Category: Politics

  • David Stephens. Malcolm Turnbull’s post-Anzac pitch to the Australian Defence Force

    Tony Abbott admired soldiers. He liked to be around them, to talk about the fortunes of war (“shit happens,” as he memorably muttered to troops in Afghanistan). He quoted Samuel Johnson about how men despise themselves if they have never been a soldier. His Anzac Day Dawn Service speech last year at Gallipoli portrayed the men of Anzac as sacred role models for us today. He tried to con New Zealand’s John Key into a “Sons of Anzac” commemoration force to take on Islamic State.

    Malcolm Turnbull is different. On 14 February (11 days before he released the Defence White Paper) he spoke to soldiers at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. He mentioned the “professionalism” and “commitment” of members of the Australian Defence Force and recalled his recent visit to Afghanistan. He thanked those present for their service. Then he said this:

    I want to say how much I admire the way the Australian Army in 2016 is adapting to the rapid changes in technology. What you are doing here is showing the kind of agility and innovation that the most successful companies in the private sector do as well. It is recognising that you are operating in a rapidly changing environment … [W]e constantly have to adapt what we are doing to be agile and always, always at our best. To reject complacency. So really, you are a model of a 21st-century army.

    Later on the same day, at a doorstop with journalists, the prime minister warmed to his theme:

    What an inspiration it is to see how the 21st century army is adapting to new challenges, new challenges on the battlefield, and using the newest technologies to ensure that our young men and women, when they go out to defend our nation, defend our values, protect our interests, are doing so in a way that gives them greatest effectiveness, the greatest ability to succeed and also gives them the maximum protection.

    [Our soldiers are] adapting to every new stage of technology, every piece of new information and experience coming in from Afghanistan or Iraq is being analysed and then incorporated into the training here … So, this is a critically important part of ensuring Australia’s Army is at the very cutting edge of military technology, both in terms of signals and of course, in terms of military technique and training.

    So innovation and agility is not just for start-ups and science graduates but for men and women in uniform as well. The prime minister did not ignore the Anzac tradition but his mention of it came right at the end of his Lavarack praise of the innovative military, almost as an afterthought:

    Agile, nimble, technologically advanced and of course, you embody all of the same values of the ANZACs, 100 years ago, the ANZACs of 100 years ago, their values, their traditions, their commitment, their patriotism, you embody today. So, we are so proud of you.

    Prime Minister Turnbull has in the past been an enthusiastic spruiker for the book written by his son-in-law, retired Army Captain James Brown, Anzac’s Long Shadow: The Cost of Our National Obsession (2014). (So he should be; it is a very good book.) In the book, Brown is sceptical of the traditional image of “larrikin Anzacs” as the epitome of Australian soldiers. He also quotes former Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, who in 2010 called for the Australian Defence Force to become innovative in strategy, intellectually excellent and deeply knowledgeable.

    Innovation, understanding, connection and intellectual excellence – these are skills and attributes not captured in the Anzac legend and digger myth. Hurley is describing [says Brown] a new type of military professional – one who can fight tactically but also do battle in the realm of ideas. But Australians have their own ideas about what professional soldiers should look like, and their own legends about how they should act.

    Brown also quotes military psychologist, Damien Hadfield, who has identified “the Anzac spirit monkey” as something that Australian soldiers today have to deal with. Not only does “the monkey” leave today’s service men and women with a legacy of Anzac superheroes that is difficult to live up to but it also ingrains unrealistic concepts in civilians (including, one might add, some prime ministers). They still see warfare in World War I terms (charging at the guns, reckless heroism, stressful lives in trenches). Archie in the movie Gallipoli has a lot to answer for.

    Modern warfare is more complex than this, Hadfield (and Brown) conclude, requiring more technical expertise and stressful in different ways to what it was like a century ago. Consequently, it is “much harder for people at home to identify with a war driven by machines, systems and strategy.”

    That latter type of war is what Prime Minister Turnbull seemed to have in mind when he spoke in Townsville. As things ramp up again in the South China Sea, that may be a good thing. The final image in Brown’s book may well have been in the prime minister’s mind when he spoke. Brown imagines the scene in the belly of an amphibious vessel (interestingly enough, one based in Townsville) approaching a hostile shore. Only the invasion scenario looks much like what Australians faced a century ago in Turkey; the men and women in this boat (or in one of the submarines the White Paper says we are going to acquire) are high-tech and highly trained but are their heads in the same place as their ancestors in the Dardanelles? “Has our obsession with the Anzac legend,” Brown asks, “helped prepare us for what happens next?”

    Brown, the prime minister (and us) should hope that it never comes to that. If it does (and Australia is foolish enough to follow the United States into a confrontation in the South China Sea, come what may) a nimble, technologically advanced defence force will be much more desirable than one with Anzac stars in its eyes.

    David Stephens is secretary of the Honest History coalition and editor of its website (honesthistory.net.au). The views in this article are not necessarily those of all supporters of Honest History.

  • Building Australia’s white elephant – cheap buy for white knight Telstra

    Tony Abbott gave Malcolm Turnbull instructions to undermine the NBN. As Minister for Communications it is apparent that that is what Turnbull did. As Prime Minister he could have reversed the damage to NBN. But he chose not to. In the following blog published by Paul Budde, he points out that both Infrastructure Australia and PwC  express major concerns about the value of the investment in the NBN if at some time in the future the Australian government decides to sell it. 

    See comments by Paul Budde below.

    John Menadue.

     

    Both Infrastructure Australia and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) have now weighed into the NBN debate.

    They have looked at the value of the NBN in relation to the future sale of the company.

    The eventual privatisation of the NBN is one of the few areas on which both sides of politics agree. That being the case then it would be prudent to build an NBN that maintains its value and will fetch a good price. Let’s say that it should at least cover the costs of the project at the time a sale is being considered. Because of the national interest it could be argued that simply covering the cost would be sufficient.

    However building a potential white elephant in the form of the multi-technology mix is certainly not going to deliver on this. There is global consensus that eventually the majority of the national fixed telecoms networks will need to be based on FttH. In Australia the NBN company is not building such a future-proof network – quite the reverse – it is using out-of-date technologies with no plan as to how to move on from this version to a robust network fit for Australia’s interconnected economy. Those who eventually might buy the NBN will have to make a massive investment in getting rid of the MtM and replacing it with FttH, not something many potential buyers will be interested in.

    In a recent assessment of the NBN, Infrastructure Australia also addressed, among other things, the potential sale of the NBN; and in order to prepare themselves for such a sale they stated: ‘To prepare for a future sale, it will be important that NBN Co does not “enmesh” different technologies in a way that cannot be separated later.’

    But that is exactly what the NBN company is building – a mesh NBN, even named by the government as such, a multi-technolgy mix (MtM).

    Neither the NBN company nor the government have revealed any plans on how they envisage moving the NBN beyond this technology mesh (or mess).

    When the original NBN was developed all of the elements that made up the plan made sense: a superior FttH network, Telstra moving out of the infrastructure business, wholesale-only structure and so on.

    With a superior FttH in place, all parties involved would benefit. Consumers and businesses would get superior services, telcos and ISPs would not have to invest in duplicating or overbuilding infrastructure (if you skip to a superior technology duplication would not be economically viable) and the government would build a good foundation for the Australian economy and society – a true national interest infrastructure for healthcare, education, government services, business, entertainment and so on.

    Since Tony Abbott’s plans to demolish the NBN, and Malcolm Turnbull’s subsequent second-rate proposal, we have warned that if you start to change the key principles of the NBN the whole venture will collapse like a house of cards.

    We are now getting a second-rate network and the first signs from customers, as we heard in a recent Senate Hearing, are not good. This is in line with our assessment. An MtM network, by its very nature a mesh network, will not be able to deliver consistently good quality services to all customers. Telcos and ISPs are not happy with the second-rate system and want to bypass the NBN with their own fibre and mobile services. And there has been dead silence from the government on the potential economic role the NBN has in relation to innovation, healthcare, education and so on. Belatedly the NBN company is now arguing that the NBN debate should move from politics and focus on what we, as a nation, want from it.

    From 2005 onwards I have time and again stated to both sides of government that before you technically design the NBN you will first of all need to have a plan for what you want to achieve with it. Only then can engineers come up with the right technical solutions.

    The white elephant scenario that the government is now pursuing will see the NBN fail, as it is not future-proof and consumers and businesses will want a better network. In other words, large parts of the $50 billion+ investment in the NBN will not be valued by the market at the time of sale – that is if the government relentlessly and single-mindedly pursues its MtM NBN.

    This is where the report from PwC kicks in, they stated that the value of the NBN, once ready somewhere around 2025, will not be worth more than $27 billion.

    We believe that there will be only one potential buyer for the mesh/mess NBN and that will be Telstra, one of the most successful and richest national telcos in the world. They will never pay the full price for the NBN and because of the NBN mesh it is highly unlikely that any other company will pay such a price for the infrastructure. It is even questionable if they will be willing to pay the price of around the $27 billion price tag.

    So it will end up in a fire sale and because of its wealthy and powerful position Telstra will be the white knight. It might pay a bit above the fire sale price and incorporate whatever it can use into an FttH network that it will then proceed to build for Australia.

  • Jeffrey Knapp. Big four accounting firms avoid scrutiny in multinational tax avoidance.

    The Senate Inquiry into corporate tax avoidance is due to hand down its final report by April. One of the lesser-mentioned groups appearing before 2015’s Senate hearings are Australia’s big four accounting firms.

    Multinational companies like Apple, Chevron, Google, Microsoft, and News Corp have dominated headlines, but little has been said of the role of PwC, KPMG, Deloitte and EY. After all, it is the big four firms that audit the accounts of leading multinational companies and render assistance with their taxation affairs.

    The big four firms claim they are supporters of transparency because it is fundamental to building public trust and confidence in the accounting profession.

    But when asked about the accounting practices of their multinational corporate clients during the November 2015 Senate inquiry hearings in Sydney, the big four firms were far from transparent.

    Senators questioned the firms about why at least 20 leading multinational companies had switched from general purpose accounts to special purpose accounts, resulting in fewer financial disclosures and lower transparency.

    The switching multinationals (with auditors in brackets) include Bupa Australia (KPMG), News Australia (EY), JBS Holdco Australia (KPMG), Serco Australia (Deloitte) and Johnson & Johnson (PWC).

    Whereas general purpose accounts comply with disclosure requirements across 40 plus accounting standards, special purpose accounts can follow as few as five standards. Special purpose accounts also allow multinationals to avoid audited disclosures of transactions and balances with related parties in foreign jurisdictions including tax havens.

    Why it matters

    Users that might rely on the information in general purpose accounts for making and evaluating resource allocation decisions are not limited to shareholders. It is reasonable to expect that other stakeholders of super-sized multinationals depend on general purpose accounts for decision-making.

    The operations of multinationals like Bupa, News, JBS, and Serco touch the lives of a significant number of Australians. Company stakeholders such as contractors, employees, customers and government agencies should have access to general purpose accounts.

    These multinational companies have dominant or powerful market positions with revenues and assets in the billions of dollars, government funding or contracts and creditors including thousands of employees. In switching to special purpose accounts, the companies and their big four auditors have undervalued two key indicators that general purpose accounts are required.

    The greater the economic or political importance of an entity, the more likely it is that there will exist users dependent on general purpose financial reports as a basis for making and evaluating resource allocation decisions. (Statement of Accounting Concepts SAC 1 paragraph 21)

    Financial characteristics that should be considered include the size (for example, value of sales or assets, or number of employees or customers) or indebtedness of an entity. The larger the size or the greater the indebtedness or resources allocated, the more likely it is that there will exist users dependent on general purpose financial reports as a basis for making and evaluating resource allocation decisions. (Statement of Accounting Concepts SAC 1 paragraph 22)

    No reason was given for switching to special purpose accounts. No disclosure was made of why fewer disclosures had become appropriate. The omission of this disclosure appears to be at odds with the following black letter requirement in accounting standards:

    When a voluntary change in accounting policy has an effect on the current period or any prior period … . an entity shall disclose: (a) the nature of the change in accounting policy; (b) the reasons why applying the new accounting policy provides reliable and more relevant information; (Accounting Standard AASB 108, paragraph 29)

    The unstated premise of the big four firms is that users who had previously relied on general purpose accounts were no more. In truth, there is no logical way to defend this vanishing because the super-sized multinational companies were still teeming with stakeholders.

    Consider the employees (shown in brackets) at Bupa (11,295), News (8,564), JBS (7,721), and Serco (6,000) when the switches to special purpose accounts occurred.

    Asked about the switches at the Sydney hearing, representatives of the big four firms stuck to the confines of their individual roles as tax partners. They claimed to be unable to shed light on the issue because it was dealt with in a different section of their firm – that is, audit and assurance.

    Not a single person in these leading multinational companies or the big four firms has subsequently presented a single cogent reason to explain the switching to special purpose accounts.

    At least the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) made something of an effort to come up with an explanation at the Sydney hearing, albeit not a particularly salient one. AASB chief executive, Kris Peach said:

    “What we are saying is that there is an accounting concept which is a reporting entity concept. It is quite subjective in how it is applied… I do think that economic significance is important, but it is very hard to actually determine what economic significance is, and that is why there needs to be some good consultation around that . .. .Where we need to get to is that the end criteria are very objective.”

    Apparently, the concept is to blame for leading multinationals being less transparent. The concept is too subjective. The concept relies on substance over form and professional judgement. But aren’t accounting concepts supposed to be like that? What is an asset? Isn’t that subjective too?

    The truth is that there is nothing wrong with the existing user-based concept for general purpose accounts. The concept has applied since 1990. The switching to special purpose accounts by leading multinationals and their big four auditors is a relatively recent phenomenon.

    The accounting evidence at the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance is cause for public concern. It gives an impression that the big four firms are prepared to overlook generally accepted accounting practice for multinational clients with deep pockets.

    The partners with gravitas at the big four firms need to take stock of the accounting practices that have emerged from their leading multinational clients. Priority number one should always be keeping faith with the concepts and standards of the accounting profession. Public confidence is not a trifling matter. Audits and auditors will soon be obsolete if standards are not maintained and enforced. Professional judgement of subjective accounting concepts is the key thing that auditors have done for time immemorial.

    In December 2015, the Parliament introduced new tax laws so that significant global multinational corporations must henceforth furnish general purpose accounts to the Australian Taxation Office. In effect, the Parliament had to bypass the AASB and the big four firms to get a better outcome.

    Most chartered accountants place great value in their designation and are careful to protect the legacy and reputation of the professionals that have gone before them. The big four firms are not immune from this vigilance. If the big four firms wish to remain prosperous over the long run, then they need to support transparency in what they do not just in what they say.

    Jeffrey Knapp is Lecturer/Accounting, UNSW.  This article was first published in The Conversation on 25 February 2016.

     

  • Peter Hughes, Arja Keski-Nummi, John Menadue. Part 3: Settlement Policy and Services.

    This is a repost from 27/5/2015.

    3.1 Overview

    The migration process starts in earnest after a visa is given to a migrant. Its success or otherwise is determined after the person arrives in Australia and becomes part of the workforce and community.

    Australia, along with the other great traditional migration countries, has sought to smoothly integrate migrants into its multicultural society, by assisting them to become quickly productive through specialised assistance if necessary, and providing a relatively.

    3.2 Settlement Policy and Services

    Supporting migrant settlement is a cooperative effort between the Australian government and State/Territory and local government. The Australian government needs to work closely with other spheres of government to ensure that they are fully informed about migrant flows and their characteristics, especially the characteristics of new communities, so that they can make appropriate provision within their own jurisdictions.

    Although most permanent migrants are selected on the basis of qualities that will enable relatively quick and easy integration into the Australian economy and our multicultural society, some (such as humanitarian entrants and family stream migrants) will require specialised assistance for a short period to help them get started in Australian society.

    Australian governments should continue to maintain a suite of specialised services aimed at ensuring migrants who need assistance in acquiring English-language skills, dealing with initial settlement problems, connecting with mainstream government services and gaining employment get such assistance.

    English language capability is well recognised as being essential to gaining employment and wider social integration into the Australian community. Settlement programs need to give special emphasis to English language acquisition, especially soon after arrival, with a variety of access opportunities to suit the needs and circumstances of individual migrants. The programs should aim to bring migrants to a level of English consistent with their capability.

    More intensive services should be available to assist refugee and humanitarian entrants who may bring with them the legacies of war or other conflict and incarceration in refugee camps for years or decades. Such services might include on-arrival accommodation, initial orientation to Australia, and support for other refugee-specific health issues, including torture and trauma.

    For non-English-speaking migrants who are still acquiring English-language skills, and are unable to access commercial translating and interpreting services, governments should continue to provide targeted translating and interpreting assistance.

    The migration process progressively introduces people from many different national, regional, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds into Australian society. Initially, they may be relatively small communities dispersed across the Australian continent. It is important that settlement policy recognises and supports new communities in establishing themselves in Australia. Past experience has shown that effective leadership within new communities is absolutely vital to their quickly becoming productive. Settlement programs should provide financial support to develop community leadership and problem-solving to accelerate integration.

    There is considerable goodwill in the community towards new migrants in keeping with Australia’s long tradition of acceptance of migration. The Australian government should seek to harness the willingness of community groups to extend the hand of friendship and support with appropriately designed programs.

    Australian governments should continue to explore ways to introduce new migrants to Australian laws and social norms at appropriate parts of the visa, settlement and citizenship process.

    Ultimately, the benefits that any migrant gains from settlement services flow on to the wider community by making migrants more productive participants in the workforce more quickly and hastening their integration into a socially cohesive society.

    The effectiveness of migrant settlement programs should be regularly reviewed and evaluated to ensure that they are properly targeted and are having real impacts in improving the individual migrant settlement process.

    Specialised migrant services should operate as a bridge to broader mainstream services. The Australian government should continue to promote Multicultural Access and Equity[1] to ensure that its agencies are able to engage with Australia’s multicultural society effectively.

    3.3 Australian Citizenship Policy

    Since Australian citizenship first came into being on 26 January 1949, it has played an important role both as a national symbol for the Australian-born and in integrating millions of migrants formally into the Australian community. This parallels the citizenship policy approach taken by other great migrant receiving countries – the USA and Canada.

    Australian citizenship policy should continue to embody the following principles:

    • Australian citizenship, and the values that go with it, should be a unifying national symbol.
    • Australian citizenship policy should actively encourage the acquisition of Australian citizenship by permanent resident migrants, without unnecessary barriers, as part of building a cohesive multicultural society.
    • Acquisition of Australian citizenship should be based on close association with Australia, either through birth in Australia to an Australian citizen or permanent resident parent, descent from an Australian citizen parent or physical presence in Australia as a permanent resident.
    • Concessions to standard residential requirements should be permitted to permanent residents who have spent at least some time physically present in Australia, but only on a limited basis in special circumstances.
    • Australia should continue to permit its citizens to retain their Australian citizenship if they acquire another citizenship, in order to retain beneficial links with an Australian diaspora of over one million people.
    • Australian citizenship is strengthened by certainty; no citizen should be deprived of it except in circumstances where they are convicted of obtaining it by fraud and deprivation would not result in statelessness;
    • The process of deprivation of Australian citizenship should not be used as a substitute for criminal law to punish naturalised citizens for crimes committed after becoming an Australian citizen.

    The take-up rate of Australian citizenship by eligible permanent residents is estimated to be about 80%.[2] This is high by OECD standards and comparable to the citizenship take-up rate in Canada. Nevertheless, take-up rates vary between nationalities and there are significant numbers of eligible people who, for various reasons, have not yet taken up Australian citizenship.

    Australian governments should promote the values of Australian citizenship and its acquisition by permanent residents on an ongoing basis, with major promotions every few years in order to maintain the high Australian citizenship take up rate.

    Recognising that permanent residents are able to, and mostly do, stay and contribute to the Australian community throughout their lives, governments should resist the temptation to increase the existing limited differential between the rights of Australian permanent residents and citizens as a basis for promoting citizenship.

    Testing on aspects of knowledge of matters relating to Australian citizenship has been in existence since 2007 as a preliminary to the acquisition of Australian citizenship by migrants. It is uncertain whether this has had any concrete benefits or indeed adverse impacts on the take-up rate of Australian citizenship. Australian governments should ensure that any testing regime does not become a barrier to the acquisition of citizenship to people who will spend their lives in Australia and make an ongoing contribution to Australian society. Alternatives to testing should be made available to those who are uncomfortable with it and should be geographically accessible throughout Australia.

    The acquisition of Australian citizenship should continue to be made a celebratory event through public citizenship ceremonies conducted by local government or the Australian government.

    3.4 Australian Multicultural Policy

    Australian governments from both major political parties have endorsed broadly similar Australian multicultural policies since the 1980s, as have all Australian states and territories. Some states and territories have given multicultural policy legislative status.

    For a society as diverse as Australia’s, and largely built on immigration, a continued focus on multicultural policy is vital to social cohesion, migrant integration and community relations.

    Broadly speaking, all multicultural policies stress as a foundation that all Australians should be committed to the basic structures and principles of Australian society – our Constitution, democratic institutions, respect for the law and English as the national language. At the same time, the policies stress the right of all Australians to express their own cultures and beliefs, within the law, and the need to accept the right of others to do the same.

    Australian governments should continue to provide active leadership in articulating and disseminating multicultural policy as the foundation for a productive and harmonious society. This will not only make us a better society, but a more resilient one in resisting externally generated stresses and pressures. 

    3.5 Conclusion – Immigration, Refugee and Settlement Policy

    The policy approaches outlined in Parts 1, 2 and 3 constitute an integrated approach to future Australian immigration needs.

    They aim to enable Australia to continue to harness the opportunities of the global movement of people to its own national economic and social development. At the same time, they should better position Australia to deal with the growing challenges of forced and irregular migration by making a significant humanitarian contribution to contribution to global displacement, including through a generous refugee resettlement program.

    Pursuing these policies should also reinforce a united and resilient Australian society capable of resisting external and internal challenges to a harmonious community.

    They will contribute to a:

    • growing and prosperous Australia with a critical population mass to support the governance overheads of modern society
    • a skilled labour force attuned to Australia’s economic needs
    • a closer relationship with Australia’s regional neighbours
    • better management of displacement and irregular migration, including humanitarian solutions
    • a culturally diverse, confident and united society

    Peter Hughes is Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy,

    Visitor, Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University

    Arja Keski-Nummi was formerly First Assistant Secretary of the Refugee, Humanitarian and International Division in the Department of Immigration

  • John Menadue. Canada’s response puts us to shame.

    In this blog on 4 February, I mentioned the failure of the Australian government to adequately respond to the Syrian refugee crisis. I pointed out that at that time only ten refugees had arrived from Syria out of a promised intake of 12,000.  I mentioned three factors for this delay.  The first was political will. The second was the failure of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection which has become focused on control and border protection at the expense of settlement. The third was the inordinate delays resulting from ASIO security checks.

    The Canadian government has just announced that it has achieved its goal of 25,000 Syrian refugee arrivals even though Canada announced its plans two months after Australia. The Canadian government is now proposing to increase its intake of Syrian refugees to 50,00 by the end of 2016.

    The Canadian response puts us to shame both for its humanity and efficiency.  See link to article in the Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail.  John Menadue.

     

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/liberals-revised-goal-met-as-25000th-syrian-refugee-arrives-in-canada/article28944527/

  • Peter Hughes, Arja Keski-Nummi and John Menadue. Part 2. Refugee Policy

    A repost from 26/05/15

    Part 2: Refugee Policy 

    2.1 Overview

    The current and future global environment for irregular migration is extremely challenging.

    Many more people are on the move globally to gain protection from persecution, security from conflict or greater economic opportunity – or a mixture of these things.

    The movement of people is being accelerated by growing awareness of the opportunities to move, new communications technology, cheaper transport and active facilitators.

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) states that global forced displacement of some 51 million people (17 million refugees, 33 million internally displaced persons and over one million asylum seekers) is at the highest level since the Second World War. There are many millions more people seeking migration opportunities for employment over and above the forced migration figures.

    Australia’s traditional engagement with this issue has been through our offshore humanitarian resettlement program, but over the past 15 years national policy debate has centred almost exclusively on the management of smuggled maritime asylum seekers. Australia experienced a flow of some 10,000 maritime asylum seekers, mostly from outside the region, in the period 1998–2007 and 50,000 in the period 2008–2013.

    The debate has divided Australian society and the net result has been the adoption of the harshest possible measures to disengage Australia from this flow of people.

    In the context of growing world displacement and people movement, Australia will remain an attractive destination.

    Policy responses by successive governments to date have focused on ‘quick fixes’ driven by political and community pressures. A more measured approach will be needed.

    One choice, advocated by many, would be to maintain open access for maritime asylum seekers and to accept the consequences. Experience in Australia and Europe indicates that this approach will attract very large numbers of both asylum seekers and economic migrants facilitated by people smugglers. The numbers coming to Australia reached 4,000 people in a single month in July 2013. There is no reason why they could not go much higher. Exploitation and deaths at sea, corresponding to the size of the movement, go with this inherently disorderly and unsafe movement. If significant flows of maritime asylum seekers to Australia resume from troubled developing countries, it is unlikely that many would return to their country of origin, irrespective of whether or not they are found to be refugees.

    If Australia does not want to accept renewed flows of maritime asylum seekers, it will need to make a long-term investment in global and regional management of protection and the movement of people. Australia cannot escape the phenomenon of global displacement and must re-engage with it.

    Existing solutions, which are heavily dependent on naval interdiction and small Pacific island nations, may not be sustainable in the long term.

    The demand for migration opportunities, whether forced or economically based, to Australia and other (developing and developed) countries is unlikely to be satisfied. Priorities will need to be set as to those most in need and how they can best be assisted.

    2.2 A Formal Policy on Refugees and Displacement

    At a strategic level, Australia needs to develop a formal policy on refugees and global displacement. The policy should integrate our responses to global and regional refugee issues, bringing together foreign policy, aid policy, the offshore humanitarian resettlement program and domestic asylum policy (including for both maritime and visaed arrivals). Interventions under this policy should tackle the root causes of refugee flows as well as their consequences.

    The global asylum system is under extreme pressure with host countries in both the developing and developed world struggling to cope. Many refugees are unable to get protection close to home and are subsequently exploited by people smugglers who fill a vacuum left by States. The situation is complicated by mixed flows of refugees and economic migrants.

    Australia can play a role at the global level in working with UNHCR and partner countries to develop new, more orderly and effective responses to the modern dynamics of people movement.

    At a regional level, Australia needs to be much more active in engaging regional partner countries to better manage the movement of people and develop a sense of collective responsibility in dealing with protection issues. Australian and regional partners should develop habits of routine consultation and action, based on agreed principles, in response to forced migration and other irregular movements of people in the region. This is a long-term task, as few countries in the region are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and few have strong national institutions for migration management.

    The regional policy aim, in partnership with UNHCR, would be to tackle root causes of displacement as well developing an improved system of refugee protection. An orderly regional system of protection should encourage asylum seekers to seek protection in a secure environment in countries of first asylum, closer to the country of origin, and have their future determined in those countries (whether it be local integration, international resettlement or return home).

    The policy should seek to provide protection and migration opportunities for those most in need and, by stabilising those populations, to minimise exploitation opportunities for people smugglers and irregular migration.

    In fostering and developing such a system, Australia should look beyond its own immediate interests and be willing to take an active role in solving the displacement problems affecting its neighbours. Australia should also recognise that its regional partners are unlikely to become parties to the Refugee Convention. Cooperative arrangements will need to be based on practical measures consistent with Refugee Convention practices.

    The Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime has been an important vehicle to date in putting questions of protection, people smuggling and law enforcement on the regional agenda. In the longer term, Australian policy should work towards more targeted regional processes possibility involving ASEAN and/or sub-regional groupings.

    The work of government in developing better regional approaches should be complemented by a Track 2 Dialogue involving selected countries in the region and bringing together government policymakers with non-government experts in a “non-official” conversation on these matters. This will provide an opportunity for constructive dialogue and development of new policy approaches in this contested area of public policy.

    At the national policy level, Australia should draw on a range of policy tools in its interventions in global displacement.

    Foreign policy and development assistance can play an important role in tackling root causes of displacement as well as the willingness of countries in the region to stabilise displaced populations in first asylum or transit mode.

    The Humanitarian Program, which has been Australia’s traditional contribution to durable solutions, should be increased to a base, ongoing program of 20,000 places a year, reflecting growing global displacement and the need for Australia to do more. This would represent about 10% of Australia’s total annual permanent migrant intake. The program should be operated flexibly, allowing for significant one-off increases from time to time to deal with acute global crises or regional displacement of particular significance to Australia.

    The resettlement program needs to be accompanied by measures that foster good employment and integration outcomes for refugee arrivals.

    Each cohort of people moving in the region is different, reflecting protection needs, security from conflict, economic pressures or a combination of all of these. Australian government responses need to reflect the unique circumstances of each national group.

    Australian government policy should involve targeted use of other available tools to promote orderly migration, as appropriate, such as alternative migration pathways, “in-country humanitarian programs” and “orderly departure” arrangements from selected source countries.

    Asylum decision-making and review processes, whether for asylum seekers who are irregular maritime arrivals or those who arrive with visas by air, should be regularly reviewed and evaluated to ensure that they remain fair, quick and efficient. They must be tailored to deal appropriately with new protection issues that arise and the unique circumstances of different cohorts of asylum seekers.

    Irregular movements of asylum seekers by sea, following journeys across vast distances, facilitated by smugglers for commercial gain, are not in the interests of asylum seekers because of the inherent exploitation and danger. Nor are such movements in the interests of regional states. Australian policy should continue to discourage irregular movements by sea (except in the most limited circumstances where Australia is the logical first asylum country) and promote an orderly asylum system.

    Regional policy measures should help to provide satisfactory protection alternatives for asylum seekers, but the maritime people smuggling option cannot be allowed to remain open in parallel.

    Firm, but humane, action is needed here. The preferred approach would be for the Australian government to negotiate readmission agreements, under acceptable conditions, with transit countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, which enable any people reaching Australia by sea to be safely returned to a transit country by air and have their future determined from that location. Acceptable conditions would include asylum seekers being permitted to remain in the community of the transit country, with asylum claims considered by UNHCR, and a pathway to local or international durable solutions for refugees. Such arrangements would be safer and more desirable than use of small Pacific countries and boat turnarounds on the high seas. If these mechanisms were seen to be effective, they would rarely need to be used. 

    2.3 Legacy caseload from 2008–2013 maritime arrivals

    Australia has a continuing responsibility to resolve the future the some 30,000 people who sought to arrive in Australia by sea in the period 2008-2013 and have not yet had final decisions on their refugee claim or resolution of their long-term immigration status.

    The first priority is to resolve the situation of the 1707 people in PNG and Nauru[1] most of whom are in detention in extremely difficult circumstances.

    The Australian government should work with local authorities in PNG and Nauru to expedite decision-making on asylum cases with a fixed deadline to finally decide all cases. Apart from those few people found to be refugees who may be able to settle effectively in PNG and Nauru, the Australian government should negotiate resettlement in third countries or, as a last resort, Australia. The assistance of UNHCR should be sought in final resolution of the caseload.

    A fixed deadline should also be set for primary and review decisions for the remaining maritime asylum seeker caseload in Australia. For those found to be refugees, the Australian government should recognise that it is unlikely that political conditions will improve in source countries in a way that will enable refugees to return home within the foreseeable future. It should therefore set a defined pathway to permanent residence and Australian citizenship.

    As noted in Part 1.6, the use of detention as an immigration tool should be minimised except for short periods for specified purposes. The Australian government should use its influence to ensure that detention facilities are of an acceptable standard in PNG and Nauru and that agreement is reached with those countries to enable the equivalent of Australian community detention arrangements while asylum cases in the regional processing centres remain unresolved.

    The Australian government should make arrangements for the repatriation of those found not to be refugees (or in need of complementary protection). Such returns are necessary to maintain the integrity of the protection system. Returns should be voluntary where possible, supported by reintegration assistance. In some circumstances involuntary returns will be necessary and these should be supported, where necessary, by written agreements with source countries.

    Peter Hughes is Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy,

    Visitor, Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University

    Arja Keski-Nummi was formerly First Assistant Secretary of the Refugee, Humanitarian and International Division in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2007-2010.

    John Menadue was Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, 1980-1983.

    [1] Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary, 31 March 2015

  • Ian McAuley. Chris Bowen and ‘The Money Men’.

    Political disunity comes in two forms. One, which we witnessed in the Rudd-Gillard years, is the subtle attack on the authority of the party leader. The other and more serious form is a conflict about policy.

    Once Tony Abbott announced his intention to hang around it was clear that the Turnbull Government would suffer the disunity of the first form. Abbott’s ridiculous claim last week that he could have won the coming election is a pretty good indication of why he wants to hang around.

    And it’s now evident that the Government is being torn apart over economic policy. The specific manifestation is about taxation of investment housing, but it’s much deeper than that issue. It’s about the conflict between attending to important shortcomings in our economic structure, namely the need to improve our public revenue and to remove unjustifiable and distorting tax rorts, and appeasing the petulant beneficiaries of those rorts.

    John Howard has now weighed in, urging appeasement, no doubt having in mind the way the Coalition successfully used the issue of “negative gearing” against the Keating Government. Perhaps he should go back to 1982 when, as treasurer, he confronted the tax evasion mechanism known as “bottom of the harbour”, which saw people shifting their tax liabilities to companies that they would subsequently liquidate. Then, as now, there was a large rump in the Coalition parties ready to defend tax rorts – with many of them crossing the floor when Howard introduced legislation to stop the practice.

    Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen analyses these conflicts between economic and political demands in his recently-published book The Money Men: Australia’s twelve most notable treasurers (Melbourne University Press 2015).

    Throughout our 115 year history, he points out, governments have succeeded in re-shaping economic policy when there is a reasonable degree of policy convergence between the main actors – not only the Treasurer and Prime Minister, but also the Treasury and, in recent years, the Reserve Bank.

    He describes some of the most successful partnerships, such as that between Treasurer Ben Chifley and Prime Minister John Curtin. That partnership was based not only on a strong ideological alignment between the two men, but also on their willingness to seek independent economic advice, and to bring people like Nugget Coombs into advisory roles. (Bowen is too polite to draw the obvious contrast with the partisan groupthink that characterised Abbott’s and Howard’s “commissions of audit”.)

    It’s hardly surprising, then, that he acknowledges Paul Keating’s effectiveness in economic reform: there was rivalry between Hawke and Keating for the top job, but they supported each other on economic policy. And his standout case study is the deft response of Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd to the emerging global financial crisis – a situation where Treasury was well on side.

    Bowen’s twelve biographies cover both Labor and non-Labor treasurers – including Country Party treasurers Earl Page (1923-1929) and Arthur Fadden (1949-1958). It’s revealing that in the 1950s Fadden had no great political difficulty in raising taxes to meet expenditure needs. Tough budgets were met with token protests – the tabloid headlines would scream “Beer up, cigs up” – but Australians got on with paying their taxes to contribute to the nation’s needs.

    It’s also revealing that Menzies and Fadden saw a budget surplus as politically problematic, even though Keynesian management calls for surpluses when an economy is overheating. After all, a surplus means the government collects more in taxation than it spends on services and transfers. People understandably don’t like paying for more than they are receiving.

    It was Peter Costello who re-defined a surplus as something intrinsically virtuous. Whether this stemmed from Costello’s economic ignorance or from political opportunism Bowen does not make clear. It was easy for Costello to make this connection, because over his ten years in the job the economy and therefore public revenue were thriving, thanks to the mining boom and the Hawke-Keating Government’s economic reforms.

    The idea that a surplus was the hallmark of good economic management provided Abbott with a powerful weapon against the Rudd-Gillard administration. Had they not run a substantial deficit, however, the cost in terms of unemployment would have been staggering – a repetition of the idiocy of 1929. Similarly it would be irresponsible for the Turnbull Government go for a cash surplus in this year’s budget, but there is poetic justice in seeing the deficit fetish coming back to haunt them.

    Bowen generously gives credit to Costello for his understanding of the 1997 Asian crisis (he was well ahead of the IMF), for granting independence to the Reserve Bank, and for implementing the recommendations of the Wallis Inquiry into the financial system (thus improving our capacity to cope with the Global Financial Crisis).

    While he’s critical of Costello’s failure to understand the dynamics of monetary policy, and for yielding to Howard with unsustainable tax cuts and middle-class welfare, he lets Costello off lightly. He does not mention Costello’s hash of capital gains tax, when he abolished indexation and reduced the rate to 50 per cent – a “reform” that played into the hands of bankers and speculators and is largely responsible for our real-estate bubble and housing affordability crisis.

    His coverage of Keating’s reforms is testament not only to Keating’s determination, but also to the political luck of the Hawke-Keating Government. There is a revisionist story that Keating had it easy because there was bipartisan consensus on the need for reform, and that a Liberal Opposition could hardly object to a Labor Government deregulating the finance sector, reforming business taxes, and reducing tariff protection – policies in many ways straight out of the Liberal Party platform.

    Bowen dismisses this revisionist view – the Liberal Party, then as now, fought against every one of Labor’s significant reforms. It was its 13 year run in office that gave Labor a chance to take a steady path to economic reform, because they had the luck of an opposition in disarray. Perhaps Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s greatest contribution to public life was his “Joh-for-PM” push, which destabilised the Liberal Party long enough to allow the Hawke-Keating Government to embed its reforms.

    The main value of this work is that it tells us something about the person who could well be Treasurer later this year. He’s obviously on top of his economics, and he clearly has an understanding of economic history. He establishes his conservative credentials, most notably in his dismissive treatment of Jim Cairns’s utopian socialist vision. He’s also realistic about the political processes of economic reform. It’s difficult, but it can be handled with patience – his cover of good ideas badly handled, such as the proposed minerals resource rent tax, shows that he understands the need for sound process. He’s certainly not a “crash or crash through” politician, but rather he comes across as one who would maintain the Labor tradition of responsible economic management.

     

     

     

     

  • Peter Hughes, Arja Keski-Nummi and John Menadue. Part 1: Immigration Policy and Administration.

    This article and the two following articles were part of a policy series that was posted in May/June last year and subsequently published in book form ‘Fairness, Opportunity and Security’. This is a repost from 25/5/2015.

    Overview

    This paper sets out a broad design for Australia’s immigration, refugee and settlement policies for the coming decades.

    The issues are covered in three parts:

    1. Immigration Policy and Administration
    2. Refugee Policy
    3. Migrant Settlement and Citizenship Policy

    Part 1: Immigration Policy and Administration 

    1.1 Guiding Principles

    Australia’s planned immigration program has played a major role in Australia’s development over the last 70 years – directly adding 7 million people, including 800,000 humanitarian entrants, to Australia’s population and dramatically diversifying Australia from a predominantly Anglo-Celtic community to a multicultural society with more than 270 ancestries.

    Through immigration Australia has been able to gain some of the best human capital in the world to build a nation, as well as making a humanitarian contribution.

    Governments of both major parties have in recent years set Australia’s permanent migration programs at record levels in absolute terms and continue to do so (over 200,000 permanent migration and humanitarian visas planned in 2015–16). Temporary entry programs have also risen to unprecedented levels, well in excess of permanent visas.

    At the same time, however, public debate in Australia has been diverted to, and dominated by, the relatively narrow issue of asylum seekers arriving irregularly by sea.

    Immigration still has a major role to play in building Australia. It is important to our population, our economic development, to growing the workforce in an ageing society and to providing a population necessary to fund the overhead costs of a modern nation state occupying a huge continent.

    Based on a projection of the current permanent and temporary immigration framework, Australia’s population will increase to 38 million people in 2050. Without immigration, it would stagnate at about 24 million people. It is estimated that, based on the continuation of current policy settings, migration will have added 15.7% to our workforce participation rate by 2050 and 5.9% in GDP per capita growth.[1]

    Immigration also continues to play an important role in Australia’s ongoing integration with its near region by adding cultural and linguistic skills from regional neighbours that are important to Australia’s place in the Asian century.

    The benefits achieved through migration to date cannot be taken for granted. Many other countries are competing for relatively young, highly skilled, English-speaking internationally mobile people.

    In this context, Australia’s immigration policy needs to be reaffirmed and re-articulated for the coming decades to ensure that it continues to serve Australia as well in the future, as it has in the past.

    Australian immigration policy should be guided by the following principles:

    • Australia should continue to have a planned immigration program for nation building.
    • Australia’s immigration program should be in the national interest – serving economic needs, but also including generous components for entry of people based on close family connections and on refugee and humanitarian grounds.
    • Australia’s immigration program should continue to be based on objective selection criteria, which are non-discriminatory on the grounds of race or religion.
    • Australia’s immigration program should retain a core focus on migration for permanent settlement with a pathway to Australian citizenship. At the same time, it should recognise the massive growth in international mobility and make continuing provision for large-scale temporary migration, where it can meet national interests in economic, social, cultural and foreign policy areas.
    • Australian governments should continue to set annual permanent and temporary immigration targets and planning figures, including indicative figures for forward years, but these should be administered flexibly without inefficient micromanagement to achieve rigid targets.
    • Australian government planning should continue to document an optimum figure for net migration gain and use this as a key reference point in permanent and temporary migration program planning.
    • Australia’s immigration program planning should be supported by research into post-arrival outcomes of migration.
    • Australia’s immigration program planning should be supported by regular consultation with key stakeholders – States and Territories, business, unions, migrant groups and the broader community.
    • Australia’s immigration program should continue to be supported by targeted services to those migrants who need them, particularly refugees, to assist with early, productive settlement and integration into the community.
    • Australia’s immigration program should continue to be supported by an Australian citizenship policy which promotes early take-up of Australian citizenship to ensure that migrants become full and formal members of the Australian community.
    • Australian government leadership is needed to articulate a vigorous, inclusive and unifying multicultural policy in cooperation with State and Territory governments.

    1.2 Migration for Permanent Settlement

    Australian immigration policy should continue to foster migration for permanent settlement to meet economic, social and humanitarian objectives (the latter discussed Part 2: Refugee Policy).

    Migration to meet labour market needs should focus primarily on skilled workers with high-level, recognised professional, technical and trade qualifications. Programs should be designed to meet both long-term social capital needs to build a stronger skills base in the Australian workforce as well as short-term variable demand by employers.

    The permanent migration program should be designed to meet longer term needs and remain relatively steady over time, leaving demand driven temporary entry programs to adjust up and down with the economic cycle.

    Over the past decade, skilled people working in Australia under various temporary entry programs have increasingly become a feeder group into the permanent migration stream. Australian governments should continue to foster this approach where it meets the needs of the migration program and does not introduce perverse incentives into temporary entry programs.

    Australia should permit permanent residence on the basis of business ownership or general investment in the Australian economy on a strictly limited basis, after detailed evaluation of the outcomes of previous programs. It has proven difficult to measure the concrete benefits to Australia of this form of migration. It exposes Australia to risks inherent in “selling” visas, dubious sources of capital, extradition problems with wealthy migrants who subsequently become fugitives from justice without clear offsetting migration benefits or economic gains.

    The Australian government should establish advisory bodies, drawing on the skills of business, unions, demographers and State/Territory governments to design permanent and temporary entry programs that remain attuned to labour market needs.

    Australian immigration policy should continue to make provision for migration based on close family connections, particularly spouses, parents and dependent children.

    Policies in relation to spouse migration should continue to focus closely on the genuineness of relationships to ensure the integrity of this migration category. Adequate planning provision should be made to accommodate numbers of spouse visas consistent with Australia’s population growth and the greater interaction between the Australian community and foreign communities, rather than constraining spouse migration numbers with artificial ceilings and long processing times.

    Policies in relation to the migration of parents of previous migrants should recognise the natural wish of some migrants to be able to look after their parents in Australia, particularly in their later years. Given the high costs that people in this age profile may impose on government budgets, such migration should continue to require a commensurate financial contribution from Australian-based sponsors.

    Australia occupies a vast continent. States/Territories and regions have differing population, economic, labour market and social needs.

    To be successful, migration policies and criteria must continue to be sensitive to the specific needs of particular industries and geographic locations.

    State and Territory governments, regional governments and business should continue to be given the ability to sponsor migrants to meet their specific needs, while accepting responsibility for outcomes commensurate with their sponsorship of migrants.

    1.3 Temporary Migration

    Temporary entry programs have grown to unprecedented levels over the last decade.

    There were some 800,000 temporary entrants in Australia as at 30 September 2014 (excluding visitor visa holders, bridging visa holders and New Zealanders temporarily in Australia – which bring the total to some 1.8 million)[2]. The flow of temporary entrants such as temporary skilled migrants, students and working holiday makers is well in excess of the permanent migration and humanitarian program, reflecting increasing global mobility and Australian entry programs designed to meet specific economic, social and cultural objectives.

    Australia is in a position to continue to benefit from further growth in global mobility with well-designed, and internationally competitive, temporary entry programs, provided that the risks inherent in such programs are carefully mitigated.

    Temporary skilled migration is an important tool in meeting short term, fluctuating skilled labour market needs and should be expected to rise and fall relatively rapidly in contrast to a steadier long-term permanent migration program.

    Immigration policy should continue to enable responsible employers to sponsor foreign workers to meet short-term skilled labour market needs that cannot be met domestically. At the same time there must be program design safeguards to ensure that foreign workers are not less costly than available Australian workers and that there are sufficient protections built in to ensure that sponsors do not exploit foreign workers.

    Immigration policy should continue to facilitate the entry and stay of people who are seeking to study in Australia and depart at the end of their studies, as part of Australia’s education export and cultural exchange. The degree of facilitation should be closely related to the immigration risk factors. A high degree of scrutiny should be applied to those areas of the education system where abusive practices are evident.

    While immigration rules should provide access to permanent stay for foreign students, on the same basis as overseas applicants, there should be no guaranteed pathway to permanent residence for international students simply because of an Australian qualification. The export of education should be internationally competitive and stand on its own merits and not be subsidised by the permanent visa system.

         International education agents are in many cases the face of Australian education overseas. For consumer protection purposes, they should be subject to quality standards, registration and sanctions for misbehaviour in the same way that Australian migration agents are regulated.

    Immigration policy should continue to foster opportunities, on a reciprocal basis, for young people from selected countries to live and work in Australia for periods of one to two years under working holiday arrangements. Domestic labour market impacts, especially on Australian youth, should be monitored and evaluated. Potential abuses need to be quickly identified and policy should contemplate annual limits on visas if required.

    More recently, Australia has, on a small-scale, commenced assisting Pacific neighbours through targeted arrangements which enable temporary entry of seasonal workers in agricultural industries (the scheme is currently available to citizens of Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu).

    Migration policy should leave scope for limited amounts of unskilled temporary migration in the context of Australia’s engagement with its region. Program design should ensure that such foreign workers are able to benefit financially from the arrangements without exploitation, that such arrangements remain competitive for employers who are unable to secure a consistent Australian labour supply and that the workers return to their countries of origin.

    As a general point, many temporary entry programs are more inherently susceptible to abuse. It must be recognised that many foreigners temporarily in Australia with work rights are more at risk to exploitation than Australian workers because of their unfamiliarity with the Australian system, lack of informed networks and/or poor English language skills. Australian government and State/Territory government authorities should cooperate to ensure that such workers are given information on their rights and access to easily usable complaint mechanisms. Workplace inspection authorities must be adequately resourced to monitor for abuses in the workplace and sanction employers. It should be a criminal offence for employers to charge temporary skilled workers for sponsorship for either temporary or permanent residence.

    Policies in relation to temporary migration should take account of the phenomenon of “circular migration” and foster this when it is in the national interest.

    Australian immigration policy should continue to facilitate genuine tourists to Australia with fast and flexible visa and stay arrangements carefully calibrated to reflect degree of immigration risk.

    1.4 New Zealanders

    Under policy introduced by the Australian government in 2001 (in the context of arrangements for a reciprocal social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand), New Zealand citizens can enter and live in Australia indefinitely without meeting globally applied visa criteria, but do not have permanent resident status. They cannot access a range of government services without qualifying for permanent residence by meeting global migration criteria.

    New Zealand citizens entering Australia on this temporary basis have an advantage over citizens of other countries in that they can freely enter and live in Australia, with access to the labour market, without meeting the permanent residence visa criteria applied globally to other nationals. As at 30 September 2014, there were over 650,000 New Zealand temporary residents in Australia[3] .

    Some of these New Zealand temporary residents are able to meet globally applied permanent visa criteria and become permanent residents with a pathway to Australian citizenship. Many others do not have the skills and other attributes that enable them to qualify. This is resulting in what is unique in Australian terms – a long-term temporary population, including Australian born children, without access to permanent residence and Australian citizenship.

    The Australian government should evaluate the outcome of the trans-Tasman migration arrangements, including the changes introduced in 2001, with a view to considering whether all New Zealanders should in future be subject to globally applied arrangements or whether existing arrangements should be retained and some concessional arrangements should be introduced to allow long-term New Zealand temporary residents to transition to permanent residence.

    1.5 Immigration Policy and Regional Engagement

    Permanent and temporary migration programs have over the years have played an important part deepening Australia’s engagement with its region.

    India and China are now the top two source countries of permanent migrants. Asia-Pacific countries figure prominently in temporary skilled worker numbers. Nine Asia-Pacific countries are in the top 10 source countries of overseas students. Four Asia-Pacific countries are in the top 10 working holiday maker source countries. Asia-Pacific countries figure prominently in overseas tourism and a number of them are given the most facilitated electronic visa arrangements which Australia offers globally[4].

    The most recent region-specific initiative has been the Pacific Seasonal Workers Scheme.

    Australia has already invested significantly in cooperative arrangements on important, but relatively narrow, border management and migration control matters with regional neighbours.

    At the multilateral level, Australia should be working to develop broader regional cooperative arrangements to ensure effective routine consultation and co-operation on management of migration within the region. This should include regular migration, irregular migration and refugee protection.

    On a bilateral basis, Australia should continue to look at opportunities to strengthen and deepen its regional ties through migration arrangements that are in the national interest – including greater facilitation of travel for citizens of selected regional neighbours, whether permanent or temporary skilled migration, working holiday arrangements, student entry, tourism or expansion of seasonal worker arrangements. 

    1.6 Program and Border Integrity

    Australia has been able to achieve high level of success and of community support for a planned immigration program (which operates at a much higher level than other traditional immigration countries on a per capita basis) over many years because of its ability to effectively regulate movements to Australia in the national interest, maintain integrity of programs and achieve a relatively low population of unlawful non-citizens.

    Well-developed entry policies, backed by a careful risk management approach, have enabled Australia to make the most of the world’s mobile talent and adjust to different potential source countries over time.

    These policies have been supported by effective border management and compliance programs. These capabilities should be maintained at a high level. At the same time, they should be regarded as “processes” in support of Australia’s global activities to gain the best social capital for Australia rather than an outcome in themselves.

    Effective intelligence, supported by domestic and international interagency cooperation is vital in responding to dynamic irregular migration, crime and security risks. Equally, domestic capability to enforce immigration law, including removal of people without lawful authority to stay, is vital to the integrity of programs and also to protecting migrants – especially temporary workers.

    Australian immigration authorities need to use a variety of tools to ensure compliance with immigration law. These tools should always be proportionate to the risk presented. The use of “held” detention, except for very short periods to deal with identity, health and security risks, or risk of absconding, should be avoided as far as possible because of unnecessarily harsh outcomes which usually follow for those held in detention. Detention of children should be avoided wherever possible and special arrangements should be made for them if short periods of detention are unavoidable.

    Alternatives to detention which enable immigration authorities to remain in touch with persons of interest who do not have authority to remain in Australia should be used wherever possible.

    Any use of detention needs to be subject to rigorous external scrutiny of detention facilities and conditions as well as case-by-case examination of the reasons for detention of individuals being held for more than a short period.

    1.7 Managing Migration – Australian Government Capability

    Effective immigration programs do not run themselves. Australia needs an ongoing national capability to achieve domestic and international goals in relation to migration.

    These capabilities include a strong policy capacity, backed by evidence based research and active evaluation of program outcomes to inform further policy. The most well-intentioned policies can have unintended consequences and these must be quickly identified and policy rectified.

    This policy capability should be supported by a strong service delivery and operational network overseas and within Australia, backed by the latest technology.

    The case for full integration of the Australian Customs functions with the Department of Immigration has never been convincingly made and no major unrealised synergies or efficiency gains identified.

    The Australian Government should revisit the existing administration model to consider whether any real gains have been achieved or whether Australian Customs should become an operational agency within the broader portfolio or separated from the Department of Immigration.

    One of the great strengths of the Australian immigration system until recently has been an integrated national administration which brings together entry policy, citizenship policy and post arrival settlement services. This has ensured a close feedback loop to entry policy based on the practical experiences and outcomes for different cohorts of migrants.

    The migrant and refugee post-arrival settlement programs transferred to other departments in 2013, including the Adult Migrant English Program, should be returned to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

    1.8 Australian, State/Territory and Local Government management of immigration outcomes

    Consistent with its nation building objective, Australia’s immigration program necessarily impacts all states and territories, although to different degrees.

    The Australian government should put in place mechanisms to ensure that State/Territory and local government are involved in short-term and long range migration planning. Immigration, whether permanent or temporary, brings prosperity, but it also brings with it the associated costs for expanding infrastructure. It is important that governments put the necessary processes are in place to ensure that infrastructure planning and implementation reflects population growth from migration and as well as natural increase.

    The success of Australia’s immigration program has always depended upon community confidence in the efficacy of the program and its benefits for the country. All levels of government need to take responsibility for public education on immigration and its benefits.

    Peter Hughes is Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy,
    Visitor, Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University

    Arja Keski-Nummi was formerly First Assistant Secretary of the Refugee, Humanitarian and International Division in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2007-2010.

    John Menadue was Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, 1980-1983.

    [1] Migration Council of Australia, The Economic Impact of Migration (2015)

    [2] Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Temporary Entrants and New Zealand Citizens in Australia as at 30 September 2014.

    [3] Department of Immigration and Border Protection, as above.

    [4] Department of Immigration and Border Protection

  • Will Steffen. CSIRO and climate change: Making policy based on myths

    The recently announced cuts to CSIRO climate science have stunned the Australian research community and sent shockwaves through the international climate research system. Claims and counter-claims are flying around the media, the cybersphere, Senate estimates, and elsewhere.

    To cut through the claims that are being made in support of the CSIRO’s leadership to gut the Organization’s climate research capacity, a good round of myth-busting is required.

    Myth One: The science is settled and now we need to get on with the job of mitigation.

    The “science is settled” comment has been completely misrepresented by Larry Marshall, the CEO of CSIRO. It refers to the false claims made by deniers about the fundamental reality of climate change and its causes. Yes, THAT science is settled and has been for decades.

    We are dealing with arguably the most complex problem that humanity has ever faced. We are eroding the integrity of our own planetary life support system at an accelerating rate. However, the Earth is the most complex system that we have ever dealt with. There is much more that needs to be known about the responses of the Earth System to our expanding pressures so that we can make sensible decisions on how to cope with the mess we are creating.

    Cutting essential climate science now is like flying into an intensifying storm and ripping the radar, navigation instruments and communication systems out the plane.

    Myth Two: There are no cuts to CSIRO climate science; the money is just being put towards forecasting instead.

    There are clear cuts to CSIRO climate science capacity, in fact over 100 jobs are planned to be cut from the agency’s climate science staff. CSIRO needs this staffing capacity to undertake vital research like climate model development, improving sea level rise projections and their underpinning processes, understanding the carbon cycle, tracking how oceanic and atmospheric circulation is changing, monitoring the changing nature of extreme weather events, researching ocean acidification and regularly updating greenhouse gas data.

    Put simply, we can’t accurately or effectively mitigate or adapt to climate change without the most up-to-date climate science, which includes ongoing improvements in understanding how the climate is change through observations, process studies, analyses, model development, synthesis and integration, and tailoring knowledge to the needs of user groups.

    To be clear, in a rapidly changing climate where the nature of risks is constantly changing, ongoing research is required to continually improve our knowledge base. It is essential to understand and monitor how the climate is changing in order to ensure we understand the evolving nature and extent of the challenge facing Australia.

    This is why it makes no sense to say we can just ‘put money towards forecasting instead’. That would leave us totally in the dark, trying to respond to a problem without the constantly updating data and process understanding that we need to track and understand the problem.

    Myth Three: The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) will just take on the workload. Climate modelling and climate forecasting are already performed by BoM and these results are shared between the CSIRO and BoM.

    BoM cannot take on the workload created by the CSIRO cuts, and should not be expected to do so. The CSIRO, BoM and the universities all contribute to climate science in different, complementary ways. They rely on each other to provide mutual support for the research effort.

    BoM focuses strongly on long-term observations of the climate and water systems, and provides short-to-medium range forecasting. The modelling framework that is used by BoM is essentially the same weather/climate model structure that is also used by the CSIRO for multi-decadal and century-scale projections.

    However, the modelling framework is continuously developed and improved primarily by CSIRO scientists, drawing on BoM observations and fundamental process studies carried out at the universities. It must be emphasised that CSIRO plays the leading role in model development and improvement.

    Scientific capacity in all three primary sectors of the Australian climate science community – BoM, CSIRO and the universities – has not been able to keep up with the demand for new understanding due to resource constraints, despite the urgent need for a better understanding of climate change. So there is absolutely no “slack” in the system that can take on the enormous workload that has suddenly appeared from the CSIRO cuts, either in BoM or in the universities.

    The CSIRO cuts represent vital capacity lost, not capacity that can be taken up elsewhere under existing resourcing.

    It has taken decades of hard work by dedicated researchers to build up CSIRO’s international reputation for world-class science that contributes to the wellbeing of all Australians. This capacity can be destroyed overnight. Apparently, Larry Marshall, the CSIRO leadership and the Australian Government are intent on doing so.

    Will Steffen is an Emeritus Professor at the ANU and a councillor with the Climate Council of Australia.

  • The benefits of migration.

    In this article in fivebooks.com, Ian Goldin speaks about the benefits of migration although those economic benefits are often widely and differently dispersed. He points to the disconnect between the benefits of immigration and often the political downsides where some communities feel disadvantaged. He notes that the business community often calls for more migrants and refugees when politicians are moving in the opposite direction. Ian Goldin is Professor Globalisation and Development and Director of the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford.

    See link below:

    http://fivebooks.com/interview/immigration/

  • John Menadue. Our humanitarian program.

    Some issues have no place in partisan politics, they may be topics that are politically charged, but they are not ideological battlegrounds – they are about the personal and the human. Our stance on refugees and on protection is such an issue. It is an area that has been supported by the left and the right, and in darker moments, disowned by both. It is an issue that is deeply tied to our national psyche and yet heavily influenced by the words of our national leaders. Our treatment of refugees has revealed the best in us and defined some of our worst moments. Of late, it has come to be our Achilles heel, damaging our international reputation and corroding our national debates. But the voices of our better angels may again be gaining strength.

    In the past weeks we have seen some of Australia’s most influential business leaders speak out in support of increasing our humanitarian program. Tony Shepherd, the immediate past president of the Business Council of Australia and Chairman of the Commission of Audit has become a vocal advocate for an increased intake and has called for businesses to get behind the settlement process and provide jobs for refugees. He has been joined by Innes Willox, the head of the Australian Industry Group who wrote eloquently on the plight of Syrian refugees and our need to do more. Both men were part of a UNHCR led business delegation that recently travelled to Turkey and Lebanon to see the unfolding humanitarian crisis first hand. Both have reflected on their experience of the human side of refugee movements, of the families they met and the conversations that will linger.

    The business community should be commended for stepping up. Not only because it is morally right, but also because it is strategically important. In a world where the movement of people has become one of the greatest international challenges of our time, our policies have ramifications beyond the daily grind of domestic politics. Nations that show courage and pull their weight will be seen a global leaders in the decades to come. How we are perceived around the world matters, in trade, in investment and in our appeal as a destination for business, for tourism and for migration.

    Perhaps even more importantly, it goes to our morale. An outwardly looking country, confident in our capacity for generosity is a happier and more productive nation. Business long ago understood the intimate connection between outreach and personal drive. All our big companies have in place strong community engagement and corporate social responsibility programs offering staff the chance to mentor disadvantaged youth or engage with community projects. At a national level, our humanitarian program is as much for us as it an act of charity. It refreshes our values and charges the national soul. Offering protection gives us purpose and reminds us of our privileged position.

    As a nation our better side has shone through when the community has owned this issue and when a broader leadership has become vocal. Whether it is the reaction of Brian Owler, the Australian Medical Association’s president, to the possibility of the removal of baby Asha or the force of community discontent over the prospect of one child suffering, the tide might be turning. Willox and Shepherd are an important addition to the chorus, their voices come from a new quarter and from one that has the ear of Government.

     

  • Measuring the misery of those forced to flee.

    Robert Shiller, a 2013 Nobel Laureate in Economics says

    ‘Under today’s haphazard and archaic asylum rules, refugees must take enormous risks to reach safety and the costs and benefits of helping them are distributed capriciously . It does not have to be this way. Economists can help by testing which international rules and institutions are needed to reform an inefficient and often inhumane system.’

    For link to article in AFR, see below:

    http://www.afr.com/opinion/measuring-the-misery-of-those-forced-to-flee-20160126-gme8ch

  • Which country has the world’s best healthcare system?

    On 9 February, the Guardian published a report on health systems around the world. It drew particularly on analysis of ratings by the Commonwealth Fund and its correspondents around the world. The UK’s national health service was ranked number one in the world. Australia was ranked number four.

    For Guardian article, see link below:

    http://gu.com/p/4f6vb/sbl

  • Laurie Patton. Pirates of Perchance: How “site-blocking” could force up Internet fees but do little else

    Last week both Village Roadshow and Foxtel finally launched court actions under the eight months old Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act designed to deal with Internet “piracy”.

    The first thing that needs pointing out is that downloading video and audio content over the Internet is a not a crime as such. It is, however, in breach of the intellectual property rights of the producers and distributors.

    The so-called “site-blocking law” was passed by Parliament in the middle of last year, following a concerted lobbying campaign on behalf of the content rights holders who claimed it was a problem requiring urgent action. So it is curious, to say the least, that it took nearly nine months for anyone to make a move. You’d have thought that if unlawful downloads are such a problem and are costing the rights holders serious money they’d have had their lawyers burning the proverbial midnight oil when the Bill was introduced into Parliament so that they were ready to proceed immediately it came into force.

    International experience has found site-blocking is more effective as a PR stunt than a real solution. You close them down and they reappear in no time on another site and/or with another name. What’s more, serious offenders with a modicum of technical knowledge can always find a way to access what they want, lawfully or unlawfully.

    Another practical issue is there are more than 400 ISP’s in Australia. As I have noted elsewhere, [Data Retention: How not to introduce complex legislation.https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/blog/?p=5315] no-one knows how many ISP’s there are and so, of course, no-one knows who many of them are even or how to contact them. So how do you ensure that “pirate” sites are effectively blocked if you only target a small proportion of ISP’s?

    Graham Burke of Village Roadshow told Fairfax media“the high profile case helped educate people about the threat that piracy imposes on the creative industry to those who didn’t realise or understand the implications”. This perhaps belies what could be the ultimate motive for heading to the courts now. That and the embarrassment presumably caused to the government by not rushing to use a law lobbied for with such gusto. Others have reported that pressure was brought to bear by the government to finally see some action.
    So we are going to inconvenience ISP’s and probably see everyone’s Internet access fees increase as a consequence of the costs of implementing site-blocking, all for a bit of PR?

    This is purely conjecture, but you have to also wonder if these court cases aren’t designed to create a legal precedent in Australia that could be used in other jurisdictions where “piracy” is a serious problem.

    It’s not just the site-blocking idea that is problematic. Last year the government ordered the rights holders and the ISP’s (represented by the Communications Alliance) to develop a process for sending out warning letters to alleged offenders. A code was developed and lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

    Coinciding with the launch of the site-blocking actions last week came news that the code has been abandoned because the parties couldn’t agree on how to fund the operations of the scheme. If the rights holders were serious and unlawful downloading was really costing them big bucks in Australia they’d surely foot the bill for the so-called “three strikes” warning notice scheme? Or could it be that they just don’t think it will work? In which case, why did they spend so much time working on the code? More PR?

    Actually, there is scant evidence that these notice schemes are effective and they are somewhat expensive to administer. New Zealand has had one for some years but it is apparently little used. Understandably, then, why would either party want to bear the costs of running something that isn’t going to achieve much?

    A recently released report from the International Intellectual Property Alliance showed that Australia hasn’t been on their global watch list of worst offenders since the late nineties. Internationally we are not seen as a major part of the copyright infringement problem.

    The best way to reduce unlawful downloading is to make content available and easily accessible at reasonable prices comparable with similar markets overseas. This view is supported by Prime Minister Turnbull who, according to ZDNet, said last year that“Rights holders’ most powerful tool to combat online copyright infringement is making content accessible, timely, and affordable to consumers”.

    Australians have been price-gouged for decades through “geoblocking”. Countless Australians have come back from the United States with much cheaper DVD’s only to find that they wouldn’t work on top-line DVD players (often produced by companies that are also content rights owners). Anyone who legally downloads music will tell you it is much more expensive here than if it were purchased via the same delivery platforms in America.

    It would be in the best interests of content creators, perhaps as opposed to local content distributors, if we all accepted that the main reason why most people unlawfully download is that they can’t get what they want through legitimate channels. There is ample research evidence that people are willing to pay if they can get the content they’re after. Some surveys have shown that the people who “pirate” are also among the most active legal downloaders.

    Netflix has enjoyed considerable success since entering our market last year, and two local SVOD platforms – Presto and Stan – are both signing up reasonable numbers of subscribers. This tells you that there is pent up demand for the very content that, otherwise, is unsurprisingly subject to “piracy”.

    We’ll see how these new court cases go, but it is worth noting the very recent failure of the Dallas Buyers Club case, where the distributors of this film sought to identify and force downloaders to pay a retrospective fee for use plus damages.

    Internet Australia is committed to effective protection of intellectual property rights, as an important incentive to innovate and create.  However we are opposed to the “site-blocking” law and have argued that the government should conduct a formal review of its effectiveness two years after its enactment, in 2017, if not sooner.

    Internet Australia maintains it is time to accept the pointlessness of current strategies to deal with unlawful downloading of video and audio content. And, just as airlines are not held responsible for the ‘knock-off’ DVD’s their passengers bring home from their holidays, we don’t believe that making ISP’s liable by using the Internet to block content is appropriate.

    Laurie Patton is CEO of Internet Australia, the NFP peak body representing Internet users. As a former television producer he is personally committed to the protection of intellectual property rights through effective methods.

  • Business can take lead on refugees to end ‘execution by indifference’.

    In this article, Tony Shepherd, former President of the Business Council of Australia, urges Australia to be more generous in helping asylum seekers from Syria. He says:

    ‘As I stare out the window on the plane ride home (from the refugee camps in the Middle East) I think that if history has taught us nothing else, it is that generosity is always rewarded. Our nation, Australia, was built by immigration;  it has been the secret of our success. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the nations that chose to open their hearts and invest in new people, over the decades to follow, came to dominate diplomacy and lead in the global economy.’

    See link below to this article by Tony Shepherd in the AFR.

    http://www.afr.com/opinion/business-can-take-lead-on-refugees-to-end-execution-by-indifference-20160202-gmjcyj

  • John Menadue. Wasting food in France is now illegal.

    The Australian edition of Huffington Post carried a very encouraging story on 4 February this year that it is now illegal for supermarkets in France to waste food.

    Both Chambers of the French Parliament have unanimously voted to ban large foodstores from throwing food away.

    Supermarkets must either compost or donate unsold and nearly expired goods to charity. The law also prohibits stores from pouring bleach over food items to prevent homeless people from foraging. Schools across the country must begin to educate students to overcome food waste.

    Another law which went into effect on New Year’s Day makes it mandatory for large French restaurants to provide ‘doggy bags’ or take-away containers.

    These actions by the French Parliament have been welcomed by charities and French food banks.

    According to the Huffington Post, France is the first country in the world to adopt food waste legislation of this kind.

    Hopefully other countries and the Australian states will think seriously about it

  • Mark Gregory. Stone-walling on a second rate NBN network.

    In responding to questions at the Senate Estimates hearing held on 9 February 2016, NBN Co CEO Bill Morrow admitted he did not know the number of nodes being built during the Fibre to the Node (FTTN) rollout and he went on to say that any information about what is being rolled out by NBN Co would be commercial-in-confidence, meaning that he would very selectively answer questions put to him by Senators. By the end of the session, Morrow had answered very few questions.

    The purpose of Senate Estimates hearings is to examine the operations of government relating to expenditure of public funds and plays a key role in the parliamentary scrutiny of the executive. But as Morrow demonstrated so diligently is that you can persuade executives from a government business enterprise to attend the hearings but you cannot guarantee that they will answer any questions put to them.

    At a time when Australia has embarked on the largest nation building project of the digital era, executives from the government business enterprise rolling out the NBN rely on obfuscation and “commercial-in-confidence” to ignore reasonable and justifiable questions from Senators.

    Morrow’s responses at the Senate Estimates hearing included, “I do not know”, “I would have to take that on notice”, “I will take it on notice”, “I would imagine we do”, and I do not have that [information] here” and many variations of these statements.

    Senate Estimates hearings involving executives from NBN Co have become a sad pantomime. Senators spend a couple of hours asking Morrow and CFO Stephen Rue probing questions about what taxpayers are receiving for an ever increasing expenditure of public and borrowed funds and unsurprisingly most of the questions remain unanswered because key NBN Co executives that should be expected to be able to answer the questions about expenditure and what is actually being done by NBN Co, are not present.

    Australian’s should be concerned that executives from a government business enterprise are permitted to deflect, delay or simply ignore questions from Senators that are attempting to scrutinise how the government is spending taxpayer dollars.

    On more than one occasion now, Morrow has refused to acknowledge documents leaked from NBN Co and reported on in the media. If someone within NBN Co believes a document to be important enough to leak to the media, it is highly likely that Morrow would be asked questions about the document at the next Senate Estimates hearings and Australians should have a reasonable expectation that Morrow will provide answers.

    But this is not how it works in practice because Morrow’s response to a question about the document titled IOP 2.0 FTTN review dated 26 February 2015 was “The document that you refer to, somebody showed me a copy of that. I cannot confirm that that is even a valid NBN document. If it was, it would be commercial-in-confidence.”

    When asked again about a detail contained in the document, Morrow stated “I cannot confirm anything that is in that document. If that was our document, it would be commercial-in-confidence. I cannot even confirm that it is our document. Anybody can prepare something of that nature. Therefore, the information that you are asking, if you want to know the number of nodes or something then I am happy to take that on notice.”

    Australians might wonder how hard would it be for the CEO of a government business enterprise to ask that someone check the organisation’s document register and to follow up with an email to employees asking if someone had drafted the document.

    And you can be certain that NBN Co carries out an internal investigation to find the people that are leaking documents containing details about the different NBN rollouts and in particular details about NBN Co’s rollout of the obsolete VDSL2 Fibre to the Node (FTTN) component of the NBN.

    Morrow’s use of plausible deniability is something that we might expect in a Monty Python skit but not by the CEO of a government business enterprise responsible for Australia’s largest infrastructure project.

    The logic goes something like this: As CEO Morrow should not be expected to know the details of what is going on within NBN Co and even though leaked documents are reported in the media, and subsequently brought to Morrow’s attention, it would be disruptive to enquire if the document originated within NBN Co, therefore Morrow is unable to confirm the documents originality and cannot speak to anything contained within the document.

    At the end of the hearing the Chair Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds summed up the collective exasperation at what had just transpired when she said “there is a lot of technical information and detail that two people cannot possibly be across. So what I was suggest is that you consider your preparations for the next estimates. As you know, that will be a longer session, no doubt, with nbn. We know it is going to be in the week of 29 May. There are longitudinal themes, so if you and your staff are able to go through and review those themes and make sure that you either have the appropriate officers here, or on hand, so that they can email you some questions and you are able to answer the questions more quickly for the committee members. I think that would also assist you in taking fewer questions on notice, which obviously has a significant workload sitting behind that to get them in on time.”

    Morrow’s efforts at Senate Estimates hearings have been nothing more than professional stone-walling. Australians expect more from senior executives that are responsible to government and it is folly to treat the Senate with disdain. The secrecy and lack of transparency surrounding the NBN is a warning sign that cannot be ignored. Australians will be left with a second-rate broadband network at a time when our major competitors in the global digital economy are rolling out fibre to homes and business.

    Mark Gregory is a senior lecturer in the School of Engineering at RMIT University.

  • Spencer Zifcak. Special Envoy on Human Rights. Ruddock. What?

    In 2003, I wrote a short book entitled Mr Ruddock Goes to Geneva. The book was not as superficial as its title might have suggested. It was in fact a serious study of Australia’s vexed relationship with the UN Human Rights Treaty System. My argument was that the Howard Government should have given the recommendations from UN Human Rights Treaty bodies about ways in which Australia could improve its observance of human rights more thoughtful consideration.

    Instead, the Government had adopted the habit of rejecting any criticism of its human rights record out of hand. This came at the cost potentially of retarding the interests and well-being of many disadvantaged Australian citizens, not least those of the nation’s indigenous peoples and those seeking asylum in the country.

    The book’s title, however, had meaning. It referred to a now legendary performance by then Minister for Immigration, Philip Ruddock, before the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its 2002 periodic review of Australia’s compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

    Mr Ruddock’s appearance took place against the background of a considerable change in the Government’s attitudes and actions in relation to human rights. The Government had wound back native title. It had steadfastly refused to apologise to or compensate the stolen generations. Aboriginal reconciliation had ground to an acrimonious halt. In response to a surge in people seeking political asylum, the Government had hardened the policy of mandatory detention, and built far flung detention centres in which asylum seekers were detained behind barbed wire fences.

    Mr Ruddock’s performance before the UN Committee was, by any account, a dismal failure. His demeanour was arrogant and condescending. His arguments served only to harden the Committee’s opinion that Australia, a nation whose human rights record had been admired, had joined the ranks of countries known routinely to violate the freedoms and entitlements of their citizens.

    In his presentation before the Committee, the Minister began by suggesting that it would be difficult for the Committee to come to any reasoned conclusions about Australia’s human rights record because it lacked the expertise to do so. He referred erroneously to Committee members as delegates, thereby implying wrongly that they were beholden to their governments. They are not. They are chosen for their human rights expertise. Nevertheless, he frequently deflected criticism by Committee members by engaging in counter-criticism of the human rights record of their countries of origin.

    His responses to substantive, and increasingly critical questioning were no better. Asked about the continuing health, educational and economic disadvantages experienced by Aboriginal peoples, he suggested that the problem stemmed principally from their choice of lifestyle, rather than with any deficit in government policy.

    On mandatory sentencing, he asserted that it was not the role of the Commonwealth to override State legislation, even if that legislation breached Australia’s international human rights obligations. He denied that mandatory sentencing had the effect of discriminating against indigenous people, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

    He justified the decision not to apologise to the stolen generations because the Government had already expressed regret for the hurt and trauma that many Aboriginal people continued to feel. The fundamental distinction between an expression of parliamentary regret and a national apology seemed to elude him.

    This, then, is the man that the Prime Minister has chosen to lead Australia’s campaign to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council in 2018. If that campaign is to be successful, as I hope it will be, a more inappropriate appointee could hardly be imagined. Still, that single appearance at the UN would not be sufficient to damn the appointment without more. There is plenty more.

    Philip Ruddock is the architect of the ‘Pacific Solution’. We should call this for what it is. It is a government policy pursuant to which ‘boat people’ including ‘boat children’ are subjected to calculated persecution, cruelty, degradation and damage in order that other people who have suffered from persecution, cruelty, degradation and damage in their home countries should be deterred from flight to Australia by sea. The ‘Special Envoy for Human Rights’ bears principal responsibility for this policy, though it may readily be acknowledged that a number of his successors as Minister for Immigration have rendered the policy ever more abhorrent.

    When Minister, Mr Ruddock misled the Australian public grievously when, with his devious colleague Peter Reith, he asserted that the children of asylum seekers had been thrown overboard in order to place pressure on the government to allow them to land on Australia’s shores. The claim was always untrue. Ruddock has never apologised.

    As part of the Government’s response to terrorist attacks elsewhere, Philip Ruddock introduced draconian sedition laws, which had they been implemented in full could have put a stop to critical journalistic and public discussion and debate concerning terrorism and the justification or otherwise of measures to prevent it. In response to initial protest at the laws, he referred them to the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Commission recommended either full repeal or major amendment. In a blow to freedom of speech, its recommendations were shelved.

    When Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock disgraced himself by expressing his support for the American system of military commissions established to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay. His support arose from contention concerning the fate of David Hicks, an Australian citizen detained there. Any bush lawyer could see that the commissions were biased and that their procedures were grossly unfair. Our Attorney-General, the nation’s first law officer, defended them.

    He went further. He failed to utter one word of criticism concerning the use of torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Instead, he surmised that sleep deprivation might not constitute torture at the same time as suggesting that admissions made under such conditions may be admitted as legitimate evidence. Later, the US Supreme Court declared the military commissions unconstitutional and the charge against Hicks as invalid because the relevant criminal law did not exist at the time the alleged offences were committed. So much for the Special Envoy for Human Rights’ legal perspicacity and morality.

    Human rights are a subset of a broader commitment to the rule of law. As Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock seemed to have little time for the idea. He was well known for not reappointing members of the Refugee and Immigration Tribunals with whose decisions he did not agree and replacing them with his supporters. In this way, he substantially undermined the Tribunals’ independence.

    He sought time and again to narrow the scope of judicial review of immigration decisions. So, for example, he introduced an amendment to the Migration Act that inserted a privative clause the effect of which was completely to remove all but administrative and mechanical migration decisions from legal challenge or appeal before the Federal Court of Australia.

    Mr Ruddock made criticism of the judiciary into an art form. Departing from the centuries’ long convention that one core element of an Attorney-General’s role was to defend the judiciary against attacks by executive government, Mr Ruddock became the courts’ most ardent critic. The ferocity of these attacks moved former Justice of the High Court, Michael McHugh, to remark that:

    “If the Executive Government is continually criticising the Judiciary, the authority of the courts of justice is likely to be undermined and public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judges is likely to be diminished. Continuing conflict is also likely to induce the Executive Government to prevail on the legislature to take the extreme step of reducing or abolishing judicial review with the result that the rule of law is undermined”.

    Taken together, the frank human rights violations of which Mr Ruddock has been guilty during the course of his long political career, and I have mentioned only a few, suggest two principal conclusions in relation to his appointment as Special Envoy for Human Rights.

    First, had he even a scintilla of insight concerning his record, he should courteously have refused the Prime Minister’s offer of the position, regarding himself as particularly unsuitable. Secondly, the Prime Minister’s judgment must be called into question. He has just shot Australia’s bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council in 2018 in both feet.

    Spencer Zifcak is Allan Myers Professor of Law at the Australian Catholic University and Immediate Past President of Liberty Victoria

     

  • Tessa Morris-Suzuki. The ever-shifting sands of Japanese apologies

    On 16 February, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida signed a ‘Strategy for Co-operation in the Pacific’, in which both countries emphasised their shared values of ‘democracy, human rights and the rule of law’

    As they were doing so, Japanese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Shinsuke Sugiyama was in Geneva addressing a meeting of the UN committee which oversees the implementation of one of the world’s key human rights accords: the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). On the agenda was the Japanese government’s treatment of the problems of memory, justice and redress arising from the imperial military’s mass recruitment of women (the so-called ‘comfort women’) to military brothels during the Pacific War.

    It was a great opportunity for the Abe administration to follow up its 28 December 2015 joint statement with South Korea on ‘comfort women’. In the December statement Foreign Minister Kishida acknowledged ‘an involvement of the Japanese military authorities at that time’ and passed on Prime Minister Abe’s ‘sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women’.The December statement committed the Japanese government to contributing to a fund to assist surviving South Korean former ‘comfort women’, but its rather curious wording left some observers unsure just what Japan had apologised for.

    Since coming to power the Abe administration has told the world that it is continuing to uphold — or (in the Japanese version) to ‘inherit’ (keisho suru) — the 1993 Kono Declaration. In that declaration, issued after an extensive study by the Japanese government, Japan acknowledged that ‘in many cases [‘comfort women’] were recruited against their own will, through coaxing, coercion, etc., and that, at times, administrative/military personnel directly took part in the recruitments’. The Japanese government also promised to ‘face squarely the historical facts as described above instead of evading them, and take them to heart as lessons of history’.

    If the Abe administration has indeed ‘inherited’ the Kono Declaration, one would assume that Abe’s December ‘sincere apologies and remorse’ were apologising for the historical fact that many ‘comfort women’ were recruited and held against their will, and a reaffirmation of Japan’s determination to take the lessons of history to heart.

    But oddly, neither Abe nor any of his ministers or spokespeople has ever been heard to echo the key words of the Kono Declaration. Instead, when challenged on the question of state responsibility for the ‘comfort women’ issue, they repeatedly respond with a formula developed during the first Abe administration of 2006–2007: ‘in the documents discovered by the Japanese government, none confirmed the forcible taking away of comfort women’.

    This statement is extremely significant. It treats official Japanese government and military documents (the most incriminating of which were deliberately burnt in the closing days of the war) as the only reliable source of information on the topic. It entirely discounts the testimony of surviving former ‘comfort women’. This includes testimony collected and taken into account by the Japanese government at the time of the Kono Declaration. By implication, this formula says to the survivors that their testimony is at best unreliable evidence and at worst lies.

    So the key question about the 28 December deal was this: when Foreign Minister Kishida referred to ‘an involvement of the Japanese military authorities at that time’, was he speaking about the involvement of the military in recruiting, transporting and holding women against their will? Was he upholding the promises of the Kono Declaration? If so, then the December accord was indeed a major step forward in Japan–South Korea relations. If not, it starts to look uncomfortably like a move that was motivated less by a desire to bring justice and redress to the victims than to buy their silence.

    Foreign Ministry official Sugiyama’s response to the CEDAW committee on 16 February made the answer to these questions disturbingly plain. Pressed on the comfort women issue, he replied ‘in the documents discovered by the Japanese government, none confirmed the forcible taking away of comfort women’. He added that the notion that comfort women had been forcibly recruited was a misconception based on fabricated testimony by a former Japanese labour recruiter named Yoshida Seiji, and that this misinformation had been disseminated by the liberal newspaper Asahi Shimbun, which later retracted the claims.

    This statement by Sugiyama is entirely misleading. The Yoshida testimony (which was reported in the early 1990s by almost all the Japanese mainstream media, not justAsahi Shimbun) has been known to be unreliable for more than a decade. And it has had no significant influence on the ‘comfort women’ debate in recent years. More importantly, it is far from the only evidence. The evidence that women were recruited against their will comes from a mass of testimonies from survivors and other eyewitnesses as well as evidence given to war crimes trials and court cases, alongside other historical material.

    Australian survivor Jan Ruff-O’Herne, who was marched out of an internment camp and into a military brothel at gunpoint during the war, has never received an apology. Nor have many others forcibly recruited in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

    It is time for Japan’s friends and allies, particularly those like Australia who plan to cooperate with Japan in protecting human rights around the region, to ask the hard questions. Will Prime Minister Abe and his cabinet repeat the words of the Kono Declaration loud and clear? Or will they admit that they have abandoned the declaration? They cannot have it both ways. Sugiyama insisted to the CEDAW committee that the Japanese government is not ‘denying history’. Now we need an answer to the follow-up question: which history are they not denying?

    Professor Tessa Morris-Suzuki is an ARC Laureate Fellow based at the School of Culture, History and Language, at the College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University.This article was first published on 22 February 2016 in the ANU East Asia Forum.

  • John Menadue. Making the Federation work better.

    The Abbott Government decided that over the next decade commencing in 2017 the Commonwealth Government would reduce grants to the states for education and health by $80 b. This is likely to produce a major and concerted campaign by the states to protect their hospitals and schools. It does provide an opportunity for more effective cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States in the health sector. I have reproduced below an article on this subject which was posted in May last year as part of the policy series co-edited with Michael Keating. I argue for the establishment of a joint Commonwealth State Health Commission in any state that will cooperate. In addition to this state by state approach, it might also be possible to build cooperation on a region by region basis. I do not think that a major change in constitutional arrangements is possible or that the Commonwealth will concede completely to the States or vice versa. But I believe that a pragmatic and step-by-step approach could be successful.  See repost of article below.

    Repost

    State governments spend about 25% of their budgets on health and another 25% on education. A cooperative arrangement between the commonwealth and state governments in one of these areas would greatly improve the operation of our federation. This article will focus on possible cooperation in health.

    A State handover of health services to the Commonwealth, as suggested by Tony Abbott many years ago, would be one way to overcome the waste and buck-passing between the Commonwealth and State governments in health. Kevin Rudd suggested that his government might take over state hospitals. Opinion polls suggested that the public would support this approach. But Kevin Rudd backed away. In passing it should be noted that the Commonwealth has no recent experience in running hospitals. It is not an easy task.

    But as a Commonwealth takeover is most unlikely, an alternative would be to establish a Joint Commonwealth/State Health Commission (Joint Health Commission) in any State where the Commonwealth and a State government can agree – a coalition of the willing, a Commonwealth/state partnership on a state by state basis.

    It is envisaged that the joint commission, with shared Commonwealth/State governance would be responsible for funding, planning and integrating all health services in that State. Consistent with an agreed plan, the Commission would then buy health services from existing providers – Commonwealth, State, local, NGO and private.

    A political agreement between the Commonwealth and any State is essential. If this political agreement is achieved, we would see a more cohesive and integrated health service, delivered much more efficiently. Once the benefit was clear in one State, hopefully other States would follow.

    I believe that this proposal would have strong public support. We are tired of the blame game.

    Either the Commonwealth government or any State government could initiate the breaking of the impasse.

    Background

    The Commonwealth Government provides about 43% of national health funding and the State Governments and territories 26 %. Another 31% of funding is from non-government sources (mainly individual users of health services).

    In both the NSW and SA health reviews that I chaired some years ago, a view was widely expressed that it’s all very well for State governments to review their health systems, but a major problem is the inefficiency, fragmentation, gaps, cost and blame shifting which results from the different roles of the Commonwealth and State governments in health’. This view was expressed, not only by those working in the health system, but also by the community generally. It was also frequently expressed by the media. The problem of divided responsibilities is well understood. The public doesn’t really give a hoot who plans and delivers health services. The public’s real concern is that the services are provided efficiently and equitably.

    Integration of commonwealth and state health functions are essential. Professor John Dwyer, in this blog, estimated   that more than 600,000 state hospital admissions per year could be saved if there was more timely community intervention which is funded by the Commonwealth.

    A solution requires a political agreement between the Commonwealth government and at least one State. The political issue cannot be avoided and attempts to get around this issue are likely to be unsuccessful, time-consuming and cumbersome. A bureaucratic or organisational response to a political problem will be unsatisfactory. The issue must be addressed politically. If there is political agreement, governance, financial, administrative and other issues could be successfully managed.

    Such an approach would not produce a unified national health system, but six (excluding the territories for the moment) joint health systems which are State-based. Nonetheless, this would be superior to the present division and fragmentation. The six State-based joint commissions may also better reflect the different history and needs of respective States. One size doesn’t necessarily fit all.

    The states may also be now more interested in what is proposed here because the 2014 budget suggests that over the next 10 years the Commonwealth will contribute $ 50 b less to state hospitals than the outgoing Labor government proposed. There was no certainty that this 10 year funding would have remained in place but I don’t think there is any doubt however that the Abbott government will attempt to shift more responsibility to the states for hospitals and schools.

    A Joint Health Commission in any State where the Commonwealth and the State could agree would have the following characteristics.

    1. Coverage of Joint Health Commission

    The wider the coverage the better to ensure real and comprehensive resource allocation and integration of services across the full continuum of care. The following programs should be included as the planning responsibility of the Joint Health Commission.

    • State Health (including Health Care Agreement)
    • High level residential aged care
    • Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA)
    • Home and Community Care (HACC)
    • Commonwealth Regional Health Services in rural and remote areas.
    • Medical Benefits Scheme (MBS)
    • Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS)
    • Aboriginal Health
    • Local Government health
    • NGOs (e.g. nursing services)
    • Public health

    State Health, HACC, etc. would tender for the provision of services to the Joint Health Commission. Similarly, local government and NGOs would tender, although allocations to them would probably need to be made through the State Health department.

    Private hospitals could probably be excluded from this coverage, as they depend on private contributions rather than direct government funding – except for occasional seed money. But provision should be made for private hospitals, along with local government and NGOs, to tender for supply of services to a Joint Health Commission, (see 3 below). The private delivery of health services should be encouraged where it is consistent with the state-wide plan and is delivered efficiently.

    Importantly, existing providers would continue to operate and provide services, and where appropriate, ministers – both Commonwealth and State – would continue to be responsible for their own services. But those services would be purchased by the Joint Health Commission as part of a state-wide plan, which I refer to under ‘functions’ below.

    2. Pooled Funding of Joint Health Commission

    The Joint Health Commission would receive a negotiated pooled allocation of funds from the Commonwealth and the State government. which reflected the coverage of programs for which it would be responsible (see 1 above), with appropriate population growth and cost indexation add-ons. As a starting point the shares of the two governments would reflect their current funding shares. Changes in the shares and total funding would be subject to the advice of the National Health Performance Authority (NHPA). That Authority would provide public advice to the two governments. The two governments would need to agree on annual funding arrangements.

    Whilst confidence in the funding formula is developed, it might be useful to consider shadow funding in the first 3 years and move to actual pooling of funds thereafter.

    3. Functions of Joint Health Commission

    1. a) Shared Resource Allocation through the purchase of various services from providers – Commonwealth, State and local government, and NGOs as part of a joint strategic plan.
    • In this case, shared resource allocation can be achieved through the establishment of a minimum set of Commonwealth and State programs.
    • The major changes associated with the JHC would provide an opportunity to move from producer dominated health care delivery to an output/patient focussed delivery system. So many of our health programs reflect provider interests; the MBS reflecting the interests of doctors and the AMA, the MBS reflecting the interests of the Pharmacy Guild and Big Pharma and public hospitals reflecting the interests of their providers, state governments. Patients are a secondary concern. We need to shift to a patient focussed health system in such key areas as chronic, acute and occasional care.
    • Funding would be allocated with agreed short and long term integrated outcomes, rather than siloed program outcomes, with specified standards and levels of performance.
    1. b) Shared Performance Management

    Oversee continuous improvement of the health system, monitor progress and establish reform targets and timelines:

    • Development of standard measurement
    • Benchmarking
    • Patient-centred best practices

    The NHPA provides an excellent opportunity for the establishment of a system that can meet the needs of consumers, community and health services. The NHPA can provide an approach that examines health status and outcomes, determinants of health, and health system performance.

    The NHPA should facilitate the mapping of progress for the population of a State, region or service. It could also be used to examine progress in tackling a particular health problem (e.g. aboriginal health), and to take a wider look at the interface between health and other government departments, the private sector and non-government organisations.

    4. Joint Health Commission Governance

    The following features could be included, and would ensure full Commonwealth and State government input into the state-wide plan:

    • Membership of the board should be high level to enable strategic decision-making on broad and longer-term issues.
    • Maximum transparency and disclosure of the Joint Commission’s work and final recommendations in order to neutralise special pleading and vested interests and to ensure public understanding and support.
    • The board of directors must have clear ‘governance’ responsibility and not a junior role. They should reflect the broad interests of the whole community and not be seen as representative of the Commonwealth or State or ‘insider interests’ that so dominate health systems in Australia.
    • Independent chair appointed by the two Ministers from a short list provided by the respective Commonwealth and State Health CEOs. It might be useful to have the chair from another State.
    • Apart from the chair, no jurisdiction to have more than 50% representation.
    • Representation could include other Commonwealth and State jurisdictions (e.g. Indigenous Affaires) and people having experience in the private sector.
    • The board would appoint the CEO who would be responsible to the board and not the two jurisdictions.
    • The board would approve the strategic plan and budget.
    • A constitution may be useful to provide more user-friendly objects, role, function and operating procedures, including engaging the private sector.
    • Subsidiarity should be an important principle for governors in developing the state-wide plan. Management and service delivery should be driven down to the lowest and most local level possible, consistent with state and nation-wide standards.
    • The Board should have a small secretariat, but rely on Joint Health Commission for planning etc. It must avoid a new level of bureaucracy.
    • Board costs would be shared by Commonwealth and State.
    • The Commonwealth and State minister would be responsible for negotiating high-level policy principles, including overall funding on the advice of the board. This would help reduce the risk of the board dividing on Commonwealth/State lines. Ministers must reach broad agreement if the Joint Health Commission is to work.
    • The board should be responsible to the Commonwealth and State minister, with one financial report to both. If there is not agreement between the two ministers, there would be a public dispute resolution procedure which would encourage cooperation and dialogue between the two ministers. This would encourage public trust in the integrity of the process. I would expect that this would produce an agreement in almost all cases. If resolution is not possible, the Commonwealth minister would prevail; given the need for a stronger national role and that the Commonwealth Government provides 43 % of national health funds compared with 26 % by the states.

    These governance arrangements could be reviewed in 5 years.

    Summary   

    A Joint Health Commission established upon agreement of any State with the Commonwealth would be a substantial improvement on the present arrangements. It would help break the impasse on federalism and better integrate health services. It requires a political decision between the Prime Minister and premier.

    The public is tired of the blame shifting and fragmentation in health and would respond to a sea change such as this. Such a joint health commission in any State that agreed would help achieve what both of them are seeking in health – a better integrated health system and a favourable community response, A committed Commonwealth government could use its financial leverage to make such an offer attractive to the states.

    A Joint Health Commission in any one State could begin to address the ‘big ticket’ problems in health delivery – the Commonwealth/State fragmentation, an eroding primary health care system, an antiquated workforce structure and obvious system failures in safety and quality.

    Of course, the fragmentation in health is not just caused by Commonwealth-State fragmentation. The two big Commonwealth programs – MBS and PBS – are not effectively integrated.

    All these big-ticket issues are lost sight of in the argy-bargy of Commonwealth/State blame and cost shifting.

    Not only would a Joint Health Commission in one State be a substantial improvement, it would also be very symbolic, demonstrating that governments can address hard political issues in a cooperative way.

    We must stop asking continually for more money or tweaking the health dollars, when many problems are structural. A lot of health spending is counter-productive – throwing money at problems to get them out of the media or for short-term political gain, rather than solving systemic problems. Any increase in health dollars must be accompanied by system change. A Joint Health Commission starting in one State is a sound way to begin breaking the impasse.

    The key is political will by ministers. If there is the political will, the governance problems can be resolved.

    There is no reason that the principles proposed above in health could not be applied in other fields such as education.

    John Menadue AO was formerly Secretary Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Secretary Department of Trade, Ambassador to Japan and CEO of Qantas.

  • Alex Wodak. Endgame in the protracted drug policy debate: are we there yet?

    The long running debate about illicit drugs policy has moved a great deal in the last five years. But social policy reform is a different matter from a debate. Actual reform usually takes many decades.

    The recent growing consensus regarding the abject failure of a criminal justice dominated approach to drugs is very encouraging. Retired and even serving police commissioners have been lining up before the microphones to acknowledge the comprehensive failure of efforts to date. The seizure announced 16 February of 720 litres liquid methamphetamine, said to be worth $1.2 billion, represents the largest drug bust in Australia’s history. But there was little optimism that even a seizure of this size would make a difference to the market. In 2014, 91% of Australian drug users surveyed reported that ice was ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to obtain.

    In 1994, I went with Ms Ann Symonds, a (then) member of the NSW parliament, to see the (then) Minister for Health, Senator Graham Richardson. My message was that the drug policy he was responsible for could never be effective. I showed him a report written by a US coast guard operator who had estimated the numbers of pedestrians, cars, trucks, buses, containers, ships and planes entering the USA every year. The official had also estimated the volume of cannabis, heroin and cocaine entering the US every year. He showed that US authorities had a better chance of finding a needle in a haystack than finding most, let alone all, of the drugs entering his country.

    Seventeen million passengers and several million containers arrive in Australia every year. Only three in every 1,000 containers are searched. Containers carrying frozen food have to be thawed out before they can be searched and this involves potentially considerable financial loss and inconvenience as the once frozen food has to then be discarded. Somehow Australia’s 27 thousand km coast line has to be watched 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

    Senator Richardson seemed to accept the logic of the presentation. As he showed us out, he suggested that Australia could not move faster than the international community would allow us to do, that the attitude of leaders of the medical profession to any change in drug policy would be critical and that change would also not be possible without widespread community support.

    Twenty-two years later, the shape of future global drug policy is becoming clearer. The international drug policy consensus is now irrevocably broken. Consequently, countries now have much more freedom to design a drug policy that the community and its politicians believe is appropriate for its circumstances rather than accept the one size fits all approach required till now.

    The threshold step required is to redefine drugs as primarily a health and social issue. Several steps then follow. First, criminal sanctions for the production, sale and use of drugs will have to be reduced and, where possible, eliminated. Second, drug treatment will have to be expanded and improved to reach the same level as other health services. Third, as much of the drug market as possible will have to be regulated. Parts of the drug market are already regulated including methadone treatment for heroin users, the needle and syringe program and Sydney’s Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. Fourth, the community will have to ensure that life for young people should not require intoxication to be bearable. This means reducing poverty and improving the housing, education and employment conditions for our young people, especially our disadvantaged youth. When life is bleak and without hope, a few hours of chemical vacation becomes quite attractive. Policy change should occur in small increments with rigorous evaluation of policy effectiveness and adverse effects.

    It is easy to dismiss the complexities of a political resolution of our current drug policy mess. But our politicians have at times achieved wonders. In the 1980s, politicians from all the major parties put aside their differences and worked together to prevent Australia being over run by HIV. Australian politicians also excelled themselves in tobacco control. These were world-class achievements against huge obstacles. Australians owe our politicians a debt of gratitude. The introduction of heroin-assisted treatment in Denmark was brought about by all the country’s political parties agreeing privately to jointly support the decision. The political gridlock of recent years in Australia is not encouraging but that will eventually pass.

    The costs of political action on drug policy are falling while the costs of inaction are rising. The time for ever-more gesture politics on drug policy is slowly coming to an end. When dealing with communities locked into dysfunctional policies, just as when dealing with alcohol or drug dependent patients or loved ones, it is critical to retain a sense of hope.

    It is important to remember our history. Australia permitted medicinal use of heroin until importation and production was banned in 1953. Edible opium was taxed and regulated in Australia until 1906. Medicinal cannabis was used lawfully in Australia until the 1970s. In the US, Coca Cola contained cocaine until 1903.

    The required changes in drug policy are substantial. But we and other countries have made equally substantial changes before. Faced with such momentous change it is easy to convince ourselves prospectively that the reforms required are unachievable but we may end up reflecting in retrospect that change was inevitable.

    In a recent Essential poll (16 February), 68% thought the ‘Federal Government should do more’ about illicit drugs followed by obesity (57%), food safety (50%), smoking (46%), Zika virus (36%), HIV (34%) and Ebola (27%).

    Respondents also rated illicit drugs (44%) as their most serious concern followed by food safety (26%), obesity (25%), smoking (23%), Zika virus (16%), HIV (14%) and Ebola (12%). This suggests that voters expect Australian governments to act effectively on illicit drugs sooner rather than later.

    Dr Alex Wodak AM is President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation

     

  • Jenny Hocking. ‘The Governor-General, the Palace and the Dismissal of Gough Whitlam: The Mysterious Case of “the Palace Letters”’

     

    The dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, was marked by secrecy and collusion on a scale that has only recently been uncovered. Its history has been no different. From the outset we were treated to a carefully constructed narrative that masked the Governor-General’s secret collusion with members of the High Court, with the leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, and his acknowledged deception of Whitlam regarding the half-Senate election that Whitlam was set to announce on the afternoon of 11 November 1975.

    All of this, and more, has come to light only in recent years, much of it with the continuing revelations from Kerr’s papers in the National Archives of Australia. These included Kerr’s remarkable 12-page record of his lengthy secret discussions with the High Court justice, Sir Anthony Mason, and Mason’s own drafting of the letter of dismissal for Kerr. With those revelations in Gough Whitlam: His Time in 2012, others soon followed. LINK: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/revealed-the-third-man-in-the-dismissal-20120824-24rv2.html A combination of the posthumous records of key participants, historical reinterpretation and detailed exploration of Kerr’s papers, has changed our understanding of the dismissal forever. Chief among these was final confirmation of Kerr’s secret telephone conversations with Fraser in the week before the dismissal, an unconscionable betrayal of the very essence of parliamentary government that had been repeatedly and emphatically denied by Kerr and Fraser for decades. LINK: http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/11/02/after-40-years-the-smoking-gun-proves-who-was-behind-the-dismissal/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

    Although we are now much clearer on the reality of that exceptional episode in our political history, one key element remains hidden from us, as deliberately and as carefully concealed as every other aspect in that blighted history. These are ‘the Palace letters’, letters between the Governor General and the Queen, her private secretary Sir Martin Charteris, and Prince Charles – in the months leading up to Kerr’s dismissal of Whitlam.

    Kerr’s extensive official papers were deposited with the Archives in the early 1980s and were opened for public access, as required after 30 years since the date of their creation, under the Archives Act. But not the Palace letters. Unlike any other part of these papers, Kerr’s correspondence with the Palace is embargoed until 2027. Even once this embargo has been lifted – still more than 10 years away – the Archives say that these letters can only be released if authorised by the Governor-General’s Official Secretary and the Queen’s Private Secretary. In 2027, more than 50 years after the dismissal, according to the Archives we will still be beholden to the Queen’s Private Secretary as to whether to allow the Australian public access to this vital correspondence between Australia’s Governor General and the Palace, during one of the most contentious and significant episodes in our political history.

    In denying my several requests for access to the Palace letters, the National Archives referred to Sir John Kerr’s ‘Instrument of Deposit’ in which Kerr had set out the conditions of access to his records. However a corresponding FOI request, which I made in 2015 directly to Government House, elicited a rather different back story. In denying my FOI request Government House stated that these letters had been deposited with the National Archives where they remain ‘under strict embargo’, due not to a decision of Sir John Kerr, but of the Queen; ‘At Her Majesty The Queen’s instructions’.

    How has this extraordinary situation come about? How is it that, for Kerr’s correspondence with the Palace, the clear provisions of the Archives Act – to make Commonwealth records available for public access after 30 years – do not apply? The answer is very simple, and it has just two words, ‘personal’ and ‘private’. With that simple designation, ‘personal and private’, the National Archives have removed the Palace letters from the reach of the Archives Act. Since they are ‘personal’ the National Archives say the 30 year access provisions do not apply and, even more worrying, nor do the appeals mechanism provided for by the Archives Act – because that Act applies only to Commonwealth records. The Palace letters then cannot be accessed because they are personal not official, and their designation as ‘personal’ cannot be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

    It seems that a very neat, impenetrable, Catch-22 has been created, locking the letters from public view and locking that decision itself from administrative oversight. However, this does not mean, as Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston have erroneously claimed, that the only means for ensuring their release is to appeal to the Queen herself – an unnecessary and humiliating deference given the quasi-colonial relationship this whole matter reflects. Instead, as Sydney barrister Tom Brennan has recently discussed, this is a matter of Australian law and a matter for Australian law to determine. LINK: http://www.13wentworthselbornechambers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AUSTRALIA-OWNS-ITS-HISTORY-Brennan.pdf.  Without the possibility of an appeal to the AAT however, this remains an expensive and daunting prospect. Chalk that up to two very powerful words.

    ‘Personal and private’ may be powerful covers, but they are also entirely inappropriate. One wonders how it is, from common sense alone, that the Governor-General’s correspondence with the Palace could in any way be seen as ‘personal’ and not official. Even Sir John Kerr himself did not believe that absurdity, far from it. In his autobiography, Matters for Judgment, Kerr describes his correspondence with the Queen during the blocking of Supply in 1975 in terms of his ‘duty’ to keep the Queen informed, as part of the Governor-General’s regular reports to the Queen; ‘There are no rules about how often or in what detail reports are to be made; the duty is simply to send despatches which keep Her Majesty informed’. ‘Duty’, ‘despatches’, keeping ‘Her Majesty informed’ – these are clearly descriptors of official records, not of personal correspondence.

    Kerr’s Journal, which he maintained for some months during 1980 and also left in his papers in the Archives, also makes it clear that he had not wanted this correspondence with the Queen to remain embargoed, and that he had explored means of releasing it earlier. Kerr even went as far as prevailing on Sir Philip Moore, Charteris’ successor private secretary to the Queen, to enable the release of the Palace letters. Moore was by Kerr’s account shocked at the very suggestion. Kerr also writes that he would like the correspondence to be released during the lifetime of his children. It was his belief that the Palace letters would validate his own version of these events and he sought their release strongly. If Kerr himself had wanted them released then how and why are they now being withheld on the grounds that Kerr’s own ‘Instrument of Deposit’ with the National Archives specifies that they not be?

    Despite the fact that the Palace letters have been removed from public view, Kerr himself provided another means of retrieving them from their pre-emptive closure as ‘personal’. For, among his papers Kerr also left a copy of extracts from some of his letters to the Queen, unidentified as such and placed on open access by the Archives. While working on his memoirs, published in 1978, Kerr had arranged for a copy of his letters to the Palace to be sent to him, as part of his research. He then left extracts from those copies with his material in the Archives in an unidentified file simply titled ‘Extracts of letters’.

    There are 6 extracts, which I detailed in The Dismissal Dossier as being from Kerr’s letters to the Queen, dated from 20 September to 20 November 1975. LINK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/jenny-hocking/the-dismissal_b_8516530.html. Each of these extracts describes contemporary political developments as they unfolded. They cover conversations between the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, between the Governor-General and the leader of the Opposition, interactions at an official dinner with the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and at an official reception at Government House in Melbourne. They include the Governor-General’s letter to the Queen of 11 November 1975 setting out his version of the dismissal, by him as Governor-General, of the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. The content of these letters provides no grounds whatsoever for their description as ‘personal’.

    There is quite simply no part of these extracts that could be described as anything other than official – in their nature, their content and in their style. Each letter is typed, each letter is formal and none reveals even a moment of informality, of light-hearted or private reflection. Each considers in some way the serious and unprecedented vice-regal action of removing the Whitlam government that Kerr was soon to take. Most significantly, these extracts from Kerr’s letters to the Queen reveal that the Palace was well aware of the possibility of dismissal and of the Governor-General’s deception of the Prime Minister – the letters themselves were part of that deception – and the abuse of his vice-regal position this constituted, months before Kerr moved to dismiss Whitlam.

    The perverse attribution ‘personal and private’ given to the Palace letters can also be measured against a series of personal letters between Sir John Kerr and Prince Charles, held by the Archives. What is decidedly peculiar is that these letters written in 1981, three years after Kerr resigned as Governor-General, have been deemed official Commonwealth records and made available for public access. And yet, they are clearly personal. They are handwritten, on personal letterhead simply headed ‘Sir John R. Kerr’. They are conversational, referring to Charles’ future wife, Princess Diana, their marriage, family and to previous exchanges between them. The ‘Palace letters’ by contrast are typed, they are descriptive and they focus only – at least in the extracts in Kerr’s published papers – on political matters.

    It seems both perplexing and troubling that these clearly personal letters between Kerr and Prince Charles have not been subject to the claimed conditions of access to personal records set out in the ‘Instrument of Deposit’ from Kerr to the Archives. We have an Alice in Wonderland situation in which black has become white. The clearly personal letters between Kerr and Prince Charles have been deemed ‘official Commonwealth records’, while the clearly official ‘despatches’ between the Governor-General and the Queen have been deemed ‘personal’. This raises the obvious question as to whether the label ‘personal’ has been applied inappropriately yet conveniently, only to the Palace letters, in an attempt to remove them from the oversight and access requirements of the Archives Act. 

    The chronology of the passage of the Archives Act suggests that this is more than just a disturbing possibility. The lodging of Kerr’s papers with the National Archives straddled two critical, related, events – the March 1983 election which saw the Fraser government defeated and the election of the Hawke Labor government, and the passage of the Archives Act later that year. One of the Fraser government’s Bills still before the parliament at the time of the 1983 election was the Archives Bill. With the Fraser government’s defeat the Archives Bill was slightly but significantly revised, and re-presented in 1983 by the Hawke government. A critical change was this: the 1981 Archives Bill did not apply to ‘records of the Governor-General or of a former Governor-General’. Under the Fraser government’s Bill, no records of the Governor-General – or previous Governors-General – would have been made available for public access except in accordance with an Instrument of Deposit.

    It seems that had the Fraser government’s Archives Bill prevailed, the revelations of Sir John Kerr’s secret interactions with, and involvement of, Sir Anthony Mason in the dismissal would still be hidden from us today. As it was, the election of the Hawke government resulted in the passage of the Archives Act 1983 that gave no such exemption to the records of Governors-General. We can now see that the use of the words ‘personal and private’ has served that same function, enabling a reversion to the exemption of the Archives Bill as if the Archives Act is merely an arbitrary constraint for a Governor-General. The designation ‘personal and private’ is shielding the Palace letters from public access and historical reflection. Once again the history of the dismissal of the Whitlam government is proving to be as distorted, deceptive and disturbing as the dismissal itself.

     

    Professor Jenny Hocking is Gough Whitlam’s biographer and ARC DORA Professorial Fellow with the National Centre for Australian Studies at Monash University. She is the Inaugural Distinguished Whitlam Fellow at Western Sydney University and author of The Dismissal Dossier: Everything You Were Never Meant to Know About November 1975 (MUP 2015)

     

  • Peter Gibilisco. Neoliberalism and its Perceptions

    Politics has changed so much over the years; our political climate is unstable, since 2007 we have had five different prime ministers. A person in my position would ask how does this affect people with severe physical disabilities?

    Neoliberalism has its aim to put into question all collective structures capable of obstructing the logic of the pure market. Such a belief allows one to question the ideology behind the welfare state, progressive taxation and other social policies that can lead to an egalitarian society. Their ideology harvests the sentiment that many welfare recipients are lazy and should do more to help grow the economy. But rather neoliberals are persistently oriented towards supporting a society in which self interest prevails and that is why they give all their energy to policies that claim to further the individual pursuit of wealth. That is, the individual pursuits that are deemed worthy of government support are those that are beyond those living on the “other side” of the great divide between the rich and the poor.

    I am lucky enough to live in Australia but even with my poor eyesight I am still able to witness the degradation of impoverishment upon ordinary people whenever I visit my local community, Noble Park.

    Individual pursuits, whether of the rich or the poor are always, at least to some extent, justified in terms of one’s self-interest. And this goes a long way to explaining the powerful and dogmatic reasoning behind the powerful ideology as it is supported by those who are very rich. And that is confirmed by the equally dogmatic phrase: ‘power is money’.

    Liberal political and economic policies are dominated by this ideological viewpoint. Such policies have been integral to political economies all over the world, in both developed and developing countries. The re-birth of Liberalism as Neoliberalism was seen as the answer to the western world problem of stagflation, which reared its head in mid 1970s. Hugh Stretton put it well:

    Alternative strategies for dealing with the offending stagflation would advantage different classes, parties, industries. Economic reform was as usual a political task. Other interests saw opportunities to change the direction of development to improve the mixed economies’ efficiency by means which would incidentally make the rich richer, business freer, welfare cheaper and the poor more self reliant. Those means were described as de-regulating, privatising, restoring competition, cutting welfare, “rolling back the boundaries of government” (Stretton, 1986:7).

    Neoliberalism is a political economic theory and practice that has emerged with greater and greater appeal since the 1960s, and since the 1980s it has increased in prominence at the level of public policy formulation. The neoliberal approach rejects social democratic doctrines. Neoliberalism focuses politically on the establishment of a stable medium of exchange, the reduction of localised rules, regulations and barriers to free-ranging commerce, and the privatisation of state-run enterprises. This contemporary and dominant economic ideology of most western countries is referred to with a “neo-“ prefix because it is a latter-day version of the classical liberalism that initially arose in the 18th century. Moreover, neoliberalism claims to be a political system designed to highlight both the political limitations of the market economy in the nation-state, and the economic efficiency and effectiveness of the market economy when it is freed to operate on a global scale.

    Classical liberal economics was developed by Adam Smith, and we can sense its appeal at what we now say was the beginning of the industrial revolution. Smith argued that government intervention disrupted the natural order of society. According to Smith, the natural order of society can be defined as a society left to its own devices. Smith based his economic beliefs on the argument that most economic self-interest is altruistic. This can be noted in his famous quote from The Wealth of Nations:

    ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves. Not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.’

    Now, after thinking about this for some years, I come to the view that something like this principle is working itself out in my own relationship with what is now referred to as the “disability sector”.

    As it is commonly understood altruism is about selflessness, it is a principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. But my situation seems to be endorsed by Smith in the above quote. In the social service delivery to which I am a recipient, involving a personal care attendant, the “altruistic effects” that actually work themselves out in the workplace becomes a friendship circle – workers and clients are mates. This workplace is actually our home in which the residents are actively welcoming the visitors to their “space”, under their private “roof”. It is not only those paid for their work in this workplace who have an interest, a general self-interest, in forming what takes place. After all it is also a place sustained by the friendships that are generated.

    According to Smith, this classical liberal system would provide for an economic infrastructure that could not only provide economic benefits, but also help promote a proud, virtuous and motivated society (Gibilisco). Amartya Sen portrays the mixed emotions of self-interest:

    ‘Can you direct me to the Railway Station?’ asks the stranger. ‘Certainly,’ says the local, pointing in the opposite direction to the post office, ‘and would you post this letter for me on your way?’ ‘Certainly,’ says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing (Sen, cited in Stretton and Orchard, 1994:51).

    During an interview with me, Hugh Stretton explained his dissent from this ideological interpretation of Adam Smith. He pointed out that Smith never said that the interests which prompted people’s economic decisions and behaviour were all selfish. Smith’s first book The Theory of Moral Sentiments was about our feelings, and concerns about other people’s needs, safety and happiness, as well as our own. When he said, in The Wealth of Nations, that he owed his breakfast to his baker’s self-interest, there is good reason to think that Smith meant the baker’s joy in his skills and work, and pride in the quality of his bread and the pleasure it could give his bread’s consumers, as well as the money it earned him.

    Smith certainly believed that people’s generous feelings, and concern for others’ safety and prosperity, as well as their own, could join in determining their market choices and their social and political values and behaviour. Because it comes from the neoliberal ‘bible’ (i.e. Smith’s The Wealth of Nations) I think this observation must play a vital part of any effective attack on the neoliberals’ assumption that material self-interest is the sufficient cause of market efficiency, which in turn, they then suggest, is a necessary condition – many even think of it as a sufficient condition – of a good society.

    Meritocracy

    Meritocracy is defined by government policies promoting the principles of merit. The actions pursued by advocates of meritocracy are fundamental to the belief that people get out of the system what they put into it based on what they deserve according to market based principles – i.e. what they produce and how what they produce performs in the market. It is a political vision for the future based on merit, and opposed to the traditionally conservative theories of the aristocracy. However, Michael Young a well-known writer on the subject has argued that “meritocracy is even worse than aristocracy because it attempts to acquire plus points because it connotes power and privilege as merited rather than born with”. He further argues that meritocracy is detrimental to those with disabilities. Young in his 1998 article titled: “Meritocracy revisited: assessing the social implications of meritocracy” puts it like this:

    … showing how sad, and fragile, a meritocratic society could be. If the rich and powerful were encouraged by the general culture to believe that they fully deserved all they had, how arrogant they could become, and, if they were convinced it was all for the common good, how ruthless in pursuing their own advantage.

    As a result, today we may have the worst of both worlds. Social reality, as portrayed by today’s media, tells us that the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. In the case of people with disabilities, their capacities, under such a system, are rarely deemed meritorious or worthy of reward.

    Moreover, this brings into question, possible deplorable links between meritocracy and equal opportunity.

    However, we need to keep in mind that the concept of individual merit had been introduced as far back as Michael Young’s 1956 book The Rise of Meritocracy. In a more recent article, he has suggested that:

    [a] line of argument that is also made much of in the book is that a meritocracy can only exist in a full form if there is such a narrowing down of values that people can be put into rank order of their worth.

    This connects with a political insistence on the rise of a new form of meritocracy, which can also be prejudicial and ultimately discriminatory against those with socially defined lesser abilities or different abilities. Young argues that what one is born with, or without, is not of one’s own doing. To put it in a more crude form of discourse, being a member of the “lucky sperm club” confers no moral right to advantage. But such a view of “luck” does seem to align with the political-economic doctrines of some advocates of neoliberalism

    This article is dedicated to the memory of my friend and mentor, Hugh Stretton.

    I would like to thank Bruce Wearne and Christina Irugalbandara.

    I would like to promote this worthy new organisation http://www.uvpd.org.au/index.html

  • John Nieuwenhuysen. Multiculturalism Today and the Little Evil

    According to the ABS, the proportion of Australians born overseas has reached its highest point in 120 years. At about 6.6 million people, the overseas born represent 28 per cent of the country’s total, and, since 2005, migration has contributed half of total population growth. Some 47 per cent of Australians in 2015 were either born overseas or have parents who were.

    The diversity of Australia’s population has also increased, and the days of White Australia are long since gone. The traditional major country sources of immigration remain Britain and New Zealand, which represent 20.8 and 9.1 per cent respectively of our overseas born population. But Asian migration has been rising; and, in 2015, 6 per cent of Australia’s overseas born were from China; 5.6 per cent from India; 3.5 per cent from Vietnam; 3.2 per cent from the Philippines; and 2.2 per cent from Malaysia.

    How do the Australian people view continuing high levels of immigration, and its increased diversity, at a time of record overall population growth? And how stands its opinion of multiculturalism?

    According to the annual surveys by Monash University’s Professor Andrew Markus for the Scanlon and Australian Multicultural Foundations [Mapping Social Cohesion, 2015, National Report P.41], there has been “a consistently high level of endorsement for multiculturalism.” In response to the proposition that “multiculturalism has been good for Australia,” the survey found agreement in the three years 2013, 2014 and 2015 in the range of 84-86 per cent. The proportion in the survey registering strong agreement with the proposition increased from 32.2 per cent in 2013 to 43.3 per cent in 2015.

    Since, as Professor Markus notes, the meaning of multiculturalism in Australia is open to interpretation, survey respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with five different statements on multiculturalism. The survey showed that “the strongest positive association was with its contribution to economic development [75 per cent agree] and its encouragement of immigrants to become part of Australian society [71 per cent.]”

    This positive attitude to multiculturalism has co-existed not only with a high net overseas migration intake but also temporary admissions of entrants and New Zealand citizens to Australia, totalling close to two million people.

    This persistently high net migration level and such a great number of temporary entrants would in past years have aroused heated debate. As Professor Markus notes [page 34]: “Whereas in the early 1990’s, a large majority [over 70 per cent at its peak] considered the intake to be ‘too high’, most surveys between 2001 and 2009 indicated that opposition to the level of intake was a minority viewpoint.”

    Subsequently, in the last two years, with the collapse of the mining industry, slow Chinese economic growth, and government deficits, Markus [page 34] notes that there it was expected that support for the existing level of immigration would fall. But instead the reverse has happened-in both 2014 and 2015, Markus found that around 60 per cent of respondents considered that the intake was “about right” or “too low”.

    Professor Markus speculates on the reasons for this continuing support and considers [page 35] that, among other causes, it may reflect the “…perceived effectiveness of government asylum seeker policy…” as well as possibly a misunderstanding of the numbers of asylum seekers.

    Any observer who recalls the heated debates about immigration policy in the early 1990’s, when the Commonwealth Bureau of Immigration Research provided a plenitude of both scholarly works and public forums, and compares that time with today, can note how the asylum seeker controversy dominates current media coverage. That concentration seems to have pushed aside previous issues, such as the size and composition of the migrant intake.

    In many ways, I think this is highly unfortunate. Australia has enjoyed a good reputation for its successful settlement of people from all around the globe. Now, the harshness and inhumanity of the “Stop the Boats” policy is dominating the image of the country. The obsession of both major political parties to try to ensure that Australia is absolved from facing up to the harsh reality that wars, poverty and civil strife create streams of legitimate asylum seekers, is a deep scar on the country’s contemporary history, especially since it has public support. In particular, it ignores the great success of the absorption, under the leadership of Malcolm Fraser, of such a multitude of refugees after the Vietnam war.

    The credit that Australia deserves for its overall immigration program is thus being sadly undermined by a harsh and obstinate attitude to asylum seekers, and a neglect of obligations under the UNHCR convention. Hugh Mackay [The Age, January 26] has rightly damned the policy as “…immoral, because it treats people who have committed no crime as criminals….and fails to honour a moral principle we should claim as one of Australia’s core values-fairness.”

    Perhaps political leaders think silently of the asylum seeker policy as a little evil which is compensated for by the great, enlightened good of the general immigration program. But as the author of Cry the Beloved Country, Alan Paton once wrote:

    “Consent to a little evil, and it will grow…and a great evil will overwhelm us…No shame or remorse will save us then. Therefore consent not to… evil at all.”

    John Nieuwenhuysen AM FASSA is an Emeritus Professor at Monash University

     

  • What’s holding back the world economy.

    In this article from The Guardian, Joseph Stiglitz points to the slow growth rates in the developed world and the reasons for them. He says that

    ‘In the US, quantitative easing did not boost consumption and investment partly because most of additional liquidity returned to central banks’ coffers in the form of excess reserves. … It appears that the flood of liquidity has disproportionately gone toward creating financial wealth and inflating asset bubbles rather than strengthening the real economy. … The risk of another financial crisis cannot be ignored. … [We must] begin with re-writing the rules of the market economy to ensure greater equality, more long-term thinking and reigning in the financial market with effective regulation and appropriate incentive structure.’

    See link to article below:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/08/whats-holding-back-world-economy-joseph-e-stiglitz

  • Murdoch takes Abbott as his guest to President’s banquet in US.

    According to a report on Media Watch on 8 February, Rupert Murdoch brought Tony Abbott as his guest at a banquet in Washington which President Obama attended.

    Several of the Murdoch papers in Australia suggested that this was a personal meeting between Tony Abbott and President Obama. It was nothing of the sort. It was a cocktail party and lunch attended by 100 guests and presumably President Obama shook Tony Abbott’s hand, but it seems it was nothing more than that.

    It says something about Murdoch’s political judgement that he took an ex prime minister to this lunch.  Surely he would have known that inviting tony Abbott as his guest would likely antagonise Prime Minister Turnbull. Or was that his intention?

    In any event, it was a beat-up from beginning to end.

    See link to Media Watch below:

    http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4402700.htm

  • Paul Budde. Building Australia’s white elephant – cheap buy for white knight Telstra.

    The following piece by Paul Budde foreshadows a ‘white knight’ role for Telstra when NBN fails.  He says:

    We are now getting a second-rate network and the first signs from customers, as we heard in a recent Senate Hearing, are not good. This is in line with our assessment. An MtM network, by its very nature a mesh network, will not be able to deliver consistently good quality services to all customers. Telcos and ISPs are not happy with the second-rate system and want to bypass the NBN with their own fibre and mobile services. And there has been dead silence from the government on the potential economic role the NBN has in relation to innovation, healthcare, education and so on. Belatedly the NBN company is now arguing that the NBN debate should move from politics and focus on what we, as a nation, want from it. …

    The white elephant scenario that the government is now pursuing will see the NBN fail, as it is not future-proof and consumers and businesses will want a better network. In other words, large parts of the $50 billion+ investment in the NBN will not be valued by the market at the time of sale – that is if the government relentlessly and single-mindedly pursues its MtM NBN.

    This piece was first published in budde.com.au on 19 February 2016. For the complete article, see link below:

    http://www.budde.com.au/News/#Building-Australia’s-white-elephant-cheap-buy-for-white-knight-Telstra

  • Robert Manne. Why we have failed to address climate change.

    In this article, published in the December The Monthly Essays, Robert Manne describes the major obstacles to addressing climate change. He refers to the unique nature of climate change and the difficulties that it has presented for scientists to persuade the world community about the problem and the need to take action. Robert

    Manne also refers to the difficulty that just at the time when concerted government action is necessary, the public debate from Liberal economists pointed to the need to scale back government. The post WWII consensus associated with Keynes and Bretton Woods was under challenge.

    The problem was particularly acute in the US with funding by oil and energy companies of think-tanks and the ideological Right, which led on to the Tea Party.  John Menadue.

    For this excellent article, see link below:

    www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/december/1448888400/robert-manne/diabolical

  • John Menadue. Hoist with their own petard

    Private health insurance funds like NIB are complaining about high specialist fees. But these very same funds are major contributors to the problem. And it is a problem. In the last 30 years we have seen a dramatic increase in specialist fees.

    A major contributor to this increase in specialist fees is the ‘gap insurance’ that private health insurance firms offer. Gap insurance effectively underwrites specialist’s ability to increase fees and weakens Medicare’s ability to cap fees. In the AFR today, NIB gives two examples of how this is done. For prostatectomy (surgical removal of prostate) the Medicare Benefit Schedule Price is $1,939, but with gap insurance NIB offers to cover this up to $2,941. For knee replacements, the Medicare Benefit Schedule Price is $1,318, but with gap insurance NIB offers to cover this up to $2,014.

    But that is not the end of the story by any means.

    The growth of private health insurance makes it more difficult for Medicare to control fees. Instead of the Medicare Benefit Schedule Price capping fees, the Medicare price is just the first stepping stone to higher fees. Whilst NIB will pay up to $2,941 for a prostatectomy, compared with the $1,935 in the Medicare Benefit Schedule, the AMA has a recommended fee of $4,465. And on top of that AMA recommended price, NIB tells us that some surgeons are charging another $6,000. Yet we have a Royal Commission on Trade Union behaviour!

    NIB reveals the same pattern for knee reconstructions. The Medicare Benefit Schedule Price is $1,318 but that is ratcheted up to $2,014 through NIB gap insurance. And then it goes up to $3,960 to the AMA recommended fee. To top this off, NIB advises that some surgeons are charging between $4,500 and $5,500.

    There are many reasons why health costs are rising. Private health insurance companies like NIB and specialists are major contributors.

    The ‘market’ that economists talk about does not work in the health sector. Providers, doctors and hospitals, have the power to set prices as the above figures show.

    With the ‘market’ not working there are really only two ways for governments to avoid price and fee gouging. The first is through price control. That is largely the way that Japan keeps its healthcare costs down. But that approach is unlikely in Australia given our constitution and political situation.

    The second is to have a single public payer to counter the power of providers. That is generally what countries with successful health schemes do.

    Medicare was designed as a single payer. But its power has been diluted by the growth of private health insurance with gap insurance. We are steadily moving down the disastrous US path. And the Australian taxpayer is paying $11 b. p.a. to subsidise these destructive private health insurance funds.

    We should have no sympathy for NIB, BUPA and Medibank Pte about rising costs. They are major contributors to the problem. And they get bundles of money from taxpayers despite the damage they do.

  • The things that must be done…

    Some Genuine Decision-Making Power: Dealing with the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the prison system

    This is an extract from the 2016 Frank Walker Memorial Lecture delivered by the Hon. Bob Debus AM on 16 February 2016. The Hon. Frank Walker QC was NSW Attorney General from 1976 to 1983. He later became a Federal Government Minister and a District Court judge. As a former Attorney General himself Bob Debus believes that Walker’s approach to the affairs of Aboriginal people remains the correct one.

    See link for full speech: http://www.nswlaborlawyers.com/fwl2016.

     

    “When Frank Walker was in office in the early 1980’s there was no heroin epidemic, no talkback radio law and order campaigns and there were less than 4,000 people in prison in New South Wales.

    In June last year there were nearly 12,000 inmates and more than 2,800 or 24 percent of them were Aboriginal. Nationally, there were nearly 34,000 inmates, 27 percent of them Aboriginal. For every 100,000 non-Indigenous Australians there were 146 in prison last year. For every 100,000 Indigenous Australians 2,253 were in prison.

    There is some encouragement in the news that there has been a decline in the rate of imprisonment for younger males over the last ten years, but here’s the rub. In the last decade or so overall rates of Aboriginal incarceration have increased by more than 50 percent In New South Wales.

    Modern ‘law and order’ politics arrived in New South Wales in the lead up to the 1988 general election when Frank Walker and I both lost our seats. Heroin related rates of street crime — violence and robbery — had begun what was to be a steady 20 year period of increase and there was straightforward, reasonable concern about it in the community.

    However, this was also the first election to be conducted in the climate of resentment, revenge and hysteria generated across the tabloid media by the new talkback style of radio. Frank was Minster for Youth and Community Services by then and I recall that his completely sensible juvenile cautioning scheme was attacked for being “soft on crime”. The Liberal’s promise of “Truth in Sentencing” legislation and the restoration of summary offences legislation was a defining, successful election strategy.

    Once the cork is removed from this particular bottle it’s very hard in real life to get it back in. Politicians may be indifferent to an increase in levels of incarceration, or they may strenuously try to limit it, but either way they cannot operate in isolation from aroused media and public opinion.

    In any event a long wave of more punitive laws concerning sentencing, bail and parole saw a substantial increase in the prison population across Australia and the Common Law world. And these changes had predictable and disproportionate effects upon Aboriginal offenders, in several ways.

    Aboriginal legal services, underfunded as they have been, have still made sure that fewer people are verballed or plead to crimes they don’t commit. However problems still reside in the consequences of intensive policing and the high visibility of the kind of street level offences habitually committed in impoverished communities, not least traffic offences.

    On 30 June last year there were more than 9,000 Indigenous prisoners in Australia and 7,100 of them had been in prison before. It is quite critical to understand that – as a statistical matter — the higher rate at which Aboriginal people first arrive in prison is much less significant than the rate at which they come back to it.

    Substantial possibilities do exist, apart from more adequate funding, for improving the way that the justice system itself deals with Indigenous people. I will mention only a few of the most obvious.

    1. In these days of frequent ideological attack upon the civil service it’s worth reminding you that dedicated, competent public servants can fix some things just by paying attention, by doing the administration of government well.During the year 2009/2010 the average daily number of juveniles in custody in New South Wales reached 485, in part at least because of strict bail condition requirements. Rooms were doubled up and healthy young people were being placed in clinical beds. Officials understood that these circumstances could lead to a riot, incidents of self-harm and the like. Fifty percent of inmates were on remand. A quarter of that remand population were detained for a breach of bail without committing a new offence, typically for breach of curfew. There had also been a number of kids who had been granted conditional bail but could not meet all the required conditions.So special officers were placed in all children’s courts and were also available to provide information to magistrates at any court hearing children’s cases. Their function was not to supplant the lawyer’s role of advocating for bail but rather to provide the court with options and to mobilise resources to support young people having difficulty meeting bail requirements.In 2014/15 the average daily population of Juvenile Justice Centres was stable at an average of 286, a fall of around 40 percent. The proportion of Indigenous inmates remained unchanged at 50 percent, so there are now 20 percent fewer Indigenous kids in full time detention in New South Wales than there were five years ago.
    1. My next example concerns the reduction of recidivism. We know that Indigenous inmates are more likely to be arrested and charged with new offences. We know also that the reduction of reoffending is by some distance the fastest way to reduce the Indigenous prison population. We know from internationally validated data that tailored through-care and back of prison sentence programs assisting inmates to reintegrate into the community are effective in reducing recidivism.We know these three things but here in New South Wales nevertheless, the Government is taking no notice.Prisons are running seriously over capacity. In such circumstances rehabilitation work is always degraded but the situation appears to be worse than that. The Budget Papers show that targeted offender programs and education programs have actually been reduced. When prison numbers rise at the same time as savings are demanded, the funding of custodial programs will always come at the expense of rehabilitation programs. And that is to the detriment of the inmates and the budget in the long term.
    1. My final example concerns diversion from the prison system. There are plenty of established diversion and rehabilitation programs that are more effective and cheaper than prison. Drug Courts reduce offending, cognitive behavioural therapy works. Increased expenditure on all these measures would reduce imprisonment.Circle Sentencing Courts have engaged Aboriginal communities in the sentencing process and improved local relationships with the justice system, but don’t appear to be reducing offending as effectively as many of us expected a decade ago. However evaluations suggest that greater investment in support services, including drug and alcohol services and post sentencing programs linked to circles, would have a measurable effect on reoffending.”

    Bob Debus AM was an ALP member of the NSW Parliament and Attorney General, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment. He was also a member of the House of Representatives and Minister for Home Affairs in the Rudd Government.