My liver broke up with me. It was a traumatic experience.  All those nights spent together, the holidays, the promises to care for each other forever and ever…and it broke up with me. Elizabeth Pratt Reports.

A vital organ, the liver is necessary for survival Image: wellcome images

Now before you jump to conclusions I should clarify that I am not a raging alcoholic with an axe to grind against my “ungrateful” ex. It was simply bad genetic luck that led to this inevitable break up. Tragic, isn’t it?

Well, I can think of something even more tragic. The fact of the matter is that Australians just aren’t treating their livers properly…and on average, we just don’t care.

When it comes to liver health the common misconception is that the only people who should be concerned are those who like to drink. Wrong.

Another misconception is that even if hypothetically your liver was to succumb to liver disease…that would only happen in old age, or at least after you hit 40, right? Wrong again.

Liver disease can affect anyone, any age, any time. It doesn’t matter if you’ve never had a drink in your life and you’re only in your 20’s, it can still happen…and it does.

There are two million Australians who are, or have been, affected by liver disease and in many cases (though not always), the cause of liver disease can be preventable. Over use of medications like paracetamol, a diet of foods high in fat or salt and damages from alcohol consumption can all contribute to the gradual break down in function of the liver, gall bladder and bile ducts.

So if you’ve ever taken paracetamol, eaten fast food or had a drink, you should start thinking about the health of your liver.

Nobody likes break ups. They’re messy, they’re upsetting and more often than not they force you to confront your flaws. But breaking up with your partner is nowhere near as bad as breaking up with your liver.

The liver performs over 500 functions in the human body. It helps process food, removes toxins from the body, creates bile to assist in digestion and keeps our metabolism in check. It’s a bit of an unsung hero and without it we’d die.

For some people liver disease will strike without an apparent cause, but for many others, liver disease can be treatable and preventable, and this is why Australians should start addressing liver health as a priority.

We’ve all heard the jokes about Friday night; when you have a few beers at your mate’s housewarming. Saturday; when you roll hung-over out of bed and eat a breakfast of deep fried food (because it’s the perfect hangover remedy, naturally) and Sunday; when you took a Panadol or two to get rid of the headache and then went to a champagne brunch. Thank goodness we all have an opportunity to laugh at our messy weekends…over Monday night drinks after work of course.

It’s very easy to fall into habits that will ultimately damage your liver, but it’s even easier to make simple changes that will literally make a lifetime of difference.

You can still go to the pub every week to catch up with friends; but swap the champagne for lemonade, swap the schnitzel for a salad.

You can still have a great time at your 21^st or your 30^th,but limit the amount of alcohol and provide mocktails, non-alcoholic punch or sparkling mineral water as an alternative. You’ll be able to remember the entire night, wake up the next morning feeling great and still feel sophisticated holding a cocktail glass…and your liver can breathe a sigh of relief safe in the knowledge that it won’t be taking another kicking.

Naturally, you don’t have to make any changes if you don’t want to. You might think you have the perfect relationship with your liver and you’ll live long and happy lives into your retirement. But it’s a fairly safe bet to say that you’re probably still in the honeymoon period, and you might very well be in denial.

The reality is that making simple changes could save you from a whole host of inconveniences.

Hours spent in specialist waiting rooms, regular blood tests, biopsies and an inability to easily digest foods or drink alcohol are some of the minor inconveniences you could face if you don’t start taking your liver seriously.

Months spent waiting around for an organ donation, increased risk of liver cancer, a lifetime spent on medication and a shortened life span are some of the very serious and very real consequences you could face if confronted with liver disease.

My liver and I are working out our differences and I hope that in time a cure will be found for liver disease so we can go back to the happy honeymoon period. Even though in my case there was nothing I could have done to stop it, I will never take my liver for granted again, it really is an unsung hero.

So here I propose a toast.

Take a moment, raise your glasses (of mineral water) and give it up for the liver. We couldn’t live without you.

Is the budgeted $2.5 billion to manage the arrival of asylum seekers by boat unnecessary? Karen Tong reports.

Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre. Image: DIAC

The Australian government has budgeted $2.5 billion to manage asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat, with detention centres expected to be the biggest expense.

But with Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan itching to get the budge “back in the black”, it’s possible that this spend on the running of Australia’s detention centres, estimated to be just over $1 billion, is unnecessary.

“There’s been billions of dollars wasted on all sorts of draconian measures to respond to asylum seekers,” CEO of the Refugee Council of Australia, Paul Power, says.

“Current estimates are somewhere around $800 million a year for the detention of 67,000 people, the vast majority of whom actually don’t need to be detained.”

In Europe and North America, where tens of thousands of refugees arrive unannounced on their shores each year, asylum seekers are held in detention for a minimal period in order to conduct health, identity and security checks, before they are released into the community.

“If the government was using mandatory detention as a short term measure they would actually find that the vast majority can live supporting themselves in the Australian community as temporary residents while their long terms status is resolved,” Mr Power says.

The median age of resettled refugees in Australia is between 19 and 24 years, which, according to Mr Power, means that they have the potential to “make decades of economic contribution to the country.”

Director of the Centre for Refugee Research at the University of New South Wales, Dr Eileen Pittaway, agrees that allowing refugees to participate in the community will be economically beneficial.

“Economic rationalisation would say, ‘get the refugees out into the community’,” Dr Pittaway says. “It’s crazy to have fortress Australia, or fortress Europe; we have a low growth rate and we need migrants.”

However, with asylum seekers on the receiving end of criticism over rioting on Christmas Island and burning down buildings at Villawood detention centre, it’s not surprising that the Australian government and the Australian community are not rallying behind a more relaxed asylum seekers policy.

“There’s been a lot of damage done to the causes of asylum seekers,” Mr Power says. “[The federal government’s] finding it very hard to come up with anything other than this extremely expensive and destructive policy of mandatory detention.”

But on 7 May 2011, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced a deal with Malaysia that would ultimately see Australia send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in exchange for 4,000 refugees to be resettled in Australia over a period of four years.

The budget has set aside $292 million for the agreement labelled the ‘Malaysia Solution’ by the media.

Ms Gillard deemed the policy a “groundbreaking new arrangement” that would form part of the Regional Cooperation Framework in the Asia-Pacific region to tackle people smuggling and irregular migration.

Mr Power, who was in talks with the federal government and the United Nations’ Refugee Agency UNHCR on this issue, as well as the need for more effective co-operation on refugee protection, was surprised by the announcement.

“To see that this very constructive approach of promoting dialogue and cooperation between governments was actually resulting in a pretty seedy deal really with Malaysia well before the preconditions for a reasonable agreement with Malaysia could possibly be in place, was a real disappointment,” Mr Power says.

“It really highlights how desperate, politically, the Australian government is to find some answer to asylum seekers coming by boat.”

According to Mr Power, this desperation is largely based on the perception that an unmanageable number of asylum seekers are arriving on Australian shores each year.

“We’ve managed to convince ourselves as a nation well pretty broadly anyway, that the whole world is plotting and planning to find all sorts of spurious means to enter the country,” he says.

Dr Pittaway says that European delegates at UN events laugh when she tells them that only a few thousand asylum seekers arrive in Australia by boat.

“A lot and people say to me, ‘your laws are so draconian you must be swamped with refugees’,” Dr Pittaway says, “And they laugh at us because they get 50,000, 60,000, and they deal with them better than we do with our 4,000.”

The Malaysia Solution has also raised concern from human rights groups and refugee advocates that by sending asylum seekers to Malaysia Australia could be in breach of it’s international legal obligations to protect refugees.

Malaysia is not a signatory to the United Nations’ Refugee Convention and it’s Optional Protocol, and has no formal process for granting asylum or registering refugees.

“We do know that the conditions in Malaysia are so bad that often people, if they’re put into detention, they’re brutalised in detention,” Dr Pittaway says. The Centre for Refugee Research has conducted extensive interviews with refugees who have come to Australia from Malaysia.

“We have many reports from women who have managed to get here of being raped in detention, men been beaten, being caned, and it’s endemic.”

“When we talk about sexual abuse were talking about little girls and up, were not talking about ‘the rapists wait until she’s 18 then they’ll rape her’.”

While the government has stated that asylum seekers will be treated in accordance with international human rights standards, it is unclear as to what this entails.

“The Prime Minister said they won’t receive special treatment then the Minister for Immigration said that they would be treated humanely,” Mr Power says. “The sad reality is if they are to be treated humanely they must receive special treatment because asylum seekers are not treated humanely as a matter of course in Malaysia at all.”

“The resettlement of 4000 refugees over the next several years [in Australia] is certainly the most positive aspect of an appallingly bad arrangement,” he says.

Anders Pedersen reviews three essential books for those interested in getting to know the Obama family.

Americas first leading lady Michelle Obama Image: Justin Sloan

I can still remember where and when I bought my copy of Barack Obama’s second book ’The Audacity Of Hope’. It was late October 2007 in a book store in Honolulu, Hawaii. I must be honest with you and admit that my knowledge of the senator from Illinois who was now running for president against Hillary Clinton was limited.

Like most other people, I had seen him on TV back in the summer of 2004, where he gave a marvellous speech at the Democratic National Convention. And I had paid attention to the first debates between Obama, Hillary, Edwards and the other Democratic candidates.

By the time, I bought the book; it didn’t look like Obama would stand a chance against Hillary, who seemed to be the undefeatable candidate. But I was curious to learn more about Obama and figured that the best way of getting to know more about him, was to read his book.

It turned out to be a good decision. Because if there is one thing that is for certain, it is that ’The Audacity of Hope’ is worth reading. Not only because Obama candidly tells about himself and his family, but also because it will give you a clear picture of how Obama sees the world.

Then you might argue that the book is outdated now, being five years old, and Obama now being president. And yes, for instance the part of the book where Obama talks about the need for a health care reform, it is outdated. But on the other hand, one could argue that it would make good sense to know, why Obama invested so much of his political prestige in getting this reform passed; a reform that the Republican will use as a target point during the campaign.

’The Audacity Of Hope’ is a must read if you want to understand the political vision of president Obama, which will indeed be very useful before the debates begin. After all, these debates will be about Obama’s vision; either because it is wrong (the Republican approach) or because it is right and have worked (the Democratic approach).

Also, it is worth saying that Obama, unlike many other politicians who write books about themselves and their visions, actually is a gifted story teller. He combines the political parts and the private parts of the book in a good and light way, and there is a good flow in all chapters.

When reading ’The Audacity Of Hope’, you will quickly discover how much the president cherishes America’s First Lady, his wife Michelle, the mother of his two daughters, Malia and Sasha.

The story of Michelle Robinson mostly takes place in Chicago, where she was born and raised, before going to college. After graduating from law school, Michelle returned to Chicago, where she got a good job at a big law firm. This was where she met her future husband.

The story of Michelle is interesting in many ways and is presented in a short and informative way by author Liza Mundy in the book ’Michelle’, which is worth reading. It may seem strange to read about a First Lady, because in most countries the spouse of the president doesn’t play as big a role as the First Lady does in America. But you can be certain that she will play a major part in her husband’s re-election campaign, which is also why Mundy’s book is recommendable.

Michelle Obama is a very popular First Lady, who has done a lot of work to draw attention to make children do more sport, eating healthy food and so on. Secondly, she has become a fashion icon, but not in the same way as Jackie Kennedy was it, but in a more ’down to earth’ way. Best example is that she was wearing a 35 Dollar H&M dress in a recent appearance in ’The Today Show’, which made a lot of headlines that day.

Both ’The Audacity of Hope’ and ’Michelle’ tells the story about the Obama’s as a married couple. And by reading these two books, you will have a very good idea about who Barack and Michelle Obama are, and how their marriage is.

However, if you want to read a book that focuses more of the two of them as a couple, Christopher Andersen’s book ’Barack and Michelle’ is a good choice. There will be parts of the book that you don’t have to read as careful if you already read ’The Audacity Of Hope’ and ’Michelle’, but it adds on some new pieces to the story about the Obama’s. Especially the scene, where Andersen describes Barack Obama’s proposal is phenomenal, and will most likely make you smile.

It also gives you a good picture of how everyday life in The White House is for the Obama family, which also counts Michelle’s mother Marian, who moved in with The First Family to help looking after Malia and Sasha, just like she had done it back in Chicago, when Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator.

By reading these three books, you will have a strong knowledge about The First Family of the United States. You will get to know the president both as a person and as a politician, just like you will get a clear picture of why Barack Obama so often praises Michelle and talks about her as the rock of his life.

Modern politics is often about using your own story and your own experiences as a way of presenting your political vision. And by reading these books, you will get to know the story of the president, his loved ones and the vision he hopes will appeal to the American people the same way it did in 2008.

Title: The Audacity of Hope
Author: Barack Obama
Published: 2006

Title: Michelle
Author: Liza Mundy
Published: 2008

Title: Barack and Michelle
Author: Christopher Andersen
Published: 2009

According to Dr. Timothy Lynch, a specialist in American politics, President Obama is not very different to his predecessor when it comes to foreign policy. Anders Pedersenreports.

Obama’s foreign policy under scrutiny Image: blvesboy

He may have changed American domestic policy in several ways, but when it comes to foreign policy, the differences between president Obama and president Bush is limited.

Although many expected a true paradigm switch would appear as soon as Obama took office, this has not been the case, and it won’t be for as long as he is commander in chief.

According to professor Timothy Lynch from the University of Melbourne, who has written several books about American foreign policy, the 43rd and 44th presidents of the United States are on the same track when it comes to foreign policy.

“Despite a very pronounced anti-Bush rhetoric, he has actually adopted the central parts of the war on terror.”

“It’s not called that anymore, but in every major aspect, the course remains intact,” he says.

In his latest book After Bush, Lynch argues that whoever succeeded president Bush would not change the course of American foreign policy since it is generally based on consensus in Washington, and therefore not worth spending time on changing.

This is exactly the case with president Obama, he says.

“Obama got an easy ride in this field in 2008. His inexperience when it comes to national security was not questioned because he buys in to the war on terror. He said that the number one national security threat is not that terrorists will commit another 9/11 attack, but that the terrorists will take it to the next level and go nuclear.

“That is the number one national security priority of the United States. It’s not global hunger. It’s not China. It’s not the Middle East. It’s preventing the bad guys getting on to something worse than airplane tickets.”

Although many thought and hoped that Obama would set a new foreign policy as part of his election promise of change, this has not been the case.

According to Lynch, the belief that Obama would fundamentally change America’s foreign policy was misunderstood.

”We tend to think that Obama will fundamentally change foreign policy, but that won’t happen. In this area, he is not the ‘change we can believe in’ candidate.

“It’s about continuity. He really wasn’t running on ‘change we can believe in’ when it comes to foreign policy. He got elected because he promised ‘continuity we can believe in’.

“‘I think what George Bush is trying to do is appropriate. I will just try to do it in more effective ways. I will take the war to the enemy in more appropriate places.’ The notion that he would draw back or renegade American national security interests is absurd.”

Lynch says the way Obama is handling the economy is more important to American voters than the way he is dealing with foreign policy.

“Foreign policy won’t be a big part of the 2012 election…it rests on a fundamental consensus that no presidential candidate will bother to disrupt. There is no need to. The game changer is of course events, and a terrorist attack would of course change that.

”The debate in American politics is about deficit, it’s about jobs, and it’s about health care. As foreigners ourselves, we tend to think of foreign policy differently, but within America there is pretty much consensus about this.

“You don’t win national elections on the base of foreign policy. You lose them because of the economy… it is the economy that drives, and this is something we as foreigners often misunderstand.”

Although the election is more than a year away, Lynch predicts that if president Obama is re-elected next year, he will focus more on foreign policy than he did in his first term.

This is something that most re-elected presidents do in their second term, Lynch says.

“In the first term, the main focus is domestic, but once they are re-elected, it’s about legacy, and you make your legacy through international statesmanship. Clinton did this with Kosovo. And I would expect Obama to do the same. He already got the Nobel Peace Prize, but still.”

Lynch makes a final prediction about how future generations will see the contemporary American foreign policy in a hundred years from now.

“My prediction is that Obama will be seen as the logical progression from Bush. Just like Bush was from Clinton and Clinton from Bush Sr. They won’t talk about great interruptions in the course of American foreign policy.”

Americans will cast their votes on November 6, 2012.

It was an awkward situation for the new president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with a limited track record in foriegn policy. Anders Pedersen reports.

Obama at a Chicago anti-war rally in 2002 Image: Daniel Greenfield

He surely didn’t expect it. And most likely, he probably would have preferred if it had been given to somebody else. However, on a beautiful autumn day in the beginning of October 2009, president Obama received the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the Nobel Committee.

It is not exactly an every day event that the incumbent president of the United States is given the Nobel Peace Prize, and when addressing the topic later that afternoon, the president said that he honestly did not feel he deserved the honor, but that he would accept it in Oslo, Norway in the middle of December 2009.

Even though one could argue that it was unusual enough that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize after such a short time in office, the committee’s decision became questionable even more so during the events that took place in the months between the announcement and the official ceremony.

Just one week before giving one of his best speeches as president that December day in Oslo, he spoke in front of hundreds of cadets at the West Point Military Academy north of New York City. In this speech he announced that he was going to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by 34.000. A remarkable decision that was the result of months of debates and meetings: agreeing and disagreeing within the Obama administration about what to do with Afghanistan.

This was not Obama’s war just yet. It was a war that he had inherited by his predecessor, George W. Bush, and therefore he could not be blamed for all the things that went wrong in Afghanistan. But as the new commander in chief, it was now his job to figure out how to deal with the war, as public support had decreased long before Obama took office.

In the beginning of his presidency, Obama pointed out general Stanley McChrystal the new head of the Afghanistan mission and asked him to deliver a report about how things were going in Afghanistan and what he would need to finish the mission. The answer came in late summer of 2009, that 40.000 additional troops would be needed if general McChrystal was going to be able to do the job.

This report divided the Obama administration into numerous groups. Some would agree with McChrystal, some would disagree and then there were ’the in betweeners’ who could see why it would make sense to send more troops to Afghanistan but that 40.000 was a bit too much.

As it turned out, Obama decided to almost fulfill the request of McChrystal, and thereby also setting a new strategy for Afghanistan. This decision alone would now make Afghanistan ‘Obama’s war’.

How Afghanistan became Obama’s war and the conflicts within the administration about this topic has formidably been described in the book ’Obama’s Wars’ written by one of the most acknowledged political journalists in America, Bob Woodward from the Washington Post. Since his first book ’All The President’s Men’, which won the Pulitzer Prize, he has written a number of books about almost every administration.

Not only does ’Obama’s Wars’ tell the inside story about the first major foreign policy decision president Obama made. It also provides insight into the way the president and his administration view the war in Afghanistan. And why it was no coincidence the president announced the beginning of troop withdrawal starting from the summer of 2011, right after he announced the increasing of troops.

Even if the war in Afghanistan will not be as dominant a theme as for instance the economy or unemployment, it is inarguably going to be a topic that will be discussed during the campaign. To gain both deep and detailed background knowledge before these debates starts, there is no better book to read than ’Obama’s Wars’.

Title: Obama’s Wars
Author: Bob Woodward
Published: 2010

In the run up to the US 2012 US elections, Anders Pedersen reviews leading analyst Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World, which asks if America has a place in the new world order.

America is no longer on top argues Fareed Zakaria. Image: Futureatlas.com

The world is changing because of globalisation. Some say the world is getting smaller, that it’s more flexible, others believe it’s becoming more unstable. And there are others still, who believe the financial crisis has pushed the power balance, weakening America’s position as an existing super power and supporting China’s ascent.

It all depends on the eyes that see it. Some see globalisation as a threat, mostly because it’s pretty hard to define what exactly globalisation is and therefore what it means. On the other hand there are those that see globalisation as a great opportunity for both their own country and the rest of the world.

In America, globalisation has been debated heavily within the political debate over the last years, just like it will be in the upcoming campaign. Because with an American economy in turmoil, the fact remains the United States no longer has the same strength. Numerous American jobs have been lost, while countries like China, India and Brazil are growing stronger every day. The question is, what should America do? Can it regain it’s lost strength or should it accept its too late and adapt to the new world order?

This is not a simple question, and therefore there is no easy answer or quick fix. A good way to get start the search for answers is by reading Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Post-American World. Until recently, Zakaria worked at Newsweek before moving to Time magazine. Zakaria is one of the world’s sharpest analysts when it comes to global affairs, and his book is a magnificent piece of political literature.

Zakaria argues America should adjust to the new world order that has been created by globalization and the financial crisis. The rise of the four BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – does not mean America can no longer play a key role in the international society, Zakaria argues. What it takes is collaboration between America and these countries and a realisation that the economical growth of a country like China or India can be good for America too.

Whether you agree with Zakaria or not, the book is a great way of achieving a better understanding of what impact globalization has on not only America but the rest of the world as well.

Once again, it depends on the eyes that see it.

So far, president Obama has chosen a course that in many ways is similar to the one Zakaria is suggesting in his book – reaching out to rising countries like China and India. Opponents of Obama, like Mitt Romney, disagree with Zakaria’s argument that we are living in a post-American world.

That’s why it’s very likely that some of the major clashes in debates to come during the election campaign will be about this agenda.

After all, this is something that plays a very big part in economic policy, employment policy, national security policy and foreign policy.

In other words, it influences almost all the topics that usually dominate a presidential campaign.

This is also why it is so important to understand it. And whether or not you agree with the points Zakaria makes in The Post-American World, you will certain have a clearer picture of how globalisation is affecting America and the world America is a part of. How America should approach this new world, is soon to be discussed by Obama, Romney and the other candidates. Because it may not be a simple question, but they will all try their hardest to answer it.

Title: The Post-American World
Author: Fareed Zakaria
Published: 2009

On May 18th 2009, upon the sands of a tropical paradise, one of the world’s longest running civil wars drew to a bloody end. Myuran Elango and Silvina Molkenthin explore the experience and fears of a Sri Lankan refugee.

The Sri Lankan government’s demolition of the once formidable Tamil Tigers was hailed as a new beginning for a country torn by ethnic divide.

2 years on however, serious questions are finally being asked as to how far the Government went to secure its victory, after the United Nations accused the military of committing war crimes against thousands of civilians.

With no independent observers during the last stages of battle, it is the harrowing stories of Tamils, who escaped the war and fled to countries like Australia, that has helped paint a picture of the death and destruction throughout the final weeks, days and hours.

Now, as those survivors attempt to rebuild their lives and heal from the scars of war, Australia’s tough stance on asylum seekers has many of them fearing the possibility of being sent back into a hell they risked everything to escape.

Australia is known as a secular country, however the rise of varied spiritual practices highlight the undying quest for answers and meaning. How do these newly adopted beliefs fit in a consumerist society where instant returns are expected for any of our investments, including our spirituality where social trends seem to guide our faith.

Mariana Soares, Orion Mitchell and Nick Vela go shopping in a marketplace of religions.

Mystical Seeking from Orion Mitchell on Vimeo.

Credits: Dr Cristina Rocha; Father Tim Mansfield; Rowan Element and Dan, and everyone we talked to in Canberra; Ben Cullen; Vince Cakic; Rak Razam; and the producers of the Mind Body Spirit Festival and everyone there who gave us their time.

Other footage used:

Sydney Skies, Circular Quay
Traffic Time Lapse Downtown LA, DC
Sydney City life
Sydney City CBD and Opera House
Dharma Part 3 Pema Chodron
How To Practice Buddhist Loving-Kindness Meditation
Pope Benedict celebrates Mass at Westminster
John Of God film on Oprah
John Of God – Trailer
The Spirit Molecule Movie Clip – Ayahuasca
Paintings by Alex Gray
Food for thought metaphysical bookstore
The Healing – Trailer deutsch
Rak Razam and the Vibrational Docking Port
Madonna – Material Girl Remix (vs. Tamperer)
Robyn – With Every Heartbeat
David Guetta ft Kelly Rowland – When Love Takes Over

Council approved brothels want laws to deal with sex work at unapproved premises. Nathan Coates reports.

The Daily Telegraph has labelled Willoughby "sin city". Image: Flickr jtstrathdee

Ex-Australian Tax Office agent Chris Seage says he has gone from “hunting tax cheats to hunting brothel cheats”.

Seage now works for brothel owners as a consultant and is lobbying the state government for tougher sex-work laws.

In relation to registered massage businesses that offer sex or “happy endings” without council approval, Seage said: “They undercut council approved brothels and are known havens for tax and welfare fraudsters, peddlers of un-safe sex, sex slaves, and illegal immigrants.”

Commissioned by the Daily Telegraph, Seage’s firm: Brothel Busters, investigated bathe houses and massage parlours throughout Willoughby City.

A list of 21 allegedly illegal brothels was given to council and Daily Telegraph journalist, Nick Tabakoff, reported under the headline: “Blind eye on illicit brothels turns Chatswood into sin city.”

Seage says the issue of illegal brothels in Chatswood and throughout Willoughby City “is out of control.”

But other stakeholders don’t agree. Sex workers say agendas are at play in relation to reports of illegal brothels in Willoughby City. Investigations are ongoing however Council says it receives few complaints related to brothels.

Scarlet Alliance (Australian Sex Workers Association) CEO Janelle Fawkes, said: “We need to look at the agendas behind reports of supposed increases in brothels operating outside council guidelines. Brothel owners often see individual sex workers or small groups of sex workers working together as competition.”

When confronted with being anti-competitive, Seage said: “Scarlett Alliance are about to have a big bucket dropped on them by me…the competition should be amongst legal brothels.”

The Disorderly House Amendment Act was passed in 1995, which meant it was no longer a common law offence to operate a brothel.

Police do not attend to enforce compliance from massage parlours operating outside council guidelines.

In NSW local council has the responsibility of regulating the local sex industry in their capacity to enforce approved use of land and buildings.

On the size of the brothel problem in Willoughby City, council spokesperson, Rebecca Hill, said: “Council processes over 3000 complaints each year. Complaints about alleged illegal brothel activity represent about 0.2% of the total number of complaints.”

When asked if he was concerned about alleged illegal brothels in the area, Chatswood businessman, Neil Bloxsom, said: “No…not at all. It doesn’t bother me – it doesn’t interest me – these guys are seeking out these services, they are not being solicited to.”

Scarlet Alliance say NSW is known nationally as best practice in relation to the management of brothels.

QLD and VIC have licensing systems that Mr Seage says dont work, “90% of the QLD sex industry is un-regulated”, he said.

For the sex industry in NSW, Saege wants, “tougher laws – not more [local council] compliance officers”.

Fawkes in not in favour of new laws or a brothel licensing system in NSW and said: “Whilst NSW has some areas that need to be tinkered with – any changes would be a step back.”

The NSW Coalition however is pushing ahead with plans for a brothel licensing system. A spokesperson for the Minister for Local Government, Hon. Don Page, said: “It is the Government’s commitment to ensure brothels will be licensed…This is the policy we took to the people before the State Election and we are committed to doing what we can to implement it.”

With over 500,000 viewers and top trending on Twitter across the world, the show has certainly sparked debate. Catherine Zengerer reports.

Refugee Action Protest. Image: Takver

Story features: Series Director, Ivan O’Mahoney and Peter Newman, SBS Head of Production and Development.

‘Go back to where you came from’ is a controversial new reality TV style documentary which went to air on SBS this week. The three part series ending last night takes ordinary Australians on the typical journey of an asylum seeker, and asks them to challenge their preconceived notions about refugees.

RC: I don’t care how hard it is where they come from, I don’t think they have the right to come out here and demand, demand all this freedom, all this, this generosity the Australian government just hands them on a golden platter.

CZ: That’s Raye Colbey, a 63-year-old social worker who lives opposite the Inverbrackie detention centre in the Adelaide hills. She’s one of the six participants in the SBS series ‘Go back to where you came from’ which went to air last night. The three part series takes ordinary Australians on a typical journey of an asylum seeker and asks them to challenge their pre-conceived notions about refugees. With over 500,000 viewers and top trending on Twitter across the world, the show has certainly sparked debate. Ivan O’Mahoney is the series director; he told me how he picked the characters who took part in this social experiment.

IO: Raye we found by going to town hall meetings in Woodside. There was a lot of uproar as you know, when the announcement was made that Inverbrackie barracks will be turned into an alternative place for detention and people were very outspoken about it. Raquel who was 21 had never left Australia in her life had barely traveled, didn’t like what she was seeing [and] I think felt a little bit threatened, like her turf was under threat.

CZ: You also managed to secure Roderick Schneider who is the Vice President of the Australian Young Liberals.

IO: Roderick, you know, who is 29 also never traveled outside Australia, so he like everybody else, like especially people involved in politics has big opinions and not necessarily informed.

CZ: There are some people that feel that this show is another form of SBS pushing its agenda; do you think that this show is going to change people’s minds?

IO: I’m not sure it will to be honest, I think it will help people form an opinion and that opinion might sway to the left, or it might sway to the right. Within our group some of them came back changed and more sympathetic towards asylum seekers; Adam the young life guard from Cronulla for instance, but Darren Hassan our participant from Adelaide hardened his opinion about asylum seekers, and we’ve just let these opinions play out as they happened.

CZ: What was the impact of making this show on the production team itself?

IO: A bit like the participants really, we had people on our production team who have traveled far and wide and people who had slightly less experience traveling to countries like the ones we had visited and I think the people who have seen this stuff before, you know like worked in refugee camps or had filmed the middle east were less surprised by what we encountered, than others on the team were also quite shaken up by what they saw.

Listen to this story on The Wire:
[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

CZ: Are you hoping that government officials and members of parliament might sit down and watch it?

IO: We know government officials have been watching it because they’ve been tweeting about it. It’s much more important that people in Australia look at it -ordinary Australians- not politicians, and that as a result of the show they might be able to form opinions which might be a little bit more newer then the ones before. If that has an effect on policy makers through the electorate, that would be fantastic.

CZ: Ivan O’Mahoney, series director of ‘Go back to where you came from’. Peter Newman is the head of production and development at a very pleased SBS; they’ve been making headlines around the world today.

PN: With the series we knew we had something very special, I mean it’s been beautifully made, beautifully realised, it’s been very ambitious to make, but I think none of us could have predicted how everything would kind of converge at this moment in time, you know the show had been shot, and it was shot in Malaysia when the production company returned then of course the political debate that’s now….

CZ: The Malaysia plan

PN: The Malaysia plan started to unfold and we had no knowledge that was going to happen so it’s incredibly timely in that respect.

CZ: Some people they say you can predict exactly what’s going to happen with this, it’s going to, each situation is going to get more extreme then they’ll have a resolution or a shift.

PN: Well I can tell you having worked actually closely on it that it was…

CZ: We don’t want to give too much away.

PN: We don’t want to give too much away but, what I can say, it’s very unpredictable, it’s very raw, it’s very honest, and where some of the people end up at the end of episode 3 you know is unpredictable and surprising in some way. Yes there are some massive life changing moments in episode three just some surprising responses as well.

CZ: Tell us about some of the comments and responses you’ve been having on Twitter and on your website and indeed on Facebook. Is there any evidence of people shifting their opinion [on] asylum seekers?

PN: Yes it’s really interesting you asked that question actually because when I got home last night I opened the laptop just to see how it was going on the website and actually the first comment I read was someone who was saying that this show had already begun to change their views and I think that it’s incredible that this show is going to have that effect on some people but what I’m really encouraged by is the fact that this has been so hotly debated on these various media platforms, I think it’s encouraging that were taking this really important issue out of the political arena and putting it into the hands of the people really. I mean it’s one of the most ambitious documentaries ever made for Australian television simply because of the logistical achievement that’s been pulled off there. When you see the footage of three participants driving a hummer, a US military hummer through the red zone in Baghdad its utterly compelling because normally you see journos in that setting doing a piece to camera, it’s actually got real Australians sitting in the back of a US military hummer, it’s a very visceral experience.

CZ: Peter Newman, SBS Head of Production and Development at SBS. So what do people who saw the show think?

Interview 1: Very teary, very powerful television

CZ: Do you think it will change the views of people who are against giving asylum to refugees?

Interview 1: I really hope so because we are starting to become a red neck county as far as I’m concerned, we’ve lost our compassion and empathy.

Interview 2: I find it very interesting as a foreigner, because first of all I found that some Australians are racists.

Interview 3: I was expecting it to be probably to more hard hitting and less survivor style, but I guess that’s what’s gonna get through to the Australian public, they wanna watch people go through it and hopefully pick out some facts along the way.

Catherine Zengerer is a reporter on The Wire.