Blog

  • Asylum seekers – good news at last. John Menadue

    The joint communique issued yesterday by President Yudhoyono and PM Rudd is the best news that I have read on asylum seekers for many years. A regional framework is the only viable policy for the future. Individual countries cannot do it alone.

    The communique said

    ‘As co-chairs of the Bali Process, the two Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to continue to develop a regional solution, involving countries of origin, transit and destination which covers elements of prevention, early detection and protection to combatting trafficking in persons and people smuggling and other related transnational crimes. They stress the importance of avoiding unilateral actions which might jeopardise such a comprehensive regional approach and which might cause operational or other difficulties to any party. The Prime Minister of Australia welcomed Indonesia’s initiative to invite key origin, transit and destination countries to a conference to explore concrete operational and policy responses, including regional approaches and efforts to enhance border security, in addressing regular movement of persons.’

    President Yudhoyono added that ‘All countries in the region must share responsibility for asylum seekers and I have decided to host a ministerial meeting within a month to look at ways of dealing with the issue.’

    Together with others, and particularly Arja Keski-Nummi, I have been urging a regional response for several years. In August 2011, Arja Keski-Nummi, Kate Gauthier and I, in association with the Centre for Policy Development, issued a statement on ‘A new approach. Breaking the stalemate on refugees and asylum seekers’. This statement highlighted the importance of a regional response. The statement was endorsed by a wide range of prominent Australians.

    In our joint statement to the Expert Panel in July last year, Arja Keski-Nummi and I again emphasised the importance of a regional framework. There are also many articles on this subject on my website publish.pearlsandirritations.com.

    In my most recent blog of 1 July, I said ‘Regional cooperation was essential during the Indochina outflow … it is also true today. Australia should propose a regional conference on asylum seekers and displacement.’ I added that Australia should offer to host such a regional conference. Hosting by the Indonesians will be even better.

    My experience as Secretary of the Department of Immigration during the Indochina outflow convinced me that only regional burden-sharing can bring a lasting solution. That burden-sharing must not only be by the host countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, but also by resettlement countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the US. Importantly the US has just joined the ‘Bali Process’. US influence and clout is critical. It is also important to include Japan. During the Indochina outflow Japan, not surprisingly, did not take many Indochinese refugees. But it was a very generous funder.

    I keep asking myself why wasn’t this initiative taken years ago? We can only conclude a failure of ministerial and departmental leadership. Focused on boats, boats and more boats, ministers and departments retreated into crisis mode and were unable and perhaps unwilling to address the longer-term strategic issues.

    The meeting proposed by President Yudhoyono in a month’s time will build on the Bali Process. We need to be patient. But at last we are headed in the right direction.

    In the months ahead, Australia needs to keep several things in mind.

    • All this will take time and we must see it through. The Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) which flowed from the International Conference of 1979 concerning Indochinese refugees was the result of small steps over several years.  Australia did well as a contributor to the CPA but we didn’t have a particularly unblemished record. In 1995 Australia, together with other resettlement countries, terminated the CPA. We left regional countries with thousands of difficult cases. Many of them were handicapped people.  In Bali in 2002, we sought regional help with boatpeople. But when the boat arrivals fell away we lost interest. We revived the process again in 2009 when boat arrivals resumed. Regional countries could be forgiven for thinking that we have been fair-weather friends. We must not let that happen again.
    • The United National High Commissioner for Refugees must also be an active participant in building this regional framework. The UNHCR has expertise, experience and importantly, its good name will add to the credibility of the enterprise.
    • It is important at some stage to include civil society, mainly NGOs in the process. Along with governments, they are important players and have a wealth of experience. Their participation will also help depoliticise the building of a regional solution.

    The good news must now be followed by some hard work. But at last we are headed in the right direction and hopefully we can put behind us the toxic debate and futile policies of recent years.

  • Asylum seekers. Don’t let us be diverted from regional arrangements. John Menadue

    Foreign Minister Carr is focusing on whether some asylum seekers are refugees or economic migrants. This is symptomatic of a government that is continually in crisis mode over boat arrivals. It should focus on the strategic issues such as orderly departure arrangements in source countries like Afghanistan and regional agreements with Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.

    In my blog of July 1 I expressed doubt about the arguments of Foreign Minister Carr that we needed to have a ‘tougher and more hard-edged assessment’ of asylum seekers. Understandably officials of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship don’t like their preliminary decisions on refugee status being overturned by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

    It is clear that preliminary assessments by Immigration officials are being significantly changed.

    Boat Arrivals – March quarter 2013
     

    Primary protection visa grant rate (%)

    Finally determined grant rate (%)
    Afghanistan

    83

    95
    Iran

    55

    86
    Iraq

    90

    91
    Pakistan

    81

    92
    Sri Lanka

    27

    75
    Stateless

    88

    97
    Total

    65

    91

     

    The figures from DIAC show that the primary protection visa grant rate in the March quarter 2013 was 65%, but on review, the RRT lifted the finally determined grant rate for all boat arrivals to 91%. For a couple of countries the overturn rate by the RRT was spectacular. The primary protection visa grant rate for Iranians was lifted from 55% to 86%. For Sri Lankans the change was even more remarkable from 27% at the primary stage to 75% as finally determined by the RRT.

    The Department seems to have a particular worry with Iranian and Sri Lankan asylum seekers. By all accounts the Iranian asylum seekers are middle class, professional, better-off and tough applicants. That should not prejudice their case. They are escaping a brutal theocracy. The civil war in Sri Lanka may have ended but the advice from several human rights agencies suggests that the persecution of Tamils is continuing. Three months ago Canada said that it will not attend the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to be held in Sri Lanka in November this year unless the human rights situation improves.

    The Government has announced that it will commission a review of Australia’s refugee status determination system to ensure that acceptance outcomes for asylum seeker claims are consistent with our international obligations and with final acceptance rates for comparable cohorts in other countries. It is to be hoped that this review is not designed to produce what Foreign Minister Carr is hinting at.

    It should not be surprising that final decisions by the RRT will be more reliable than preliminary decisions by Immigration officials in the field. Newly arrived asylum seekers are likely to be confused and traumatised because of their escape and flight to safety. It is unlikely that they will have much helpful documentation. They are in an alien environment without much support. They will have to rely on an interpreter they do not know and who may not always be fully professional. The RRT does have the time and opportunity to more carefully and diligently review all the facts.

    Denis O’Brien, a leading lawyer who headed the RRT for five years dismissed Foreign Minister Carr’s claim and asserted ‘Members of the RRT have to apply the definition … under the Refugee Convention. So I don’t see a lot of scope for tightening up without running foul of the United Nations Commission for Refugees”. Several senior and experienced refugee rights lawyers have commented that Foreign Minister Carr’s contention will not work and will be subject to challenge in the courts.

    Comments by Foreign Minister Carr have diverted attention from the key issue, regional arrangements. This is where ministers and departments should be energetically applying their energies.

    A regional arrangement at the time of the Indochina outflow was successful. Only a similar type of arrangement will work in the future. The key will be burden-sharing – burden sharing by countries providing temporary accommodation for asylum seekers such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, and burden sharing by resettlement countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Nothing else will work.

  • The dispute over the islands – leaving well alone. Guest blogger: Walter Hamilton

     

    Which of China or Japan has the stronger claim to the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea, the dispute that has driven their relations to the lowest point in 40 years?

    China’s case is that the islands, having been appropriated by imperial Japan, were forfeit when it surrendered to the Allies in 1945. Japan argues that China acquiesced in Tokyo’s annexation of the uninhabited islands in the 1890s and only changed its tune after oil and gas reserves were found nearby in the 1960s. From my reading of the facts neither argument can be sustained.

    The Potsdam Declaration of the surrender terms said “Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we [the Allies] determine.” The earlier Cairo Declaration – also cited by advocates of China’s case – was more polemical but less precise. The Allies’ war aim was to force Japan to give up territories “stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores,” adding that it would be expelled “from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.” Violence was not used to annex the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (contrary to some accounts they were not acquired through the Sino-Japanese War) and greed is a shaky basis for apportioning blame in international affairs.

    When Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration the surrender document signed in September 1945 set in train arrangements for the country’s demilitarization and occupation. It did not, however, place conditions on a future sovereign Japan – no more, say, than the surrender document General Percival signed in 1942 could be considered to bind the present government of Singapore.

    Some commentators treat the Potsdam Declaration as if it were a lodestone for determining the rights and wrongs of states’ actions in 2013. They argue that the Allies’ war aims were circumvented during and after the occupation by conservative forces in Washington and Tokyo and that that false outcome, frozen in time by the Cold War, can only now be put right as American power declines and China obtains the means to defend its interests. Since any argument mounted on the basis of the Potsdam Declaration also calls into question Japan’s sovereignty over the Okinawan islands, the fate of a few specks of land in the East China Sea may open a Pandora’s box.

    The international agreement more relevant to the case than either the Potsdam or Cairo documents is the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, which specifically addressed the scope of Japan’s postwar sovereignty. Under the treaty Japan renounced “right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” Some regard this provision as crucial because the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands traditionally were part of Formosa, or Taiwan. But early drafts of the treaty, which went into greater detail than the final document, did not treat the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands as part of Taiwan/China.

    Not only did the San Francisco Treaty fail to specify which state had sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, Article 3 bestowed upon the United States trusteeship of territories south of 29 degrees north latitude including the Okinawan islands, as well as – in the view of Japanese and the American officials – the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Prior to the reversion of these territories to Japan in 1971, the PRC’s state-controlled media adopted the same perspective, notwithstanding that both China and Taiwan would challenge the legitimacy of the reversion (neither of the rival claimants to represent the government of China, communist or nationalist, had been invited to the peace conference).

    It is apparent that no existing international agreement clarifies the sovereignty question. The search for a solution, therefore, must focus back on how Japan and China managed the issue following the normalization of their relations in 1972 and why that modus operandi has broken down. In brief, the two countries preferred to let the issue rest in the background so they could get on with more important business. Now, for reasons to do with national pride, a shift in the regional power balance and the exigencies of internal politics, both find it useful to assert their claims and muscle up to each other. Claims of an imminent risk of military conflict, in my opinion, under-estimate the strategic patience of the two old rivals. There are inherent dangers in having patrol vessels shadowing each other in the disputed waters day after day but the situation currently seems to be under control.

    It is instructive, meanwhile, to look back at the preparations for the San Francisco peace conference and find that American officials identified “psychological disadvantages in seeming to fence Japan in” by imposing a continuous line around it. They felt that rigid territorial containment could prove provocative: an interesting perspective in light of the current debate on the best response to a resurgent China. The aspect I wish to stress is the value of ambiguity and flexibility as instruments of statecraft. They were once also the preferred tools of those charged with guiding Sino-Japanese relations. Diplomatic ambiguity, while much maligned, can derive from a commonsense refusal to second-guess the future; it can again serve the interests of all sides much better than the simplistic formulas of hardliners who dress up expediency as principle.

    Those who argue that the treaty planners of 1951 were irresponsible for failing to settle the territorial issue in definitive terms must believe nations will always act according to the prescriptions of previous generations. Patently this is not how the real world operates. China and Japan have changed dramatically since 1951; they have potent weapons, unimaginable back then, for future mutual support or mutual harm. It is beholden on responsible leaders to manage bilateral relations in the light of existing realities, not according to the dusted-off slogans and grievances of the past.

    Walter Hamilton reported from Japan for 11 years. His latest book is Children of the Occupation: Japan’s Untold Story

     

     

     

     

  • The ‘C’ Team vs. the Shadow Cabinet. John Menadue

    Tony Abbott has described the new Rudd Ministry as the ‘C’ team. He is very strong on one-liners, but is there much content behind them?

    Laura Tingle in the Australian Financial Review suggests that the new Rudd team could be a serious election contender because it focuses its strength on the likely key areas in the run-up to the next election. So let’s compare what Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott offer in ministerial talent.

    In Kevin Rudd’s team Anthony Albanese is a proven performer and will be much more effective than Stephen Conroy in making the case for the national broadband network.

    Tony Burke, who successfully negotiated the perilous waters of the Murray Darling Basin Agreement, even though two states still have to sign on. will be more politically savvy in Immigration than his predecessor Brendan O’Connor.

    Chris Bowen proved himself as the Minister for Finance, but his later administration of the Immigration portfolio was anything but successful. He replaces Wayne Swan as Treasurer.

    With the combination of good luck and good management, Wayne Swan can take credit for Australia being one of the most successful economies in the world, particularly through the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath. Yet he was unable to convey that success story to the Australian public. He did not handle the mining tax well and allowed his commitment to a budget surplus to over shadow the strong performance of the real economy. Despite the government’s achievements in economic management opinion polls consistently showed that the coalition was believed to be a better economic manager.

    Bill Shorten in the Education portfolio can use his undoubted communication skills to explain the government’s policies on improving opportunities for all Australian school children following the Gonski Report.

    Mark Butler, a possible future leader of the ALP takes over the important but politically tricky area of climate change and carbon pricing.

    The big loss to the ministry is Greg Combet.

    Some renovation of the ministry was necessary.  In addition to failure on explaining the case for the NBN Stephen Conroy  failed to get even modest media reform passed in the parliament, This was despite the fact that there was a clear majority in both houses for sensible media reform. Rupert Murdoch and News Limited had so antagonised many members of parliament that reform was not only necessary but possible. Stephen Conroy missed the opportunity.

    Brendan O’Connor made no progress in Immigration and his transfer out of that area was necessary.

    Jason Clare and Kate Lundy promised much on drug reform in sport, but didn’t deliver.

    Joe Ludwig, son of AWU powerbroker Bill Ludwig, has gone completely after the fiasco of the live cattle sales to Indonesia.

    As Laura Tingle suggests, the ministerial changes are explainable in both political and performance terms.

    But what of the shadow cabinet of Tony Abbott? Relying on winning government by default he does not seem to have given much attention to the quality of his team or policy development.

    Clearly Malcolm Turnbull is a very strong performer and the most publicly acceptable face of the Liberal Party. The ALP must be hoping that it is too late for the Liberals to also make a leadership change.

    Joe Hockey, the shadow Treasurer is showing recently a more positive approach.

    Eric Abetz who is Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has suggested that some asylum seekers should be treated the same way as paedophiles. He led the abortive attack on the OzCar affair and said that opposition to wood chipping was akin to treason.

    Scott Morrison the spokesperson on Immigration told us that asylum seekers are bringing disease and wads of cash. He spent the early part of his career promoting Australia as a wonderful tourist destination but now concentrates on telling people facing persecution what an awful country Australia really is as a safe haven. He dog whistles about the Muslim threat.

    Christopher Pyne the voluble spokesperson on education does not seem to have any policy on education funding.

    Greg Hunt, who is Shadow Minister for Climate Action offers us sketchy policies on direct action and ‘soil magic’ to reduce carbon pollution. Malcolm Turnbull described the party’s environmental platform as ‘crap’ that amounted to ‘an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing’.

    Peter Dutton the Shadow Minister for Health is successfully keeping health policy a secret.

    Kevin Andrews in the Howard Government was responsible for the “Haneef affair” which cost Australia a lot in reputation and financial compensation.  He is shadow minister for families, housing and human services.

    Bronwyn Bishop who supported tobacco advertising has responsibility as shadow Special Minister for State and Minister for Seniors. She was suggested some years ago as a future Liberal Party leader along with John Elliott.

    Barnaby Joyce is the Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Water. He was criticised by the Governor of the Reserve Bank for suggesting debt default by his own country.

    Then we have Sophie Mirabella, with responsibility for industry, innovation and science. She got her position from Tony Abbott by opposing Malcolm Turnbull on climate change. In announcing his retirement, Tony Windsor said that she was the Member of Parliament he would not miss.

    And then there is George Brandis the shadow Attorney General

    Time will tell but the signs are that the renovated Rudd Cabinet will perform better than a “c” team.

  • Asylum seekers – a regional solution and Bob Carr’s nonsense. Guest blogger: Frank Brennan SJ

    This morning Frank Brennan was interviewed by Fran Kelly on ABC Breakfast. See link below to the interview. (John Menadue)

    http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2013/07/bst_20130702_0821.mp3

     

     

  • What should Prime Minister Kevin Rudd do about boat arrivals? John Menadue

    The new government has indicated that it will be reviewing current policies on such issues as carbon reduction and boat arrivals. I have written extensively about asylum seekers and refugees. I suggest that in the short term, the PM should consider the following on boat arrivals.

    1. We need some perspective in the political debate. We should acknowledge that there is a political problem but there is no need to panic. We are a nation of immigrants and refugees. Our wealth is built on it. We had about 16,000 asylum seekers in 2012, although there has been a surge in recent months in boat arrivals (7,500 in the March quarter) compared with air arrivals (2,200 in the same quarter). In 2012 the US had 82,000 asylum claimants. In Germany it was 64,000, in France 55,000 and in Sweden 44,000. Our borders will never be completely secure but as an island continent and country we are much more secure than almost any other country and the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia is quite small compared with other countries. There is a world-wide problem of refugee flows eg Syria and we cannot isolate ourselves from the problem.
      Apart from our migration program of about 200,000 persons per annum, we have over 700,000 foreigners who can work in Australia under various temporary resident permits, e.g. 457, working holiday and student visas.
    2. Every new group that comes to Australia, whether migrants or refugees, has encountered opposition and sometimes hostility. There were problems but we worked through them. This opposition has included for example criticism of Germans, Jews, ‘Balts’, Italians and more recently, Vietnamese. But over time we came to accept and welcome their contribution to Australia. The same will be true of the current flow of asylum seekers to Australia. Migration and refugee intakes will always be work in progress with some bumps along the way .Our history tells us that we can be confident in overcoming the problems.
    3. Refugees are great settlers. They are highly motivated, initially for their own survival, but for their future in their new country together with their children. Without that motivation they would not have fled in the first place. I wrote about the success of refugees in my blog ‘Never underestimate a survivor’ on June 27.
    4. Initiate diplomatic action and open discussions with countries which are the source of refugee flows, e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.  With the cooperation of those governments, who are often glad to get rid of dissidents, we should aim to negotiate   orderly departure arrangements that would allow persons facing persecution to come to Australia as migrants, not as refugees. Many such persons in those countries would have family in Australia and will take to the boats if there is no alternative eg Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan… Australia negotiated an Orderly Departure Program with the Vietnam Government in 1983 which enabled 100,000 Vietnamese to come to Australia in an orderly way and without risking their lives at sea.
    5. Renewed efforts must be made to build regional cooperation. Without that collaboration there will never be any long-term ‘solution’ to boat arrivals. That regional cooperation was essential during the Indochina outflow of the late 1970s and 1980s. It is also true today.  Australia should propose a regional conference on asylum seekers and displacement. Australia should offer to host such a regional conference. This action is designed to accelerate the ‘Bali process’. This process began many years ago by addressing regional concerns about crime, smuggling and trafficking in persons. It has now developed into a regional collaboration on refugee flows and human displacement as well as crime. It needs new impetus.Regional countries have major refugee burdens. Thailand has 600,000 people of concern to the UNHCR. Malaysia has more than 200,000 displaced persons within its country. Australia has a much lighter load, 30,000 refugees and 20,000 asylum seekers pending determination of their status.

      The concept of regional burden sharing is essential if there is to be long-term success. That burden-sharing must be not only by the host countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, but also by resettlement countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the US, which has just joined the Bali process.

      In urgently building on Bali, we should include in that collaboration the NGOs and other elements in civil society who have an interest and concern on asylum seekers and refugees. Their involvement will help create a less politicised environment in which to explore and develop long-term resettlement.

    6. As part of this regional framework, PM Rudd should propose to the Indonesian President that in collaboration with UNHCR a regional processing centre be established in Indonesia. Australia should offer to fund a substantial part of the centre as well as other costs that Indonesia bears as a temporary refuge for persons in transit through its country. It would be better value for money than the billions we spend/waste on mandatory detention. We should also offer to provide education, health and employment opportunities for persons in Indonesia who have been closely involved in the region from which boats embark for Christmas Island.
    7. The Gillard Government correctly decided to progressively release detainees into the community on bridging visas whilst their refugee status was being determined. The numbers of such released persons is imposing a heavy burden on NGOs, including the churches. These asylum seekers on bridging visas are also not allowed to work. The new government should change policy on this immediately and allow asylum seekers to work and contribute to the economy whilst their status is being determined. It is claimed that to allow them to work would provide an incentive for more asylum seekers to come. There is no evidence anywhere in the world that would support this contention. See my blog of March 8.

    All of the above should be seen as part of a package to address the divisive and futile issue of asylum seekers.

    It is to be hoped that PM Rudd will not try to take us down the morally dubious and factually unsupported track that Foreign Minister Bob Carr is suggesting – that most refugees are in fact economic migrants and presumably not deserving a humanitarian response. After review, the Refugee Review Tribunal has found that 90% of boat arrivals are genuine migrants. The RRT has more facts before it than the Department of Immigration and presumably ministers. It may be politically attractive to go down the track that Bob Carr proposes but there are no facts that I know of which would support his contention.

    The biggest mistakes of the previous government on these issues was to commission the Expert Panel and then to reverse its position and re-open Nauru and Manus. The government was told that Nauru and Manus would not work again, and that has turned out to be correct. The number of boat arrivals has kept increasing. The reversal of policy on Nauru and Manus also made the government look weak and indecisive.

    A regional response is the only viable way forward. It will not be a dead end as so much refugee “policy” is at present. But it will take time. We must put in the “hard yards” here but be patient at the same time. Don’t panic.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Stopping the boats decently – can it be done? Guest blogger: Frank Brennan SJ

    In this last financial year, “25,145 people have arrived on 394 boats – an average of over 70 people and more than a boat a day” as Scott Morrison, Tony Abbott’s Shadow Minister never tires of telling us.  Except for Sri Lankans, most of those arriving by boat come not directly from their country of persecution but via various countries with Indonesia being their penultimate stop.   There is an understandable bipartisan concern in the Australian parliament about the blowout of boat arrivals to 3,300 per month.  An arrival rate of that sort (40,000 pa) puts at risk the whole offshore humanitarian program and distorts the migration and family reunion program.

    Here are the contours for a better approach here in Australia – better than committing to forcibly turning around boats on the high seas, à la Abbott, and better than transporting people to Nauru and Manus Island for processing or to Malaysia to join an asylum queue of 100,000 or permitting people to reside in the Australian community but without work rights and with inadequate welfare provision under the rubric of a “no advantage” test, à la Gillard.  We must abandon the ill-defined, unworkable “no advantage test”.  It’s not a test at all; it’s not a principle; it’s not a policy; it’s a slogan as unhelpful as “Stop the boats”.

    The contours follow the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention against a backdrop of our providing at least 20,000 humanitarian places a year in our migration program, 12,000 of those being for refugees.

    We need to ensure that those risking the perilous sea voyage are in direct flight from persecution being unable to avail themselves adequate protection or processing en route in Indonesia.  If they were able to avail themselves such services in Indonesia, the Australian government would be entitled to set up disincentives and to return them safely to Indonesia.  If that number were in direct flight from persecution, the Australian government would be justified in setting up measures providing only temporary protection and denying family reunion other than on terms enjoyed by other migrants.  But I don’t think that would be necessary.  It should be a matter not of taking the sugar off the table but of trying to put the sugar out of reach except to those in direct flight from persecution, and leaving the sugar available to those who manage to reach the table whether by plane or boat, with or without a visa. And that’s because there is always sugar on Australian tables no matter who is sitting with us.  And so it should remain.  I have never understood why the less than honest asylum seeker arriving by plane, having sought a visa not for asylum but for tourism or business, should be given preferential treatment over the honest asylum seeker arriving by boat who says, “I am here to seek asylum.”

    Boats carrying asylum seekers from Indonesia to Australia could legally be indicted by Australian authorities within our contiguous zone (24 nautical miles offshore from land, including Christmas Island).  The passengers could be offloaded and taken to Christmas Island for a prompt assessment to ensure that none of them fit the profile of a person in direct flight from Indonesia fearing persecution by Indonesia.  Pursuant to a regional arrangement or bilateral agreement between Australia and Indonesia, Indonesia could guarantee not to refoule any person back to the frontiers of a country where they would face persecution nor to remove any person to a country unwilling to provide that guarantee.  Screened asylum seekers from Christmas Island could then be safely flown back to Indonesia for processing.

    With adequate resourcing, a real queue could be created for processing and resettlement.  Provided there had been an earlier, extensive advertising campaign, Indonesian authorities would then be justified in placing any returned boat people at the end of the queue.  Assured safe return by air together with placement at the end of the queue would provide the deterrent to persons no longer in direct flight from persecution risking life and fortune boarding a boat for Australia. In co-operation with UNHCR and IOM, Australia could provide the financial wherewithal to enhance the security and processing arrangements in Indonesia.  Both governments could negotiate with other countries in the region to arrange  more equitable burden sharing in the offering of resettlement places for those proved to be refugees.  Australian politicians would need to give the leadership to the community explaining why it would be necessary and decent for Australia then to receive more proven refugees from the region, including those who fled to our region fearing persecution in faraway places like Afghanistan.

    The safeguards negotiated in Indonesia and any other country in the region to which unprocessed asylum seekers were to be sent would need to comply with the minimum safeguards set by the Houston Expert Panel when they reviewed the Gillard Government’s proposed Malaysia Arrangement.  The Panel said:

    There are concerns that relate to the non-legally binding nature of the Arrangement, the scope of oversight and monitoring mechanisms, the adequacy of pre-transfer assessments, channels for appeal and access to independent legal advice, practical options for resettlement as well as issues of compliance with international law obligations and human rights standards (particularly in relation to non-refoulement, conditions in Malaysia, standards of treatment and unaccompanied minors).

    (This blog is an extract from Frank Brennan’s Reply to “Get back to where you once belonged!”, a presentation by Jeff Crisp, the Head of the Policy Division and Evaluation Service of UNHCR in Geneva, at this week’s National Asylum Summit at the Hawke Centre, University of South Australia)

  • Never underestimate a survivor. John Menadue

    It is surprising to see that the Foreign Minister Bob Carr suggests that we need to be much tougher in refugee determination as many claimants for refugee status are really economic refugees.

    Some claimants will undoubtedly be economic migrants posing as refugees. But the refugee determination process which we and others have developed over decades is designed to sort this out and reject those who claim our protection if they are not genuine refugees.

    The figures do not support Bob Carr’s proposition. After a thorough review by the Refugee Determination Tribunal, about 90% of boat arrivals are found to be genuine refugees. This figure of 90% is derived from the most recent DIAC statistics. For air arrivals who seek refugee protection, the ‘success rate’ is less than half the success rate for boat arrivals.

    Where is Bob Carr getting his figures from to justify his argument about economic migrants? The figures that I am familiar with just do not support his claim. The ‘problem’ will not go away by half-baked theories that cannot be sustained by the facts.

    In our discussion on asylum seekers and refugees, the major emphasis is on our generosity in giving a safe haven to persons who have been persecuted. That is the way it should be, but Australia has been a major beneficiary of refugee flows in the past.

    As responsible members of the human family, we have a strong moral case to provide protection for refugees who are the victims of persecution and violence.

    There is also a strong case in our own self-interest Refugees are almost by definition risk-takers and entrepreneurial. It can be argued that refugees are amongst the most highly motivated and determined in the Australian community.

    In desperate situations, refugees make a decision to flee. They abandon almost everything for the hope of freedom, security and opportunity elsewhere. In a sense they ‘select themselves’ better than a migration officer ever could. It is hard to assess the motivation and risk-taking of a migrant applicant. Refugees show it by doing.

    Since WWII, Australia has settled over 750,000 refugees from war-torn countries and societies wracked with violence and persecution. Settlement in Australia has not been trouble-free. It is always work in progress. But it has been a great success story in which Australians can be proud. The loss of constructive bi-partisanship threatens what we have done well in the past.

    Some well-known refugees have contributed to this success story – Judy Cassab, Anh Do, Mirka Mora, Wolfgang Sievers, Henry Szeps,  Tuong Quang Luu, Les Murray, Sir Gustav Nossal, Frank Lowy, Harry Seidler, and Bishop Vincent Van Nguyen.

    But more important than the well-known names are the hundreds of thousands of refugee families who have quietly gone about building their families, communities, acquiring skills, getting a job and educating their children. Early days are difficult for refugees. They come with little or no financial resources, their skills are probably not recognised and they will usually have language difficulties. These early difficulties are reflected in higher levels of unemployment and concentration in lowly paid jobs.

    But their situation steadily and rapidly improves. Professor Graeme Hugo, ARC Australian Professorial Fellow, in his study ‘Economic, Social and Civic Contributions of First and Second Generation Humanitarian Entrants’ of May 2011, describes their contribution.

    • Refugees are younger and have higher fertility levels than the Australian population as a whole.
    • They are increasingly settling in regional Australia.
    • They place a high store on education for their children. 48% of second generation people who are Australian born have post-school qualifications. For the total refugee groups, the percentage is much high at 59%, with some refugee groups showing remarkably high levels of post-school qualifications, e.g. Estonia 65%, Latvia 65%, Slovakia 65%, Sri Lanka 61%.
    • Refugees are more likely to demonstrate entrepreneurial and risk-taking attributes. They have a higher incidence of owning their own businesses than other migrant groups.
    • The second generation of refugee settlers have a much higher level of labour force engagement than the first generation and in many cases, the level is higher than for second generation Australians.

    Their commitment to Australia is also shown in their uptake of citizenship.  A study prepared for OECD by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (October 2010) reveals that the naturalisation rate by birthplace for all foreign-born is 80%. For significant refugee groups it is much higher – Croatia 97%, Poland 96% and Vietnam 97%. For New Zealand it is 45%, for the United Kingdom 71% and the United States 70%.

    Not surprisingly, refugees in their early years are ‘takers’ of Australian generosity. But year by year they increasingly become great contributors. They pay back many times the generosity they initially receive. They contribute to Australia out of all proportion to their number. It is a great success story for all Australians.

    In spite of Government timidity, coalition opportunism and media failure, we can draw inspiration from the very successful refugee programs of the past. Australian business and society generally have been great beneficiaries. It is in our self-interest, as well as for sound moral reasons that we need to break with the stalemate and toxic debate that surrounds refugees. Doing the right thing really pays off.

    John Menadue

     

  • Japanese Pacifist Constitution in Danger. Guest blogger: John Woodward

     

    The Japanese pacifist constitution prohibits Japan from waging war. This restriction will be removed if the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has his way. And he is likely to succeed come the 21 July national election for the Upper House of the Japanese Diet (parliament).

    Abe’s government is riding high in polls since his Liberal Democratic Party election win in late December 2012. His government now controls more than 2/3rds of the lower house. After 21 July elections he is likely to have 2/3rds support in the Upper House. On a 2/3rds majority vote in each house the constitution can be amended in the Diet. A majority vote of the Japanese people in a referendum is also required. But the crucial first step for Abe is amending the constitution in the Diet.

    Abe’s goal is to amend Article 9 of the constitution, the pacifist provision. Article 9 proclaims that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes”. Abe has avoided amendment specifics.

    Abe’s tactic is first to amend Article 96. It states “amendments to this constitution shall be initiated by the Diet, through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each house and shall thereupon be submitted to the people for ratification, which shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast, at a referendum or at special election such as the diet shall specify”. Abe’s first step is to reduce Article 96 requirement to a simple majority in each house – to make it easy to amend the constitution in the Diet in the future.

    Abe can then take the next step to amend Article 9 in the Diet.  On Abe’s agenda is a proposed change to Article 9 to enable Japan to engage in “collective self defence”. Many high placed American defence and former government spokesmen have publicly urged Japan’s engagement in collective self defence. For obvious reasons, it is the United States self interests for Japan to join the US in its wars.

    Japan has resisted to-date based on Article 9. Abe has made reference to the UN when speaking about constitutional amendment. His position will be to argue a collective self defence amendment of Article 9 is in line with the UN charter, Article 51, which affirms the right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. But is it a good reason to amend Article 9?

    Media polls are indicating support for constitutional amendment, but it’s far from clear what precise amendments are supported. If a poll question on collective self defence was put to the Japanese people, “Do you want your sons and daughters to fight for America in its wars”, one would expect a resounding no.

    With most media supporting constitutional change, and Abe’s constitutional amendments rammed through the Diet, how will the Japanese people vote? How will they become informed on the implications of amendments? These are the big questions facing the 21 July election and a referendum. At present, a lack of information and debate exists in Japan on these issues.

    John Woodward is an Australian lawyer resident in Japan

     

     

     

     

  • Back from the brink of disaster. John Menadue

     

    Many people and particularly women will be disappointed that our first female Prime Minister has been forced out. She has been most unfairly treated by the media. Things have been said about her by Tony Abbott and others that would not be said about a male Prime Minister.

    But my view is that a change to Kevin Rudd was desirable for several reasons.

    • Under Julia Gillard’s leadership the electoral prospects for the ALP were catastrophic. Tony Abbott’s majority could have been so large that it would take two and possibly three terms to turn it around.
    • The Australian public had stopped listening to Julia Gillard. Even excellent policy was not getting a hearing.
    • There will now be a real choice at the next election that will reassure many people who are genuinely concerned about the prospects of Tony Abbott as our next Prime Minister.
    • Kevin Rudd will be a much more effective opponent of Tony Abbott.

    I said in a blog recently that the ALP was increasingly looking like a suicide cult rather than the most successful political party in Australia’s history. The ALP has turned back from the brink. The ALP caucus has behaved rationally in forcing a change. The 11th hour changes will at least minimize the government’s losses at the next election.

    Kevin Rudd has certainly been a destabilizing influence since he was deposed three years ago by Julia Gillard and others. But it was a litany of her own political mistakes that in the end brought Julia Gillard down.

    • Getting rid of an elected Prime Minister in 2010 was certainly going to cost Julia Gillard a lot in public trust.
    • It was exaggerated, but she broke a promise given explicitly on the carbon tax, although she was not the first Prime Minister to break a promise. We all remember John Howard’s distinction between core and non-core promises. The media hammered her unmercifully over this issue.
    • Together with Wayne Swan she locked the government into an unnecessary commitment to a budget surplus this financial year.
    • She mishandled the announcement of the date of an election and there was confusion over ministerial resignations.
    • But the biggest political mistake in my view was her backing away from the reform of the ramshackle ALP organisational structure. She failed this test of leadership. The reform of the party machine still remains unfinished work.

    Her policy achievements have been considerable.

    • Despite the rage and angst of Tony Abbott, the “hung parliament” has been successful in passing key legislation and giving a voice to Independents and backbenchers. Tony Abbott has been the key figure in attempting to wreck the parliament. I wrote about this in my blog of June 2. In the hung parliament she proved herself a very good negotiator with the Independents.  The Independents were not impressed by Tony Abbott.
    • We have had six years of uninterrupted economic growth, even through the global financial crisis. Partly by good luck and partly by good management, we have one of the best performing economies in the world.
    • Economic growth is strong and inflation and unemployment are low.
    • Net government debt is lower at 12% of GDP than almost any other country. In Japan it is 134%, US 88%, France 84%, UK 83% and NZ 26%.
    • We are building a first class communication system in the NBN.
    • Superannuation is being progressively extended.
    • The National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonski Education Reforms will be historic achievements of the Gillard Government.

    The Gillard Government’s problems were overwhelmingly political and of its own making.

    We will have to wait a few days to see what Kevin Rudd does on some key policy issues, particularly on carbon pollution and asylum seekers.

    Hopefully on the latter, he can give us the leadership to move away from fear and xenophobia. It will not be easy with Tony Abbott intent on inciting fear and exaggerating the problem. But I believe Australians will respond to strong moral leadership.

    The key to improved policies for asylum seekers is first to take action in source countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan to provide alternatives for people facing persecution so they will not have to take dangerous voyages by boat. The second is action with Indonesia and Malaysia, in full and active cooperation with UNHCR, to provide a regional framework for the holding and processing of asylum seekers.

    But whatever we do, desperate people will not necessarily play by our rules. The desperate asylum seekers in Syria for example won’t wait for government policies. They will act to save the lives of themselves and their families.

    The number of refugees in the world is increasing significantly. We must be realistic about that and accept greater responsibility. We cannot retreat into our shell.

    The Gillard Government ran for cover on this issue. Hopefully the Rudd Government will give us humanitarian leadership, even if tinged by some political pragmatism.

  • Taiwan shows the way in health insurance. John Menadue

    I have spoken and written many times about the inefficiency and inequity of the taxpayer subsidy of $3.5 billion annually to the private health insurance funds in Australia. These funds favour the wealthy; enable some people to jump to the top of the hospital queue; they have administrative costs  three times those of Medicare; they weaken Medicare’s ability to control costs and through gap insurance they have facilitated the largest increase in specialists’ fees in a quarter of a century in Australia.

    They have not taken the pressure of public hospitals .In fact they have made it worse by helping private hospitals pay vastly higher salaries to bid specialists away from public hospitals.

    Yet the vested interests and private sector ideologues want to extend PHI and take us down the disastrous US path.

    Taiwan however has shown the best way to go. It is so confident and proud of what it has achieved that it has taken advertisements in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs. Taiwan is about the same size as Australia with a developed capitalist economy.

    The Taiwan Government has consolidated all health insurance into a single payer. The plan has improved the quality of health care with rising life expectancies and falling infant mortality rates. The public rates the success of the Taiwan Health Service at 80%.

    Like all health systems, Taiwan has faced rising costs with new technology, new drugs and ageing, but it has contained costs effectively. Total health expenditure in Taiwan is only 6.5% of GDP, much lower than the median for OECD countries and Australia at 9% of GDP.

    Based on the core principles of equity, quality and efficiency, Taiwan is showing that a single payer is the key to a top-class health service and is the best means to control costs. The worst course for Australia to take would be to encourage the proliferation of taxpayer subsidised PHI funds that fail on both efficiency and equity grounds. But if the PHI industry has its way Medicare will be under threat and we will start journeying down the US path of multiple private health insurance funds that are unable to control costs and ensure equity.

    John Menadue

  • Julia Gillard’s greatest failure. John Menadue

    The Prime Minister’s greatest failure is her refusal to lead the reform of the structure of the ALP.

    That structure is controlled by a handful of faction and union bosses like Paul Howes. In return for protecting their positions, they are now repaying their debt to her by shoring up her precarious position.

    The last ALP federal conference considered a report by Steve Bracks, John Faulkner and Bob Carr for modest party reform. Julia Gillard failed to provide leadership on these reforms and the ALP is now paying a very heavy price.

    The rank-and-file of ALP members are appalled and disillusioned. As John Faulkner put it the ALP is a small party now growing smaller and an old party growing older. In the present impasse the ALP is behaving more like a suicide cult than the most successful political party in Australian history.

    There is only one person who could have broken through the impasse imposed by the self-interested faction bosses. That person was the parliamentary leader of the Australian Labor Party. Only the parliamentary leader has the status and the authority to lead the ALP in structural reform. No-one else can do it.

    In the appalling situation that the ALP faced in the 1960s and the early 1970s, there was only one person who could cajole, persuade and force the ALP machine to act against its own selfish interests. It was Gough Whitlam who stared down the faceless and witless men and forced change. He put his own job on the line on several occasions to overcome the internal opposition. He got rid of the faceless men. He engineered the sacking of the Victorian branch of the ALP that was a dead weight in the ALP organization. A similar sacking of the NSW branch should have occurred in the last twelve months to start restoring the ALP’s parlous position in NSW. But Julia Gillard did not lead the process of structural reform.

    What would be the key elements of a reformed ALP structure? Some of these were canvassed by Bracks, Faulkner and Carr two years ago.

    • An electoral college composed of members of the parliamentary ALP and branch members of each federal electorate council of the ALP to choose the parliamentary leader.
    • Selection of ALP candidates by ALP supporters in each federal electorate registered with the Australian Electoral Commission. Care would need to be exercised to avoid abuse. The present situation is unacceptable whereby only about 100 to 200 ALP members select the federal candidate in each electorate.  There are probably about 40,000 ALP voters in each electorate but their choice is limited by the ability of a hand-full of party members, with the help of branch-stacking from time to time, to choose the candidate.
    • The federal conference of the ALP should consist of a delegate from each federal electorate council in Australia (about 150) plus a lesser number of federal union delegates. The power of the state branches that are controlled by a hand-full of state union officials must be broken. We need a national ALP. At the moment we have a confederation of six state parties

    The existing factional bosses will resist these changes because reform will reduce their power. These bosses are content with a shrinking constituency as long as their own power is retained and entrenched.

    The ramshackle and unreprestative structure of the ALP often reminds me of the Catholic Church. Both need leadership at the top to force change.

    Julia Gillard has failed to lead the reform process in the ALP. She is the only person who had the clout and the status to do so. She has not done so.

  • Beware the debt and deficit trap and the European mistake. John Menadue

     

    The Europeans may at last be breaking free of the debt and deficit trap that has caused so much social and economic damage across Europe. Even the IMF is at last challenging the austerity mindset that took hold in Europe. There is a lesson for Australia in this.

    The Australian Government has allowed itself to be manipulated into a debt and deficit trap set by the Coalition. To head off Coalition and media criticism, it foolishly decided that it must get the budget into surplus this financial year. It succumbed to this pressure despite the fact that Australia does not have a serious debt and deficit problem.

    There is a risk that if the Coalition becomes the Government in September we will have established a mindset that favours austerity. That same austerity mindset has got Europe into a terrible bind with unemployment across Europe at over 11%. Youth unemployment, for people under 25 years of age, is double that general rate. In some countries youth unemployment is appalling – Spain 56%, Portugal 38%, Italy 38% and Cyprus 32%. These levels of unemployment amongst young people not only bring great personal hardship but also present the possibility of major social and political upheaval. At this stage, most of that social and political resentment has been directed against foreign workers, Muslims and outsiders. We have seen it particularly in the UK in recent days with anti Muslim clashes.

    The austerity drive, bringing with it the disillusement of the young is undermining liberal democracy and spawning a whole range of populist, nationalist and neo fascist parties across Europe; the Golden Dawn in Greece, the anarchist Five Star movement in Italy, the anti Arab National Front in France and the europhobic United Kingdom Independence Party.

    A great deal of this push for austerity in Europe has been supported and underwritten by conservative economists.  Rogoff and Reinhart, American economists sold us a bill of goods that once debt exceeded 90% it would trigger major economic collapse. It turned out that Rogoff and Reinhart made some major errors in their methodology, but conservative economists supported them and indulged their political ideology to try and rebut the Keynesian thesis that the boom is the time for austerity and not recession.

    The right wing of the Republican Party in the US joined in the clamour for austerity. Their argument was supported by ideologues who asserted that booms encouraged moral laxity and that it was necessary to ‘purge the rottenness from the system’ as President Herbert Hoover was advised in the lead-up to the Great Depression in the US. That moral judgement is fine for people who have little to lose. But many people suffer badly..

    Tony Abbott and the Coalition have been continually telling us about the perils of debt and deficits. With the Australian economy weakening as the OECD has just warned there is a risk that the Coalition will seek to imitate the austerity drive of the Europeans. That austerity drive has not reduced deficits and it has caused untold personal and social harm.

    There is a clear lesson to be learned from Europe about obsessions with debt and deficits in times of recession or a weakening economy. Beware on the austerity mindset.

     

     

     

  • Clericalism and the inability to recognise one’s own shortcomings. Guest Blogger: Michael Kelly SJ

    But what was the question? For a very long time I have puzzled over what fanatics, bigots, sundry village idiots and fundamentalists have in common.

    I used to think it was fear – the fear of losing control. So, all manner of extreme positions, programs and political strategies are worked out to keep control.

    It’s plainly evident in societies run by religious leaders: there’s only one way to do things and that is according to the Book, whichever Book might be invoked. It’s obvious also in the totalitarian politics that keep Communist Parties in office in several Asian countries.

    Though, as is the way with hardy totalitarians, what is prescribed as the “only way” tends to change to meet the convenience of those in power who want to stay in control.

    But now I’ve discovered that there is another crucial ingredient in the mix of motivations and intentions among those who adopt such positions and it is something that can be seen in everything from domestic disputes to the ruthless rule of totalitarians of all stripes.

    And what’s more, this ingredient is a theory that won its inventors a Nobel Prize. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Well, it sort of won a Nobel Prize – the satirical Ig Nobel Prize in 2000.

    Dunning and Kruger received their satirical “gong” in psychology for their paper entitled “Unskilled and Unaware of it: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessment”.

    What Dunning and Kruger proposed is that, for a given skill, incompetent people will do some or all of the following: tend to overestimate their own level of skill; fail to recognize genuine skill in others; fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy; recognize their previous lack of skill if they are exposed to training for that skill.

    Simple isn’t it! So why do we do it? It happens everywhere.

    It happens in tedious meetings, even around dinner tables, where self-appointed authorities lecture far better qualified people on things they know little of.

    It is at the heart of the besetting crisis of the world where terrorists with simple answers to complex questions (i.e. kill those they’ve demonized).

    And it becomes seriously destructive of the Church’s mission when incompetent and inexperienced clergy and Religious are given jobs which lay people are far better qualified to manage.

    For light relief, it can reach comic proportions when celibate Catholic clerics tell married lay people all they need to know about sex!

    But the sinister side of this phenomenon in the Church is evident in the culture it creates in which clergy and laity conspire to keep a feature of Church life alive that should be strangled.

    At the heart of the Church’s authorized corruption, so lamented by the present Pope, lies something that eats away at the plausibility of Catholicism – clericalism.

    This is a culture that clerics can create and share where they install themselves (and laity meekly comply with the installation) as unassailable authorities, beyond correction and in possession of whatever it takes to get their way.

    And, when one is threatened, the group closes ranks to protect the vulnerable party, joins the chorus of shaming and blaming any accusers and categorizes the critics as “dissidents”.

    It is under widespread assault in many parts of the Church. But, like hardy cockroaches in warm, wet climates and despite the best efforts of their assailants, they survive and even thrive.

    Clericalism is under greatest threat in the West where an educated Catholic laity has called the bluff of priests, bishops and Religious to either practice what they preach or move away. And, by the way, this is a laity that is often the outcome of the Church’s best efforts to increase the knowledge and skill levels of lay people through all its schools at all levels.

    But clericalism has rich soil to grow in when combined with features of the place of men and local religions and hierarchies in some Asian societies.

    Where ever men are seen to be (and assume the prerogatives) of a more powerful status than women, where ever existing social hierarchies revere either or both “holy men” and “professors”, Catholic clerics can slip into a set of pre-arranged hierarchies that intensify the worst features of clericalism.

    So what’s the answer to these internal forces that corrupt the Church’s ability to proclaim the message of Jesus in word and deed?

    Then first thing is to recognize the wisdom of a recent remark of Pope Francis to some bishops visiting the Vatican. Their role is to lead their people, “sometimes from behind”. Why? Because, the Pope said, their first duty as pastors is to listen to their people. There’s no substitute for a humble and attentive attitude of listening.

    The second thing is to follow the old maxim of the scientific method: recognize that “the facts are friendly”. That means accepting that we live in a world where all closed and presumptuous societies – large and small – are ripe targets for justified attack.

    The answer to that accusation, justified in too many instances, is transparency and openness to engage and address the criticisms. Defensiveness and denial suffocate the Church and just create more trouble in the future.

    A third response is to take seriously what Dunning and Kruger have to say. There is simply a dizzying amount of information on just about every subject under the sun today and to a level and degree unimaginable by our forebears.

    The skill the Church at central level has learnt slowly and reluctantly is the legitimate autonomy of the many and varied departments of knowledge that no single authority can pronounce on just about everything, as Vatican authorities once believed they could.

    What the Vatican learnt the hard way (remember Galileo among many others?)  is that to skill up in any area of competence opens up all the other areas  of one’s incompetence.

    An approach of respectful solicitation becomes the next step.

     

  • The Vatican appeals in vain for decency towards refugees. John Menadue

     

    On June 6, the Vatican emphasized that governments protect refugees. It said that the world’s governments must give ‘absolute priority’ to the fundamental rights of refugees.

    Cardinal Veglio who heads the Pontifical Council for Migrants said:

    ‘Protection must be guaranteed to all who live under conditions of forced migration, taking into account their specific means, which can vary from a residency permit for victims of human trafficking to the possibility of being granted citizenship for those who are stateless.’ He added that policies in this area must be ‘guided by the principle of the centrality and dignity of every human person’.

    He spoke with ‘dismay that governments have adopted policies that subject refugees to confined detention, internment in refugee camps and having their travel and their rights to work restricted’. Those comments were not directed specifically to Australia but they apply to almost everything we do to humiliate refugees whether in respect of detention, travel or work rights.

    He referred specifically to the 4 million people who have been driven from their homes by the fighting in Syria.

    Despite the Vatican pleas, Cardinal Pell and Tony Abbott, our Jesuit-trained leader of the coalition, have said nothing in response.

    In Australia we tie ourselves in political knots over 20,000 asylum seekers who come by boat. But countries bordering Syria have opened their borders, hearts and pockets to help desperate people fleeing Syria. The number of “registered” Syrian refugees now stands at 1.6 million. Lebanon has taken 520,000 refugees, Jordan 475,000, Turkey 376,000, Iraq 159,000 and Egypt 79,000. There are also an estimated additional 2 million unregistered refugees. About a quarter of the population of Lebanon are now refugees who have fled Syria.

    The generous hospitality of these relatively poor countries stands in stark contrast to our miserable and selfish hostility to the very small number of people who are in desperate need and come to our borders. Inevitably some of the people spilling out of Syria will come to our shores. On the basis of their rhetoric to date Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison will call them illegals and criminals.

    Last week the UNHCR and 124 other organizations launched the largest humanitarian appeal ever for $US2.9 billion to support Syrian refugees. What a reflection it is on us that in our latest federal budget the Australian government proposes to spend $A2.9 billion on refugee detention services! What a perverse and selfish country we have become!

    The government shows very little leadership on this unfolding human tragedy in Syria and elsewhere. It consults focus groups rather than its own conscience. The coalition sees it as a political opportunity to exploit fear.

    Shame on Australia.

  • What is powering Japan’s foreign policy? Guest blogger Walter Hamilton

     

    Could it be they are handing out “macho pills” at the Japanese Foreign Ministry? Has it become de rigueur for the country’s diplomats to browbeat international forums? Are internal divisions within the ministry about to break out into open policy warfare? 

    There are at present enough straws in the wind to invite these questions.

    The metaphoric “macho pills” might explain the extraordinary outburst by Japan’s Human Rights Ambassador (and former Ambassador to Australia), Hideaki Ueda, during a recent UN committee hearing. He was responding to an African delegate’s criticism of Japan for not allowing lawyers to be present during police interrogations of suspects. As Ueda attempted to explain how his country was among the “most advanced” in this field, there were audible sniggers from unidentified attendees. “Don’t laugh! Why are you laughing?” protested Ueda. “Shut up! Shut up!” (The rant is viewable on YouTube.) Although one may make allowances for the wear-and-tear of spending too much time at UN talkfests, this was an ugly face to bring to a discussion on human rights. It might be best if Mr. Ueda goes off the pills. 

    The “macho pills”, meanwhile, are being crunched like sembei crackers over at the Prime Minister’s Office in Tokyo. When a former head of the Foreign Ministry’s Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau, Hitoshi Tanaka, aired his concern in the press about an apparent shift to the right in foreign policy, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe gave him a shellacking on Facebook. Tanaka, he said, was “not qualified” to talk about diplomacy because he had previously shown a gross lack of judgement when handling the delicate issue of Japanese kidnapped to North Korea. Abe did not hesitate to reveal details of government discussions to which had been privy. 

    Reports indicate Abe is about to elevate Akitaka Saiki to the position of Vice Foreign Minister (the ministry’s top bureaucratic role), replacing an appointee who has been in the job only a year. Saiki is another who is well known to Australian diplomats. His elevation will not have been hindered by his previous support for Abe’s tough line on North Korea, a policy area in which Saiki has particular expertise. He is also a former Ambassador to India – a relationship Japan wishes to foster as a counterweight to China. Some reports suggest he takes a hawkish position on the Senkaku/Diaoyu territorial dispute, although that would simply reflect current government policy. The same reports are foreshadowing a larger clean out of positions in the Foreign Ministry to better align policymaking with the views of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. With the vexed question of constitutional change very much in play under the LDP’s leadership, the party and the government will want a unified diplomatic offensive to explain its tampering with the constitution’s pacifist clauses.

    The appearance of a ministry undergoing internal ructions – and of some elements within and without resenting the political whip hand – is becoming more of a spectacle day by day.

     

    Walter Hamilton is a former Tokyo Correspondent for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the author of  “Children of the Occupation: Japan’s Untold Story”.

  • Our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, deserves respect. Guest blogger: Chris Geraghty

    The leader of the opposition addressing a protest crowd in Canberra and a team of colleagues all standing in front of a large sign – “DITCH THE WITCH”

    Anthony Abbott continuing to grace the commercial radio station and be softly questioned by the commentator who refers to our prime minister as “JU-LIAR”, or who opined that “they (women) are destroying the place”, or who thought it might be a good idea to put our prime minister in a bag and leave her out at sea, or who had the appalling taste to state publicly at a Liberal Party function, that the prime minister’s recently deceased father had died of shame.

    Have you had a listen to her horrible voice? How long do we have to put up with her terribly Australian drawl? Seen her big bum? And her clothes? As if we haven’t been used to bald politicians, plain to ugly looking male members of parliament, badly dressed, with rasping, scratchy voices – and boring. All of these men able to pass under the radar because they belong to the club. This is what we expect from men – ordinariness. But a female prime minister cannot just be an ordinary member of the human race.

    She was hounded from pillar to post about some supposed and unethical impropriety she had been involved in years ago, as a young female solicitor. Day in and day out. But nothing emerged after all the huffing and puffing, all the digging. No substance to the allegations. No charges laid. Nothing proven. Just smear and innuendos. And in the end, no apology. Everything just left in the air to fester, to resonate with the public.

    A menu prepared for a political fundraising dinner. A menu announcing that the Liberal supporters present, together with Joe Hockey and Mal Brough, would be served “Moroccan Quail – Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – small breasts, huge thighs and a big red box”.

    Gross and offensive. An insult to any woman. Disgraceful, bad taste.

    And the proprietor of the restaurant, Joe Richards, would have us believe that this was only an in-house, no, an in-kitchen joke, and that the exclusively invited guests did not see the offending menu. The joke was never shared.

    Yes, pull the other one, Joe. The menu was printed just like any other standard menu. It contained other political references and other dishes. We do not yet know the identities of the other guests, what they saw, what they are prepared to say, what they were all served on the night in question. Were there any women on the guest-list, or was it an exclusively male night out? And after a false start, Malcolm Brough pleads ignorance and innocence. But he is not any longer a man who can be trusted after his prevarications about his involvement in the Slipper/Ashby affair. Justice Rares found he was not a trustworthy witness. His reputation for being loose with the truth where his future is involved has gone before him.

    Has any of our former prime ministers, or for that matter, any of our parliamentarians or public figures, been subjected to such abuse and humiliation?

    And now – is our prime minister’s partner gay? After all, it’s obvious. He’s a hair-dresser. What more need be said? I rest my case.

    Do you mind? Are there words to describe the grub who came up with this line of questioning? Has John Howard ever been questioned whether he was having a sexual relationship with his wife, or whether she might be frigid? Or Robert Hawke pressed to provide details of his private endowment? One only has to ask the question to understand how grossly indecent and offensive, how despicable such a line of interrogation really is.

    The whole unraveling scene is outrageous, undignified and clearly misogynistic. Commentators and colleagues of the opposition leader have continually crossed the line with impunity, and entered the world of sleaze. There was a time until quite recently when family and partners, personal beliefs, the private lives of public figures were off limits. No more.

    It is not good enough for Mal or Joe Hockey to claim they didn’t know. We’re not stupid.  Gullible members of the public. Not on your life. Nor is it good enough for the leader of the opposition to piously proclaim that we should all be better, that we should all abide by a higher standard, as if all politicians, on both sides of the divide, have been somehow grouped together with the abusers and offenders. I want Anthony to look Alan Jones, Malcolm Thomas Brough and the others right in the face and say – “You’re got to be better. You’re a grub, a low life. You are a disgrace. You offend my basic sense of what is right and proper. Until you can prove yourself better, much better that you are, I don’t want to be associated with you.”

    And don’t try and tell me that all this started when our prime minister promised not to tax carbon pollution and then, after establishing a stable minority government, broke her promise.

    The beginning of this descent into the gutter was when she was wrongfully, consistently accused by Anthony and his colleagues, of lying, just as they wrongfully persist in describing the boat people as “illegal” arrivals. The oppositional antiphon was taken up and enthusiastically chanted by the shock-jocks and peddlers of one-liners, and the untruth spread throughout the community at large.

    To accuse the prime minister of lying was nothing but a cynical distortion of the truth – in short, a lie. Abbott knew her broken promise was not a lie, yet he continued to proclaim the message. Unethical. Immoral behavior. He had studied moral theology in the seminary. He had attended Catholic schools, the nuns and the Jesuits. He had learnt his catechism. He knew what constituted a lie. One does not have to be an Einstein to know what a lie is. It’s wrong.  A sin. Saying something which, at the time you say it, you know to be false. Knowingly saying something which is untrue – that’s what a lie is.

    Our prime minister did not lie. She broke a promise, a promise which, in hindsight, she shouldn’t have made. But politicians do that often, and will continue to do so. Sometimes it is the only responsible thing to do.

    Julia Gillard, while working in a minority government for the welfare of the nation, has been the object of constant and vicious abuse, heaped on her like no other before her. How about a focus on policy, on substance, on the common good and a fair-go for all, on the Australian community and its future – on Gonski and education, on the NBN, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the scourge of gambling, on refugees and their honourable treatment, on jobs and the economy, on a proper taxation regime, balanced and fair, on regulation of the mass media to make it more responsible and sensitive to the truth. Let’s lift our game out of the gutter, give our prime minister the credit and the respect she deserves, insist on the truth being spoken and reported, the whole truth and not just the trite one-liners, ignore the smartly crafted but empty slogans and begin to reflect on who can we entrust the future of our country to. Get the bottom-feeders out of Parliament, off the radio, out of the newspapers and the army and give us all a blast of clean air.

    As for me, the recent events have only gone to demonstrate how strong and classy our prime minister really is.

    Chris Geraghty

  • The personal, public and social costs of mistakes in health. John Menadue

    After examining more than 14,000 hospital admissions in NSW and SA, the national cost of harm from avoidable  adverse events (mistakes) in our hospitals was estimated at  just over$2 b pa in 1995/96. This study was undertaken by the Task Force on Quality of Australian Health Care which reported to Health Minister Carmen Lawrence.  51% of all  mistakes were estimated to be avoidable and would represent nearly 500,000 preventable hospital bed days per year. The task force commented that these mistakes “are a problem that overshadows all others in the health sector”

    Professor Richardson and Dr McKie from the Centre for Health Economics at Monash University in 2008 commented ‘preventable deaths … occur at a rate equivalent to a Bali bombing every three days’. Deaths, losses and costs are staggering.

    In 2011 Professor Richardson told the Melbourne Age that the issue of adverse events in the Australian health system should dominate all others. However it would be closer to the truth to describe it as Australia’s best kept secret”

    Ministers, clinicians and administrators all prefer to brush it under the carpet.

    If we take the $2 billion cost in 1995/96, project it forward, include non-hospital mistakes as well as the cost to families and individuals denied an income earner, or the effects of disability, the cost is close to $5 billion p.a. I think this is a very conservative estimate

    Despite tens of millions of dollars spent on inquiries and committees; no discernible progress has been made in improving quality and enhancing safety. COAG established the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care in 2006 but improvements are hard to find. “Insiders “are still in charge. Asking “insiders “to keep reviewing our health sector is a major reason for the lack of success in health reform. To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling “What do they know of health who only health know”? A lot could be learned about safety from other industries e.g. aviation.

    Professor Jeffrey Braithwaite, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales  recently commented to me …”No one thinks that we are reducing the levels in rates  or absolute numbers of adverse events much at all despite much effort” Regular newspaper stories confirm the continuing problem. But there is little analysis of the system problems that are at the heart of the malaise. Some hospitals are not safe and should be closed. Others require role delineation to ensure a sufficient scale for efficient and safe operation. The lack of effective action by the Commonwealth and State Governments is scandalous.

    In many of our hospitals managerial governance and clinical governance run in parallel but not together. It is an absurd way to run often quite large enterprises. Some hospitals are run more like a cottage enterprise, with clinicians coming and going from their private practises. Mandatory disclosures and compulsory hospital accreditation, as well as transparency, are urgent requirements.

    Good people are caught up in a bad system. The aviation industry has shown that culture is a very important determinant of safety. In aviation, the question is asked ‘what went wrong and how do we find a systemic solution?’ Unfortunately in health, the question often is ‘what went wrong and who can we blame?’

    John Menadue

     

     

  • Are we serious about Asia? Guest blogger: Steve FitzGerald

    In my blog ‘On smoko’ of  2 April 2013 I again raised the issue of Australia’s continuing failure to equip itself for our future in Asia. I asked whether we would go on smoko again, as we had following the Garnaut Report of 1989. Professor Steve FitzGerald responded to this blog with some comments. I thought it would be useful to highlight again what he has said about the recently announced Asian Century Strategic Advisory Board. Incidentally, I was in touch with the Implementation Secretariat of the Asian Century Strategic Advisory Board on 5 April 2013. I asked how many of the Advisory Board can fluently speak an Asian language and their names. I am still waiting for a reply. Steve FitzGerald who was previously Australian Ambassador to China, wrote as follows:

    Smoko’s right! When you look at the recently announced Asian Century Strategic Advisory Board ( http://asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/about/board), you have to wonder if they even understand what they are talking about.

    Why is there no one from Asia on the Board? Peter Varghese’s ancestry is Asian, and we should be pleased he’s there because he’s very bright and also independent-minded, but he’s there because he’s ex officio as the Australian head of DFAT. There are dozens of people in Asia who know Australia and would like to see it truly engage with the region, who are prepared to cast a critical eye over our endeavours and to be very frank in close quarters discussion. Kishore Mahbubani or George Yeo in Singapore for example. Or Dewi Fortuna Anwar in indonesia. The composition of the Board reflects a sadly insular thinking. Its discussion and advice can only be like listening to your own voice. I don’t see how you can be dinkum about engaging with Asia if you don’t include people from Asia in the strategic body that’s supposed to guide the way you do the engagement. Did it simply not occur to them? And if that was beyond their ken, surely there ought to have been some Australian Asians, to reflect the contemporary Australian demographic and show genuineness in their intent.

    What about the Board Members who are there? Apart from Peter Drysdale, where are the other seasoned Asianists who have studied and have deep knowledge and experience of the region? Where are the intellectuals (if that’s not too dirty a word) who’ve spent years thinking about these issues? Where are the people who’ve been working on the frontline of education and understand why so many attempts to put Asian languages and studies into the mainstream of schools and universities have failed? Why not some of the people from Asialink who did studies on the state of Indonesian, Japanese and Chinese studies a few years ago? Or someone like Colin Mackerras, who’s been round this track so many times he could save them fifty meetings on the subject and as many information papers? I know it’s not all about languages and studies, but just as an engineer can’t design a bridge without basic training and all the knowledge that’s gone into that training, so also you can’t design a total strategy for Asia without the equivalent in training, skills and knowledge on the part of the designers. Or what about Hugh White, strategic and defence expert yet one who in 2011 came up with the most innovative proposal for Australia’s Asian language learning challenge we’ve seen in a generation? Why not a couple of our high-ranking recently retired diplomats, who know so much more about Asia and what the engagement demands of us than just how to count the money? And what about young people? For example from among young Asian specialists in academia, or one of those who has studied an Asian language and done all the right things and can’t get a job that uses their skills, or one of the young Asian Australians who see this all from a different perspective? These are the ones who will live through the Asian century and have to live with whatever we make of it now, or don’t.

    Smoko anyone? Let’s just roll our own.

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

    This piece was published in Crikey 11 June 2013.

     

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

     

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

     

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

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

    John Menadue, former Secretary of Department of Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    John Menadue

     

  • Doctors scared Maggie Thatcher. John Menadue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    John Menadue

     

  • How about it Gina and Twiggy? John Menadue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

  • The Miners’ Lament. John Menadue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There were clearly some downsides.

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

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

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

     

  • Pell before the Parliamentary Enquiry. Guest blogger: Chris Geraghty

    I watched Cardinal George Pell give his evidence to the Victorian Parliamentary Committee on Monday and thought that he was fortunate to be questioned across the polished table by a team of amateur interrogators. The members of the committee were, for my taste, too respectful, and far too thankful for the inadequate information he was providing. He will not be treated so softly, so kindly by counsel assisting the Royal Commission. We should prepare ourselves for a longer and more equal contest when the trained, heavy-weight inquisitors put the Archbishop of Sydney on the rack.

    I thought His Eminence’s form had improved somewhat, though admittedly he was coming off a troubling slump. He was visibly less aggressive. His trainers had persuaded him to surrender his bullying, bulldozing tactics and to eat a few crumbs of humble pie. He was more defensive in the ring, less assertive in the clinches, an old warrior who had grown weary of the fight, who was prepared to suffer a few body blows without complaint.

    After watching the contest for four hours and more, I began to feel a little sorry for the main contestant. He was old and stooped. He’d been fighting in this ring for eighteen years and more, diverting blows, defending his corner, but now ready to concede, reluctantly. He had slowed down. The mind was not as sharp. The words did not flow fluently. Sad to sit and watch from the front stalls an old warrior in the ring, under lights, up against a tag-team of amateurs slowly gaining the upper-hand, as the champion gradually lost his strength and was forced to face the inevitable. A beast of the forest being eaten alive by an army of ants.

    I was interested to hear the Cardinal speak of his meeting with Premier Jeff Kennett (“You clean up the mess, or I’ll do it for you.”) and I was amused when he compared his own personality to that of the Premier’s. “We’re similar in personality”. I assumed he sees himself as a can-do, barge through, take no prisoners type of guy – direct, blunt, no-holds-barred, bereft of delicatesse, hard-nosed, thick-skinned, but able to save the Church from moral bankruptcy and to produce results. Certainly that’s how he comes across in the public domain – and unable to project compassion and empathy. He said he was sorry, “absolutely sorry”, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. Of course he’s sorry. The Church stands naked in the marketplace. The victims are suffering, and shouting their pain from the ramparts. Clergy are in prison. The faithful are scandalized. Newspapers are selling. The Vatican protective fire-wall has been breached. Money is flowing out of the coffers. The clergy are ashamed. The dead are being blamed. Jesus is crying and the powers of evil are rejoicing. Of course, he’s sorry. But the poor man was incapable of showing his sorrow, of displaying his inner feelings on his grey face, in his body-language. His words and presentation were wooden rather than warm; formal, official rather than heart-felt. George was condemned to wear the drab guise of his official office and to project the image of a distant bureaucrat. I felt the pain of a man condemned to observe that whatever about his style, compassion is best expressed by action. And I was left wondering – what action?

    I was sorry the Cardinal did not accept the challenges offered to him (albeit ineptly) – to explore the reasons for the problem of pedophilia in the Church; to explain the destructive force of clericalism; to spell out the central role of the Vatican, the Pope and Canon Law in the regime of covering up pedophilia and protecting the offending priests; to admit the central role of Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger in the process as the President of the Congregation for  the Doctrine of the Faith, and his failure to resign his post if his advice was not being heeded by his superior; to confront the fact that while the offenders were being looked after, the victims and their families were, for a long time, ignored; to report the fatal Vatican conflict between the Congregation for the Clergy headed by the Columbian, Cardinal Dario Hoyos Castrillon and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Ratzinger as they struggled in their ivory towers for control over child sex abuse among the clergy. Why does Rome take so long to do anything, and is so ham-fisted in the process?

    There was much to be discussed in Melbourne last Monday. Pity the opportunity was missed. But the proceedings were only a prelude to the main event being choreographed by the Royal Commission. Fasten your seatbelts for the turbulence up ahead. For me, Cardinal Pell presented as a sad figure in Melbourne on Monday. I felt sorry for the man. But I felt far more sympathy for the Fosters and for the other, many victims of abuse.

    Chris Geraghty

     

     

     

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    John Menadue and Ian McAuley

    References (not available on line)

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

     

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Fear and Trust. Guest blogger: Michael Kelly SJ

    It was Arthur Augustus Calwell, Federal Leader of the Australian Labor Party before Gough Whitlam, who believed that fear was the most potent political weapon. He ought to know: he lost three elections because of it.

    The political correlative to fear is another emotion – the appeal to “trust me”. Creating or eroding trust is the common task and challenge of individuals and institutions in Australia, home to the most testing and suspicious populace in the world.

    It’s a tried and tested tactic in Australian public life – Paul Keating in his attack on Fight Back; the way the ACTU got Work Choices to be the millstone around the Howard Government’s neck; the mining companies on the profits tax; and Tony Abbott’s campaigns on asylum seekers coming by boat whom he still calls “illegals”.

    Maybe it’s our convict origins or the Irish instinct to bring everyone down to size or just the inherently secular nature of life in Australia where no orthodoxy has sway or hierarchy prevails.

    But individuals and institutions in Australia aren’t granted or allowed to assume trust and credibility simply in virtue of their office or proposed function. Australians are and always have been suspicious of authority and pretentions to it. Trust and credibility have to be earned.

    As we move into electioneering mode in the lead up to September, it will again become clear that politics is more about emotion and perception than it is about platforms and policies. That’s why trust and fear are so important to register and gauge, to recognize and manage.

    And so, as the litany of bungled policy initiatives and dumb promises about budget surpluses add to the popular suspicion that the Gillard Government is illegitimate – getting there only through back room deals among Labor politicians that showed scant regard for any popular mandate – the correlative emerges from the Coalition.

    “Trust me” because we won’t do anything stupid. We’ll develop a White Paper on the Carbon Tax before doing anything; we’ll get the Productivity Commission to review industrial relations before acting; we’ll review the GST with the States and have an external review of Treasury see why they got revenue predictions so wrong; and, the old chestnut, we’ll get an external audit of all government programs.

    The potent weapons of fear and trust can operate in at least two ways: use by agents and political practitioners to prosper their advancement and the demolition of their opponents or they can end up backfiring on the proponents and practitioners who first deployed them. And the play is already underway in Australia as can be seen in accusations of “unworthiness for office” because of past abuse of trust.

    Or so it seems to be going with appeals to trust him by Tony Abbott and accusations of untrustworthiness levelled at Julia Gillard. Trust and fear are rich currency for politicians to trade in, but it’s one where they can’t control the exchange rate.

    What is so important about registering the use and abuse of trust and fear is to recognise what it does to us, the electorate. Someone might invite us to trust, for example. But no one can claim to be trusted until others entrust themselves to you. The essence of trust, and fear for that matter, is that they are relational experiences.

    Political power and its legitimacy are essentially social because they only occur when I and we entrust ourselves, our prospects and our fortunes to those people inviting the trust.

    Australians have good reasons for suspecting politicians’ promises – from John Howard’s promise not to introduce a GST to Julia Gillard’s promise not to introduce a carbon tax.

    Long before Shakespeare adopted the phrase, we were all well advised to take a long spoon to sup with the Devil. Appeals to trust and accusations of untrustworthiness unlock the most ambivalent human energies from hope and expectation to contempt and despising.

    While we all should follow the warning of buyer beware, politicians, indeed all office holders, should take note too.

    Michael Kelly SJ