Things Looking Up for the Poor Down Under

I. Citation: Things Looking Up for the Poor Down Under

Newsdesk.org

December 12, 2007

http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/004501.html

II. Summary: This article describes how the change in the Australian government helped give rights to lower class people of Australia. The government changed when Prime Minister John Howard wasn't re-elected and Kevin Rudd was elected as Prime Minister instead. Due to this change in leader, many of the governments policies changed. Some policies that changed were the Pacific Solution, the problems with the welfare systems, and policies toward the Aborigines. The Pacific Solution stated that certain Asians had to be held in camps, and this so called "solution" wasn't accepted by important groups such as the UN. Also, the problems with the welfare system, where money was wasted in large amounts to stop unproven fraud instead of for being used to benefit the poor was a situation that activists and probably many tax payers wanted fixed. Finally, policies that tried to change customs of Aborigines have caused upset within those people. Since the new government has taken charge, the Pacific Solution has ended, the welfare system is being fixed, and the efforts to change the Aborigines' customs have ceased. The lower classes have now been given new benefits, yet some are unhappy with the government change.

III. Reactions:

A) This article relates to the AP World history theme of systems of social structure and gender structure. It relates to this theme because it shows that a change in government can give many new rights and priviliges to certain social classes of the social structure. In this case, the change to the new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave the lower classes of Australia better standards, as well as fixing relations with people who didn't like old policies.

B) The government of Australia officially changed at the winning of the 2007 election by Kevin Rudd. During this election, a debate was held between Rudd and Howard, and Rudd was felt by many ads the winner of the debate. This may have helped cause Howard to lose the election, as well as losing his seat in the government. Also, policies implemented by Howard that needed to be looked at were the Northern Territory National Emergency Response, which people said was taking land from Aborigines, as well as the mandatory detention which caused certain immigrants to be put in camps.

C) The writer of this article is an American male citizen. He is an outsider because he is not from Australia.

D) The impact of the author could have been that he agrees that the change in government in Australia was good, so he writes about the great new changes being made. He might feel this way because he doesn't know exactly what is happening in Australia, so he just listens to the groups like the UN that don't support Howard's policies.

E) The point of view that is missing from the article is the point of view of an Australian who agrees with Howard's policies. These people would be able to explain why Howard's policies were beneficial, rather than saying that Rudd is doing a great job by changing these policies. This would help to show the other side of the story.

F) I felt that this article makes good points explaining the changes made by Rudd to help the lower classes, but I felt that it didn't show Howards legacy as Prime Minister at all, I felt that it actually bashed Howard's reign. It didn't at all make reference to the things Howard did to help Australia, such as helping to stregthen the Australian alliance with Japan. He was obviously liked by Australians, having the second longest term as PM. Yet, even though the article doesn't correctly portray Howard, it does show that Rudd is doing a good job with the government.