John Menadue

  • What do we owe each other?

    In this opinion piece from the New York Times, Aaron James Wendland draws on work by Emmanuel Levinas in response to the surge of refugees around the world and particularly into Europe. Levinas describes the allergic reaction to refugees. In response he suggests three things. First, an appeal to the ‘infinity’ in human beings, that other people are always more than our categories can capture.  Second, faces confront us directly and immediately. Thirdly, hospitality involves curtailing our enjoyment of the world when confronted with another’s wants.

    See link to article below:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2016/01/18/what-do-we-owe-each-other/

  • Evan Williams. Film Review: Carol.

    I’m not alone in rating her the best actress in the world. Or as some would prefer to say, the best female actor in the world. Or more precisely, the best female English-speaking screen actor working in mainstream cinema. And yes, I’m talking about our Cate – up there with Garbo, Hepburn, Streep, destined for legendhood (if I may use that word) – and currently starring in Carol, an absorbing romantic drama directed by Todd Haynes.

    She’s in her usual impeccable form. A critic once said that Cate Blanchett has “the kind of beauty – svelte, ravaged, angular, irresistible on screen – that combines sternness with vulnerability … acutely sensitive, finely nuanced, every twitch and head toss perfectly judged.” Who wrote that? Well, I did, actually – reviewing Rowan Woods’ 2005 film Little Fish, in which Blanchett starred with Hugo Weaving. Her performance was the best thing in the film. Indeed, every one of her films seems to demonstrate some new aspect of her power and versatility. A couple of years after Little Fish, in which she played a reformed junkie in Sydney’s western suburbs, she turned up with a cultivated English accent to reprise her role as the first Queen Elizabeth and won an Oscar. And she’s won a string of Oscars, Globes and similar baubles since.

    But to say that she’s best thing going in Carol may be a little unfair to Rooney Mara, who plays Therese, Carol’s lesbian lover. Mara won an Oscar nomination for her performance, with Blanchett conspicuously passed over, probably on the grounds that she’d won more than her fair share already. And speaking of fairness, why is the film called Carol and not Carol and Therese? The characters have equal weight, the performances are comparably fine. It’s as if Thelma & Louise, Hollywood’s last great all-girl romantic escapade, had been called Thelma, or if someone had made a film of Romeo and Juliet and called it Romeo. I could go on, but it’s time to get serious.

    Haynes’s beautiful and sombre film is drawn from a novel by Patricia Highsmith, The Price of Salt, from which Phyllis Nagy has adapted the screenplay. By all accounts, Highsmith based the character of Therese Belivet on herself, after an affair she had with a woman in 1948 while working at Bloomingdale’s department store in New York. Carol is set in New York in 1952 (Eisenhower has just been elected) and, as in all the best period adaptations, no relevant background detail is forgotten or out of place. Gleaming Packards cruise the streets, gas stoves are lit with matches.Haynes’s last film, the excellent Far From Heaven, was another story of illicit love set in the 1950s, in which a middle-class suburban housewife has an affair with her African-American gardener. Carol is the better film, and the more daring. Lesbian love is still a no-no for the big studios, and I think I’m right in saying that this is Blanchett’s first venture into full-on sexual passion. Certain male admirers may also be interested to note that it’s the first film in which she gets her gear off, though unlike her great contemporary, Nicole Kidman, in Eyes Wide Shut,s he doesn’t give us the full Monty.(Sorry about that.)

    Carol has been through a difficult divorce from her thoroughly unlikeable husband (Kyle Chandler), and Therese, an aspiring photographer, is coping with a devoted boyfriend (Jake Lacy), whom she doesn’t much care for. The women meet by chance in the toy department of a store called Frankenberg’s (real name?), and are reunited when Therese discovers a pair of Carol’s gloves left (accidentally?) on the counter and mails them back to her. The progress of their doomed affair is chartered with a depth and sensitivity wholly in character with the social constraints and polite inhibitions of the time – routine courtesies become sympathetic gestures, then something more serious, the lightest touch of a hand on another’s shoulder conveying a lingering erotic charge.

    At just under two hours it’s a bit too long, considering that little actually happens and what does happen is largely predictable. There’s a violent twist about three-quarters of the way through which seems oddly jarring at the time but delivers some much-needed dramatic impetus. In its miserable way Carol is a wonderful and truthful work, superbly shot in the best Fifities tradition on 16mm stock by Edward Lachman. The ambience of the time is charmingly recaptured, though someone should have told Todd Haynes that respectable gentlemen never wore beards in those days, no one could take photographs in available light indoors without a flashlight, and that someone as rich as Carol could surely afford to have her piano tuned. According to my life’s companion, “It sounded terrible.” But I suppose that even the best pearls have some minor irritations.

    Carol, rated M, is showing in selected cinemas nationally. Three and a half stars.

    Evan Williams has reviewed films in The Australian newspaper for 33 years. He is a Life Member of the Film Critics’ Circle of Australia for services to film criticism and the film industry.In 2015 he received the Geraldine Pascal Lifetime Achievement Award for critical writing.

     

     

     

     

  • Steve Georgakis. The unholy trinity of sports advertising in Australia – betting agencies, junk food and alcohol.

    Why we shouldn’t be surprised that tennis is implicated in match-fixing.

    The first day of the Australian Open was marred by revelations alleging widespread match-fixing and cover-ups in men’s tennis stretching back more than a decade. World number one Novak Djokovic confirmed he was approached with a reported offer of US$200,000 in 2006 to throw a match.

    Hyper-commercialised sport in the 21st century has resulted in a number of benefits for athletes and spectators. Athletes are able to make significant amounts of money; spectators can enjoy excitement of the highest order without having to leave their lounge rooms. But it is naïve to think that all changes have been beneficial.

    In recent decades doping has consistently been the most-visible negative consequence of commercialised sport. So much pressure is now exerted on athletes that they are tempted, for whatever reason, to take performance-enhancing substances.

    While the Australian public demands a level playing field, Australian athletes and sports have been caught up in doping. For the most part, though, Australian sports are heavily regulated and proactive in addressing doping. But the same cannot be said about gambling.

    Gambling and sport are entwined

    Online and live sports betting has become much more prevalent in recent years.

    All major sports in Australia now have some kind of a relationship with sports betting agencies. Online bookmaker William Hill is the “official betting partner” of the Australian Open and – in a first for a Grand Slam tournament – it has been allowed to advertise inside stadiums.

    For television and pay-per-view providers, sports betting agencies provide significant advertising dollars. Betting agencies, alongside junk food and alcohol, form an unholy trinity of sports advertising in Australia.

    Gambling, particularly on poker machines, can be destructive. So too has sports betting been responsible for creating a new breed of problem gamblers. Sports gambling is accepted as a rite of passage for many Australian males.

    However, sporting authorities are cautious about upsetting their sponsors. Tennis officials largely dismissed the revelations of match-fixing as old news.

    Why tennis?

    Tennis is a sport very suitable for corruption in this hyper-commercialised era. Here’s why we shouldn’t surprised that match-fixers have targeted the sport:

    1. Tennis is a one-on-one sport. If you wanted to manipulate an outcome, you would avoid team sports such as rugby league or netball. Too much can go wrong. Individual sports are different; corruption is easier to organise.
    2. It is very difficult to prove a tennis match has been fixed: a player withdraws in the second set “injured”; a player double-faults on crucial points; a player makes a number of unforced errors.
    3. Tennis players are taught and coached from an early age that they are professional and that they have only a limited time in the game. Money is a considerable concern for players and a great motivator. Those outside the top-ranked players would make more money by match-fixing than by playing on the tour.
    4. Betting markets on tennis matches provide gamblers with an opportunity to wager on a host of “exotic” markets, not just head-to-head betting. This includes markets such as whether there will be a tiebreak set, who will win the next game, or the total number of games played.
    5. It would seem that the authorities are keen not to address the issue. Sporting bodies, for publicity issues, are always keen to deny – just look at the recent FIFA scandal and allegations of widespread doping in Russian athletics.
    6. The lifestyle of professional tennis athletes brings with it lots of down time and boring periods in hotel rooms in foreign countries.
    7. In the commercialised world of tennis, sport has a different meaning. Kids are told about sport’s educational benefits, but they notice in the real world that it is really about making money.
    8. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, sport is a commodity. People’s involvement largely revolves around financial remuneration.

    Steve Georgakis is senior Lecturer of Pedagogy and Sports Studies, University of Sydney.  This article was first published by The Conversation on January 19, 2016.

  • John Menadue. Media censorship and the NBN

    The ABC’s outgoing editor of its Technology and Games subsite, Nick Ross, has claimed that he has been ‘gagged’ by ABC management from publishing further articles about the NBN. He has now left the ABC.

    For link to an article on this latest gag on NBN coverage, see link at bottom to article by Renai LeMay of 14 January, in delimiter.com.

    There is a continuing pattern of failure by the mainstream media to expose the mess that Malcolm Turnbull has left us in the NBN. It has been almost entirely social media, including this blog, that has carried stories about Malcolm Turnbull’s failure in his administration of the NBN.

    There has been an unfortunate habit of successive governments blaming a previous government for its failures on the NBN. But Malcolm Turnbull cannot avoid his responsibility for his decision on the multi-technology mix (MTM) model which incorporates Telstra’s copper network and also for his failure to continue with fibre to the home/premises. The MTM and FTTN are his and only his to own.  The ALP got one important thing right – and that was the importance of rolling out fibre to the end-user.

    In September 2010 Abbott ordered Turnbull to ‘demolish the NBN’. Malcolm Turnbull seems to be doing his best to do just that..

    The same media failure to research and analyse what has been happening on the NBN has been apparent on many other issues. In particular there was a failure to report and analyse government spin on boat arrivals. The ABC, and Radio National in Canberra was one of the west offenders.

    We now know that boat arrivals had been reduced from 48 in July 2013 to 5 in October 2013 when Tony Abbott’s Operation Sovereign Borders came into effect.

    Just as with boats, the media, including the ABC, has failed to properly research and analyse where the NBN is now headed.

    The NBN failure is a major set-back. That is a major story in itself. But the failure of the media to professionally report on the issue is also a major story in itself. A compliant media pulled out all the stops concerning  pink batts and the school building program under the Labor Governments. But the problems with those programs were minor compared with the NBN mess which is now upon us.   The media prefers to turn a blind eye to what is happening with our most important infrastructure project.

    https://delimiter.com.au/2016/01/14/journo-claims-abc-gagged-his-nbn-coverage/

  • How ‘Crazy’ are the North Koreans?

    Joel S. Wit writes about how the North Koreans have played their cards extremely well despite the appalling nature of their regime.  See link to an article in the New York Times, by Joel S. Wit, who is a Senior Fellow of the US-Korea Institute at John Hopkins University.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/how-crazy-are-the-north-koreans.html

  • Peter Day. Professional sport needs more ‘Pats’.

    Despite all the feel good talk, the rags to riches stories and wonderful qualities that people like to associate with professional sport, when all is said and done, what really shapes and drives it are these three things:

    1. Results 2. Results 3. Results.

    Winning is everything, and self-interest, the “jockey”. In such a hyper competitive environment, gaining an advantage, any advantage, becomes the Holy Grail. Even a one per cent edge can be the difference between winning and losing, between keeping your job and looking for another. No wonder clubs aggressively pursue all sorts of human expertise: corporate heavyweights, nutritionists, scientists, dieticians, psychologists, lawyers, motivators, and so on.

    It is a terribly costly exercise that demands a 24/7 focus and a whatever it takes mentality. Within this milieu, risk-taking becomes an essential requirement. The temptations are enormous as administrators and participants weigh-up the pros and cons of pushing boundaries to the limit, of ‘tasting that forbidden fruit’. For some, pushing boundaries means relegating athletes to the status of machines to be optimised. When this happens, all sorts of supplements – legal and illicit – are introduced in order to get the ‘best’ out of a player’s body and to enhance performance.

    Thus, sport is reduced to a kind of Machiavellian project where the ends justify the means.

    It is de-humanising. It is dangerous. It is likely to end in tears – just ask Essendon.

    But amidst this brutal, winner-take-all, corporate back-drop, there is another face of sport; a human face that needs to be seen and heard …

     

    You could barely see her amongst the thousands of other supporters, but she was there. She was always there, wearing her club beanie and scarf, waving the team flag and proudly donning her prized t-shirt graffiti-ed with player autographs.

    Pat had followed the club for 50+ years. She was a tiny lady, “Five foot one, dear.” The tape measure disagreed, “Four foot 11 … and that’s it!” There was no argument about her weight, though: fifty kilos ringing wet. But tiny Pat was a giant within the club. She stood like a beacon, shining forth unmatched spirit and loyalty. The players and training staff all knew her, and respected her. Over the years she’d been involved in a host of voluntary activities including organising sausage sizzles for the fans, helping make match day banners, and even washing the odd jersey for “that homesick youngster who still needed ‘mum’ around.”

    Not only that, Pat had been to every match they’d played since 1960; she even turned up without fail on Thursday evenings to watch the boys train. She did concede, however, that there was a little 18 months break when she nursed her husband, Bert, through cancer. “He was my first love,” she said. But other than that, Pat turned up every match day (and Thursday evenings) rain, hail, or shine.   “Just to encourage the boys, mind you; not to pester ‘em,” she’d insist. “I’m no football groupie. Sure, I love these boys, but I don’t want to go clubbing with them, and I certainly don’t want to marry them.”

    Now this day was special for the club. It was their last training session before the Grand Final. Supporters had come out of the woodwork – thousands of them from near and far. What a year it had been: “A miracle”, the papers were saying. A bunch of young upstarts, predicted to finish in the bottom three, now in the Grand Final. The experts were shaking their heads. Pat wasn’t. She didn’t have much time for the experts. As far as she was concerned “They were a bunch of well dressed, overpaid blokes who get it wrong half the time.” Not only was the club a match away from being premiers, but membership had topped 33,000 – the previous best was 25,000 in 1975. Happy times indeed.

    Well, that was two years ago. Today it won’t be so hard to pick-out tiny Pat amongst the crowd. They’ll be no crowd. It had been an awful year for the club. They’d won just six games; worst season in their history; wooden-spooners for the first time. The press had crucified them all year, while many of the supporters tore-up their memberships in disgust. Not only that, the coach was sacked and five players were asked to move-on. But amidst the misery and panic, there she was, tiny Pat, faithfully at the club’s last training session of the season. She was the only one at the ground, save for the players, support staff and the interim coach. It was a “bloody” cold day, too. Never mind, Pat had her thermos: four teaspoons of coffee, a tablespoon of sugar, and a nip of medicinal brandy. This was her thirty-second consecutive year of watching the boys’ Thursday evening training.   She always sat at the edge of the fence behind one of the goal posts. And from her faithful lips you could hear the familiar words of encouragement, words that had echoed around the ground for three decades: “Good mark, young fella; c’mon boys, keep runnin’, keep workin’. Make me proud!”

    A journalist got a surprise when he asked Pat why she continued to be so faithful in such miserable times. “Ya know,” she said, “that Jesus fella knew a thing or two. People loved it when he was workin’ those miracles. Even his best mate, Peter, only wanted the highlights package. But he made it pretty clear, didn’t he: ‘If ya wanna come for the ride, if ya gonna love me, you’ll have to accept that along with grand finals come wooden-spoons too.’   It’s a bit like marriage, isn’t it? My husband and me had a wonderful honeymoon, kinda like winning a grand final; wished it’d never end. But life ain’t like that. He also got sick, got cancer … and it killed him. That was like gettin’ the wooden-spoon; that was a heavy Cross to carry. But it was during that time that I really learned about love, about how to love and how to be a true supporter. I reckon ya need wooden-spoon moments to be a better person.

    “Son, this ain’t just a club; this is my family – it’s my community. I’ve mixed with all types since I’ve been here: rich and poor; VIPs and ordinary folk; and, ya know what, I hadn’t even met an aboriginal before I got involved in footy; what a blessing that’s been.

    “This club – along with Bert, of course – has taught me lots about being there in good times and bad. People need you most when they’re doing it tough, don’t they? When my Bert died, it was this club that paid for his funeral; even held a fundraiser to help with some of the bills.

    “I just love this place … It makes me feel like I belong. Not sure whether you’re too familiar with the Good Book, but there’s a passage I’m especially fond of; it’s the one where our Lord says, ‘I am the vine, you are the branches’. I’m no scholar, but I think He was trying to teach us about the importance of staying close and connected. That’s how I feel here: close and connected, like a little branch clinging to its vine … my club.

    “Anyway, son, next year we’ll be a stronger club. We’ve learnt a lot about ourselves this season; can’t wait ‘til training starts again in a few months. Might see you there? Gotta go now, son. God-bless-ya.”

    Fr. Peter Day is a Catholic Priest in Canberra.

  • I stand at the door and knock.

    Pope’s Message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

    January 17, 2016

    Dear Brothers and Sisters,

    In the Bull of indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy I noted that “at times we are called to gaze even more attentively on mercy so that we may become a more effective sign of the Father’s action in our lives” (Misericordiae Vultus, 3). God’s love is meant to reach out to each and every person. Those who welcome the Father’s embrace, for their part, become so many other open arms and embraces, enabling every person to feel loved like a child and “at home” as part of the one human family. God’s fatherly care extends to everyone, like the care of a shepherd for his flock, but it is particularly concerned for the needs of the sheep who are wounded, weary or ill. Jesus told us that the Father stoops to help those overcome by physical or moral poverty; the more serious their condition, the more powerfully is his divine mercy revealed.

    In our time, migration is growing worldwide. Refugees and people fleeing from their homes challenge individuals and communities, and their traditional ways of life; at times they upset the cultural and social horizons which they encounter. Increasingly, the victims of violence and poverty, leaving their homelands, are exploited by human traffickers during their journey towards the dream of a better future. If they survive the abuses and hardships of the journey, they then have to face latent suspicions and fear. In the end, they frequently encounter a lack of clear and practical policies regulating the acceptance of migrants and providing for short or long term programmes of integration respectful of the rights and duties of all. Today, more than in the past, the Gospel of mercy troubles our consciences, prevents us from taking the suffering of others for granted, and points out way of responding which, grounded in the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, find practical expression in works of spiritual and corporal mercy.

    In the light of these facts, I have chosen as the theme of the 2016 World Day of Migrants and Refugees: “Migrants and Refugees Challenge Us. The Response of the Gospel of Mercy.” Migration movements are now a structural reality, and our primary issue must be to deal with the present emergency phase by providing programmes which address the causes of migration and the changes it entails, including its effect on the makeup of societies and peoples. The tragic stories of millions of men and women daily confront the international community as a result of the outbreak of unacceptable humanitarian crises in different parts of the world. Indifference and silence lead to complicity whenever we stand by as people are dying of suffocation, starvation, violence and shipwreck. Whether large or small in scale, these are always tragedies, even when a single human life is lost.

    Migrants are our brothers and sisters in search of a better life, far away from poverty, hunger, exploitation and the unjust distribution of the planet’s resources which are meant to be equitably shared by all. Don’t we all want a better, more decent and prosperous life to share with our loved ones?
    At this moment in human history, marked by great movements of migration, identity is not a secondary issue. Those who migrate are forced to change some of their most distinctive characteristics and, whether they like or not, even those who welcome them are also forced to change. How can we experience these changes not as obstacles to genuine development, rather as opportunities for genuine human, social and spiritual growth, a growth which respects and promotes those values which make us ever more humane and help us to live a balanced relationship with God, others and creation?
    The presence of migrants and refugees seriously challenges the various societies which accept them. Those societies are faced with new situations which could create serious hardship unless they are suitably motivated, managed and regulated. How can we ensure that integration will become mutual enrichment, open up positive perspectives to communities, and prevent the danger of discrimination, racism, extreme nationalism or xenophobia?

    Biblical revelation urges us to welcome the stranger; it tells us that in so doing, we open our doors to God, and that in the faces of others we see the face of Christ himself. Many institutions, associations, movements and groups, diocesan, national and international organisations are experiencing the wonder and joy of the feast of encounter, sharing and solidarity. They have heard the voice of Jesus Christ: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” (Rev 3:20). Yet there continue to be debates about the conditions and limits to be set for the reception of migrants, not only on the level of national policies, but also in some parish communities whose traditional tranquillity seems to be threatened.

    Faced with these issues, how can the Church fail to be inspired by the example and words of Jesus Christ? The answer of the Gospel is mercy.
    In the first place, mercy is a gift of God the Father who is revealed in the Son. God’s mercy gives rise to joyful gratitude for the hope which opens up before us in the mystery of our redemption by Christ’s blood. Mercy nourishes and strengthens solidarity towards others as a necessary response to God’s gracious love, “which has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5). Each of us is responsible for his or her neighbour: we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, wherever they live. Concern for fostering good relationships with others and the ability to overcome prejudice and fear are essential ingredients for promoting the culture of encounter, in which we are not only prepared to give, but also to receive from others. Hospitality, in fact, grows from both giving and receiving.

    From this perspective, it is important to view migrants not only on the basis of their status as regular or irregular, but above all as people whose dignity is to be protected and who are capable of contributing to progress and the general welfare. This is especially the case when they responsibly assume their obligations towards those who receive them, gratefully respecting the material and spiritual heritage of the host country, obeying its laws and helping with its needs. Migrations cannot be reduced merely to their political and legislative aspects, their economic implications and the concrete coexistence of various cultures in one territory. All these complement the defence and promotion of the human person, the culture of encounter, and the unity of peoples, where the Gospel of mercy inspires and encourages ways of renewing and transforming the whole of humanity.

    The Church stands at the side of all who work to defend each person’s right to live with dignity, first and foremost by exercising the right not to emigrate and to contribute to the development of one’s country of origin. This process should include, from the outset, the need to assist the countries which migrants and refugees leave. This will demonstrate that solidarity, cooperation, international interdependence and the equitable distribution of the earth’s goods are essential for more decisive efforts, especially in areas where migration movements begin, to eliminate those imbalances which lead people, individually or collectively, to abandon their own natural and cultural environment. In any case, it is necessary to avert, if possible at the earliest stages, the flight of refugees and departures as a result of poverty, violence and persecution.

    Public opinion also needs to be correctly formed, not least to prevent unwarranted fears and speculations detrimental to migrants.
    No one can claim to be indifferent in the face of new forms of slavery imposed by criminal organizations which buy and sell men, women and children as forced labourers in construction, agriculture, fishing or in other markets. How many minors are still forced to fight in militias as child soldiers! How many people are victims of organ trafficking, forced begging and sexual exploitation! Today’s refugees are fleeing from these aberrant crimes, and they appeal to the Church and the human community to ensure that, in the outstretched hand of those who receive them, they can see the face of the Lord, “the Father of mercies and God of all consolation” (2 Cor 1:3).

    Dear brothers and sisters, migrants and refugees! At the heart of the Gospel of mercy the encounter and acceptance by others are intertwined with the encounter and acceptance of God himself. Welcoming others means welcoming God in person! Do not let yourselves be robbed of the hope and joy of life born of your experience of God’s mercy, as manifested in the people you meet on your journey! I entrust you to the Virgin Mary, Mother of migrants and refugees, and to Saint Joseph, who experienced the bitterness of emigration to Egypt. To their intercession I also commend those who invest so much energy, time and resources to the pastoral and social care of migrants.

    To all I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing.

     

  • The policy scandal of a $11b taxpayer subsidy to private health insurance.

    I don’t think that I can recall a domestic policy that is so outrageous as the $11 b. annual cost to the taxpayer of the subsidy to private health insurance (PHI) companies. The subsidy is paid to policy holders, but it really means that PHI companies receive the benefit of the subsidy. For further explanation of the $11b figure see link to submission below. Repost from 08/12/2013

    (more…)

  • John Duggan. Advice from expert clinicians or the AMA

    For those interested in the cost of health care the recently released interim report by the Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS) Review “obsolete MBS items track one” demonstrates the dawning recognition that there are procedures and tests that do not justify their existence or federal funding.

    The story begins with the decision of Ms Sussan Ley, Minister for Health to form the Medical Benefits Schedule Review taskforce, with a mandate to review the schedule in its entirety. The Task Force is ‘an expert clinician led Medicare Benefit Schedule (MBS) review … established to lead an accelerated program of MBS reviews to align MBS funding services with contemporary clinical evidence and improve health outcomes for patients’.

    The taskforce, chaired by Professor Bruce Robinson, Dean of the Sydney University Medical School, is an expert clinician-led group whose main duty is to align MBS funded services with contemporary clinical evidence and improve outcomes.

    One role of the taskforce of 13 members is to appoint chairs and members of working groups to progress the work using evidence based reviews and data and assessment of literature. Priority areas will include safety, clinically unnecessary service provision and accepted clinical guidelines. It also has the power to recommend adding new services to the MBS.

    Of the host of clinical committees created several have already reported on obsolete items – an interesting group. The strictures about kidney x-rays (MBS item number 58705) illustrate the problem and variety of obsolete and useless procedures recommended for abolition. The gastroenterology group reviewed the practice of treating gastric bleeding by infusing refrigerant fluid into the stomach, discarded soon after its initiation about 60 years ago and which was only used eight times in the last 11 years.

    It is evident to any medical scientist that the review is overdue and can only benefit both patients and the budget.

    Whether the AMA feels happy about the review will be reflected in its attitude to the recommendations of the Task Force.

    John Duggan is Conjoint Professor, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle.

  • Dennis Hemphill. Essendon Football Club

    Their club failed them, but Essendon players can’t excape blame for doping ban.

    Fingers are pointing again at the Essendon Football Club for its failures in the long-running supplements fiasco. This follows the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) decision to ban 34 past and present players for one year for contravening the World Anti-Doping Code.

    A club’s coaches and other officials are supposed to have a duty of care to ensure a safe working environment and practices that are compliant with the anti-doping code. But the club’s failings in this area have already been dealt with. The AFL penalised Essendon heavily in 2013 for health and safety shortcomings that were judged to bring the game into disrepute.

    But what of the players’ liability?

    What does the code say?

    One might be forgiven for thinking that the players were unwitting victims in this saga. They claim to have questioned the supplements regime and believed they were administered thymosin and not the banned thymosin beta-4.

    The 2009 World Anti-Doping Code’s principle of strict liability makes athletes ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies. It states:

    It is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers found to be present in their samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation …

    Whether the athletes believed they were receiving thymosin when they were actually receiving the banned thymosin beta-4 is not the question. The mere presence of banned doping agents in the athlete’s system is sufficient for the World Anti-Doping Agency to deem it an infraction.

    The code also makes it clear that in exceptional circumstances (for example, proven unintentional doping) the sanction for the rule violation may be reduced or eliminated, but the infraction stands.

    Some might think the principle of strict liability is too harsh. But the players unfortunately may be barking up the wrong tree if they think they are innocent victims.

    Players implicated

    The CAS decision disclosed material that further implicated the Essendon players. Despite having undergone anti-doping education programs, the players agreed to injections they knew little about, made no enquiries about them, kept the injections from the team doctor and failed to declare them during routine Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA) testing sessions.

    Following the decision, ASADA CEO Ben McDevitt said:

    At best, the players did not ask the questions, or the people, they should have. At worst, they were complicit in a culture of secrecy and concealment.

    On this account, it is one thing for players to have trusted team officials and unwittingly taken a banned substance, but quite another not to have consulted the team doctor or disclosed the supplement use to ASADA. Taking this evidence into account, CAS would appear to have no reason to reduce or eliminate sanctions for the anti-doping rule violation.

    One of the take-away messages from the latest stage in the supplements saga is that players will need to be more confident and courageous to challenge the conditions under which they are expected to perform. This could involve collective agreements on the full disclosure of benefits and risks prior to the introduction of cutting-edge performance-enhancement measures and methods.

    At the same time, the bar will need to be raised about duty of care and informed consent. Clubs contemplating the implementation of innovative performance-enhancement methods will need to be especially diligent in understanding their performance, health and integrity implications and ensuring that athletes are made fully aware of them.

    Team officials and high-performance managers might also need to be aware of the power differential between them and players. This can sometimes compromise a player’s ability to question – let alone say no to – what might be considered dubious performance-enhancement regimes.

    All this needs to come in a sport culture where there are high expectations, as well as financial and social pressures and rewards, for playing well and winning.

    Dennis Hemphill is Associate Professor of Sports Ethics, Victoria University. This article was first published in The Conversation on 13 January 2103.

  • John Menadue. Preferential trade deals – gigantic foundation stones or pebbles?

    Malcolm Turnbull has described the TPP as a ‘gigantic foundation stone’ that will deliver ‘more jobs, absolutely’.

    The World Bank now tells us that the TPP will be more like a pebble than a foundation stone.  See following article by Peter Martin in SMH on January 12, 2016.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/transpacific-partnership-will-barely-benefit-australia-says-world-bank-report-20160111-gm3g9w.html

    The following is a repost on the same subject, originally posted on 13/10/2015.

    John Menadue

    Repost from 13/10/2015. 

    After two wasted years in government, it is perhaps not surprising that Malcolm Turnbull would try and gild the lily by telling us that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ‘was of enormous benefit to us. It is a gigantic foundation stone for our future prosperity.’ What in the world has he been digesting to talk like this? Perhaps he is really extending an olive branch to the Abbott supporters he has vanquished by crediting the Abbott Government with the TPP!

    I have posted many blogs on the exaggerated claims for preferential trade deals pointing out those corporate benefits have invariably been put ahead of the public interest. Informed commentators are also almost unanimous that the TPP, like earlier FTAs with Japan, Korea and China, have been over-hyped.

    Alan Mitchell, the Australian Financial Review Economics Editor describes the TPP as ‘more of a pebble than a gigantic foundation stone’.

    Ross Gittins the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, says that the TPP ‘is no big deal’.

    Leon Berkelmans, the Director of the Lowy Institute, says of the TPP ‘don’t believe the hype; TPP is stifling rather than sustaining … Don’t get sucked into the lofty rhetoric, it’s wrong’.

    Ian Verrender the ABC Business Editor said that the ‘TPP isn’t about trade and certainly not about free trade. It is about entrenching the interests of major corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens’.

    Joanna Howe, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Adelaide warned that the TPP and the China FTA could prejudice our ‘valuable labour standards’.

    Michael West in the SMH warns that the TPP is a ‘leg-up for vested interests’. Tongue-in-cheek he concludes ‘signing up to the TPP is a bit like buying a used car over the phone with no details as to the state of the vehicle or the clicks on the odometer, but with glowing assurances from the dealer that “she’s a beauty mate, really”.’

    Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics and Professor at Colombia University tells us with Adam Hersh, that the TPF ‘is an agreement to manage its member’s trade and investment and to do so on behalf of each country’s most powerful business lobbies. Make no mistake. It is not about … free-trade.’

    The Pew East-West Centre estimates that Australia will increase its GDP by 0.5% by 2025 as a result of the TPP. Yes, 0.5% by 2025!

    Our Productivity Commission is skeptical about the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) outcomes. It says in its 2015 report ‘That it is not clear ISDS provisions respond to a demonstrable market failure or has been associated with the fostering of foreign investment flows.’ These ISDS provisions in my view are a direct attack on national sovereignty in favor of multinational companies represented by organizations such as Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. Many of these multinational companies thumb their noses at democratically governments by finding legal devices to avoid paying tax.

    In this blog on 10 September this year, I reported that Professors Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer at Victoria University found that the Centre for International Economics estimated that the gain in economic welfare from the three FTAs with Japan, China and Korea, will be only 0.4% of GDP. The CIE study also found that as a result of the three FTAs, Australian jobs would increase by 5,434 by 2035. Yet Minister Robb said that they would increase by 178,000!

    In its 2010 report, the Productivity Commission said ‘The increase in national income from preferential agreements is likely to be modest.’

    We know for instance that the FTA signed with the US ten years ago actually resulted in a reduction of our total trade with the rest of the world by $US53 b. because of trade diversion with the US. It was because of such outcomes that the Productivity Commission has warned us many times that the benefits of FTAs are often exaggerated and the downsides are minimized. It commented ‘Preferential trading arrangements add to the complexity of international trade and investment, are costly and time-consuming to negotiate, and add to the compliance costs of firms and administrative costs of governments.’

    The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is like a babe in the woods in this area and focuses on relatively minor benefits for our farmers and ignores the wider and serious problems of preferential trade agreements. What sovereign rights has DFAT negotiated away under the veil of secrecy? Yet behind this veil of secrecy a host of US vested interests were consulted extensively. The Obama administration was keen to give them a leg up.

    The government has little to show after two years of confusion and lost opportunities.

    • The budget deficit and net government debt are in worse shape than when the Abbott Government took office.
    • Despite the rhetoric, the government did not stop the boats. Boat arrivals fell dramatically from July to Dec 2013, before the turn backs commenced.
    • Company tax was not reduced because our large companies in the Business Council of Australia threw their lot in with the multinational companies to torpedo a sensible resources rent tax package which included company tax reduction.
    • Taxes on middle income earners are increasing through ‘bracket creep’
    • The Abbott government abolished the carbon tax, but we know that a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme will have to be introduced in some form to address carbon pollution.
    • Domestic terrorism has increased, spurred in part by our foolish military incursions into Iraq, Afghanistan and now, Syria. The last Essential Report found that 45 percent of Australians felt less safe as a result of our joining the military campaign against ISIS in Syria. Only 13 percent felt safer.

    With the cupboard bare after two years, the government hypes up the success of trade deals. They attack their opponents as xenophobic and anti-Chinese.

    The government has got itself into a corner with these deals. It should concede its mistakes and negotiate sensible compromises in the national interest. I wonder if Andrew Robb really appreciates the predicament that he has got himself and Australia into.

    The position of the US on preferential trade deals, as on so many other issues, is problematic. The US effectively sabotaged the World Trade Organization’s attempt at Cancun in 2003 to promote multi-lateral free trade. The WTO process was sabotaged by wealthy countries such as the US which refused to reduce agricultural protection. US farmers won the day. So in response to agricultural protection and the power of US business lobbies, President Obama launched the TPP to protect and advance those US interests and in the process isolate China.

    As in so many other fields we are paying a very heavy price for our unthinking support for the US.

  • Evan Williams. Film Review: Paolo Sorrentino’s ‘Youth’

     

    Written and directed by Paolo Sorrentino, Youth is a film for the young at heart – or at least for those aspiring to that happy condition. The main characters are a couple of blokes on the wrong side of 70, and it was noticeable at my screening that most of the audience weren’t too far behind. Youth may not have been the best title. For all its undoubted charms, this isn’t a film for the 18-to-24 demographic, much targeted these days by the major studios. That makes it something of a rarity – and a pleasure.

    Sorrentino is keen on the idea of oldies discovering their inner selves and coming to terms with the passing years. His best known film, The Great Beauty, winner of all sorts of awards a couple of years ago, gave us a 65-year-old who has spent most of his life revelling in the fleshpots of Rome before hearing some nasty news. Among other odd characters, the film featured a self-styled “dwarf” and a nun with two crooked teeth. Among other odd characters, Youth gives us a grossly obese sunbather, a naked Miss Universe, a faded Hollywood star (nicely played by a faded Jane Fonda), and an assortment of less than glamorous geriatrics rich enough to stay at a luxury resort in the Swiss Alps. The shadow of Fellini looms large.

    Fred Ballinger (a morose and taciturn Michael Caine) and his old friend Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel) are among the hotel’s many disconsolate residents. Fred is a retired orchestral conductor and composer, famous for a one-hit wonder called “Simple Songs”, which he no longer performs in public because, as he somewhat enigmatically explains, it was written for his wife, who can no longer sing. Not even an emissary from Queen Elizabeth herself can persuade Fred to perform the piece for Prince Philip’s birthday. Mick is a film director working on what he believes will be the crowning masterpiece of his career – his “testament”, as he calls it – though judging from the assortment of actors and screenwriters assembled for the project, one doubts that the film will be the triumph Mick is hoping for. Perhaps Sorrentino will enlighten us in a future instalment.

    Youth is described in the blurbs as a “comedy-drama” – a term that always fills me with foreboding. You will have gathered that it is seriously weird – weird, but fascinating, not to say beautifully acted , and above all, quite ravishingly photographed and designed. Sorrentino’s cinematographer, Luca Bigazzi, who also shot The Great Beauty, has a wonderful eye for lush landscapes (or snowscapes) combined with a taste for bizarre, often surreal, compositions. He can find beguiling patterns and shapes wherever he points his camera – hotel corridors, symmetrical archways, rows of reclining sun-seekers.

    The “comedy-drama” consists of long passages of moody introspection relieved by occasional jokes, most of which are funny. There’s a delicious scene when Fred and Mick are relaxing in the hotel pool when a naked Miss Universe slips into the water beside them. Miss Universe is played by an actress called Madalina Diana Ghenea, who appears to have been well chosen for her wordless role. And I liked the scene when one of Mick’s actors (Paul Dano), sporting a little black moustache and an all-too-realistic Hitler uniform, takes a seat in the hotel dining room and proceeds to eat in solitary silence, much to the alarm and indignation of other guests.

    It is a film full of little puzzles and unanswered questions – I’m still not exactly sure what happened to Fred’s lost wife – but the total effect is strangely moving. There isn’t a great deal of cohesion and narrative drive, but Youth is never dull, and whenever things get a little vague or perplexing we are given a lovely piece of visual wizardry. The film is a beautiful affirmation of the power of pure cinema. Of course you won’t see it at multiplexes. Try the art houses instead and you should be lucky. But hurry.

    Youth, rated MA, is showing in selected cinemas.

    Evan Williams has reviewed films in The Australian newspaper for 33 years. He is a Life Member of the Film Critics Circle of Australia for services to film criticism and the film industry.

     

  • Eric Walsh. Tribute to Brian Johns.

    The death of Brian Francis Johns, 79, in the early hours of New Years Day marked the end of one of the most impressive Australian media careers of the last half century.

    During this period Johns engaged in and excelled at the top level of almost all aspects of media affecting the lives of everyday Australians.

    He distinguished himself as a political journalist on The Australian when he was that papers first political correspondent. He then filled similar roles on the now-defunct Weekly, The Bulletin and was later chief of the political office of The Sydney Morning Herald. He went on to fill executive news management positions on that newspaper.

    In 1975 he was recruited to a senior position in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet where he remained for some years under the Whitlam and Fraser Governments.

    Having made a significant mark in newspapers he was to enjoy a similar success in literature as Australian publisher for the overseas Penguin Group for seven years. He greatly increased the number of Australian titles produced locally by this well-known international publisher, becoming a widely respected figure in Australian publishing.

    He was next to impress in the field of broadcasting when he was somewhat surprisingly made Head of Australia’s SBS television and radio networks. He excelled here as an administrator, greatly strengthening SBS by first introducing limited advertising to boost its budget.

    From here his administration skills were recognized and he was appointed to head The Australian Broadcasting Authority. It now seemed inevitable that he would graduate to the top job in Government broadcasting, becoming General Manager of the ABC.

    Johns made his presence felt in all three of these non-newspaper appointments.

    He had had a surprising entry in the field of mainstream journalism.

    Two journalistic giants Maxwell Newton, who turned The Australian Financial Review into a highly successful daily newspaper and Tom Fitzgerald finance editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and founder of the influential political and cultural fortnightly, Nation, were jointly responsible for launching the career of a then largely unknown media star.

    Johns had come to Sydney from Queensland as a boy and won a scholarship to prestigious
    St Joseph’s College where he had a stellar career as a student. On leaving he spent more than two years studying for the Catholic priesthood. He left to become a journalist.

    His career, started quite unspectacularly on the bi-weekly country newspaper, The Queanbeyan Age. Through church contacts he escaped that boredom and gained a position with the Australian Government publicity unit, the Australian News and Information Bureau – by no means the home of Australia’s leading journalistic talent.

    He overcame his frustration and his employment’s limitations by making notable contributions on political and cultural issues – mainly political – for Tom Fitzgerald’s fortnightly Nation.

    In 1964, years later, when Max Newton was hand-picked by Rupert Murdoch to be Editor of his ambitious new National Daily, The Australian, he was aware that significant political journalists in existing media were comfortable and were unlikely to take a risk on the questionable new venture of the then unproven 32 year old Murdoch.

    In conversation with Fitzgerald who had gained a high opinion of Johns from his frequent contributions to Nation, Max was persuaded to take a chance on a young man virtually unknown outside the columns of Nation. He had no cause to regret his gamble.

    A highly successful media career began from here.

    Having later climbed the heights in journalism, literature, administration and broadcasting it was fitting that his career should begin its close by teaching.

    For more than two years he was engaged as Adjunct Professor of Journalism at Queensland University of Technology where he made many friendships and won admiration and gratitude from scores of students. His final days, cut short by his unexpected and ultimately fatal illness, was spent once again in organisation and administration.

    He was Chairman of the Australian Copyright Agency and also Chairman of that body’s cultural foundation, a role he particularly enjoyed as it involved the funding of young writers. He served on the Board of Melbourne University Press and The Southern Phone Company.

    His death marked the end of what was a very well-rounded era of accomplishment by Brian Francis Johns.

  • Commercialisation and the casualness of going to war

    Repost from 23/04/2015.

    If we feel overwhelmed by the crass commercialism of Gallipoli and Anzac, take a deep breath because there are three years to go.

    Target has sponsored ‘Camp Gallipoli’, Woolworths has asked us to ‘Keep Fresh in our Memories’ the losses of Gallipoli ; VB depicted for us actors on the steps of the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance who  tell us to bow our heads and raise a glass of VB in memory of the first Australians who charged and died at Gallipoli. There have been endless advertising and sales of Gallipoli kitsch. Even our Governor General a few years ago fronted at the hotel bar for VB to raise a glass and  money for veterans.

    But the slipping TV ratings suggest we are getting tired of the saturation media coverage and the $400 m spent by the Australian Government on a whole range of Anzac ‘educational’ programs.

    When the myth making all started in 1915 Charles Bean, the official military historian carefully burnished the Anzac myth. Soldiers were strong, adaptable, cheerful, laid-back, but faithfully serving the empire. Not for Bean the harsh realities of war unless they were laced with humour. He didn’t tell us much about the fear, desertion or boredom of soldiers far from home or the horror of it all. He was gilding the lily about the terrible nature of the war in which young Australians were killing and being killed.

    We are told endlessly about how Australians fought in WW!. We are never really asked the very important question of why we fought… in the interests of Britain’s colonial and economic interests,including access to oil in the Middle East for Britain’s navy.

    The last surviving Anzac, Alec Campbell said in 2002 ‘For God’s sake don’t glorify Gallipoli..it was a terrible fiasco, a total failure and best forgotten’. But the Anzac obsession continues.

    To burnish the conservative interpretation of our military history we, and particularly the Australian War Memorial, are very selective about the story we tell. We have selective amnesia. We ignore the Frontier Wars, a race war by white landowners in which over 30,000 indigenous people were killed defending their homeland. In proportion to our population it was the largest loss of life in war in our history. But there is scarcely a grave or a memorial to remember the people who died in the Frontier Wars. Our first military alliance with New Zealand was not at Gallipoli but in the Maori race wars in the 1850s and 1860s.

    Best we forget the Frontier and Maori Wars.

    We choose to make WWII almost a footnote to our military history, but it was far more important to our survival than any other foreign war.

    Old soldiers will scarcely ever tell us about their experiences. They were haunted for years with the horror of it all. But today we don’t seem able to stop talking about Anzac and Gallipoli. We have seen so often on TV a long-lost cousin or a great uncle that has been forgotten. It seems more like sentimentality than grief.

    The careful selection of people and events by Bean diverted attention from the enormous political, strategic and personal tragedy of Gallipoli. We do the same today. We are encouraged to forget the blunders we made as a nation, involving ourselves in wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Bean, we divert attention by focusing on the sacrifice and losses by ordinary servicemen and women. We seem to turn ourselves into a knot to avoid facing the history of our military blunders. The same process is now under way with our expanded commitment to Iraq. What we will not acknowledge is that there was no national interest in sending Australian troops to Gallipoli just as there is no national interest in sending troops again to Iraq.

    On Anzac Cove Tony Abbott has told us that our involvement at Gallipoli was ‘right and just’. Others talk of ‘defending freedom’. In my view none of these claims stand up to serious scrutiny.. We were there for the empire.

    The Bean myth-making was essential for conservatives to divert attention from the military, political and personal tragedies; the division at home over conscription; the sectarianism of Billy Hughes and the poverty and unemployment in the great depression. It was not a land fit for heroes. WWI sundered our nation and it wasn’t until 1945 that we really started to put it together again..

    There are two bookends in our celebration of our military history. They are out dependence on the UK and the USA. We try to invent reasons why we fought at Gallipoli, but I have yet to hear a believable account of what we fought for there, except serving the empire. At Gallipoli Australian soldiers flew the Union Jack.  Today we also try to invent reasons why we are fighting in Iraq, but the real reason is the call of the latter-day imperial power, the USA.

    How can we possibly believe that Gallipoli and Iraq is about nationhood? Our involvement in both was for quite opposite reasons – serving the empire. Unfortunately some people believe that nationhood, like manhood can only only be proven in war and violence.

    My main concern about the Gallipoli myth-making and our military history is because it is pushing us steadily further and further down the military path. Our foreign policy has become overwhelmingly militarised. Combatting asylum seekers in Operation Sovereign Borders is an example of how civil policies and programs are being turned over to the military. We are again appointing military generals as governors and governor generals.

    This militarisation of Australia has contributed to making our involvement in wars a quite casual event. The latest addition of 300 Australian service people to Iraq scarcely raised any attention at all.

    Taking a country to war used to be considered the most serious step that any government could ever take. But no more. The parliament doesn’t even debate a new overseas commitment. In an almost unthinking way we decide to go to war again. We commit to war after war and then refuse properly support returning service people.

    As Henry Reynolds put it

    ‘The threshold Australian governments need to cross in order to send forces overseas is perilously low. Because there has never been an assessment of why Australia has so often been involved in war, young people must get the impression that war is a natural and inescapable part of national life. It is what we do and we are good at it. We “punch above our weight”. War is treated as though it provides the venue and the occasion for Australian heroism and martial virtuosity. While there is much talk of dying, or more commonly of sacrifice, there is little mention of killing and never any assessment of the carnage visited on distant countries in our name.’

    In Australia today it is becoming much easier to go to war. War is becoming commonplace and the celebrations surrounding Gallipoli make it more so. Step by step we are moving into very dangerous territory, something that the diggers of Gallipoli or the Western Front would have warned us about. It was so horrible; they didn’t want to talk about it. But we talk about it endlessly.

    We should behave with restraint and put some of the drums and bugles away. Let’s pause and think what we are doing.

    The lesson of Gallipoli must surely be to avoid making the same mistake again…whether it be in Vietnam,Afghanistan or Iraq.

     

  • Peter Drysdale. Taiwan’s Political Choice.

    On Sunday, Taiwan will elect its next president, the successor to President Ma Ying-jeou from the Kuomintang (KMT) party who has been in power for the past eight years and is ineligible to run for another term. The vote will almost certainly record a decisive choice for political change.

    In the run up to the election, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate, Tsai Ing-wen, appears to be heading towards a runaway victory — with polls suggesting that she has about 45 per cent voter support. This puts her far ahead of the ruling KMT party candidate, Eric Chu, with around 20 per cent, and the smaller People First Party (PFP) candidate James Soong with 10 per cent. Around 25 per cent of voters remain undecided. With three-quarters of a million more voters this election than last time, the many young, first-time voters are likely to vote for non-mainstream parties or the DPP.

    A series of political stumbles — with the governing KMT forced to change presidential candidate midway through the election — and a steady trend towards independent-mindedness, especially among the younger generation in Taiwan, has left the KMT government struggling to mobilise its support base. The polls suggest that the KMT might also lose control of the Legislative Assembly for the first time in Taiwan’s history.

    The coming election result will be widely, if wrongly, read as a referendum on cross-Strait relations. President Ma has focused on improving relations with China and negotiated a succession of agreements with the mainland that have seen relations between Beijing and Taipei at their most cordial since the end of the Chinese civil war. The opening of cross-Strait economic relations was given a major fillip in 2008 after the election of Ma and the return of a KMT majority in the Taiwanese legislature. There followed a series of high-level exchanges between then Chinese and Taiwanese leaders that laid the foundations for steps that saw a major breakthrough in the relationship with the eventual signing of Cross-Straits Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) on 29 June 2010.

    But implementing follow-on arrangements to give effect to the agreement wasn’t all smooth sailing. The passage of the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement through the Taiwanese legislature was disrupted by the emergence of the Sunflower Student Protest Movement in 2014. The movement gave vent to concerns about incomplete disclosure regarding the nature and potential costs of the agreement, as it related to telecommunications and other issues. And the backing it gained, from the opposition DPP and among students and young people, exposed the underbelly of anxiety about the deepening economic relationship with Beijing and its political implications. Taiwanese are glad to see tensions with Beijing reduced. But many also fear the Ma administration and the KMT might have made Taiwan too economically dependent on the mainland; that might lead to loss of independence and inability to fend off pressure one day to reunify with China on unfavourable terms.

    In fact, the profound political shift in Taiwan is more closely associated with the economy’s failing struggle to re-invent itself. With per capita income around US$22,000, Taiwan is above the middle income threshold, but it has been unable to emulate its neighbours like South Korea and Japan in Asia in climbing up the income scale. Its export-dependent manufacturing sector faces competition from South Korea from above and emerging economies, like China, from below. GDP grew a measly 1 per cent in 2014; wages are stagnating and unemployment, at 4 per cent, is considered high. The irony is that Taiwan’s tortured, ‘one-sided’ economic relationship with China — which Ma had been trying to correct — might well be a core element in Taiwan’s economic woes. While direct trade has opened up across the Strait, Taiwan has continued to restrict Chinese imports and investment, essential to enjoying the fruits of fuller integration into the regional and global economy. South Korea has imposed no similar burdens on its international competitiveness.

    This week’s lead essay from Mark Harrison points out that while the KMT government may have overstayed its welcome domestically, Taiwanese affairs have looked very different internationally. While the Ma–Xi meeting last November seemed merely to confirm the voters’ view that the KMT had lost sight of Taiwan’s democratic ideals and their everyday concerns, internationally it looked like an historic moment in cross-Strait relations and a step towards resolving one of modern history’s longest-standing ideological conflicts. Indeed, one conception of China’s diplomatic intention in agreeing to the meeting was that it was designed to lay down new benchmarks in cross-Strait relations in preparation for working with a DPP leadership.

    ‘Should Tsai be elected president, managing these two very different perspectives will be a key task for the incoming administration’, says Harrison. ‘As president, she will need to take heed of the international view of Taiwan and communicate the reasons why the electorate have voted for a more circumspect relationship with Beijing. Tsai’s task will be complicated by memories of the last DPP president, Chen Shui-bian, which still rankle foreign ministries around the world. At the same time, the United States and Japan have both become far warier of China’s assertive regional policies and a Taiwanese government that is less accommodating towards Beijing may suit their policy responses and leadership inclinations’.

    It’s true, as Harrison says, that from an international perspective, policymaking in Taipei by a government that will base its legitimacy on its openness to public debate and political activism may appear less reassuring than the policies of accommodation with Beijing under Ma. Certainly Washington was anxious to be reassured that Tsai was not going to disturb the status quo on that front. But this is the tide of Taiwan’s modern political history. Beijing has shown respect for the process and provided a bridge to Tsai and an incentive to meet in the middle. And the policy outcomes that open government can deliver on China and other issues will ultimately stand on stronger foundations of political legitimacy.

    Professor Peter Drysdale is Editor ANU East Asia Forum. This article was first published in the East Asia Forum on 11 January 2016.

  • Mark Gregory. Turnbull’s NBN Mess

    It has been an inauspicious beginning to 2016 for NBN Co and the year only promises to go from bad to worse as the rest of the world moves ahead with NG-PON2 Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) rollouts and Australians slowly realise that the spin from Turnbull about how his NBN was going to be fast, affordable and here sooner is nothing more than a bad joke.

    If you’re a critic of the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s Multi-Technology Mix (MTM) National Broadband Network (NBN) then you’ll have to get in line to be heard as there is going to be a constant stream of criticism about how Turnbull’s MTM NBN provides slow connections that are fraught with technical problems, suffers from poor performance, does not have enough capacity and has hobbled Australians with nothing more than basic broadband at significantly higher prices than what is paid in other countries competing for the global digital economy dollar.

    And yes it is time that we acknowledge Turnbull’s ownership of the MTM NBN mess, and the broader malaise that beset the telecommunications industry during his tenure as Minister for Communications. Backhaul prices between 100 to 200 times higher than in competing countries, data retention fiasco, legislative and regulatory black holes including the perennial favourite that is mandatory data breach reporting.

    To make matters worse Turnbull appears to be listening to people that definitely had too much Kool Aid in 2015 and rather than fix the telecommunications market mess he appears to be pushing for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to be stripped of its monopoly infrastructure regulation role. Now if this gem actually appears in legislation it will akin to the silly idea to raise the Goods and Services Tax to 15 per cent rather than address the underlying problems with the taxation system, for example, getting the multi-nationals to pay a fair amount of tax on turnover in Australia would be a good start. And we can all remember the Coalition telling us at the 2013 election how they would have the budget back in the black in the blink of an eye.

    What is of immediate concern is the question why NBN Co, a government business enterprise, has adopted such a negative, defensive and at times openly adversarial position. NBN Co needs to look carefully at how its senior managers use social media and to ensure they do not appear to be taking a partisan position in the debate about the merits or otherwise of Turnbull’s MTM NBN.

    Yes, there is a debate and at this point the government is doing a sterling job of stonewalling the media, redacting where-ever possible anything that might provide information about what is actually occurring at NBN Co and using the get out of gaol card that is “commercial in confidence” at any whiff of a question about the NBN.

    It is expected that there will be some rough and tumble along the way. The NBN debate commenced in 2009 with the Labor government’s decision to intervene in the telecommunication industry and went into overdrive in 2013 with the Coalition government’s decision to vandalise the NBN by re-introducing obsolete copper technologies.

    Both sides of politics have sought to use the NBN for political advantage rather than seeing the NBN as a nation building project vital for the nation’s future as a leader in the global digital economy. Along the way politicians have been forthright in their public criticism of anyone that disagrees with their views or statements. It is not for a politician to worry about being technically accurate and you’ll be “foolish” if you call them out for reinventing established science.

    It is vital that NBN Co be a passive participant in the NBN debate and remain open to answering questions from the media and academia. Failure to be responsive to the media and academia will lead to more leaks from within NBN Co, an increase in the number of disgruntled employees and inevitably increased criticism in the public domain.

    2016 will be a tough year for NBN Co and it will be important to offset the growing realisation that over a ten-year period the copper access network technologies will cost far more than what the cost for an all-fibre access network would have been. Over the typical ten to fifteen-year life-time of a fixed access network technology the cost for the copper access network component of the NBN will be tens of billions more than the cost of overbuilding and operating an all-fibre access network.

    So we should expect an announcement in early February that the Connectivity Virtual Circuit (CVC) charge is to be reduced from $17.50 per Mbps per month to $15 per Mbps per month effective in from 1 June. This will give the embattled NBN Co something to spruik about in the lead-up to the Federal election and of course, the Minister for Communications and the Arts Mitch Fifield will be out and about telling all and sundry how the price reduction is a direct result of the government’s MTM NBN approach.

    And most of us would have thought it was because of the ongoing data usage explosion brought about by NetFlix entering the Australian market and opening the door to improved low cost media streaming services. And as we know the silly sausages at NetFlix were anticipating the Australian broadband network to progressively become all-fibre thereby making the delivery of high quality video possible. Oh well, the fuzz that we see around anything moving faster than a snail isn’t really so bad after all is it?

    But there will be no getting around the rollout problems for NBN Co and the need to push people living on the urban fringe that currently enjoy ADSL onto fixed wireless or in some cases onto satellite. It’s all about the science of why Fibre to the Node (FTTN) is a second rate obsolete technology that was never going to adequately cover the existing ADSL footprint.

    At least the genie is out of the bottle regarding the furphy that the MTM NBN would be completed sooner than the originally planned NBN. The NBN was always going to be completed, whether it is or not, by mid-2020 so that its future can be determined by whomever is in government at the time. NBN Co’s future appears to be either sale as a single entity or as a number of disaggregated networks.

    This year NBN Co will need to step-up the rollout significantly, if for no other reason than to head-off what would be very bad news for the government in the lead-up to the Federal election. And as more FTTN is rolled out there will be a slow but steady growth in the criticism of FTTN performance and a key facet of the public face of NBN Co in 2016 will be diverting attention onto more positive outcomes.

    What would throw a spanner in NBN Co’s wheel would be one of the many councils around Australia that own and operate telecommunications networks deciding to rollout FTTP in the high value business centres and inner urban areas within their municipal boundaries. As municipalities in the US have found, it is a good business decision to extend their existing telecommunication capability because not only will FTTP bring in much needed revenue but the council will be able to rollout machine to machine communications (see the Internet of Things) and offer free Wi-Fi without becoming beholden to a Telco.

    2016 promises to be a very big year for the NBN, especially with the first satellite coming online, and the management team at NBN Co will be well aware that any mis-steps will not be welcome news to a government that wants to wash its hands of the NBN as quickly as possible.

    Mark Gregory is Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, RMIT University. He is Managing Editor, Australian Journal of Telecommunications in the Digital Economy, and Managing Editor, International Journal of Information, Communication, Technology and Applications.

  • John Menadue. Australians who fight in overseas wars.

    Repost from 02/03/2015

    The government has been concerned, as many of us are, about Australians fighting for IS in Syria and Iraq. The government is threatening to revoke the Australian citizenship of dual nationals who involve themselves in this war.

    Whether this will be successful is a very moot point. It is asserted by many that prosecution under our existing laws would be much more effective. But a government in trouble about its own security has to be seen to be ‘doing something’, e.g. revoking citizenship.

    There are an estimated 100 or so Australian citizens fighting with the IS in Syria and Iraq. That number looks to be increasing.

    Estimates suggest also that at least a similar number of dual Australian citizens are fighting with the Israeli Defence Forces. Australians have fought in all of Israel’s wars since 1948.

    The Muslim community in Australia has been very critical of Australians who go and fight under the IS flag but rightly asks why Australian citizens are able to fight with the IDF but not with IS. I would have thought that the policy on this matter would be quite clear – that no Australian citizen should be allowed to fight overseas without the approval of the Australian government and if they do they will be prosecuted and if found guilty severely punished.

    There are several reasons that our Prime Minister and ASIO have given for the apparent double-standard in treatment of Australian citizens fighting for IS and for IDF. The first is that IS has been described as a terrorist organisation, whereas the IDF has not. Second, fighting with an overseas army of a recognised national state is different. Thirdly, the Israeli’s are not under sanctions so the IDF is a ‘free port for Australian volunteers’ according to the former Director General of ASIO.

    If it is maintained that Israel has not been designated as a terrorist state or is under sanctions, it cannot be said that the IDF is not a lethal organisation. In its savage attack on Gaza last year, the IDF made over 5,000 air strikes in which 2,104 people were killed. According to the UN estimates, 69% of persons killed in Gaza were civilians. The Israeli’s lost 67 soldiers and six civilians.

    Where is the balance and logic in the way successive Australian governments have favoured Israel in so many ways? One thing stands out very much; the power of the Israeli lobby in so many countries including our own.

  • Vale Malcolm Fraser

    Repost from 21/03/2015

    I am sure that Malcolm Fraser’s concerns for human rights were always there. But as he grew and matured, that concern flourished and became obvious to all. He became our moral compass on human rights.

    I was first conscious of Malcolm’s concern for human rights when I listened to his speech in September 1975 at a luncheon in Parliament House Canberra to honour Helen Suzman. She was an anti-apartheid campaigner who for 13 years was the sole opponent of the apartheid regime in South Africa’s parliament. For the first time that I can recall, Malcolm Fraser spelled out his opposition to apartheid and white rule in Africa. It surprised me. But, I found it very encouraging. It was the beginning of my better understanding of Malcolm Fraser.

    Later he became a firm opponent of white rule, in Africa. Despite Maggie Thatcher he was determined to do what he could to end white rule in Southern Rhodesia.

    I next became aware of Malcolm Fraser’s concern for human rights in Africa in the first cabinet meeting of the Fraser government after the dismissal of the Whitlam government.

    There had been a lot of media reports in Australia that money raised by the World Council of Churches for humanitarian aid in Southern Rhodesia was being diverted to assist the underground political and military opposition to Ian Smith, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. In Cabinet the issue was raised by a senior NSW minister. I was really taken by surprise by Malcolm Fraser’s pungent response. He said that Ian Smith was not only politically culpable for racism in Southern Rhodesia, but that he was ‘mad’. To my knowledge this matter was never raised again in Cabinet, or at least while I was there. No Minister dared!

    In government from 1975 to 1983, Malcolm Fraser took up many of the human rights issues that Gough Whitlam had put on the agenda. Gough Whitlam started the process to establish land rights for indigenous Australians, but it was Malcolm Fraser who had the first legislation enacted.

    From his western Sydney electorate of Werriwa, with migrants from so many countries, Gough Whitlam laid the groundwork  for multiculturalism. The fundamental principle of multiculturalism was that all people deserve dignity and respect regardless of their background. In our white Anglo-Celtic community, that was something quite new. But it was Malcolm Fraser who expanded and entrenched multiculturalism. SBS was established and settlement programs for migrants and refugees were co-ordinated and then well-funded following the Galbally Report.

    Following piecemeal reform by Holt, Gorton and McMahon, Gough Whitlam ended White Australia by legislation. But under the Whitlam Government the abolition of White Australia was never put to the test in the community. Migrant and refugee intakes in the Whitlam period were the lowest since the Great Depression.

    Malcolm Fraser put the abolition of White Australia to the test by accepting tens of thousands of Indochinese refugees.  Through the policies and programs initiated by the Fraser Government, including later family reunion, we now have 250,000 persons of Indochinese background living in Australia. What a great credit they have been to Australia, to themselves and to Malcolm Fraser’s vision.

    He broke the back of White Australia and as an anti-White Australia activist since my university days in the 1950s it was wonderful to see what Malcolm Fraser had achieved. Racism and opposition to foreigners is often a dormant but potent factor in public life, but Malcolm Fraser determined that we had a humanitarian obligation to the people who had fled Indochina.

    He didn’t wait for opinion polling or focus groups to decide what we should do. He gave us leadership. It wasn’t easy given our history of White Australia and the knowledge that fear of the foreigner could be so easily exploited. But with leadership, Malcolm Fraser showed that we all have generous instincts and with his leadership we responded because we knew in our heart of hearts that he was right. If only we had that leadership today!.

    I am certain that my appointment as Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in 1980 stemmed from Malcolm Fraser’s lively concern about racism. In my posting in Japan, I spoke to scores of community groups about Australia. On almost every occasion I would be asked about White Australia. It irritated me, particularly given Japan’s exclusivist policies on race and migration. As I came to the end of my posting Malcolm Fraser was visiting Japan and he asked me what I wanted to do when I returned.  I mentioned to him how White Australia had followed me all round Japan, so I told him I would like on return to Australia to do what I could to help bury White Australia. His response was instantaneous and to the point – ‘You’re on’!.  Within three months I was back in Canberra as Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

    In that role I was able to continue to help expand the Indochina program. But In the department I encountered programs, staff attitudes and a culture  that reflected the old days of White Australia. I set about changing it and was quite public in what I was doing. I know that Liberal Party backbenchers were concerned about my activities. But never did Ian Macphee, my minister, or Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, criticise or ask me to desist. We were all on the same page.

    Almost to the day of his death, Malcolm Fraser was in the front line to support asylum seekers and those whose human rights were being attacked. One of his latest projects was  how the community could be galvanised to support Gillian Triggs the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission who had been so unfairly attacked by our Prime Minister and the Attorney General.

    He took to twitter with enthusiasm to shed light on dark places in our public life.

    It turned out that he and Gough Whitlam had more in common than they knew in those turbulent days of 1975. They were both badly bruised but their personal relations mellowed and healed. The two political titans of our era came to terms.

    Gough Whitlam often said that he hadn’t disagreed with Malcolm Fraser for 20 years! Malcolm Fraser delivered the Whitlam Oration in 2012. He opened the oration with ‘Men and Women of Australia’.

    At the Sorry Day in Parliament House in 2008, most former Prime Ministers were photographed. together. With a walking stick, or ‘cane’ as Gough would have called it, in one hand – he put his other hand on Malcolm Fraser’s shoulder for support. It was quite moving to see the old combatants so close.

    About three months before Gough Whitlam died, Malcolm Fraser called to see him in his Sydney office. He presented Gough  with his latest book ‘Dangerous Allies’. He had inscribed in the book –

    “Dear Gough, with great respect and great affection, Malcolm.”

    It had been a long and colourful journey for both of them, but there was clear respect and affection at the end.

    We will miss Malcolm Fraser’s steadfastness on human rights.

    A light has gone out.

  • Edmund Campion. Homily for the funeral service of Brian Johns.

    Family, friends, colleagues of Brian Johns.

    The other morning, after Brian had died, it came to me, so this is the end of a conversation that endured for more than sixty years. Then I recalled that one name had dominated our earliest talks together, all those years ago, the name of Dorothy Day. Dorothy Day? Who was she? She was an American Catholic radical who, when she died in 1980, was given lengthy obituaries in The New York Times, The New York Review of Books and all the other leading papers. A significant figure in American culture. I can tell you her life in one sentence: she believed literally in those words of the Lord Jesus I have just read from the 25th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel: feed the hungry; give a drink to the thirsty; clothe the naked; give the poor a home; visit them when they’re in hospital or prison. It’s Christianity in its purest form. So during the Great Depression she did just that; set up houses of hospitality (as she called them) where the poor could find a home and food and drink, houses of hospitality that spread across the United States; she started a monthly paper, The Catholic Worker and a movement around it. She did jail time for protesting against American militarism and promoted an ethic that said everyone was worthwhile. Dorothy Day.

    When we were young, Brian and I came across a long article about her that ran across two issues of The New Yorker. It began: ‘Many people believe that Dorothy Day is a saint, and that one day she will be canonised.’ She said: ‘You can’t dismiss me as easily as that.’ But for Brian she became a seminal influence, his idea of a Catholic saint, someone who took the Lord’s words seriously and followed them until they hurt.

    Did you notice something about those words of his? Jesus was a Jew, of course, and he’s quoting from one of the great books of the Hebrew scriptures, the Book of Isaiah (read for us by Ben Patfield). You must have noticed how Jesus takes Isaiah’s words and transforms them into a mystical identification between himself and the poor:

    I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was a stranger, I needed clothes…. As often as you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

    That identification between Jesus and the poor gives a religious energy to the corporal works of mercy (as we call these activities).

    Here’s something else about the corporal works of mercy: they are not only individualistic – here’s a piece of bread, here’s a cup of cold water, here’s a pair of trousers… oh yes, we must do those things – but we must also work hard to change our society:

    • Give bread to the hungry? Yes, but also create social and political structures that reduce poverty and give the marginalised respect;
    • Drink to the thirsty? Yes, but also take the decisions together that ensure clean, unpolluted water, particularly in the Third World, and act to restore a balance to the world’s ecology;
    • I was naked? Yes, clothes are needed, but think also of those stripped psychologically bare in our society or prone to be addled in our drug culture;
    • I was in prison? Notice that Christ doesn’t say, ‘I was in prison unjustly,’ he says, ‘I was in prison’ – justly or unjustly. Think too of those oppressed by other forms of imprisonment: domestic violence, sexism, racism, class distinctions… We need to change societal attitudes on those fronts too.
    • The homeless: ah, refugees, asylum seekers, the unwanted, those different from us…

    So Christ’s summons to the corporal works of mercy is a call not only for individual responses, it is also a call for radical changes in our society and our world, to make them fairer and more just. It is a call for social justice.

    Brian learned this, years ago, from Dorothy Day and he based his life on it. She gave him his compass points to steer towards what he became – the champion of a better Australia. Which is why we salute him today.

    This was the homily that Fr Edmund Campion delivered at the funeral service of  Brian Johns at St Canice’s Church at Elizabeth Bay on 7 January 2016.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • The forgotten war – Chinese resistance to Japan.

    Repost from 17/09/2015

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — Few in the West remember the fact that China was the first country to enter what would become World War II, and it was an ally of the United States and Britain from just after Pearl Harbor in 1941 till Japan’s surrender in 1945, an Oxford expert said.

    In an article titled “Forgotten ally? China’s unsung role in World War II (WWII),”circulated on U.S. TV network CNN’s website Tuesday, Rana Mitter, a professor of modern Chinese politics and history at the University of Oxford, elaborated China’s role in WorldWar II.

    As China will hold a major parade in Beijing on Thursday to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, “China’s memory of the war is becoming more, not less, important,” he wrote.

    “Chinese suffering during the war is not in dispute,” he added, referring to the fact that during China’s resistance against Japanese aggression from 1937 to 1945, the fire of war scourged half of the Chinese territory, with around 260 million Chinese involved in the war and more than 35 million people killed or wounded. The direct economic loss reached some 100 billion U.S. dollars at then price.

    The United States and China were allies during WWII and more than 250,000 Americans served in what was known as the “China-Burma-India” theater, many photos showed.

    On July 7, 1937, Japanese troops attacked Lugou Bridge, also known as Marco Polo Bridge, a crucial access point to Beijing. This was the beginning of China’s eight-year warof resistance against full-scale Japanese aggression. A year later, by mid-1938, the Chinese military situation was desperate.

    Many cities of eastern and central China, including Shanghai, Nanjing and Wuhan, fell in Japanese hands. Many foreign observers assumed that China could not hold out, and a Japanese victory over China was most likely.

    Nonetheless, China refused to surrender, retreating inland to carry on resistance. “This decision changed the fate of Asia,” Mitter said.

    If China had surrendered in 1938, Japan would have controlled China for a generation or more. Japan’s forces might have turned toward the Soviet Union, Southeast Asia, or even India, the article reads.

    The European and Asian wars might never have come together as they did after Pearl Harbor in 1941.

    As Chinese hung on, and after Pearl Harbor, the war became genuinely global. The western Allies and China were united in their war against Japan.

    China’s contributions were very important to the war efforts. China held down huge numbers of Japanese troops on its territory and acted as an example to other non-Western countries, showing that it was possible to fight with hegemonism and strongly oppose imperialism, Mitter stressed.

    This article was first published in Xinhua, The Chinese Daily, n 2 September 2015.

  • Bob Kinnaird. Foreign worker exploitation.

    To reduce foreign worker exploitation, enforce employer sanctions laws

    2015 produced a never-ending stream of stories of exploited foreign workers on all kinds of temporary visas. They include overseas students, working holiday and 457 ‘skilled’ visa-holders. Nearly all temporary visas and some permanent residence visas are implicated.

    A Senate committee on Australia’s temporary work visa programs is due to report by end- February 2016.   Changes are needed in many policies and practices.

    In an earlier blog (9/10/15), I argued for changes in ‘government international education and visa policies that are feeding the growth in Australia of a vast underclass of temporary visa holders desperate for work and ripe for exploitation’.

    This blog shows that strengthened employer sanctions provisions of the Migration Act 1958 put in place by the former Labor government are not being adequately enforced by the Coalition government. These came into effect in June 2013. They would deter much exploitation of visa workers if more effectively enforced.

    Background

    Fairfax investigative journalist Adele Ferguson exposed the staggering scale of wage fraud at 7-11 convenience stores. 7-11 has now agreed to fund up to $25 million of wage fraud claims. If the claims exceed $25 million, franchisees will pay the next $5 million with anything more split equally between franchisees and 7-11 head office.

    The 7-11 case and many others involve allegations that overseas students have to work beyond the maximum hours permitted by their visa conditions (40 hours/fortnight during term, unrestricted hours outside term). Their employers then use this visa non-compliance against the students, threatening to report them to Immigration and have their visas cancelled unless they accept even more substandard wages and conditions. The practice has been going on for years.

    Nearly all these employers engaging overseas students to work in breach of their visa terms are committing an offence under the employer sanctions provisions. Strangely there has been little or no public discussion of these and other relevant laws that can and should be used to penalise these employers and deter the practice. This includes the Senate committee on temporary visas, whose October 2015 interim report did not mention these laws.

    As the 2010 Howells review of employer sanctions laws said, the absence of an effective deterrent to these practices has serious consequences. They include ‘the vulnerability of such workers to severe exploitation, the distortion of the labour market and the tendency for their presence to be associated with cash industries and abuses of Australia’s taxation, employment and welfare laws.’

    Targeting the employers who exploit foreign workers is central to effective deterrence.

    Every Coalition Immigration Minister repeats a version of the mantra that their government is as tough on employers exploiting visa workers as it is on people-smugglers. This includes the current Immigration Minister Dutton:

    “Australians can be assured that we are committed to being as tough on those who seek to rort our migration programmes as we are on those who arrive illegally by boat. We will devote the same resolve, resources and commitment that is necessary to get the job done,” Mr Dutton said. 

    “Under the Coalition Government, immigration compliance teams are not just targeting illegal workers but also employers who are doing the wrong thing. The Government will actively pursue substantial fines to deter further illegal work practices.” (Minister Dutton media release, ‘17 illegal workers detained in Woody Point Brisbane’, 29 April 2015).

    But the evidence shows the Coalition government is nowhere near as ‘tough’ on these employers. Contrary to Mr Dutton’s claims, it is not pursuing the ‘substantial fines’ against them available under Labor’s strengthened employer sanctions provisions.

    The key provisions created a new ‘no-fault’ or strict liability civil offence for employers and others (eg labour hire companies) of allowing or referring ‘illegal workers’ to work. ‘Illegal workers’ here means foreign nationals working in breach of their visa conditions, or those with no valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’, mainly visa ‘overstayers’).

    There is no need to prove that a business knew of (or was reckless as to) the person’s visa status. The provisions also establish liability for principal contractors and others who ‘participate in an arrangement’ but are not themselves the direct employers of the illegal workers. Criminal offences and penalties including prison time were also maintained for more serious breaches.

    The 2013 legislation provides very substantial maximum penalties for the ‘no-fault’ civil offence of employing illegal workers – $16,200 for ‘individuals’ (eg a sole trader) and $81,000 for companies. Note that these penalties apply for each illegal worker. So a company found with say three ‘illegal workers’ is strictly liable for a maximum penalty of $243,000.

    The provisions also allow for lesser sanctions: an’ Infringement Notice’ fine – maximum $3,240 fine for sole traders and $16,200 for companies, and ‘Illegal Worker Warning Notices’ (carrying no fine at all).

    Enforcement under the Coalition

    The Coalition’s enforcement of the employer sanctions provisions can only be described as derisory. In 2014-15 there were:

    • No prosecutions at all for the civil or criminal offences, and hence no penalties.
    • Only 8 ‘infringement notices issued to non-compliant employers, with fines totalling $62,730’ – less than the maximum civil penalty for a single company with one illegal worker ($81,000), and an average of only $7,840 per employer.
    • 655 ‘Illegal Worker Warning Notices’ (carrying no fine) issued ‘to educate businesses about their responsibilities when hiring non-citizens and (warn) them of the consequences of continued non-compliance with legislation.’ Of these, 210 notices to businesses related to visa holders working in breach of their visa conditions.

    (This information is from the DIBP Annual report, 2014-15 and DIBP email to author, December 2015)

    This is an incredibly low level of serious activity when considered against the scale of the practice of employers allowing or referring illegal workers to work, and the government’s claim that it is seriously committed to ‘pursuing substantial fines’ to deter the practice.

    There is no official data on the total number of ‘illegal workers’ or the number of employers that they work for. A December 2015 Auditor-General’s report concluded that even today ‘the extent of non-compliance with other visa conditions, for example visa holders working illegally, is not well understood’ by DIBP.

    My best estimate is that there were at least 140,000 ‘illegal workers’ in Australia, and around 49,000 or so employers of these ‘illegal workers’ in 2014-15.[i] This means there are more ‘illegal workers’ than 457 primary visa-holders (104,000), and more employers of ‘illegal workers’ than of 457s (36,500).

    Even the 655 employers served with ‘Illegal Worker Warning Notices’ – the least effective sanction available – represent a mere 1.3 per cent of the estimated 49,000 or so employers of ‘illegal workers’ in 2014-15.

    The Coalition’s ‘softly-softly’ approach to employer sanctions enforcement is not surprising. The LNP vehemently opposed Labor’s 2013 employer sanctions bill from Opposition.

    The Coalition’s real intentions are revealed in the 2015-16 Budget papers. They are merely to ‘promote voluntary compliance by Australian employers with employer sanctions legislation through the provision of targeted education and engagement activities’, where ‘voluntary compliance is maintained as the primary approach to resolving breaches’.

    The Coalition government also appears less than enthusiastic about enforcing other Labor legislation relevant to the more extreme forms of employer abuse of temporary visa workers.

    Labor also introduced new laws in 2013 creating new criminal offences of ‘forced labour’ and ‘servitude’ (outside the sex industry) under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, alongside the existing ‘sexual servitude’ offence.

    As at end-2015, there have been no prosecutions under the new ‘forced labour’ provisions and only one has commenced under the ‘servitude’ provisions. The ‘servitude’ case involves allegations that 24 young Taiwanese on working holiday visas were locked in rented Brisbane houses by Asian crime gangs and forced to participate in phone scams extorting Chinese nationals.

    Conclusion

    This week Senator Cash,the Employment Minister told The Australian that ‘when there is an effective regulator who enforces laws with meaningful penalties,people will think twice before breaking the law’.

    The government should acknowledge that its ‘voluntary compliance’ approach to the employer sanctions provisions has not been an effective deterrent against employers engaging ‘illegal workers’.

    It should now give priority to serious enforcement action under the civil penalty provisions. Any future claims that its actions are deterring the practice of employers engaging ‘illegal workers’ should be backed up with evidence, the collection of which is long overdue.

    Bob Kinnaird is Research Associate with The Australian Population Research Institute and was National Research Director CFMEU National Office 2009-14.

    [i] The 2010 Howells review of the employer sanctions regime found there could be over 100,000 ‘illegal workers’ in Australia, not including overseas students working more than their permitted weekly hours. It did not estimate the number of employers of these workers. My employer estimate assumes the same employer profile as for 457 visa-holders – an average of around 3 per employer – and is conservative.

  • Julianne Schultz. Tribute to Brian Johns.

    Brian Johns: A critical Australian romantic

    Brian had a gift for friendship. I first got to know him in the late 1970s; I know that many of you knew him for longer.

    Over the years as some of his closest friends passed away, he made time to get to know others and share their dreams, ambitions and stories.

    That speaks to his gift for friendship – his curiosity and empathy drove him to make connections, to find the good in people. He used to say to me that the best structures and systems in the world wouldn’t work without the right people – irrespective of gender, creed, or background. Never underestimate the importance of people of quality to bring ideas to life, he would say.

    I was struck, in the days immediately after his death, how quickly social media filled with stories of his acts of kindness, of empathy and insight, of words of advice that shaped a career or pointed to new directions.

    It helps of course if those you gave a hand up to along life’s journey included some of the best writers, editors, thinkers and artists in the country. So the stories were good – funny, self-deprecating and rich in detail. No doubt more will flow today.

    It will take some time to winkle them all out, because Brian was also a very private man. He was not one to sing his own praises, to grandstand or draw attention to himself.

    Even in his dying days as he fretted about unsolved problems on his boards, he said, but I don’t want to have to make a speech. Sarah lovingly assured him that that was something he didn’t have to worry about any more.

    Over the past week much has been said about his professional achievements. His was the original portfolio career. Although, more often than not he was the boss.

    Career is the wrong word to describe the contributions Brian made through the work he did – work that gave him great satisfaction, but work that enabled others to get closer to achieving their potential and to leave a tangible benefit.

    Most of us would be happy to have one of these achievements on our CV:

    To have been arguably the best political reporter of his generation at the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian, Bulletin and Nation, breaking stories that took citizens behind the veil of official secrecy and in the process inspiring younger journalists, well before Watergate spawned a new generation of reporters;

    Or to have operated at the highest levels of government, respected by both the Brahmin prime ministers of the 1970s, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser. There he learnt the quiet, persuasive ways needed to get things done behind the scenes in Canberra. Still he managed to discreetly leave his fingerprints on policy innovations that changed this country;

    Or to have reinvigorated Penguin Books and provided new opportunities for Australian writers, editors, booksellers and readers, and in the process to foster new publishing ventures;

    Or to have helped SBS realise its vision and bring this country’s contemporary multiculturalism to life on radio and television. To provide opportunities for Australians to engage with the rich diversity of non-British public broadcasting, programs and news in languages other than English and sports that hadn’t previously been televised here;

    Or at the Broadcasting Authority to find ways that ensured the commercial broadcasters accepted their responsibilities to put resources into telling Australian stories; and be fair and accountable, as custodians of the public spectrum that made their businesses possible and profitable;

    Or to have encouraged Prime Minister Paul Keating to articulate a vision for a creative nation, and a nation in which the tyranny of distance could be circumvented by broadband and technology;

    Or to have pushed the ABC to be more ambitious and innovative, to be less fearful of the future, to look out rather than in, to include more of the full diversity of the country on the airwaves and online. To mysteriously use his impeccable Canberra skills to head off a crippling efficiency dividend, to turn a potentially hostile inquiry into a ringing endorsement, and to prepare the Corporation for the digital future – while battling an bewilderingly hostile political environment that threatened to undermine a cherished national institution;

    Or to have ensured that more of the copyright income from the publishing business found its way back to creators through CAL’s cultural fund, so they could produce more and better works, to make a bigger impact, to aim higher.

    In all of these roles Brian sought to broaden the understanding of what being Australian meant, and how it could be expressed – what made us unique, what we could do better, what we could adapt and learn from others, and how we could express it in the most beautiful and memorable ways.

    As Tony Maniaty noted, Brian was an Australian romantic. He was of the generation that grew up after the Second World War, as the shackles of colonialism were being thrown away. A new global system emerged, shaped in large measure by Franklin Roosevelt’s defining four freedoms, of speech and religion and from want and fear. Over time this country too was transformed – and as a result a poor Catholic boy from Cairns got to occupy some of the most influential offices in the land.

    Brian came of age at a time when questions of national identity were increasingly actively explored – without apology or self-consciousness: in journalism, literature, art, music, film, TV, politics.

    And in the process that very sense of identity changed, it became richer, more nuanced, more open – better able to engage with the world.

    This occurred, thanks in no small measure to the articles that were written, the books commissioned and published, the films produced, the television shows broadcast, the art gathered in national and state galleries and leased through Artbank. More often than not, Brian was there at the pivotal moment – talking, writing, encouraging, cajoling, making connections, putting people and ideas together.

    He was not uncritical, but he loved Australians and the idea of Australia.

    But he was not simply an Australian romantic. He brought a pragmatic, critical hardheadedness to all the things he did. As a working class boy, he knew the value of money – he was not one who thought an artist starving in her garret could produce her best work. He knew that money mattered, that building an audience mattered and that if that audience also engaged with something of quality that was distinctively Australian, so much the better.

    He was culturally ambitious, long before it became the Australia Council’s mantra.

    So at Penguin he worked hard to disrupt remnant colonial arrangements and ensure that Australian authors could be distributed and find readers in other countries, even if New York and London editors complained that they wrote with ‘an Australian accent’. While at the ABC he tried hard to try to convince the BBC to buy Australian-made programs – he was not happy that we just bought theirs in bulk.

    He really believed that content was king long before that became a cliché. This was not a romantic notion. He wanted to make sure that the operators of the new digital platforms paid for the content that he knew would drive their businesses. He knew that without an economic structure that returned income to producers and creators, it would be hard for a small English-speaking country to continue to make original programs, stories and works of art, that could be enjoyed here and shared with the world.

    There is still no bigger challenge in the creative cultural sector, though Brian did more than his bit to chip away at it.

    He wasn’t content to wait for someone else to come up with a solution. He knew that was one of the benefits, and responsibilities, of having your hands on big levers, you had to be brave enough to pursue original ideas that others hadn’t got to yet.

    Many of his insights came from his prodigious reading. He was a literary omnivore. He read widely, he made unlikely connections, he was curious. So at the end in his room at the Wolper there were books on the bedside table, the beautifully redesigned Meanjin, an advance copy of Griffith Review Fixing the System and poems by the great Seamus Heaney.

    When life was just too busy in those demanding jobs, he used to say there was always time for poetry. A few minutes with a great poem could provide the creative, emotional and intellectual nourishment to keep you going. And it did – until the very end.

    As you all know, his favorite greeting was, What are you reading? It was a good conversation starter for a sometimes shy, and private man. But he was always interested in the answer and generally had something to add.

    So my final word of tribute is to say, Keep Reading. Should we meet him again, you know his first question will be: What are you reading?

    And he won’t be satisfied if you say, A bit of this and a bit of that.

    Julianne Schultz is Editor and Professor, Griffith Review.

     

  • John Menadue. Radicalism and terrorism.

    Repost from 15/10/2015

    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is talking a lot about his government’s commitment to counter radicalisation in the Muslim community. The NSW Premier and Police Commissioner also keep talking about countering radicalisation. At least this is preferable to the endless talk we had before about a ‘death cult’ and ‘team Australia’.

    But radicalism and terrorism are not the same thing. Radical politics and radical religion are surely acceptable and widespread. But what is not acceptable is to commit acts of violence and terrorism. Making this distinction between radicalism and terrorism is not some semantic play with language. We had better understand the essential difference between the two or we will never stop terrorism.

    Radicalism is about going to the core of a subject or issue. Radical surgery for example is attempting to address the core of the ailment. As a university teenager I was probably a radical student. I am still probably radical on many things. But that radicalism has never been about violence. It was quite the opposite.

    I am not surprised that many young Muslim teenagers are offended, indeed radicalised by the violence that the West, including Australia, has inflicted on the Muslim people of the Middle East. I think I understand how the humiliation and violence we have inflicted would radicalise young Muslims.

    Malcolm Turnbull says that John Howard was ‘our greatest prime minister with the possible exception of Robert Menzies … I learnt so much from John Howard. Every day I am PM, I’ll be benchmarking everything I do against how John Howard would have handled these challenges’. But does Malcolm Turnbull seriously believe that he should benchmark himself by justifying John Howard’s involvement in the Iraq War which is a root cause of conflict and terrorism in the world today.

    There is not much doubt that it was John Howard’s cooperation with George Bush in the invasion of Iraq that unleashed the violence and terrorism that we face today. John Howard helped open the Pandora’s Box of tribal, ethnic and sectarian violence in the Middle East and made us less secure. Most Australian people know that that is true. As I pointed out in an earlier blog, 45% of Australians feel less secure from terrorism because of our continued military meddling in the Middle East and most recently in Syria. Only 13% of Australians feel safer.

    We are reaping violence at home for what we have sown abroad. But Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t mention this and wants to benchmark himself against the person who helped trigger so much to the violence and terrorism we face today.

    Last night on the 7.30 program the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Andrew Colvin said that terrorism in Australia was getting worse but he didn’t know why. He was not asked the obvious follow up question, what is the link between our military involvement in Muslim countries in the Middle East and terrorism at home.

    In 2004 a former Commissioner of the AFP Mick Kelty was very clear that ‘our involvement in Iraq made us a greater target for terrorism’. In 2010 the head of UK’ MI 5 Baroness Manningham-Buller told the Chilcott Inquiry ‘that our involvement in Iraq…radicalised a whole generation of young people…who (in addition) saw our involvement in Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam’

    The facts are clear but our leaders will not admit their mistakes. Instead they deliberately avoid an honest discussion.

    Combatting violence and terrorism will require responses on many fronts.

    The first is early intervention and active cooperation with the Muslim community to calm the hot-heads and misfits that exist in every community. Muslim leaders who can’t speak English are not going to be effective bridges between the Muslim and wider Australian communities. They will just not cut it. There may be important role models for young people in the Muslim community, but it is not clear to me.

    Secondly, we need to publicise the Jihadists who return and admit their mistake. We then need to help rehabilitate them into the Australian community.

    Thirdly, we will need to rely increasingly on the competence of our security and police forces. They are much better resourced and have more power than ever before. Yet they are invariably asking for more money and more powers. And Prime Ministers and Premiers, wanting to be seen to be doing something usually agree

    But are our security agencies and police up to the job? There is no doubt that the Man Haron Monis case was seriously mishandled by both our security services and the police, including the botched rescue attempt. We have had very few convictions of alleged terrorists. The evidence presented in many cases has just not stood up. Why?

    Organisations that operate in secret and with a lot of untested information need close and effective supervision.  The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is under resourced to do the job.

    My experience is that our security services attract more ‘odd bods’ than I have found in any other organization. That experience was some time ago, but I doubt that much has changed. Ministers are easily seduced into the twilight world of fact, fiction, gossip and speculation. I have seen it many times. I have even fallen for it myself.

    In a recent article, ‘Narrow focus on radicalisation won’t stop terrorism’ Greg Austin, Visiting Professor at UNSW put the issue in the following way. ‘Radicalisation and terrorism are two different phenomena – legally, politically, psychologically and morally. While a terrorist is by definition radicalised, the mere fact of being radicalised does not explain the transition to terrorism – a choice for violence. In most scenarios, there are many “radicals” in any cause for each person who becomes a terrorist. A policy that screens radicals for terrorists is not workable or reliable, nor scientifically defensible. It will always record significant failures.’

    We won’t get on top of our current problems with terrorism whilst Malcolm Turnbull and others conflate radicalism and terrorism and pursue policies in the Middle East that foment terrorism at home.

  • Malcolm Turnbull’s NBN.

    The evidence continues to build that Malcolm Turnbull’s version of the NBN is failing on almost all grounds.

    Analysis by Monash University researcher, Richard Ferrers, shows that the fibre to the premises option would actually deliver better value than the fibre to the node alternative which Malcolm Turnbull has been advocating.

    In his latest newsletter, Renai LeMay draws on this research by Richard Ferrers. See link below:

    https://delimiter.com.au/2016/01/04/detailed-analysis-of-nbn-cos-finances-shows-fttp-better-value-than-fttn/

  • John Menadue. Repost: NBN; the rot set in with John Howard.

    The current NBN mess started with the decision of the Howard Government to privatise the whole of Telstra and not just its retail arm. If the wholesale arm of Telstra had remained in public hands we would have been well on our way to a successful NBN. 

    Unfortunately, at Tony Abbott’s urging, Malcolm Turnbull also let ideology take over with the resulting problems of an NBN that is slow, obsolete and expensive. See below, a repost of an article on John Howard’s responsibility beginning the problem.  John Menadue.

    The confusion and the delay that we have got ourselves into with the NBN can be traced back very directly to John Howard and Senator Minchin when they decided to privatise the whole of Telstra and not just its retail arm. That privatisation was in three stages; 1997, 1999 and 2006.

    If there had been ‘structural separation’ with the wholesale arm being kept in public ownership, we would now be well on the way to completing the NBN. But with the wholesale arm of Telstra sold off with the rest of the business, the Labor government had to start again.

    Malcolm Turnbull clearly didn’t want good advice on the NBN which would have run counter to his ideological leanings and that of his coalition colleagues. He got rid of all the board directors including sacking Brad Orgill, a director of NBN. Malcolm Turnbull didn’t even consult the board before he acted so rashly. Surely the NBN directors had a lot to offer. Institutional memory doesn’t come cheaply or easily in any organisation.

    Brad Orgill who would not have been welcome by the Coalition and the News Group for his investigations into the Rudd Government’s Building the Education Revolution said in an article in the Australian Financial Review last Friday (October 4, 2013)

    “Would NBN even exist if earlier governments had not made the grave error of privatising Telstra as a vertically integrated business? No. And for me this is the most galling. The privatisation of Telstra’s wholesale business was clearly a mistake. If its wholesale business had continued as government-owned there would be no need for NBN and replacement of copper with fibre would have been progressively undertaken, as has happened in the rest of the world by an established incumbent operator with substantial advantages in resourcing, access and intellectual property. NBN illustrates the risks of privatising natural monopolies.’

    Natural monopolies should remain in public hands. We accept that case for example in respect of water and sewerage. We don’t need competitors laying competing and parallel water and sewerage pipes. Competition is best left to the retail level. So it is with telecommunications where exchanges, cables, wires, poles and the pits of the natural monopoly should remain in public hands to serve the whole of Australia regardless of location or class. Opportunist businesses should not be allowed to “cherry pick” the most profitable parts…

    The new chair of NBN, Dr Switkowski has been parachuted in by the Liberal party. He has little experience in roll out of construction projects which must dominate the future of NBN. I wonder what he now makes of the Liberal party nonsense of copper connection from the node to the premises when in a 2009 interview he said:

    ‘The NBN was an important project and that an all fibre networks is a desirable end point. I think the government strategy of investing in a high speed fibre optic base broadband network is a good one. I think it will make a difference to us as a nation and it will ensure more equity in access to relevant services for all Australians.’(AFR 4 October 2013)

    Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal party have described the NBN as a ‘white elephant on a massive scale”. Initially the Coalition described the NBN as “a dangerous delusion”’ and given us quite exaggerated estimates of cost blow-outs. Whilst the NBN has failed badly to achieve its planned roll-out, it is still on budget at $43 billion according to the retiring CEO of the company.

    Yet Rio Tinto has had to write-off over $US35 billion in bad investments over the last five years. More write-offs are likely from its coal investments in Africa. BHP has also written off billions. In the clamour to decry public investment in the NBN, the ideologues, including the politicians and business commentators, chose to scarcely mention the appalling business decisions of Rio Tinto and BHP.

    The Labor government was criticised because it has not presented a cost-benefit study of the NBN. But I suggest that this criticism has been a quite conscious device to discredit and hopefully delay and then destroy the NBN. A cost-benefit study may be appropriate for private investments with a life of 10 to 15 years. But the NBN will have a public life of perhaps 50 years or more. How useful is a cost-benefit study in those circumstances?

    Brad Orgill has commented that a cost-benefit study would not have been required if the Howard government had not sold Telstra as a vertically integrated telco.

    Cost-benefit studies of NBNs have been carried out all around the world and the results have been overwhelmingly favourable There has been almost unanimous agreement that fibre to the premises is the best option. McKinsey reported that the financial case for a NBN was strong. Access Economics and IBM have also reported positively on the productivity benefits to the nation of the NBN.

    On balance a cost-benefit study would have been useful if for no other purpose than to silence the politically driven critics. In the Howard years there were 25 enquires into telecoms without any serious progress on structural issues.

    John Howard left Australia with a major structural deficit in our budget which many commentators, including the IMF, have highlighted. In the same way, the Howard government’s ideological blinkers about privatisation have put us back ten years in developing a world-class NBN. Malcolm Turnbull has told us that he hopes to get politics out of the issue. But it was John Howard’s ideology and politics above everything else, through the privatisation of a vertically-integrated Telstra that has got us into this predicament. Malcolm Turnbull will be hard-pressed to free himself of the political baggage which he and the coalition carry on this vital project.

  • John Menadue. ‘The Big Short’

    Paul Krugman reviews ‘The Big Short’, a film that the enemies of financial regulation hope you won’t see or believe.  See link below.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/opinion/the-big-short-housing-bubbles-and-retold-lies.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

  • Crony capitalism, lobbyists and markets.

    In the AFR today, John Kehoe writes about the power of lobbyists and crony capitalists who are killing faith in markets. He refers particularly to the US where ‘crony capitalism’ is sapping vitality out of the US economy. He adds that

    ‘If you analyse the very richest Australians, beyond lucky inheritance, many have built their enormous wealth in industries heavily influenced by government regulation. Media, gaming and real estate development dominate the c.v.s of the upper echelons of the BRW rich list.’

    See link to John Kehoe’s article: http://www.afr.com/opinion/regulation-crony-capitalists-are-killing-faith-in-the-markets-20160104-glyr2q

    I am also reposting an article I wrote in May this year for our policy series. It was entitled ‘Vested interests and the subversion of the public interest‘.

     

  • John Quiggin. Piketty and the Australian exception.

    Over the past forty years, leading developed economies, most notably the United States have experienced an upsurge in inequality of income and wealth. Most of the benefits of economic growth have accrued to those in the top 1 per cent of the income distribution. Meanwhile, living standards for those in the bottom half of the income distribution have stagnated or even declined.

    Piketty’s work, published in reports and academic journals, has documented these trends. His book, Capital, not only brought the issues to the attention of a broader public, but presented an analysis suggesting that worse is to come. Piketty argues that we are in the process of returning to a ‘patrimonial’ society, in which income from inherited wealth is the predominant source of inequality.

    Piketty’s work has previously focused mainly on the United States, but the research presented in Capital points to similar trends in the United Kingdom. Although inequality has grown much less in France, the third country on which he has detailed data, Piketty argues that the same trend will emerge unless there is a substantial change in political conditions.

    To the extent that there is a general trend of the kind described by Piketty, we would expect it to emerge first in the English speaking world, where the shift to market liberalism and financialised capitalism was earlier and more complete. And, indeed, a sharp increase in inequality may be observed in other English speaking countries including Canada and New Zealand.

    Australia, on the other hand, looks like a counterexample. On most measures of inequality Australia looks more like France than like the rest of the English speaking world. Although Australia’s have experienced an increase in inequality on most measures, the general picture is one of broadly distributed improvements in living standards, as illustrated by Peter Whiteford’s contribution to a recent seminar on Piketty published by the Australian Economic Review (AER). As Whiteford notes:

    Income growth was highest for the richest 20 per cent of the population, at close to 60 per cent in real terms, but even for the poorest 20 per cent, real incomes grew by more than 40 per cent between 1996 and 2007.

    Other measures such as the Gini coefficient and the ratio of median to mean income tell a similar story. Inequality has increased over the period since the 1980s, but only modestly and with frequent reversals.

    Turning to the top 1 per cent of the income distribution, evidence from tax data, presented by Roger Wilkins in the AER volume suggests that the share of income accruing to this group has risen, but not to the same extent as in other English speaking countries This is consistent with the observations of Piketty himself, who notes:‪

    the upper centile’s [top 1 per cent] share is nearly 20 percent in the United States, compared with 14–15 percent in Britain and Canada and barely 9–10 percent in Australia.

    Much of the credit for this comparatively benign outcome must go to the Labor government that held office from 1983 to 1997 and implemented a relatively progressive version of the market liberal reform agenda. Labor managed a reform of the Australian tax and welfare system that shielded low income Australians from the worst effects of the market liberal revolution that swept the English speaking world in the 1970s and 1980s.

    In most countries, policies of financial deregulation, privatisation and microeconomic reform were accompanied by regressive changes to the tax and welfare systems. By contrast, Labor introduced broadly progressive tax reforms including a capital gains tax and a crackdown on tax avoidance.

    Rather than treating welfare payments and tax policy as separate, the restructuring sought to integrate the two, taking account of the combined impact of means tests and tax policies to optimise the balance between efficiency and redistribution.

    These changes weren’t sufficient to prevent growing inequality of income and wealth, and some of them were eroded over time. Nevertheless, in broad terms, a redistributive tax–welfare system was maintained under the succeeding conservative government, even as it was being eroded in other English-speaking countries.

    Labor returned to office in 2007, just in time to make its next big contribution: the fiscal stimulus that allowed Australia to avoid the recession generated by the Global Financial Crisis in nearly every other country. In combination with previous successful pieces of macroeconomic management, such as the Reserve Bank’s handling of the Asian Financial Crisis in the 1990s, the result has been an economic expansion lasting nearly 25 years, unparalleled in Australia’s economic history, and scarcely equalled anywhere in the world. The strength of the labour market has encouraged a broad spread of prosperity not seen elsewhere.

    Together these factors explain why Australia has avoided the drastic increases in inequality seen in other English speaking countries. On the other hand, although Australia’s a long way from the plutocracy that already characterises the United States, there is no room for complacency.

    Australia’s relatively equal distribution of income and wealth depends on a history of strong employment growth and a redistributive tax–welfare system. Neither can be taken for granted. The end of the mining boom has inevitably resulted in slower growth which bears hardest on those at the bottom of the income distribution. And, as elsewhere, the political pressure to take burdens from the rich and shift them to the poor is never-ending.

    Moreover, Australia has not proved itself immune to the political dynamic, noted by Piketty, by which increasing personal wealth allows the wealthy to dominate politics, then enact policies that protect their own wealth. The archetypal example is Silvio Berlusconi in Italy but the situation in the United States is arguably worse. The majority of members of the US Congress are millionaires, with not much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

    Given the pattern of highly unequal incomes, and social immobility observed in the US today, we can expect inheritance to play a much bigger role in explaining inequality for the generations now entering adulthood than for the current recipients of high incomes and owners of large fortunes. Inherited advantages in the patrimonial society predicted by Piketty will include direct transfers of wealth as well as the effects of increasingly unequal access to education, early job opportunities and home ownership.

    The move towards a patrimonial society already happening in the US is evident at the very top of the Australian income distribution. As in the US, the claim that the rich are mostly self-made is already dubious, and will soon be clearly false. Of the top 10 people on the Business Review Weekly (BRW) rich list, four inherited their wealth, including the top three. Two more are in their 80s, part of the talented generation of Jewish refugees who came to Australia and prospered in the years after World War II. When these two pass on, the rich list will be dominated by heirs, not founders.

    The same point is even clearer with the BRW list of rich families. As recently as 20 years ago, all but one of these clans were still headed by the entrepreneurs who had made the family fortune in the first place. Now, all but one of the families are rich by inheritance.

    So, Australians have no room for complacency. In an economy dominated by capital, and in the absence of estate taxation, there is little to stop the current drift towards a more unequal society from continuing and even accelerating.

    On the other hand, Australia’s relative success in using the tax and welfare systems to spread the benefits of economic growth provides grounds for optimism elsewhere in the world. Australia’s experience belies the claim that any attempt to offset the growth of inequality must cripple economic growth. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that there is plenty of scope for progressive changes to tax policy that would partly or wholly offset the trends towards greater inequality documented by Piketty.

    This article was first published on John Quiggin’s blog on 2 January 2016.

     

     

  • John Menadue. High Court judges.

    Former High Court judges have been in the news recently and not just Dyson Heydon

    In the 40th anniversary of the Whitlam Dismissal, two High Court judges at the time of the dismissal have been very much in the news. We were reminded again of the role of Sir Garfield Garwick in briefing and encouraging the Governor General to dismiss the Whitlam government. We also learnt more about the role of Sir Anthony Mason who not only coached the Governor General on what he might do but on the afternoon of the Dismissal advised the Governor General he need not see the Speaker of the House of Representatives who was kept waiting at the gate of the Governor General’s residence for an hour. The Speaker of the House of Representatives wished to inform the Governor General that Malcolm Fraser did not have the confidence of the House of Representatives and that he should recall Gough Whitlam and recommission him as Prime Minister. Sir Anthony Mason told Sir John Kerr that the speaker was irrelevant and should be disregarded. How extraordinary that a High Court judge, and later Chief Justice, could so easily put aside any concern about the separation of powers and the role of the Speaker in the Westminster system.

    I had an acquaintance with another Chief Justice of the High Court when I was on the Council of the Order of Australia. In my book, ‘Things you learn along the way’ published in 1999 I said

    ‘As Secretary of the Department of Special Minister of State I was a member of the Council of the Order of Australia for about 12 months in 1983/84. The Chairman of the Council was Sir Harry Gibbs, the Chief Justice. I proposed that Lionel Murphy receive an AC, the senior award in the Order of Australia. Gibbs asked that the matter be deferred as he would like to consider it further. At the next meeting, Gibbs said that he had spoken to Murphy and Murphy was not interested in such an award. I was very surprised. My proposal lapsed.’ 

    But that was only half the story. Several years later when I was on the board of Qantas from 1986/89, I had a discussion with Ray Gietzelt who was also a member of the board. We privately discussed the Order of Australia. Knowing that Ray Gietzelt had been a very close friend of the late Lionel Murphy, I expressed surprise that Murphy had declined any interest in an award in the Order of Australia. Ray Gietzelt said that he also would be very surprised if Murphy had declined. He said however that he would speak to Ingrid, Murphy’s wife. At the next Qantas board meeting, Ray Gietzelt went out of his way to tell me that he had spoken to Ingrid Murphy who was also confident that an offer of an award in the Order of Australia had never been made to Lionel Murphy.

    All the key people in this matter are now deceased, so it is unlikely that we will get any further clarification.

  • Pope Francis’ frightening invitation to freedom.

    I found this article very good reading for Christmas and the holiday season.  It gives a very good account of where Pope Francis is heading.  The article highlights the often-quoted comment from the Scriptures that the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath.  The author Tom Roberts is Editor at Large of the National Catholic Reporter in the US.  John Menadue

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-frightening-inviation-freedom