An Open Letter to Kevin Andrews

Hello Mr Andrews

I am sorry that you have come out suggesting that pension-benefits for many categories of disadvantaged people in our community might need to be cut or the eligibility criteria changed to reduce the number of people making claims.  The facts do not bear out your assertions and so I can only surmise that there are ideological reasons behind your propositions.

I am no wizard with figures, but the very first table in the report shows that the total number of people receiving benefits has increased over the 11 year period of the review by less than 5% or just under 250,000.  That seems to me to be well within the rate at which our population and economy has grown during the same period – not to mention government revenues.

A second consideration is that the increase in the number of aged-pensioners during the period is almost double the total increase of welfare recipients, so if you took them out of this table the total number of welfare beneficiaries would have decreased over the period.  We are already gradually increasing the age at which older people can claim the Aged Pension but the reality is the “baby boomers” are all getting older and they have paid their taxes for many years.  I don’t imagine you are going to try and cut eligibility for it any further.

If you take the Aged Pension out of the Table, there are only 4 categories of benefits that have had an increase in the number of beneficiaries over the period – the Disability Support Pension, Carer Payment, Youth Allowance – full-time students and apprentices, and Youth Allowance – other.  The remaining 14 categories of benefits all reduced the number of beneficiaries over the period.

You have already indicated that you have plans to get some people with disabilities back into the workforce, but you might remember that some people with disabilities need to have their wages subsidised up to a 100% wage value to take into account the discount in efficiency their disability causes for their employer.  The Carer Payment is the biggest single increase after the Aged Pension, but of course you know that these payments save Government many times more in expenses in health and aged-care services.

Mr Andrews I would suggest that you calm down.  We do not have a huge level of government debt as the Newspaper today attributed you as saying.  Your government is proposing tax cuts for mining companies and small business that are going to cost far more than you will ever save by tweeking these benefits.  Your government is proposing a gold-plated parental leave scheme that is going to cost a squillion (paid for by taxing corporations), and your government  is squandering billions of money outsourcing to corporations and other nations our responsibility to offer protection to those with valid refugee claims who have made it to our shores by any means.

As Minister for Social Security you have a huge responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society.  The way to get people with capacity off welfare and into work is not by systematically removing the safety net that ensures that they and their children can afford housing, food and access to health and education.

Please resist the urge to bash the helpless by cutting benefits.  We are a wealthy nation and we can look after our poor.

People Smuggler - an Open Letter to Kevin Rudd MP

Hello Mr Rudd

I have just finished reading Robin de Crespigny’s biography of Ali Al Janabi called The People Smuggler, and I am wondering if you have had the time to read it.  It is a very moving account of a man who spent years trying to escape from Iraq after his Father was imprisoned in Abu Ghraib prison and sent mad by the torture of it.  He and three siblings also spent time in that prison and one was killed in prison.  

He eventually escaped to Malaysia/Indonesia and after being totally ripped off by a so-called people-smuggler he was left with no option to have a go working for someone to earn the money to try again to come to Australia.  He was appalled by the cheating, lying and callous disregard of people’s welfare by the operators he saw, and decided he could not do that to his fellow Iraqi’s so he decided to have a go doing it fairly.  He decided he shouldn’t charge more than $1000 a person and children should be free.  Very often he let people travel for less or free on the strength of a promise to get the money to him when they got to Australia.

All this he did, to earn enough margin to bring his mother and siblings to Australia.  He wasn’t a gangster, ripping people off.  While he had no legal rights to be in Indonesia, the business he carried out in helping to transport refugees to Australia was not breaking any Indonesian law and legal and military people had ample opportunity to take him into custody if they had wanted to.

Then a crooked man, who did sent people to sea in unseaworthy boats, most notably the SIEVX, took advantage of a contact with the AFP to trap Ali after Ali had sent his final boatload of people to Australia – he was no longer involved.  This crooked man ensured that Ali’s trip to Bangkok would result in the AFP being able to arrest and extradite him to Australia to stand trial for people smuggling.  In return for his evidence that crook got immunity from prosecution, permanent residency and a $250,000 gift from the Government, while Ali was again and again denied his human rights by Department of Immigration officials and the Minister for Immigration even after a Judge described him as the Schindler of Asia because of his compassion and determination to do all he could to save lives.

I would like to ask you how Ali qualifies for your description as being one of the “scum of the earth”.  I know that was a throw-away line and I hope that in some small respect you have come to regret it since you have had more time to think about your contribution to political life. 

I would also like to know how we can make laws in Australia that make a lawful activity in a country over which we have no jurisdiction criminal.  In our country the rule of law means that if something is made illegal or criminal, and a person is charged in relation to such activities they may have committed years before it became a criminal act, then they are not guilty of criminal behaviour because when they did it , it wasn’t a criminal offence.

What Ali did was not criminal in Indonesia.  What gives us the right to bring him here and then convict him of criminal activity?  Everything in me says this is an awful injustice we have perpetrated.

While he was preparing an appeal to the Federal Court, Ali’s lawyer said to him rather matter-of-factly that he was not a People Smuggler.  Smuggling people is about getting people into a country without the authorities knowing.  Boat people are tagged by Australian surveillance almost as soon as they leave port, they are intercepted and taken into immigration reception and their claims processed.  His lawyer said he wasn’t involved in people trafficking because trafficking involved kidnapping people.  All he was doing was engaging in a lawful business to raise money to bring his family to Australia.  When that was achieved, he topped doing it and was about to come here himself.

Every single person Ali shipped to Australia survived and was successful in making a refugee claim. All the members of his family have made successful claims and have permanent residency in Australia.  Ali has made a successful claim to be a refugee which the Department refused to act on until the Minister was force to act.  Residency was denied on the Character Test grounds.  And now minister after minister had denied any request for review.  Ali was given a Pending Removal Bridging Visa – he can work but he can’t get work, and he has this axe hanging over his head off arbitrary removal, should the government deem it safe to return him to Iraq, where he would most certainly face persecution again.

I suppose you know all this.

When you set out on your Kevin 07 Election campaign you wanted us to see you as a decent Aussie bloke, and I firmly believe you are.  I supported you and your side of politics.  I am convinced that your faith profoundly informs your politics and for that you had a softer edge on many of your policies, that I supported.

I suppose this issue has tied us all up in knots because it has become a political football, rather than an issue that our nation has sensed a call to respond to with compassion –after all, our participation in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan made a very significant contribution to the refugee outflows from those countries.

Too much is at stake, I suppose, for you to respond to this with a heart, but I ask you to read Ali’s story, in his own voice.  Let his voice challenge you about the possibility that this period of Australia’s history on this policy matter will one day cause us great shame.

I remain yours truly,

2012 - A New Chinese Year

The Chinese calendar is a mystery to me, and fair enough, but I understand each year is given the name of one of 12 animals that rotate through a cycle, but according to their calendar, 2012 was the year of the Dragon - the Water Dragon to be specific.

As I reflect on Australia's year on the political stage, I think it is time to add a new year - the Year of the Scapegoat.

For a number of years now we have been trying to understand some of the toxic dynamics that can happen in workplaces and as a result we have a much better understanding of workplace bullying and scapegoating.

It is a not uncommon tactic for one who wants to assert their position at the top of a pecking order to identify someone as a victim and then mobilising all the others in the workplace against that victim.  Getting others to believe that the victim is deserving of their ridicule and denigration is rather easy because of a strong desire not to be different.  It one person thinks something, another is often inclined to agree.  This is called mimetic theory and is very much what underpins the retail advertising industry and what we used to call "keeping up with the Jones'"

SCAPEGOAT No 1.
On our political stage this year we were first of all presented with Craig Thomson MP as a scapegoat.  He had been accused years ago of misconduct while an official of a Union.  Several police and corporate watchdog investigations had produced nothing worthy of legal action let alone convictions and sanctions, but the Coalition in Opposition, decided that there might be enough mud in this pot to topple the government - so it tried.

After months and months of relentless bullying, of endlessly repeating questions that had been answered satisfactorily, and calling in non-parliamentary adversaries of Craig Thomson - in the form of his successor to the union position he had held and who clearly had an ax to grind against him - manifestly false allegations were made about his moral behaviour and sufficient dust raised for him to have to relinquish his membership of the government party, even though he still votes with the government.

The leading bully - Tony Abbott - had enlisted sufficient deputies to turn the parliament into a unique judicial body, policing the laws in its own terms, acting as both judge and jury in a kangaroo court of a trial of this man, and then dispensing both judgement and punishment.  I cannot recall seeing such a thing in my 50 years or so as an observer of Australian politics.

SCAPEGOAT No 2.
The leading bully was not satisfied with the result of his first round in 2012.  When Craig Thomson moved to the cross-benches he continued to vote with the government, although there was one rather glorious moment when he crossed the floor and voted with the Opposition which prompted the leading bully to flee the chamber before the doors were locked, lest he be seen on the same side of a vote as Craig Thomson.  But essentially the  Government's numbers held good.

So the leading bully decided it was time to take it up to his chief turncoat, Peter Slipper, former LNP member from Queensland, who was persuaded by the Government to become Speaker, allowing one of their own to join the ranks of voting Labor members in the House.  Given such "treachery" it was not difficult to mobilise the troops against Mr Slipper, but it was a very tricky manoeuvre because such attacks on The Speaker of the House of Representatives could constitute contempt of parliament or a breach of parliamentary privileges.  Along comes James Ashby with some very convenient accusations of workplace harassment of the sexual kind, to which he disingenuously adds accusations of cab-charge fraud (very quickly withdrawn) and delectatious details of an earlier consensual liaison between Mr Slipper and former staff member.

Despite these matters being the subject of Federal Court action, the leading bully decided, as before, that he could turn the parliament into that same unique judicial body by which he could charge, convict and sentence Mr Slipper without any respect for the proper rule of law principles that a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the denigration of a person while they are awaiting due process of the law was in fact an abuse of the legal process that would deny them justice.

Then, as soon as the matter is dismissed by the Federal Court and the the complainant declares his intention to appeal, the chief bully and his team declare their reluctance to express an opinion on the matter because it is "before the courts".  And even when the Judgement of the court accuses the new LNP candidate for Mr Slippers seat had participated in a conspiracy to discredit his opponent by encouraging the abusive legal process to be undertaken, the chief bully again tries to talk the matter down saying "get over it".

SCAPEGOAT No 3.
Even after unseating the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the chief bully and Leader of the opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP, was not satisfied because the government had not fallen and he was still the Leader of the Opposition.  So in what I believe is completely unprecedented, he decided to aim for the top.  His next scapegoat would be the Prime Minister herself.  Many believe that her gender was in fact the target of this attack.  I think it really was a problem for him that SHE was the boss and he was a no-body.

So the fuel for this scapegoating was going to be found in matters that happened 17 years ago well before the PM entered politics.  She was in a relationship with a Union Official (who happened to live up to all the Conservative caricatures of Union Officials) and gave legal advice about setting up an Association in WA. Shortly after this, her relationship with the Union Official ended as did her working relationship with a large law firm.  Details of her "exit interview" with her employer were then used as if they were a record of a disciplinary meeting with her employer and every step possible was taken to make it look like the PM was responsible for the subsequently fraudulent (although no charges have ever been sustained against the officials) actions of her former partner and others in siphoning Union Funds into the Association for the personal benefit of the Union Officials.

Despite all these attempts to smear the character of the Prime Minister, on the last day of parliament in 2012, the most serious accusation the chief bully could raise against the Prime Minister 17 years ago was that maybe she was guilt of "conduct unbecoming" of a legal practitioner - not that the Law Council has ever had the matter raised with them.

What really surprises me, as I have tuned into the commentariate about this is how many people actually believe the Prime Minister acted illegally all those years ago - that is how effective scapegoating can be.

But all this should be seen for exactly what it is - classic workplace bullying.

As the memories of observers have revealed over the course of these debates, Tony Abbott has serious form as a bully.  He is aggressive and will not allow any opposition to stand in his way unchallenged, and he will stoop to any tactics he think will remove them from his way.  He and the former Labor Attack Dog, Graeme Richardson live by the same motto - "Whatever it takes!"

I am hoping that the new year will bring a different character to the political stage - one that is much more civil and respectful - but I fear I may be disappointed.

Australian teachers campaign against SRI (Special Religious Instruction)

Gladly, the Cross-eyed Bear, a flagship blogger within the Australian Secularist movement, posted a brief reflection yesterday concerning the recent publication of a contribution to the debate about the place of SRI (Special Religious Instruction) is public schools.


It was written by a Victorian academic, Dr David Zingier, from the School of Education at Monash University, and was entitled "Special Religious Instruction - a statement from the teaching profession".  


While I agree with some of the sentiments in the statement, particularly regarding the "right of entry" that is afforded to Christian religious groups which over-rides a school's choice in the matter, there are some flaws in the arguments of those who would see religious instruction completely eradicated from public schools.


A Right of Entry Provision is Archaic in 21st Century
In Queensland, NSW and Victoria current Education Acts give religious people, particularly Christian ones, have a right of entry to public schools - i.e. if they offer the program to a school, then the Principal is obliged to provide timetable time for it.  This is a relic of the past and a time in our colonial history when we carried on the Established Church principle by which religious people held various civil offices - eg Magistracies - simply because they were clergy.  It also carried over the notion that the Church of England minister had a right of entry to any public school for the purposes of teaching the tenets of the Christian faith to children as a part of their schooling.

The formation of our nation as a federation of sovereign states forming the Commonwealth of Australia clearly broke the Church-State relationship as far as the nation was concerned - as demonstrated in s116 of the Constitution - but our sovereign states retained relics of it.  I think it is fair to say that all state Education Acts reflected this through to the modernizing of those acts in various states that began in the 1980s.  South Australia did away with SRI altogether, Western Australia and Tasmania took away the "right of entry" notions, giving schools the capacity to say no to any offers to provide SRI, but Queensland, NSW and Victoria have retained a system that is archaic in that it retains a provision that only makes sense in a situation where there is an Established Church - something we do not have in Australia.

I would endorse the efforts of any lobby group seeking to remove these archaic provisions in those three states, and encourage politicians there to see that it is about time to change.

Religious Education has a place in public schools
However, this does not mean I support what I understand to be the objective of the Australian Education Union in relation to public schools in Qld, NSW and Vic in particular, and as well for the rest of the nation; namely the complete removal of provision for Special Religious Instruction in public schools.  The imposition of such a blanket ban is just as ideologically driven as the "right of entry" provisions are.  In a truly democratic and modern society and in pursuit of a truly comprehensive curriculum the principles of equity and access to all fields of knowledge and belief systems should be the guiding principles.

This is what happens in Western Australia and if I were to put the seven dot-points of the statement from the Teaching Profession, referred to above, alongside what I see in WA there would be a significant disconnect.  This is what I see in WA:

• State Schools may refuse entry of visiting voluntary teachers offering weekly religious instruction.  (in WA about 20% of the public schools allow it.)
• Students withdrawn from this instruction must be given suitable educational activities to undertake during the lesson (It is not FREE TIME for the kids).
• Schools have absolute freedom to act according to the wishes of the parent community or even the absolute discretion of the school Principal - in refusing or allowing the program.
• It seems rather odd to refer to the exercise of a freedom to withdraw from any particular form of instruction with the pejorative term "segregation".
• In this state, where Bahai RI often occurs concurrently with Christian RI, the existence of these programs very definitely does foster an appreciation and respect for religious and cultural diversity.  I would be prepared to argue that the extreme secularist point of view in this matter breeds intolerance by denying the right of access to this field of knowledge and beliefs.
• Time pressures are often used as the basis for refusing access for the SRI program in WA and that is fair enough, however, I believe the program offered in WA makes a significant contribution to elements of the Australian Curriculum, which it can do in partnership with professional teachers who often feel they do not have the competence to speak about religious and spirituality issues.
• Finally, I agree that with respect of those three states I have mentioned above, the legislation relating to SRI retains an Established Church function in a nation that has clearly and intentionally broken with that element of political life.  But this is not universally the case in Australia.

The argument raised to support the eradication of all forms of religious education in public schools, namely that "families are in the best position" to provide this form of instruction, is flawed in my mind on two grounds.  

• Firstly, other areas of knowledge and beliefs ought also be banned such as instruction in moral (particularly sex education) and ethical frameworks.  With regard to the first, this has a long history of inclusion in education systems, and with regard to the second, the existence of SRI is being used as the basis for claiming a place for ethics instruction.
• Secondly, the whole purpose of a public education system is to create a space for children to learn about the world and fields of knowledge that far exceed the capacity of a family to provide.

So, by all means argue for the eradication of an outdated legal framework for the provision of SRI in schools, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  In WA this program has for a long time been referred to as SRE - where the emphasis has been on EDUCATION rather than INSTRUCTION.  SRE can make a significant and positive contribution to the quality of our comprehensive, public education system.

Opinion Editorials

The News Limited tabloids are at it again and our politicians have so little perception that they take the journalism as fact.

The SMH ran a story today alleging that Refugees who were being placed in community detention were being "given" Welcome Packs of household goods worth $10,000. The story was patently false and represented a calculated attempt to deceive the public. The per-person cost last year of detention for asylum seekers in prison-like facilities in which computers, TVs and many other amenities are provided is about $140,000. Family Groups and others have been allowed to be "detained" in houses in the community since 2005 under the Howard Government. These alternative places of detention also have amenities like computers and TVs (can you buy anything other than a flat-screen TV these days) which are not given to the asylum-seekers when they move on, so they clearly are not a so-called "Welcome Pack" worth thousands of dollars.

Tony Abbott was so keen to get some political capital out of this story that he spoke about it as if it were true on the radio today. Alternative versions of the facts have been put to him, but there will be no retraction or apology from this feeble example of an alternative prime minister.

But I digress.

How is it that we put up with such crappy reportage these days? As Julia Gillard encouraged them a little while ago, I say "Don't write crap!"

There is neither money nor time for quality investigative journalism these days. I know they laud such a thing each year at the Walkley Awards, but it seems to me that once people have earned the right to have their name as by-line in the newspaper report they have become obsessed with writing what they think rather than reporting the facts.

There was a time when those invited to prepare an Opinion Editorial for publication were people of such note and stature in the field that their opinion was both insightful and reliable.

How times have changed.

Where are the big issues in the political discourse in Australia?

The Weekend Australian has run a story today of the Opposition Leader's declaration that if he won government he would be even tougher on asylum-seekers, ensuring that the Navy sent back all possible boats seeking to arrive, and informing the Indonesian Government that Australia would no longer accept boats sources from Indonesian ports.

While I am not surprised by such a report, I can't help wondering how it is that the Australian public have given the political policy-makers the idea that there is sufficient political traction on this relatively insignificant issue for the likes of Tony Abbott to keep on going for it.

What about the other really significant issues facing Australia nationally?

1. Ensuring that the benefits of the resources boom we are caught up in devolve down to the least Australians in better infrastructure, especially in the regions.
2. Clarifying our role in global affairs.
3. Really addressing the blame game in our health system by going even further than recent moves and having either States or Commonwealth in complete control of it.

I could go on.

Where is the policy substance? I just don't see it, and have no basis of hope that it will appear soon.

New Year Resolutions please Mr Bowen

Hello Mr Bowen

I know that the media will keep your eyes focussed on this important area of government policy in the new year and I suppose I am expecting that there will be no major shift in your current policy direction - seeking to secure an off-shore processing option but in the mean time processing asylum-seekers on-shore as required by law.

I have never been happy with the way the Rudd/Gillard party has enacted this area of policy in government. I was never happy with the way Howard government enacted this area of policy. There have, however, been some glimmers of hope and good practice along the way and from time to time, so it is not all bad. Most particularly, I thank you for so readily moving towards community-based models for the care of asylum-seekers while their claims are being fully assessed. As Patrick McGorry said, our immigration detention centres are factories for psychiatric illness and we should aim to get people out of them as quickly as possible. I dread the thought that in a generation's time the Federal Government will be needing to say "Sorry" for the consequences of these actions of government in our day.

I wonder if I could offer you some new year's thoughts for consideration.

1. GLOBAL SOLUTIONS TO GLOBAL PROBLEMS

It has occurred to me for a long time that both the media and the political analysts have been blind to the most significant push factor that is driving people onto unseaworthy boats bound for our shores. This is the issue of HOPE. Ever more draconian policies that are designed to extinguish hope will do nothing more than increase the power of this push factor. Think of the situation for asylum-seekers in Malaysia. I can't find the exact number of people living in limbo there - is it 100,000? is it more? - whatever it is it is a vast number of people. And that is just one of many countries in which refugees languish in camps. We know that people from some countries have been told plainly that they will never be offered places to go. Others wait for years and years. Thousands die while waiting. In such HOPELESS situations is it any wonder that people take extraordinary risks to improve their chances of survival and resettlement?

Clearly, the policy that is most likely to deter people taking such risks is one that INCREASES their HOPE of resettlement and thus their willingness to wait their turn. Understandably, Australia can't act on this alone, and in many ways the UN is either unwilling or ill-equipped to take a lead. The UN has given the world a legal framework by which we determine the status of people, but it is up to the nations to offer resettlement. Even your proposed "Regional Processing Centre" is of little value if it is not backed up by an increase in the number of resettlements being offered.

This is indeed a global problem and it therefore demands a global solution. How do we persuade more nations to offer resettlement to asylum-seekers? Getting more countries on board to offer perhaps a million more humanitarian placements each year would begin to INCREASE the HOPE quotient and thus stem the business plan of the people smugglers.

So long as you adopt policies that seek more and more draconian measures to stop the boats, you will rely on demonizing innocent people almost all of whom are deserving of our protection, not hatred.

2. LOCAL POLITICS

So far as our local political scene goes, I have to admit that the tussle between you and the Opposition, (which I prefer to call the NOalition) to come up with the harshest position has been completely unedifying and it diminishes the quality of your credentials as politicians.

I believe that this policy area has been the biggest single factor in the bleeding of political support from your party in support of the GREENS and yet you are making no policy adjustments that might woo them back towards you. In fact you are making policy adjustments that are driving them deeper into the arms of the GREENS. I don't get that as a political strategy.

Those of us (yes I count myself as one) who have moved towards the GREENS over the past two or three elections have done so because of a perception that the party of the left that cares about compassionate social policy is no longer the Australian Labor Party. Indeed, there are times when it is really hard to distinguish it at a policy level from the Tories in the NOalition.

Given the circumstances in which you all retained government after the next election I was expecting a clearer policy shift aimed at reclaiming this lost territory than has been evident in the 12 months or so that you have been in power. I can't fathom the logic of your policy advisers who have failed to consider this strategy - but there you are; perhaps that explains why I am not in politics.

CAN WE HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR?

So I leave you with these thoughts of mine. I am not a person of great consequence, nor do I have any power, political or otherwise, but I have a heart. I care about the detrimental effects government policy can have on the most vulnerable people in our country and wider world. As a citizen of this nation, and hopefully a good citizen of our world, I would like to see some leadership in this area of refugee and immigration policy that will make me even more proud to be an Aussie.