Blog Archives
Pretending Not to Fail at Asylum Seeker Policy
Prime Minister Julia Gillard spent some time with our friends across the Tasman over the weekend. The Prime Minister met with her New Zealand counterpart John Key in Queenstown for the annual Australia-New Zealand Leaders’ meeting. Among other things, the meeting triggered a warning to phone companies to bring down roaming charges or face regulations and also a $3 million pledge to try to develop a vaccine for rheumatic fever.
But it is the asylum seeker and refugee conundrum which will always garner the most attention in the media and tend to dominate talks with other nations in our region. And of course this trip was no exception.
Both the Australian and New Zealand Prime Ministers’ managed to reach a new deal with regard to refugees. It was agreed between the two leaders that New Zealand will accept and resettle 150 refugees from Australia. The agreement, commencing in January 2014 will see the transfer of genuine refugees from the Australian mainland and also the offshore immigration facilities on Nauru and Manus Island.
On the face of it, the deal looks pretty ordinary, but at least like an attempt to deal with the movement of asylum seekers in the region. But it is not even close to a deal that understands the policy problem facing governments in the Asia-Pacific.
The deal fails in two key areas. First, it is an attempt to appear to be trying to do something in terms of the domestic policy situation surrounding refugee policy which is a fraught area for government. Second, it appears to be an attempt to deal with the regional nature of the asylum seeker equation which is a traditionally much more difficult part of the “solution” to reach agreement on.
Australia agreeing to send 150 refugees to New Zealand gives the appearance of acting on the domestic implications of irregular people movements. But in reality the deal will do nothing of the sort. It will not cut down the overcrowding of detention centres in Australia and our offshore facilities. The number, 150, is simply too low for that aim to ever be achieved.
Voters will know that it is the performance of a political illusion. It is an attempt to appeal to the irrational fear of outsiders that a number of our politicians seem all too willing to gently prompt with their often deliberate choice of language when describing maritime arrivals. Politicians care far too much about the votes in being tough on asylum seekers. In fact they should not be tough at all – there is no crime involved, so no punishment is required.
The pact reached at the weekend also fails the regional test. The deal, involving the transfer of genuine refugees from Australia to New Zealand is given the veneer of a regional solution, but it is nothing of the sort. In fact, the only thing remotely regional about the policy is that it involves more than one country in our region.
With the deal there will be no increase in the number of genuine refugees that New Zealand takes in on an annual basis. The 150 refugees that New Zealand will accept from 2014 will be a part of their annual intake of 750. That adds nothing to the regional quota and will still see a large number of boats arriving in Australia.
A significant addition to the refugee intake in the region is what is needed. And with a number of countries in Asia not signatories to the Refugee Convention, it is discussion to get those countries onboard, and a deal with New Zealand on a quota increase which is required to do anything significant about people movement in the region. Of course Australia has recently decided to increase its humanitarian quota, but the election result will likely see it return to the previous number.
But the regional part of the policy discussion is not the only important and meaningful part of the puzzle. Even those politicians with a keen interest in the regional dynamics of the discussion are missing the point. Far too often the regional options are discussed at the expense of the international. Refugee policy is an international problem because conflict is an international problem across all regions of the world.
The agreement contains two false attempts at pursuing refugee policy in a meaningful way, both domestically and regionally. Couple that with an international failure to acknowledge and deal with the movement of people in the early stages and you can be sure we will continue to see large numbers of asylum seekers making the dangerous journey to Australia by sea.
Our National Cultural Pastime Is Not So Clean After All
A very worrying report by the Australian Crime Commission was released today. The document details extensive doping in Australian sport and comes after a year-long investigation by the ACC. The investigation found that not only is doping and other illicit drug use prevalent in Australian sport, but that it has been in some cases, allegedly aided and abetted by team officials. Perhaps the most worrying part is that criminal networks are actively pushing the importation of the illegal substances. Further, it is also alleged in the report that new drugs, not yet approved for human consumption, also form a part of the problem.
No longer as Australians can we say that we are a clean nation when it comes to doping in sport. It appears that as a nation we have buried our collective heads in the sand, not wanting to believe that our sporting heroes could possibly be engaged in the consumption of illegal substances. There have of course been a number of what appeared at the time to be rather isolated incidents to date.
Now, however, we know that the taking of illicit substances is a much bigger problem. We just do not know which individuals, which teams and which sports will be the most heavily impacted by today’s disturbing revelations.
What makes today’s very public pronouncement so problematic, aside from the abuse of illegal substances, is that sport is so entrenched in Australian culture. Our sports’ heroes are treated as godlike by an adoring public. Sport is the most attended, most watched cultural event on the Australian calendar. Surely some of that deification, that praise and worshiping will subside, at least until we discover exactly which sports are the main culprits. That may translate into lower attendances at sporting events too.
Our political leaders involved in sport and in crime prevention joined together today with the heads of some of the major sporting codes in Australia to show a united front. It was a show of force to publicly say that the status quo cannot continue – that something substantial has to be done to tackle the use of illicit substances and prevent widespread doping.
When considering the fact that there is a concern about the use of drugs not yet deemed fit for human consumption, and to some extent those already on the banned substances list – a beefing up of Customs’ examination of cargo is a good start, but by no means a panacea.Getting them approved for usage or put on the banned substances list for sports is also of the utmost importance. But cracking down on this area of drug use will probably prove the hardest task of all, aside from the government doing what it can to prevent the dissemination of these substances.
Naivety must not be tolerated as an excuse by athletes, for doping especially, but even more so for recreational drugs. In terms of the former, athletes are constantly warned to check if a particular drug is on the banned substances list. They are told if they are in any doubt about using a drug, then they should not use that particular product.
The revelations today point to that fact that drug testing may not be as widespread as we were made to believe. Or perhaps that it needs to be more widespread. Sure, testing will not be able to identify all performance enhancing substances, especially in the case of new drugs not yet available in the legal market, but there’s clearly shortfalls here and that is a shame. A big part of improving the testing regime will be trying to keep up on the testing front, with the array of substances available in the market, legally or otherwise. Perhaps a nationally aligned regime of testing and penalties across all professional sports is required.
Obviously drug use in sport will always be a problem, regardless of the amount of resources devoted to trying to stamp it out. But all that can be done simply has to be tried to minimise the damage done to what is truly a national cultural pastime – enjoying sport.
Britain’s Moving on Marriage, Why Can’t We?
A draft bill which aims to establish marriage equality in England and Wales has passed through the House of Commons – their equivalent of our House of Representatives. The vote was won by a handsome margin – 400 votes to 175 in the lower house in Britain. The Conservative Party, governing in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, allowed a conscience vote on the same-sex marriage bill put before the House. And a majority of Labor MP’s and Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the bill.
Unsurprisingly, given the recent history of the marriage debate in Australia, after the proposition was voted down by a wide margin in the Australian parliament and how strong support for gay marriage still is in Australia – the discussion of the successful vote in the United Kingdom quickly led to a discussion of the consequences of the move for the Australian cause.
As it has been from the start, the big issue was the comparison between the stance of the Conservative Party in the UK and that of the Liberal Party in Australia. The former, David Cameron’s Conservative Party, gave their MP’s a conscience vote in the parliament. Tony Abbott’s Liberal Party, with a history of granting conscience votes, opted not to go down the route of a conscience vote, using the excuse of going to the 2010 promising to keep the marriage act unamended.
Many will say that it is the Coalition held back the cause of equal marriage with their decision not to hold a conscience vote. The Liberal Party should certainly have allowed a conscience vote, hoping to at least appear more liberal than they have been. It is however far from certain, even with a conscience vote, that the bill would have passed the Lower House. At the very least it would have been a close-run thing.
It has also been said that today’s win in the UK will put pressure on the Liberal Party when it comes to marriage equality. Will it? Not necessarily. In fact, probably not. The Liberal Party will likely decide, at least for the foreseeable future – not to take their cues from outside and foreign influences. The move toward marriage equality in the UK should, even though it will not – prove that legislating for same-sex marriage is not a scary thing and not a step too far for conservatives.
Perhaps the best thing for the cause of gay marriage, as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, would be for the remaining liberal forces in the party, though they are rapidly dwindling, to continue to try to muster the political strength to call on the party to adopt a conscience vote. This in itself will not be an easy task. But there have been branch wins reported and if these continued, then the pressure will continue to mount on the parliamentary Liberal Party to change their stance.
Where the argument will not be won is through trying to claim that the issue would be a vote-winner for the Liberal Party. There is no doubt that marriage equality is at its most popular as a concept and a future reality in Australia. Polls continuously show that a majority of respondents favour amending the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. And that cuts across all political parties, even the Liberal Party.
But that does not translate into votes. On the face of it, it may seem like overwhelming support for an issue would equal votes if that policy direction was pursued. But contrary to what some appear to believe, most people do not vote on one single issue or even two or three. They might vote on the economy as a single issue, but very few would vote for marriage equality as a single issue. People voting for marriage equality are likely overwhelmingly vote for a political entity hoping to pursue a whole suite of progressive measures.
Really, what needs to be continually pointed out is that the demise of the sanctity of marriage will not come from gay marriage, but outside forces, more related to the way in which we live our lives.
The UK example should serve as a reminder to the Liberal Party that gay marriage is not an evil concept which conservatives must avoid at all costs. But minds will not be dramatically shifted because of what has happened in Britain.
The Liberal Party will however have to realise that a change to the Marriage Act is inevitable, even if they do not wish to go along with it.
To Tinker or Cut?
Just last week at the National Press Club came an announcement one of the first confirmed and specific funding cuts. Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, in his address flagged that the Coalition will dump the Schoolkids Bonus, a policy change made by the Gillard Government. The upfront payment replaced a tax refund, which required the provision of receipts before the payment was made. To date, the government has made payments to more than 1.2 million families, totaling $588 million dollars.
This decision caused some debate, but, in as important a policy area as education, there can always be more attention focused on the impacts of political actions.
In announcing the decision, Tony Abbott remarked that the Schoolkids Bonus was, “a cash splash with borrowed money”. Is it really that simple? Or should we be looking a little more critically and thoughtfully? And in conclusion, was it right for the Coalition to make the decision to dump the payment altogether?
In politics, every single decision, often every phrase, even almost every word is subjected to the political spin cycle. And politicians love to engage in hyperbole, even if they do not know how to pronounce it. And not much is different here.
The change made by the Gillard Government, in that sense, is open to being called exactly what Tony Abbott referred to it as. The timing of the move and new mode of delivery for the payment are questionable, at least on appearance. It’s an election year and probably close to 9 out of 10 people would expect the government to lose at the September 14 poll – the opinion polls have been saying so and even the betting has the Coalition as stark favourites. So the payment of course could be painted in a way as an electoral bribe. It is also borrowed money.
But on closer inspection, the payment itself is actually of the utmost importance. It’s to be used for the education of Australian children – our nation’s future. The Coalition will have you believe that the payment will not be used for education purposes in all cases and they may be right in some cases. But that way of thinking is very illiberal for a supposed Liberal Party. Conservatives see human nature as flawed, and not liberals. Liberals have a largely positive view of human nature.
Scrapping the payment altogether, apart from being illiberal, is also a bad thing for education and equality. For ‘equality’, read equality of opportunity – that should be the main game in education policy as equality of outcomes is a completely unattainable and unreasonable aim in the area of education policy.
We should be ensuring that absolutely every child and young adult has access to an education. It must not be a one size fits all approach, but access to education tailored to meet the needs of those engaged in it must be without roadblocks. That includes assisting families with the cost of school-related supplies.
What the Coalition should have done, rather than deciding to scrap the payment altogether, was announce that they will seek to reinstate the old Education Tax Refund. But of course the budget is in a bit of a mess and they have instead planned to cut funding in an area of policy-making which should be quarantined from cuts in most circumstances.
The decision is not an electoral game-changer, but it’s not a good choice of policy.
Limping to the Election
Federal parliament returns tomorrow, bringing with it Question Time and all the shouty goodness we’ve grown to expect from our parliamentarians. And today the new Gillard Government ministers were sworn in by the Governor-General in Canberra. After that there was time for a meeting of Labor caucus which endorsed Senator Stephen Conroy as the Leader of the Government in the Senate and back Senator Penny Wong as his deputy. Finally, in that same caucus meeting there was time for a little bit of a warning from the Prime Minister.
All of today’s events, in their own separate ways, provide lessons. They should serve as a reminder that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about participating in the business of party politics.
Two senior Gillard Government MP’s announced their retirements at the weekend, sparking a reshuffle of the ministry late in the election cycle, close to seven months before the 2013 election. This is not an irregular event before an election, especially one where the incumbents are expected to lose. To have two go in the same day is particularly bad, especially when one is the Attorney-General.
Such a public exodus of ministers, especially when combined with MP’s, does the job of reinforcing to the public that the incumbents are on the way out. It also fuels the cynic’s, in many cases the realists’ fire. It looks like they are going to preserve the best possible parliamentary pension that they can.
It is strange that so close to an election that the Labor Party will likely lose, that the Prime Minister would choose to finally promote some of the more talented members of her caucus. Mark Dreyfus QC has been made Attorney-General, in place of Nicola Roxon and is, in terms of legal prowess and standing, a much more robust choice for the role. Chris Bowen finally breaks free of the shackles of the immigration portfolio, while Mike Kelly takes on Defence Materiel.
What happens to the talent in the event of a stint in opposition? Surely some will want to return to their private lives before being granted the chance to govern again?
Let’s not forget that the Liberal Party will also see a number of MP’s making an exit at the election too. In fact, at this stage more Liberal member’s of parliament are leaving the Australian parliament. This is not however about electoral prospects, but rather, more liberal Liberals giving up representing an increasingly conservative Liberal Party.
The ALP caucus today erred on a further two fronts. First of all, endorsing Senator Conroy as Leader of the Government in the Senate is a poor decision, though of course it will not matter so much in terms of the election result. Senator Conroy is one of the most underwhelming parliamentarians and one of the poorest communicators. His new deputy, Senator Wong, would have made a much better choice. In fact almost anyone on the Labor side in the Senate bar Senator Ludwig, would have been a better option.
Finally this afternoon, the Labor Party was given a bit of a lecture from the PM where Ms Gillard warned against leaks. Leaks are inevitable, that’s politics. But to be outwardly warning your party against such unwise actions after a recent history of damaging tit-for-tat backgrounding is unfortunate. It also helps reinforce the argument that tensions within the government are making it unstable. How many warnings against harmful leaks need to go completely unheeded? If everyone in the party room does not yet know that the enemy is the opposition and not each other, then that is a real shame for the Australian Labor Party.
There needs to be far more discipline shown by Labor. They need to prove they are not in complete disarray and at the very least mitigate against the potential for a major loss of seats on September 14th.
After close to 6 years in office, the Labor Party should have finally learned to make the right decisions in terms of internal governance. Instead a still stewing split between the Gillard and Rudd supporters has helped hijack the chances of more sensible and more strategically sound decision-making.
It’s too late for any of that to make a real difference now.
The Tale of Thomson and the Two Questions
The allegations surrounding Craig Thomson have never been far from the headlines. In fact the Thomson saga has been one of the most constant topics raised during the 43rd parliament. Today, the long-running investigation took a dramatic turn, as we all know, with the Member for Dobell arrested by New South Wales police on 149 charges of alleged fraud. The former Labor MP was arrested at the request of Victorian police and was today bailed before being required to appear next week in the Melbourne Magistrates Court.
Of course today’s events triggered a flurry of discussion about just what the arrest and charges will mean, not just for Craig Thomson himself, but for the Labor Party, the parliament and the election. Much of this debate has played out in the past, particularly after the Fair Work Australia report was released and when the police investigations commenced. But it does seem that some of us have forgotten the state of play.
First and foremost it is extremely important to reiterate that today the NSW MP was charged, and, like every Australian, is entitled to be subject to due process. That means that the Member for Dobell is innocent until proven guilty, regardless of what our personal opinions and political predilections are.
There were two common questions being asked today as the debate ensued after Thomson’s arrest. The first was: ‘what will this mean for Labor now and in terms of the election?’ The second questions was ‘hmm, is it just a coincidence that Julia Gillard called an election yesterday and now, today Craig Thomson is facing criminal charges?’.
The answer to the first question remains exactly the same as it was when it was first raised as the investigations into the matter began. The Australian Constitution has this to say in s44 (ii):
“Any person who –
(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer…
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.”
So that makes things pretty clear for those who have missed the point again today. A conviction needs to be recorded against Craig Thomson first before his parliamentary future is affected in any way. Further, the offence has to be punishable by imprisonment for one year or more. Well, there is no problem with the latter if the MP is convicted.
In terms of the election, Craig Thomson’s arrest is likely to mean absolutely nothing except, as you would imagine, certain electoral defeat. It is extremely unlikely that any trial involving the now Independent MP will be concluded before the 2013 election which we now know will take place on September 14th. The only way it would be possible for action to be required under the provisions of s44 is if Mr Thomson were to plead guilty and he has already indicated that will not happen.
In terms of the election and Labor’s prospects, even the charges alone will surely prove to be yet another nail in the electoral coffin for Labor. They will add to the narrative, already well constructed, of distrust.
Above all, Labor will survive until the election.
The second question is an interesting one. It posits that the Prime Minister knew of the impending arrest of Craig Thomson and therefore decided it would be best to call an election.
It is entirely possible that the Prime Minister knew that Craig Thomson was going to be arrested. The media were indeed tipped off so it is understandable to question whether or not the PM was aware of the imminent charges against Craig Thomson. Julia Gillard denies that she was made aware of the arrest before it happened.
Even if Prime Minister Gillard was aware that charges were about to be laid against Mr Thomson, and then decided to call an election as the conspiracy theory posits, one simple fact remains – there is absolutely no benefit, political or otherwise, to be gained from the PM calling an election early because of the Craig Thomson matter.
The charges are a sensational development, but frankly, almost nothing changes.
Myths and Realities About the 2013 Election
Today at the National Press Club the Prime Minister revealed something quite surprising and very rare in Australian politics. An election has now been called – well unofficially, but official. Not since Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister has an election been called so early. In fact today Julia Gillard broke Menzies’ record. Robert Menzies, on three separate occasions, informed the voting public of his intention to have an election in 3 months time. Today Prime Minister Gillard bettered that mark by more than double the time.
We can now look forward, or perhaps not, to an election on Saturday September the 14th after the longest campaign in Australian political history. In 225 days we will know the exact results of the 2013 election, seat by seat.
Out of the announcement today and the ensuing robust and at times acrimonious discussion, particularly on social media, arose multiple myths which need busting. False assertions were made. Of course, you are saying ‘well that’s politics’, but the realities of the political situation are what they are underneath all the spin.
The first myth is one perpetrated by the Prime Minister. In making the unexpected announcement of the 2013 election date, the PM asserted that it was not to kick off the world’s longest election campaign.
The Prime Minister is right in a sense. Julia Gillard has not kicked off the world’s longest election campaign with her announcement today. The campaign effectively began way back in 2010 after Australian’s almost handed government to the Coalition. It has already been the world’s longest election campaign and we now have almost eight more months of it before the big day arrives.
But the Prime Minister is also very wrong in her assertion. Now that there is an election date, the campaigning will just continue to accelerate and become an even more regular part of our daily existence. Politicians will increasingly crisscross the country and seek out as much media attention as possible in the coming months.
The second myth was again brought to us by Julia Gillard. The PM contends that now the unofficial campaign which she did not want to commence has indeed begun, the opposition will now have to begin submitting their policies for costing. Ms Gillard could not be more hypocritical in this assertion.
The reality is that all oppositions, regardless of political hue will often delay submitting and revealing their costings for as long as possible. This is both a political move and a sensible policy move. The budget is an ever-changing and challenging beast, so political parties in opposition need to adapt their political priorities to deal with fiscal realities. In any case, to submit a wide array of budget items for review so far out from an election is, to be frank, unheard of.
Today a few MP’s have pointed out that the election day will fall on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. And they are not particularly happy with Julia Gillard for choosing the holy day for the 2013 election.
It is a myth that this will drive down the Jewish vote. Everybody has to attend a polling booth. People have been able to vote before election day in the past and will be able to again this year. And funnily enough, pre-poll queues are actually significantly shorter than those you can expect on election day. To top it all off, senior Jewish officials have today said that there will not be an issue with Ms Gillard’s choice of election date.
The situation does however get a bit tricky for Jewish MP’s and there has been a mixed reaction, with Michael Danby issuing a statement saying that in accordance with his faith, he could not take part in election day activities. Effectively this rules out a day on the hustings greeting voters at polling places. However, it is unlikely to make a difference to the vote of any member of parliament if they happened to not be visible on polling day.
Fans of football have raised similar concerns with the choice of election day. Preliminary finals will be on, both in the afternoon and evening. Suck it up football fans. You can vote early if you are concerned that you might miss out on attending your precious game of football because you are performing a much more important duty.
So there you have it, some election myths busted and realities revealed.
The path to the 2013 election has already been a long one, but now we know when it will all end.
It’s Not All Bad Mr Mathieson
Australia’s first man told a joke today and it did not go down at all well. Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s partner, Tim Mathieson was speaking at a function welcoming the West Indian cricket team to Canberra, the topic: prostate cancer. You could just how rapidly the Prime Minister’s facial expression changed. Very quickly Ms Gillard’s expression shifted from a wide smile and a twinkle in her eye to a look of ‘oh my this is going to create headlines’.
The so-called joke, went a little like this:
“Get a blood test for it. But the digital examination is the only true way to have, to get a correct reading on your prostate so make sure you go and do that and perhaps look for a small, female Asian doctor is probably the best”
What Mr Mathieson said was wrong on a few levels, but it is entirely possible that his ill-conceived joke may have drawn more attention to prostate cancer than if the speech had just reached its Canberra audience. At least in some oblique way, the topic of prostate cancer prevention has been aired in the general community. Perhaps the joke might have even made some men feel more at ease with the whole process and could lead to them having their prostate checked at the recommended intervals.
What was completely right about the short quip from the first bloke was telling the audience, and now Australia, just how easy the testing process can be. We all knew that a prostate examination is important, but perhaps fewer people would have been aware that there is a blood test for the cancer, though of course doctors already know that. But some men probably do not.
There are three elements of the gag which were wrong and completely unnecessary.
The first being the use of a stereotype: that women, particularly Asian women, are small. Not entirely untrue, but a needless generalisation.
The second unfortunate element of his public service message was the unnecessary reference to a particular gender: women. Male doctors can and do give prostate examinations if you are comfortable with that.
Finally, the gaffe would almost certainly fit into the category of casual racism. There was no need to single out a particular group of people. There are small people in all races.
What the Prime Minister’s partner should have said was something like this:
“Get a blood test for it. But the digital examination is the only true way to get a correct reading on the health of your prostate. So make sure you go and do that and perhaps look for a doctor with smaller hands, because it might feel a little uncomfortable”
There you have it, a non-racist, non-sexist gag without any silly generalisations. Hey, the little joke at the end would have probably made the PM laugh a little.
Today’s blunder should serve as a reminder of the need for the spouse of our nation’s leader, whomever it may be in the future, to be a little more dignified in the way they approach speaking in public. Australia’s reaction was probably rather muted to what would have happened if the same tasteless and tactless verse was used elsewhere in the world.
But hey, if it got the message across then it’s not all bad.
aussiepollies 