A conscience vote

Originally published in FUSE, July 2012

What is it with our obsession with conscience votes? Whenever big social policy changes are mooted, conscience votes are brought up from those on the left and the right as a way to deal with them.

This is happening in the marriage equality debate now. In the lead up the ALP conference last year many marriage equality campaigners advocated for a conscience vote as compromise solution. Now, instead of demanding that the Coalition change their formal position on equal marriage many are instead using a conscience vote as the main point of campaigns. For example, in February this year Australian Marriage Equality (AME) began a campaign pushing the Coalition for a conscience vote on the issue. AME national convenor said of the campaign:

“Soon their (The Coalition’s) party room will debate whether they should have a conscience vote on marriage equality, which is essential if marriage equality is to pass Parliament.”

Yet, when looking at these sorts of campaigns, it is really important to ask the question, are conscience votes actually a good tactic for social justice activists to pursue?

The idea of a conscience vote seems to be synonymous with social change. Even though they often have a bigger impact than social issues we never demand conscience votes on major economic reforms or environmental regulations. This is based, primarily through conservative religious thought, on the idea that these sorts of social issues are somehow a matter of ‘personal conscience’, whereas other issues are more based around political ideology and Government management.

And this is where the biggest problem with them arises. By pursuing conscience votes on major social issues, we let politicians get away with the idea that they can vote against social policies and still have a conscience. Instead of saying it is simply unconscionable for people to vote against these sorts of changes, we are giving politicians an ability to save face.

But, I hear you say, ‘you’re being unrealistic. Conscience votes are our best chance of success.’ That of course has to be a consideration, but at some point we have to ask ‘what is the cost of our short-term success?’

We need to be wary of building campaigns that although gain short-term successes build on the idea that one can be queerphobic and still have a conscience. If by fighting for a conscience vote we buy into conservative ideas that homosexuality is an issue of conscience is it really worth it?

I’m not saying that we never engage with debates around conscience votes. Sometimes we are stuck with the reality of them and we often have to deal with the parameters set by those in Parliament to get the wins we need. Yet, to think that a conscience vote is a good result, or even worse to demand it as the first point of call, we can really be screwing our movement over. When we start demanding conscience votes what we are doing is saying ‘it’s okay homophobes/racists/misogynists etc., you’re allowed to vote against us and we’re even giving you an out in the public by letting you say it’s a matter of conscience’.

In running campaigns it is important to think about the bigger picture as well as the short-term goals. Whilst legislation such as marriage equality may be seen as an important next step, we need to ensure we don’t throw everything out to ensure its passage. Given the ‘out’ conscience votes give politicians, and in turn the community, to be socially conservative therefore, we need to question their use in our campaigns. Instead of advocating for a conscience vote, we should instead be saying that voting against these issues is simply unconscionable.

Youth politics

Originally published in FUSE, 27 June 2012

When I was in high school I became involved in the anti-Iraq War movement. My involvement was limited (i.e. I attended rallies and put up posters), but really important to me. I got involved because I thought the cause was extremely important and I thought that I could make a difference – maybe not stopping the war, but hopefully changing some positions in Australia.

Now, in my early twenties, my political involvement has continued both through being active in party politics (the Greens) and social movements. I am active because I see much that I think needs to be changed in this world, and believe that in particular as a young person I have a lot at stake in seeing these changes happen.

Youth political activism has often been seen as essential to modern social movements. Political movements are often born out of places like universities, which are a hotbed of political activity. Today this role of youth political movements couldn’t be more important. With issues such as climate change and the financial crises around the world, young people have a particular stake in the political decisions made today.

Even with this activism however, young people continue to be marginalised in the political process. Politicians and decision makers are rarely young and the opinions of young people are often ignored across the board.

This marginalisation is not often overt. It is amazing how many times I have been told that young people are disengaged with politics and that we simply don’t care; apparently we are the “me” generation. I have been told that people of my age don’t care about anyone else and we don’t have the attention span to care about real issues. Strangely and sadly enough this doesn’t just come from people older than me; it is often young people who seem to want to tell me this.

Unfortunately many youth political organisations have been sucked into these ideas too, deciding that to try and get people involved in politics we need to make politics “fun”. We often treat young people as if we are too quickly distracted to actually pay attention to the political process. We get sucked into ideas about young people being disengaged, whilst at the same time forgetting about the reasons we, as young people, got involved in politics.

Why is this happening? The marginalisation of young people is all about to stop young people from gaining any real voice or more importantly power in our society. Whilst of course not all young people have the same opinions (and therefore won’t exercise power in the same way), it is easy to assume that many of those in power are very keen to stop anyone they can from gaining any of their power. Keeping young people out is probably one of the easiest jobs they have.

Many, if not most of the people I have encountered in my political activities over the years have been young. I am certainly not the odd one out. Strangely enough as well, these people are ready and willing to discuss and participate in serious political process to make real change. It’s about time we got rid of this idea that young people don’t care about politics and that politics has to be fun for young people to get involved. All around the country, left and right, young people are getting actively involved in politics for serious reasons. Let’s not act as though that is impossible and that young people are inherently disengaged with the political process. It simply isn’t true.

Responding to comments on ‘We need to return to our liberation roots’

Last week I had the article ‘We need to return to our liberation roots‘ published in the Sydney Star Observer (if you haven’t read it I would suggest you do so if you want to read this post). There’s been a number of comments on the piece and quite a few negative reactions to it. So, I thought I would take this opportunity to expand on my argument.

Firstly, I think it is interesting that a lot of the comments on this post framed my argument as one that is anti-marriage. This is despite the fact that overall, I didn’t see this as an anti-same sex marriage argument. Whilst I used some elements of the marriage equality campaign as examples, this definitely wasn’t designed as an attack on the idea of campaigning for same-sex marriage. To be clear, despite the fact that I have reservations about many parts of the same-sex marriage campaign, I am not opposed to it. I just think we need to use it as a step to a broader goal of sexual liberation, not the end in and of itself.

Moving beyond this however, I think there were two lines of attack on my argument.

First, was that I am not being ‘practical’. This article was definitely not an attack on the idea of campaigns and movements being practical in their approach. In fact I think it is essential. My approach to a lot of these things is that practicality (along with radicalness) is essential to winning campaigns.

What I was trying to say in this article however, was that practicality should never come at the expense of our core principles. For me, there is no point winning practical fights if in doing so we throw out everything we believe in. Unfortunately this is what I think is happening in parts of the queer movement. In particular, what I am seeing is an exclusionary approach being adopted by many, in which particular queer groups (i.e. poly people) are being actively excluded in order to achieve short term goals. For me, that is not an acceptable cost to achieve these goals.

The second criticism has been focused at my class analysis of why I think these exclusionary approaches have become to proliferate. Some have called me classist and others have said that my approach would be to ‘exclude the middle class’ from the queer movement. Let me say from the outset, that is absolutely not what I was aiming to do. I have no desire at all to exclude anyone from any level of the movement (if I were the advocate excluding middle class people from the queer movement, I would be excluding myself).

My argument is about privilege. Privilege is an important factor in our society. Some people have it and they benefit from it. And even though sometimes we can talk about privilege between different social classes and groups, we very rarely talk about it within social classes and groups. My argument is that the reality is that, even though we may not like to talk about it, there are privileged elements within the queer movement; the middle class white activists I spoke about*.

Moving beyond this, my argument is not that these people need to stop being active in the queer movement. It is simply that they need to check their privilege as participants within this movement. I think that I, as a middle-class white man, need to ensure that as someone who does have privilege within my community based solely on those traits, ensure that I work as hard as I can to be an inclusive as a member of the queer movement. It is not about excluding myself because I have privilege, but rather making sure I don’t let that privilege get my issues ahead of others.

And that is where this argument culminates in my discussion on liberation. If you take an analysis of our society that accepts the role of privilege, then I think liberation is the natural course that we need to take. The simple fact is that the heteropatriarchy is based on privilege and no matter how much we fight for entry into it, someone is always going to be excluded from it. That is the natural way it works and that is why, as movement that I think is based on inclusivity, that we need to return to our liberation roots.

Anyway, I hope that explains what I was thinking more. Definitely happy to discuss more. This definitely is an interesting topic.

*Note that this description is a generalisation, and actively describes a social class rather than aiming to pin-point individuals. For example, it is clear that there are some middle class white people, such as those in poly relationships, who may not be privileged within queer debates. On the other side, you don’t actually have to be white to fit within this group. It is a general term, in which people move in and out of.

Is Gillard actually more progressive than all of us on marriage?

Has Julia Gillard been fooling us all along? Is she not actually the conservative we thought she was when it comes to marriage equality but in fact a progressive leader?

The Gay Star News reported yesterday:

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has told gays that her own relationship proves you don’t have to marry.

Gillard, who opposes same-sex marriage equality, isn’t married to her long-term partner Tim Mathieson but says they are still committed to each other.

She told ABC TV: ‘I think you can have a loving relationship of love and commitment and trust and understanding that doesn’t need a marriage certificate. That’s my life experience – so I’m speaking from that life experience.’

Despite the clumsy way Gillard expresses this (given the context behind this statement) these words should give us a moment of thought. When looking at them it’s hard to disagree with what she says.

Of course, as marriage is enshrined within our legal system I think everyone should be able to have access to it. Equality under the law is a basic principle I think we must follow. However, what I read into Gillard’s statement was more of a questioning of the very nature of marriage in itself. For me, what she was saying was that we don’t need marriage to enshrine people’s love at all.

This argument of course isn’t new. Many people have argued that what we really need to do is completely redefine the idea of marriage or abolish it entirely. As an institution that defines how people should shape their relationships, marriage puts people into boxes that they often don’t fit into. The question has to arise, why is the state involved in such a process? As long as they are consenting adults, shouldn’t we let people make decisions about their relationships for themselves?

Where Gillard’s statement was telling for me though was that I also think it called out some of the conservative tendencies behind the same-sex marriage movement (again I think without her meaning to do so). This is something I bang on about a bit (this is my second post on the issue in the past couple of weeks), but it’s worth pointing out again.

A lot of the narrative around same-sex marriage has been focused on this idea of ‘equal love’. It’s the basic idea that gay and lesbian couples love each other just as equally as straight couples and therefore deserve the same marriage rights as straight couples. We deserve the right to publicly celebrate our love the same way straight couples do.

This narrative moves beyond both the ideas of equal rights under the law and the issue of the legal rights that marriage brings. It is about the idea of marriage as a cultural institution, and in particular one that allows couples of formalise their love publicly. As gay and lesbian couples can’t celebrate our love in this way, we are unequal couples within our society (note that I am only talking about couples not because I have a problem with poly relationships, but because this is the dominant agenda of the mainstream queer movement).

It’s the same kind of narrative that I hear a little bit in the discussion about the removal of legal ceremonies from the Queensland Civil Union Legislation. Again, I fundamentally disagree with this move by the LNP. If legal ceremonies exist, everyone should have access to them. For many however this hasn’t been framed as an equality under the law question, it has been about the idea that this will remove the ability for gay and lesbian couples to express their love publicly.

The problem is that within all of this, there is an implicit idea that marriage is the only way people can express their love equally.By making this debate about ‘equal love’ what we are saying is that without marriage we can’t love each other equally, or properly celebrate our love publicly. The flow on effects of this are obvious; even when equal marriage occurs we will still have an institution we have defined as the ‘epitome of love’ and people who don’t fit within it will be left out.

What I am getting at here is Julia Gillard is right. We don’t need marriage to be able to express our love. In fact, when we start going down that path what we are doing is falling into a conservative trap that locks people into relationships that may not work for them.

So, is Julia Gillard more progressive than most of us when it comes to marriage? Even though I think it wasn’t meant, I think Gillard’s statement was probably one of the most progressive I’ve heard around marriage equality in a little while. The answer is probably no though, as her statements would only have been actually progressive if she had backed it up with questions around the institution of marriage itself. It’s pretty clear that these words haven’t come from a view of wanting to redefine or abolish marriage to allow for a more open and progressive approach to defining relationships. It is about trying to find excuses for her position.

But, for once, her words should cause a moment of thought about how we are framing our push for same-sex marriage.

We need to return to our liberation roots

Originally published in Sydney Star Observer, 14 June 2012

The mainstream queer movement is really frustrating me at the moment.

For me, the queer movement is born in the idea of fighting against the way society decides we should conform sexually and the sexual labels placed on us. It is about sexual liberation much more than it is about equality. It is about fighting against the systems in our society that oppress members of sexual minorities.

In doing so, it is an inclusive movement. It encompasses anyone who doesn’t identify with traditional heterosexual labels (and even many of those who do).

Yet, something is happening in significant parts of the queer movement and I don’t like it. I am now seeing major queer organisations and queer activists develop exclusive habits, excluding those who they think don’t fit the mainstream gay and lesbian model.

For example, after some publicity around the issue, marriage advocates from Australian Marriage Equality (AME) and the Greens recently game out strongly against the idea of polyamorous marriage. In commenting on the position, Alex Greenwich said AME’s concept of marriage was of “two people who rely on each other in a relationship to the exclusion of all others”.

Earlier this year in the United States, Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon came under huge fire because she stated that for her, her sexuality was a choice.

Nixon was discussing her engagement with her female partner of eight years (they married recently) and stated, “I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.

“A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out.

“I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.”

Many activists reacted poorly to Nixon’s comments, saying she is giving fodder to conservative activists and that she should just ‘come out’ and say she’s bisexual.

These two examples are part on an ongoing problem with the queer movement where people who don’t fit into the mainstream queer mould are being excluded from the debate, with claims that they are ruining our chances to reach equality. They are the victims of all-consuming campaigns around issues such as same-sex marriage.

What’s happened? The institutional queer movement has become dominated by upper to middle class wealthy queer activists, who have populated organisations and put significant money behind the movement. The struggles that face this group are very different from those of other people.

Buoyed by the privilege of wealth and class, this group has focused on gaining acceptance into the structures the queer movement should be fighting to overturn. Campaigns have now become focused on fighting for acceptance into the heteropatriarchal society. Fights for equal marriage, for the idea that homosexuality is not a choice, and even for the idea that we should be striving for equality as our end goal have become about ensuring a select few get equal access to heteropatriarchal systems.

The problem with this is that the heteropatriarchy is inherently conservative. As a male heterosexual-dominated social structure, the heteropatriarchy is designed to develop labels and force people to conform to sexual norms. As long as it exists, people continue to suffer.

And that is what we are now seeing by the mainstream queer movement. Those in the minority (based on wealth and influence) of the movement are being pushed aside as the wealthy middle class fights for its acceptance into the heteropatriarchy and for equality.

People are told they need to conform to ‘family values’ and we begin to try and hide the ‘scary queers’ who may harm the rest of the movement.

As we do this, we lose the idea of liberation, and create a world where instead of one acceptable label (heterosexuality) we now may have two, if we are lucky (heterosexuality and homosexuality).

As the queer movement continues, it seems as though we are losing everything that is worth fighting for. I feel ashamed every time I see a mainstream queer activist tell me that someone isn’t part of our movement, or that their choice and the labels they place on themselves are not acceptable.

If we want to achieve anything real, we need to return to the liberation roots of the queer movement. Queer activism is not about obtaining access to heteropatriarchal structures, but about sexual liberation.

If we keep going the way we are, we’ll lose everything that was ever worth fighting for.

Maybe just don’t make them role models?

Kendrick Monk and Nick Darcy (from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-08/olympic-boss-wont-rule-out-axing-swimmers/4059432?section=olympics. Original source: AAP/Facebook)

For some reason, this image has caused a furore over the past few days. If you don’t know who they are, this is Olympic swimmers Nick Darcy (on the left) and Kenrick Monk (on the right).

I have to say I have been flummoxed (I love that word) by this. I am really not sure why two guys posting a stupid photo on Facebook is in any way controversial (even though I am for much stricter gun control). It seems to me like the kind of thing that lots of people would do on trips to the US.

However, it has given me the opportunity to reflect on the phenomenon in our society of automatically making sports people role models. No matter who they are, we seem obsessed with putting our sports people up on a pedestal and expecting them to play a serious leadership role in our society. We then get shocked when, as commonly happens, a sports person does something stupid.

Thinking about it logically, it is a kind of ridiculous expectation. What we are doing is choosing young people (sometimes at the age of 14 or 15) based on particular physical skills, putting them in groups with other young people and then giving them lots of money and opportunities to travel. Once we have done that, we then tell them that they have to behave, all the time. We expect them to be role models (often when that’s not necessarily what they want or are good at) and put immense pressure on them to meet those expectations. It’s the kind of pressure and leadership qualities that we often don’t expect from people in other professions until much later in their careers.

Some people do a really good job of this. For example, I think the rugby played David Pocock makes a great role model. Others may point to someone like Patrick Rafter as an exceptional sports role model. These are the kind of people who both have great sports skills and great leadership skills. But a lot of the others  are going to do what a lot of young (and old) people do; get drunk, act like idiots and post the photos of them doing so on Twitter and Facebook.

My point is that I don’t think the problem here is Darcy or Monk. They, just like everyone else in the world have or are doing stupid things. Most of it is harmless, yet because of their physical abilities we are placing unrealistic expectations on them to constantly behave.

Maybe instead of complaining about what bad role models they make we could change our ideas of who should be role models in our society. It would be nice to choose our role models based on broader characteristics than one’s sporting abilities. Maybe we could look up to people because of their leadership skills, or the positive things they are doing in society. Some of these people will be sports people, others will not. On top of all of this, I think it’s about time we realised that sometimes people (young or old) do stupid things. Just because they are a sports person that doesn’t mean that is going to stop and as long as it is harmless, really, who cares?

ps. this analysis does not apply for things like rape or physical assault. These issues are serious and should be treated as such. It is never acceptable.

Reality check: some jobs will have to go

Last Friday the debate about the carbon tax hit the height of ridiculousness.

Federal Member for Higgins Kelly O’Dwyer posted a photo of her and Senator Eric Abetz standing in front of a furniture store with its owner. Emblazoned on the store’s windows were the words ‘The thanks to Julia closing down sale’. O’Dwyer later tweeted that the owner had said he had been forced to downsize because of Gillard’s carbon tax, IR and super laws (a claim which was quickly refuted).

While O’Dwyer’s tweet was simply laughable, it is the epitome of the ridiculous nature of the carbon tax debate, particularly when it comes to the issue of jobs. Since the carbon pricing bill was introduced, our political leaders have shown a mix of mass hysteria and a complete lack of courage when tackling the question of what will happen to carbon intensive jobs.

Jobs are probably one of the hottest topics in modern political debate. Unemployment figures are seen as a key indicator of the success of a government. The ability to either create (or destroy) jobs is often included as a major factor indicating the success or failure of almost every government program.

Given the challenge climate policies make to carbon industries, therefore, it makes sense that jobs have been a hot debate topic. We have seen this played out dramatically in relation to the carbon tax. On one side, Tony Abbott has screamed that the tax will be a ‘job killer’, while Julia Gillard has defended it by saying it won’t cost jobs in carbon intensive areas such as the mining industry.

Within this debate, however, one idea is lacking. Very few have been willing to get up and say that ‘yes, some jobs will be lost, but this is a reality that we must face – in fact, as a society we should consider the loss of these jobs as a good thing’.

Beyond the economic benefits they provide to individuals, jobs primarily provide value to our society if they result in the production of a product or service that is of value to the community. Jobs also need to operate in a way that sits within our value systems, and the services and products they produce should not result in significant harm to society.

It is these sorts of conditions that are the reason why people are no longer hired to sell slaves. They are also why we eliminated the jobs that resulted in the production of asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS). They are why so many former professions no longer exist. As new knowledge or new social norms have arisen, our society has made active choices that we no longer want particular services or products. As these products and services went out the door, so did the jobs surrounding them.

Yet our climate change debate is lacking this sort of analysis. In acknowledging the harm that greenhouse gasses have the likelihood to cause, many have yet to acknowledge that the jobs that go into producing them are causing enough problems for society that they have to go.

This is highly likely due to the very large-scale nature of the industries we are talking about when it comes to climate change. Fossil fuels underpin our energy systems and therefore there are a significant amount of jobs involved in them.

However, at some point we need to be able to get up and have the courage to say that due to the long-term harm they are causing, the fossil fuel industry and the jobs that are linked to it are no longer wanted by our society. While this is difficult for the people involved, we have to be able recognise that some jobs need to go because they are causing more harm than good.

This of course doesn’t mean that climate policies are bad for the jobs market as a whole. For example, the Clean Energy Package puts significant investment into clean energy projects through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This will help create many new jobs in non-carbon intensive industries. While individual jobs will be lost in the fossil fuel industry, the net benefit on the job market and unemployment as a whole has the potential to be high.

On top of this, when as a society we decide to shed jobs in industries that we are moving away from, it is essential that we provide support for those who have suffered due to this change. While the loss of these jobs will be good for society, it is undoubtedly difficult for those directly involved, particularly for people who have been in the field for a long time.

It is essential therefore that we help the people working in those industries gain meaningful employment elsewhere. The communities that are supported by these industries should also be given support to help build new industries. Putting investment into ensuring these transitions are easy as possible is much more effective than propping up an industry that is causing significant harm.

When discussing climate policies we shouldn’t necessarily fear the loss of individual jobs. Climate policies are about a transition away from carbon-intensive industries and jobs to ones that are cleaner and safer for our community. While this will be a difficult transition, it is not one we should shy away from. Instead, we need to embrace its reality.

Celebrating discrimination

I receive media releases from Australia Marriage Equality (AME) to see what they are up to and today they I received a release titled: ‘AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT CONFIRMS CHURCHES WILL NOT HAVE TO MARRY SAME-SEX COUPLES’.

The Australian Parliament today passed the following motion from Andrew Wilkie:

“Should the Marriage Act be amended to allow same-sex marriages the amendments should ensure the Marriage Act imposes no obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise such marriages.”

In other words the Parliament passed a motion saying that if marriage equality passes, religious organisations will not have to perform them. It’s still okay for them to discriminate.

Hearing that I thought I would get condemnation from AME. But, no, this is that they had to say:

“Today’s motion confirms that people of faith have nothing to fear from marriage equality.”

“Parliament has made it crystal clear that it will not force religious celebrants to act against their religious values and that churches will continue to be able to define marriage as they choose.”

Yep, AME are celebrating discrimination.

This is a clear tactical move from AME to help get religious organisations on side. Apparently, if we can do as much as we can to ameliorate the concerns of religious conservatives then it will be easier for us to get marriage equality passed through Parliament. On the face of it, it is a good tactic.

But, at some point we have to ask where is the line?

Whilst this motion may calm some religious organisations, in celebrating it what we are now saying is ‘it’s okay religious organisations, we don’t mind if you discriminate against us. You can continue to be bigots.’

Whilst doing this may swing a few votes in our direction, in the long run, well beyond the point where marriage equality is passed, what it does is promote the idea that homophobia in religious organiastions is still okay. In saying, ‘it’s okay, you can continue to discriminate against us when it comes to marriage’ what we are really saying is ‘you can continue to use religion to be homophobic.’ This will have impacts well beyond same-sex marriage, whether it is through religious queers having to continue to face homophobia in their churches and places of worship or through religious organisations being to able to feel comfortable in preaching homophobia.

Marriage equality is by no means the only goal of the queer movement. Yet, today what we saw was marriage equality advocates sacrifice other elements of the queer movement to get their goal. Whilst they’re doing a pretty good job of getting marriage on the agenda, I’m getting to the point now where I am really questioning whether the long-term impact is actually going to be more negative than positive.

Australia part of international primary health care study

Published in Australian Medicine, 7 May, 2012. http://ausmed.ama.com.au/australia-part-international-primary-health-care-study

Australian doctors are being invited to take part in a landmark study using data from 34 countries to enable accurate international comparisons of primary health care systems.

Researchers at the Australian National University and the University of Western Sydney are calling for doctors, specialists and other primary health care providers to take part in the study, which will begin later this year.

The project’s designers said it will “gather data from across the world on the quality, equity and costs of primary health care”.

“Using this information, we will then be able to make international comparisons of primary health systems, enabling us to learn from our international counterparts”.

The Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute at the ANU is planning to mail surveys to health care providers in coming months.

For further information, contact Dr Alison Gee or Dr Ian McRae on 02 6197 0072 or QUALICOPC@anu.edu.au

An Interview with Chris Pigram

One of the benefits of being a scientist is that sometimes you get to discover new things and if you’re lucky enough, you may even be able to get them named after you. RSES alumnus Chris Pigram, who is also the current Chief Executive Officer of Geoscience Australia is lucky enough to have done both. “I’ve had both a fossil and a cicada named after me,” Pigram says. “I found the fossil in some field work I was doing and it was named Linoproductus Pigrami.”
“The cicada is a little different. In some work we did studying the geological history of the island of New Guinea we helped some scientists who were having trouble figuring out how different cicada species came to the island. This resulted in the scientists kindly naming a number of cicada species after geologists involved in the project.” After the excitement of having both a fossil and a cicada named after him, Pigram now places his energy into putting his mark on Government policy and practice.
“I’ve worked in Geoscience Australia for many years now,” he says. “About ten years into working here I was provided with the opportunity to do a PhD at the ANU looking at sea level curves in the Miocene period. It was a fantastic opportunity which allowed me to come back into a leadership role here.” Now, as the CEO of the organisation, Pigram gets to work across a range of Geoscience issues at a top level.
“Geoscience Australia’s role is to be the Government’s advisors on Geoscience matters. We provide information and services for Government across a range of issues from minerals and energy exploration, to natural hazards to ground water management.” “Working in such a diverse portfolio comes with new challenges every day but it is that opportunity to bring science knowledge to an evidence base on national issues that gets me up every day,” Pigram concludes.