John Menadue

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

     

  • 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/

  • 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.

     

     

  • 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

  • Victoria Rollison. The WorkChoices Zombie

    Let’s put aside the irony of a Liberal government, the preacher of the ills of ‘big government’, spending $45 million to reach its expensive Royal Commission tentacles into the operation of trade unions. Let’s put aside the obvious political nature of such a witch-hunt, designed to reduce the power of unions to negotiate on behalf of workers, a seek and destroy mission with the pincer-movement aim of a) benefiting employers at the big end of town, b) reducing unions’ capacity to contribute funds to Labor election campaigns and c) to discredit Labor MPs with union backgrounds. For now, putting these contradictions and political trickery aside, which are so wholly obvious to us but strangely not apparently obvious nor interesting to commentators in the mainstream media, let’s instead look at the Trade Union Royal Commission’s findings in relation to the lives of those people the commission paradoxically claim to represent the interests of; workers.

    Using my own situation as a worker and union member as a representative case study, I note with alarm that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has proclaimed the findings of the Trade Union Royal Commission (TURC) as justification to fight an election over industrial relations. Clearly Turnbull thinks that there is a large enough problem in the trade union movement, a movement just as separate to the operations of government as a private company, that he’s pushing this problem to the top of his government’s agenda. The handful of bogey-man union officials who have been cited in the TURC findings as having acted not in the best interest of workers, are now the government’s enemy number one. As a union member, I don’t like to hear about my union funds being used to fund union officials’ extravagant lifestyles, nor do I appreciate reports of criminal activity, which appear to be almost entirely confined to rogue elements in construction unions. But, as a worker and a member of a young family, a woman, a parent to a young child who has childcare and then her whole education in front of her followed by a job search, a mortgage holder, a South Australian, a buyer of groceries, a daughter of aging parents, a wife to a husband who works in the manufacturing industry and a member of a society experiencing the scary and increasingly apparent effects of climate change, I must admit, the conduct of a few dodgy union officials in industries I don’t work in, whose conduct hasn’t been proven to adversely impact the conditions of workers they represent, is about as high on my list of ‘what is the government doing about this?’ priorities as the fate of Johnny Depp’s girlfriend’s court case over the illegal entry of small dogs.

    And even if I did care deeply about the conduct of some dodgy union officials in the construction industry (which I don’t), I care a thousand times more deeply about those union officials having the freedom to do their job to help safeguard the safety of workers on construction sites. I’m pleased there are union officials stopping work when they see risks to workers, because it’s blatantly clear that if the union officials didn’t care, no one would. This is because it’s obvious that many construction employers care far more about the speed of their profit making than they do the safety and wellbeing of their employees. So if it wasn’t for the unions stepping in to insist on safety, far more accidents and deaths would occur. I would have thought a responsible government would be more concerned about safety on construction sites than the isolated actions of a few bad apple unionists. Especially after that very same government were so upset about the deaths of four insulation installers that they held a Royal Commission into a government program that funded the private companies whose unsafe work practices led to the tragic deaths of workers. Another Royal Commission aimed at hurting the Labor Party; do you see a pattern forming here?

    I notice a day after the release of the TURC findings, the ABC News Radio poll asking ‘In your experience, are unions riddled with ‘deep-seated’ and ‘widespread’ misconduct?’, after 3,466 votes have been cast, found 74% said ‘no’.

    This result suggests I’m not alone in my perception of the TURC findings as more of a political statement than the experience of union members.

    As a worker, it would be wholly irrational for me to congratulate, or indeed vote for a government vowing to smash the power of unions. As a worker in an economy with stagnant wage growth, it would be counterproductive for me to encourage my government to give employers, who already hold an elephant-on-a-seesaw-unequal position of power in the Goliath-capital battle with David-the-workers, any more power to define my working conditions. Because let’s face it, not every employer wants to pay the minimum wage, without penalty rates, minimum entitlements and no chance of a pay rise. But enough employers do (take a look at 7-eleven) so that the entire wage structure of the country would be pulled down without unions pushing back against the floodgates. When former PM Tony Abbott said WorkChoices was dead-buried-and-cremated, workers always knew that it would only take a second-term Liberal government 5 minutes to resurrect the WorkChoices zombie from the grave; a zombie who’s bite is fatal to workers’ rights.

    Therefore, if Turnbull wants to play this game and if he is really serious that dodgy union officials are the biggest threat facing our country, and his highest agenda item in an election, I echo Bill Shorten’s words on hearing Turnbull’s plans: BRING IT ON. And so say all of us.

    Victoria Rollison is a political blogger, working in marketing and communications.

  • Wayne McMillan. Rewriting the Rules: Lessons for Australia

    The Roosevelt Institute’s Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz a Nobel Economics prize winner in his own right, has come up with a block buster report on the social and economic problems facing American society. This115 page report which was published as a book in November 2015 was put together with valuable assistance and input from a broad cross-section of people under the stewardship of Stiglitz. Notable economists such as Brad De Long and Robert Reich were among the consulting researchers.

    Stiglitz’s team of researchers have revealed that the USA is in big trouble and at the heart of it are misplaced rules, laws and economic policies, based on faulty economic theory. If you combine this with an over-arching, pervasive, narrow minded neo-liberal ideology, then you have a recipe for economic and social disaster.

    American neo-liberal ideology and orthodox economic thinking have produced income and wealth inequality of immense historical proportions. Lowly paid workers are in the majority whilst the greater percentage of income and wealth is transferred to an ever decreasing smaller number of people.

    “Over the last 35 years, America’s policy choices have been grounded in false assumptions, and the result is a weakened economy in which most Americans struggle to achieve or maintain a middle-class lifestyle while a small percentage enjoy an increasingly large share of the nation’s wealth. Though these lived experiences and personal challenges are important, they are only the tip of the iceberg that is the crisis of slow income growth and rising inequality. To fully understand the scope of the problem, we must also examine the array of laws and policies that lie beneath the surface—the rules that determine the balance of power between public and private, employers and workers, innovation and shared growth, and all the other interests that make up the modern economy.” Dominant economic frameworks over the past 35 years—like “trickle-down” economics, and the idea that markets work perfectly on their own—paved the way for an onslaught of policies that decimated America’s middle class. This paper presents an evidence-backed alternative framework:

    • Markets are shaped by laws, regulations, and institutions. Rules matter.
    • The rules determine how fast the economy grows, and who shares in the benefits of that prosperity.
    • Concentrated wealth can hurt economic performance. Under the right rules, shared prosperity and strong economic performance reinforce each other. There is no trade-off.
    • A tentative, piecemeal policy response to help the neediest will not suffice. We must rewrite the rules of the economy with a focus on restoring a balance of power between the competing interests that make up the modern economy” p.7

    What should and can Americans do to rectify this appalling predicament? According to Stiglitz and his researchers they must:-

    1. Ensure that the financial sector becomes responsive to consumer needs, by removing hidden financial charges and fees. Bring in rules that penalises risky investments.
    2. Make full employment the goal.
    3. Introduce legislation to protect vulnerable workers. Allow workers to organise and strengthen their right to collective bargaining.
    4. Change the tax system to make it fairer, by removing corporate welfare tax expenditures and raising taxes on capital gains and dividends. Introduce a financial speculation tax to deter short-term trading and encourage long-term investment.
    5. Ensure some reasonable level in the remuneration of chief executive officers with ordinary salary/ wage earnings.

    The most dramatic recommended changes were to:-

    • Overhaul American social security, by introducing a universal Medicare and affordable health care.
    • Expand Social Security with a supplemental public investment program modelled on private Individual Retirement Accounts, and raise the payroll cap to increase revenue.
    • Invest in young children through child benefits, early education, and universal pre-kindergarten.
    • Increase access to higher education by reforming tuition financing, restoring protections to student loans, and adopting universal income-based repayment.
    • Expand access to banking services through a postal savings bank. Create a public option for the supply of mortgages.

    The lessons learnt from the USA are there as a warning to Australia. Australians should be very careful now about allowing the present government to focus on deficit reduction via fiscal cutbacks, instead of new job creation. Full employment for anyone who wants to work is the keystone for any just and healthy society and should be the number one priority for any government. In addition, workers should be on guard where they have no union coverage or their union protection is whittled away by new industrial legislation that prevents unions from operating effectively in workplaces. Reducing deficits and worker protections during economic slumps will only impoverish workers, the unemployed and the poor and should be resisted vigorously by all ordinary Australians.

    The Anglo-American variety of neo-liberalism has been a dismal failure in the UK and the USA, where it has caused only hardship and poverty for the populace, Australia should take the right steps not to make the same mistakes.

    [Wayne McMillan is a keen follower of current economic trends and policies. He has been studying Economics for over 30 years, he lives in Whalan NSW.]

  • What is the driving force behind Jihadist terrorism?

    In this article, (link below) Olivier Roy identifies the patterns of radicalism which have led to terrorism. He describes these patterns

    • Frustration and resentment against society seems to be the only psychological trait they share.
    • The majority of the radicals come from second generation Muslims born in Europe
    • Many have histories of petty delinquency and drug-dealing.
    • It is clearly a youth movement.
    • Very few of them have a history of militancy, either political or religious.
    • There is an unusually high proportion of converts.
    • The more recent pattern is the recruitment of young women to marry jihadists.
    • The main motivation of young men joining jihad seems to be the fascination for a narrative.
    • The revolt is expressed in religious terms.
    • Radicals have a loose or no connection with the Muslim communities in Europe.

    Olivier Roy suggests that the aim of policies should be to accentuate the estrangement of radicals from the Muslim population and to dry up the narrative of Islam as the religion of the oppressed.

    I first saw this article reproduced in ‘Inside Story’ on 18 December 2015.

    http://insidestory.org.au/what-is-the-driving-force-behind-jihadist-terrorism

  • ISIL is really a revolt by young Muslims against their parents’ generation.

    In Quartz on 7 December 2015, Australian journalist, Emma-Kate Symons, shines a particular light on young Muslim terrorists. She argues that ISIL is really a revolt by young Muslims against their parents’ generation. We have seen that many times on numerous issues – younger people who reject the values and materialism of earlier generations.

    See link to article below.

    http://qz.com/562128/isil-is-a-revolt-by-young-disaffected-muslims-against-their-parents-generation/

  • Magical thinking about ISIS.

    Adam Shatz is the contributing editor at the London Review of Books. He lives in New York. In this article he says

    ‘The attacks in Paris don’t reflect a clash of civilisations, but rather the fact that we really do live in a single, if unequal world, where the torments in one region inevitably spill over into another, where everything connects, somethings with lethal consequences.  … For all its medieval airs, the caliphate holds up a mirror to the world we have made, not only in Raqqa and Mosul, but in Paris, Moscow and Washington.’

    See link to article below.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n23/adam-shatz/magical-thinking-about-isis

  • Barney Zwartz. Christianity is dying out? Don’t count on it.

    Repost from 10/10/2015

    Recent predictions (and perhaps hopes) about Christianity’s demise in the West have been greatly exaggerated. But to the extent that the faith does disappear, it will be greatly missed, writes Barney Zwartz.

    Predicting social trends is usually an inexact science, but England’s influential Spectator magazine has boldly put a precise date on the disappearance of Christianity from Britain: 2067.

    If the number of UK-born Christians keeps sinking at the rate it has for the past decade, by 2067 they will be “statistically invisible”, Damian Thompson wrote.

    British Anglicans have fallen from 40 per cent of the population three decades ago to 17 per cent last year. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of Christians born in Britain fell by 5.3 million.

    Thompson writes:

    If that rate of decline continues, the mission of St Augustine to the English, together with that of the Irish saints to the Scots, will come to an end in 2067.

    Catholics also dropped in Britain, down to 8 per cent from 10 per cent in 1983, but they are a much smaller minority than in Australia, where they represent a quarter of the population. In both cases, numbers are buoyed by non-Anglo immigration.

    Thompson recognises that projection is not prediction, but it is plain that the trends are dire for British believers. Nor are they particularly encouraging for the churches in Australia.

    The churches have already had to accept the unpalatable fact that they have largely lost their once-automatic role as society’s conscience, and have become merely one voice in the crowded public square. But this is no bad thing – they are not silenced, they merely have to work as hard as everyone else to have their views heard.

    I do not doubt that the number of Christians in Australia’s Census – down to 61 per cent in 2011 from 86 per cent in 1971 – will continue to decline. A large proportion of that 61 per cent are cultural Christians, and as church attendance falls, so will cultural identity.

    However, this may well be balanced by other factors, so that the churches will find a new equilibrium. Other social trends are working in their favour.

    For example, as an ever-larger proportion of the population lives alone and looks for connections, churches stand out more strongly as an option. Other institutions that served this role, such as sporting clubs or niche groups, are often in sharper decline than the churches. This is shown in an interesting new trend: where a few decades ago people were converted and then went to church, today new members come to church for social connection and other reasons, and then (may) become Christians.

    In 2012, the Oxford Handbook of Religion and Health found in its systematic review of all the relevant studies, over and over again, a positive relationship between religion and mental health/well being. This may prove significant. The handbook reports that 93 per cent of 45 studies found that religion/spirituality is related to greater purpose and meaning. 73 per cent of 40 studies found that religion/spirituality is related to greater hope. 61 per cent of 413 studies found lower rates of depression or faster recovery from depression in individuals who are more religious.

    In August, the Independent newspaper in the UK reported a study of 9,000 people over the age of 50 which found that the only activity linked to sustained happiness was attending a place of worship.

    What does all this mean? I want to make two claims: first, that reports of Christianity’s demise in the West are greatly exaggerated; and second, that to the extent it does disappear, it will be greatly missed.

    As Joni Mitchell put it eloquently, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

    The churches will have fewer nominal attendees, so that members are more committed. As they continue their good works, but without much of the moralising of the recent past, the faith will become more attractive. It will be like the fourth century – before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and began its fateful courtship of power and authority.

    The early Christians’ courage and compassion – for example, staying in cities to found hospitals and tend to the plague-ridden when other citizens fled, as in the time of Emperor Decius – made a profound impression. There have been many like them ever since, going to the darkest and most difficult places, and improving people’s lives.

    With their lost moral authority, Christians will lose their social status – a process that is well underway. By this I don’t mean that a Christian doctor or saleswoman will be any less honoured as a doctor or saleswoman, but that their faith will not be seen as meritorious or contributing to whatever else they are.

    Already there are many in Australia who despise and condemn believers as irrational and foolish and are quite happy to say so; who talk of invisible friends, flying teapots or fairies at the bottom of the garden. Christians, sadly, have not always been generous when they were dominant, and cannot complain too loudly now.

    Part of that possible imitation of the fourth century will be that churches are made up less of society’s stakeholders – those with worldly success, and those who aspire to it. (That was one of the appeals of Christianity as the official religion – it was the side of the winners.) Instead, the believers will be like those the Apostle Paul described in his first letter to the Corinthians: “Think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.”

    This brings me to my second claim: that if Christianity were to decline in the West to the extent that some believe, it will be a huge loss. If I accept the claims of atheist spokespeople that the number of real, committed believers in Australia is closer to 20 per cent than 60, as I do, then those 20 per cent are vastly over-represented in the ranks of society’s volunteers, helpers and donors. As one newspaper reported at the time, of the 41 aid agencies that rushed to Rwanda in 1994 to provide support and relief, 37 were Christian. Today in Australia, of the 30 largest charities, 26 are faith-based.

    Much of Australia’s social capital over the past two centuries was built by Christians, explicitly motivated by their faith to work not just for themselves but for the community at large. They believed they were called to love their neighbour – all their neighbours – and brought their (now-maligned) “Protestant work ethic” to bear on the problems and challenges of their time. The economy, and in particular the siren call of profit, is the only language that seems to move government or business now. Or at least, it is the most heard.

    In his Short History of Christianity, Geoffrey Blainey suggests that rather than dying out, Christianity is set to keep evolving and moving, declining and re-emerging, just as it always has. It’s a faith that has repeatedly reinvented itself, and while no revival is permanent, neither has been any decline.

    Despite the recent predictions (and perhaps hopes) of some, history suggests that this age-old pattern is likely to continue.

    Barney Zwartz is a Senior Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity. This article was first published in The Drum on 5 October 2015.

  • Richard Woolcott. Australia’s role is in our region.

    There is no doubt that Malcolm Turnbull’s visit to Indonesia and his and Lucy’s contacts with President Jakowi and his wife have very substantially improved the situation between Indonesia and Australia that existed before Malcolm’s visit.

    The most recent and important meeting was between the Indonesian Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence with our Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence.  This meeting of the “two plus two”, as it is called and the press conference which followed underlined how the situation between Australia and Indonesia has changed and substantially improved.  This does not mean however that there are no on-going differences.  It was clear from the responses to the questions at the press conference that Indonesia, which is not a claimant state, is very careful not to adopt a negative attitude towards China’s activities in the South China Sea.  Both the Indonesian Foreign Minister and Defence Minister made it plain that all countries in the region shared an important interest in a stable peaceful approach to claims.

    Both the Indonesian Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs made it clear that they wanted Australia to maintain firmly the position that West Papua was a part of Indonesia.  The Australian Ministers in response to these comments indicated that Australia acknowledged West Papua as a part of Indonesia.  This does not entirely rule out Indonesian fears that we may over time change our position as we did in respect of East Timor.  But  East Timor had never been a part of the Dutch East Indies, as was the case with West Papua.

    My considered view is Australia needs to refocus on the important interests in our own Region – South East Asia, North Asia and the South West Pacific in what is now generally called the Asian Century.  Former Indonesian Ambassador to Australian Sabam Saigian and currently the Editor in Chief of the Jakarta Post wrote earlier this year the blunt commentary that “Australia is still stuck in the 20th Century mode.  It is a Monarchy with a Head of State in London and its security arrangements are largely Cold War relics…..Australia is out of sync with the emerging geo-political environment of Asia today”.

    I do consider we need to establish an updated and more balanced approach to the vital relationship between the United States and China.  There is a danger that adversarial attitudes towards China could become a self fulfilling prophecy.  The present debate on China mainly assumes that Australia has no choice but to support American primacy in Asia against the perceived rising Chinese hegemony, something which Xi Jinping has always denied.  Former Prime Ministers Hawke, Keating and the late Malcolm Fraser as well as most former Ambassadors to China and a number of academics can be expected to resist American” hegemony“ although they accept a cooperative and constructive United States role in Asia.  In my view Australia should not take sides on China Japan disputes or on rival territorial claims.  Our focus should be on unimpeded passage through international waters and trade routes.  Provocative actions by all claimants should be avoided.  Malcolm Turnbull was in his very recent visit to Japan cautious in this respect and very firm in opposing the resumption of whaling by Japan.

    Turning to the Middle East we should acknowledge that while there were reasons for joining the US led invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, fourteen years later with forty Australians killed, over five hundred billion dollars spent and more than thirteen thousand Afghan civilians killed on objectives once deemed to be indispensible such as national building and effective counter insurgency have been downgraded or abandoned because there are  no longer adequate resources, time or even a clear US will to achieve them.  Polls suggest that the US public  opposes US ground forces being involved in further conflicts in the Middle East.

    Australia needs a fundamental change in our national psyche focused more on Asia than on our well established links with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand (the “anglosphere”), and Europe.    We need a much more sustained conversation with our neighboring countries in Asia and the South West Pacific.

    Essentially terrorism has to be dealt with in each country, although discussion on dealing with it internationally can be useful and there was evidence  of new discussions between the AFP and the Indonesian police ,, although the Indonesian Foreign Minister did say that Indonesia wanted to check some of the information which they had received from the AFP.

    In the long term no bi-lateral relationship will be more important to Australia than that of Indonesia.  The stability, unity and economic growth of a predominantly (81%) moderate Muslim nation of two hundred and fifty million people stretching across our north and trade routes a distance from Broome to Christchurch in New Zealand is vital to Australia.

    There is some discussion in New York at present about an Australian interest in the Secretary Generalship of the United Nations, at present held by Ban Ki-Moon.  This will come up in the middle of next year.  It would normally be for the Eastern European group to nominate a candidate but there is some doubt that they will be able to agree on a candidate.  Although he publicly says he is not a candidate, it is quite widely regarded that Kevin Rudd is interested in the position and is privately working on securing it.

    We are to some extent locked into participation in the Middle East through our cooperation with the present Iraq Government and our role in support of British air activity. The essential fact however is that Australia cannot influence the outcome of the kaleidoscope  of changing activities between extremist Shiites,  Sunnis and Kurds and a range of countries with different objectives including Saudi Arabia,  Iran, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Israel, China and the Yeman.  Because our role is symbolic in that it will not lead to a solution in the foreseeable future, it would be desirable for Australia to withdraw from the enormously complex situation in the Middle East and focus our attention on our region of the world when we can do so.

    Tony Abbott on a number of occasions said that the first duty of a PM was to increase the safety of the Australian people.In fact his approach has made the Australian people LESS safe.

  • Ray Markey. The myths surrounding penalty rates.

    The article below by Professor Ray Markey was posted before the release of the recent Productivity Commission Report on penalty rates.

    Following the release of the report, Professor Markey commented as follows:

    ‘The Productivity Commission report presents no new evidence for increased employment from reduced penalty rates. Mainly there are theoretical economic arguments and modelling based on it. Time use survey data is very selectively cited and dated anyway since the last survey was in 2006. It clearly shows that people prefer weekends for being with family and friends and does not refer to studies showing it is difficult to make up during the week for this weekend time being lost due to work. The one new argument in the report is very interesting, namely that the onus of proof about the impact of reduced penalty rates on employment should be reversed i.e. employers shouldn’t have to prove this is the case to get changes – clearly an admission of a lack of evidence.

    It is tiring to hear penalty rates linked with productivity as the minister responsible, Senator Cash, did on radio this morning. It has nothing to do with productivity and neither the Productivity Commission nor the main employer submissions made this claim. Productivity increases would require increased output relative to inputs (labour). Reducing penalty rates will increase employer income and potentially profits, but it is inconceivable how it affects productivity positively. If the argument that employment will increase as a result of reduced penalty rates is true, it may have a negative impact on productivity. Cheaper labour costs certainly provide incentives for employers not to engage in innovation to increase productivity and this is the trap for low wage economies such as New Zealand, where they struggle with lower productivity than Australia and lower wages. Reducing penalty rates, therefore, is a distraction from the Prime Minister’s focus on an innovation agenda.’

     

    In the current review of modern awards before the Fair Work Commission, employers are challenging the level of penalty rates. At the same time, the Productivity Commission says excessive penalty rates for Sundays reduce hours worked, mean unemployment is higher than it needs to be, and reduce options for businesses and consumers. It wants Sunday penalty rates in some sectors to be set at the Saturday rate.

    A penalty rate for Sunday work was first implemented in Australia for working “unsocial” hours in 1919. The 1947 ‘Weekend Penalty Rates Case’ expanded penalty rates to Saturdays, while Sundays were set at a rate of double time. Later decisions specified that workers would need to be compensated for the loss of opportunity for family life and social time resulting from weekend work.

    More than 60 years on, employers argue the world has changed. It has, but many of the arguments employers make are not supported by the evidence.

    Myth 1: Given extended trading hours, it’s no longer abnormal for people to work weekends

    Most employees still do not work unsocial hours. According to the Australian Work and Life Index, 38 per cent of workers work unsocial hours; only 32.2 per cent of workers work weekends and 18.9 per cent of workers work evenings after 9pm regularly. These figures include the 13.1 per cent of workers who work both evenings and weekends regularly.

    Myth 2: It’s only young single people that work weekends.

    While being single with no children is more common than other family types among these workers, they are not a majority: there are also many couples both with and without children, and sole parents.

    Women are also more likely than men to work weekends. HILDA data indicates that only 22 per cent of male and 21 per cent of female weekend workers were dependent students; in other words, 78 per cent of all weekend workers were not dependent and pay their own bills.

    Myth 3: The disadvantages of working weekends are only bad for those who work very long hours.

    Employers argue that the adverse effects associated with working weekends are only relevant to those who work very long hours, and that the days and times themselves are no longer relevant, either because people no longer engage in the activities which previous decisions attempted to protect, or because these activities can be made up on other days and at other times.

    But those who work on weekends do so at the sacrifice of time with friends and family, time which cannot be simply made up through time spent at other times during the week. This is particularly acute on Sundays, which remain a time for spending time with family. In spite of claims to the contrary, the differentiation between Saturdays and Sundays remains relevant in modern Australian society.

    In general, the recompense of penalty rates is the key reason for willingly working weekends; with far fewer doing so to meet their own flexibility needs. However, the experience of the Work Choices era, and the importance and power of employer expectation, does suggest that many employees would not, in the absence of penalty rates, be able to avoid weekend work due to fear of losing their jobs, and indeed employees being forced to work weekends for no extra pay seems the most likely consequence of removing penalty rates.

    Myth 4: Those who work in industries that pay penalty rates are not low paid.

    Many workers on penalty rates are among the low paid. According to the Australian Work and Life Index, 37.8 per cent of workers who work weekends only and receive penalty rates rely on these to meet household expenses. This increases to 48.8 per cent for those working both evenings and weekends, and 52.2 per cent for Sundays only.

    Myth 5: Reducing or eliminating penalty rates would increase employment.

    The empirical evidence for increased employment as a result of reducing penalty rates is non-existent. Employer arguments have been based essentially on economic theory, which is merely hypothesis in the absence of empirical confirmation. What may be relevant in terms of the impact of wages on employment is that none of the available empirical evidence suggests minimum wages have a significant effect on net employment, a point reiterated by the Productivity Commission.

    While some studies do suggest a substitution effect, this would be a matter of balancing one set of employed workers against another — older workers versus youth. However, a number of studies suggest no effect at all, and some suggest a positive effect.

    Given the evidence, it is difficult to see any benefits likely to accrue from the abolition or reduction of penalty rates for employees, employment levels or greater availability of services to the public.

    Professor Ray Markey is Director of the Centre for Workforce Futures.
    This article was originally published on The Conversation on 2 December 2015.

  • Moira Rayner. Corrupt churches need women leaders

    Lord Acton said that ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ It was in correspondence about the then pope’s proposed new doctrine of papal infallibility. It is often overlooked that he added, ‘Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.’

    When I was a child, the greatest misuse of priestly power imputed to the ‘RCs’ was the sometimes brutal violence used in the ‘care’ of disobedient pupils, unmarried mothers, illegitimate and ‘removed’ children and orphans in institutions run by nuns, brothers and priests.

    Thanks to brave individuals and independent journalists, the sexual abuse permitted and distributed by some of these hands has been revealed in Australian parliamentary inquiries and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    It is unfair to profile the one, Catholic Church for the sins of so many more whose patriarchal culture and authoritarian practices are shared by those who professed to ‘suffer the little children to come unto me … for of such are the kingdom of heaven’.

    Yet former bishops and archbishops have told the Commission that, yes, the Church failed its duty, protecting its reputation, wealth and ordained at the cost of children and complainants. Fairfax claimed the Melbourne Response saved the Church at least $62 million, by capping the amount payable to a fraction of what complainants would have been awarded had they not been dissuaded from suing.

    It is increasingly apparent that the Church’s moral failure to address the worm in its heart has poisoned the vine. By their fruits you shall know them.

    *****

    I am a laywoman, and in the Catholic Church could never be ordained.

    Like many women, I am active, as a spiritual director and retreat leader. As well, over the last decade I was briefly responsible for receiving complaints about professional standards in the Anglican diocese of Melbourne, and am currently a member of a professional standards committee for one of the Catholic orders. The majority of its members are women. They are laity, busy, unpaid, and without power.

    And thereby is some hope. Since Vatican II, successive popes have pledged a greater role for the laity to work with those who are ordained, and Pope Francis has emphasised respect for women religious, and some hope for long-squelched leadership roles for women.

    The Vatican bureaucracy is not pleased with this, or with women’s views on small matters such as admitting the divorced to the Eucharist.

    There is a traditional culture of brotherhood in the upper echelons of the Church at every level. There is also a natural urge to homosocial reproduction in its instrumentalities.

    If I have learned anything from my work with companies and organisations on cultural change, it is that these comfortable cultures need to be broken up, because they are, as Lord Acton said, so readily corrupted. Narrowly defined, corruption means people use their position and authority for personal rather than the church’s benefit (that is, the whole church, not just its office holders).

    More broadly, it refers to any violation of ethical and legal rules even when there is no personal gain, as in perjury, turning a blind eye, bending the rules, using violence to silence nay-sayers, wildcards and whistleblowers, or covering up physical and sexual misconduct, theft, and discrimination.

    The Royal Commission has revealed a corruption of compassion within the culture of Christian institutions, which strikes at the heart of their mission and spirituality. There is also, within most churches I believe, a culture of acceptance of ‘noble-cause corruption’; that is, illegal actions undertaken to achieve laudable ends, in this case, protection of the institution itself.

    This is one of the ills already addressed in the US. In 2014 the Australian Jesuit Province arranged a vist from Kathleen McChesney (pictured with Truth, Justice and Healing Council CEO Francis Sullivan), a former executive assistant director for the FBI, who had been employed by the American Bishops Conference to establish a system to deal effectively with preventing, and protecting children from, sexual and other abuse.

    It is evident over ten years that there has been genuine progress in easing out corrupt, incompetent or cowardly church officials there. Even within a clerical culture of loyalty towards brothers and fathers in a hierarchical organisation, it was possible to create a structural and procedural framework which had reduced the actual incidence of offending.

    Women do most of the hard work in parishes and form the majority of active parishioners. They know they have no authority. They are outsiders. Some are choosing to ignore what priests say and judge them by what they do.

    The best way to change such a culture is therefore to start giving women positions of real influence and respect — outsiders see what insiders cannot, causing interruptions to the easy transitions of assumed and unquestioned authority, and groupthink.

    Including women and thusly diversity at every level breaks up consensus and challenges noble corruption-fostering cultures. These challenges will be unwelcome but they are necessary if churches are to embody a gospel of love and protection of the marginalised and undervalued.

    Moira Rayner is a barrister and writer. This article first appeared in Eureka Street on 13 December 2015.

     

  • Ranald Macdonald. Meet Mark Scott’s heir apparent, a businesswoman with close ties to the Murdochs.

    “The announcement of Michelle Guthrie as the new ABC supremo by ABC Board Chairman Jim Spigelman is shrewd and just maybe a winner.

    Of course, one cannot judge the performance of a driver until she is actually behind the wheel and showing her stuff.

    An “A” for innovation, though, for the Board on its decision – and (perhaps) it is an appointment which will not be slammed by the News Empire (after all, M’s Guthrie worked for the Murdochs for some 13 years).

    To that I would add, at least a potential “B-plus” for her performance as an administrator, someone with international experience in media and new technology and the excitement of being the first woman to be executive head of our National broadcaster.

    Those concerned with the budget cuts, the increasingly Sydney-centric nature of our ABC, the 500 staff reduction and the dreadful impact of the breaking of the Australia Network contract, plus the loss of ‘spread’ around the continent,  know that M’s Guthrie has many challenges filling her inbasket.

    (Incidentally, an interesting finding on Q & A was the imbalance on the panels with the Sydney domination, which would have been worse but for Christopher Pyne’s regular appearances! How to stop the ABC becoming the Sydney-ABC?)

    For an understanding of the benefits and challenges of the new media, no worries. For living within budget – and perhaps providing government with further budget savings and introducing advertising revenue (will iview be charged for?), perhaps a slightly concerned “B”.

    For a commitment to quality programming for all of Australia and fighting for the funds to achieve it, that is a challenge.

    As is, how to deal with editorial leadership and defence of independent reporting in the public interest, programming decisions and a commitment to present an authentic Australian voice into SE Asia and the Pacific – and Australians reporting back to us in terms relevant and understandable.

    We await outcomes, so with the hope for an improvement of a provisional, but concerned, “C-plus” – though there is an important debate to be held as to whether the job is too multi-faceted for one person and whether an editor-in-chief should be appointed by M’s Guthrie, responsible to her. It would at least provide a shield for journalistic decision-making and choices, which politicians noisily seek to influence.

    Anyway, a welcome to the new CEO from ABC Friends – and we hope to meet and discuss where Michelle Guthrie wishes to take the ABC to. We suspend judgement, but my provisional marking on her appointment averages a “B-plus” – without being influenced by the Murdoch years on her C/V.

    Ranald Macdonald – former MD of The Age and National Campaign Manager of the ABC Friends.

  • Caroline Coggins. Christmas and weed mats

    Weed mats are used to grow a garden.  A weed mat lets us relax and focus on what we want to grow. There’s no need to labour over all the weeds that need pulling, make neat rows and certainly not break up the top soil, destroying the ‘nature’ of the soil.

    What we actually want to grow/love/know gets us up each day, like Mary’s “Yes.”

    December the month of Advent, waiting on the coming of our God, can be overwhelmed by the ‘glitter of the Christmas tree’. Yet there is a pulsing of hope that is palpable.  Most of us desire to feel connected, be loved, share, to give and receive. But we can be disappointed: too much to do, not enough space, the failure of our expectations to fruit in a meaningful way. Often our deepest need for meaning is left wanting.

    St. Ignatius, founder of the Society of Jesus, says that our choices decide our orientation, what will shape our life. Making decisions is the heart beat of the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius. Making decisions are a bit like putting down a weed mat.

    Recently I attended a gathering of Jesuits and lay who work in their ministries. Two priests celebrated their final vows after twenty years. Each of us there felt their “Yes”, not necessarily as a final vow, but as a yearning to know and follow what is calling us. This “Yes” will hold us, both in the moving toward and the fall away. It will bring us back home. Ignatius referred to the Jesuits as ‘minima compania,’ in other words, we are the least, ‘just’ earthly vessels, limited and fragile, yet in this vulnerability the transcendent power of God is at work.

    We are nothing special, but the vow, what we do internally, is something very special. I think it takes a long time to realise that we are ‘minima’.  It is when we let God be God.

    One of the priests talked of his experiences of being led gently, both by a mentor who was a big part of his formation, and the people/parishes who shaped him these last 20 years since his first vows.  Such accompanying is not about knowledge but walking beside. We grow into life, we don’t just arrive fully formed. It’s something that our perfectionist and self-reliant striving selves seem to forget.

    We know that the story of Jesus is such a story: Mary will search in her heart and say “Yes”; God will show us the way to be become human by giving us his Son, thus becoming pulsing beings listening to the deepest part of our selves. The three wise men said “Yes”, they listened to and followed their hearts, they followed the stars.

    Why weed mat?  I think most us can feel pressured to look neat and tidy, with everything ordered.  We have many weeds and we can be unfocused. But now we wait, Christ will come, and the weed mat will help us, not to get busy and lost in the weeds, but with our “Yes”. We are loved as we are. Then a hole is poked through for the seedling to emerge, right there amongst the weeds. We just need to make some room for the little plant, a space for the light to shine through.

    Christmas is like that, a mess of all things, but in the midst is the baby Jesus, vulnerable like us. He grows, loved and nurtured by Mary and orientated entirely to his Father. We wait in joyful expectation, knowing that in the chaos we can behave just like a weed mat. It’s the “Yes” in the midst of everything that allows his light to shine through.

    We cannot do everything,
    And there is a sense of liberation in realising that.
    This enables us to do something, and to do it very well,
    It may be incomplete,
    But it is a beginning, a step along the way, an opportunity for the Lord’s Grace
    To enter and do the rest. We may never see the end results
    But that is the difference
    Between the Master builder and the worker.
    We are workers not Master builders,
    Ministers, not Messiahs. We are prophets of a future not our own.

    (Often called ‘Romero prayer’ written by Ken Untener in honour of Oscar Romero in 1979)

    Caroline Coggins is a psychotherapist.

  • To solve the Syrian Crisis, we need to overcome these three obstacles.

    In the Huffington Post on 9 December, Seyed Hossein Mousavian describes the three issues that need to be addressed in order to solve the Syrian crisis. For link to this article, see below.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seyed-hossein-mousavian/syria-crisis-obstacles_b_8740514.html?ir=World?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

  • Peter Burdon. Why is the business world suddenly clamouring for a global carbon tax?

    Among the various interests at the Paris climate talks, it is arguably the voice of business that has emerged most clearly. Many business leaders are now saying that if the world is intent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there must be a worldwide price on carbonand a framework for linking the 55 schemes that exist in areas such as China, the European Union, and California.

    Momentum has been building since May, when six of Europe’s largest oil and gas companies, including Royal Dutch Shell and BP, issued a letter calling for global carbon pricing system. That month, leaders from 59 international companies also signed a statement calling for carbon pricing to feature in the Paris agreement.

    Advocacy has continued during the Paris negotiations. For example, Patrick Pouyanné, chief executive of French oil and gas giant Total, argued that the shift from coal to gas “will not happen without a carbon price”. He suggested that a price of US$20-$50 in Europe was required (well above the current price).

    Oleg Deripaska, president of the world’s largest aluminium producer Rusal, put the issue in stronger terms, describing the idea of voluntary national emissions commitments (upon which the Paris agreement largely hinges) as “balderdash”.

    Asked what success would look like from the Paris negotiations, Deripaska replied:

    A success [for most people] would be lunch at a nice French banquette with foie gras and oysters. But no, seriously, it is carbon tax or die.

    Carbon tax on the menu?

    It is not clear whether a carbon price will figure in the Paris agreement. But it is important to consider what is motivating some of the world’s highest-emitting companies to advocate for a carbon price. And what other, perhaps more intrusive plans for tackling climate change would be taken off the table?

    Businesses have a stronger presence at COP21 than at any previous climate negotiation. They know which way the wind is blowing and realise that governments might require painful and complex interventions to reduce emissions. Moves are afoot to decarbonise the world economy some time after 2050 (see Article 3 of the latest draft text, and there has been strong advocacy for a moratorium on new coal mines.

    Helge Lund, chief executive of British oil multinational BG Group, argues that a carbon price reduces government intervention and attempts at “pick[ing] winners in terms of energy technologies.” Instead, he argues: “the market will dictate the most efficient solution”.

    Forecasts from the International Energy Agency suggest that fossil fuels (including coal) will provide the bulk of energy demand for developing countries going into the future. Companies intend to meet that demand. Thus, Shell can simultaneously advocate putting a price on carbon and make plans to drill in the Arctic where production will not begin until 2030.

    While that might sound perverse, there is actually nothing inconsistent about those two positions.

    One way for energy companies to maintain economic growth in a carbon-priced economy is to shift investments gradually away from coal and oil, and towards gas. That is why Shell has paid US$70 billion for the BG Group.

    Of course gas might come under similar pressure in time, but as the Financial Times has reported:

    …oil companies’ skills and assets mean that finding and extracting gas is a short and natural step. Moving into renewable energy is a much bigger leap.

    This can be seen in the many examples where energy companies have struggled to develop other forms of energy, such as BP’s ill-starred attempt to brand itself as “beyond petroleum” and invest US$8 billion over ten years in renewable energy. The company has since backtracked on that goal, has left the solar market, and has no plans to expand its onshore wind investments.

    Beyond markets

    Of the 185 countries that have submitted climate targets ahead of the Paris talks, more than 80 have referenced market mechanisms.

    Clearly, a price on carbon is going to play a role in attempts to tackle climate change. This is a good thing but it is not sufficient and must not become a distraction from other serious interventions.

    Recent research confirms that we do not have time to wait for energy companies to transition at their own pace from fossil fuels to renewable energy. For example, last week Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research published a paper in Nature Geoscience which argued:

    The carbon budgets associated with a 2℃ threshold demand profound changes to the consumption and production of energy … the IPCC’s 1,000 gigatonne budget requires an end to all carbon emissions from energy systems by 2050.

    A carbon budget consistent with 2℃ (let alone 1.5℃) requires a dramatic reversal in energy consumption and emissions growth. Governments should treat overtures from business with caution, even if businesses are making the right moves. They need to ensure that these moves are made at a speed that suits the climate, rather than just business.

    Peter Burdon is Senior Lecturer, Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide. This article was first published in The Conversation on 11 December, 2015

  • Peter Day. The Cupboard.

    “There you go, Peter, today’s pay. Don’t waste it.”

    “Thank you, Mr Boss; I can now buy some paint for my cupboard. Have a good night, Mr Boss, I’m going home now.”

    “Okay, Peter, see you tomorrow … same time?”

    “Yes, Mr Boss, same time, same time: fifty-five past 8 o’clock in the morning.”

    It usually took Peter an hour to get home as he navigated the bustling alleys and back streets of Kolkata, passing fruit vendors, beggars, monks, sewerage drains, smoking meats, motorbikes, street kids, temples, magicians, orphaned dogs-cats-and-rats; not to mention the myriad friendly faces ‘who just had to be smiled at’. Really, it was a journey of 1,000 “hellos”, with each greeting accompanied by a gentle, respectful bowing of the head. Peter was always conscious of being polite, which wasn’t at all difficult thanks to an innate fondness he had for his fellow man; a true philanthropist, you might say – if a very poor one. This gentleness flowed from the nurturing and modelling of his beloved grandmother – more on her later.

    Generally, it was spot on 8pm when Peter strolled into his tenement building. He was a stickler for punctuality: “Eight-hours-after-12-o’clock-midday is my always homecoming time,” he’d insist with a twinkle in his eye.

    The building was a similar age to Peter, thirty-plus years, but not in nearly as good a shape. It stood like a tired old man carrying a heavy yoke. Perhaps if someone blew hard enough it too would tumble over. Socks, towels, t-shirts, electrical cables, TV antennas, and assorted sneakers hung messily from balcony rails and windows betraying the reality within: unforgiving, overcrowded chaos – two-hundred rooms worth.

    Usually it was three minutes past ‘eight-hours-after-12-o’clock-midday’ when Peter entered the first floor corridor to commence his settling-down-for-the-night routine. It was all very simple: he’d roll out a Hessian mat, say a quick prayer of thanks, then lie down very quietly next to his cupboard: “The most cleanliest and tidiest cupboard in all Kolkata,” he’d rejoice with anyone who was interested – not many were.

    The cupboard, like his gran, was a significant presence in his life, and he dutifully attended to it as if it were the Taj Mahal. Probably his most important duty was its annual Christmas painting: this year, bright yellow; last year, bright green, and the year before that, bright red.

    It didn’t make much sense to his neighbours, this attentiveness to an unremarkable cupboard in an even less remarkable building. “I bet,” some passers-by would scoff dismissively, “I bet that’s where he keeps the proceeds from his pick-pocketing and thieving … or maybe he’s got some pet rats!”

    Peter hadn’t chosen a good place to sleep either: a busy corridor with lots of people traffic. It wasn’t uncommon for someone to nudge him with a discreet kick, while others would bark, “Why don’t you pay for a room like the rest of us; and who gave you permission to paint that cupboard, anyway?”

    “Sorry, sir, sorry, sir,” Peter would reply patiently, respectfully, which tended to disarm his plaintiffs.

    “Arrgh, never mind, never mind; but make sure you clean-up your mess.”

    Sure, to outsiders it was just a cupboard, but Peter knew otherwise. Indeed, he knew everything there was to know about it including its dimensions – and to the nearest millimetre, thank you very much: “Five foot 3.2 inches long, two point zero feet exactly high, and four foot plus 6.6 inches deep.” 

    Despite these modest proportions, Peter’s Christmas painting rituals were long, drawn-out affairs; usually around six hours. Each brush stroke was akin to patting a much loved pet: gentle, slow, and tender. This wasn’t just another chore, rather it was a sacred action: comparable to a sacristan polishing a tabernacle or decorating an altar.

    What was also compelling about the cupboard was how immaculately clean Peter kept it; it was literally spotless inside and out. This was in stark contrast to the rest of the building which had been meekly surrendered to the powers of dust and grime and cockroaches and rats and ablutions.

    While Peter’s annual working-bees were not to everyone’s taste, especially this year’s yellow, the cupboard certainly offered some respite from the colourless apathy and neglect that abounded.

    Peter’s attention to detail was another virtue that could be traced back to the guidance of his grandmother: “If a job’s worth doing, Peter, it’s worth doing well.” He’d first heard that gem when he was about seven.

    Indeed, much of his memory was infused with his grandmother’s wisdom and teachings. He adored her: “My bestest and favouritest person in the whole world.”

    She was also the one who made sure, unlike the busy, distracted people around him, that Peter knew he was truly loved and truly valued. “The world needs more like you, dear grandson; don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”

    This was a difficult truth for Peter to grasp because every day he was reminded in someway that he was a ‘bit slow’, and very poor.

    No wonder, then, the care and attention he afforded his cupboard. After all, that was where his beloved grandmother slept, and it was his duty to keep her safe in a nice, bright place:

    “The cleanliest and tidiest cupboard in all Kolkata; Merry Christmas, grandma.”

     

    This is a fictional tribute to Peter de Cruz who did indeed keep his grandmother safe as she slept in a cupboard next to him in the corridor of a tenement building in Kolkata, India.