Pearls and Irritations

John Menadue

  • Asylum policies leading nowhere. Joint blog: John Menadue and Arja Keski-Nummi

    This piece was published in Crikey 11 June 2013.

     

    The destructive and divisive debate about various asylum policies is designed to scare us. The most shameful manifestation of this in the past week has been the alleged “terrorist” in community detention.

     

    A person sought asylum in Australia. He was given an adverse security assessment . He was then held in community detention with his family. He was subject to reporting and monitoring. The authorities knew where he was at all times. Given these facts we were probably safer from him (if indeed he was a danger to the security of Australia) than the mindless violence that seems to happen on our streets with depressing regularity. We should not hide behind an ASIO assessment as a way to whip up community fear and insecurity, and in the process destroy a family.

     

    If we take on trust the policies on refugees and asylum seekers that the main parties are taking into the election campaign it makes for disturbing reading.

    Setting aside the hubris and posturing what do they really say they are going to do?

     

    The National and the Liberal Party say they will stop the boats. Further the Liberal party would tighten up the process for determining if a person is a refugee.  The Government, saddled by incumbency and actually having to have a policy would also tighten up the refugee determination process, keep mandatory detention, strengthen regional cooperation and try and stop the boats. .

     

    The reality is there are no magic answers to the question of asylum and why people get onto boats.  There is no one action that will make the “problem” go away, despite what Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard  say.

     

    Here is a quick summary of what the two main parties stand for.

     

    Regional cooperation is the hardest and most important area for action if there are to be any lasting solutions. The only way to avoid the tragedy that has played itself out again off Christmas Island is to have a genuine regional protection framework, where peope do not feel that their only way to safety is taking a dangerous journey by sea.  But this takes time. The ALP platform is pretty quiet, on this. The best clues as to their polices are found in the budget papers. In this they have committed additional funding for the Bali Process, for capacity building and enhanced screening and refugee resettlement. It will take time to work and 100 days will not cut it. The Opposition on the other hand have very little to say in their “weighty” policy document ‘Our Plan; Real Solutions for all Australians’. They will “rebuild relationships with our neighbours damaged by Labor’s mismanagement and failed border security policies” and that the first overseas trip that Tony Abbott makes as Prime Minister will be to Indonesia to renew cooperation against people smugglers. That is not a policy, let alone likely to bring any results.

     

    The real damage, fueled by the Greens and the Opposition, in our regional relations is the way we have continued to insult Indonesia and Malaysia and their treatment of asylum seekers while they continue to host much larger numbers of displaced people than Australia and where their policies are no more harsh than what the Australian government has progressively put in place.

     

    On asylum processing the government announced in the budget that it would commission a comprehensive review of Australia’s refugee determination system to “identify changes to improve the efficacy of the system and to ensure that acceptance outcomes for asylum seeker claims are consistent with our international obligations and with final acceptance rates for comparable cohorts in other countries”. There is no detail as to when or how this review will commence. The language used is ominous implying that somehow the system is broken but not much to back this up. Similarly the opposition makes wild assumptions about asylum seekers’ behaviors and a presumption that they do not need protection. This statement flies in the face of not just the Refugee Convention but also years of testing such assumptions in the courts of Australia. Presumably for the Opposition if they get into government it will be easier to blame the courts for a failure to deliver policies than to acknowledge that what they propose may not be possible to enact in law.

    Whatever the public debate has been on asylum seekers there was an encouraging all party agreement on the resettlement of refugees from overseas. The increase of the program to 20,000 with 12,000 for offshore resettlement had been a beacon of hope in an otherwise awful debate. It is regrettable the Opposition has now gone back on its promise to maintain that number and in its platform returns the program to the previous 13750, while reserving 11000 places for the offshore program.

    Boats and People Smuggling is what this hysteria has been all about.

    On paper the parties are all quite muted on boats. The ALP’s platform merely says we need to ensure we meet our safety of life at sea obligations. We all know what Tony Abbott will do …”a new order to the navy to tackle illegal boat arrivals and turn back the boats, when safe to do so”.

    The  Houston Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers however noted that these conditions do not currently exist and more appropriately focused on better regional and national codification of Search and Rescue protocols and the development of operational guidelines. If we truly want to prevent tragedies it is these arrangements and protocols that are much more important than the empty and ultimately unachievable rhetoric of “stop the boats.”

    In his rhetoric Tony Abbott proposes three things to stop the boats. None of them will work. He said he would reopen Nauru. The government has done this  but the boats have kept coming. He said he would re introduce Temporary Protection Visas but we know that when the Howard Government did this the number of asylum seekers increased and a large numbers of women and children were drowned. He keeps telling us that he would turn back the boats but both the Indonesian Government and our own RAN have cast doubt on the possibility of such an approach.

    On people smuggling both the Government and the Opposition are singing from the same songbook both wanting to toughen the penalties for people smuggling.

     

    This brief stroll through the official party polices tells us that there is not much to differentiate the Government and the Opposition and that irrespective of the outcomes of the elections we will have more of the same. The Opposition has the current luxury of very little policy. They are able to get away with the refrain “stop the boats”.  Incumbency is no advantage for the Government. Indeed it appears to be a disadvantage, as it must justify every policy with the dollars spent and the outcomes reached. They are accountable in a way the Opposition is not.

     

    So, in the pursuit of populist policies, the major parties are pursuing approaches that will take us nowhere.

     

    In any event the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia by both air and sea are very small in world terms.  Our “problem” is overwhelmingly a political one. Tony Abbott keeps appealing to our darker angels of fear and Julia Gillard keeps following his agenda.

     

    Where is the voice for decency amongst our political leaders and parties?

     

    John Menadue, former Secretary of Department of Immigration

    Arja Keski-Nummi, former senior refugee policy officer in Department of Immigration

  • It’s the tourism product stupid – not marketing! John Menadue

    The Australian tourism industry tells us often that we need to spend more in marketing and publicity and that the tourists will come. I have always been sceptical; believing that what matters most is the tourism product itself.

    Marketing didn’t work with the Oprah Winfrey circus despite the government tipping in $5 million. On top of that, Australian tourism agents provided accommodation and support for 300 of the fans who accompanied Oprah. The Australian dollar was certainly strong at the time but the net result of Oprah’s visit seems to have been a drop in tourist numbers not only from the US, but also from the UK and Canada where the Oprah circus was televised.

    A myth was also created years ago about Paul Hogan with his ‘shrimp on the barbie’. The growth in tourist numbers at that time came from Japan, not the US. It was achieved by increasing the flights on the Japan-Australia route from 4 to 25 per week over three years. It was not marketing. As CEO of Qantas, I kept Paul Hogan and his ‘ocker’ type of commercials as far as possible from Japan.

    Tourism numbers have certainly grown but a lot of the growth comes from hopping from one market to another – Japan, Korea and now China. But we don’t get enough repeat business. Our tourism product has not been good enough to encourage more tourists to return.

    I was not surprised that in its submission to the Henry Enquiry about Australia and the Asian Century the Australian Tourism Export Council said “one of the great challenges for the Australian tourist industry is its ability to provide a quality product that meets the needs of the Asian travellers.” It is true of all travellers.

    We have had success in encouraging more airline services, but there are still many product improvements that we need to focus on. I would suggest the main ones are as follows.

    • The quality of service at our international airports is poor. For the first time since 2008, The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in its latest report did not rate one of our airports as ‘good’… Sydney airport, our main gateway was the worst in performance. With their quasi monopoly position our airports are providing poor service and reaping large profits. Prices are up and service is down. Parking is a rip-off. One can hardly walk to the departure gates without going through an annoying labyrinth of duty-free stores.
    • Sydney badly needs a second international airport that is curfew free… Commonwealth and state governments and the tourism industry have been avoiding this key issue for 40 years. It must be resolved.
    • Our taxis are amongst the most expensive in the world. But it is not the taxi drivers who are reaping the benefits. Government regulations protect the licence plate-owners.
    • In Sydney we have very good seafood at the Sydney fish market, but the infrastructure and parking is a shambles.
    • Australia will always be a more expensive destination for a holiday because of distance, but tourists would get better value for money if we had more 3-4 star accommodation.
    • With few exceptions, what is the tourism industry doing to improve our inferior customer service in such areas as language, signage and catering? Are we really responding adequately to the new China market and the Indian market that will follow?

    The Oprah Winfrey and Paul Hogan spectaculars divert our attention from the real issue – improving the tourism product.

    John Menadue

     

  • Doctors scared Maggie Thatcher. John Menadue

    Excuse me for dropping names but at a round table discussion with Maggie Thatcher in the late 1980s that I attended in Sydney she was asked “Now that you have fixed the work practices of the miners and the printers in the United Kingdom what are you going to do about the restrictive work practices of the doctors?” She replied. “I will leave that to the last session in my last term as Prime Minister” She never got around to it. And neither have we in Australia.

    The politically partisan Business Council of Australia has been campaigning for increased productivity through labour market reform. But it does not mention the health sector which has the most archaic work practices in the country.  They are a major economic burden and cost.  Based on Productivity Commission figures six years ago I estimated that workforce reform could save $3b per annum. I think that is a very conservative estimate.

    The Health sector is rife with demarcations and restrictive work practices. The waterfront 20 years ago was a model of efficiency compared with the work practices today in the health sector. Health is our largest industry, with about 600,000 employees or 7% of our civilian workforce. About two thirds of health expenditure is labour cost. More efficient workforce practices are essential. The problems arise not because of individual failure, but because of unwillingness to address the structural inefficiencies. Archaic work practices deny career opportunities, particularly for nurses and allied health workers.

    We need role-renewal and the creation of new types of health workers. We need up-skilling, multi-skilling, broad-banding and teamwork. Blue-collar workers have been fair game for workforce reform, but not professionals in health and the law. By comparison with countries like New Zealand, Canada, USA and the UK, we don’t have so much a shortage of doctors but a refusal of doctors to allow other qualified people to share their territory. The specialist colleges protect their territory in the name of quality of care. Only about 10% of normal births in Australia are delivered by midwives and 90% by obstetricians. In the UK midwives deliver 50% and in New Zealand it is 90%. We have only a few hundred nurse practitioners when we should have thousands. Many specialists treat public hospitals like a cottage industry in 19th Century England, coming and going at their convenience.

    Former Health Minister Nicola Roxon has shown that the Medical Benefit Schedule can be a lever to promote workforce changes. She commendably pushed the door slightly open for midwives and nurse practitioners. But the opportunities for much wider reform are enormous, There is a whole range of necessary changes e.g. nurses undertaking greater responsibility for prescribing, diagnosis and triage in hospitals, nurse anaesthetist complementing and  substituting for medically qualified anaesthetists, assistants in almost all specialist disciplines, enrolled nurses taking on some of the tasks presently performed by registered nurses, midwives substituting for obstetricians, practise nurses undertaking some of the work currently performed by GP’s. Pharmacies should provide basic health care as well as being shop keepers dolling out drugs. What about a nurse practioners in many of our 5000 community pharmacies? What about assistant physicians?  The highly skilled and experienced ambulance officers should be fully integrated into health services and expand their role. Why can’t they make home visits as they do in France?

    Many doctors but not all will resist in order protecting their territory. That resistance will be all in the name of patient safety

    There have been numerous enquiries on workforce reform including by the Productivity Commission and COAG but little progress has been made.

    There are enormous dividends in patient care and reduced costs in a thorough overhaul and change in work practices in health in Australia. The opposition will come from powerful providers as Maggie Thatcher knew very well.

    John Menadue

     

  • How about it Gina and Twiggy? John Menadue

    Since 1904 the brightest and best of young Australians have been winning Rhodes Scholarships to study at Oxford. Winners have included prime ministers, political leaders, a governor general, a Nobel Prize winner and high court judges.

    How about funding a substantial foundation to provide for the brightest and best of young Australians to study at the best universities in Asia – Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere.

    Your companies have been very profitable in exporting Australian owned ores to Asia. Your business futures and indeed Australia’s future is tied to Asia. But we lack the skills and understanding for the future in our region.  Rhodes-type scholarships for our region would be an enormous step forward.

    I am not aware of any of our major companies, including our mining companies, who have board members or senior executives who can speak any of the major languages of our region or have much experience of living and working in Asia. Business, like most institutions in Australia, is UK and US centric.

    We need to do much better in Asia. We need to change and our mining and resource company leaders could make a substantial contribution to making it happen.

    Last month a private US Equity firm, the Blackstone Group, made an historic announcement. Stephen Schwarzman from Blackstone announced in Beijing that a group of US companies were establishing a $US300 million scholarship for study in China. Schwarzman said that he hopes the new scholarship will rival the Rhodes scholarship in prestige and influence. The scholarship will pay all expenses for 200 students each year from around the world for a one-year Masters program at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

    Schwarzman has made a $US100 million private donation and is supported by major companies with interests in China – Boeing, Caterpillar, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Credit Suisse and the Bloomberg Foundation. Its advisory board includes Kevin Rudd, Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, Robert Ruben, Henry Paulsen and Yo Yo Ma.

    Surely Gina and Twiggy can persuade other business colleagues of theirs to set up a memorable scholarship for our future in Asia and for our young people.

  • Walter Hamilton. Australia – still a colonial relic in Japan.

    The two greatest calamities to befall the people of Tokyo in modern times were the September 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake and the March 1945 firebombing by American B-29s. In each case, many tens of thousands perished within a matter of hours.

     

    In Sumida ward, a working class area in the east of the city that suffered grievously on both occasions, a large Buddhist-style memorial hall, the Tokyo Irei-do (erected in 1930; rebuilt in 1951), links these two events – as though the whirlwind reaped by Japan in the Second World War was itself an act of God.

     

    Nearby is a museum that preserves relics of the earthquake destruction: stopped clocks, fused glassware, that sort of thing. Entry is free, and the day I visited a sprinkling of Japanese visitors were making their way solemnly past the exhibits.

     

    The museum is dimly lit and badly in need of refurbishment; there are myriad ways the objects could be better displayed and explained. But nothing about the Japanese treatment of history surprises me any more. Whether it is the glib denials of conservative politicians and media commentators or the whitewashed phrases of certain school textbooks – history is one of the most elusive and vulnerable commodities in contemporary Japan.

     

    As I wandered through the museum I came upon a large wall chart illustrating the foreign relief aid provided in the wake of the 1923 disaster. I happened to have recently researched this subject and discovered that the £75,000 ($5.4 million in today’s money) pledged by Australians in private donations ranked them, per capita, among the most forthcoming in the world. Their “spontaneous sympathy and generous aid” was applauded by such as the leader of the Japanese delegation to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, which was meeting in Sydney at the time.

     

    I examined the wall chart with a sense of anticipation. The donated sums were shown as coloured columns rising above the countries named: Mexico, Panama, Peru, Sweden… My eye ran along the line. No Australia. How could it possibly be missing? Then I realized that the Australian contribution must have been absorbed within the sum assigned to “Britain and her possessions.” Alas, I reasoned, the fact Australia had been a sovereign nation for two decades had not penetrated all levels of Japanese officialdom by 1923. Wrong again. At the bottom of the chart was the date it was made: August 1958.

     

    While a small lacuna in the historical scheme of things, what are we to make of the fact that in 2013 Australia remains – in this Japanese memory at least – a “British possession”? It is surely a reminder that Australia continues to be perceived as culturally derivative and, to some extent, not quite authentic or sovereign. We may console ourselves with the thought that this old idea is suitably place among an ill-kempt collection of museum pieces. But, as we strive to confront the challenges of the “Asian century,” it is still a shock and a disappointment to find the stubborn anachronism on display at all.

  • The Miners’ Lament. John Menadue

    It is only a matter of time before the miners start lamenting that they did not seriously negotiate with Kevin Rudd over his Resources Super Profits Tax (RSPT).

    The mining industry has always favoured rent/profit taxes instead of royalties. What the mining industry really disagreed with was the rate of the Resources Super Profits Tax.

    The GST Distribution Review Report of October 2012 said the following.

    “Well designed rent-based taxes are likely to be more economically efficient than royalties, particularly in periods of low commodity prices or high costs. . .Other factors, such as the size, variability and timing of the return received by government, as well as administration and compliance costs, are also important considerations when choosing between alternative resource charging regimes. .. The commonwealth’s design of the Mineral Resources Rent Tax [MRRT] and the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax [PRRT] has created an opportunity for states to seek to increase their revenues at the expense of the commonwealth – an undesirable and unsustainable situation, which needs to be resolved.”

    Consider the ways that the mining industry now faces problems because of its failure to embrace the RSPT.

    • As the world economy and particularly China slows, export prices for Australian minerals are falling. The GST Review report mentioned above notes that since May 2012 “the spot prices for iron ore and … coal have fallen between 15% and 33%.” This trend has continued. There will be an increase in the production volume because of the increased capacity that the miners have installed. Because of this the miners are caught in a double whammy- export prices are falling which which will reduce income, but through an increased volume and value of sales there will be increases in royalties.
    • With the states squeezed for revenue, they will look increasingly to mining royalties to help their budgets. These increases in royalties are well under way. The royalty take of the states has increased five-fold from about $2 billion p.a. in the early 2000s. These royalty increases are likely to continue.
    • A lot of the recent high profits of the mining companies have ended up in dubious investments that are now being written off. Rio Tinto alone has written off $US35 billion since 2007 with more to come. BHP has also written off substantial investments. The high profits of the miners that were not effectively taxed also resulted in wage and cost blow outs that the miners will now have to wind back. Many of the large resource projects are de unionized. Yet that is where the big wages/cost blowouts have occurred. Managers must bear the responsibility. If they had been paying a super profits tax in the boom years, they may have been much more prudent. Some must have thought they were dealing in monopoly money.
    • An important part of the Henry RSPT package was that in return for the super profits tax on miners in boom times, there would be a reduction in the company tax rate to 25%. All businesses, including the miners, have missed out on this and continue to pay at the rate of 30%.

    The miner’s “victory” is likely to prove pyrrhic. At some point, they will have to return to   the table and negotiate tax changes.  Hopefully the federal government will handle it much better next time. All the key players will need to be involved.

    • The commonwealth government, which has a pre-eminent role in revenue raising on behalf of the community.
    • The state governments who depend heavily on mining royalties.
    • The mining industry that supplies the capital and expertise, and
    • The community which is the owner of the minerals and has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the whole community benefits over the long term from the extraction of its resources.

    .

    A recent Deloittes-Access report to the Mining Council of Australia which can be found online pointed out that because of falling commodity prices the mining sector would have done better under Kevin Rudd’s RSPT than under the present bowdlerised tax, the MRRT. The report said

    “Our analysis finds that the first two quarters of 2012-13 were indeed ‘bad times’. A slow-down in China hit commodity prices for six. That’s why the MRRT raised only $126 million over this period. However, had the RSPT been in operation, we estimate it would have generated negative net revenue of the order of $0.9 billion.”

    The miners seem to have already kicked an ‘own goal’. In the period mentioned by Deloittes they would have been better off under Kevin Rudd’s Resources Super Profits Tax.

    If commodity prices keep falling and the ineffient state royalties keep rising the miners may need to start praying for the Resource Super Profits Tax. What a tasty dish!

  • Was the ‘hung parliament’ all that bad? John Menadue

    We have been told many times since the 2010 election that the hung parliament was an abomination, it wouldn’t work and that it wouldn’t last. Denied government after the last election, the Coalition tried to make the government as well as the parliament as unworkable as possible. Paul Keating put it more colourfully “If Tony Abbott doesn’t get his way, he sets about wrecking the joint”.

    But here we are almost three years later with the parliament seeing out its full term.

    It hasn’t such a bad record as the Jeremiahs said. Let’s look first at some achievements.

    The establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Office was a major change. We will hear more about it during the election campaign. It will provide independent advice to the whole parliament, including the opposition, which was never available before on key budget issues. For a long time executive government, supported by a disciplined party system, has dominated the parliament. The information the parliament and we received was largely determined by the government. Rolling back domination of the parliament by the executive will be an important achievement. Hopefully the PBO is just a start in that process.

    There were many legislative achievements and I believe that the carbon tax was one despite the violence of the language and the opposition. Changes to the present carbon tax arrangements will be necessary but the carbon tax remains the best and most efficient way of reducing carbon pollution and global warming leading hopefully to an emissions trading scheme.

    For decades the tobacco lobby has brought great harm to hundreds of millions of people around the world. The plain packaging of cigarettes show that Australia is a world leader in rolling back the damage of tobacco.

    The National Disability Insurance Scheme may rank with Medibank and Medicare as one of the most important social reforms of the last 40 years.

    There was also the Murray Darling Basin Plan, paid personal leave and hopefully, the Gonski reforms even though they will be a paler version than what Gonski intended.

    The NBN has opened the way for a fast, world leading 21st century communications system.

    All the appropriation bills have been passed, which has helped Australia achieve one of the best performing economies in the world. In 2011 and 2012, 199 and 195 Bills were passed by the House of Representatives. Apart from 2009 this was the highest number since 1997 and above the annual average of 184.This was achieved despite the Gillard Government not having a majority in the House or the Senate

    In 2011 23 private member bills were presented, with the same again in 2012.The average number of such bills since Federation is four per year. 30% of all legislation was amended through negotiations between the Government the Independents and the Greens. The Independents, and particularly Tony Windsor and Robb Oakeshott performed with good sense and responsibility despite the vitriol often heaped on them.

    There were clearly some downsides.

    • The House of Representatives was often disorganised and with intimidatory language. Both parties have responsibility for that but the provocation in my view was mainly by the coalition. It was determined to prove that the parliament was unworkable and that the Government was illegitimate.
    • There were three Speakers. Not all performed creditably.
    • The shadow of Craig Thompson hung over the parliament but he is still there!
    • The mining tax was a mess.

    All in all I think the evidence is that the ‘hung parliament’ performed quite well in the circumstances. It has survived almost three years with considerable achievements to its credit.

    The next election is unlikely to produce a hung parliament. But I wouldn’t be disturbed if it did.

     

  • Catholic Health still leaves the impression that it wants to destroy Medicare. Joint Blog: John Menadue and Ian McAuley

    On Mar 14 John Menadue wrote, on this blog site “Does Catholic really want to destroy Medicare”.  Martin Laverty responded on 29 May.

    This is a further response by Ian McAuley and John Menadue. Together we have written many joint articles on health policy. See publish.pearlsandirritations.com.

    Catholic Health’s response through Martin Laverty identifies two problems with our present health care funding – inequities in health delivery and outcomes, and fragmentation of funding and care between Commonwealth and State Governments.

    Catholics Health’s proposed solutions to the two problems  are well off the mark, however, and their response – tailored health plans for the most disadvantaged and adoption of “Medicare Select” does not address the core issue identified in the original article “Does Catholic Health really want destroy Medicare?”  The core issue is avoided in the Catholic Health response. That issue is that if the 50% of Australians who have private health insurance took up the option under Medicare Select to transfer their $30 billion  plus entitlements  per annum in Medicare to their private health insurance it would be goodnight Medicare There is no doubt about it. Even a withdrawal of a lesser amount would still be crippling.

    It is understandable that Catholic Health should be concerned with the most disadvantaged. Martin Laverty must be well aware of what has happened in the USA, where hospitals under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, such as those nominally operated by the Sisters of Mercy, have become big profit-making enterprises with little if any connection to their original mission. http://livingwithmcl.com/BitterPill.pdf

    But turning over Catholic hospitals and other facilities to provide care for the “most disadvantaged” www.theage.com.au/national/catholic-health-plan-for-disadvantaged-20090818-ep4u.html is fraught with the curse of unintended consequences.

    There is an obvious appeal in directing such services to those most in need, but a system  reserved for the poor, or the “indigent” to use the US term, degenerates into a charity ward system. Catholic hospitals would become the hospitals for “losers”, for those without voice, and without the political influence to pressure governments to provide public facilities and public funding for all. The poorly funded US “Medicaid” provides a strong lesson we should heed.

    Whatever our means, we can all retain our dignity when we come through the same door to the same hospital or clinic.  There is merit, also if we pay for those facilities according to our means. Means-tested co-payments are a far more dignified way of achieving equity than provision of separate facilities. Perhaps Catholic Health can take guidance from Pope Benedict’s encyclical letter Caritas in Veritae  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html  which stresses the virtue of civic solidarity, rather than segregation of society along a division between a supposedly self-reliant class and an indigent underclass.

    We have examined Medicare Select each way and every way and are still at a loss to understand Catholic Health’s enthusiasm for it – a proposal which has far more to do with entrenching high-cost financial intermediaries in the health system than with providing care or meaningful choice.  As stressed in  the original article of May14, it involves churning funds once through the tax system and then again through private insurers, offering “choice” when we have hardly any idea what our future health care needs will be.

    There is a strange contradiction in Catholic Health’s argument. It puts the case for a single funder – a strong case in our opinion – and then in an unexplained twist uses it to support a proposal where funding would pass through a plethora of financial intermediaries.

    The problem with Medicare Select is not that it’s “too radical” as suggested by Martin Laverty. Rather, it builds on a method of health-care funding, private insurance, that has demonstrably failed to contain costs and is inequitable. Just look at the disaster in the US.

    In defence of Medicare Select, Catholic Health refers to the Netherlands system, which, it is claimed, is operating successfully. The “success” of the Netherlands system has become an article of faith among those who see every retreat from public funding a success, regardless of the outcome.

    In fact, since the Netherlands compulsory private insurance system was introduced in 2006, health care expenditure has risen sharply – from 9.7 per cent of GDP in 2006 to 12.0 per cent of GDP in 2010 (the Netherlands Government is yet to provide later figures to the OECD). http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/total-expenditure-on-health_20758480-table1.  That’s the second-highest in the OECD – only the USA, where private insurance has had a longer period to wreak its damage, is expenditure higher, at 17.6 per cent of GDP.  To put Netherlands’ rise into perspective, if our health expenditure were to rise by 2.3 per cent of GDP we would be outlaying another $35 billion a year. That would be a high price to pay for expanded overheads and a dubious “choice”.

    Evaluations of Netherlands post “reform” health care arrangements point to anything but success. An evaluation published in the Journal of Health Politics and Law found opposition from both the public and health care providers, a failure by insurers to negotiate with providers (a common problem when providers can play off insurers against one another), and poor profitability among insurers, even though their premiums were rising steeply.  Another evaluation in the same journal found that while the new private insurance model offered more choice of insurers, the former Bismarkian system, to which 60 per cent of Dutch had belonged, offered more choice of providers. Kieke Okma of Leuven Catholic University says of the “reforms”:

    Originally presented as a means to help contain costs, the government now seems to see competition in health care as a goal by itself. While earlier reform documents emphasize goals like improved quality of care, innovation, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction, those elements receive less attention as competition has taken the front seat.

    If Catholic Health is seeking a European model of health care, it may turn its attention to Sweden, a country with strong traditions of Christianity and social solidarity, where the right-leaning Government has now wisely maintained the government as the single health insurer, but has introduced compulsory (and uninsurable) patient co-payments, and has encouraged the private sector to expand into service provision, including operation of private hospitals.

    It’s not hard to see our Catholic hospitals fitting into such a model – a model which would secure their strong role in the community, and allow them to provide their distinctive services – not just to those who can afford private insurance, as is the case now, and not just to the poor, as is their other vision, but to all Australians

    But Martin Laverty proposes something fundamentally different. Does the Stewardship Board of Catholic Health really want to go down the path he proposes?

    John Menadue and Ian McAuley

    References (not available on line)

    Pauline Vaillancourt Rosenau, University of Texas, Houston and Christiaan J. Lako, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands “An Experiment with Regulated Competition and Individual Mandates for Universal Health Care: The New Dutch Health Insurance System” Journal of Health Politics and Law  Vol. 33, No. 6, December 2008

     

    Kieke G. H. Okma, Catholic University, Leuven, and New York University “Learning and Mislearning across Borders: What Can We (Not) Learn from the 2006 Health Care Reform in the Netherlands?” Commentary on Rosenau and Lako Journal of Health Politics and Law Vol. 33, No. 6, December 2008

     

    The Economist (Schumpeter column) “A hospital case: Sweden is leading the world in allowing private companies to run public institutions” The Economist 18 May 2013

  • Does Catholic Health really want to destroy Medicare? A Catholic Health response by CEO Martin Laverty

    On May 14, I wrote a blog ‘Does Catholic Health really want to destroy Medicare? Martin Laverty, CEO of Catholic Health, responds as a guest blogger.

    Catholic Health Australia (CHA) commissioned the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) in 2010 to provide a contemporary assessment of the link between a person’s health and their personal wealth.  NATSEM found 65 per cent of Australians in the lowest income group lived with a long-term health problem, compared with just 15 per cent of those in the highest income group.

    In 2012, CHA again tasked NATSEM to calculate the cost of this divide in health outcomes between the wealthy and wealth-less. NATSEM found 60,000 hospital separations costing $2.3 billion, 5.5 million Medicare transactions costing $273 million, and 5.3 million Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme scripts costing $184.5 million annually could be avoided if Australians had more equal health outcomes.

    These NATSEM cost calculations are assumption-based models. The reality would likely stray from the projections of health economists. The point of the exercise was to provoke a debate about the need for action on health inequity, not just for reasons of social justice, but also to promote efficient use of constrained health funding.  The findings of the exercise also raised some doubts about Medicare’s current ability to best meet the health care needs of the poorest within our community.

    CHA’s interest in health equity and more efficient use of health funding is rooted in the Church’s reason for being in health care. The Church is in health care to provide healing to the sick but with a specific focus to address the needs of the poor, and to advocate for health system improvement to that end.

    When the Bennett report of the Kevin Rudd-established Health and Hospitals Reform Commission was released, it floated the idea of Medicare Select. The report suggested health care plans could be developed to better coordinate interaction of individuals with health care services. The term the commission’s report used for this proposal was Medicare Select.

    In pursuit of better access to health care services for the most socioeconomically disadvantaged within our community, CHA flagged interest in being involved in designing specific health care plans built around the needs of the most underserved Australians. We suggested if Government proceeded in this direction, we’d consider ourselves setting up a health care plan designed specifically for low-income Australians to get better access to health care than Medicare currently affords.

    With the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report now fading in people’s memories, CHA has taken regular opportunities over recent years to re-float this idea of tailored health care plans for the most disadvantaged Australians. We’ve done so because we see low-income Australians often missing out on health and dental care access, and living with the adverse consequences that entails.

    The most recent re-floating of our interest in Medicare Select came when CHA appeared before the Senate Inquiry into the $1.6 billion cut in Commonwealth funding to public hospitals.

    In pointing out to the Inquiry what the cuts would mean for the 2,700 public beds operated by Catholic hospitals nationally, CHA reminded the Senate committee of the need for further health reform. CHA promoted the role of a single funder of health services to end cost-shifting between governments. CHA also pointed to the potential for Medicare Select health care plans to again be considered for the new discipline they would bring to health expenditure management.

    In response to the promotion of further policy reform, CHA copped a bit of flak (including Does Catholic Health really want to destroy Medicare?). The flak was not unexpected, as many have lined up to reject Medicare Select as too radical a departure, without fully exploring its good and bad points.

    Rather than having multiple layers of government competing to offload responsibility for funding a patient’s treatment to another tier of government, Australia would benefit from adopting a single funding system.

    In our 2013 Health Policy Blueprint , CHA proposed two possible mechanisms to achieve single national responsibility for funding of health services.

    The first option is regional health authorities, publicly funded on a population basis and responsible for purchasing care for people in their regions and for reducing health inequalities. The second possible option would be to further develop Medicare Select, which has many similarities to the system currently operating successfully in the Netherlands.

    Both models were briefly considered in the Bennett report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. They’ve since disappeared from public discourse.

    While Australia continues to have unacceptable gaps in health outcomes and with the blame-game between Commonwealth and state governments on hospital funding raging once more, the next steps of health reform need to find the way back into national debate. Health policy experts should in fact be welcoming debate about what comes next in health reform, rather than seeking to shut it down.

    Martin Laverty is the CEO of Catholic Health Australia. This blog is his response to “Does Catholic Health really want to destroy Medicare?” published on May 14.

  • Asylum seekers and refugees – political slogans or humanitarian policies? John Menadue

    Australia has a proud record in accepting 750,000 refugees since WWII. But the mood has now turned sour. It is so easy for unscrupulous politicians to exploit fear of the foreigner. It is paying off politically. We no longer ‘welcome the stranger’.

    The continually repeated slogan ‘stop the boats’ is with us almost every day. One line slogans don’t make up a coherent policy. We need to look at the facts behind the empty slogans.

    •  In 2012 the US had 82 000 asylum claimants. In Germany it was 64 000, in France 55 000, in Sweden 44 000 and in Australia 16 000. In the same year refugee numbers in major receiving countries were Pakistan 1.7m, Iran 890 000, Syria 755 000, Germany 577 000 and Kenya 566 000. In Australia we had 23 000. refugees.
    • Asylum and refugee flows are driven by “push” factors, persecution and war in such countries as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Syria. Deterrent policies in receiving countries have little effect.
    • Over the last 10 years more than 70% of asylum seekers to Australia have come by air and not by boat. What is important is the total numbers of asylum seekers not their mode of arrival. But all the public debate is about boat arrivals. Perhaps it can appear scarier! We hardly lock up any asylum seekers that come by air. They live in the community and can usually work. They have a success rate in refugee determination of just over 40%.
    • Boat arrivals are locked up and subsequently, and very slowly, released into the community. They have a refugee determination success rate of over 90%, but the government will not allow them to work when released into the community. The Coalition will deny review rights in refugee determination to boat arrivals but not air arrivals.
    • The Coalition has demonised boat arrivals as “illegals”, when they are not, they bring disease, and they carry “wads of cash” and introduce crime into Australia.
    • The Coalition has ‘dog whistled’ that most refugees are Muslims. In fact, in 2010 and 2011 26% and 42% respectively were Muslim. In those same years Christians represented 51% and 34% of refugees accepted into Australia. The number of Christians fleeing the middle-east, particularly from Syria and Egypt, is likely to increase in the years ahead because of persecution and war.  The Middle East, the birth place of Christ is squeezing out its Christian populations.
    • The Coalition has said that it will re-introduce its Pacific Solution.  That ‘solution’ has three elements.
      • Re-open Nauru despite warnings by the Department of Immigration that Nauru would not work again.as asylum seekers had learned very clearly from the Howard years that even if they were sent to Nauru they would, after a delay, finish up in Australia or New Zealand. 97 % of persons on Nauru who were found to be refugees came to Australia and New Zealand. The Government foolishly adopted this Coalition policy.   Since August last year when the Nauru/Manus option and the no-advantage test were adopted, the number of boat arrivals to Australia has increased.  Nauru/Manus is not only cruel. It is not working to deter boat arrivals…
      • The re-introduction of Temporary Protection Visas. The evidence from the Howard years is that despite the introduction of TPVs, boat arrivals increased in the years following their introduction. More people got on boats after TPV’s were introduced with over 6000 coming in 2001 All but 3% of TPV holders obtained refugee status. Further, TPVs which denied family reunion resulted in more women and children coming by boat. That is why when SIEVX was lost at sea in 2001, 82% of the 353 people who drowned were women and children.
      • Turn-backs at sea. Both the Indonesian Government and the Royal Australian Navy have warned against this. In 1979 when a similar policy was proposed, Malcolm Fraser rejected it because it would make Australia a ‘pariah’ in our region. Threatened with turn-backs desperate people are likely to scuttle their vessels. It is also dangerous for RAN personnel. Furthermore, returning boat-people to Indonesia would be returning them to a country which has not signed the Refugee Convention.
      • The Coalition claims that its ‘Pacific Solution’ will work. The evidence is clear that it won’t. It will also be dangerous and cruel.

    What should be the key elements of a humanitarian policy?

    • Increase the humanitarian intake to 20,000 p.a. which the Government has announced. The Coalition has declined to do so.
    • Abolish mandatory detention except for processing purposes and to check safety and health. No country in the world has mandatory detention the way we do. It is not working and is ridiculously expensive. Next year the total cost of detention related services and off shore asylum seeker management will be $2.97b. Both the Government and the Coalition agree on mandatory detention. Fortunately the Government is cautiously releasing detained persons into the community on bridging visas whilst their refugee claims are being assessed. The Government seems ashamed even when its policies are on the right track because of fear of a populist backlash.
    • Minimising Nauru/Manus by urgently working with Indonesia and UNHCR to establish a UNHCR processing centre in Indonesia.
    • Re-negotiate with the Malaysian Government in cooperation with the UNHCR for the temporary protection and processing of asylum seekers in Malaysia. UNHCR will cooperate with us on Malaysia but not on Nauru/Manus. The Greens have cooperated with the Coalition to defeat legislation that would allow Malaysia to be an important building block in a regional framework. They continually trash Malaysia which is doing more to assist asylum seekers and refugees than we are
    • A regional framework is what we need most of all and Indonesia and Malaysia are the key countries.
    • Negotiate Orderly Departure Arrangements with Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Pakistan to process asylum seekers in their own countries, many of whom have family in Australia. This provides an alternative to risking their lives at sea. We negotiated an ODA with Vietnam in 1983. Over 100,000 Vietnamese came to Australia under this arrangement. They did not have to risk their lives at sea.

    The government has failed in many respects.

    • It has failed to outline and promote a principled and humanitarian case for asylum seekers and refugees. Unfortunately the Government listens to focus groups rather than its own conscience. Malcolm Fraser showed that it could be done with the 150 000 Indo Chinese refugees who were settled in Australia. Another 100 000 came in family reunion. To be fair Malcolm Fraser was lucky to have Gough Whitlam and Bill Hayden as Opposition leaders who both broadly supported the refugee programmes. Julia Gillard is not so lucky. She has Tony Abbott grabbing every opportunity to exploit xenophobia. He is following John Howard who started us down this slippery slope- Tampa, children overboard and Nauru.
    • It succumbed to the nonsense from the opposition in re-opening Nauru/Manus.
    • It has been slow to introduce ODAs and cooperate with Indonesia to establish a processing centre in that country.
    • It has excised the Australian mainland from our migration zone which surely must be a gross breach of the spirit if not the letter of the Refugee Convention. This action not only diminishes Australia physically, it diminishes us morally.
    • Refusing to let asylum seekers on bridging visas in the community the right to work. How can a Labor Government which had at its core the right to work do this to vulnerable people! They will be forced into the grey economy and even crime.

    There is a lot that governments can do to improve the plight of asylum seekers and refugee’s situation but we also need to be mature enough as a country to accept that desperate people will not always play by our rules. They will cut corners.  It will always be messy. We need to accept that good policies and our best intentions will not always succeed in stopping irregular flows. We need to grow up.

    Generosity does pay off. We have settled 750,000 refugees since WWII. It has not been trouble-free but we can look back with pride what these refugees and particularly their children have contributed to Australia. We acted generously in receiving them and it paid off for us. Immigration, refugees and multiculturalism have been Australia’s great success story. Let’s stop spoiling it as we are doing today.

    “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land you shall not mistreat him  … for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt” Leviticus 19, 33/34

    This not just a moral injunction. It also in our national interest.

  • Myth-busting. John Menadue

    One after another, the opinion polls tell us that the Liberal and National parties are much better economic managers than the ALP. This is despite Australia having one of the best performing economies in the world by almost any measure; debt, economic growth, employment and inflation.

    Unfortunately for the Liberal and National parties and John Howard and Peter Costello in particular their records as economic managers have recently been taking a beating.

    First the International Monetary Fund.

    In January this year, as reported by the SMH on January 11, 2013, the IMF

    “identifies only two periods of Australian ‘fiscal profligacy’ in recent years, both during Mr Howard’s term in office – in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007. The stimulus spending of the Rudd Government during the financial crisis does not rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy. … The key finding is that Australia has few examples of economic recklessness compared to other developed states like Canada and Japan.”

    Joe Hockey attempted to rebut the IMF report. Perhaps he misunderstood what a ‘structural deficit’ is.

    Second, the Parliamentary Budget Office.

    In its just-released ‘Estimates of the structural budget balance of the Australian Government 2001-02 to 2016-17’ it outlines first what a structural budget balance is. It says

    “The structural budget balance (SBB) is a partial measure of the sustainability of the budget. It shows the underlying position of the budget after adjusting the actual budget balance for the impacts of major cyclical and temporary factors. The SBB reflects the impacts of underlying budgetary trends and discretionary fiscal policy decisions.”

    It then goes on to crunch the Howard Government’s economic performance. It says

    “Over two thirds of the five percentage points of GDP decline in structural receipts over the period 2002-03 to 2011-12 was due to the cumulative effect of the successive personal income tax cuts granted between 2003-04 and 2008-09. A further quarter was the result of a decline in excise and customs duties as a proportion of GDP. Significant factors driving this trend included the abolition of petroleum fuels excise indexation in the 2001-02 budget and the decline in the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco over the period.”

    Treasury reported very much the same on the structural deficit but Joe Hockey suggests that Treasury has become political and it cannot be relied upon for the figures it presents. So I have highlighted independent reports by the International Monetary Fund and the Parliamentary Budget Office.

    As Laura Tingle put it in the AFR on 23 May this year

    “All up, these reviews put the blame for much of the budget deterioration on the Coalition in government and credit at least some of the forecast improvement on savings Labor has implemented in office. As such, they don’t sit comfortably with many of the critiques of Labor’s budget management, nor does the Parliamentary Budget Office endorse the view that Australia’s debt position is of major concern.”

    Despite the evidence, the partisan business commentators and the opinion polls continue to tell us that the coalition is a better economic manager. The evidence is just not there to back up that view.

    The myths continue.

     

  • Japan: Renaissance? Guest blogger: Walter Hamilton

    After two decades mired in largely self-made problems (post-bubble depreciation; political instability; aging population; nuclear meltdown), Japan is suddenly feeling much better about itself. Anyone observing events could not fail to register the shift in the national mood. Are we witnessing a Japanese renaissance, a return to economic expansion? Will economic recovery ease the way for long-debated constitutional and political reforms?

    Japanese have a name for it: Abenomics. It hardly matters that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is neither an economist nor the principal driver of the stimulus plan (that role is performed by the new central bank governor, Haruhiko Kuroda), what makes the slogan important is that it trumpets one identifiable hero to a public that has long craved a strong leader, someone with a capacity to exercise power.

    I don’t say this on the basis of shopworn historical references to shoguns and samurai; I say so because opinion polls over the past several years have made it abundantly clear. The ousted Noda Cabinet, and those that went before it, did not lose public confidence because of unpopular policies. Japanese voters ditched them because they perceived they were unable to exercise power. Abe himself succumbed in 2007; an ineffectual leader, he stepped down as Prime Minister the first time around due to “illness”. In a stunning comeback, he appears energized, decisive and focused.

    Previous attempts at stimulating the Japanese economy relied on public works spending and near-zero interest rates. Abenomics involves a more dramatic form of monetary stimulus aimed directly at currency depreciation and igniting inflation: two conditions Japanese governments have usually shunned as dangerous, even unpatriotic. Since Abe’s patriotic credentials are not in doubt, what is going on?

    The central bank has undertaken to buy back huge volumes of government bonds, creating what appears to be another layer of debt for a country already burdened with massive public sector liabilities. But since Japan’s public debt is covered largely from domestic private savings, the strategy is not as reckless or contrived as it may sound – as long as confidence in recovery can be maintained. Abe and his team want to prod and coax the Japanese public to save less and spend more, and people tend to bring forward spending if they think prices will rise and/or they feel more assured about the future. This calculation lies at the heart of the government’s inflationary monetary policy.

    The other part of the calculation is currency depreciation. If a country starts printing money at an unprecedented rate, as Japan is doing, its currency can be expected to fall. The yen has dropped from 80-something to the US dollar to about 100 yen to the dollar. That trend is supporting the third pillar of Abenomics. A cheaper yen immediately benefits Japanese exporters, driving up profits and share prices. The Tokyo stock index has rebounded from 9,000-something to 15,000 in a short time.

    These circuit-breaking developments have made one class of Japanese much better off (on paper at least); and, for the rest, people’s hopes are raised about a flow through to higher wages. For someone earning $9 or $10 an hour, as do many part-time workers in the retail sector, the prospect is desperately appealing. The mainstream media, so recklessly negative about the former centre-left Noda government, finds nothing but virtue now in Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party. The Abe “magic” seems to be dazzling even practiced eyes. An Upper House election, due in July, may deliver a triumphant LDP the numbers necessary to push through constitutional change.

    Conservatives have long wanted to be rid of the “American” constitution presented to Japan during the postwar occupation, which renounces the right to wage war as a means of settling disputes. They intend to start by making it possible to rewrite the basic law through a simple parliamentary majority of votes, instead of the current two-thirds. Since it can be argued the constitution has formed the most effective political “opposition” to one-party rule in Japan for the past 66 years, such a move would severely weaken checks and balances within the system.

    Standing up to China over a long-running territorial dispute is the most conspicuous foreign policy manifestation of the Abe doctrine. Another important strand is Tokyo’s willingness to accept a significant deterioration in relations with South Korea for the sake of pandering to Japan’s right-wing nationalist fringe. Abe has set a low standard for public discussion of historical facts, effectively licensing other politicians and commentators to utter increasingly outrageous remarks on “comfort women” and other inflammatory issues.

    These are risky self-indulgences for a leader whose daring economic strategy depends upon building and maintaining confidence in markets, among consumers and with strategic partners. Abenomics is still only a slogan and a starting point. Unless and until it delivers to the real economy higher wages, improved competitiveness and a genuine sense of security for ordinary Japanese, nothing is assured. A grab for power by weakening the constitution and indulging in historical revisionism can still undo it all.

    Walter Hamilton spent 11 years as the ABC’s Tokyo Correspondent. He is just back from a six-week visit to Japan.

     

     

     

     

     

  • What Rupert Murdoch told the US Ambassador about the pending Whitlam dismissal – 12 months beforehand in November 1974? Yes 1974. John Menadue

    More pieces are falling into place. Last year we learned from Jenny Hockey’s second biographic volume of Gough Whitlam that a serving High Court Judge Anthony Mason from August 1975 improperly briefed Sir John Kerr about the dismissal of the Whitlam Government.  He even drafted a dismissal letter, although it was never used. The legal, political and business establishment was closing ranks to get rid of the elected Whitlam Government.

    Now Philip Dorling has written what Rupert Murdoch told the US Ambassador Marshal Green and other Embassy officers over lunch at the US Embassy in Canberra on 27 November 1974. According to the cable from the US embassy, Murdoch told the Ambassador

    ‘Australian elections are likely to take place in about one year, sparked by refusal of appropriations in the Senate’. (Published in the National Times, May 20, 2013)  http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/whitlam-radical-fraser-arrogant-hawke-moderate-secret-cables-reveal-murdoch-insights-20130520-2jvtl.html

    Note that Murdoch’s prediction was made 12 months before the dismissal, not one month or even one week before hand.

    This is the first time I have seen anything about the Embassy lunch. The record of these discussions was released by the US State Department on 20 June 2005. But the search engines had not found this record because Murdoch was misspelt with a ‘k’ rather than an ‘h’.

    Murdoch got it right about the dismissal, although he expected that Bill Snedden would be the likely Liberal leader in twelve months. If not he suggested to the Ambassador it could possibly be Phillip Lynch. Murdoch discounted the possibility of Malcolm Fraser becoming leader.

    But he got one thing absolutely correct. The Whitlam Government would be dismissed in twelve months’ time through refusal of Supply in the Senate. And so it happened.

    How could Murdoch be so well informed a year in advance? I cannot prove it but I think I know the answer.  Sir John Kerr had made it clear that dismissal was one of the options at his disposal.

    In my autobiography ‘Things you learn along the way’ (Go to: www.publish.pearlsandirritations.com, then click on book.) I recounted a meeting between Rupert Murdoch and Sir John Kerr and others at Cavan, Murdoch’s country residence outside Yass in late 1974. On page 155 I wrote

    ‘George Munster in his book about Rupert Murdoch, ‘Paper Prince’ recalls a visit which Kerr made to Murdoch’s home at Cavan as far back as late 1974. … The account which George Munster gives of that meeting in Cavan in late 1974 is very similar to an account which Ian Fitchett, who was also present, gave to me. Fitchett was political correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald and doyen of the Canberra Press Gallery. … [Kerr] had been invited by Murdoch to drop in at Cavan for a drink and perhaps a meal. Murdoch was holding one of his soirees with his editors from around the world. Kerr, over drinks, embarked on a very detailed and elaborate outline of the various possibilities that the Whitlam Government might face in the future if the Senate blocked or deferred supply. According to Fitchett and Munster, all the options were laid out in front of Murdoch. There was probably no-one in Australia better briefed than Murdoch as to how the Governor General might act.  He was very privileged; the Governor General never gave his Prime Minister such a briefing. Kerr was very indiscreet. That was a briefing that Murdoch tucked away for future reference, a year later. Just as importantly, Murdoch, who was always a great judge of people’s strengths and weaknesses knew how and when to apply pressure to Kerr.’

    Note the critical dates. The briefing of Murdoch by the Governor General was “late 1974”.The briefing of the US Ambassador was on November 27 1974.

    Further Murdoch told me over lunch in Canberra on 7 November 1975 what I now surmise he had learnt from the Governor General twelve months before and told within a few days to the US Ambassador about the imminent election. He told me on November 7 1975 that

    ‘He was quite certain there would be an election before Christmas and an election specifically for the House of Representatives.  I suggested to him that a half Senate election was the only possibility. He rejected this view and said that he believed that there would certainly be a House of Representatives election before Christmas and that he would be staying in Australia until this occurred. He was very confident of the outcome of any election and even mentioned to me the position to which I might be appointed in the event of the Liberal victory – Ambassador to Japan.’ See my autobiography p157

    Murdoch denies my account of the lunch and our discussion. I stand by it. He was accurate about both the election and my appointment to Japan in 1977.

    Rupert Murdoch has a pattern of memory loss in relation to the Whitlam Government. He denied that he asked me to negotiate with Whitlam after the 1972 election for his appointment as Australian High Commissioner to London. (See also my autobiography p113) I stand by my account of Murdoch’s request for the London appointment.

    Murdoch was clearly a major player in the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. His newspapers could not have been more partisan in the lead-up to the dismissal and the subsequent election. Journalists at The Australian went on strike over the bias of the Murdoch campaign. Nothing much has changed.

    Murdoch was determined to get rid of the Whitlam Government. The briefing he got from John Kerr in late 1974 was an enormous benefit. Confident from the Kerr briefing he boldly predicted to the US Ambassador the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in twelve months’ time. He told me very much the same story again in Canberra a few days before the dismissal.

    How else could he have known so accurately what was in prospect from the Governor General?

    Murdoch loves the exercise of power. He is addicted to it whether in business or politics.

     

     

  • We are a more generous people than the politicians think we are. John Menadue

    It is easy to be disappointed and depressed with the whole toxic debate about asylum seekers. The government is doing some things well, such as releasing more people from detention, but it is failing to provide political and moral leadership in this sensitive area. Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison do their best to demonise asylum seekers and create fear.

    But many people don’t want to be part of this.

    Last Friday night, with 500 other people, I attended a fund-raising and fancy-dress dinner for the Asylum Seekers Centre in Sydney. My wife and I dressed as best we could – French clowns. Perhaps that would not be hard you might say.

    What struck me most of all were the hundreds of young people who attended, many volunteers at the centre and all supporters of the cause to help asylum seekers and refugees. Seeing all the young people gives us ‘oldies’ encouragement.

    We had a moving and inspiring story from ‘Antoinette’, an asylum seeker who came from Uganda several years ago, having lost many of her family.  In Sydney she was homeless and friendless. The ASC ‘took me in’ she said. With that support she was slowly and steadily able to find her own feet. So many Australians helped her, some in small ways and others in big ways. She is now in employment, has a boyfriend and has become an Australian citizen. The speech was not a ‘tear jerker’ but a moving story of vulnerability and resilience. We should never underestimate a survivor.

    HG Nelson was the MC giving his time and talents freely for the 11th function in a row.

    I was at a table arranged by St Mary Magdalene Parish in Rose Bay. This parish has raised almost $100,000 for the Centre over the last few months.

    There is good news around despite the public debate.

    One issue stands out in my mind in the asylum seeker debate. The government is wisely releasing more asylum seekers from Immigration Detention Centres into the community. But very few of them are allowed to work. How can a Labor Government justify this denial of the dignity of people by insisting that they cannot work! The argument which the Minister for Immigration gives is that if they were allowed to work it would encourage more asylum seekers to come. There is no evidence in research anywhere in the world to support such a claim.

    Denying anyone a right to work, particularly for able bodied people in a desperate situation will inevitably result in some breaking the law and finding work. Can you then imagine what Scott Morrison and Eric Abetz will say?

    Confronted by a problem the Australian community is more generous and understanding than our politicians give us credit for. If only we had principled leadership we could do even better.

    John Menadue

  • Truth, Trust and the Media. John Menadue

    Our mainstream media is in a downward spiral. Its decline is driven by new technology and a growing sense by readers that we can no longer trust the media.  We have a lot of spin, but very little well-informed debate. Ken Henry has commented that he can’t recall a time when public debate was so bad.

     An Australian election study 1997/2010 rated trust in the following institutions as follows:

    • Armed forces – 91%
    • Universities – 80%
    • Police – 79%
    • Banks and financial institutions – 56%
    • Major Australian companies – 54%
    • Political system – 53%
    • Public service – 41%
    • Trade unions – 29%
    • Television and newspapers – 17%.

    The survey found that the least trusted in the media was talk-back radio.

    In June last year, Essential Research reported as follows.

    “The ABC retains its undisputed title as Australia’s most trusted media. Trust in ABC television news and current affairs grew two points to 74%, its fourth straight rise, and ABC radio lifted two points to 69%. … The Age (76%) and the SMH (69%) are the most trusted of the major newspapers. … The Australian suffered a 9% fall in trust, down to 60%. The Herald Sun in Melbourne fell to 51% as did the Courier Mail in Brisbane which fell 14 points to 51%. The Daily Telegraph is the least trusted at 59%.”

    Nothing surprising there.

    In March this year, Essential Research found that only 30% of Australians trust TV news and newspapers. The High Court, Reserve Bank and the ABC were trusted by over 60% of respondents.

    Reading our media this week about the budget, one could not possibly avoid the conclusion that we are on the verge of economic and financial collapse. Yet we have one of the best performing economies in the world – solid growth, low inflation, low unemployment, low debt and a AAA credit rating by the three world rating agencies. John Howard commented only a few days later that “our resilient economy is in better shape than most… We are still fortunate with our unemployment rate…and that the Australian economy was better than Japan, US and Europe”.

    The Australian Financial Review has become a barracker for business rather than a reporter about business.  The headlines on two successive days this week were ‘End Budget chaos – business’ and then ‘Labor, business at war’.

    Supported by business commentators, the BCA has been conducting an incoherent and partisan campaign against the government. If it tried it could not do more to damage business and consumer confidence. But perhaps as a proxy for Tony Abbott, damaged confidence is just inevitable collateral damage.

    Crikey reported Paddy Manning a business reporter on the AFR as saying that there was a “contract” between the AFR and business for “high level access in return for soft coverage” He was sacked for saying what many people  would regard as  obvious.

    The Minerals Council with the aid of business journalists helped corrupt the debate about a profit tax on large mining companies. How ironic it is that the Minerals Council with its obsession with the Labor Government didn’t keep its eye on the inefficient state mining royalties that have increased five-fold since the early 2000s. A real own-goal kicked by the Mining Council.

    The media and particularly News Corporation which lost its moral bearings long ago have been campaigning to get rid of the ‘hung parliament’. But the parliament will see out its three years and with a considerable legislative program to its credit.

    The media and again, particularly News Corporation, has been part of a misinformation campaign about asylum seekers. Obsessed with boats and pictures of boats, the media has continually misinformed us about the small number of asylum seekers coming to Australia compared with other countries and that more asylum seekers come to Australia by air than by boat. The Australian Press Council drew attention to the misinformation by News Corporation publications, over use of the term ‘illegals’ and its inflammatory language.

    The media, including notably the ABC facilitated the dog whistling over the miniscule problem of boat arrivals. The dog whistling in the run up to the next election will be about deficits and debt despite Australia having one of the lowest net debt ratios in the world. Where will the media be in ensuring an informed debate? I will not be holding my breath.

    With its whimpish attempts to curtail abuse of power by the media, the government was subject to an extraordinary tirade of abuse dressed up by the media as the public interest. Minister Conroy was depicted in News publications as a new Stalin or Pol Pot.

    Filled with revenge that he was not made Prime Minister after the 2010 election, Tony Abbott decided that if he couldn’t get his own way he would do his best to wreck everything. The media let him do it and in the case of News Corporation, encouraged him to do so.

    There is public concern about truth in public life as surveys show. The delicate fabric of our society depends on trust and telling the truth. Our society will break down without a general acceptance of what is honest, fair and reasonable.

    Truth is a bedrock issue and the media is not helping us to know the truth or is particularly trustworthy itself. No-one should be surprised that so many readers, viewers and listeners are losing trust in the “old media’ and going online.

    Truth is being eclipsed in public life. The media is a major contributor to that eclipse. It is getting quite dark.

  • Malaysian Elections Hangover.-How 51% of votes secured only 40 % of the seats. Guest blogger El Tee Kay

    As a guest blogger on May 2 I described the intense interest in the General Election to be held on May 5. This was shown on election day with a voter turnout of more than 84%, the highest in Malaysian history.

    The Opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) won the popular vote but lost the elections. It garnered 5,623,984 or 50.88% of the popular votes but won only 89 Parliamentary seats (40%) compared with the ruling Barisan Nasional’s (BN) 5,237,699 votes or 47.38% with 133 seats. The BN lost 7 seats.

    The component parties of BN, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), and the Gerakan were almost annihilated and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) with only 4 seats barely survived the mauling. The United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) the strongest coalition partner however did well in the rural areas.

    The hard fought elections had some undesirable aspects. Rumors were rife that “ballot box stuffing” by foreigners legitimized as “Malaysian citizens “was used in marginal constituencies to influence the result. Opposition supporters were encouraged by bloggers to alert the authorities, but some of them behaved like vigilantes.

    Despite BN’s fear mongering tactics of talking up potential racial violence and religious tensions, the bribing of voters with cash handouts and promises of more to come after the elections, urban voters voted for the PR in large numbers. The Prime Minister’s election pledge of “you help me and I will help you” only amused urban voters.

    The BN, particularly the PM and former PM Tun Mahathir Mohammed, bitterly criticized the Chinese voters for being racial in abandoning the party in urban constituencies. It became clear how out of touch BN was with the demographic changes and the powerful socio-economic and political forces at work in urban areas. Their political analysts must know that the Chinese electorate could not have pulled off the coup in urban areas without the strong support of the Malays. But stoking racial and religious sensitivities have always been exploited successfully by BN.  They must also know that Chinese candidates in BN lost to opposition Chinese PR candidates. Clearly this was a party preference and not an ethnic one. It is to the credit of the Opposition that they did not use the race card to criticize the BN for pushing for Malay dominance in rural areas.

    What saved the BN were the rural Malays voters in the 317 Felda settlement land schemes spread throughout the country. 90% of these 600,000 settler voters, beneficiaries of huge payouts during the run up to the elections, are diehard UMNO supporters. The Pan Islamic Party (PAS) a component party of PR was hoping to improve on its 2008 performance in these areas but was not able to make inroads into the 54 parliamentary and 92 state seats in the Felda dominated areas. Also, BN maintained its stranglehold in the mainly rural areas of East Malaysia. The opposition DAP made impressive gains in all urban areas in the country.

    The PR claims fraud in at least 30 seats. This is significant as it needs only 23 seats to unseat BN. Allegations have been made of vote buying, misuse of postal ballots, of legitimizing foreigners to vote and other irregularities. The Election Commission (EC) has said that appeals to the courts can be made within 21 days of the election results being gazetted. No one is holding their breath in expecting a fair outcome to any of the appeals. The credibility and track record of the investigating agencies have never inspired confidence in Malaysians.

    Bersih, the NGO for clean and fair elections is setting up a Peoples Tribunal to probe election fraud and irregularities. Its findings may have little impact on the outcome of the election but it will certainly have long term national and international implications.

    El Tee Kay from Kuala Lumpur

     

  • Does Catholic Health really want to destroy Medicare? John Menadue

    In his submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration on February 15, 2013 Martin Laverty, the CEO of Catholic Health wrote.” Another option (to achieve a single funder in health) would be to embrace the Medicare Select proposal put forward by the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission. Medicare Select would enable Australians to choose a health and hospital plan best suited to their needs. They would be able to be insured by Medicare or instead opt out to be insured by a private health insurer or one operated by a non-profit organization…”

    Medicare Select envisages all Australians being enrolled in a Government funded plan, but with the opportunity of opting out and moving to a selected plan to which Government funding would be directed on a capitation basis, and which could involve extra services funded by private insurers.  The ‘plans’ would be managed by private corporations or not-for-profits.

    In effect this would be a 100% PHI rebate – not 30%, not 40% that we have at present, but 100%.

    Forty seven percent of Australians have private hospital insurance coverage and 55% have private general treatment coverage.If those who presently hold private health insurance(about 50%) opted for Medicare Select, over $30b presently spent by governments would be channelled through the high cost financial intermediaries, the Private Health Insurance funds. It would be goodnight Medicare.  Make no mistake about it, Medicare Select is designed to cripple and displace Medicare and give a widened role for PHI.

    A colleague of mine Ian McAuley has highlighted major problems with Medicare Select.  He notes that it appears first to have been designed to secure a privileged place for private insurers who would impose a bureaucratic overhead on healthcare without adding value.’ Second, it is based on a misunderstanding of “choice” for we cannot know what our future healthcare needs will be. Third it is likely to result in cost escalation to the benefit of providers; this is an inevitable outcome of the intrinsic “moral hazard” associated with all insurance. And fourth, it makes it easy for a Government to redefine Medicare, the Government program, as a bare bones program for the poor or indigent, thus establishing a two-tier health system”

    Medicare Select is not an “option” being floated only by Martin Laverty .It is being insinuated as a firm proposal of the NHHRC which was chaired by a senior executive of BUPA. The PHI lobby is continually extolling the virtues of Medicare Select which would greatly expand their business and cripple Medicare. It would take us further down the path of private health insurance which is destroying equitable and efficient health care in the US. Warren Buffett has described private health insurance as the “tape worm “in the US health system.

    But that seems to be the path that Martin Laverty wants to take Catholic Health and destroy Medicare in the process

    Is that what the Stewardship Board of Catholic Health want in “advancing the healing ministry of Christ” as set out in its Charter? , This not an academic issue particularly as Catholic Health is the largest provider of non-government health care in the country with 19 000 aged care beds, 9,500 beds in 75 health care facilities, 8 dedicated hospitals and palliatives care facilities and 35,000 employees

    The Medicare Select option is a long way from the “option for the poor” which the Catholic Church espouses. It is an option to advantage the rich.

    (See a speech I gave on this and particularly the damage PHI is doing and will continue to do. ..:” Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of Medicare”… October 2009 on my web) publish.pearlsandirritations.com/health/html_files/VHA.html

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Euthanasia – A denial of human dignity. Guest blogger Dr Joanne Wright

    It is concerning that The Greens and organisations such as GetUp have seen fit to re-ignite the debate about the legalisation of euthanasia.  I am a doctor.  I worked in palliative care and now work with the elderly.  I have seen first hand the complexity of the issues at the end of life. In reality, most people who say they agree with euthanasia have little understanding of the issue at all.  The term as it is intended by pro-euthanasia activists refers to the intentional termination of life by another at the request of the person who wishes to die, not the withdrawal of futile care or “life support”.

    It is ironic that those with a pro-euthanasia stance refer to euthanasia as “dying with dignity”. I don’t know what is dignified about one person intentionally killing another or providing the means for their suicide.  It must change the person who does the deed irrevocably.  On the other hand, I have seen many dignified deaths.  Dignity has nothing to do with whether a person is faecally incontinent, disfigured, emotionally disturbed or unattractive.  Dignity has to do with the respect we accord every individual, regardless of personal characteristics or their current state of health.  Accepting death when it naturally occurs is quite different to condoning or encouraging the intentional killing of or suicide by another.

    Harvey Chochinov, a Canadian psychiatrist, has written extensively about dignity at the end of life and his views are valid in this context.  He describes the all-important interpersonal dimension to dignity.  Dr Chochinov’s model affirms the basic truth that human beings are relational and that what accords us dignity is how we are treated in a relationship.  The legalisation of euthanasia alters the interpersonal relationship between the vulnerable patient and their carers.  If the patient does not volunteer to be euthanased perhaps the patient is being selfish by remaining burdensome to others.  The idea that we can prevent subtle “coercion” through legislation shows a lack of understanding of the realities and subtleties of human relationships. History has shown that the people most commonly euthanased “voluntarily” are women, the mentally ill, socially isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged.  These are the usual victims when society fundamentally loses its respect for human life.

    Having worked in palliative care, I have had requests from relatives and carers to euthanase dying people. What was evident was that these “observers” were suffering and wanted their own suffering to end. Vulnerable and sick patients often believe that they are a burden to those around them.  So do elderly people. I hear it from them all the time. We know that suffering is a reality in life.  Palliative care and modern medicine relieve most suffering but cannot relieve all.  When carers are able to rise to the occasion with conscientious caring for a vulnerable person, the dignity of that person is affirmed.  Much anxiety in the patient is also relieved.  For those few who really do suffer extreme and unrelieved existential anxiety at the end of life, good palliative care offers the option of sedation.

    It is widely recognised that Western Society has become detached from death.  We tuck away dying people in hospices or hospitals and often don’t have effective rituals surrounding death.  We shield our children from death.  As a society, we are in “death denial”.    We have a belief that modern medicine can, or at least should, cure every ill – this is false.  If we acknowledged the certainty of death perhaps we wouldn’t be panicked into the issue of euthanasia, or into continuing with futile and uncomfortable medical treatments.  We might have conversations with our relatives about our values and the situations in which we would want treatment to be withdrawn and even draw up legally binding Advance Care Directives.

    There are times in life when we must give care – and times when we must graciously accept it.  We must not as a society define the worth of individuals by their functional abilities or level of independence.  We must not decide that the means justifies the end or that our right to make autonomous decisions trumps our instinctive understanding that it is wrong to sanction the deliberate killing of another.  If we as a society and as individuals cannot accept that at times we have to face difficulty, then we cannot face the realities of life.  We also will not foster the qualities in society that make us civilised: empathy, compassion and the protection of the most vulnerable.

    Dr Joanne Wright

     

     

     

  • Our better angels. Guest bloggers Brenda, Edith and Elizabeth

    Dear Elizabeth,

    At our church, Liverpool South Anglican Church, we have befriended some men from Sri Lanka who have been released from the Curtin Detention centre. They are setting up house in Sydney. We held a BBQ and cricket match on Anzac Day and about 30 men came along.

    Our Minister explained to them about Anzac Day and why it is important to Australians.

    Another minister preached the gospel message to them in Tamil.

    We heard from about 5 of the men about the story of their trip to Australia.
    They were very grateful. It was the first celebration they had been to in Australia.

    Then today 15 came to church and we provided lunch. But we have not got enough blankets to give them.

    Do you think that Wraps With Love might be happy to provide about 20 wraps?

    Regards
    Brenda and Edith

     

     

  • Curbing health costs starting with pathologists and radiologists. John Menadue

    In discussing the looming budget deficits there has been focus on the rising costs of healthcare. And so there should be.

    But before addressing some of the factors leading to increased costs, we should keep in mind that Australia spends about 9% of GDP in health. That compares with France 12%, Germany 12%, Canada 11%, New Zealand 10% and UK 10%. The OECD median is 9%. The US at 18% of GDP is ‘off the charts largely due to private health insurance.

    Thus 9% of GDP spent on healthcare in Australia is not excessive in world terms. Medicare for all its difficulties has laid a solid basis for efficiency and equity in healthcare. We would change it at a great cost to the nation.

    I will be writing about some areas in future where cost reduction is necessary and possible e.g. the costs that are incurred because of different commonwealth and state responsibilities (e.g. patients going to an expensive Emergency Department when it would be cheaper and better to go to a GP), antiquated work practices and clinical errors.

    A central problem is that we all see our doctor too much and we have too many tests. The following table shows how all medical services per 10,000 of population have increased dramatically in the ten years to 2011/12

    These figures are derived from Medicare Australia-Statistics-Medicare Benefit (MBS) Group Statistics.

    All Medicare services by category per 10,000 of population 2001/02 to 2011/12

    Medicare service

    2001/02

    2011/12

    Increase

    % Increase
    Professional attendance

    606,240

    677,504

    71,264

    11
    Therapeutic procedures

    66,308

    88,102

    21,794

    33
    Diagnostic imaging

    63,032

    89,247

    26,215

    42
    Pathology

    336,214

    503,613

    167,399

    50
    Total

    1,090,878

    1,460,460

    369,582

    34

     

    These figures show the dramatic increase in medical services per 10,000 of population over ten years by 34%. The increase in diagnostic imaging services has been 42% and for pathology services, 50% Together with many specialists, including in church hospitals they have been making a motza..

    The government has attempted to restrain these increases particularly in imaging and pathology, but there is a long way to go. There are several reasons for the escalating number of services.

    • Advancing technology will result in more and better pathology and imaging services, for example. GP’s will naturally want to use them
    • General practitioners run more possible professional risk in ordering too few tests than too many.
    • With increasing corporate takeovers of general practice, there is more vertical integration between the general practitioner and specialist services such as pathology and imaging. There is a clear conflict of interest when a general practitioner employed by a corporate orders a battery of pathology tests from the same employer.
    • Fee-for-service is particularly inappropriate for services with high fixed costs and low variable costs, such as imaging. If fees are set on an average basis, including fixed costs, then the contribution to overheads and profits is high giving an incentive for high use. This has clearly been happening.

    There are actions that the government could take.

    It could set budgets for general practitioners when they prescribe drugs, order pathology tests or imaging services. Germany is doing some of this already to curb escalating costs.

    Improved means tested co-payments would be another way to place more financial responsibility on the patient to restrain spending

    The Government could also offer contracts to General Practises as an alternative to fee for service. It could be surprised at the take up of contracts. Many GP’s are tired of turnstile medicine. They want to work as part of a professional team with opportunities for upgrading of skills and sabbaticals. Fee for service is a driver of over servicing. It is a perverse incentive where quantity rather than quality of service is rewarded. It must change if quality of service is to be improved and costs contained.

    As in so much of health services in Australia, vested interests in such areas as imaging and pathology together with their lobbyists are very effective in protecting their interests at the expense of the patient and the taxpayer. So much of the time of the Minister and the Department of Health is taken up in managing the demands of the vested interests rather than addressing structural problems and costs in the health service. The Minister and the Department are no match for the powerful vested interests –the AMA, the Pharmacy Guild and PHI sector. It is because of the failure of existing governance of the health service – the ministerial/departmental model – that I have recommended for many years  a statutory commonwealth health commission composed of independent and professional people (like the Reserve Bank in the financial field) to administer health services in Australia, subject to guidelines determined by the government.

    An important role for such a commission would be leading an informed public debate about the changes that are necessary in health care. Without an informed community, governments are not going to have the polical courage to confront the powerful vested interests that in many respects have a veto on reform. We can’t leave it to the “market” to sort it out because there is no open or free market in health services. Outcomes are rigged by very powerful providers. They hold all the cards. It is really about power in the health sector and how that power is exercised

    There will not be effective cost containment unless this is addressed

    John Menadue

  • Are wage rates to blame? John Menadue

    We have read a lot recently from retailers and restauranteurs about high wage rates particularly at weekends that are said to be a major burden for business. But is this the full story? There are several factors that we need to consider.

    • Do we have too many retailers and restaurants? Restaurants seem to be opening every second day, driving out mixed-businesses, green grocers and butchers from our shopping streets. Has the proliferation of retail outlets and restaurants reduced profit margins and put pressure on business rather than wages?
    • Our lives are being driven by the 24/7 craze. Do we really need to keep shops and restaurants open like this? What has happened to the desire of many who still value the weekends for family and recreation? Sunday is no longer ‘a day of rest’. But I am probably old-fashioned! I recall that the union campaign for an 8-hour working day featured ‘recreation’ as a key objective. It is now largely forgotten.
    • Retailers have failed to respond adequately to online shopping and the concerns many of us have for the lack of service in retail outlets. The retailers’ case was not helped recently by the managing director of Myers telling us that the levy to pay for the disability scheme would mean less money to spend at Myers.
    • The household savings rate in Australia declined steadily from about 10% in the mid-1970s and falling to below zero by the mid-2000s. This private spending and debt binge couldn’t last and Australians are wisely saving more.  Retailers and restaurants should not have expected that the spending and debt binge would continue.
    • Some retailers and restaurants pine for the US model of flexible and low wage-rates. In the US this has resulted in great inequity and very low wage rates for the working poor. Fortunately we have not gone down that path.

    With the softening of the mining boom and restructuring of the economy, there will need to be restructuring including in retail and restaurants. But we should not point the finger at wage rates alone.

    John Menadue

  • National Party fails farmers. John Menadue

    Warren Truss and Barnaby Joyce have allowed the National Party to be dragged along at the heels of the Liberal Party on climate change and other issues. What was it that Tony Abbott said about climate change being ‘bullshit’? Australian farmers particularly in Western Australia are now paying the price of failed leadership by the National Party.

    Last week the government announced measures to assist distressed farmers who face drought, a strong dollar and other difficulties. Particular mention was made of farmers in the south-west of Western Australia.

    Evidence keeps coming that the drought in Western Australia is more than a normal drought – it is man-made and the result of climate change. Consider the evidence and views of the experts on this question.

    • The Australian Climate Commission said very recently ‘Western Australia, particularly the south-west, is vulnerable to climate change. Rainfall patterns in WA have changed over the last forty years. There is significant evidence that climate change has contributed to the marked drying trend in the south-west of the state. This has had serious implications for urban water supplies and agriculture. Sea levels along the west coast of Australia have been rising at more than double the global average. With a significant part of the population living in coastal cities and towns, rising sea levels pose significant risks … ‘.
    • Professor Ross Kingwell of the University of Western Australia’s School of Agricultural and Resource Economics said in the Australian Financial Review on May 1 2013 that ‘in the 1900s the (south-west) region enjoyed a wet year about one out of every two years. This has diminished significantly since the 1970’s”.
    • A senior climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology, Blair Trewin, told the AFR that ‘The biggest driver in the rainfall declines is long-term climate change.’
    • Dr Wenju Cai, a research scientist at CSIRO, said that the long-term deprival of rain in WA’s south-west represents one of the strongest examples anywhere in the world of the impact of human induced climate change on a region.

    Australia has always had to deal with drought. But it is now becoming clear that climate change is playing an increasing and long-term role in affecting the livelihood of many farmers, particularly in WA. I wonder what questions farmers are asking Warren Truss and Barnaby Joyce about their failure to join in a national and international effort to minimise global warming. If only they had done that instead of playing politics on the issue we would all have made more progress.

    John Menadue

     

  • Malaysian General Elections – Change or Chaos? Guest blogger: El Tee Kay in Kuala Lumpur

     

     

    The run up to the 13th General Election on Sunday May 5 has been described as the dirtiest in Malaysian history. For the first time in 54 years the Barisan Nasional (BN) Government led by Prime Minister Najib Razak fears it may lose its grip on power. For the first time the Malaysian voter has a choice of a credible opposition, the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) led by Anwar Ibrahim, which is mounting a strong challenge. Indications are that the main coalition partners of BN – the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) and the Gerakan may suffer severe losses or even be wiped out. The United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) may also lose some seats to the Pan Islamic Party (PAS) of the opposition coalition.

     

    The UM Centre for Democracy and Elections in a recent survey has put the PR ahead of the BN by 43% to 38%.

     

    There also seems to be a genuine concern amongst BN politicians that if they lose the elections, there will be accountability and retribution for past misdeeds. This has led to a change in strategy and the battle lines, unfortunately, are being drawn on racial and religious grounds. This has always been a disturbing tactic used by all parties to garner support of the disgruntled racists and fundamentalists.

     

    Fear mongering in the BN controlled media and in party propaganda is also raising its ugly head. The opposition is countering with an expose of BN excesses on the internet. Notably BN has at every election including this one resurrected the ghosts of May 13th 1969 when hundreds of people lost their lives in racial riots instigated by devious politicians which broke out after the elections. A film Tanda Putera (the Executioner Prince), a distorted version of the May 13th events, is being allegedly screened privately to Malay audiences to stir up hatred towards the Chinese.

     

    Numerous full page advertisements also appear in the media daily designed to instill fear in non-Muslims- that a vote for the opposition will be a vote for PAS and hudud law, dismemberment of limbs as punishment for certain crimes.. The opposition has been highlighting poor governance, mismanagement of public funds, bribery and corruption by BN governments at the State and Federal levels for decades.

     

    Of equal interest to the General Election is the battle for 12 State Governments which is being held simultaneously. Sarawak held its elections in 2011. Currently BN controls nine States and PR four. BN says it can win back 2 States and PR has hopes to retain its 4 States and capture at least 3 more BN States.

    It is difficult to gauge voter sentiment because there are no independent surveys, but if the crowd attendance at party rallies is an indication of public support, the Opposition has a great chance of winning at least another 33 seats in a House of 222 seats to obtain a simple majority. It could also win a number of States .At the very least PR may make substantial gains.

     

    As a casual observer of the Australian media I keep asking myself how a bombing in Boston is more important to Australia than an election in Kuala Lumpur?

     

     

  • A canary in the coal mine. John Menadue

    When environmental activist, Jonathon Moylan, sent a hoax email concerning Whitehaven Coal to the ANZ in January this year, there was outrage and tut-tutting by business journalists about his action.

    A few months later, it is becoming clear that the future of new thermal coal mines is doubtful. Australian resource companies have let over-optimism skew their investment decisions.

    Would any sensible investor take not only the political risk but also the financial risk of investing in new thermal coal mines in Australia?

    The case for continuing investment in coking coal for steel making remains strong, but not for coal to produce electricity. The case against thermal coal is growing.

    • The Australian Climate Commission this month reported that ‘levels of greenhouse gasses from the combustion of fossil fuels have increased almost 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution, causing the earth’s surface to warm significantly. … All weather events are now occurring in a global climate system that is warming and moister than it was 50 years ago. This has loaded the dice towards more frequent and more severe extreme weather events’.
    • Professor Ross Garnaut warned recently that China was moving away from coal electricity generation to a new, less resource intensive phase of growth which would trigger a plunge in Australian mining investment. Last year, China bought 20% of Australia’s thermal coal exports worth $3 billion.
    • European consumption of coal has fallen to below 2007 levels and will fall further when new air pollution requirements apply from 2016.
    • The US Energy Information Administration shows that coal output in 2016 is likely to be lower than in 1990. Many US power companies using thermal coal have been shut down since 2009.
    • Bloomberg reported in February that Australia is unlikely to build new coal-fired power stations because of tumbling prices for renewable energy and the rising cost of finance for emission intensive fuels.
    • As a result of the Fukashima disaster Japan will need more thermal coal in the short term. But the Abe Government will progressively restart its nuclear reactors which have been closed since the disaster. These restarts will result in reduced output from coal-fired generators. Before the disaster about 25% of Japan’s power production was from nuclear energy.
    • The Climate and Health Alliance in Australia, in referring to a review by health experts at the University of Illinois said ‘the review adds to a suite of papers that point to the effects on human health of electricity generation from coal’

    Belatedly, we should acknowledge that Jonathon Moylan was telling us something about the future. The canary in the mine was more on the ball than those business economists who criticised him for his irresponsible behaviour.

    John Menadue

  • Is the ALP a political party or a suicide cult? John Menadue

    Friends overseas are amazed that with a world class economy such as ours, the Australian Government faces a rout. I try and explain that the government’s difficulties are self-inflicted; that it is tone-deaf on many political issues; that the Prime Minister is not being listened to and the public will not accept what she did to Kevin Rudd.

    How could Australia’s longest-established and most reputable political party be behaving like a suicide cult? Where are the wise men and women in the ALP to stop the Party going over the cliff?

    Australians are genuinely concerned about the prospect of Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. If he wins it would be by default. He has proved himself an effective political wrecker, but credible policies are hard to find.

    The government’s policy performance is far from ideal, but it has a lot going for it.

    • We have had six years of uninterrupted economic growth, even through the Global Financial Crisis.
    • The pre-eminent international mining advisory consultancy, Behre Dolbear, has rated Australia as the top country in the world for investment in mining and mining activity.
    • The roll-out of the NBN in more expensive, but it will give Australia a top-ranking technology compared with a fourth-ranking technology that the Coalition offers.
    • The carbon price which will be followed by an Emissions Trading Scheme is superior to the direct action and “soil magic” which the Coalition proposes.
    • The government continues to improve superannuation. The coalition opposes
    • It has launched the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
    • The Gonski school reforms are underway which the Coalition opposes.
    • The overall cost of living is growing at a slower rate than inflation. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling tells us “right across the board our research shows Australian households on average are better off. We really are a lucky country”

    The main policy disappointments of the government have been in health where we continue to muddle through and on asylum seekers where the government has failed to show courage and act decently.

    But it is not only policy differentiation. There is also the quality of the rival front benches.

    Beyond the present leaders, the Government has a very strong front-bench; Combet, Shorten, Butler, Clare, Wong and Dreyfus. Compare that with Brandis, Joyce, Bronwyn Bishop, Andrews, Abetz, Pyne and Morrison. By comparison it is talent-free at best and in some instances, a very ugly front bench.

    Is the ALP prepared to disappoint so many of its supporters and allow Tony Abbott to win by default?

    John Menadue

  • Tony Abbott keeps telling us that boat people are illegals and by inference, criminals. John Menadue

    Last week on radio Tony Abbott was at it again, repeatedly referring to illegals and illegal boats. It cannot be ignorance to keep calling asylum seekers illegals. He must know they are not illegals, but by using this language he inflates fear and hatred of people in distress.

    We cannot presume that boats are illegal because they are exercising passage through our territorial waters. The Law of the Sea makes that clear. And people seeking asylum are not illegals because of our commitments under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention.

    The Centre for Policy Development has just published ‘Refugee Facts’. It includes comments by the Australian Press Council to guide journalists about the use of terms such as ‘illegals’. It draws particular attention to some of the gross incitements to fear that New Limited publications have consistently used. See

    ”

    Ethical journalism on refugee issues

     The Australian Press   Council notes:

    “The legal status of people who have entered Australia by boat without a visa is complex and potentially confusing. Their entry is not legally authorised but is not a criminal offence. The Australian Government usually refers to such entrants as “unauthorised boat arrivals” or “irregular maritime arrivals” but they are also “unlawful non-citizens” under the Migration Act.”

    Read the complete guidelines here

    Journalists are advised to avoid describing people who arrived by boat without a visa in inaccurate terms. This can arise, for example, if the terms can reasonably be interpreted as implying criminality or other serious misbehaviour on the part of all or many people who arrive in this manner.

    Depending on the specific context, therefore, terms such as “illegal immigrants” or “illegals” may constitute a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice on these grounds.

    Several recent adjudications by the Press Council have upheld complaints about the treatment of asylum seekers by media outlets.

    On 26 November 2011, The Daily Telegraph ran the following headline on its front page: ‘Open the Floodgates – Exclusive; Thousands of Boat People to Invade NSW’. The Press Council was asked to make an adjudication on this and concluded ‘that the use of the word “invade” was gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive because of its clear connotations of forceful occupation’. It upheld the complaint for ‘an especially serious breach of its principles.’ The Council also concluded that use of the words “open the floodgates” and “deluge” were inaccurate and unfair.

    In adjudication number 1498 in June 2011, the Australian Press Council (APC) considered complaints about three opinion articles by Greg Sheridan that appeared in The Australian on 23 and 28 October 2010 and 5 March 2011.

    The APC upheld the complaint. The adjudication included the following comments on use of the term ‘illegals’:

    “The Press Council’s Guideline (No. 288) notes that the descriptor ‘illegal(s)’ is very often inaccurate and because it typically connotes criminality, it is unfair. It recommends that the use of the term ‘asylum seeker’ as a widely understood descriptor and generally a fair and a sufficiently accurate one. The Australian acknowledged that it was aware of this suggested usage. Indeed, the Council upheld a similar complaint against The Australian as recently as July 2009. Despite that, the disputed expression appeared in the three articles subject to this complaint. … The fact that some people may use what may be considered inaccurate terminology should not be used to justify inaccuracy or unfairness in reporting. The Council holds the view that opinion articles are no different to other articles in their need to ensure accuracy and to avoid unfairness and that these articles failed to do so. Accordingly this aspect of the complaint is upheld.”

    An article headlined ‘Boat people in our suburbs’ that appeared in the Herald Sun on 26 November 2011 was the subject of an adjudication in April 2012. The front page had a pointer to the article reading ‘Revealed; boat people to flood our suburbs’.

    The APC upheld this complaint. The Council concluded that “the words ‘flood the suburbs’ connoted an overwhelming, widespread and adverse impact on the general community. The implication was misleading and unfair, especially when made so boldly in the front page pointer and so prominently in the opening sentence of the article.”

     

    The APC guidelines are a vital point of reference for journalists and editors covering refugee and asylum seeker issues. As these recent adjudications make clear, the Council is inclined to take a dim view of sloppy and unethical reporting of asylum seeker issues, with a particular focus on terminology.

     

    Like Scott Morrison, Tony Abbott seems to have little concern for the “stranger” and the injury and injustice he inflicts on vulnerable people. I suggest that before he utters another word on asylum seekers and illegals, he reads

    The Refugee Convention Article 31 that makes clear that penalties should not be imposed on people who enter another country, seek asylum and do so expeditiously

    The APC guidelines and adjudications on the term “illegals”

    He might also look at Matthew 23 ‘I was a stranger and you took me in’.

    We are in for a very ugly political period…

    John Menadue

  • An Excel coding error with tragic consequences. John Menadue

     In 2010, just after the Greek financial crisis, two respected conservative Harvard economists, Reinhart and Rogoff, published a paper ‘Growth in a time of debt’ that said that once debt exceeded 90% of GDP, economic growth drops off sharply. Their thesis added great weight to those urging austerity on such countries as Greece, Spain and many others.

    Paul Krugman in the New York Times of April 18 has drawn attention to a major flaw in their ‘tipping point’ theory for national debt. According to Krugman, Reinhart and Rogoff, allowed researchers at the University of Massachusetts to examine the spreadsheets that helped produce this precise 90% ‘tipping point’. The researchers found that some data had been omitted, they highly questioned statistical procedures that had been used, but most importantly of all they found that Reinhart and Rogoff had made an Excel coding error.

    After corrections were made for these mistakes there was confirmation that there was a relationship between high debt and slow economic growth, which almost all economists agreed with, but there was no confirmation of the 90% ‘tipping point’.

    Unfortunately the Reinhart and Rogoff thesis has been influential in the conservative case for governments, particularly in Europe, to enforce more and more austerity on the public. Greece now has an overall unemployment rate of 27% and a rate of 59% for young people aged 15-24. In Spain the unemployment rate is 57% for the same 15-24 age group.

    Hopefully the flaws in the Reinhart and Rogoff analysis and thesis will force a rethink by the ideologues who keep espousing austerity to reduce deficits and debt, regardless of the tragic consequences for millions of people. There is surely no particular virtue in a government surplus or deficit. In some situations a deficit is more appropriate; in other circumstances a surplus is more appropriate. Surpluses and deficits are means to an end, particularly full employment and stable prices.

    But the conservative economists and commentators will surely think up other reasons for austerity at the expense of vulnerable people.

    John Menadue

  • The post-September struggle. Guest blogger: Red Pimpernel

    As the Labor Party lurches to a blistering defeat in September there is a lot of work going on to reframe it as a democratic and progressive organisation. Those that seriously believe in the ALP as a 21st century social democracy have begun quietly. The reframers know they will run into internal conservative opposition.

    It will be a debate that gives Labor members and supporters plenty to keep themselves busy as they contemplate the Abbott era.

    In NSW we have seen the beginnings of attempts to challenge monoliths of preselection power bases and union block voting. We have seen boldness borne of desperation in trialling new methods of engagement in preselections. In Victoria demands on the national executive to actually implement the many tomes calling for party democratisation and reform have been accompanied by deadlines for measures such as directly electing the state party leader.

    These are the tips of an iceberg reflecting serious attempts to raise questions about the culture and the operation of the Party.  Reassessment of values, aims and aspirations for what constitutes a progressive community and the role of the state to build it will underpin much of this debate.  Whilst the lid of discipline holds down much of this debate before 14 September it won’t last long after that date.

    Big questions are being framed up by every Labor parrot in the corner pet shop with a raft of Labor ex ministers ready to hit the ideas and book circuits.

    The large numbers of younger activists looking to the role of Government in building progress provides hope for comeback

    Debates on how Labor plans and regulates for sustainable growth to build the capacity of the State to deliver on the social justice and redistributive project that lies at its heart are being argued about – and not just in a 5 km radius of the Centre of Sydney and Melbourne

    Given that there will be a long bleak winter of Opposition to contemplate these existential questions it is better to set the parameters now for the ideological debate rather than await the hysterical recriminations and blame shifting that will inevitably follow after September.

    For a Party well used to being at the crossroads, the choices to be made soon will be defining

    All power to those who are promoting these debates.  They will need it.

     

  • There’s nothing basic about basic nursing care. Guest Blogger: Professor Mary Chiarella

    The Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler has announced a new aged-care workforce compact which will result in 350,000 workers receiving supplementary payments of 1% over and above award increases. This amounts to $1/hour more for each worker – the lowest paid workers in the health care industry. Why is “intimate” nursing care, for the purposes of distinguishing it from technical nursing care, identified as not needing qualified nursing staff and relegated to care workers? Furthermore these care workers, the mainstay of our nursing homes and residential aged care facilities, may only have the support of a single registered or enrolled nurse to care for as many as 60+ patients.

    Yet today the people we see in our nursing homes would have filled a medical ward in the ‘70s. There will be increasing numbers of elderly people to look after, with chronic and complex care needs, so surely there is a need to rethink and recognise the complexity of intimate nursing care and have it performed by appropriately qualified nurses? For proper remuneration? I can’t remember who said it, but the elderly are the only group against whom we discriminate to which we will eventually belong.

    This intimate nursing work, described usually as ‘basic nursing care’ is, in reality, far from basic and you need skilled nurses to perform it well. When they do, its value and necessity transcends its physical messiness. Despite what those who don’t do this work might think, it is not basic—it is extremely psychologically complex. Cleaning patients who are soiled with excreta, blood, or vomitus, who feel ashamed of themselves for being ‘dirty’ or for ‘losing control’, and restoring both their hygiene and their sense of self worth in the process, requires the highest order of skill. Nurses know its worth, yet understand society’s abhorrence of its reality.

    But the paradox is to recognise that other people simply don’t want to acknowledge the worth and complexity of the work. Better to imagine it’s “basic”. It is also a given that nurses who do this work don’t discuss it. Nurses do things to other people which have the potential to strip them of their dignity. One of the reasons why, most of the time, nurses don’t do so is because what transpires behind the screens will never be discussed in public. Good nursing care is eminently forgettable. Nurses manage to be almost ‘invisible’ as they perform the most private of functions for the patient. Listen to this description as a nurse washes a patient’s genitalia.

    Jane is looking intently at the scrotum, lifting carefully the folds to ensure a thorough wash, and painting lotion gently on the grazed area. The penis is washed with equal care and their conversation continues throughout. They could have been having this conversation in a sitting room, it is so unselfconscious[1].

    Nurses, for entirely professional reasons, don’t discuss these aspects of their work. If we did, how could the next patient feel comfortable? The view that any ‘nice’ person can deliver this kind of care diminishes the sensitivity and skill required to manage such situations.  Maybe this is partly because nurses have always done this intimate work, and usually only changes to practice are considered to deserve increased pay. But this provides an unsatisfactory model for re-assessing work value when this work was never valued originally. Furthermore the nursing management of sensitive issues of the body is not granted the same status as  – say –a psychiatrist handling sensitive issues of the mind. Because it involves manual work, ‘getting your hands dirty’, it is considered to be menial or domestic. Yet to practise such work without intellectual engagement would be crass, and could cause psychological damage. If the courts and tribunals were to value this work similarly, the entire award system would need to be revisited.

    Can we finally acknowledge how complex and difficult this work is? Let us not just admire (oh they’re wonderful –I don’t know how they do it) but also reward the people who do it with more than $1/hour. Let us recognise that intimate care of people who are old and sick (and it might be us one day) is actually extraordinarily skilful and requires a great deal of sensitivity.

     Professor Mary Chiarella

    [1] Taylor B, Being Human: Ordinariness in Nursing Churchill Livingstone: Melbourne (1994).

  • The Wars we would rather forget. John Menadue

    Aboriginal Wars

    The Australian War Memorial records as follows:

    “When it became apparent that the settlers and their livestock had come to stay, competition for access to the land developed and friction between the two ways of life became inevitable. As the settlers’ behaviour became unacceptable to the indigenous population, individuals were killed over specific grievances. These killings were then met with reprisals from the settlers, often on a scale out of all proportion to the original incident. … It is estimated that some 2,500 European settlers and police died in this conflict. For the aboriginal inhabitants the cost was far higher: about 20,000 are believed to have been killed in the wars of the frontier, while many thousands more perished from disease and often unintended consequences of settlement. Aboriginal Australians were unable to restrain – though in places they did delay – the tide of European settlement; although resistance in one form or another never ceased, the conflict ended in their dispossession.” (www.awm.gov.au/atwar/colonial.asp)

    Where are the memorials to this tragic war?

    Maori Wars

    The State Library of South Australia records these wars as follows:

    “Between 1845 and 1872 just over 2,500 Australian volunteers saw service in New Zealand. The majority of these volunteers came from the colonies of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania.

    The cause of all conflict between whites and the Maori people was land. … British forces were sent from Auckland to defeat and capture Maori Chief Hone Heke but the Maori chief and his warriors were skilled in the art of war, but it took [many steps including] a local militia and troops rushed in from Australia … to conclude the first Maori war.

    By 1860, the grab for land again sparked conflict between whites and the Maoris, this time in the Waitara River area. … Again, the Australian colonies were asked for urgent assistance. The colonies rallied and sent troops. The colony of Victoria even sent its entire navy which comprised the steam corvette HMVS Victoria. New South Wales also sent gun ships to support the troops.

    Only later war broke out again, this time in the Waikato area. And again Australian troops came to the aid of local British forces.

    Soon after the Waikato war, the New Zealand Government decided to form a more permanent force and actually recruited troops from among the Australian colonies. They were offered land in exchange for service in the armed forces. Some 3,600 Australians took up the offer. They were formed into the Waikato regiments.” (www.guides.sisa.sa.gov.au/content.php?pid=76180&sid=594745.  The Australian War Memorial has a similar account of Australian participation in the Maori Wars)

    Some may claim that all this occurred before Australia was federated and we were still colonies. I do not think that this can obscure the fact of Australian participation in the Maori wars. The first association between Australian and New Zealand forces was not at Gallipoli in 1915. It was in the Maori wars 70 years earlier.

    John Menadue