Category: Politics

  • Violence is on the decline. John Menadue

    If you watch the tabloid television and the Murdoch press, you would certainly believe that violence is increasing. It seems counter-intuitive to suggest that we are moving away from violence.

    Over the holidays I have been reading ‘The Better Angels of our Nature – the Decline of Violence in History and its Causes’. It focuses particularly on the West. The book was written by Steven Pinker (Penguin 2011). Pinker is an experimental psychologist and cognitive scientist. He is a Harvard College professor

    It is a long read, but I found it encouraging.

    He examines violence in its worst manifestations in war, murder, rape and domestic violence, racism and hate speech. He argues that we are more aware of violence because of modern communications. That is why we aren’t so aware of the global decline in violence.

    In his preface, Pinker states his thesis

    This book is about what may be the most important thing that has ever happened in human history. Believe it or not – and I know that most people do not – violence has declined over long stretches of time and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence. The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero; and it is not guaranteed to continue. But it is an unmistakeable development, visible on scales from millennia to years, from the waging of wars to the spanking of children.

    The book’s essential message is that over thousands of years, despite the setbacks of  eg WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, tribalism has given way to expanded and inclusive relationships and that we have developed more appropriate and effective institutions to contain violence, despite their shortcomings.

    Pinker gives us a glimpse into the viciousness of the cultures and customs from 8000 BCE to the 1970s.

    In human pre-history we find graves and prehistoric remains that reveal people ‘strangled, bludgeoned, stabbed or tortured’. In this period he says that a person had a high chance of coming to bodily harm.

    In Homeric Greece, war was waged against the entire population. For the heroes of the Illiad, female flesh was a legitimate spoil of war. Achilles ‘spent many sleepless nights and bloody days in battle, fighting men for their women’.

    Pinker describes the Hebrew Bible as ‘one long elaboration of violence’. Cain slew Abel. Noah’s ark saved only a select few. The Israelites were enslaved in Egypt and the Egyptian army was drowned in the Red Sea. Samson became a hero in slaughtering 1,000 Philistines and killed over 1,000 with the jawbone of an ass. Captured, his eyes were burnt out and in revenge he crushes a building and kills 3,000 men and women. The warrior Saul’s Court sings that ‘Saul has killed by the thousands, but David by the tens of thousands’. Fortunately a lot of this never happened, but it offers a window into the lives and values of the civilisation in the first millennium BCE.

    An architectural symbol of the Roman Empire was the Colosseum. Gladiators fought others to death for public amusement. Animals tore flesh from humans. The most frequent means of Roman execution was crucifixion. It was an orgy of sadism. Saints were put to death by barbaric means.

    Infidels were put to death in the Spanish inquisition by burning at the stake and drawing and quartering.

    The medieval Christian knights may have treated the ladies well, but their intervention in the Crusades resulted in probably 1.5 million deaths, particularly of the Saracens. Jerusalem was allegedly left “knee deep in blood.”

    In early modern Europe Henry VIII had two wives beheaded. Bloody Mary had 300 religious dissenters burnt at the stake. Elizabeth I had 123 priests drawn and quartered.

    Despite the awful events in recent centuries, Pinker commented that the declines in violence unfolded over vastly different scales of time.

    ‘The taming of chronic raiding and feuding, the reduction of vicious interpersonal violence, such as cutting off noses, the elimination of cruel practices like human sacrifice, torture-executions and flogging, the abolition of institutions such as slavery and debt-bondage, the falling out of fashion of blood sports and duelling, the eroding of political murder and despotism, the recent decline of wars, pogroms and genocides, the reduction of violence against women… the protection of children …’  all point to a reduction in endemic violence.

    Pinker describes the factors that have not helped the decline in violence. These include technology and weaponry, the quest for power and resources, affluence and religion.

    In a chapter entitled ‘On Angels’ Wings’, Pinker describes the pacifying process. He says ‘Declines of violence are a product of social, cultural and material conditions’. He describes certain broad forces that have pushed violence down. These include the civilising process with the consolidation of law enforcement; the humanitarian revolution with improved literacy, urbanisation and access to mass media; the ‘rights revolution’ away from tribalism to national authority and freedom of speech; the benefits of international commerce and feminisation.

    Pinker concludes:

    Yet while this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, the [human] species has also found ways to bring the numbers and incidence of violence] down and allow a greater and greater proportion of humanity to live in peace and die of natural causes. For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savour and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilisation and enlightenment that made it possible’.

    I found the book encouraging- to think that our struggle against violence, war and denial of human dignity is worth the effort, despite the doomsayers and what our 24/7 media keep telling us.

  • Mission accomplished? Be careful which war you wish for. Travers McLeod

    “We are going to hold the line, we are going to protect the borders”, Scott Morrison, Federal Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, told the 44th Federal Parliament in its first sitting week. “This battle is being fought using the full arsenal of measures”, he wrote elsewhere. Last week, the Prime Minister defended the secrecy of the ‘battle’, saying, “if we were at war we wouldn’t be giving out information that is of use to the enemy just because we might have an idle curiosity about it ourselves”.

    Whatever the wisdom of Operation Sovereign Borders, Australia’s “military-led, border security operation”, if it is going be described as a military campaign we should assess it like one. When we examine military campaigns we often reflect on two interrelated questions: what is the strategy, and are the tactics appropriate and adapted to achieve that strategy? Strategy is important because it declares the intent and links ends and means. Tactics are also important. As the military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, explained, “only great tactical successes can lead to strategic ones”.

    On strategy, Operation Sovereign Borders has been explicit: “We are going to stop the boats.” In the first of the now discontinued weekly briefings, the Minister said “those seeking to come on boats” would be “met by a broad chain of measures end to end that are designed to deter, to disrupt, to prevent their entry” and “to ensure that they are not settled in Australia”.

    The tactical waters have been muddied. One tactic offered but discarded was to buy the boats. Another tactic, begun by the former Government, is to ensure certain persons arriving by boat cannot be settled in Australia. A new tactic – gifting patrol boats to Sri Lanka – was announced last year. The tactic most discussed has been to turn or tow back the boats.

    Determination not to comment on “on water” matters has marked the campaign. This approach, too, can be evaluated from the perspective of a military campaign. The Australian Defence Force (“ADF”) has defined information operations (“IO”) as “the coordination of information effects to influence the decision making and actions of a target audience and to protect and enhance our decision making and actions in support of national interests”.

    Can this campaign be won in part through an absence of information? In 2007, Lieutenant Commander Chris Watson wrote “the key for IO is choosing to release information to the media on one’s own terms, for example as regards the timing and quantity of material released”. He described IO and “Shaping and Influencing” as “potent but underutilised tools available to government” during peacetime. The Minister appears to share this view.

    One difficulty for Operation Sovereign Borders is multiple target audiences: Australians, regional governments (not least Indonesia’s), asylum seekers and people smugglers. A lack of footage from the High Seas and detention facilities also makes it problematic for actions to articulate a message in and of themselves. Those in charge would prefer no boats, and therefore no actions. No information means no boats. No boats means mission accomplished.

    It is worth recalling debates in the United States during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In 2006, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded the U.S. deserved a “D” or “D+” for its job in the “battle of ideas”. What became apparent was the moral dimension of the information battlespace. The need for accurate, regular information became paramount, informing the directive given to commanders not to put “lipstick on pigs”.

    Taking stock, one might observe Australia has a strategy supported by at least one tactic, and that its information operations are under siege. This observation is made without considering whether the current strategy is the ‘correct’ one. The Jakarta Declaration on Addressing Irregular Movement of Persons, signed by Australia and 12 other countries from the region last August, and endorsed by the UN Refugee Agency, offers other approaches.

    Tellingly, new members of Parliament have cautioned against ‘Fortress Australia’ in their maiden speeches, making the case for new arrivals and new markets. Clare O’Neil, Labor Member for Hotham, described how immigration has “brought more than 150 cultures” to Australia peacefully. Angus Taylor, Liberal Member for Hume, said Australia “must boldly expound and stay true to a narrative that explains the benefits of openness”, which includes a “generous humanitarian program”.

    Clearly, ‘Fortress Australia’ bears multiple meanings, whether we think about trade, immigration, or border protection. But they are all related. Militarising some of the issues and some of the discourse may not be a constructive development. It may not help Australia’s diplomatic and civil-military relations. It may not help Australia’s openness to trade and immigration, which is vital to continued competitive advantage in the global economy. But as long as any government continues to treat Operation Sovereign Borders as a military campaign, we should continue to assess its strengths and failures as such.

    One would hope militarisation has not been pursued in order to control the flow of information. At the end of the day there are human beings on these boats. Their “on water” stories will emerge. It just might be that many have fled countries undeniably at war to join the long list of migrants who have helped build and shape Australia for the long term.

    Travers McLeod is the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Policy Development. He holds a DPhil in International Relations from the University of Oxford.

    An edited version of this article was published in the Melbourne Age on January 14, 2014.

     

     

  • Repost. Refugee advocates and offshore processing. John Menadue

    This is a repost from 23 September, 2013. 

    The insistence on onshore processing for all asylum seekers is damaging the case for humane and sensible refugee policies.

    The blanket opposition to any offshore processing is understandable but it is just not working. Just look at the election result on September 7. The important issue is not where processing occurs but whether it is just, fair and efficient. Many of the asylum seekers who claim protection in Australia are not in direct flight from persecution. Most transit Malaysia and Indonesia. Some are asylum shopping.

    The major political parties  now compete with each other to deter and punish boat arrivals. In the public debate the preoccupation with boat arrivals by both politicians and the media has dramatically reduced support for an increased humanitarian intake and the end of mandatory detention.

    For many years I was a strong supporter of all asylum seekers coming to Australia  being processed in Australia. But I have changed my mind as the facts have changed, with over 17,000 boat arrivals in the six months to June this year. In world terms the numbers are small but the political mood has gone very sour which is threating the humanitarian case for generosity. Before the High Court decision on the Malaysian Agreement boat arrivals were about 300 people per month. They quickly quadrupled after the High Court decision and have continued to increase ever since. The High Court decision striking down the Malaysia Agreement undoubtedly gave oxygen to people-smugglers and many desperate people who were prepared to risk dangerous sea voyages. We cannot ignore their human rights.

    We need to urgently think again about transfers and regional processing.

    The UNHCR in a statement to the Australian Parliament on 30 September 2011 welcomed the transfer and regional arrangements with Malaysia. The Greens and refugee advocates cooperated with Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison to reject amendments to the Migration Act to allow the Malaysian Agreement to proceed. Asylum seekers are paying a heavy price for this unity ticket between the coalition, refugee advocates and the Greens

    There is a long history of UNHCR support for transfer of asylum seekers in appropriate circumstances. In 1998, the executive committee of UNHCR recognised that irregular migration, people smuggling and asylum flows are complex matters but concluded that a return to a transit country like Malaysia may occur provided there are appropriate safeguards, accepted international standards and effective protection against refoulement. Whilst such conclusions are not binding in law they do guide the work of the UNHCR and governments in what are acceptable international standards of behaviour towards asylum seekers.

    The UNHCR in Australia has just issued a ‘Guidance Note on bilateral and/or multilateral transfer arrangements of asylum-seekers’. It can be found on its website.

    Paragraphs 1 and 2,  say ‘It is UNHCR’s position that asylum seekers and refugees should ordinarily be processed in the territory of the state where they arrive or which otherwise has jurisdiction over them. This is also in line with general state practice. The primary responsibility to provide protection rests with the state where asylum is sought. Nevertheless there are an increasing number of initiatives in various regions involving the transfer of asylum seekers from one country to another for the purpose of processing their asylum claims. Such arrangements have typically involved the transfer of asylum seekers either (a) to the state where they first sought (or could have sought) asylum; or (b) to other countries with which the asylum seeker has no previous links. They have also involved both bilateral and/or multilateral (regional) arrangements.’

    The Guidance Note then went on to outline the principles against which any transfer arrangements should be assessed.

    In a joint article with Arja Keski- Nummi, published in the Melbourne Age on 13 December last year, we outlined a system of ‘practical protection’ that should apply to any transfer arrangements in our region. We set down several steps.

    • All countries should commit to the principle of non-refoulement.
    • Provide people with a legal status and access to work and education.
    • Work to help not only displaced people but also host communities.
    • Increase our refugee intake from our region.
    • Work with partners in the region in association with UNHCR to create an atmosphere of safety and trust.
    • Amend the Migration Act to assert the principle of ‘effective protection’ as outlined above.

    We badly need a political compromise based on effective processing whether onshore or offshore. This is necessary if we are to put an end to the political poisoning of the well of public support for asylum seekers and refugees, and to discourage desperate people making dangerous and fatal sea voyages.

    We need to rethink our blanket opposition to offshore processing. It is not helping the people most in need of our help. It has played into the hands of those, who for political reasons want the boats to keep coming as thick and fast as possible and in the process encourage us to fear and even hate asylum seekers.

    We need to fight harder and more astutely to help those in need of our protection. This is not the time to throw in the towel.

     

  • Asylum seekers – Tony Abbott and I share a Jesuit education. John O’Mara

    Like many Australians, I look on the way the Abbott government is handling the matter of asylum seekers with ever increasing dismay. Tony Abbott’s mantra “stop the boats”, is unprincipled, contrary to signed UN agreements and impractical. It is hard to erase the pre-election memory of the Western Sydney interviewee..”I’m going to vote for Abbott, because he’ll stop the boats “.

    What dismays me most is that Tony and I shared an educational experience at the hands of the Jesuits and then a friendship that reaches back almost 40 years.

    Like Tony, I’m very grateful for my time at a Jesuit school. In our day a substantial number of our teachers were Jesuits and we had the benefit of their highly trained minds, sharp moral sensitivities and educational method that always emphasized evidence over rhetoric. Even though the Jesuits were strong on presentation skills in argument, the argument had to have substance.

    Their clarity of thought and pursuit of learning for its own sake sets them apart from all other educators especially those I encountered at Sydney University. Their ability to look at all sides of an argument prior to coming to a conclusion was both stunningly simple, and at the same time extremely thought provoking.

    Surprisingly, our religious education in latter years included a look at many religions…Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Protestantism and others. We were shown the merits of these religions and taught an all encompassing view of life and peoples.

    We were taught quite simply that the major requisites of Catholicism were: love, inclusion, and protecting or looking after those more needy…of any denomination. Fr Gerald Drumm went further, stating that as we were boys starting life from a privileged position in a Jesuit School, we owed it to our God, the Jesuits and ourselves to put our teachings in to practical effect if we were ever in a position to do so. It was as black and white as that!

    Tony and I were, from our earliest days taught people had an inherent dignity and to use them as a means to an end is the antithesis of anything the Jesuits taught us.

    Tony and I were both members of the SRC and had many battles with “the lefties”, both verbal and physical. We both enjoyed playing Rugby for Sydney Uni, if not for Australia. It was a time of great frivolity and for forging life-long friendships. But those playful undergraduate days are long gone. And now in government, the play is for real.

    Instrumentalizing desperate human beings for political advantage is absolutely unacceptable. As I said to Tony a couple of years ago over dinner…”Mate, you and I would be the first in a boat with our families were we to encounter the atrocities they have had to face“.

    The solution is again very simple. We must embrace these poor desperate souls, get them in to our communities and enrich our lives, and theirs. Give them the dignity to live without fear, give them the dignity to work and pay tax. Let us take the lead in a regional resettlement program to accommodate these people. No more detention centres, political bottom feeding, refugee camps or queues. Let’s get the Australian psyche back to where it should be.

    As Tony should know, playing to the xenophobes in Australia just flies in the face of well known facts about people movement and its cause in our region.

    Asylum seekers ARE NOT ‘ILLEGALS” they are our brothers and sisters.

    Tony’s and my Jesuit teachers are turning in the graves for the lack of logic, human sympathy and compassion let alone any reflection of what Jesus had to say about welcoming the stranger and going the extra mile. Bad luck for the Good Samaritan. He was a mug and would never get endorsement as a Coalition candidate.

    John O’Mara is Managing Director of Big Image Sydney Pty Ltd

  • Is Pope Francis a Marxist?

    On 16 December last year, Eureka Street carried an article by Neil Ormerod about Pope Francis and his economic, social and political message. That article can be found on the link below.  John Menadue

    ​

    http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=38645#.Us8a9j0XBt8.email

  • A 100 billion dollar tale of piracy in the Timor Sea. Michael Sainsbury

    Although it sits on a vast undersea gas reserve, Timor-Leste remains deeply impoverished.

    Deep under the Timor Sea, there is a huge reserve of gas. Geologists now believe it is worth upwards of US$100 billion; a figure more than twice the amount estimated by Australia as recently as 2006. It is perhaps ironic that the nation with the strongest claim to ownership of that gas, by dint of proximity to it, is Timor-Leste, which is also among the world’s poorest nations.

    But will it ever get the benefit of it?

    There have been numerous treaties over the last 42 years between Australia, Indonesia and Timor-Leste, regarding the fate of the gas. All of them have heavily favored Australia. None of them have been in accordance with international maritime boundaries and laws. Australia has sought to protect these favorable borders using means that have been illegal and unethical at times – not to mention mighty un-neighborly.

    The last treaty signed with Timor-Leste in 2006, known as CMATS, is now under dispute at the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration, the PCA.

    CMATS was based on two earlier treaties. These were inked with Indonesia’s Suharto dictatorship in 1972 and 1989, and since dismissed by many lawyers as illegal. The treaties carved up the seabed between the two countries at a time when Indonesia was illegally occupying Timor-Leste, an occupation that only Australia among its international peers recognized.

    There is much at stake. Impoverished Timor-Leste, which is 95 percent Catholic, would obviously welcome a massive boost in assets and income, as would any country, including Australia.

    But Australia has even more to worry about. Its greatest fear is that if its 2006 treaty with Timor-Leste comes unstitched, then Indonesia, its vast northern neighbor, now far wealthier and more powerful than it was in the 1970s and 1980s, may want to renegotiate its own maritime borders with Australia – and that has far reaching strategic and economic implications.

    “Well, they didn’t have to sign the treaty, no one forced them to,” Alexander Downer, Australia’s Foreign Minister from 1996-2007, now says of Timor-Leste.

    It was Downer who made the key decision, only two months before Timor-Leste’s independence in 2002, to “withdraw” Australia from the maritime jurisdiction of the PCA.

    Now that some gas revenues are coming in, and under pressure from UN negotiators, Australia has agreed to hand over a larger share of them to Timor-Leste. But it has refused to budge on a 50-year clause that prevents Timor-Leste from challenging the boundaries established with Indonesia; boundaries that one former Indonesian foreign minister described as “taking Indonesia to the cleaners”.

    Timor-Leste has long been unhappy with CMATS. But then last year, the dispute stepped up several gears when it went public with allegations of spying by Australia during the treaty negotiations.

    Timor-Leste claims that Downer authorized the installation of wiretapping equipment in the walls of the new cabinet room in the capital, Dili. The building was being constructed, ostensibly as part of an “aid project,” in 2004 as the treaty negotiations were commencing. The allegations originated from an intelligence officer who worked for Australia’s overseas spy agency, now known in the PCA case as Witness K, to his government-approved lawyer Bernard Collaery in 2008.

    Timor-Leste took the case to the PCA last April. Then on December 3, more than a dozen officials from Australia’s domestic spy agency raided Collaery’s office and removed many high-level, evidential documents relating to the case. They also raided Witness K’s home, canceling his passport.

    The government claims this was done for national security reasons. The following day, Australia’s attorney-general George Brandis, under parliamentary privilege, stated the raid had nothing to do with CMATS. But Collaery, an approved lawyer for both domestic and overseas intelligence officers, told ucanews.com this claim is rubbish; there were no national security grounds for the search. He added that Witness K “was simply fulfilling his obligation as a Commonwealth officer to report illegal acts”.

    At the time, Australian and Timor-Leste officials were debating how Witness K would be handled, including a possible witness protection program, so the December raid does look extremely pre-emptive.

    It was hardly surprising that later in December, Timor-Leste’s Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao sent both an official letter and his foreign minister, Jose Guterres, to Canberra, demanding a re-negotiation of CMATS and an explanation for the alleged spying.

    In a piece of especially inept statesmanship the incumbent prime minister, Julia Gillard, sent diplomat Margaret Twomey as her envoy for a three-hour meeting in Dili. Twomey pleaded for the East Timorese to cease their legal actions but it fell on deaf ears. The fact that Twomey was the Australian ambassador in Dili when the alleged spying took place, and the Timor-Leste government nursed its own suspicions about her role, would hardly have helped.

    Looming over all this is the cozy relationship between Canberra and Woodside, Australia’s biggest home-grown oil and gas company. Woodside controls Great Sunrise, the largest gas field opened so far in the disputed territory. Woodside has been “saved” once before, by government fiat, from a takeover by rival Royal Dutch Shell in 2001. More recently it has also enjoyed consultancy services from Downer’s company, Bespoke Approach.

    There can be little doubt that the well-connected, armor-protected Woodside will have strongly lobbied the Australian government for the best deal in the Timor Sea; even less doubt that its requests would have been favorably heard.

    This furore is just the latest sign of the Australian government’s current struggle to understand or deal effectively with its Asian neighbors. In recent months it has fallen out with Indonesia on the question of illegal immigrants. More damagingly, it has emerged that Australia spied on Indonesian President Bambang Susilo Yudhoyono, his wife and others.

    Australia’s new conservative government, led by Tony Abbott, has also decided to slash its aid budget by a cumulative A$4.5 billion in coming years, the vast majority of which goes to its nearby Asian neighbors.

    And in Timor-Leste, Minister for Energy and Petroleum Alfredo Pires has said that the episode is turning hearts and minds against Australia, even though Australia’s defense forces came to its rescue in its desperate battle for independence in 1999.

    Referring to the spying allegations, Pires said: “It was all done under the cover of an Australian aid project. Now we are even suspicious of Australian aid. Many people, particularly young people, have become very disillusioned with Australia over this.”

    The bottom line is that once again the people of Timor-Leste, who have been through so much for so long, are just collateral damage.

    Michael Sainsbury is an Australian journalist based in Bangkok.

    This article was published by CathNews   on 8 January 2014.  See link below. 

  • More on pink batts. Guest blogger: Dr Michael Keating

    I would like to add a further comment to your post on 3 January on the Pink Batts.

    First, I would further contest the evidence that this scheme was poorly conceived and badly implemented. On this point it should be noted that the Auditor General’s finding that 29 per cent of 13808 completed jobs had minor or serious problems was based on a departmental survey, which suggests that the government was following up. Furthermore the survey was not wholly random and as the Auditor General noted this particular finding constituted only weak evidence. Later evidence showed that of  44,300 inspections, again not randomly chosen, only 3215 led to rectifications being required – a rate of around 7 per cent, which does not seem to me to be particularly high for the building industry.

    The other major concern arose out of the death of four installers. Leaving aside the fact that regulation of health and safety is a responsibility of the States and employers it should be noted that one fatality was caused by a pre-existing electrical fault; another electrocuted installer was employed by an electrician; and a third death occurred when a contractor elected to work in oppressive heat. In addition, the Commonwealth required more of contractors than most States as it required installers to agree to employees holding a nationally recognised occupational health and safety certificate demonstrating that “the holder is competent to work safely in the construction industry”.  To the extent that there was a failure of health and safety it would seem to reflect a general failure of health and safety regulation in the building industry and not a failure of this particular program.

    Second, the other important aspect that I would like to raise is why did the Rudd and Gillard Governments decide to throw in the towel and not defend the program? I suggest that it was their decision to stay silent and not respond to the criticisms that has now given the HIS program such a bad reputation, and has come at a considerable cost to their own reputations. I think that it was this decision to stay silent, when a substantial defence was possible, that is deserving of further exploration by those who are interested in how our political system is working these days.

    Dr Michael Keating AC was formerly Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet 1991-96. 

     

  • People like us: personal reflections. Guest blogger Trevor Boucher

    One of my great-great grandfathers on my mother’s side was transported to Australia in the early 1840’s for stealing lead from a chapel roof. The lash and Van Dieman’s Land didn’t reform him, although marriage in Geelong to an Irish orphan helped- even though a couple of manslaughter convictions followed.

    Not that I knew about this as a child born in 1936 in remote eastern Victoria. My family historian brother later extracted the information from a reluctant Mum (a crusading Salvationist’s daughter). Her opinion was, “We don’t need to talk about that sort of thing.” With hardworking and upright Dad being a Methodist local preacher, the numerous local Catholics (of Irish origin) were to be treated with some reserve –not really people like us. For their part, they probably saw us as “wowsers”. The hundreds of Chinese alluvial gold miners who once dug up the place had long gone. They didn’t meet “White Australia” prescriptions anyway.

    During the Second World War years Dad returned from a visit to relatives in the Western District with stories of how a companionable Italian POW assigned to them sat at the family dinner table.

    A few years later Dad employed on our farm one of the “Balt” refugees then coming into the country. Although he spoke funny, he seemed to be a decent person to have around.

    Both my parents had limited educational opportunities. In Dad’s case it was through family and financial circumstances, in Mum’s because she was a girl. They wanted their kids to have a better chance.

    So they sent me off to boarding school in Melbourne in 1949. Boarders included Chinese “boys” sent by the Missions from Rabaul, people whose wartime internment by the Japanese had delayed and interrupted their schooling. They were great fella’s; impromptu and illicit after hours Chinese tucker in the boarding quarters provided a great introduction to different food. Another student was the daughter of a Jewish refugee doctor from central Europe.

    Then came teenage hitchhiking around north-east Victoria. I was a bit of a problem for my mates. Being blonde and blue eyed, I looked too much like a “reffo” from the Bonegilla migrant camp. The word was out that they, not being “people like us”, were a problem if you let them into your car. So I was hidden away from the edge of the road while the mates did the hitching.

    Back at the school I was elevated to dormitory master. There were different faces in the streets as the mass immigration recruiting ground of Arthur Calwell (he of “two Wongs” fame) was moved from northern European climes to the warmer Mediterranean, bringing in “wogs” and “dagoes”. A Greek kid arrived at the school with not a word of English, and was fluent within weeks.

    By then the melting pot of the Snowy scheme was a great demonstration of how Australia could manage the welding together of many diverse cultures. The term “New Australian” was coined in an attempt to get away from derogatory references to newcomers. It worked for a while.

    Like others, I was caught by National Service Training requirements. I spent my twenty-first birthday with the Melbourne University Regiment in the bush at Puckapunyal, helping set up a jungle training shooting alley as part of national preparations against the “coming hordes from the North”.

    In late 1972, another brother escaped being Vietnam fodder. Malcolm Fraser later let in Vietnamese boat people; something I remember each time I visit my highly competent Vietnamese dentist.

    Through most of my early life, people of aboriginal descent were in the shadows around my old country market town, Bairnsdale, having come from nearby Lake Tyers Mission settlement. The lawyer in me found the Mabo decision when handed down by the High Court a road to Damascus, yet despite formal constitutional and judicial recognition, attitudes of other Australians generally remain apathetic towards dealing effectively with the continuing profound disadvantage that stands in the way of First Australians being “people like us”.

    My elder daughter Katherine has married Colin, an ethnic Chinese from Malaysia. They have three gorgeous and talented children – Nicholas, Hannah and Julia. What a gift!

    A few years back I took Bryce, the elder son of my younger daughter, Nicole, from Canberra to the cricket in Sydney. Going up the afternoon before, we walked down a Sydney suburban shopping street. I was struck by the fact that nearly all shop signs were in Chinese or another non-English language. There was scarcely a Caucasian face. I said to Bryce, “Do you notice anything different around here?” He said he didn’t and we walked on. A few minutes later he said he had spotted the difference. “What is it?” Bryce’s answer: “They’ve all got I-pads.”

    Some days on after- school pickup of his young blonde brother Trent,  I meet the latter’s best mate, a refugee kid from deep in the Sudan- someone with the best smile and the brightest dark eyes, the best rugby player in the team.

    Waiting in the schoolyard each day are parents from all over the globe. Among them are modestly dressed mothers who I take from their dress to be Muslims. Happy kids mix with each other. At a well attended school concert, kids dance as they sing a song in Arabic.

    As I chat about these things on the way home Paige, sister of Bryce and Trent, chimes in from the back seat to say matter-of-factly that her school friend (from Indonesia) has been fasting all day because of Ramadan and will be away, at prayers, the next day. This leads me to reflect on how religious observance and practice were a major part of my upbringing, my Protestant Mum going to great lengths to ensure that we ate fish on Good Friday.

    Travelling interstate, I can’t remember the last time that the taxi driver from and to the airport was someone who once would have been described as “dinki-di”. Someone has to do that tough and not greatly rewarding job, just as other immigrant people work hard at jobs that are not appealing to the “mainstream”.

    Names in today’s telephone book, like names of players in sporting teams, strongly demonstrate a world-wide spread of family origins of Australians.  On the other hand, when I indulge my pastime of attending country clearing- sale auctions I don’t see the faces of a typical urban Australian street, just faces reflecting the time of my childhood.

    Last weekend a couple, friends of over 50 years, visited. We got talking about the latest drownings of boat people – this time of people trying to get into Europe from the African continent and the Middle East. Leaders overseas have called for broad solutions. Our friends tell us that they are both offspring of boat people. Both sets of parents came by ship as “10 Pound Poms”.

    It strikes me that ten quid is not much compared with the amounts desperate boat people are reported to be paying to “people smugglers” or (dare I say) as air fares for a “legal” arrival followed by a visa overstay.

    The old Protestant/Catholic divide has gone but religious prejudice stays around. It seems funny that proposals for a Muslim school, a mosque and even recently a Muslim cemetery in the country still meet with NIMBY- type objections (for example, adverse traffic effects). Sadder still to me (now an agnostic) is that if one follows the claimed lineage of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths, they all lead back to the same “big fella”. Were I to choose to be buried, which denominational section would I be put in? Would it matter?

    While my great-great grandfather came involuntarily to a continent then little changed from the way it had been managed by indigenous people for centuries, succeeding waves of boat people –people seeking a better life-  and their descendants have created a diverse society that is rightly envied elsewhere. People once feared as being “different” have not only fitted in, widening the sense of “us”, but greatly enriched Australian life.

    My granddaughters, Gracye, Ellanor and Maddison, sing the National Anthem at morning line-up at their little country school at Numeralla. They are too young to catch the irony in the words that “for those who come across the seas” we have “bounteous plains to share”.

    Australian society and its composition have changed and pressures for further change will not go away. Sitting on our island we would be both foolish and inhumane not to recognize that there are many more at-risk human beings beyond our shores who are desperate for somewhere to go and who, on any analysis, are simply people like us.

    The great thing is that kids of today don’t see the differences between people that my generation did.

    The Australia of my childhood has changed. It is still changing. But is it better and does it hold more promise?

    You bet!

    PS  The daughter of the great-great grandfather referred to earlier married a man (my great grandfather) who had changed his name on arrival in Australia. He was a Swedish seaman who jumped ship in Melbourne. That means that I am a descendant of someone who today would be classed as an “illegal maritime arrival”.

    Trevor Boucher was Commissioner of Taxation for eight years. This was followed by two years as Australia’s Ambassador to the OECD.

    This article by Trevor Boucher was published before Christmas in ‘Australia 21’. For further information see www.australia21.org.au.

  • The Revival of Misprision of Felony. Guest blogger: Kieran Tapsell

    In the days before police forces, the State in the English speaking world relied on citizens to report serious crimes, called “felonies”. The posse in the Western movies is a reflection of the “hue and cry” that citizens were expected to raise. Failing to report a felony was itself a crime, called “misprision of felony”. The crime, according to Lord Denning in the 1962 House of Lords case, Sykes v The Director of Public Prosecutions, was more than 700 years old. It is so old that the word “misprision”, meaning “concealment” has disappeared from everyday use.

    In the 1960s, Law Reform Commissions recommended its abolition, because of the establishment of police forces, because the distinction between a “felony” and a “misdemeanour” was causing problems in the administration of the law, and because most citizens felt a moral obligation to report serious crimes anyway.

    Misprision of felony was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1967, and all Australian States followed suit. New South Wales abolished it in 1990, and replaced it with a statutory form in S.316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), making it an offence not to report a “serious” crime (one with a penalty of 5 years or more in prison) unless there was a reasonable excuse. The other States replaced it with a provision that made the concealment of a crime an offence only if the concealment was in return for some gain.

    All States have mandatory welfare reporting laws regarding “children at risk”, but they only apply while the victims are under age. Some States, such as Victoria, do not include clergy amongst those required to report. The mandatory reporting laws in all States do not apply to “historic abuse”, that is, where the victim is now an adult. Figures produced by the Archdiocese of Melbourne indicate that historic abuse represents more than 99% of all complaints.

    In 1999, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission recommended that S.316 of the NSW Crimes Act be abolished for a number of reasons, but one of the most significant was: “The Commission disapproves of substituting a legal duty which is enforced by a criminal sanction for a moral one unless there are overall substantial benefits to society in doing so.” It must come as a surprise to the Law Reform Commissioners that the Vatican did not think that the Church had any such moral duty when it came to Catholic priests sexually assaulting children. Its imposition of “pontifical secrecy” on any allegations and investigations under canon law effectively prevented any such reporting to the police. The effectiveness of that prohibition can be seen from the evidence given at the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry that not one of the 611 cases of sexual assault between 1996 and 2012 by priests in Victoria was reported by the Church to the police. Pontifical secrecy did not prevent the victims reporting the matter, but so far as the Church was concerned, it had no moral duty to do so. Indeed statements by five senior Cardinals from 1997 to 2002, Castrillón, Bertone, Billé, Rodriguez and Herranz, stated unequivocally that it was immoral or wrong for a bishop to report a paedophile priest to the police, two of them saying that bishops should be prepared to go to jail rather than do that. According to Church teaching, priests were special people because they had been “ontologically” changed by God at ordination, and the relationship between a bishop and a priest was like that of a father and son.

    The Irish Parliament abolished misprision of felony in July 1997, but after the Murphy Commission reports into the cover up of child sex abuse in the Archdiocese of Dublin and the Diocese of Cloyne, it was revived in 2012, in a form similar to S.316 of the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900 so far as children and “vulnerable” people were concerned. It had to include the latter because in 2010, Pope Benedict XVI had extended pontifical secrecy to apply to allegations about priests sexually assaulting those who “habitually lack the use of reason”. The Victorian Parliamentary Report, “Betrayal of Trust” recommended similar changes to the Victorian Crimes Act 1958, a move that was also supported by the Victorian Church.

    Such a change to the civil law will assist the Catholic Church with a peculiar problem arising from canon law. In 1996 and 2002, the Irish and American bishops approached the Vatican for permission to be able to report clergy child sex crimes to the police, irrespective of whether or not the civil law required it. The Vatican refused. It was only willing to agree to such a dispensation where there was a civil law requiring reporting. In other words, it would allow just enough reporting to keep bishops out of jail. In 2002, this dispensation was granted to the United States, but it was only in 2010 that it was extended to the rest of the world. Pontifical secrecy still applies where there is no duty to report under the civil law. Such civil legislation will allow bishops to report to the police without coming into conflict with canon law.

    Pope Francis is the absolute monarch of the Catholic Church. He can issue a decree at any time outlawing pontifical secrecy for any canonical crimes that are also crimes under civil law. Indeed, such a decree would be in line with some 1400 years of Church tradition, requiring such priests to be handed over to the civil authorities, a tradition which ended with the cover up being ordered by the Pope Pius XI with Crimen Sollicitationis in 1922: see Flogging a Dead Horse at the Royal Commission on Child Abuse: https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/blog/?p=980  If Pope Francis fails to do that, the only inference will be that the Catholic Church still wants to hide clergy sex crimes against children wherever it can get away with it.

    Kieran Tapsell is a retired solicitor and barrister. He has degrees in law and theology.

     

  • Repost: The scourge of special interests. John Menadue

    A REPOST FOR HOLIDAY READING.

    Lobbying has grown dramatically in recent years, particularly in Canberra. It now represents a growing and serious corruption of good governance and the development of sound public policy. In referring to the so called “public debate” on climate change Professor Ross Garnaut, highlighted the  ‘diabolical problem’ that special interests brought to bear on public discussion on that critical issue.

    ‘What is in it for me’ is not just a problem of self-interest by voters and consumers. That self-centredness has been taken to a high art form by powerful vested interests that extract monopoly rents at the expense of the national interest. The media and particularly News Ltd and the Australian Financial Review are part of this growing corporate influence and the propaganda that they bring to bear.

    Look at some facts.

    • There are over 900 full time independent lobbyists working in Canberra. That is over 30 for every Cabinet minister. On top of these ‘third party’ lobbyists, there are the special interests who conduct their own lobbying, e.g. Australian Pharmacy Guild.
    • These lobbyists encompass a whole range of interests eg mining, clubs, hospitals, private health funds, business and hotels that have all successfully challenged government policy and the public interest. Just think what the Minerals Council of Australia did to subvert public discussion on the Super Profits Tax and the activities of Clubs Australia to thwart gambling reform? With its lobbying power over the major parties the hotel lobby effectively determines hotel operating hours in the states. Violence and crime are a clear result.
    • With journalism under-resourced, the media depends increasingly on the propaganda and promotion put into the public arena by these special interests The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at UTS found in a survey of major metropolitan newspapers published in Australia in2010 that 55% of content was driven by public relations handouts from lobbyists and their associated public relations arms. 24% of the content of those metropolitan newspapers had no significant journalistic input whatsoever. It relied heavily on PR handouts.
    • The Media Council of Australia has just drawn attention to how media independence is increasingly compromised by ‘advertorials’, a deliberate confusing of advertising and editorial content. The Council also drew attention to trips financed by large corporations and organisations that were not disclosed. It’s not just travel companies that do this. Even the People’s Liberation Army of China provides trips for senior financial journalists to attend business conferences in China.
    • The health “debate” is really between the Minister and the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Pharmacy Guild, Medicines Australia and the Private Health Insurance companies. The debate is not with the public about health policy and strategy. It is about how the minister and her department manage the special interests.
    • Much of the policy skills in Canberra departments have been downgraded and much of the policy work is now in the hands of young staff in ministers’ offices that are much more inclined to listen to special interests.
    • Policy work within the government is now undertaken more in specialist organisations such as the Productivity Commission rather than in the departments. Departmental policy capability has been seriously denuded.

    What can be done?

    • Lobbyists have to be registered with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, but this is inadequate. They should also be obliged to promptly, publicly and accurately disclose the discussions and meetings that they have had with ministers, shadow ministers and senior public servants.
    • There should be a filtering mechanism such as the Economic Planning Advisory Committee which many years ago was an effective filter whereby special interests were forced to contend with wider community interests before advice went to ministers and departments.
    • All proposals by special interest groups must be accompanied by a public interest impact statement prepared by an independent and professional body This public impact statement would be attached to representations from the special interest group. Many of the major private consulting firms should be excluded from this process as many of them have shown themselves to be compromised in the interests of their clients.
    • Departments such as Health which are so influenced by special interests should have different governance arrangements. The traditional minister/departmental model in Health is a happy hunting ground for special interests that significantly influence outcomes in health. The Reserve Bank, composed of independent and professional persons has shown the benefit of such governance arrangements that keep special interests at bay and promote an informed public debate. We need such an arrangement in the health field particularly.
    • No minister or senior official should work with a special interest group that they have been associated with for at least five years after retirement or resignation.
    • There should be increased funding to the parliament to provide alternate public advice in key policy areas. The Parliamentary Budget Office is a good start. The policy vacuum that we presently have must be filled by independent and professional advisers. At the moment the policy vacuum is filled by special interests assisted in many cases by a compliant and under-resourced media.

    These proposals may seem draconian. But I strongly believe that we face a very serious problem – the diabolical problem that Ross Garnaut has mentioned. Special interests are handsomely winning the day at the expense of the public interest. A push-back against special interests is urgent.

  • Bangkok is bubbling. Will it blow? It’s looking increasingly like it will. Guest blogger: Michael Kelly SJ

    In recent months, most independent observers have admitted to complete uncertainty about the outcome of the demonstrations and disturbances that for months have plagued Bangkok with its metropolitan area population of some 15 million.

    But now there is a date with fate. Organizers of the demonstrations and their leader, Suthep Thaugsuban, have set Jan 13 as the day to shut down Bangkok as they try to prevent a planned national election in February.

    As expressed in the Thai Constitution, when an election is called, it is the King who allows the parliament to be dissolved for the election.

    So, legally, it is the King’s will that the election take place, but that is just what the protestors and demonstrators want to thwart. Such an abandonment of loyalty to the king is an unprecedented development in Thailand, though the protesters claim to be more loyal to the king than the government is.

    The protestors, sometimes referred to as “Yellow Shirts”, have set deadlines and given ultimatums many times before. But this time they appear determined to bring the capital to a grinding halt. There is talk of clogging the city with trucks and busses rammed into each other to prevent movement. What follows from that will be chaos and could be violence.

    The police and the army were notably absent from demonstrations in November and December, allowing crowds of up to 150,000 protesters to process and blow their whistles unsupervised and even at times enter government buildings.

    However, in the last two weeks, military leaders have become more outspoken, signaling a new interest in events and their part.

    Recurrent issues keep the crisis alive:

     

    • The demonstrators reflect the view of the Bangkok middle class and elite – the political old guard, who claim to be most loyal to the King;
    • Their party has not won an election since 1992;
    • The party of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister deposed in 2006, and his sister Yingluck who is caretaker prime minister has won the last five elections;
    • The Bangkok elite believe that the Shinawatra governments are illegitimate and run by remote control from Dubai by Thaksin;
    • Thaksin is loathed by the Bangkok elite for alleged competitiveness with the King for leadership in Thailand and generally for being a grubby and corrupt ex-policeman whose political power has been bought with bribes from the immense wealth he generated for himself before and while in power;
    • The fact is that the country has changed and Thaksin is more appealing to most than the Bangkok-focused policies of those behind the protests can deliver.

     

    The problem – and Suthep and his “Yellow Shirt” supporters know it – is that Thaksin’s party will win a sixth successive election if it goes ahead in February. They have to avoid a further popular vote.

    The last time they held power was in the Government led by the Oxford educated Abhisit Vejjajiva (2008 – 2011) Mr Abhisit was lucky enough not to have to be voted in. The then opposition managed to get the country’s courts to disqualify Thaksin’s parliamentarians and, with most of the government expelled from parliament, conveniently found the numbers to form a government without going to the polls.

    What the “Yellow Shirts” propose as their solution to the problem that they seem never to be able to win elections is to install a sort of aristocratic government of the good and the worthy.  How they are to be selected and by whom and for how long is not absolutely clear.

    While Bangkok is a booming city with a strengthening stock market and a robust set of industries to build prosperity, rural Thailand has also seen a significant increase in prosperity, educational opportunities, health services, industries and benefits from tourism.

    More than 80% of the Thai population is in rural areas and it is there that the power of the Thaksin family and their political allies has been overwhelming.

    For example, rice, the country’s staple and one its leading exports, is bought by the government at a fixed price, irrespective of the international price the product can be sold at. Happy farmers vote for governments like Thaksin’s and his sister’s that bring rewards and subsidies like this.

    What has emerged in rural Thailand is a new and educated middle class for whom the allegiances, policies and prejudices of the old Bangkok elite have little appeal.

    One possibility in the current crisis – much precedented in Thai politics – is military intervention to remove the incumbent elected government. That may well occur in the next ten days.

    If that sort of chaos doesn’t happen, another will. The disturbances and protests sponsored by the Bangkok elite will continue until Thaksin and his family are seen to suffer and be driven out.

    Either way, in spite of this being the cool season in Thailand, it will be a hot time in Bangkok for a while.

  • Cricket – junk food and alcohol. John Menadue

    Over the holidays I have very much enjoyed watching on television Australia winning at last. The visual TV coverage is outstanding. The camera crews do a great job. I enhance my enjoyment by minimising the audio content. Except for the opening and closing of each session, and at the fall of each wicket, I keep my TV console on mute.

    But that is the good news. Unfortunately I can’t get away from the almost saturation picture coverage of junk food (KFC) and alcohol (Victorian Bitter and Bear-Wine-and-Spirits or BWS).

    Last year, the Australian National Preventive Health Agency (ANPHA) identified curbing alcohol use, tobacco use and obesity as the top three priority areas in preventive health. ANPHA considered that these three health risks accounted for 40% of potentially preventable hospitalisations.

    In addition to saturated fats, KFC gives saturated television advertising – KFC classic catches; Australian burgers vs English burgers; KFC trivia; Bucket-heads and a lot more. Yet only this week the National Health Reporting Authority for the Council of Australian Governments reported that our obesity rate had ballooned to 28% – with almost 11 million Australians classified as overweight or obese. Obesity is growing at an alarming rate and fast-food is one of the contributing factors.

    It is also hard to miss the seeming unending coverage of alcohol advertisements or promotion – on the sight-screens and on the scoreboards. We had BWS lunch and tea breaks. Yet only about a kilometre away from the Sydney Cricket Ground innocent people, police and hospital workers are battling alcohol-fuelled violence. The alcohol and hotel industry has enormous political clout and not just among politicians. Australian Cricket willingly plays their game.

    The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice does not allow alcohol advertising before 8.30pm in order to protect children. But by some sleight of hand the alcohol industry is able to advertise any time of the day provided it is part of a live sporting event.

    In the 1980s the tobacco industry through Rothmans, Winfield and others fought a rear-guard action to continue advertising in association with sporting events. They used the hoary argument that if a product was legal it should also be possible to advertise it. In the end they had to withdraw from all advertising associated with sporting events. The same should happen to the junk food and alcohol industries. But who will challenge their enormous political and business power.

    In the meantime, Channel 9, Cricket Australia and players fill their pockets with the revenue derived from the advertising and promotion of dangerous products. That sounds to me like living off immoral earnings.

  • Repost: Pink Batts – facts and fiction. John Menadue

    The following is a repost from July 11, 2013. I wonder if it is necessary for the Abbott Government to rake over the past rather than concentrate on the future!

    The fiction is continuing in the uncritical media that only the Commonwealth Government should bear responsibility for the problems of the Home Insulation Scheme. We should consider the facts…

    • 1.1 million Installations were completed under the scheme. There was clearly a rush by the Commonwealth Government to roll out the scheme as part of a successful stimulus plan to provide work as the global financial crisis bore down on us.  Because of the stimulus plan Australia avoided most of the disaster that befell many other countries during the GFC. That should be recognized. But mistakes were made
    • In a column in Crikey of 26 April 2011, there were research findings by blogger Possum Comitatus, which were based on a CSIRO analysis of insulation fires.  (It was not about deaths.) Possum Comitatus concluded that ‘the HIS was three times safer than the industry it replaced in terms of the fires experienced within twelve months of getting installed’. He then looked at the rate of fires over the longer term and came to the same conclusion that the industry was safer following the HIS than it was before. He concluded ‘ultimately the HIS … was much safer in terms of the fire rate than what preceded it’.

    Certainly the number of fires was up, but that was perhaps not surprising given the major increase in installations. But the rate of fires was down.

    Ian McAuley in  New Matilda of 8 July 2003 has pointed out

    • Regulation of the home installation industry is in the hands of State Governments, not the Commonwealth. The states were and still are responsible for safety. In the recent coroner’s finding on a death in Queensland, he recommended that three managers from two insulation companies be referred to the Queensland Attorney General for breaches of the State Electrical Safety Act.
    • The Commonwealth Auditor General found that 29% of installations had deficiencies ranging from minor to series safety concerns. He found that the program was open to fraud, finding 4,000 cases of potential fraud and 67 cases of payments being made to contractors without any work having been done. This is clearly an industry which has attracted more fly-by-night operators than some others. The small industry sector has some downsides.

    Clearly the scheme was poorly administered by the Commonwealth and Kevin Rudd has apologised. But the safety/regulation issue is the responsibility of state governments. Further, the rate of fires was down following the introduction of the program.

    Under the rubric of small government the Commonwealth Department of Environment found itself unable to properly manage the programme. The necessary government skills and experience were just not there. Consultants Minter Ellison therefore advised the Commonwealth Government that the programme be outsourced which in effect limited the Commonwealth’s role to funding and not supervision.

    There is plenty of blame to go around, but it seems that some of the media have chosen only to focus on the Commonwealth Government and Kevin Rudd. The News Limited publications have been particularly sloppy and partisan on the issue. Once again, their political hectoring ran ahead of their  examination of the facts.

    On safety issues beyond the home installation industry, we find that workplace deaths across all industries has fallen by one third since the election of the first Rudd Government. These figures are from Safe Work Australia. Most deaths have occurred in agriculture followed by construction. This downward trend in workplace deaths has been occurring for many years. How much has been due to an emphasis on safety by Ministers Shorten and Albanese is hard to access. But the trend is certainly in the right direction.

    But the myths and the fictions of the pink batts continue.

  • Repost: We all see our doctor too much; and it’s not just the aged. John Menadue

    The media have been discussing a proposal to impose a $5 or $6 levy for GP visits. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of times we each see our GP. It needs addressing, but not with a simplistic GP levy. See also piece below by Ian McAuley.

    Following the Grattan Institute’s recent work on budget deficits there was a focus by the media on rising health costs. The media commentators didn’t seriously examine the Grattan work about ageing but hopped onto an old and overworked hobbyhorse – that rising health costs are largely due to the ageing on the Australian population. The Business Council is also a repeat offender on this fiction about ageing.

    Increases in health services have been across all age groups, particularly in the band 25 to 54 year olds. The following figures compare Medicare services per head and by age 1984/85-2011/12. They are extracted from the Department of Health and Ageing website, although the figures are not easy to find.  Below I have combined male and female figures, assumed a 50/50 gender split. It should also be noted that some Medicare services and items were not around in 1984/85 when Medicare was established by the Hawke Government. This would not detract from the thrust of the figures.

    Medicare services per head and by age 1984/85 to 2011/12

    Age group

    1984-85

    2011-12

    % Change

    0-4

    6.97

    8.87

    27

    5-9

    4.25

    5.04

    18

    10-14

    3.49

    5.06

    45

    15-19

    4.68

    7.59

    62

    20-24

    6.43

    8.58

    34

    25-34

    7.05

    10.78

    53

    35-44

    6.54

    12.15

    86

    45-54

    7.99

    14.75

    85

    55-64

    9.47

    20.32

    115%

    65-74

    11.80

    28.61

    142%

    75-84

    15.22

    39.08

    157%

     

    It is noteworthy that the rate of increase in Medicare services levelled off in the over 65s but grew very strongly in the 35-54 band. Age is only a part of the problem.

    The Productivity Commission confirmed this in its report in 2005 on Medical Technology “to date population ageing does not appear to have been a major driver of increased demand for health services’.

    Professor Jeff Richardson of Monash University’s Centre for Health Economics, in his paper on the ‘Lamentable state of Australian health reform’ in March 2009 put it ‘Ageing per se in the absence of technological change would have minimal effects on expenditure… the link between ageing and health expenditure as a percentage of GDP is simply disinformation’.

    The Grattan report referred to  said ‘Contrary to widespread belief, it is not just the ageing of the population that is driving health spending but the fact that people of all ages are seeing doctors more often, having more tests and operations and taking more prescribed drugs”

    The Health Council of Canada in a survey a couple of years ago of more elderly users of health services concluded ‘the largest controlling factor in this rise [in health costs] is neither ageing nor population growth … it is increased use’.

    In future blogs I will look at some of the major drivers of increased demand and increased costs in health care that should be addressed. It is not just the ageing of our population.

    But we should keep a sense of perspective. At 9% of GDP committed to healthcare in Australia, we are in the middle range of comparable countries and slightly below the OECD median. Medicare has served us well. We spend about a half of what the US spends on health as a proportion of GDP.

    The US is a standout example that we should not entertain any idea of increased government support for private health insurance companies that are no match for powerful providers…doctors and private hospitals including “charitable” hospitals.

    John Menadue

  • Repost: Are most asylum seekers and refugees Muslims? John Menadue

    Repost for holiday reading.

    Well, as a matter of fact, they are not.

    But I am sure that many commentators and a lot of the community believe that most are Muslim. The dog-whistlers like Scott Morrison feed on this assumption .According to Jane Cadzow in the Sun Herald he urged the Coalition parties “to ramp up its questioning … to capitalise on anti-Muslim sentiment”.

    Figures on this issue are extracted from the DIAC Settlement data base. One reason for the difficulty in analysing the figures is that a religious test is not applied to persons seeking refugee status, and neither should it. Ascertaining religious background often then depends on voluntary declarations.

    The Refugee Convention is blind to religion but the Convention recognises that religious persecution is a valid ground for claiming protection.

    But based on DIAC Settlement data the general picture becomes reasonably clear. For settlement purposes refugees are asked on a voluntary basis to declare their religion as it is likely to assist in settlement in the community.

    In the figures for the year from January 1 2010 there were 8,342 arrivals of refugees and other humanitarian entrants. The religious affiliations were as follows:

    • Christian 4,263 – 51%.
    • Muslim 2,223 – 26%
    • Hindu 1,125 – 13%
    • Other 731 – 10%
    • Total 8,342 – 100%

    In the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012, humanitarian arrivals including refugees were as follows.

    • Christian 5,523 – 34%
    • Muslim 6,732 – 42%
    • Buddhist 445 – 3%
    • Hindu 1,089 – 7%
    • Other 2,255 – 14%
    • Total 16,044 – 100%

    These figures give a fairly reliable guide to the religious background of humanitarian entrants in recent years. The increase in Muslim arrivals in the year to 31 March 2012 is largely due to the persecution of Hazaras both in their own country Afghanistan and more recently in Pakistan. This trend is continuing.

    The pattern will vary from year to year, depending on the religious composition of the country where the persecution is occurring, and if a particular religious group is being persecuted.

    I would expect that the number of Christians currently facing persecution in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt and Syria, is likely to increase. Christians represent about 10% of the population in both countries the highest in the Middle East. If the Assad regime in Syria falls both minority Alawite and Christian communities are likely to be in jeopardy. Over a million Syrians have already fled to neighbouring countries.

    Christians in the Middle East, the birthplace of Christianity, have fallen from 20% in the early 20th Century to about 5% today.

    The religious pattern of asylum seekers and refugees is hard to predict. What is clear is that it is nonsense to assume that most of them to date are Muslim.

    John Menadue

  • Remarks by Sir William Deane AC on “Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Finding a Better Way”.

     On 17 December, Sir William Deane, former Governor-General launched Australia21 – essays on refugees and asylum seekers. Sir William Deane’s remarks follow.

    Paul Barratt’s acknowledgement of the traditional custodians in which I respectfully join, serves to remind us that apart from indigenous Australians we are all migrants or descended from migrants and that many of us were asylum seekers or are descended from asylum seekers. My own great-grandfather came to Australia with his wife and young family, including my grandfather who was aged 7 from Tipperary in 1851 on a wooden sailing ship called the Harry Lorrequer. They sought asylum on this side of the world from the devastation of the great famine. After disembarking in Melbourne and time on the goldfields near Ballarat, my great-grandfather took his family to Wahring near Nagambie in rural Victoria where he became the legal owner of land taken without compensation from the Taungurung people. That land, which we now know was unlawfully acquired, provided the basis of his and his family’s subsequent well-being.

    The first point which I wish to make through that brief reference to a rather typical Australian family history is that we Australians should have understanding and compassion for the actions of those who subject themselves and their families to serious risk of disaster at sea, to escape from violence or terror or unbearable hardship and seek asylum in a new country which they dream of making their homeland. We will never know precisely how many of the wooden sailing ships, bearing asylum seekers from Europe to Australia in the 19th century didn’t make it. Or how many men, women and children died through the awful sicknesses and conditions on the way. The Harry Lorrequer  did make it. But parts of the journey were so stormy that 45 passengers and seven sailors were washed overboard and the youngest of my great-grandfather’s children, Martin, died as a result of the sicknesses which threatened all on board.

    Perhaps some would criticise all those early Australians and present would-be Australians for subjecting themselves and their families to such awful risks. Most of us would however see them as bravely seeking a better life for themselves and their families in circumstances where they saw or see no really worthwhile alternative. The other point is that from the earliest days of European arrivals and constantly thereafter, our country and its people, both indigenous and nonindigenous have faced extraordinary and at times seemingly overwhelming challenges and problems.

    The challenge which we as a nation face in relation to refugees and other asylum seekers who arrive, or seek to arrive by boat is a very difficult one. But it is not the most difficult which has confronted our nation. And while it seems to me that there are no obvious complete answers or solutions, I believe that we are as a nation capable of dealing with it, with both justice and decency. In that regard it is well to remember that other countries are facing much greater challenges as regards refugees then we are. For example as the violent crisis in Syria enters its third winter, Lebanon with a considerably smaller population than ours is currently engulfed by more than 800,000 refugees.

    The book which we are gathered to launch “Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Finding a Better Way” demands the attention and careful consideration of any Australian who is concerned with that challenge. Its contents are of immeasurable national value and importance as a basis of understanding, of discussion, of planning and of hope. The authors of the essays are outstanding Australians with extraordinary expertise and profound practical and theoretical experience in the field. They identify what they see as current problems, difficulties and shortcomings and suggest what they see as possible lines of investigation, discussion and solution. As the editors explain in their thoughtful preface, the objective of Australia21 in initiating and publishing the book has been to provide the foundation for the convening of a roundtable of stakeholders and decision makers next year to examine the feasibility of a fresh, new bipartisan approach.

    It is only a couple of weeks since the world’s most respected authority on refugees, the United Nations High Commission delivered its assessments of our detention camps, officially called “regional processing centres” on Nauru and Manus Island. There is close correspondence between the published findings in relation to each place. As regards the Nauru centre which has been established or re-established for more than a year, the United Nations Refugee Agency found, that “The current policies conditions and operational approaches do not comply with international standards, constitute arbitrary and mandatory detention under international law; do not provide a fair and expeditious system for assessing refugee claims and do not provide safe and humane conditions of treatment in detention”. As regards the children who are in our nation’s care and detained on Nauru, the agency found “The harsh and unsuitable environment is particularly inappropriate for the care and support of child asylum seekers” and that “children do not have access to adequate educational and recreational facilities”. Finally, and relevant to the description of the Nauru detention centre as a regional processing centre, the agency found that “Only one claim for refugee status had at the time of inspection been finally determined and handed down in the 14th month period since the transfer of asylum seekers to Nauru commenced in September 2012.

    Hopefully, our government and the relevant authorities will in due course, properly respond to the United Nations Refugee Agency’s criticisms. But pending such a response one cannot but fear that at least some of the findings, particularly those relating to children held in detention and unsatisfactory processing are justified. If they are correct, the United Nations reports diminish our country’s hard won and long justified international reputation as an upholder of human rights and dignity. More important, they give rise to questions relating to our decency and sense of fairness and justice as a community and as individuals, which we cannot properly ignore.

    In that context, the publication of this book and Australia21’s call for open discussion and dialogue and a search for national consensus about a new and better way, come at a  particularly apposite time. I sincerely hope that all concerned, particularly the legislators and decision-makers in government and the administrators in the field, will welcome that call and fully participate in any ensuing discussions and exchanges, and that at everyr every stage of such discussions there will be a conscious awareness of the fact that the lives, the well-being and the futures of extraordinarily vulnerable human beings including children are involved.

    Let me conclude by congratulating and thanking all who have contributed to the initiation, writing and publication of this book, authors, editors, publishers and the members of Australia21. I join them all in wishing it every success.

    “Refugees and asylum seekers: finding a better way” is now officially launched.

    Earlier posts on ‘Refugees and asylum seekers’ can be found in the categories to the right of this page.

  • Repost: The Asian Century and the Australian Smoko. John Menadue and Greg Dodds

    The Asian Century and the Australian Smoko was first published in April 2012. This repost might be interesting holiday reading.

    The Gillard Government has commissioned Ken Henry to report on Australia and the Asian Century. Our trade with China, Japan, India and other Asian countries is booming.  Our luck is still holding.  But our key sectors – business, education and the media – are no more Asia-ready than they were two decades ago.

    This may seem counter-intuitive with the superficial signs pointing in the other direction – the number of Asian faces on our streets, staffing in our hospitals, our holidays in Bali and foreign students at our universities. But the quality and depth of our relationship with the diverse countries of Asia is quite superficial. Dig below the surface and we find a worrying situation.  We have booming trade but little real engagement.

    Reading the submissions to the Henry Review one has a sense of deja vu.  The dates and the figures are different, but the concerns raised are substantially the same as those that we ‘debated’ in the 1980s. Lee Kwan Yew joined in the debate and warned that we risked becoming the cheap white trash of Asia. Paul Keating warned that we could become  a banana republic

    That debate culminated in the Garnaut Report at the end of the decade in 1989 – ‘Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy’. Garnaut pointed to the sustained growth in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, and how Australia needed to respond. Rather than seeing Asia as a threat, he argued that we should see it as an opportunity. We needed to reduce trade barriers. We needed to back this with greater efforts in education, language and research. Our immigration policies should also be more sensitive to the region.

    The Hawke Keating Government’s opening of the Australian economy forced change. We saw rapidly growing mineral exports to Japan and Korea. The back of White Australia was broken. Government and business responded with more skilled people working in the region. The media became more interested in Asia. Exchange programs with the region were established. Asian students flooded into our universities. Protection was reduced.  Productivity growth lifted to 2.1 pa in the 90’s

    But in the mid-1990s we went on smoko, even as we continued to dig up more of our ores and coal for export. We are now less dependent on Japan but more so on China and India.  Today, 48% of our exports are fuel and mineral products, a proportion way ahead of most comparable countries. Coal, our second largest export (19% of total exports), is a major contributor to greenhouse gasses. We are dependent on a few markets and a few exports.

    The economic changes of the Hawke-Keating years, whilst beneficial, were painful for some. On top of these changes there were considerable social and ethnic changes brought about in part by the Fraser Government’s successful Indochinese settlement of 240,000 people. Some populists saw it as a chance to take us back to what Garnaut had warned us about – fear of Asia. Today the populists continue to promote fear of Asia but now call it border protection.

    The Queen of England continued as our Head of State and we remained at the beck and call of faraway and fading empires at the expense of attention to our region.

    John Howard gave us permission to be ‘relaxed and comfortable’, to have a break from the Asian challenge and opportunities.

    In the two decades since Garnaut, the performance of our businesses, universities, schools and the media has been disappointing. DFAT and Austrade have done better and have more Asia trained staff in the region, but nowhere near enough.

    Let us look at the performance of key sectors in this Asian readiness.

    Business

    Only four Australian companies in the top 150 bothered to put in a submission to the Henry Review. They were ANZ Banking, ASX Group, IAG and Rio Tinto. BHP didn’t make it! That says a lot.

    Far too many Australian businesses see Asia as customers rather than partners.  In the long term trade and investment is about relationships of trust and understanding.

    • At the most there would only be a handful of Chairpersons or CEOs of any of our major companies who was born and educated in Australia, who can fluently speak any of the key Asian languages? This failure is stark. It is obviously too late for them now, but it is not at all clear that they are recruiting executives for the future with the necessary skills for Asia. It is hard to break into the cosy club. A recent survey by The Business Alliance for Asian Literacy, representing over 400,000 businesses in Australia found that ‘more than half of Australian businesses operating in Asia had little board and senior management experience of Asia and/or Asian skills or languages’.  There are now tens of thousands of Australian-born citizens of Asian descent at our universities. But they are likely to be recruited for their good grades and work ethic rather than their cultural and language skills.
    • Maybe we don’t need an Asian language or indeed much business sophistication to dig up and sell iron ore and coal to very willing buyers, but we certainly do to sell wine, elaborately transformed manufactures and services, particularly tourism.
    • Some Australian expats in Asia have developed Asian skills and sensitivities, but there are downsides.  Coming home for an expat is often harder than going offshore. His or her world has changed, but the culture of head office has not. Some join foreign companies or leave Australia. We know of many such instances.
    • Tourism boomed but we did not get enough repeat business. We skipped from one new market to another – first Japan, then Korea and now China. Not surprisingly, the Australian Tourism Export Council told the Henry Review that we needed to improve our tourism product.
    • Success in Asia requires long-term commitment, but the remuneration packages and the demands of shareholders are linked to short-term returns.

    Asian Languages and Education Funding

    In the 1980s Professor Stephen FitzGerald and several others of us campaigned for a national language policy. In October 1982 the department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs organised the first National Language Conference. In 1985, the Senate Committee on Education endorsed the need for a national language policy. In 1987, the Hawke Government adopted a national policy on languages. This was followed in 1994 by a COAG commitment to fund Asian languages in Australia. Later Kevin Rudd supported this, but the renewed interest and commitment was short-lived. Asian language learning in Australia is in crisis again today as it was in the 1980s.If anything the situation is worse.

    This is spelled out in spades in the submissions to the Henry Review. The Australia-China Council advised that ‘for the last 20 years successive Australian Governments attempted to boost Asia literacy and particularly the study of Asian languages in schools… these attempts produced limited results’. In its submission, the Australia-China Council quoted from the Business Alliance for Asian Literacy 2011  ‘50% of schools teach very little about Asia, only 6% of Year 12 students study an Asian language and just 3% pursue these studies at university, and only 2.5% of Year 12 students study Chinese.’

    Tertiary education funding is also a key to Asian competence. As Ian McAuley has  pointed out, our public funding of tertiary education fell sharply between 1995 and 2000, and has stayed low ever since. The shortfall has been covered by income from foreign students. Teaching and research has suffered. Instead of adequately funding education from the budget, we have diverted public funds to middle-class welfare e.g. superannuation and private health insurance subsidies. This has crowded out funding for our future preparedness in Asia.

    Media

    Australia’s media relationships with the world are embedded in our history of relationships with UK, Europe and then the US.

    Our TV news, commentary and entertainment are heavily dependent on the BBC, CNN, et al. Media programs about Asia shown in Australia are often recycled UK or US material. Our media is full of it. Just compare the current coverage of the US Republican primaries and the much more critical National People’s Congress in China. Japan, except for disasters, India, Korea and Vietnam are covered intermittently, almost as an after-thought. It will require a real wrench to change the nature of Australian media that history has laid down.

    People exchanges

    The first working holiday agreement in Asia was with Japan in 1980. We didn’t have another one in Asia until the 1996 agreement with the ROK. In the last 10 years there have been another six working holiday agreements with Asian countries, but most of them have caps of 100 persons per annum. We still have no agreements with China, India or Vietnam. Outside the four key North-east Asian countries identified by Garnaut in 1989, fewer than 1% of working holiday makers to Australia come from the new and rising developing countries of Asia.

    Getting ready

    To take advantage and integrate ourselves in the region will require continuing openness in trade, investment, ideas and people. It will require substantial investment in skills for Asia and a new generation of business leaders who see the opportunities in our own region, and not a region they fly through on their way to Europe. We need to reengage in economic reform alongside reengagement with Asia beyond the superficial.

    We are both enriched and entrapped by our Anglo-Celtic culture.

    Postscript: There are follow up posts on this subject on April 2, 2013 and June 13, 2013.

    John Menadue AO is Board Director of the Centre for Policy Development. He was Australian Ambassador to Japan, Secretary Department of Immigration, Secretary Department of Trade, and CEO of Qantas

    Greg Dodds was Director, Australia Japan Foundation in Japan, Senior Trade Commissioner Japan and Executive General Manager, Austrade, North East Asia

    Edited versions of this article were published in The Melbourne Age and Sydney Morning Herald on April 5, 2012

  • Japanese Prime Minister Abe and Yasukuni Shrine. Guest blogger: Walter Hamilton

    Perhaps the most significant aspect of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit on Thursday to Yasukuni Shrine – the place where Japanese venerate their war dead – was its timing. Abe chose to go on the day that marked the first anniversary of his administration, in effect directly linking his government with this controversial establishment. He not only became the first serving prime minister to cross its threshold for seven years but, most unusually, he lent the visit an official stamp. (Notwithstanding that the Prime Minister’s Office described it as a “private” affair, the media were forewarned, his visit was televised live and he signed the visitor’s book using his official title.)

    Abe’s action was immediately condemned by China and South Korea, which consider Yasukuni Shrine an unholy vestige of Japanese militarism. It is the place where soldiers and sailors dedicated themselves to the emperor before heading off to war and where, since 1978, the spirits of fourteen convicted “Class A” war criminals have been enshrined.

    Japanese nationalists argue that Yasukuni, occupying a large site in central Tokyo, serves the same purpose as, for example, the Cenotaph in London, Arlington Cemetery in Washington or the War Memorial in Canberra. But, despite now being operated by a private organisation (an arrangement paying lip service to the constitutional separation of religion), the shrine is irrevocably associated with the discredited apparatus of State Shinto that once promoted emperor worship, imperialism and notions of racial and cultural superiority. For many, this association is perpetuated by the military museum now attached to the shrine. Jeff Kingston, Director of Asian Studies at Tokyo’s Temple University, is one of many critics of the museum’s “selective and sly” representation of Japan’s shared history with Asia:

    Japan’s war in China is supposed to have suppressed banditry and terrorism, while its invasion of the rest of Asia is represented as a war of liberation from Western colonialism. Missing from the extensive exhibits are any mentions of the Rape of Nanjing, the awful [biological] experiments conducted by Unit 731 on prisoners of war, or the suffering endured by tens of thousands of “comfort women”… The only thing that Japan’s modern reactionaries regret about the war is defeat, and they are still fighting an uphill battle against Japanese public opinion to justify wartime Japan’s ‘’noble mission.” No amount of sanitizing will change that.

                                                 – The Japan Times, 14 August 2013

    Prime Minister Abe said he visited Yasukuni “to pledge and determine that never again will people suffer in war.“ It was “not intended to hurt the Chinese or South Koreans.” His remarks, however, upend the reality of what Yasukuni represents in both historical and contemporary terms. He knew full well any attempt to associate anti-war sentiments with such a place would be highly offensive to those who suffered at the hands of Japanese militarism. To expect them somehow to “reform,” to “grow up” and feel differently about the issue, just because he says so, seems to me the height of arrogance. (Not even Yasukuni is as brazen as this: sensitive to disapproving eyes, it requires journalists to obtain prior permission from the management before reporting on the contents of its revisionist exhibits. For the record, this journalist did not comply.)

    To some extent Abe’s action is unsurprising. After his first stint as prime minister, in 2006-7, he went on record as saying he deeply regretted having abstained from visiting Yasukuni Shrine. He did so then out of concern for relations with China and South Korea, which had been damaged by his predecessor Junichiro Koizumi’s visits to Yasukuni. Since Abe’s return to office relations have plummeted again mainly as a result of territorial disputes inflamed by the activities of super-patriots in all three countries. It must now be assumed that Tokyo either does not want or cannot foresee a return to cordiality in the immediate future.

    The Abe Government is set upon a course to “normalise” Japan, most notably by expanding its military posture. The stated purpose is to enable it to be more proactive in contributing to international peacekeeping, but elements of the military build-up, such as the acquisition of a capability to undertake opposed naval landings, are clearly part of a response to China’s claim on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea. Beijing’s strongly worded criticism of Abe’s defence plans, together with its recent declaration of an air defence identification zone incorporating the disputed islands, are part of the tit-for-tat confrontation to which Abe’s Yasukuni visit is the latest contribution.

    Japanese nationalists who wish to refight old battles – to make out, for instance, that Yasukuni is a shrine to peace – are incapable of taking the country forward to a sounder, more productive relationship with their neighbours. Even if the “history debate” has been hijacked in China and South Korea by equally blinkered nationalists – as, seems to me, is the case – nothing is achieved by giving them legitimacy by adopting the same mentality. Abe, judging from his expression of regret about his past efforts to assuage the feelings of Chinese and Koreans, is looking backwards, not forwards. Whether he realises it or not, he is sounding like the Japanese leaders of the 1930s who, impatient with being “misunderstood,” insisted that other nations accept Japan on its own terms – or else. It is ugly, wrongheaded and dangerous. Most particularly, it ill fits the reality of Japan’s place in the world in 2013: a dignified place forged out of the disaster of the 1930s and dependent upon a repudiation of self-aggrandisement and the use of force.

    Other nations, with an interest in improved regional relations, have a role to play in urging all sides to step back from confrontation and stop trying to win old battles or overturn the verdict of the past. The United States Embassy was quick to make its views known. While Japan was “a valued ally and friend”, it said in a statement, the Embassy was “disappointed that Japan’s leadership has taken an action that will exacerbate tensions with Japan’s neighbors.” The Australian Government recently sided with Japan on the issue of China’s air defence zone; it should now make its “best friend” feel the brunt of its disapproval of Abe’s reckless action.

    Walter Hamilton reported from Japan for eleven years.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • No Room at the Inn – Asylum Seekers in Australia, Christmas 2013. Guest blogger: Kerry Murphy

    In the time approaching Christmas, asylum seekers in Australia have been the target for increasingly harsh and punitive policies from the new Government.  None of this is really surprising as the Coalition policy documents stated the broad outline of their intentions.   It may help to outline the recent major events and to put them in context.

    No one is illegal

    Mr Abbott has often stated ‘‘This government will never allow people who come here illegally by boat to gain permanent residency in Australia.’’ [1].  This is an example of the incorrect use of the word ‘illegal’.  Under the Migration Act, people are either lawful non-citizens (s 13) or unlawful non-citizens (s14) – illegal is not mentioned.  There is no punishment for being unlawful, but you face detention and removal from Australia unless you have a visa application in process.  Until September 1994, it was an offence to be ‘íllegal’ but the offence was repealed in September 1994.

    The use of the word ‘illegal’ creates a negative connotation mainly against asylum seekers and this is reinforced by linking asylum seekers with people smugglers.  People smuggling is an offence in Australian law and also in several overseas jurisdictions.  Asylum seekers are fleeing persecution and using smugglers is a common way of escaping persecution.  However by linking the two, and then incorrectly calling the asylum seekers ‘illegal’ – they are stigmatised and seen as undesirable to the general public.

    Temporary Protection Visas

    There are several recent changes in the law which also target asylum seekers.  The first was the reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) on 18 October for those arriving without a visa.  The TPV is only for 3 years, and does not allow the refugee to apply for any other visa nor to sponsor their immediate family.  It was documented as causing psychological harm in the Howard era, and the return to such a punitive visa for people found to be refugees and in need of protection is seriously disturbing.[2]

    The TPV regulations were disallowed by the Senate on 1 December but the same day, the Minister retaliated by capping the number of protection visas to be granted until 1 July 2014 at 1650.[3]  Last year there were 7504 protection visas granted, including 2555 to those arriving on visas and subsequently being granted a protection visa.  Already 1650 was met so it meant no-one could be granted a protection visa until the new Immigration Year.  This affected those refugees who had not come without a visa, but had a visa on arrival and subsequently applied for a protection visa.  Then on 19 December this was revoked after a High Court challenge was commenced.[4]

     

    Abolishing Complementary Protection

    Then the Migration Amendment (Regaining Control Over Australia’s Protection Obligations) Bill was introduced.[5]   The Bill will abolish Complementary Protection.   How control over “Australia’s Protection Obligations” was ever lost was not explained by the explanatory memorandum.  Complementary Protection (CP) was introduced under Labor and took effect from 24 March 2012.  CP introduced a mechanism for people to access protection under the non-refoulement (not be sent back) obligations under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international Human Rights Instruments.

    This long overdue reform brought into Australian law provisions which already existed in other similar countries such as Canada, UK, New Zealand and the EU.  The only way of accessing such protection in Australia, when it could not be shown it was for a Convention Refugee reason, was to seek the personal unreviewable and non-transparent discretionary intervention of the Minister.   This is only possible after you lose at Immigration and at the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT).  Whilst such a power is needed for the complicated and hard cases, administratively and legally it made sense to reduce the need to access the Minister by establishing administrative procedures at an earlier stage in the assessment process.[6]

    So far only 57 cases were found to meet the Complementary Protection provisions, but that is 57 people who otherwise would have had to try their luck with the Minister.  The Complementary Protection law was reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee back in 2009.[7]  The same Committee is now reviewing its proposed abolition.  Abolition of Complementary Protection would be a serious retrograde step and just make a complex system less reviewable and not transparent.[8]

    Code of Behaviour

    13th December was also unlucky for asylum seekers because they learned of yet further changes to commence the next day.  A Code of Behaviour was introduced. This required asylum seekers on a bridging visa E to sign the Code to state they would comply with all Australian laws and comply with reasonable requests to attend interviews.  Curiously, road laws were specifically mentioned, along with sexual offences, violent offences and ‘anti-social or disruptive activities’.   Whilst this may seem innocuous, it is nothing of the sort.  All visa applicants must sign a statement they will comply with Australian laws and values, but only asylum seekers must sign this extra Code of Behaviour.

    Failure to comply with the Code can lean to a cancellation of the Bridging Visa and a return to mandatory detention. So a breach of driving laws which would normally only lead to a fine means the putative refugee will have their visa cancelled before the Local Court even considers the matter.  Once cancelled, they must remain in detention until they are removed or are granted a protection visa.  However another change makes the grant of a protection visa no longer possible.

    Since 14 December it is impossible to get the permanent protection visa if you arrived in Australia without a visa.  This means that a person can be found to meet the refugee or Complementary Protection criteria (a complex process) but not be able to get any visa apart from a bridging visa.

    Another new regulation which authorises the disclosure of information to the State or Federal Police regarding the address details for applicants on bridging visas.  Why do the police need to know where asylum seekers are living?  Only applicants for protection face this demeaning provision – the thousands of others who apply for partner, skilled, student, business or employer sponsored visas are not caught by this odious regulation.   This is yet further vilification.

    Since Labor re-established offshore processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea on 19 July 2013, all arrivals by boat are excluded from the Australia process entirely, so the changes announced in the last few months by the Coalition Government are designed for around 30,000 asylum seekers who arrived before that date and are still in the process.  Vilifying and targeting a group in the community is a poisonous way of dealing with people, as it makes other forms of discrimination and ill-treatment seem acceptable to the wider public.

    The overall impact of these policies is to deliberately demean and punish a group of vulnerable people, because of how they arrived in Australia.   This is punishment of refugees. At a time when many are expressing hope and peace for Christmas and the New Year, these policies do not promote Australia and Australians in the region as supporters and advocates of human rights.   Maybe we need to change the second verse of our national anthem – where it states’ for those who’ve come across the seas we’ve boundless plains to share’- not anymore we don’t.

    Reflection

    “Hostility comes from ignorance, hospitality from openness. Hostility towards strangers is born in a heart with barriers, hardened and incapable of seeing richness in diversity. The collective hostility of the western world can be healed by learning from hospitality in other cultures. The shift from hostility to hospitality happens when one experiences welcome, this gift of opening oneself to the reality of an individual or a family of refugees.”

    (Luis Magrina sj, In the footsteps of Pedro Arrupe p41)

     

    Kerry Murphy is a solicitor who works in the asylum and refugee area.

     


    [2] Zachary STEEL, Derrick SILOVE, Robert BROOKS, Shakeh MOMARTIN, Bushra ALZUHAIRI and Ina SUSLJIK, “Impact of immigration detention and temporary protection on the mental health of refugees.’  BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY (2006) 188, 58 – 64,  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/188/1/58.full.pdf

  • Election aftermath – where to now on asylum seekers and refugees? John Menadue

    Yesterday Sir William Deane launched a book ‘Refugees and asylum seekers – a better way’. A link to the book can be found at

    http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d2331cf87fedd353f6dada8de/files/Refugee_and_asylum_seeker_policy_Finding_a_better_way.pdf

    The book includes a chapter I wrote ‘Election aftermath – where to now on asylum seekers and refugees’. This chapter follows

    Election aftermath- where to now on asylum seekers and refugees?

    Since Tampa in 2001 asylum-seekers and refugees have become a divisive public issue. In that debate, boat arrivals have been the most contentious issue of all.

    Just before the September election the Rudd Government announced that no asylum seeker coming to Australia by boat would ever receive refugee status and permanent residence in Australia, but would be transferred to PNG or Nauru. This hard-line policy with some additional punitive measures in Operation Sovereign Borders has been adopted by the Abbott Government.

    The number of asylum seekers coming by boat fell dramatically in the last weeks of the Rudd Government. That trend has continued. The net result is that the gate has been very nearly closed for boat arrivals for the foreseeable future. But it will never be shut completely.

    Asylum seekers will continue to come by air. Presently about 7,000 to 8,000 asylum seekers come to Australia by air each year. Invariably they state their intention to come as a student, visitor or working holiday maker. They then get issued with a visa, enter Australia and apply for refugee status. Desperate people do desperate things. The chief source country for air arrivals is China and with about 40% of all air arrivals gaining refugee status. This situation is likely to continue. The toxic political debate is only about the mode of arrival. Arriving by aeroplane is OK but not by boat! What a lot of nonsense this is. We are obsessed only by boats.

    But as the gate for asylum seekers coming by boat closes more will seek to come by air.

    Against this unfortunate background where should we now try to focus the debate? Can we find some ground where effective and humanitarian policies can still be pursued? How can we blunt the edges of cruel policies?

    Despite the setbacks of recent years, I still think that there is quite a lot that we can try and do, as difficult as it will be in the present political climate.

    We must change the political narrative with a positive message about persons facing persecution and their contribution to Australia rather than the demonization and fear that has been engendered since John Howard’s days. It comes down to leadership across our community and not just politicians. Polls suggest that boat arrivals do not rate highly against such issues as health and education but it is a hot button issue on its own that produces a very strong and hostile response. It is so easy for unscrupulous politicians and some media people to engender fear of the outsider, the foreigner and the person who is different.  History is littered with such unscrupulous people. We must keep trying to change the debate and appeal to Australians more generous instincts that we all know are there.

    The dialogue between the Government, including the Department of Immigration and refugee advocates has been broken for a long time. We need a “second-track dialogue” – involving government officials, civil society, NGOs and refugee advocates in the dialogue process. A more constructive role by refugee advocates is essential and with a government prepared to listen.

    Progressively we should increase the refugee and humanitarian intake. If we took the same number of refugees today that we took during the Indo Chinese program of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s adjusted for our population increase since then we would now have an intake of about 35,000.  The Gillard Government increased the intake to 20,000 pa but the Abbott Government plans to reduce it to 13,750.  Having been frightened over border security Australians may now feel more secure with the new government in charge! As a result they may now be more supportive of refugees that have been processed in a more orderly way offshore, particularly by the UNHCR.

    Reluctantly, I have come to the view that the blanket opposition to offshore processing of asylum seekers has politically failed and with dire consequences for asylum seekers. A couple of years ago I welcomed with some reservations the agreement with Malaysia on transfers and processing. Unlike the Rudd Government’s agreement with PNG, the agreement with Malaysia was supported by UNHCR. On the contentious issue of offshore processing, the UNHCR in May this year issued a ‘Guidance Note’ on bilateral and/or multilateral arrangements on the transfer of asylum seekers. It emphasised that in any arrangement there must be effective protection. This encompasses (a) people given a legal status while they are in a transit country, (b) the principle of non-refoulement (c) people have access to refugee determination processes either within the legal jurisdiction of the state or by UNHCR and (d) treated with dignity. What is important is not where the processing occurs, but whether it is fair, humane and efficient and consistent with the Refugee Convention.

    The Malaysian Agreement was opposed by the Coalition, the Greens and almost all refugee advocate groups. It was an odd alliance! The failure of this agreement saw a threefold increase in boat arrivals within a few months. These arrivals rose to 14,000 in the six months to June 2013. The result of that large increase and with an election looming was the draconian agreement with PNG.

    In opposing the Malaysian Agreement many refugee advocates sided with Tony Abbott on “canings” in Malaysia. It was quite novel to see Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison defending the human rights of asylum seekers. Tony Abbott gave the impression that he was not interested in stopping the boats but stopping the Government stopping the boats. This was consistent with what a “key Liberal strategist” told the US Embassy in November 2009  that the boats  issue was “fantastic” for the Coalition  and “ the more boats that come the better”( SMH 10 December 2010).

    The agreement with Malaysia was also criticised because of the treatment of children. But children could never have been excluded from the arrangement or the boats would have filled up with children. They are called “anchors” to haul in the rest of the family. Children do need protection through a guardian arrangement but the Minister cannot be both gaoler and guardian.

    We should also pursue alternative migration pathways to discourage asylum seekers taking dangerous boat or other “irregular” Journeys.

    The first alternate pathway is through orderly departure arrangements with “source countries” such as we had with Vietnam from 1983. Over 100,000 Vietnamese came to Australia under this arrangement. We must pursue ODA’s with Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In both Iraq and Afghanistan we will have to bear particular responsibilities for our involvement in the wars in those countries just as we did after the Vietnam War. An orderly departure arrangement with Pakistan would probably have to be managed by UNHCR.  Importantly DIAC must anticipate future refugee flows.eg Syria and Egypt. I just cannot understand why the previous government did not actively pursue ODA’s.

    Secondly we should consider permanent or temporary migration in particular situations. e.g. Iranians on 457 visas. Recent Iranian boat arrivals are mainly single males, well-educated and resourceful. With a population explosion in Iran and the sanctions biting hard many want to leave. In the last 12 months the proportion of boat arrivals from Iran has doubled from 16% to 33%.Iranians are by far the largest national group in immigration detention in Australia. We need alternative pathways to address the special needs of nationals like the Iranians.

    Many asylum seekers in the community on bridging visas are not allowed to work. This is absurd. Work rights for all such visa holders are essential for reasons of human dignity and taxpayer cost. We should also review the ad hoc and confusing support arrangements for all asylum seekers living in the community.

    We should progressively abolish mandatory detention. At the end of August this year there were over 11,000 people in immigration detention. 96% were asylum seekers. At that time there were 1700 children in immigration detention of some form. It is all cruel and expensive. There is no evidence that it deters but politicians believe that it makes them look tough. If we should have learned anything from successive governments it is that punitive policies in immigration detention centres will result in riots, burnings, suicides and other self-harm. We will bear the human, social and financial costs of mandatory detention for decades

    Despite the heavy handed crackdown on boat arrivals there are still some important areas that we could address to help asylum seekers and refugees in their desperate plight. We have a duty to do what we can despite the toxic political environment.

    But we cannot manage these problems on our own.  Regional cooperation is essential, not to shift the burden but to share it. That is why we need to work particularly with both Indonesia and Malaysia in cooperation with UNHCR in the processing and then the resettlement of refugees. Those arrangements will problem not be” legally binding”. They will depend on trust.

    But whatever we do there is no “solution”.  Refugee flows will always be messy. Desperate people will try and cut corners. They will not play according to our rules. But we can do a lot better as we have shown in the past by successfully settling 750,000 refugees in Australia since 1945.

    John Menadue is a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development. He was Secretary Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 1980-3. He was also Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, Ambassador to Japan and CEO of Qantas.

     

    Postscript:

    Only a few days ago, Tony Abbott released a pamphlet on the government’s achievements since the election. The first subject mentioned was ‘Stop the boats’. At this very time, the UNHCR was been drawing attention to the growing refugee crisis around the world and particularly the outflow of 4 million people from Syria. Yet Tony Abbott took pride in the fact that 33,000 refugees already living in Australia will ‘all be denied permanent residence’.

     

  • Is trench warfare the answer? John Menadue

    Sensing concern about the government’s performance in the first 100 days, Tony Abbott reportedly told the Liberal Party caucus to ‘prepare for trench warfare’ when parliament resumes in 2014.

    I would have thought that the last thing that Australia needs is for the government to embark on trench warfare. I sense that the public is looking for considered and conciliatory leadership.

    Defenders of Tony Abbott’s 100 day performance point out that John Howard had a rocky start, but that he then recovered. That is true, but Tony Abbott needs to learn quickly or the pattern set in the first 100 days will become entrenched. And the polls are certainly showing an early disquiet with the government. I suggest that the disquiet about Tony Abbott was always there, but the divisions with the ALP leadership took focus away from that concern. The last election showed that oppositions don’t win election. Governments lose them.

    There are several reasons for the disquiet.

    The first is that the  lack of a considered policy agenda was disguised by one-line media grabs – ‘stop the boats’, ‘axe the tax’, ‘pay down the debt’ and ‘eliminate the deficit’. Not surprisingly in almost every respect the government’s performance in these areas falls a long way short of what the one-liners suggested. The care and consideration which goes into good policy development was just not there.

    Secondly, it is clear that there is no clear ideological framework. Conservatives traditionally believe in markets, choice and enterprise. But it was clear in the GrainCorp decision for example, that the government had retreated from its traditional free-market approach. Tony Abbott says that private health insurance is part of the Liberal Party’s DNA, yet he supports continued massive government subsidies to PHI. I have also drawn attention to Tony Abbott’s policy of Direct Action to reduce carbon pollution. This policy is the antithesis of a market approach. Malcolm Turnbull described Direct Action as a fig leaf when you don’t have a coherent market-based policy.

    A third problem is the failure of the government to manage the transition from opposition to government. I wrote about this in my post of December 6 ‘Being in government is different to being in opposition’. The NSW Premier put the problem succinctly when education policy was being emasculated by Christopher Pyne. The Premier said that the Abbott Government should start governing and stop acting as if it were still in opposition.

    Another issue which the government must address is the competence of its cabinet and ministry. I drew attention to this problem when the Coalition was in Opposition. See my blog of July 3 ‘The C team versus the Shadow Cabinet’.  The former NSW Liberal Premier and Commonwealth Finance Minister, John Fahey, commented only last week ‘Tony has picked the team that got him over the line as Opposition leader. A number of them were never going to make him look good in Government.’

    A former Conservative Prime Minister in the UK, Harold Macmillan, when asked what he feared most as Prime Minister, allegedly said ‘it is events, my dear boy, events!’. Tony Abbott is not showing that he has the policy or ideological framework – or perhaps temperament – to handle ‘events”

    Instead of facing up to these glaring problems, Tony Abbott says that there is more trench warfare ahead. A good example of this is the decision to appoint a royal commission on pink batts. It will be to attack and settle old scores with the Rudd Government. Should a victorious Prime Minister really be doing that? Where does it stop?

    But the government has 1,000 days to prove itself. It may yet do that but the first 100 days have not been promising. The last thing we want is more trench warfare.

    A vision for the future would be much more appealing.

  • Budget deficits – how did they happen and what can be done. John Menadue

    The government is announcing today an update of this year’s budget. This is the government’s first major economic statement since the election. It will focus particularly on the budget deficit. It will attempt to blame the previous government as much as possible. I addressed this issue of the budget deficit and how it has come about. 

    What is important is the performance of the economy. The budget is a means to that end. The budget deficit is important, but it is important not to over-react. The Europeans did this with very serious consequences for slower economic growth and large increases in unemployment particularly in southern Europe. 

    Consumer and business confidence is fragile. The government’s performance and exaggeration of our economic and financial problems will not help.,

    The following was posted on 29 November 2013.  Repost below.

    I have written extensively in this blog about the phoney outrage of Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey about the budget deficit and the debt. How ironic it is now that the government wants to lift the debt ceiling when only a few months ago it said that it would better manage the economy and quickly lower the level of debt.

    Our deficit is not a cause for panic. We have a well-performing economy. And our deficits and debt are in far better shape than most countries in the world. But we do have a longer term budget deficit problem that we need to address.  Economists call this our structural deficit problem, the long-term deficit that we have in government accounts regardless of the fluctuations in revenue and expenditure over the ups and downs of the business cycle.

    It is estimated that with existing federal and state policies at the present time, we face a structural budget deficit of about $60 billion in today’s currency.

    How did this happen?

    The primary and major cause was the way the Howard Government wasted the tax returns from the mining boom. The parliamentary budget office put this problem in the following terms.

    ‘Over two thirds of the five percentage points of GDP decline in structural receipts over the period 2002/3 to 2011/12, was due to the cumulative effects of the successive personal income tax cuts granted between 2003/4 and 2008/9. A further quarter was the result of a decline in excise and customs duties as a proportion of GDP. Significant factors driving this trend included the abolition of petroleum fuels excise indexation in the 2001/2 Budget and the decline in the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco over the period.’

    The IMF came to much the same conclusion. It identified two periods of Australian ‘fiscal profligacy’ in recent years, both during the Howard turn in office – in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007. (SMH Jan 11, 2013)

    In short, our structural budget deficit is due in substantial part to the Howard Government’s laxity with government spending and tax reductions during the mining boom. We blew the benefits of the mining boom when we should have been doing more to improve the budget surplus.

    The second cause of the structural deficit is that the Rudd Government spent heavily to counter the global financial crisis. It was more successful than almost any other government in the world in avoiding a major recession and unemployment, but when the recovery took hold, the Rudd and Gillard Governments did not focus on the structural deficit problem particularly as identified by the Henry tax review. Some improvements were made to reduce middle-class welfare like the subsidy to private health insurance and the over-generous concessions that Peter Costello had given to superannuants. But the improvements were nowhere near enough.

    The Abbott Government has established a Commission of Audit to address this structural deficit and other problems. But I am doubtful if it will address the big ticket items and the hard political decisions that will be required.

    Despite the public perception that we are highly taxed, the fact is that Australia has one of the lowest ratios of tax to GDP amongst the 34 OECD countries. In 2010, Australian taxes were about 26% of our GDP. This compared with the OECD average of 34%.

    A major contributor to our lower taxes is the large number of ‘tax expenditures’. These are tax breaks, rebates and other loop-holes which reduce tax revenue. Australia has a much higher level of these ‘tax expenditures’ than countries such as Canada, US, Korea, Netherlands and Germany.

    Some examples of these ‘tax expenditures’ that reduce tax revenue are as follows:

    • Ian McAuley and I have estimated that the subsidies to the private health insurance industry via policy holders cost about $7 billion per annum.
    • According to Treasury, tax revenue is reduced by about $30 billion per annum as a result of the superannuation tax concessions.
    • According to the Grattan Institute, governments provide benefits of about $36 billion per annum to home-owners through exemptions from land and capital gains taxes, and age pension entitlements. These very large tax expenditures work to disadvantage many young people who are unable to enter the housing market or people who prefer or are forced to rent accommodation.
    • The Grattan Institute also estimates that property investors get a benefit of about $7 billion per annum through negative gearing and the capital gains discount.

    The Grattan Institute also suggests that Australian government budgets could be improved by about $37 billion per annum through broadening the GST to include food and private spending on health and education, as well as lifting the pension and superannuation at retirement age to 70.

    To the above possible reform measures, could be added a reformed mining tax that really raises money. If the Minerals Resources Rent Tax was raised to 40% as proposed by the Henry Review, it would raise an additional $5 billion per annum.

    All the above are big ticket items that cost the budget large sums of money. These benefits and tax expenditures also heavily favour high income earners. Vested interests and rent-seekers will fight doggedly to maintain their privileged positions.

    These are hard political issues, but if we are to address our structural budget deficit problem, they will need to be examined carefully and introduced progressively, or at least partially-like limiting negative gearing to new homes.

    Worthwhile reform is likely to antagonise strong vested interests. That is why I am afraid that the Abbott Government is likely to direct our attention onto quite secondary issues such as ‘government waste’ which are really chicken-feed alongside the big ticket items mentioned above.

    The Hawke/Keating governments showed that bold reform is possible. John Howard showed it with the GST

    We can achieve necessary reform if we all stopped talking exclusively about politics and engaged in sensible policy debates.

  • Well-paid jobs or welfare? John Menadue

    The Abbott Government’s confusion over Holden’s withdrawal from Australia reflects a much deeper hostility to the car industry. The main reason for this is that the car industry is highly unionised, pays good wages and has a high degree of alignment of interests between labour and capital. The right-wing finds that all quite offensive.

    Yet the right-wing supports subsidies in other industries that have little merit. The subsidies to these other industries put the support of the car industry in the shade.

    As I mentioned in a recent blog on 12 December, the government provides enormous subsidies to parts of the services sector.

    • We provide $7 billion p.a. for the private health insurance industry – a very high cost and parasitic industry which Labor failed to properly tackle. Warren Buffett described PHI as the tape worm in the US health system. It is the same in Australia and we subsidize it!!
    • We will provide $1.8 billion over four years to the tax-avoidance industry with salary packages for executive cars. The coalition reversed a Labor Government decision to stop this rort.
    • We provide over $30 billion p.a. in subsidies to the superannuation sector. The wealthy receive highly subsidised tax treatment of their superannuation contributions? On top of that they do not pay tax on superannuation repayments from the time they reach 60 years of age.  This subsidy for superannuation holders is in addition to the enormous $20b annual fees that financial advisers extract from policy holders. Both major parties are culpable on this but Labor marginally less so.

    What is the sense or decency in decrying the car industry which has a well-paid and efficient workforce but we provide enormous individual and corporate welfare for the rent-seekers in the three areas mentioned above? Holden claim that they were seeking an additional subsidy of $80 m per year for 7 years.

    Conservatives decry welfare spending but have supported a major shift in welfare payments over the years. Because of under-investment in human capital like education and physical infrastructure and neglect of steady economic adjustment, conservative governments have spent very strongly on distributive welfare to compensate for inequalities rising from our weakened economic structure. Over the last 50 years, social security assistance has risen from 5% of Australians’ household disposable income to 12%. Examples of this expanded social security assistance are baby bonuses, family allowances and superannuation concessions for the wealthy. The previous Labor governments did move to some degree to wind back some of this middle-class welfare – subsidies to private health insurance and the second baby-bonus – but the justification was more about immediate budgetary management than an expression of the principle that it is better to have a strong and productive economy with good wages. We need to become less reliant on distributive welfare both for individuals and corporations.

    The path to growing incomes and fairness is through productivity and well-paid employment rather than government welfare handouts that have risen dramatically because of a failure of all governments in human capital and physical infrastructure development.

    As the Scandinavians have shown, well-paid jobs with high levels of skill rather than welfare are the way to long-term prosperity. We need to be more productive and in the process of adjustment our attention should be directed first to the rent-seekers in industries such as private health insurance and superannuation. The motor vehicle industry should be a much lower priority.

    The right-wing commentators show their political colours in supporting subsidies to the superannuation sector but are beside themselves in hostility to the well-paid and highly-unionised workers in the car industry. Australia needs more productivity and well-paid jobs and less individual and corporate welfare. We need a well-paid and productive workforce for good economic reasons but more importantly for the dignity that goes with meaningful work.

  • The Holden mess gets worse. John Menadue

    Yesterday I posted a blog ‘Taunting Holden to Leave’.

    Let me add to the continuing story of this major stuff-up.

    The Abbott Government, through Industry Minister Macfarlane asked the Productivity Commission to advise on assistance to the car industry. He asked for a report by March next year. On Monday this week, Minister Macfarlane was asked if he supported Holden remaining in Australia. He replied ‘Absolutely! Are we doing something about it? Absolutely!’ But this attempt by the Minister for due process and proper consideration was saboutaged by Joe Hockey. Holden was put to the sword by the Abbott Government long before the Productivity Commission could report.

    In acting ahead of the Productivity Commission report, Joe Hockey bullied, taunted and threatened Holden. Leaks poured out from ministers to make Holden’s position almost intolerable. The leaking was supported by Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal that said that General Motors had already decided to stop manufacturing in Australia. With all this hectoring, Holden decided that it had had enough and would exit manufacturing in Australia. If Holden was looking for an exit strategy the Abbott Government gave it one. It is hard to recall such a mess in decision-making.

    Another important factor is that the Abbott Government decided to retain the Fringe Benefit Tax salary packaging rorts for executive cars. The Labor Government said it would abolish these rorts and save $1.8 billion over four years. But the Abbott Government decided to reverse this decision. That $1.8b is almost the same amount as the cost of additional assistance that Joe Hockey said the car industry needed – $2 billion over four years.

    Furthermore, the Fringe Benefit rort had been used in executive salary packaging to buy almost exclusively foreign-made cars, whereas the $2 billion in industry assistance that was necessary would go directly to help Australian manufacturing of cars. So the Abbott Government was prepared to turn a blind eye to tax avoidance over executive cars. But it refused very nearly the same amount over four years to keep companies such as Holden manufacturing. In Australia. The Abbott Government decided that it would give preference to the tax avoidance industry rather than the auto manufacturing industry.

    What a disgrace. What a shambles.

  • Japan’s secret agenda. Guest blogger: Walter Hamilton

    Using its dominance of both houses of the Diet, Japan’s ruling party has pushed through a new anti-terrorism and secrecy law. The strong-arm parliamentary methods used to secure its passage have added to public concerns about the way the law may be employed by the Abe Government to stifle dissent, curb public access to information and intimidate political opponents. The LDP mustered its numbers during a late-night session on Friday, noisy public protests and extensive media criticism notwithstanding.

    The State Secrecy Protection Law is the legislative accompaniment for Japan’s newly created National Security Council (modeled on America’s NSC), both required, says the government, for effective crisis management. What crisis? Many observers believe Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has moved swiftly to exploit the sense of crisis affecting Sino-Japanese relations as a result of their territorial dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

    Critics of the law say it is vague and all encompassing and lacks a clearly defined process of review. The law defines “terrorism” as any activity that forces “political and other principles or opinions on the state or other people.” Concern that this could be used to control dissent took on more substance after LDP secretary-general and senior government member Shigeru Ishiba likened public demonstrations against the law to “terrorism” (he later “corrected” his statement). The law puts into the hands of bureaucrats the power to determine what is and what isn’t a state secret. While this is not unusual by international standards, the political culture in Japan is already conservative and opaque, and freedom-of-information laws have proven less effective than in some other countries. The threat of prison terms for journalists who seek or handle classified information is another provision that has drawn fire.

    The government’s lame response to these complaints has been to say that officials would be required to “take into consideration” human rights and freedom of the press. Abe also promised to set up an agency to monitor what information was being made secret, but the powers and scope of such an agency were not incorporated into the legislation. One of the weakest aspects of governance in Japan, most political scientists agree, is oversight of the bureaucracy and public accountability for its decisions. There is no reason to believe this is about to improve––more likely, it will get worse.

    Since the war Japan has not had a law directed specifically at protecting state secrets. This situation complemented the country’s constitutional restraint against belligerency as a means of settling international disputes: Japanese pacifism. “If Japan can never make war, what secrets does it need to protect?” or so the argument went. In some quarters, the country was regarded as a poor keeper of secrets. (It was always thus, if one looks back at the Allies’ success in breaking Japanese codes before and during the war and the activities of the Soviet spy Richard Sorge.) The United States, Japan’s ally, is a supporter of the new law, which its backers say is needed to facilitate intelligence sharing. Once upon a time, much critical intelligence did not need to leave the American “defense community” responsible for guarding Japan; increasingly, however, military burdens are being shared or taken over by Japanese agencies. The new law’s larger significance is how it fits into the LDP’s plans for constitutional change and the trend towards a more self-reliant or self-directed Japanese military posture.

    Abe has used up a considerable amount of his political capital in getting the secrecy law through the Diet. Commentators have likened his methods to the “bad old days” of LDP hegemony in the 1960s and 1970s. Though Japanese voters may from time to time hand one party (or a coalition) a strong mandate, they prefer governments to approach controversial issues with delicacy, allow a full airing of opinions and strive for consensus, rather than muscle through. Abe’s approval rating recently slipped below 50% for the first time since he took office. The scars of this latest battle are unlikely to heal quickly. It will be difficult to assess the operation of the new law because of its very nature, but when it is breached and a whistleblower is brought to book, as inevitably will happen, the government may find it harder to deal with the consequences than it was to corral the Diet.

    Walter Hamilton reported from Japan for eleven years. He is the author of “Children of the Occupation: Japan’s Untold Story”.

  • Taunting Holden to leave. John Menadue

    It has been quite remarkable to see Joe Hockey daring and taunting Holden to close. He apparently chose to take advantage of Tony Abbott’s absence in South Africa to show off his “dry” credentials and burnish his leadership aspirations. Having lost the argument over Graincorp, Joe Hockey talked tough on Holden. He dared Holden to either put up or shut up. He then escalated the rhetoric against Holden by shouting in parliament ‘There is a hell of a lot of industries in Australia that would love to get the assistance that the motor vehicle industry is getting’.

    In fact there are a lot of industries that do get a level of assistance and protection that far exceeds the $500 million p.a. which Joe Hockey tells us the motor industry receives.

    Who are some of these beneficiaries of this corporate welfare?

    My first exhibit is the $7 billion p.a. taxpayer subsidy to the private health insurance industry. That corporate welfare alone is about 14 times more p.a. than goes to the motor vehicle industry. PHI has operating costs about three times higher than Medicare. Through gap insurance PHI has facilitated the largest increase in specialist fees in 25 years. PHI weakens Medicare’s ability to control costs. It favours the wealthy. It offers look-alike policies with very little real choice. It churns money rather than making things. Yet companies like BUPA, Medibank Pte and others attract a $7b pa subsidy

    Through restricted competition and political lobbying power our chemists impose excessive prices of over $1b per annum.

    Taxpayer provide a $30 billion p.a. subsidy to the superannuation sector.

    And there is a lot more in such areas as subsidies to fund negative gearing and capital gains discounts.  (See my blog of November 29).

    By contrast the motor vehicle industry does provide substantial benefits to the Australian economy and community. It is at the core of our manufacturing industry.

    The motor vehicle industry is far more important to our future than the industries that receive the enormous subsidies that I mentioned. We have got the issue seriously out of proportion.

    Why is it that our corporate economists have an ideological set against the manufacturing sector but ignore the enormous corporate welfare that goes to the rent seekers in our services sector?

  • Facts on boat arrivals. John Menadue

    There have been a number of claims by Scott Morrison that Operation Sovereign Borders has resulted in a significant reduction in boat arrivals. The ALP has asserted that the reduction in boat arrivals follows the trend set by the Rudd Government.

    It has been difficult to check Scott Morrison’s claims as there has been quite deliberate policy to make it difficult for the public to ascertain what is really happening.

    The ABC Fact Check has reviewed the facts that are available. The Fact Check Report can Facts on boat abe found at

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-10/scott-morrison-not-telling-full-story-asylum-seeker-arrivals/5119380

    The report concludes ‘There has been an 80% reduction in asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat in the comparison period outlined by Mr Morrison. However, the data shows the number of arrivals began to slow significantly under Labor, soon after Mr Rudd’s regional resettlement arrangement was announced’. Fact Check asked specialists in data analysis to comment. Dr. Higginson said ‘… the data shows that … there is no evidence to suggest that the new government’s policies have had any additional impact on arrivals over and above the trend already in place’.

    What a barren media landscape we would have without the ABC!

     

  • In defence of compulsory voting. Guest blogger: Graham Freudenberg

    One of the best features of Australian elections is the high voter turnout. This has been achieved by compulsory voting. The LNP in Queensland is now moving to abolish it in the state in which it was first established, by a Tory government, in 1914. This must not be allowed to go uncontested, like so much else that is happening in Queensland.

    Compulsory voting has been a distinctive, positive and successful feature of Australian democracy for the best part of a century (1924 in Federal elections).  It is deeply embedded in our political culture and custom. It makes elections by far the most majestic of all our national events – the only occasion on which every Australian adult participates in exactly the same way, on equal terms, for the highest common purpose – the election of a democratic government. It is a unique affirmation of the equality of every Australian citizen and of the inclusiveness of our society, immensely important in a nation of immigrants.  It embodies the civic obligation as well as the entitlement that comes with the right to vote.

    For more than two hundred years, the struggle for parliamentary democracy has been about enlarging the franchise. The Holy Grail of democracy has always been ‘one person, one vote;  one vote, one value’. Anti-democrats have sought to restrict the franchise, usually through property, educational, gender or racial qualifications. The move against compulsory voting is a disguised form of voter restriction. The argument that compulsory voting pulls in the apathetic, the ill-informed, the uneducated, the unintelligent, has been used to resist every extension of the franchise, including votes for women.

    A high participation rate in genuinely contested elections is the universally recognised sign of a healthy democracy.  Low turnouts are causing anxiety in democracies world-wide. Low turnouts undermine the legitimacy of the result. The polarisation of the American electorate along special interest and race lines is leading to a denial that the Presidential result represents the ‘real’ people or the true Americans. But the real problem in the United States is not the comparatively high turnout of blacks or Latinos in support of Obama but the low turnout of voters generally.

    Compulsory voting reduces the possibility of voter fraud and impersonation. It is a cruel irony that some states in the United States are invoking ‘fraud’ as a reason for tougher identification laws when the real purpose is to make voting more difficult for disadvantaged groups, specifically blacks.

    The low and declining turnout now occurring in all countries without compulsory voting makes it easier to disguise fraud. It can be used to mask discrepancies between the declared vote and pre-election opinion polls. It can be used to explain away otherwise inexplicable variations in the turnout between regimes. It can be used to cover the destruction or theft of ballot papers. This electoral corruption occurs on a massive scale in Russian presidential elections, facilitated by low voter turnout. The high level of public confidence in the integrity of the ballot in Australia is a direct result of compulsory voting and the high voter turnout which it produces.

    The low turnouts now endemic in the Western democracies increase the influence of pressure groups, lobbies, single-issue parties and special interests. In the US, the power of the gun lobby rests almost entirely on its ability to mobilise, or threaten to mobilise, its supporters against sitting members of Congress. That is why gun control measures with overwhelming popular support fail to pass Congress. The Tea Party’s power over the Republican Party derives from its threat to knock off main-stream Republicans in low turnout (and gerrymandered) elections.

    In the Australian context, the abolition of compulsory voting would increase the power of the party machines.  If ‘getting out to vote’ were to become the overriding function of election campaigns, the parliamentary leadership would become even more dependent upon the central machines.

    In the final analysis, my case for compulsory voting rests on the assertion that the highest possible voter turnout is a great public good in itself and for itself. The custom of a century has made the compulsion almost nominal. But Australia’s high voting performance would not survive its abolition by ten years.

    Graham Freudenberg, December 2013

  • Does Tony Abbott believe in markets? John Menadue

    We are already seeing a division opening up in the Abbott Government between ‘wets’ and ‘dries’ and a lot of confusion.

    The Liberal Party and conservatives generally espouse the value of markets – that governments should not interfere unless there is clear market failure or overwhelming reasons of public interest. This belief in markets is at the core of conservative philosophy The Liberal Party platform speaks expansively of “enterprise” and “consumer choice”. Ministers such as Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb and Malcolm Turnbull seem to hold to that belief.  But Tony Abbott, along with Barnaby Joyce and the National Party, seem opposed to markets when key decisions have to be made. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane seems to be having an arm wrestle with Cabinet over support for Holdens. Then what about support for Qantas?

    This division clearly showed itself over the government decision to refuse foreign investment in Graincorp. Tony Abbott apparently sided against Joe Hockey and those in the Liberal party who espouse markets. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, Peter Reith, a leading Liberal party member and former Howard defence minister said that the Graincorp decision “had Tony Abbott’s fingerprints all over it”. Barnaby Joyce and the National party successfully carried out a covert campaign against foreign investment in Graincorp. Interestingly, after being criticised for his protection of Graincorp, Tony Abbott now wants to be seen as hairy chested” on both Qantas and Holden

    Peter Costello has also criticised the government for its Graincorp decision. Several years ago he reportedly told Michael Kroger that in the Howard Government, Tony Abbott had no interest in economics and that he was ‘economically illiterate’. Tony Abbott shows the same distributionist approach as one of his earlier heroes B.A. Santamaria.

    But the most striking example of Tony Abbott’s scepticism about markets is his policy of Direct Action on carbon pollution rather than a market mechanism like a carbon tax or an Emissions Trading Scheme. Tony Abbott’s denial of a market approach has clearly paid political dividends with his attack on the carbon tax. But good policy is sacrificed.

    In the latter days of the Howard Government, John Howard proposed a market mechanism to address carbon pollution. He proposed an Emissions Trading Scheme. He believed in a market approach. When the new Liberal party leader, Malcolm Turnbull supported an ETS, Tony Abbott and the climate sceptics in the Liberal party tore him down.

    The result is a highly bureaucratic and interventionist approach in Direct Action to combat carbon pollution. Direct Action with its subsidies and interventions is the very antithesis of a market mechanism. Malcolm Turnbull has described Direct Action as a fig leaf when you don’t have an effective and efficient mechanism to reduce carbon pollution.

    Almost every respectable economist in the world will side with the IMF and OECD that a market-based approach to carbon pollution reduction – such as a carbon tax or ETS – is the most efficient and effective mechanism. But Tony Abbott has sided with the ‘wets’ to give us Direct Action.

    Another important test of Tony Abbott’s attitude to markets is likely to be his response to the States and particularly the retailers who want more protection from on- line imports.

    I can understand the concern of the States about their loss of GST revenue but do the likes of Harvey Norman need protection The retailers keep bleating about unfair competition but an increase of 10% on imports is not likely to make much difference, given that the price on many imports is substantially below Australian retail prices.

    The Productivity Commission reported in 2011 that the “intensified competition from imports is good for consumers but is challenging for the retail industry which as a whole does not compare favourably in terms of productivity with many overseas countries” The Productivity Report   further found  high occupancy costs of retailers in payments to landlords as a major problem for retailers.. The report also found that out of 17 industry sectors only the mining sector was more profitable than retailing in Australia. That does not suggest the need for more protection.

    A survey by Choice said that the attraction of on line shopping was convenience rather than price. Yet retailers have been slow to develop on line shopping.

    The Abbott Government has shown its screpticism about markets in both the environment and foreign investment. Will it now protect the retail sector at the expense of consumers?

    The division between wets and dries will continue to play out in the Abbott Government. Tony Abbott is more at home with the vested interests that the Nationals and Barnaby Joyce side with. On the two critical issues to date, he has sided against the “dries”. What will its attitude be to on line shopping? Or Qantas? Or Holden?

    Tony Abbott’s scepticism about markets could be the same impediment to economic reform that the Fraser Government experienced…a continuous disagreement between “wet” and “dries”.

    In short the Abbott Government is showing that it lacks an ideological  and policy framework. Confusion is inevitable.

     

    PS A remarkable feature about subsidies to industry is that there is no mention at all in the media about the $7.5b annual subsidy which the Australian taxpayer provides to the high cost private health insurance industry. No wonder BUPA can waste public money in television advertising at the cricket.

  • Being in Government is different to being in Opposition. John Menadue

    Tony Abbott is being mugged by the reality of Government and how he manages day to day events. He has very little of a developed policy framework on which to draw.

    In Opposition, Tony Abbott was  adept at the political one-liners – ‘stop the boats’, ‘axe the tax’,’ reduce the deficit’ and ‘pay back the debt’. There was not a great deal of policy to back up this political rhetoric. We are now seeing that day after day with one blunder after another.

    The NSW Premier O’Farrell put it succinctly over education policy that the Abbott Government should start governing and stop acting as if it was still in opposition.

    Power may be abused, but power also reveals character. In one event after another, we are seeing the character of the Abbott Government.

    • In Opposition, Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and Julie Bishop said that they didn’t seek Indonesian agreement but understanding on turn-back of boats at sea and the buying up of Indonesian fishing vessels. In Opposition, they didn’t hear or chose not to hear Indonesian objections to this clear infringement of Indonesian sovereignty. So when the telephone interceptions of discussions by President Yudhoyono and his wife were made public, it was an ideal opportunity for Indonesia to push back on Operation Sovereign Borders. Tony Abbott and his government then clumsily mis-managed the whole episode. In opposition you can take risks with other countries that you can’t take in government.  Would his close associates also tell him that many people and particularly Asians don’t like their personal space being invaded by aggressive hand-shaking?
    • The Abbott Government is clearly finding that abolishing the carbon tax is not as easy as it thought. Blind Freddy would know that the Senate would present difficulties. Furthermore Tony Abbott should know that unscrambling the carbon tax will present major problems for business.
    • Tony Abbott told us that his government would be “open for business”. Then he vetoed the bid for Graincorp. Peter Reith, a leading figure in the Liberal Party, and a former defence minister said that the government decision on Graincorp was ‘the latest in a series of botched decisions’. He added that the Graincorp decision ‘had Tony Abbott’s fingerprints all over it’.
    • Then there was the massive climb-down on budget deficits and debt. Both Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are running as fast as they can from their election undertakings.
    • In Opposition, the Liberal Party said that it would abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation which was set up to assist investment in clean energy. The Chairman of the Corporation and a highly respected businesswoman, Jillian Broadbent has said that ‘it is disappointing that a tool that is fiscally responsible and effective is being abandoned’.
    • Then there was the fiasco of Christopher Pyne over school funding with three different positions in one week. The SMH in its editorial of December 3, carried the headline ‘Electorate, Students, betrayed by cynicism of PM and Pyne’. For sheer incompetence Christopher Pyne gets top marks. We thought we had a consensus or a “unity ticket” on school funding but the Abbott  Government has blown that away ,in the same way that Tony Abbott blew away the consensus we used to have on climate change when Malcolm Turnbull led the Liberal Party
    • The Chinese Government announced new rules for airspace in the dispute over islands in the South China Sea. The Australian Government attacked the Chinese announcement, but then allowed Qantas to abide by the new Chinese rules.
    • Scott Morrison continues to hide information about boat arrivals. The Canberra Press Gallery veteran, Laurie Oakes, says that ‘The Abbott Government is thumbing its nose at voters through a lack of transparency and communication’.
    • Then came the keystone cops activities of George Brandis and ASIO in raids on a whistle blower and an attorney over bugging of the East Timor Cabinet. There will be a lot more to come on this one.
    • Then there were the attacks on the ABC and an agreement with the Greens to abolish the debt ceiling. What’s next!
    • And all this began with the parliamentary entitlements scandal with Tony Abbott leading the peloton.

    Surely this muddle and confusion must end soon. But a Cabinet that includes Christopher Pyne, George Brandis, Barnaby Joyce, Greg Hunt, Eric Abetz, Scott Morrison, Kevin Andrews and Peter Dutton, is a cause for worry.

    I don’t recall a government that has had such a short honeymoon as this one. The first 100 days have been memorable for the wrong reasons. It has yet to successfully make the transition from Opposition to Government.