Refugees

Comparative corruption and transparency

November 30, 2018 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The media and public’s desire for a Federal anti-corruption body and the search for revealing transparency has met with a lagging response by the government. From the mantra of “on water matters” when resisting transparency around refugee issues to the failure to submit Peter Dutton to the High C ourt over his extraordinary profiting from the public purse, the lack of transparency is wearing thin with the public. As the media scrutiny digs deep into the hidden recesses of the largess to ministers provided by government coffers, the public is finding their protests about the “double dipping” of mothers or the “lifters and leaners” or justification of “Robo debt” claims, a tad hypocritical.

The years of shielding the banks from the scrutiny of what the royal commission has revealed, while these same banks donated millions over time to their political coffers, has upset the public. Especialy as they have often been the victims of these banking scams. That successive prime ministers wanted to offer millions in tax welfare as a gratuitous icing on the cake above and beyond protecting them from their crimes, was seen as very “rich”.

That Morrison could claim that he was unaware of the long history of banking fraud and money laundering or saw it as nothing more than a “populist whinge“, flies in the face of what banks have been seen to do here and across the globe. Repeated inquiries into the banks from the Wallis inquiry in 1997 to the Murray inquiry in 2015 and the equally numerous scandals from merely this century, from NAB concealing losses in 2004 to CommInsure payments scandal in 2016, have demonstrated clearly that unregulated banks will always misbehave. There was never any legitimate grounds for not having a Royal Commission, but the government resistance was palpable. As with most cases of corruption and graft to be found in Banks, isn’t it always recommended that one “follow the money”?

Meanwhile in Denmark

Opening of IACC conference in Bella Centre's Congress — The opening of IACC conference in Bella Centre’s Congress Hall in Copenhagen, Denmark

On the international scale, one has only to look at the Danish Banks in a country routinely near the top of the Transparency International index. As the Danish government hosted the International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) in Copenhagen on the 22nd of October 2018, the scandal of the Danske Bank was prevalent in the media. The national Danish Chair of Transparency International, Natascha Felix, welcomed the collective audience to three days of workshops and discussion groups. She spoke specifically of the failure of control systems that “allows individuals to steal from the most vulnerable populations in Denmark” and how a Danish bank laundered millions of dollars. The rather ironic timing of Denmark holding this conference and their banking scandal was a subject that came up many times in the course of discussions that followed. The illusion that Denmark was immune to the sin of corruption because of its view that it was an isolated island of progressive values, had been dealt a significant blow. Natascha Felix noted that while Denmark had often been at the top of the Transparency International index, “it doesn’t mean that power and access doesn’t corrupt the Danes.”

Natascha Linn Felix presenting at the opening of the 18th IACC

One of Natascha’s important opening points was that “when it comes to corruption there is so much more at play than rules and regulations and procedures”. For example, locking people in German gulags in the mid-1940s was legal whereas smuggling Jewish people out of Germany was illegal. In a contemporary example, locking up asylum seekers – who have no criminal charges laid against them – in gulags has been legal for years in Australia. Current illegalities have echoes of the German past. When even so much as reporting crimes committed against “legally innocent people” while working in these gulags, is illegal, the roles of values and ethics that transcend laws of convenience are significant. Corruption and oppression championed by poorly drafted laws and regulations, does not make the actions of governments less corrupt.

Australia’s Fall.

Abdullah Al Dardari answering questions in the Conflict and Development workshop,

Australia held the enviable position of being 7th in the world in the Transparency index in 2013, but since the coalition government has been in power, we have dropped to 13th. This is still an enviable position, especially after I was confronted by a response about that fall, by the former Syrian Minister, Abdullah Al Dardari. While on a panel in a workshop at the IACC conference, he gave an amused response to my query about how Australia should proceed. “I will take Australia at any time now … this is a different planet, what you are talking about … 13th, [we’ve] never been 150th”. While many in the audience laughed, context on the international scale can be quite sobering. (Just in case you were curious, Syria comes at 178th, so you can see why the ex-minister suggested my concerns were “from another planet”.) Still, we are not without our battles to seek better from our governments regarding transparency and the absence of corruption.

As Denmark and our own experience demonstrate, being amidst the top end of the transparency index doesn’t mean our governments and banks and institutions will not make every effort to “rob you blind” and quite literally, “rob the dead”.

What we may never of heard.

Corruption still holds sway in robust democracies with independent judicial and media oversight. Were we in Syria, it is unlikely we would even hear of banking scandals, much less have any official inquiries. Nor might we have heard that Peter Dutton made $5.63 million from direct subsidisation of his childcare facilities for which he voted. Perhaps it didn’t occur to him there was a conflict of interest? Nor might we have heard of his submission to build a third childcare unit, which is a remarkable interest in children despite his ongoing and robust resistance to other children in his care receiving medical care. Perhaps his interest is not the children, one might speculate?

Helicopter scandals, perks & privileges should face ICAC

Nor might we hear about:

Bronwyn Bishop’s questionable use of helicopters;
The $443 million been given to six people in a laughably named group called the “Barrier Reef Foundation” to get rid of money that might jeopardise an “on paper” budget surplus proposal;
Tony Abbott’s enormous expenses claims, or just about any politician’s expenses nowadays;
Susan Ley’s coincidental and very rapid decisions on the purchase of Goldcoast property while funded by parliamentary travel entitlements;
Assistant treasurer, Stuart Robert’s family company, in receipts of 356 government contracts worth more than $37 million;
Or again, Stuart Robert’s elephantine internet bills;
David Gillespie’s postal office profits which were the subject of an unsuccessful reference by Labor to the High Court.

I am stopping here although I am sure dear reader you can find many more.

Whereas attempts to pork barrel electorates whether it be Barnaby Joyce or a Wentworth by-election will always receive high publicity under any regime as long as it was positive and complimentary. Negative stories like Joyce’s condemnation of women to cervical cancer deaths would, of course, be wholly suppressed where less robust protections for journalists exist.

We are not Sryia, but…

Corruption is multifaceted and has high-level impacts of any country, and even if we are not the worst, we are infected by its influence.

So we are not Syria. We do hear of, or have a public reaction to, and legal stoushes over, the apparent corrupt conduct of our political leaders, banks and institutions. And with respect to Abdullah Al Dardari’s entirely appropriate observation that we in Australia are “on a different planet”, compared to what he has had to battle in his roles in Syria and later the United Nations, it is a fight none of us should relinquish because there are darker shades of grey. To have fallen to 7th to 13th on the international transparency index – although to over a hundred other nations that is still enviable – it is indicative of a systematic weakening of our democracy. We are on a downward track which our government is responsible for, as are we who do not hold them accountable. We are a lucky country compared to so many, and ours is an elevated state we have taken for granted. For a long time, we’ve remained politically disengaged, proud of apolitical inclinations, unwilling to take stand over the dinner table on behalf of the struggle of others, lest we offend our privileged white neighbours. We have paid scant attention to the slippage that once it gains momentum, will career downwards unless we put our backs against our pedestal and push hard.

Do unto refugees

June 23, 2018 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Australia, a world leader in child abuse.

Deterring and imprisoning asylum seekers is gaining popularity in the western world. Punishment by separation of children from parents now has occurred in both Australia and America invoking community backlash. Many are unaware such practices have a long history in both countries. America forthwith will follow Australia’s indefinite detention practices, even as Trump repudiates his policy on separation of children from parents. These practices contravene the Refugee Convention to which both America and Australia were signatories. Dutton’s commentary emphasised the desire to be rid of this troublesome convention. He commented, “I think there is a need for like-minded countries to look at whether a convention designed decades ago is relevant today”.

I want to examine the relevance of international principles that underpin our history of refugee conventions versus “deterrence” against refugees and their smugglers. As I write this, it is Refugee week, so it is an ideal time to investigate the principles behind “deterrence”.

Human Rights convention

On the 10th of December 2018, Democratic Nations worldwide will celebrate the 69th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Australia’s longest serving Prime Minister, Robert Menzies (a man no one will mistake for a soft-hearted humanitarian) signed the UN Refugee Convention on January the 22nd, 1954. Prime ministers that followed him, both Tony Abbott and John Howard spoke of him being the father of modern Australian Liberal ideology. The former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser would have argued that in the 21st century, the Liberal “apple” has rolled a long way from that “tree”.

As we recall Human Rights Day, we will have long distinguished ourselves as the least compliant signatory to the Human Rights convention amongst any western democracy. When even North Korea can legitimately accuse us of human rights abuses, you know we have moved to the “dark side of the Force.”

Internationally speaking, things have taken a turn for the worse since World War II. We have now reached a point where both America and Australia are actively abusing people, including children, who have fled from torture and prospective death in their own country. Some have even died within our offshore gulags and deaths have already featured in Trump’s “zero-tolerance” regime. I want first to outline some historical legal cases which illustrate how international courts have responded to the idea of subordinating human rights to achieve political ends.

The German Autumn

Following the days from 1970 to 1977 clashes between the Red Army Faction (RAF) with Germany culminated in the “German Autumn,” and the kidnapping and murder of industrialist Hanns Martin Schleyer. Brett Walker delivered a speech to the annual Dinner of the Civil Liberties Society on Friday the 24th of November 2017 in Sydney in which he described the events of the German Autumn. The Germans had resisted the kidnapper’s demands. Schleyer’s son after failing to pay the ransom privately in part due to both inadvertent publicity and the German government’s reluctance then sued the Government in an attempt to save his father. The principle invoked was the invariable nature of human dignity by which he called on the government to make an effort to save his father’s life. The specific implication was that nobody should use another, as an instrument or means, to achieve an end. This included hostage-taking with demands. The court rejected the son’s claim in less than a day, and within days, his father was killed. Standing up to hostage takers has consequences.

Aviation hostages

In 2006, the constitutional court in Karlsruhe received a complaint from flight crew staff about the decision that the government had justification in shooting down aircraft held hostage in the air under the ironically named “Aviation Security Act”. The Bundesverfassungsgericht declared that legislation which would have allowed the German Air Force to shoot down hijacked passenger planes was unconstitutional and as a counterproposal reinforced the constitutional right to life and human dignity.

In reviewing the decision, the court would not accept the argument by the government that the passengers were very probably soon to die anyhow. They instead held to another principle, that the State could not reduce passengers and crew to the status of “objects” they can kill at the pleasure of the State, no matter the amount of time the people, may or may not, have left to live. The court essentially held that human life should not be used as a bargaining chip or as instruments to achieve an end of preventing the possibility of further deaths. Presuming that one would then be as guilty of the Machiavellian principle that the “ends justify the means“, which is, of itself, the ploy of hostage taking.

Machiavelli versus the Golden Rule

The categorical imperative in a civilised society is that we should act in a manner towards others that we think can, and should be, applied universally. Brett Walker espoused the principle that one should “do as you would have, you and everybody else, done by.” To extend this principle, it would mean that one would never abuse fellow inhabitants of this planet as instruments for some political end or project. The welfare and dignity of people is an end, but never a means by which you should cause one person or group to suffer to produce some advantage for others.

Instead, an alternate approach has been pursued with vigour and enthusiasm by recent immigration ministers such as Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton. Successive Australian governments (supported by the electors who have repeatedly voted for them) have created policies, legislation, and facilities, which are deliberately designed to mistreat and hold refugees and asylum seekers in conditions that we would not subject criminals in our internal national incarceration system. All designed and executed for the declared purpose of “deterrence.”

If punishing the innocent is the law then the "law" is criminal. — If punishing the innocent is the law then the “law” is criminal.

Under criminal law, the idea of “deterrence” is to sentence a legally convicted person, in a such a way as to deter others from committing such crime. It serves idealistically to deter the convicted person from re-offending. What is not part of the principle, is the notion of taking people who are not guilty of a crime and have not been convicted of having acted criminally, and visit upon them adversity and punishments to deter and modify other people’s conduct. That is abuse to use innocents as a means and abrogate their human dignity as an end.

Other democracies handle refugees far more efficiently and with less abuse than we do. But this perversion of law, criminality, morality and deterrence did not merely begin here with the likes of Howard, Ruddock, Morrison and Dutton! In fact, they have refined the “art” of this deliberate moral bankruptcy to heights which previously only totalitarian dictatorships or regimes have practised. Our pathway to abuse instead began with far humbler utterances from the lips of Labor politicians.

Queue jumping

While Keating is often attributed with the “queue jumping” rhetoric, the source of this phrase came from Immigration minister, Michael MacKellar, in 1977 in a Radio Australia broadcast. While Malcolm Fraser was attempting to placate the fears that hordes of Vietnamese “boat people” were descending on Australia, the Labor Party was busily trying to capitalise on fears about this “unchecked invasion”. Herein lies the original authorship of the fear mongering, which was eventually to become the backbone of refugee policy in Australia. Back then, the Australian public’s reaction, though cautious, was a far cry from the response of this century.

Bob Hawke and Paul Keating continued Labor’s negative attitudes towards refugees when they decided to use mandatory detention for asylum seekers at Port Headland, WA. This deterrent detention was the next step in both perspective and action. That act being detention of Cambodian refugees who arrived at Pedder Bay in November of 1989. They were held till 1992 while the government tried in vain to exclude these asylum seekers from seeking justice and the rule of law in the courts.

Like most immigrants, once allowed in and embraced, they became highly productive members of the Australian community. Up until that time, the maximum period of detention allowed for refugees had been 273 days. That limit in the Migration act was removed in 1994, paving the way for the era of indefinite mandatory detention. Similarly Trump’s executive order on June 20th – presumed to be reuniting families – seeks indefinite detention of families as a challenge a 1997 law that limited immigration detention to 20 days. (See Flores v. Reno).

Racism as policy

The success of Pauline Hanson’s racism in 1996 and the rhetoric of Phillip Ruddock in treating refugees not just as “queue jumpers”, but as cunning manipulators of peoples sympathy with an evil intention; marked a change in Australian attitudes. [Pg 31] The implication is that refugees sought to reap the rewards of an Australian Economy, steal our jobs out from underneath Australians, and then use their consequential “enormous wages” to finance terrorist plots against our nation. Not only does Australia’s falling wage rates make this unlikely, but the patient absurdity of the argument that traumatised people fleeing for their lives – often with their children – were even capable of such manipulation, was surprisingly and naively accepted by the public.

The proposition that terrorists hide out in detention centres was absurd back then and still is. Myths like these grew in number over time. Until the emergence of Pauline Hanson, it had not dawned on the political party system that racism inherent in public policy was a vote winner. John Howard realised that he could leverage refugees to acquire political power, which he did as a boat named the Tampa approached Australia. In particular, his use of the meaningless phrase “illegal immigrants” helped reframed the public debate to John Howard’s advantage in August of 2001.

The Pacific solution.

The Pacific solution followed in September 2001 as Howard opened offshore gulags on Christmas Island, Manus Island, and Nauru. After Howard lost government to Kevin Rudd, that new government closed them down. When Rudd lost leadership to Julia Gillard, she reopened them, and once Tony Abbott became PM, he massively escalated the usage of offshore detention.

On his ascension, Malcolm Turnbull did little to change anything by way of policy; he did allow Morrison and Dutton to leverage legislative control of these gulags. The relish with which Dutton justifies the Government’s actions on Manus beggars belief. Given that even the vaguest sense of decency would suggest, “deterrence” ought only to be addressed, at least under the pretence of regret.

Drowning in moral ambiguity.

It's not that complex to support children — It’s not that complex to support children

If we did in any honesty, believe that preventing “drownings at sea” was a moral imperative, then indeed we would be doing what is being done privately by individuals with large boats in the Mediterranean Sea. We would be sending boats to rescue these people, rather than stopping their boats, turning them around and returning them to danger, which is what the Navy now does to prevent “drownings at sea”.

We should also most certainly be addressing the issue of why such people have a well-founded fear of persecution. One so strong, it leads them to seek protection on foreign soil in the first place. We would be spending money at the UN addressing the veto factor or refusing to engage in the sort of bombing and attacks on overseas middle-eastern targets that create push factors that generate asylum seekers.

The notion of leveraging human beings to achieve an end to stop the boats and prevent deaths at sea is comparable to the tactics of hostage-takers in the 1970s. Our government is holding an innocent population hostage to achieve a goal at which they are, evidently, unsuccessful. Claims of having stopped the boats have turned out to be exaggerations or spin. Boats filled with refugees seeking asylum are still “setting sail” to come to Australia as recently as last month. The illusion, however, created and maintained by the government’s response, is to either intercept the boats; pay off the “captains” to turn the boat around; or simply to declare that successful arrivals – when they do arise – don’t count as “arrivals“.

The End – does not justify the means.

The end is not justified by whatever means are applied to achieve it. Instead, it’s the acts of compassion that define a civilised society, when they are brought to bear as the means to address an issue and achieve a goal with justice. And that, Mr Peter Dutton, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, Mr Jeff Sessions and Mr Donald Trump, is something which benefits all members of a community, old and new, and which has never become outdated.

Save

Banning Muslims

August 12, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 1 Comment

Calls to ban Muslim immigration are irrational and economically unviable since Australia’s Muslim community, and tourist visitors have brought peace and prosperity — not terrorism.

Our Australian borders, “Girt by Sea”, apparently, require strict border protection. Is the Government’s security claim justified and should we ban Muslim immigration?

In the light of fears expressed by Sonia Kruger and Pauline Hanson calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and Morrison and Dutton’s harsh detention policies for any desperate enough to approach our shores, justified?

Asylum Seekers are not Terrorists

All despite no asylum seeker arriving by a boat ever being implicated in political terrorism in Australia! Yet “Reclaim Australia” adherents and government MPs keep raising the fear levels. They imply terrorists are trudging from country to country, risking life and limb in leaky fishing boats for the expressed purpose of carrying out terrorist acts. Hiding as victimized refugees defies logic, rationality, and common sense, especially when it is easier to fly in simply. This really this is seriously the type of expressed argument by politicians like Cory Bernardi, Jacqui Lambie, Pauline Hanson and George Christensen.

The closest thing to any “Muslim terrorist” we have experienced in the last decade flew in on a comfortable plane on a business visa with the expressed approval by the conservative Government of the day. Granted a protection visa in 2000, Haron Monis became a citizen in 2004. Aside from having a criminal & psychological history and fallouts with the Australian courts for implications in crimes, it was evident that Man Haron Monis only thought of using the “terrorist” angle for his actions in the Lindt Café, as an afterthought. His request for an ISIL Flag to be brought into the cafe reflects the lack of intent of an organised act of terrorism, and is more accurately described as a “violent rampage by a narcissistic and mentally unstable man”.

Perhaps we should stop cutting mental health programs as a mitigating effort? Even if you do consider this an act of political terrorism, (and let’s generously give it the widest definition possible), the death of one person (the police killed the other person) might bring the death toll due to “terrorism” in Australia to five. That number includes the 1978 Hilton Hotel bombing (which killed three) and perhaps adding the Turkish consul-general murdered in Sydney in 1980. Adding this murder as a “terrorist death” is stretching credibility.

It’s hard to manufacture any numbers of significance for actual terrorist acts in this country. Of course the strict interpretation of section 100.1 of the Criminal Code’s definition of a “terrorist act” would suggest only the Hilton Bombing is relevant. If you count world-wide terrorist deaths of Australians killed since the 1978 Hilton bombing, then only 113 deaths are represented. At an average of 3 a year, frankly horses kill more Australians (at a rate of 20/yr). I curiously await the announcement of the closure of the horseriding, rearing and racing industry and sport. Really? <sigh> We tend to become hysterical about hypothetical possibilities, while inadequately dealing with more prominent causes of mortality. (i.e. women’s deaths from domestic violence).

Domestic Terrorism

Australia spends billions on the negligible threat of “terrorism”, while our conservative government had reduced by $300 million the amount we spend on risk mitigation for domestic violence. Kate Stone reported 79 Women were killed last year yet while resources for domestic violence have shrunk, counter terrorism measures for the theoretical possibility of death, has increased by $1.2 Billion in 2016.

White Terrorism

Frankly, the most significant post World War 2 loss of lives on Australian shores due to a single individual was accomplished by a blue eyed, blonde, Caucasian (non-Muslim) man at Port Arthur named Martin Bryant in 1996. Before that, there was the Queen Street Post Office massacre by the Catholic Caucasian Frank Vitkovic who killed nine people (from which the term “going postal” entered the Australian vernacular). In the same year, 1987, the right-wing Caucasian non-Muslim Australian Army officer, Julian Knight killed seven people. In fact the more you examine the history of massacres in Australia (and in particular the ones before the World Wars), the more you realise the real profile of mass killers is very similar to the American experience. The lessons are, restore mental health programs and beware of white, Catholic, right-wing, non-Muslim Caucasians!

We are content to ignore the fact that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are peaceful law abiding citizens, who are more often the victims of radicalised elements within their society. They have a greater risk of death by terrorism than any non-Muslim Australian.

That doesn’t include deaths instituted by the Western government’s ‘war on terror’ which estimates have put at 4 million people.

So many terrified of so few

Yet death by Muslim terrorist rates as a fear that preoccupies our social media chatter, our racial vilification, our TV talk show conversations. Our irrational fear of barely 2% of our population who are Muslim (a third of which are Australian born) is odd in the face of so many other more fatal causes.

Between 2003-12 the ABS recorded a few causes for deaths many of which were outlined in Crikey’s article. Still, we will spend billions on anti-terrorism.

Are you a Muslim?

With the return of prominent racial vilification on the national political agenda with Hanson’s “One Nation” party returning to power, new calls for action have emerged.

The proposal that we should lock out Muslims from entering our country poses some significant issues. Not unlike the Donald Trump response to the threat of ISIL by locking down borders to any Muslims, the identification of Muslims is problematic. Given Muslim culture is expanded by conversion and spans beyond typical skin colour demographics, do we adopt the Trump methodology of discerning Muslim identity by having Border Force, ask each entrant “Are you Muslim?”

Would we oddly expect a person who is entering the country intent on doing us harm to answer honestly? Who would we then stop? How would Sonia Kruger’s ban be implemented?

Are you a Refugee?

Muslims enter the country as refugees, immigrants, or for education, business or tourism. Refugees & immigrants, historically, add considerably to the economic welfare of our nation. Not only do this asylum seeker population NOT generate terrorist incidents, but they do create economic wealth in Australia (and not by taking jobs so much as creating them). The example of Karen refugees making $40m worth of contributions to the economy in Nhill, Victoria, is a classic case. Spending 1.2 Billion a year to keep them in detention, when they could be boosting our economy by millions is wasteful. So, if it is not refugees that are a threat, then what of the alternative group that fly in on a plane every year? Which industry in Australia are we prepared to damage to allay our fears?

Of the 7.78 Million visitors to Australia, for reasons of holidays, business, employment or education; many originate from Muslim countries.

Tourism.

While Tourism from Japanese has been decreasing, Asian and Muslim countries have been on a long running increase.

In 2015, visitors from Malaysia (with a 61% Muslim population) generated $1.1 billion in total expenditure. Indonesia (with an 87% Muslim population) generated $0.6 billion and the Middle East (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates with a combined 82% Muslim population), about $1 billion. ¹

Tourism Queensland has been marketing to Arab travellers for quite some time and definitely would find Queensland’s Pauline Hanson’s call for a ban, detrimental.

Education.

International students contribute $19.7 Billion to the Australian economy and while Islamic students tend to concentrate their numbers at the Universities of Melbourne, Griffith and the Western Sydney, preventing Muslims from participating in Australian education would have a significant economic impact. If – like the Australian population – Muslims represent less than 2% of university students, then we might be discussing a $400M hit to our economy.

Business

Then there are the business and 457 visas, which facilitate Muslims entering the country for employment or trade. Trade for goods, services and technology with the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) is a $16 Billion industry.

The Economic rationalisation?

The question we need to ask is how much of the billions of dollars in tourism, education and business markets are we prepared to sacrifice or adversely affect? All this in the name of a hypothetical possibility, we haven’t seen actualised in 38 years? If we’d only stopped sabotaging funding for mental health programs perhaps we’d have less murderous events we like to call “terrorism”, inappropriately? To what extent will we lock out the Muslim world from Australia because of this disproportionate fear? I thought true conservatives sought to be prosperous, measure real risk rationally and be economically responsible? So why choose an economically irrational and highly expensive path based on an obscure risk with negligible statistical occurrences? Will the Coalition Government ignore it?

——//——–

TTF submission into the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade inquiry into trade with the Middle East – Nov 2014

Growth Rate Indicators

June 24, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

With many economic indicators over the past few years showing a downturn as Alan Austin has pointed out, it interesting that growth in the economy is a mantra for the conservatives. The LNP government’s assertions inherent in their three word slogan of “Jobs and Growth” presumes we are experiencing these in certain quarters. Let us begin examining a few.

Australia’s net population growth is still positive. Moving steadily from 19M in 2000 to 24M in 2016. The net populations growth by itself is the product of accumulated ebbs and flows. For example, in 2012-13 a total of 91,761 people indicated that they left Australia permanently. Many of them professionals but only half of them were actually born overseas. A concern for the department of immigration which sees it as “a loss of skills and experience as well as a loss of social investment in fields such as education, training, health services and settlement costs of immigrants”.

Diminishing population growth rates in Australia

The growth rate per year although, has been decreasing over time. From it’s highest point in 2008 of 1.22% it had fallen steadily to 1.09% in 2014 according to Miguel Barrientos founder of IndexMundi. From this site other statistics from multiple sources have been garnered. Australian birth rates have been steadily dropping from 13.08 in 2000 to 12.19 per 1,000 persons in the population (per 1K/Pop) in 2014. Death rates since 2000, have been increasing as would be expected our ageing population dominating and rose to 7.07 per 1K/Pop in 2014. So why, with thousands leaving, a growing death rate and slowing birth rate do we have a steady total Australian population growth? The answer to that and the anomaly of change you may have noted between 2007 and 2008 on all the graphs, is migration. The influx in migrants, whether they be asylum seekers, visa holders or all manner of foreigners, maintain our growth. Much to the ire of many red-neck Australian “tea party” proponents who would rather we send even more “back where they came from” than the 91K we lose in a year. While the Department of Immigration is optimistic that net migration rates will increase in the future – and has published optimistic forward estimates figures – the actual historical statistics shown no such trend. Net migration rate which was at 5.74 immigrants per 1K/Pop in 2014, has been steadily decreasing since 2008 when it was 6.34. Despite the annual departures without the larger influx, the total Australian population growth might be in serious decline. Given the financial, social and intellectual contribution the likes of migrants, including asylum seekers, have proven to supply Australia, it remains economically irrational to be restricting their entrance. They don’t take jobs as that irrational argument by some protests, they create them. The example of Karen refugees making $40m worth of contributions to the economy in Nhill, Victoria, is a classic case. Spending 1.2 Billion a year to keep them in detention, when they could be boosting our economy by millions is both wasteful and sheer economic vandalism. Taken for reasons that have more to do with politics of fear mongering that is pandering to the emotional insecurity of a racist Australian population. It certainly has nothing to do with good economic management of a resource that is, desperate to be here and that we are blocking. So if we are socially & politically inhibited in using the resources of people to aid our economy, are we working well with the population we have in seeking to grow our net wealth?

Our economic results are reported as positive news. Recent quarters have shown Australia’s economic growth has beaten expectations. This is particularly good news especially after our total GDP dipped in US dollar terms from 2013 to 2014. Unfortunately the growth rate in GDP despite numerous fluctuations, has been showing a falling trend generally since 1999. GDP per capita although, has shown a stead increase over the same time. It looks prosperous, provided you fail to account for wealth inequality.

One of the noticeable absences from Joe Hockey’s Intergenerational Report (IGR) last year, was no indicator of the Gini coefficient (a normally standard reporting indicator in previous IGR’s for socio-economic impact of policies). The Australian National University has noted that wage inequality has increased steadily from early 1980s onwards [1] and ACOSS has noted an increase in numbers of citizens living below the poverty line.

Poverty numbers in Australia thrust upward to 2.55 million in 2014 (over .6 million of that being children). This continues the long-term trend of growing inequality in Australia. This factors certainly skew the per capita growth in GDP towards the already wealthy demographic.

So many conservatives hope the coalitions focus on Jobs and Growth is a progressive step in the right direction to shift the burden of growing poverty and provide jobs that can lift our limited growth population out of poverty. So are jobs the solution and have jobs increased? Scott Morrison is loudly boasting, “yes they have!” And if you want to retain that shallow positivist joy, this is where you should stop in your examination.

Participation in the labour force has continued to increase to just over 12.78 million in May 2016. It was just over 12.46 million when the coalition government came into power. Unemployment has of course increased while available jobs in the market have decreased. Jobs growth (according to the Coalition) of 300,000 since they came into power, is not actually keeping up with labour force growth, let alone expanding to overcome the decreasing population growth rate aforementioned. When you consider that we have just turned over 11 months of consistent part-time job increases measured against the fifth straight months of full-time job decreases, then it is not hard to know where the real “Jobs and Growth” are occurring.

When Scott Morrison got excited about apparent jobs growth in recent ABS statistics, he did not delve too deeply into their makeup. But isn’t any job even if it is a part-time one, at least “a job”? Probably not when it cuts you off from Newstart support but just like “Newstart”, still leaves you in poverty. The recent years have seen the rise of an unemployment problem called “the working poor”. A phenomenon where working families who are subsidised by wages, live below the poverty line. Another unique employment issue (even recognised by the Telegraph who have a reputation for a lack of sympathy for the unemployed) is the homeless but fully employed demographic. The National Coalition for the homeless claimed 44% of homeless people have jobs and that was a claim from back in 2009. Given that the ABS does not rate you as unemployed if you have worked for as much as one hour in a month, none of these homeless demographics register as “unemployed” but they do qualify as part of the “jobs growth solution” boasted about by the Liberals.

But at least if you have one of Joe Hockey’s “good” jobs (or your family needs a couple of them) and can afford a home, you have to be making some leeway? Chances are, if you are not a baby boomer who has finally paid off your home and retired, you are burdened by an enormous amounts of private debt. Millions of Australians are lumbered with housing debt. Private Debt zipped past our GDP to loom above it by over 123%. The over $2 Trillion in private debt is being chased by it’s little brother, “Foreign Debt” who has only grown to over $1 Trillion but has ambitions. Australia is already living beyond its means with faint ambitions by the average wage earner to grow their wealth.

It is therefore a shame that Morrison’s “growth” part of the equation doesn’t include Australia’s hourly rates of pay. These have been steadily diminishing over the term of this government. Even the Reserve Bank has expressed their concerns over the how wage growth has declined markedly in Australia over the last few years. What has been growing at a rate that is outstripping our economic growth – that Morrison can boast about – is housing. As the global property guide proclaimed. “House prices rose by 11.4% in Australia´s eight major cities during the year to end-Q3 2015 (9.72% inflation-adjusted), up from an annual rise of 9.23% in a year earlier and the highest y-o-y increase since Q2 2010, based on figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.”

So in summary, Debt and housing costs are growing but wages to afford the debt and housing is not. If I were to provide advise, it would be if you have a full-time job, don’t leave it. They are vanishing and there is only growth in part-time jobs. If all you can find is a part-time job, the chances of you descending into poverty are statistically significant. Don’t live in major cities. Given there are at least 8 times the number unemployed as there are jobs in the market, your chances of getting a job,- even a part-time one – are slim to none. Australia won’t allow highly motivated foreigners – like asylum seekers – into the country to boost our economy, as they have historically proven to do over decades. In fact we would rather spend billions abusing them in offshore gulags, then give them that opportunity. This is the price of being insular and parochial. Conservatives with a reputation for a love of money would rather spend billions on locking people up when you could be exploiting them to create millions. Am I the only one that is puzzled by this? So with a slowly diminishing rate of growth for population, GDP, hourly wages, full-time employment, and innumerable other economic indicators and a rapid rise in debts, housing prices, part-time employment, poverty and inequality, has it occurred to anyone that something is wrong here?

The record of the current government is laid out in its last three years of office. On July 2^nd you have a chance to ensure this continues. That choice is your’s Australia!

——–//——–

[1] “Is Inequality Increasing?”, Powerpoint Presentation for Parliamentary Library Vital Issues Seminar, 10 October 2012 by Peter Whiteford, Crawford School of Public Policy

July afterthought.

With a heavy heart, I have only one comment to add to this article in the July that followed that election.

Australia, you have failed again! <sigh>

Aylan

September 4, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The fate of Syrian refugees if we continue our abuse, our wars, our justifications.

When will we understand?
Our gulags need be canned!
When will we open the doors?
And release the prisoners of wars!
When will we try to seek?
To raise our voice and speak!
When will we find the truth?
Hidden by lies uncouth!
When will we acknowledge our race?
Has to answer a criminal case!
When will we open our eyes?
To the damage, we cause with our lies!
When will we finally believe?
All people equally grieve!
When will we seek to strive?
To have love – our hearts – to drive!

Not today, not here, not now
Till we make compassion a vow!
When there is nothing left to defend,
Only then, will all of this end!

…

We need to change who we are!

… (continued thoughts) …

I first saw the actual photo of this child in the wee hours this morning, as I was finishing off another article. Confronted by it, I wrote the poem above completing it around two in the morning, as I could not sleep. Having in some manner expressed my feelings I eventually crashed to bed. I woke as my son as usual jumped into our bedroom, begrudging his enthusiasm for being awake and alive. The image of this boy a few years older than my son haunted me. Once my son was at school, I began to explore his story. The image had gone viral and the reactions diverse. Some understandable and others are perplexing.

One reaction, which I have only recently become educated about, appears to be one of regarding it as “emotional porn” or “clickbait” and that somehow just mentioning it or how it makes us feel or what his death represents, dehumanises the boy. I would have thought it was exactly the opposite. It is the tragedy, the senselessness, and the horror of this, that humanises him in a way that we have not done, for thousands of refugees who died before this little boy.

I admit to having difficulties getting my head around this idea, so I am quoting someone else to try to get a sense of it and understand the objectionableness. It’s the use of the image of the boy as “a tool for others to use to promote or condemn anything“. (I am quoting here) We use images, stories, allegories from innumerable sources joyful, sad, uplifting and tragic to “promote or condemn” everything. How else do we as human beings address issues, build relationships between ideas, talk about life if not to illustrate it with our experiences, images, fears, loves, gut-wrenching retelling (in this case)? It is people’s visceral reaction to these pictures and the lobbying it generated that have induced Britain to announce intent to admit thousands of Syrian refugees into their country. It’s how we communicate as human beings. Why is this off-limits? How does this fail to give “regard to him as a human being“?

I tried to draw a parallel with the way our news services regularly show no regard for privacy to families in various breakdowns, calamities and dramas, in what the media benignly calls “public interest“. Perhaps it is the perspective revealed from our society’s turgid appetite for virtual reality shows and the manufactured breakdowns within them because it brings out the ugly underside of humanity. I understand why someone might object to these. These aspects of human behaviour, example and imagery that rarely have outcomes or influences that might elicit higher morality, compassion, an end to bullying, violence, war and oppression, that this story will. In fact, the former example seems to bring to the surface the racism, bullying and dysfunctional responses. This story is entirely about our regard for him as a human being and the tragedy of it all. Perhaps, although, it is all a matter of personal psychology. People who are genuinely altruistic react to such images and want to engage with it.

Personalities who aren’t altruistic, want to put it aside, out of sight and avoid being confronted with it. Then there are folks who are incapable of understanding emotional reactions at all. Which is a good segue to the official opinion of our prime minister, Tony Abbott? The political discourse is eclipsing human emotional response as Abbott attempts to twist this into fitting his agenda of “Stopping the Boats”. He sees its use as an instrument of political justification. Now there is someone who “uses this child’s image without regard to him as a human being”. (I am quoting again here) Social media has been understandably hostile to this suggestion.

Aylan’s image is becoming one of those seminal images like that of little Kim Phúc from the village of Trang Bang in South Vietnam running naked amidst other fleeing villages. It changed a nation’s attitude to the Vietnam War. Already the British government is reacting. Abbott and company seem unable to respond similarly. So aside from them, the rest of us are human, parents, grandparents and many of us capable of emotion and altruism. We must be the conscience, our leadership isn’t capable of, and rise to embrace this for the sake of the “Aylans” that will otherwise wash to shore. If only to bring about the sort of change the very scared little girl, Kim once did for America. While there is little we can to for Aylan or his family, Aylan’s death can have the power of life for thousands of Syrian refugees and given Brittan’s reaction, he already has.

In regards to Abdullah Kurdi, the father of Aylan as a human being and in regards to the feelings and rights of his family, he at least knows his son will be remembered and honoured. This tragedy, although, does not end here. Abdullah Kurdi has discontinued his efforts to go to Europe. He has lost both his children and his wife. He simply wants to take his family’s bodies back into the danger-zone he left to bury his family in Kobani. He also has stated he wants to stay there now, after having spent so much time and effort fleeing from there. I don’t think he cares anymore if he lives or dies by returning there. Some might think his returning there is suicidal and he probably would agree. In fact, were I him, and I had lost what he has lost, I would probably thank the first I.S. fighter I encountered in his troubled land, who put a gun to my head.

Kobane, Syria after the U.S. & Arab coalition planes bombed and ISIS militants attacked — Kobani, Syria after the U.S. & Arab coalition planes bombed and ISIS militants attacked

Kobane in Syria before the bombing of the city — Kobani in Syria before the bombing of the city

—//—

Postscript 2020

It has been nearly half a decade since I wrote this and still, Australian’s continue to mistreat refugees escaping from the horrors from which young Aylan and his family fled. His image touched the world, yet the refugee situation has worsened. In the two years, that followed 8,500 people drowned in the Mediterranean, 1,150, were children “. In October of 2019, Reuters announced “More than 1,000 migrants and refugees have died in the Mediterranean Sea this year, the sixth year in a row that this “bleak milestone” has been reached, the United Nations said on Tuesday.” And what of the memory and impact of Aylan? I have only this illustration to say everything I need to.

Save

Halal

August 12, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Halal certification was initially introduced so companies could export products into Muslim countries. It was instigated by large corporations seeking to make money from food product! Not by Muslims, but by large food producing companies wanting to make a profit. Are people making money off it? What a surprise, we are after all a capitalist economy but is anyone yet beginning to see on what side of the “Coin” this is occurring???

Even Liberal Party stalwart, Malcolm Turnbull MP, in reply to a boycotter, has reiterated government support for halal certification. He said:

“halal certification or preparation in no way changes the quality or safety of the food.”
“halal certification and associated fees are not taxes.”
“The decision by a food company to meet halal requirements is a voluntary decision.“
“Halal certification is not required to be declared on the label.“

All the certification means is that Halal food has been blessed, killed and prepared according to a few particular specifications. Your food that you buy at the supermarket is killed and prepared according to a few particular specifications called health regulations. The Muslim regulations are not that dissimilar except for the religious blessings although one could produce an argument for finding food certification a form of secular blessing. And we all know how that certification has been going since lax labelling laws allow frozen berries to be brought in labelled “Made in Australia with local and imported ingredients”. Given Abbott’s enthusiasm for FTAs, they will weaken Australia’s ability to maintain its safety standards. Berries this year, rotten meat last year and the horse meat scandals from the year before and Soy milk before that. It strikes me that rigid food specifications are a good thing.

What really funds terrorism in the East.

The Jewish community has food prepared according to a few particular specifications; it is called kosher meals. They have been doing it for generations here in Australia. It hasn’t been as financially remunerative for food companies the way. Halal food has though. Do you think for a moment if someone could monetise the kosher market they wouldn’t? People making money out of Halal food is a point of attack? People make money off selling un-healthy MacDonald’s foods. Get some perspective! And if you are really genuinely concerned that your money may be spent on something that might end up in an overseas terrorist’s hands, then stop buying petrol. What do you think is funding ISIS?

Then there is they that claim that halal slaughter is crueller than normal slaughter. Look, I could never work in a Slaughter house irrespective of how animals are slaughtered. I do get the animal cruelty angle but unlike myself (Yes I am a vegetarian) people eat meat. It is a fact of life (and in this case death) Is Halal slaughter any crueller than “normal”? Apparently, the RSPCA doesn’t think so. Quoting from their site (because you probably won’t bother using the link I have provided):

“The main concern with halal slaughter is whether or not pre-slaughter stunning is used. In Australia, the national standard for meat production requires that all animals must be effectively stunned (unconscious) prior to slaughter. The vast majority of halal slaughter in Australia (including at export abattoirs) complies with this standard, that is, all animals are stunned prior to slaughter. The only difference is that a reversible stunning method is used, while conventional humane slaughter may use an irreversible stunning method. The time to regain consciousness following a reversible stun may vary depending on the intensity of the stun. At Australian abattoirs, the aim is to ensure that reversible stunning is done in a way that depth of unconsciousness is sufficient to allow for the animal to bleed out and die before there is a chance of regaining consciousness.”

So exactly how does Halal or Kosher (which no one is carrying on about) food harm anyone? All this nonsense going to Bernardi is just feeding religious bigotry and has nothing to do with certification. References to Islam being a “medieval cult” or nonsense about how 2% of the population are about to convert our legal system to “sharia law” is completely off topic, irrelevant and not to mention absurd. (Bejesus, Abbott had over half the country behind him and can’t get half his laws passed. – sorry getting off point there) The religious hatred is a straw man argument to distract from what the inquiry is ñ in theory ñ supposed to be about – Certification for foods! What part of that don’t people understand? Quite a lot so it would seem.

Charlie Pickering on Cory Bernardi and The Anti-Halal Movement On ‘The Weekly’

While a healthy debate is always a way of thrashing ideas to the point that both sides will merely strengthen their resolve, comedy is a real ice breaker. If you are a supporter of the Halal investigation, then read and watch the clip associated with this story. Charlie Pickering went to town on Halal certification in a brilliant skit in “the Weekly”. If this post can’t help you then perhaps Charlie can.

Prisoners of War

January 2, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 1 Comment

Australia as a land of a fair go has had its fair share of Prisoners. Let’s face it that’s all we were to start with, a prison colony! So you’d think with that past we’d know how to treat prisoners. You’d think that if we set up detention centres for people we had to hold for one reason or another, there would be a historical preference for not being the complete bastards the English were to us. And in fact if you look at the guidelines for treating prisoners, you’d have to say, they get a fair go.

Australia’s Treatment of Prisoners

“GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PRISONERS” from the Australian Department of Justice.
“Correctional services in Australia seek to improve and maintain the safety of and confidence in the correctional system by managing prisoners consistently and with reference to the guiding principles that prisoners are:

Managed and contained in a safe, secure, humane manner.
Managed equitably, with recognition of their diverse needs.
Actively engaged to make positive behaviour change (inclusive of accessing intervention programmes, education, vocational education and work opportunities) with the aims of preparing them for their participation in and return to the community, as well as reducing re-offending behaviour.
Provided opportunity to make reparation to the community.
Managed consistent with the Acts and Regulations applicable to each jurisdiction, and the sentences and requirements imposed by the Courts.
Held at a level of security which is commensurate with the level of risk posed by that prisoner.
Where practicable, placed in correctional facilities with a regard to their community of interest and other support needs.
Supervised fairly and consistently with the aims of encouraging positive behaviours and maintaining security.
Provided with access to health care, to the same standard as in the community, in response to need, with an appropriate range of preventative services, and promoting continuity with external health services upon release.”

What we do in order to stop the Boats — What we do to stop the Boats

Now given that is how we are supposed to treat thieves, murderers and rapists in our community. Compare any of these requirements with what we treat people who have done nothing illegal and merely run away from people who act in the same manner as they which we deem imprisonable! We refer to these INNOCENT people as Refugees! We hold them for months if not years in multiple Gulags run by our country both inside and outside of Australia for longer than any nation who is a signatory to the Refugee convention does. During that time we abuse and mistreat them in a manner that would remind our diggers (if they were/are alive to witness our actions) of how another nation once treated them as prisoners of war. Certainly not the way we civilizedly treat our real criminals. We do this in the name of “stopping the boats” so they don’t drown. Really? We are concerned that they don’t drown? Well, how do other nations who are concerned that refugees don’t drown act?

This article (below) spoke of how Refugees are treated in other countries – not quite as evil and bigoted as us – and delivered to Gallipoli. That country ring a bell with anyone? Perhaps were we allegedly once fought for the freedom of ….. Umm … forget it; I’m sure such principles are long lost in this country … <sigh>.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/italy-saves-970-asylumseekers-abandoned-at-sea-20150101-12ga0r.html

Jail time

November 16, 2014 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

When someone suggests that they don’t have the slightest problem with the coalition’s asylum policies I wonder if they have a perspective on exactly how these asylum seekers are treated. Three reports have been generated about their treatment. The Human Right’s Commission produced one during the Labor administration and then another during the Liberal Administration of the Asylum camps. Then the Liberal Government commissioned an independent report on Manus Island (The Moss report). All of them said essentially that the treatment of Asylum seekers was appalling for a variety of reasons.

Given that seeking asylum is not illegal, therefore these people have done no wrong, so why is that treatment so much worse than those who have done wrong. If I were to commit murder and then be sent to jail for this crime, I would be given three square meals daily, I would have a comfortable bed to sleep in, in a secure, robust facility. I would be allowed exercise, reading, rehabilitation opportunities and all manner of facilities provided to me. Frankly if given a choice of my crimes, I would rather commit an act of violence, and it’s consequential jail term then suffer the fate afforded innocent people trying to escape violence. Consider what Australia normally considers a convicted prisoner’s treatment should be while incarcerated.

“GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PRISONERS” from the Australian Department of Justice.

“Correctional services in Australia seek to improve and maintain the safety of and confidence in the correctional system by managing prisoners consistently and with reference to the guiding principles that prisoners are:

1. Managed and contained in a safe, secure, humane manner.

2. Managed equitably, with recognition of their diverse needs.

3. Actively engaged to make positive behaviour change (inclusive of accessing intervention programmes, education, vocational education and work opportunities) with the aims of preparing them for their participation in and return to the community, as well as reducing re-offending behaviour.

4. Provided opportunity to make reparation to the community.

5. Managed consistent with the Acts and Regulations applicable to each jurisdiction, and the sentences and requirements imposed by the Courts.

6. Held at a level of security which is commensurate with the level of risk posed by that prisoner.

7. Where practicable, placed in correctional facilities with a regard to their community of interest and other support needs.

8. Supervised fairly and consistently with the aims of encouraging positive behaviours and maintaining security.

9. Provided with access to health care, to the same standard as in the community, in response to need, with an appropriate range of preventative services, and promoting continuity with external health services upon release.”

Now given that is how we are supposed to treat thieves, murderers and rapists in our community have a real look at how we treat refugees. Compare any of this requirement with what we treat people who have done nothing illegal and merely sought to escape from people who act in the same manner as they which we deem imprisonable! We refer to these innocent people as Refugees but treat them as worse than criminal! So how do we treat them?

Imagine if it were your child imprisoned?

Given what I read in the Moss Report (which is very carefully & legally worded and redacted), it still paints a horrific story. These children and their mothers mentioned in the report will likely never recover from the effects of their abuse. That our politicians allowed this abuse on their watch and were reluctant to investigate is reprehensible. Were it your children you would be screaming blue murder, but because it isn’t, we prefer complacency. It is very evident from the Moss report that if Sarah Hanson Young had not pressured Morrison to have Moss investigate the allegations and then, only do so to garner evidence (not found) for the unfounded accusations against Save the Children staff; that report would not exist. The redacted Moss Review report is available at http://www.immi.gov.au/about/dept-info/_files/review-conditions-circumstances-nauru.pdf Now keep in mind this is the government’s sponsored report NOT the Human Right’s Commissioner’s report. So if you are aligning yourself with some view that the HR report was “partisan” then what do you say about a report of even worse abuses produced and commissioned by the LNP Government?

While the official reports are a terrible indictment of what Australia has done in our name, and these are available for anyone to look up. The reality is that most people will not bother. On the other hand, a first-hand story told by a Mother in the camp may engage you and hopefully educate you. Click and read.

http://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2014/10/25/open-letter-living-the-hell-called-nauru/14141556001165