hunt on the way in. 'He seems like a nice enough chap', I think. 'I wonder what he'll be like on the panel!'

The make up lady - Maureen - was fabulous. She was actually married to a race car driver who raced against the likes of Martin Brundle and so on in the UK.   Naturally, we talked cars and got on like a house on fire! It was ironic that two ladies in a makeup room were waxing lyrical about Chevvy Stingrays and Fastbacks. She highlighted my cheekbones, left my lipstick as it was and sent me on my way...

8.30pm - Green Room, meeting the fellow panellists.

I was clearly the new kid on the block - each politician had their handler ('media advisor'), and Pamela and Grahame had history with everyone else. I introduced myself to everyone ('shaking hands, hello hello), and they were all lovely.  I suspect Morris spent the time wondering when my parents (or babysitter) were going to arrive...

They all had a good yarn. I interjected every so often with not-so-wise pearls of wisdom ('Oh yeh! I know right?!') and wondered what lay ahead. Doug Cameron and Grahame Morris seemed to get on pretty well for ideologically diametrically opposed individuals. The scene reminded me of the idea 'enemies in the house, drinking mates once the business is done'. Ah, Australia! They laughed together and agreed on their roles. 'I need someone to fight with' Morris had said. Cameron was more than happy to acquiesce to be his on-screen-enemy.

(I am not sure everyone is that good natured about it all. Wong vs Pyne - I would like to see their Green Room interaction indeed!).

We were told we had 90 seconds to go. I left my bag, phone (!!) and got in line to head to the studio...

We got into our seating order and were individually introduced to the crowd as we took our seats. I was right next to Tony. This was it!

(Right next to Tony is a button. It's red, and has the label, 'The God Button'. Oh, I wish I got a photo. I wonder if he's ever had to use it? Probably at the shoe throwing incident...)

There were only a few minutes between us being seated and going on air. Maureen and the makeup army came back on stage and 'powdered our noses'... then 5, 4, 3...

Tony Jones' introduction began!

Oh wow. Can I be perfectly honest and say that my heart has never beat as fast as it did during that first question? I don't even remember what it was about or who asked it.

All I could think of was 'right now Yassmina, you're on TV!! Don't do anything stupid! Don't fidget! Stay coooooool!'. I am pretty sure Tony could hear the Da-dunk, da-dunk... In fact, I'm actually surprised it doesn't come up as background noise in the filming.

Off it went. I wasn't asked any direct questions off the bat (thank goodness!) but by the time Hunt had finished his answer to the first question, my pulse had settled down slightly and I had forgotten about the cameras. 'This is just like any other random panel', I told myself 'Except I am surrounded by people that are talking and not making ANY sense! Let me have a word to them about this...'

It was a fair bit of electioneering, as one would expect. Being pretty disillusioned at the moment at the disgusting amount of partisan politics that is going, I had no agenda other than to say - 'no, stop! We (the people!) want wholesome, meaningful answers! Stop treating us without respect!'

A good friend/mentor/amazing woman in general, Anne Summers, who has been on the panel before, had given me the advice not to stay quiet. 'Just jump in if you have something to say, otherwise you won't get any airtime at all'. Another friend had said 'just smile', and my mother cautioned 'don't try be anyone you're not - just be yourself and be genuine, otherwise people will see right through it.'

Those are the three bits of advice I remembered and channeled - and boy, I was so happy to be there I had no problem keeping a smile on the dile Alhamdulilah! (I would actually call it a grin. A smile is much more demure...I was just flashing the pearls with pure abandon!). I jumped in whenever I thought they were talking rubbish (often) and tried to talk to the panel members in the same way that I would argue with the boys on the rig (perhaps with less invective though).

I haven't rewatched the episode or even remember what I said, but I remember feeling more comfortable as the night went on.  It only felt like 20 minutes had passed when Tony wrapped it up. 'That's all for tonight...'

It was all over!!

We shook hands and meandered back to the Green Room for liquid and solid refreshment...

The feedback from the panel members was lovely, and Tony Jones welcomed me to the 'QandA family'. It's a family I am darn well excited and honoured to be a part of!

So thank you Allah! Also to Tony Jones and the producers who were so kind - Amanda and Christine. To the fellow panelists, the make up ladies, my parents, mates (Richard from Richard's F1 who came along and supported!) and every single one of my mates - even those on the rigs! - who watched and wished me luck and supported :) I couldn't have done it without you all! Let's see where this crazzzy journey takes us next aye?!

If you missed the episode, you can read the transcript or download it here! :D

Crazy Rig Conversations: Part 6

Listening to interesting bits of conversation and hearing witty bits of jargon are always fun. Out here on the rigs though, it isn't always witty, but it is definitely entertaining...

Here are a few of the gems of conversations I have been a part of recently!

NB: In the interests of privacy and what-not, I have referred to individuals as Old Mate, or OM for short.

***

OM: Yassmin, did you eat this tub of yoghurt?

Me: mm...yes?

OM: You should keep eating that

Me: mm...why? (Is he going to give me a spiel about the health of my digestive tract? I don't need no inner health plus!)

OM: 'Cos it's the only culture you'll get around here! Haha!

***

The following was an interesting conversation that didn't quite turn out the way I was expecting it to!  We were watching the news at dinner in the crib room (cafeteria) and something about the PNG solution came on.

Me: Oh this is ridiculous. Don't get me started...

OM: Oh, so this is something you care about hey? Don't get you started hey? Well, tell me, where do you stand on this?

Oh, blimey, here we go I thought - and I launch into a lecture on the UNHCR's process, our obligations under the refugee convention, our responsibility in the world etc etc etc.

Me: So what do you think?

OM: Me? It's pretty simple really. If you want to tell someone you can't come on a boat to this country - who the hell are you to tell someone they can't come? It's not your bloody country anyway! If you're not aboriginal (indigenous) then you came on a bloody boat yourself! We should let them all in I reckon!

Me: O_o

Don't judge books by their covers...

***

I was playing some music in my shack and Eminem came on.

OM1: Oh my god Yassmin, is that the white guy who thinks he can rap?

OM2: He even named himself after a chocolate!

Me: Haha true! But he is alright aye...

OM2: Hey, at least those chocolates have some nuts!

***

The Drama Around #SocialMedia and Politics.

During #QandA on Monday, a lady asked the question about social media that got tongues and fingers wagging.

[box] Leisa O’Connor asked: I have a 17 year old daughter who won’t vote this year but will next time – active debater, articulate, well educated....it’s clear she is influenced heavily because Kevin communicates so effectively in the world where she lives – Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc...Even if she doesn’t agree with the policies – she is swayed because she feels Kevin Rudd is more in touch.[/box]

I completely understood where the mother and daughter were coming from, and was surprised (although perhaps I shouldn't have been) with the response from a fellow panel member.

[box]Yeah, look, I hear what you’re saying and I suspect it’s not this election that will be decided by social media but maybe the next one or the one after that but not this one... I can tell you most undecided people do not [tunes in to what Kevin Rudd is tweeting today]. They don't. They don't about care about politics. They are not interested. They are doing other things...You know, I'd like to educate your daughter.[/box]

What was more interesting was the response online.  On the #QandA discussion forum and on twitter, people expressed their disdain at young people basing their decisions on social media.

Examples of comments:

[box]Sadly if your daughter bases her votes on who she can see on twitter she won't be a very informed voter.  If people's preference is sitting back relying on social media to educate them on issues then they will not be well informed regardless of how well educated they are. It is also highly possible that it is not Rudd posting his tweets but one of his many media staff. Kevin Rudd is currently acting more like a show pony trying to win people over by popularity instead of proving he is a politician with any substance.  I hope for the sake of Australia that our youth are not that gullible and make the effort to research the track record of all parties before voting.[/box]

Clearly a little opposition to the idea that us young people have no idea...

***

'Social media' has been discussed, derided, lauded and dissected endlessly since it started taking off a few years ago and began to play a part in  'real' movements.

Perspectives are varied: some see it as the saviour and liberator of the East, some see it as proof of young people losing social skills and capacity to be able to communicate face to face.

At the end of the day, we must remember that social media is a tool, and should be treated as such. A tool itself does not hold any power beyond the power we bestow it through our use.  It has natural advantages and disadvantages but focusing on either at the expense of the other in a public role such as politics is not only foolish, it is ignorant.

I feel strange writing about 'social media' as a discernible 'thing': the fact of the matter is, the forum that other generations seem find so hard (by and large) to get their heads around is just part of the natural fabric of our lives.  It's not as if I grew up as a child-early-adopter either; my parents only allowed me an old school mobile phone at the end of grade 11 (and only because mum accidentally got sent two!).  However, as much as we sometimes hate it, my generation lives and breathes online just as legitimately as we do offline.

Relationships are announced on Facebook, elections on twitter.  Is it different to how it used to be? Yes. Does that make it terrible? I don't think so.

When the television was introduced, people cried the death of the radio.  When the internet was introduced, people feared the death of television.  Now, the latter is yet to be decided but the radio is still around.  Sometimes technology is replaced completely, but often new technology simply extends the reach and scope of information through avenues that were previously inaccessible.  That is the power of social media.

To the question of social media and politics.

Young people are not stupid. We are not completely ignorant, and although many like to believe it, we are not all as self obsessed as the selfie epidemic would have you think.  It is insulting to think that simply because KRudd has an account we will vote for him.  It isn't that he has an account, it is what he does and says with it that matters.

Not all young people are the same and are interested and engaged. This is true. However, the youth demographic is a powerful one indeed and ignoring them and their needs is done at your own peril.  Half a million young people are enrolling to vote this week.  The age bracket of 15-24 year olds is over 13% of the population (ABS, 2013).  There are a few marginal seats in that, I would imagine…

Gone are the days of obsession with and loyalty to a particular type of ideology.  We care about issues, issues that we feel are important.  Whether politicians like it or not, only a very small, engaged percentage of young people will spend the time researching policy and gauging whether or not a particular party aligns with their beliefs.  As such, politicians need to be able to effectively community their standing directly.

What better way to do so than through the forum we are all already on?

If you want to hold a party and everyone is already at one location, what is more effective: going to that location and starting the party there, or convincing everyone that they have to come to where YOU are because that's where you have always had your parties?

The same concept applies.  Young people are active and engaged on social media – Facebook largely, instagram and twitter for the more politically active.  For politicians to be able to communicate effectively, they need to be active on these platforms, and engaged with their audience.  We are the shareholders, the constituents.  We are electing you to represent us. Show us why you deserve our votes.  Earn it. 

We aren’t interested in endless press releases about obscure funding agreements and official statements on a Facebook page that is clearly run by a staffer.  I want to see the personality behind the politician, engage in discussion and debate that makes me convinced that this person is genuine, going to be a good representative, and eventually, deserves my vote.

In a way, it can be seen as ‘show ponying’ as a tweet described.  However, that is campaigning, is it not?

Policies are important, there is no doubt about that.  What wins though, is a combination of good policy, good service delivery and implementation, then good communication.

Using social media is simply good communication if you want to communicate with young people.

It may not win you the election, but at least we were hearing what you had to say.

***

Oh, and for all the baby boomers’ disparaging comments about the state of the youth if they are deciding who to vote for from social media let me ask: does your average voter not decide after conversations with their friends and family around dinner tables on these issues? How is this any different?

***

What do you think?

***

Exciting Business! The Y20 Project.

A couple of hours before appearing on the #QandA show on Monday, I noticed a number of missed calls from a private number, but without any messages left. Curious... When I eventually answered, it wasn't a stalker or an invite to join a bank heist crew as I had suspected.  Instead, it was a lovely lad from the Prime Minister's Office!

Thus, the news.

Wait: some background first!

The Australian Government has announced that is will be hosting the Y20 alongside the G20 that is being held in Brisbane in 2014.

The Group of Twenty (G20) is the premier forum for its members economic and financial cooperation. It brings together the world's major advanced and emerging economies, representing around 85 per cent of global GDP.

The idea of the Y20 is to give youth and young people a voice in these international discussions.  As per the media release:

The Y20 will gather young leaders from the world’s twenty largest economies for an exciting exchange of ideas. It will help build skills and networks, and identify the most pressing economic challenges and opportunities facing young people today.

In order to prep for this, the Government has put together a team of young people to plan and manage the Australian Y20.

Guess who made the cut Alhamdulilah?!

It is an absolute honour and exciting responsibility and I am completely stoked to be part of literally a dream team of people from around the nation.

Chaired by the amazing Benson Saulo, the Director of the National Indigenous Youth Leadership Academy, the other members are:

• Ms Samah Hadid (NSW) • Mr Scott Limbrick (VIC) • Mr Ehon Chan (QLD) • Ms Amanda McKenzie (ACT) • Ms Holly Ransom (WA).

Ehon is an old friend and so I am even more stoked - his work always inspires :) Holly and Samah are also inspiring acquaintances and I am looking forward to meeting and working with Scott and Amanda.

We were selected for our backgrounds in various sectors and I will be focusing on the area of energy inshallah.

This is an awesome opportunity and I want to make it as open and genuine as possible. If you have ideas or are interested in contributing in some way, please get in touch and let me know your thoughts! The idea is to be as engaging and representative as possible and get the energy/innovation of young people up to the international stage - here is a chance!

I can't wait to work with this group and you all on this and will keep you posted!

Check out the official media release here.

It's #QandA Time! (and the Burka Avenger)

We sit in front of the television every most Monday evenings, cursing and celebrating in equal measure, the opinions stated by the panellists sitting on either side of Tony Jones.

"Oh what!" we yell, out aloud and on twitter.

We all think we would have the perfect answer to the questions being asked too ;)

Well on Monday, I have the scary honour of being one of those very panellists on the firing line and by gosh, with the election just called, it's going to be a fun evening indeed!

I'll also be heading into the studio early to be talking to the Australia Network on the new animation, the Burka Avenger...

I think the idea of the Burka Avenger is fantastic, but it is a little too early to call.

Burka Avenger is a Pakistani animated television series airing on Geo Tez. Created and directed by pop star Haroon and produced at Unicorn Black production studios, the show features Jiya, a mild-mannered teacher with secret martial arts skills who uses a flowing black burka to hide her identity as she fights local thugs. The Urdu language series first aired on July 28, 2013. [wiki]

The program seems to tick the initial acceptability boxes; written by a member of the community, it is clearly coming from within and is relatable.  Programs that cultivate and encourage creativity and artistry are in dire need as well, so that is a plus.

Furthermore, the aim of the program seems to be to encourage education as the superhero uses only books and pens as her weapons.  Encouraging education, particularly in the areas this Urdu-language program is targeted to laudable and required.

What will be important is whether or not this actually works in the community.  Will it be watched by young people and change their perceptions? More importantly, will their parents allow them to watch and be educated by it?  It will most definitely create controversy: given the attire of the 'villains' (very 'traditional', even 'Taliban' looking...) and the use of the Burka as a disguise rather than as a traditional religious garment used for modesty (and in some cases, for oppression, but that's another kettle of fish).  I think the fact that this program will create conversation though is a boon in of itself...

So let's wait and see on this one. I think it is a positive, but the jury is still out on the effectiveness on the outcome - and we judge by the outcome in this world, do we not?

***

So what about you? Ever wanted to be on the panel? What would you like to talk about?  What are your thoughts on le Burka Avenger?

Fantastic Friday Five !

Morning morning morning! I hope your Friday is going well!

TGIF indeed...here are five bits of interesting facts for your Friday.

ONE.

Okay, this irritated me slightly because it's another 'fact' sheet about 'Africa' (conveniently forgetting the fact that Africa is 52 countries, and that they are quite different and not one, amorphous, exotic mass), but because it highlights a few interesting and different points, I will let it pass.  The fact that female entrepreneurship is this highest in the world? Hell yea! That's what we're talking about. Oppressed? Ain't nobody got time for that...

TWO.

Doghouse Diaries. Love it.

THREE.

Triple J did an awesome story on my experience of Ramadan on the Rigs. Props to Sarah and the team for letting me share this! Have a listen HERE (it starts at around 21 min in :D)

FOUR.

I adore this idea - quotes in comics.  Zen Pencils, it's called.

This is the first comic I read, and it struck a chord it did!  A fan even made a short video of it.

FIVE.

Long read for the day: Slow Ideas, on the New Yorker.

In our era of electronic communications, we’ve come to expect that important innovations will spread quickly. Plenty do: think of in-vitro fertilization, genomics, and communications technologies themselves. But there’s an equally long list of vital innovations that have failed to catch on. The puzzle is why.

***

So tell me. What are some interesting things you've come across on the net?