Why Tony Abbott’s appointment as Indigenous envoy was a diplomatic blunder and policy failure



File 20181119 44280 1l39pmj.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Abbott’s previous policies on Indigenous issues were characterised by funding cuts, exclusions and silencing – all of which makes his role as envoy highly questionable to Indigenous communities.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Alison Holland, Macquarie University

This piece is part of a series on race and racism in Australia. The series examines this complex and incendiary topic, and the role it plays in contemporary Australia. You can read the rest of the series here


When Indigenous Referendum Council member Megan Davis stood on the red sands close to Uluru and read the Uluru Statement from the Heart in May 2017, she was enacting a tradition steeped in Indigenous cultural and political significance.

It was not just a response to politicians’ requests to consult the Indigenous community on constitutional recognition, it was a powerful political act, enshrined in a message carried by elders and subsequently inscribed in art.

Following substantial months-long consultations, Davis, as envoy of the people, delivered a message to the nation concerning the resetting of “inter-tribal” relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Australia. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was an act of Indigenous diplomacy solemnised in song, dance and ceremony.

Megan Davis has called the government’s rejection of constitutional recognition ‘gutting’.
Peter Eve/Yothu Yindi Foundation handout

The history of Indigenous envoys

Historically, such ambassadorial moments were the glue of politics and negotiations between Indigenous peoples. They built cohesion and peace, facilitated inter-community exchanges and allowed for the settling of disputes.

As messengers, envoys were critical to this diplomatic mesh. Carefully selected, they were highly respected members of their tribes. They often possessed the ability to speak different dialects and were skilled negotiators. They were the bearers of important information, such as the deaths of leaders, appointments of successors and important gatherings and ceremonies like marriages, burials, corroborrees and initiations.




Read more:
Indigenous recognition in our Constitution matters – and will need greater political will to achieve


Given their significance, it is little wonder that many Indigenous peoples described former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s recent appointment as special envoy in Indigenous affairs as deeply disrespectful.

On every level this was an act of egregious political misjudgement, as many Indigenous people have been quick to note.

Why Abbott’s appointment was controversial

Not only was Abbott’s appointment hasty, ill-planned and unsolicited, it lacked a key requirement for the role – the wider support of his own community.

Beyond lacking all merit, Abbott’s previous policies on Indigenous issues had been characterised by funding cuts, exclusions and silencing. His Indigenous Advancement Strategy was criticised for its destructive consequences to governance within Indigenous communities. Someone who had caused such injury and grief in the past, stripped communities of their capacity for self-determination and seemed so lacking of respect in their own community was largely unwelcome.

There were some, however, who were willing to give Abbott the benefit of the doubt and saw an opportunity in his role.

For them, his task was clear. In accordance with tradition, he needed to come with models and messages of agreement-making and considered responses to the Indigenous peoples’ own message, as conveyed by the Uluru Statement. He needed to bring news of progress on constitutional recognition and the Makaratta Commission – the Indigenous-inspired body to facilitate agreement-making and help reset relations.




Read more:
A new way to recognise an Indigenous nation in Australia


He needed to engage in dialogue, be open to consultations, and most importantly, listen.

As Dennis Walker, the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority chair, believed, Abbott would come to listen to Ngarrindjeri about their concerns: economic development, stable governance and developing better relationships with non-Indigenous political leaders. For Jeffrey Newchurch, the Kaurna Nation Cultural Heritage chair, Abbott’s visit presented an opportunity to discuss important issues affecting them, like burials, social cohesion and how to build good intergovernmental relationships.

Yet, this is not how Abbott saw his job. Disregarding cultural protocols, he arrived with dictates and outsider rules, and a specific agenda aimed at improving school attendance and performance in remote communities.

Even in this, his apparent lack of knowledge, a critical trait of the position, was apparent.

Over a decade’s worth of reports into remote schooling have overwhelmingly stressed the connection between education, language and culture, and the importance of family and community involvement for children. Education programs succeed when Aboriginal people are the architects of their own policies and services. Partnerships between the people and governments must be based on local priorities, and these must be mutually understood.

The proposals Abbott arrived with – more police in the communities and learning in English – only demonstrated his ignorance.

Abbott’s ignorance was compounded by the impropriety of another white elder of his tribe. Earlier this month, news broke of Indigenous Affairs minister Nigel Scullion’s approval of grants to a fishing industry lobby group from a fund intended to address disadvantage in Indigenous communities.

Scullion transferred significant sums to the Northern Territory Amateur Fisherman’s Association to pay their legal fees in disputes over Aboriginal land claims.

As the former Indigenous affairs minister, Dr Jak Ah Kit, said, this was totally against the rules. Aboriginal elders are skilled negotiators of their resources, particularly their fisheries. There had been no consultations or efforts to negotiate with them.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion has defended his dispersal of grant money to a fishing lobbying group.
Chloe Erlich/AAP

Diplomatic blunder and policy failure

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s appointment of Abbott as special envoy was more than a diplomatic faux pas. It was a diplomatic blunder and a policy failure.

In foreign policy parlance, a diplomatic blunder results from a judgement blinded by bias and ignorance, while a policy failure is caused by behaviour that is both costly and has undesirable and unanticipated consequences.




Read more:
Abbott is quietly failing on his ‘PM for Aboriginal affairs’ promise


Abbott’s bias and ignorance are palpable and demonstrable. And the policies he pushed — more police in the communities and learning in English — would be costly in the human and economic sense. Investing in policies that aren’t wanted and don’t work will do nothing to reset intergovernmental relations.

Abbott and the federal government would do well to learn from the examples of deliberative and democratic governance demonstrated by the Indigenous political negotiations leading up to the Uluru Statement.

These negotiations demonstrated how politically astute Indigenous elders are. The network of regional dialogues were not about political platitudes of the sort Abbott said to the Anangu – “thanks for putting up with the invasion” — but a recipe for action.

Abbott could also learn from the likes of Megan Davis, whose diplomatic credentials, by contrast, are impeccable.The Conversation

Alison Holland, Senior Lecturer in Australian History, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Labor’s battery plan – good policy, or just good politics?



File 20181122 182059 wylcnu.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
With the right settings, Labor’s new scheme could benefit householders as well as the grid itself.
Shutterstock.com

Guy Dundas, Grattan Institute

Federal Labor obviously likes the politics of giving rebates of up to A$2,000 each to 100,000 households of prospective voters so they can install domestic batteries. But is this good policy that will support Australia’s transition to a reliable, affordable, low-emissions energy system, or is it just middle-class welfare?

The Grattan Institute has previously been critical of solar subsidies similar to this program. In 2015 we found that household solar photovoltaic (PV) installations driven by state and federal government subsidies cost Australia around A$9 billion. Many solar incentive programs were uncapped, and their costs blew out as the price of PV systems dropped rapidly.

The parallels with battery technology are clear: batteries may be expensive and uncommon today, but many commentators expect them to drop rapidly in price.




Read more:
Households to get $2000 subsidy for batteries under Shorten energy policy


More recently, my colleagues and I have lamented the Victorian government’s return to the bad old days of solar subsidies. Its Solar Homes program promises A$1.24 billion in subsidies over 10 years and would roughly triple the level of household solar in Victoria. Yet most households will be financially better off installing solar even without this subsidy. If fully implemented, it will be a great waste of taxpayers’ money.

The case for public subsidies for household batteries is stronger than for household solar panels. Batteries are better able to help cut the cost of the entire energy system and so don’t just benefit the people who install them – they also benefit electricity consumers more generally. By releasing stored power when most needed, batteries can reduce reliance on expensive “peaking” power plants that operate only at times of high demand. And they can reduce the cost of expanding network capacity to supply all customers at peak times.

By contrast, solar primarily eats into midday demand, which is already low due to the output of the large existing fleet of solar panels. While solar has historically reduced peak demand to some degree, the Australian Energy Market Operator considers that this effect is reducing as solar has pushed peak demand later in the day.




Read more:
Slash Australians’ power bills by beheading a duck at night


Impact of rooftop solar PV on peak demand.
AEMO 2018, The NEM Reliability Framework

In a perfect world, households would have enough private incentive to install batteries when they benefit the entire system. If households faced higher electricity prices at times of peak demand, they would be rewarded for reducing system-wide costs by installing batteries.

But we do not live in this perfect world. Governments are reluctant to mandate that households pay higher prices during peak periods, and retailers find it hard to convince households to accept these more complex tariffs. Cost-reflective pricing is unlikely to become widespread any time soon, meaning there is a case for public subsidy to household batteries – provided the subsidies are capped, and end when battery prices inevitably fall.

Using smart controls to coordinate multiple batteries can maximise their benefits. These so-called “virtual power plants” allow the controller to reduce a household’s draw on the grid at peak times, thus reducing costs for both the household and the system. Federal Labor should increase the benefits of its policy by mandating that people who receive a subsidy participate in such a scheme, and by targeting installations to areas where the network most needs support.




Read more:
Virtual power plants are in vogue, but they can be like taking a sledgehammer to a nut


On balance, federal Labor’s policy appears to be a sensible step towards a smarter, lower-emissions electricity grid. It can be tweaked to maximise benefits to the whole system, not just to the lucky households that get government assistance. And its cost is capped, which reduces the risk of the sort of cost blowouts that have plagued solar subsidy schemes.

Unlike some of the Coalition’s policies, such as its plan to underwrite new generation, Labor’s battery policy is likely to help rather than hinder Australia’s energy transition.The Conversation

Guy Dundas, Energy Fellow, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Grattan on Friday: Labor’s energy policy is savvy – now is it scare-proof?


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Hours before Bill Shorten delivered his energy policy on Thursday,
Scott Morrison’s office had circulated an attack.

Labor’s plan was for a “carbon tax”; the proposed subsidy for “pink
batteries” would leave households “$8000 out of pocket”.

It was a wild broadside that said much about how the government hopes
a massive scare campaign can be an effective front line weapon in next year’s election.

In 2016 Malcolm Turnbull declined to run a heavily negative campaign,
especially against Shorten personally. When things went pear-shaped he
was strongly criticised for his approach.

Tony Nutt, Liberal federal director at the time, speaking soon after
the election, defended the approach by saying research had confirmed
voters were sick of political aggression and wanted to see a positive
vision and plan. But others in the party were not convinced.

Labor, for its part, did very well with its “Mediscare”.

In more desperate circumstances and with a new leader, the Liberals at
the next election will go all out stoking fears. Morrison is a much
better negative campaigner than Turnbull ever could be: he delivers
lines sharply and is not troubled by inconvenient nuance.

The government, assisted by the cooling of the housing market, has
been stepping up its warnings about the effects on house prices of
ALP’s negative gearing plan. Labor’s proposed crackdown on cash
refunds from dividend imputation is also a ripe target, especially for
agitating retirees (although pensioners are exempt).




Read more:
Pensioners would retain cash refunds on franked dividends under Labor backdown


And now that Shorten has released the energy policy this week, the
Coalition is reaching back into the past for lines and spectres.

Labor’s promise to subsidise home batteries ($2000 for
households with incomes under $180,000) is dubbed “pink batts to pink batteries” to trigger memories of Kevin Rudd’s ill-prepared policy that cost several lives.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor went for the ultimate try-on, when he
posed outside the Tomago Aluminium Smelter in Newcastle and claimed
that “if all of Bill’s batteries were installed, it would keep this
smelter, this business, going for less than 15 minutes”. “Bill’s
batteries” are not, of course, aimed at powering Tomago.

The old line about the ALP putting a “wrecking ball” through the
economy with its policy is getting a fresh workout.




Read more:
Households to get $2000 subsidy for batteries under Shorten energy policy


In crafting its energy policy, Labor is drawing on different, more
recent history – the widespread support from the business community
and other stakeholders for the National Energy Guarantee that the
Coalition abandoned amid its leadership meltdown.

Shorten says a Labor government would try to get bipartisan agreement for a NEG, but not rely on doing so.

In an interventionist approach, Labor proposes an additional $10
billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation; its investments
would support large scale generation and storage projects.

Labor’s investment would be in renewables, pushing towards its target
of 50% of Australia’s energy coming from renewables by 2050. In
contrast, the government is planning early next year to have a “short
list” of dispatchable power projects, focusing on coal, gas and hydro,
that it will look at underwriting.

An ALP government would also provide $5 billion for “future-proofing”
the energy network – the transmission and distribution systems.

Labor’s energy policy is in the context of its commitment to a much
more ambitious emissions reduction target than the government has – a
45% economy-wide reduction by 2030 on 2005 levels, compared with the
Coalition’s 26%-28%.

This week’s announcement is about the energy
sector only – the opposition will release soon its climate change
policies to lower emissions in other sectors including
transport. The government, homing in on the 45% target, is conjuring up scares about the nation’s cattle herd and the like.

Labor claims its energy policy would drive power prices down; the
government says it would drive them up. In fact no one can be sure
what will happen in the next few years in a situation where we are
undergoing a major transition to a different energy mix.

Nor is it clear which side will win the coming debilitating round of the
energy-climate wars.

The ALP would be unwise to underestimate the power of the scare. On
the other hand, the government’s own policy looks like a
shredded garment now it has torn up the NEG. Its “big stick’,
including the threat of divestitures, and its promised “short list” of new
dispatchable power projects don’t really cut it.

Labor would be heartened by the early responses its policy is
receiving from business groups, despite their reservations.

In a crack at the government’s threat, the Business Council of
Australia welcomed “Labor’s commitment not to support heavy-handed,
intrusive changes into the energy sector such as forced divestiture”.

Most notable in the reaction of these groups, however, was their
hankering for the NEG.

The Ai Group said a revised NEG was “still achievable” and “would be
greatly preferable” to a government directly underwriting new
generation, versions of which were being proposed by both major
parties. The BCA was pleased Labor was taking the NEG to the election,
reiterating that it was “a credible, workable, market-based solution
to the trilemma of affordability, reliability and reducing our
emissions”. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry was
likewise encouraged by the reference to the NEG.

This indicates that Labor’s decision to include the NEG in its plan is
not just sound on policy grounds but is politically savvy. By keeping
alive the NEG option, Labor has reached out to business.

Surely many Liberals are now starting to think that far from giving
themselves a break against Labor by rejecting the NEG, they may have
put themselves at a serious disadvantage which could be hard to
overcome even with a fierce scare campaign.

This also raises an interesting question for after the election, if
Labor wins. Given the widespread support for a NEG, would a Coalition
opposition persist in rejecting it? Much would depend on the factional
make up of the Liberal party of the day.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Households to get $2000 subsidy for batteries under Shorten energy policy


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

A Labor government would subsidise households to install batteries as part of the ALP’s energy policy to be unveiled by Bill Shorten on Thursday.

If Labor wins next year’s election, it would provide from 2020 a A$2000 rebate for 100,000 households, with annual incomes of less than $180,000, to buy and install battery systems. It would also provide low cost loans.

The ALP puts its emphasis on boosting the use of renewables, in a policy that keeps the National Energy Guarantee – abandoned by the government in the leadership meltdown – as an option on the table. The opposition indicates it is prepared to implement the NEG but its policy is providing for the future if agreement on it cannot be reached.

The ALP estimates the battery subsidy would triple the number of battery systems in Australian households. The policy sets a national target of one million household battery installations by 2025.

“The massive boost will also help manufacturers scale up production and reduce their costs”, Shorten and energy spokesman Mark Butler said in a statement.

They said the ALP policy would “help Australians slash their power bills.”

“The Smart Energy Council estimates that new household solar and batteries would allow most homes to save more than 60 per cent off their power bills”, Shorten and Butler said.

“Australians love renewable energy because they know it saves them money and it’s good for the environment”, they said, pointing out that household solar installation had rising from 7000 homes in 2007 to 1.8 million today.

“Supporting the installation of more household battery systems is the next big step in helping families keep their energy bills lower. When the sun goes down, or when electricity usage is at its peak, consumers can draw on their own stored energy”, Shorten and Butler said.

They said this was good for both consumers and the environment. People gained more control over their power bills, and cheaper and cleaner energy would help Australia achieve 50% of power from renewables by 2030.

A Labor government would also invest $100 million in a Neighbourhood Renewables Program, so renters and people in social housing could benefit from cheaper and cleaner energy.

The cost of the battery subsidy and the neighbourhood scheme is estimated at $215.9 million over the current forward estimates. The costing has been done by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office.

Shorten and Butler said Labor would “establish community power hubs to support the development of renewables projects in local communities – such as solar gardens on apartment rooftops, community wind farms, energy efficiency upgrades for social housing and grants for community groups to pilot new projects.”

They said the new initiatives built on Labor’s commitments to crack down on price gouging by power companies.

Labor’s policy on energy would create thousands of jobs in the renewable industry, they said.

In a speech to be delivered on Thursday, Shorten stresses a Labor government would seek bipartisanship on the NEG.

“We want a meaningful NEG that actually lowers prices, reduces pollution, and boosts renewables” he says in an extract released ahead of delivery.

“If I am elected as prime minister, I will sit down with the new opposition leader and the crossbench to talk about a way we can move forward with this framework,”

“But let’s be clear: we will work with the Coalition – but we will not wait for them. Our willingness to cooperate on a market mechanism doesn’t mean everything else gets put on hold,” Shorten says.

He says a Labor government would be prepared to directly underwrite and invest in cleaner cheaper power.

“We will prioritise renewables and support firming technology power like storage and gas. Labor will invest in new generation, in better transmission and distribution – because we realize this vital nation-building work cannot be left up to the big power companies.” Labor’s plan would deliver affordability, reliability and sustainability, Shorten says.

Labor’s battery subsidy program would be reviewed after two years, in light of projected falls in battery costs and to assess progress towards the one million new battery installations by 2025 target.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

State governments can transform Australia’s energy policy from major fail to reliable success


Tony Wood, Grattan Institute and Guy Dundas, Grattan Institute

This week we’re exploring the state of nine different policy areas across Australia’s states, as detailed in Grattan Institute’s State Orange Book 2018. Read the other articles in the series here.


Energy policy in Australia is a major failure. The federal government has been unable to forge an effective policy to ensure affordable, reliable and low-emissions electricity. It’s time for the states to step up.

Internationally, responsibility for climate change policies rests with national governments. The federal government says it remains committed to Australia’s target under the Paris Agreement, but it has abandoned the emissions-reduction obligation of the National Energy Guarantee (NEG). This leaves Australia’s electricity sector, which is responsible for 34% of our overall emissions, with no credible policy to reduce those emissions.

The states should fill this policy vacuum if it persists. They should work together on a nationwide emissions reduction scheme through state-based legislation, independent of the federal government. A Commonwealth-led national policy would be best, but a state-based policy is far better than none.




Read more:
The too hard basket: a short history of Australia’s aborted climate policies


In October 2018 the COAG Energy Council agreed to continue work on the reliability element of the NEG. The states and territories should maintain this support and implement this policy with the Commonwealth government, and so support the reliability of the National Electricity Market during a challenging transition.

The Grattan Institute’s State Orange Book 2018 shows that there is also much the states can do to reduce energy prices. Consumers are understandably upset – household retail prices have increased by more than half in the past decade, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (see page 7 here).

How your state measures up on energy.
Grattan Institute State Orange Book 2018

The federal government is certainly focused on price – Prime Minister Scott Morrison has referred to Energy Minister Angus Taylor as the “minister for getting electricity prices down” – but many important pricing policies depend on state action.

Retail pricing is the obvious example. Poorly regulated retail electricity markets have not delivered for consumers. Retail margins are higher than would be expected in a truly competitive market. Many consumers find the market so complicated they give up trying to understand it.




Read more:
A high price for policy failure: the ten-year story of spiralling electricity bills


State governments should work alongside the federal government to help consumers navigate the retail “confusopoly”. Governments should require retailers to help consumers compare offers and get the best deal. They should also stop retailers using excessive pay-on-time discounts (which tend to confuse rather than help consumers and can trap lower-income households), and ensure vulnerable customers do not pay high prices.

However, governments should resist the temptation to use price caps as a quick fix. If set too low, price caps could reduce competition and drive longer-term price increases.




Read more:
Capping electricity prices: a quick fix with hidden risks


Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, which have not yet adopted retail competition, should move in that direction – while learning from the mistakes of others.

Network costs make up the biggest share of the electricity bill for most households (see page 8 here) and some small businesses. This is particularly an issue in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, where network values increased substantially under public ownership and those costs were passed on to consumers.

These states should write down the value of their overvalued networks or provide rebates to consumers, so the price of the networks is more closely aligned to the value they provide to consumers. Given the poor performance of publicly owned networks, any network businesses still in government hands should be privatised.

Responsibility for setting network reliability requirements should be transferred to the Australian Energy Regulator to prevent risk-averse state governments from imposing excessive reliability standards, which would drive up network costs again.




Read more:
Amid blackout scare stories, remember that a grid without power cuts is impossible… and expensive


Until recently, it seemed state governments had learned the lessons from the bad old days of excessively generous subsidies for rooftop solar. That was until August 2018, when the Victorian government committed more than A$1 billion to pay half the cost of solar panels for eligible households and provide an interest-free loan for the remainder. Most of these systems would pay for themselves without subsidy. The Victorian government should abandon this waste of taxpayers’ money.




Read more:
Policy overload: why the ACCC says household solar subsidies should be abolished


Finally, Australia’s gas market is adding to the price pain of homes and businesses. As international prices rise, there is no easy way to avoid some painful decisions. But some state policies are making matters worse.

The Victorian and Tasmanian governments’ moratoria on gas exploration and development constrain supply and drive up prices. The moratoria should be lifted. Instead, these states should give case-by-case approval to gas development projects, with safeguards against specific risks.

Australia needs reliable, affordable electricity to underpin our 21st-century economic prosperity. That must be protected while we also decarbonise the energy sector.

Energy market reform was at the forefront of national competition policy in the mid to late 1990s. But reform has since slowed, and the states are partly responsible. The states can rekindle the fire by pursuing a clear, nationally consistent action plan for affordable, reliable and low-emissions electricity.

Australia’s households and businesses – and the environment – are relying on the states to step up.The Conversation

Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute and Guy Dundas, Energy Fellow, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

View from The Hill: Scott Morrison eases refugee policy while talking tough


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

There is an interesting and notable point of detail about the “lifetime ban” legislation that remains a sticking point in the argument between the government and Labor over the resettling of offshore refugees in New Zealand.

The ban would not apply to the refugee children. The bill – which has so far failed the hurdle of the Senate – excludes anyone who was under 18 when transferred to a regional processing country.

So if the legislation were passed in its present form and people were sent to New Zealand, the parents could never travel to Australia but their offspring, if they later became NZ citizens, could eventually do so.

The row over the “lifetime ban” bill, which the government wants before a deal with NZ, is just one aspect in what is a complex set of manoeuvres to find an end to the limbo situation of the refugees on Nauru and Manus.

For years, their plight has been an international embarrassment. But now the government knows the issue is resonating domestically and Prime Minister Scott Morrison, pragmatic on this as on most else, accepts he has to do something about it and has already started to move quite decisively.

Admittedly the deal with the US under President Obama, which President Trump accepted under protest, is getting some people settled in America, but progress is slow and the number still modest.

Several Liberal backbenchers began to twist Morrison’s arm over the plight of the children some weeks ago. Morrison responded, with the sickest children quietly and fairly quickly removed to Australia.




Read more:
Government raises glimmer of hope for New Zealand deal on refugees


Saturday’s Liberal disaster in the Wentworth byelection, in which refugee policy was an issue, underlined the political necessity of being seen to do more.

Then Cathy McGowan and Rebekha Sharkie, crossbenchers in the House of Representatives, with a view to their enhanced clout in the coming hung parliament, further turned the screws with public comments.

By Tuesday even the Wiggles had joined the push, in a video appealing to politicians to “work together and get all the children off Nauru”.

Nauru is the focus, and the 52 children there. That was the number as of Tuesday, after 11 children arrived in Brisbane late Monday with their families – a contingent of 27 in all.

As part of the rapidly evolving policy, whole families are being transferred – there is apparently no attempt now to keep a parent in Nauru to try to get people to return after medical treatment.

The reality is that those coming here won’t be sent back.




Read more:
As children are airlifted from Nauru, a cruel and inhumane policy may finally be ending


Morrison told a news conference on Tuesday: “I’m interested in getting children off Nauru. Over 200 children have already come off Nauru. More children have already come off in recent times under the quiet, effective management of these issues that the government is pursuing. We’re not here to grandstand on this. We’re just here to get the job done.”

But the government wants to keep its rhetoric tough – both to retain a debating distance with Labor over border policy (which has served it well as political weaponry in the past) and to send as loud a message as possible to people smugglers and their prospective clients not to try to reopen the pipeline.

Labor is under pressure to pass the “lifetime ban” legislation – if it doesn’t, it will be cast as frustrating a deal with New Zealand.

The ALP has softened its opposition to the legislation, putting forward proposed amendments. It wants to see a guaranteed acceptance of a deal with NZ. It also says the “lifetime ban” should apply only to those settled in NZ, and it should be limited to the provision that allows open movement from NZ to Australia (thus these people would be allowed to make tourist visits here).

It’s not clear what Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton thinks about the present subtle but distinct policy shift. In Tuesday’s question time Dutton focused on 13 children on Nauru in families in which adults had been “the subject of adverse security assessments from the United States”.

If Dutton had been the victor in the August coup, very likely the policy movement now underway would not be happening.

Dutton, however, would contest the proposition there has been a shift, on the grounds that transfers happened before. But many of those were on court orders, or under the shadow of court action. And, as Morrison flagged, more are happening.

While the shift should be welcomed, it also should be kept in perspective. There is so far no deal with NZ – though there is great pressure to get one in place, through mutual compromise between government and Labor.

But even if the NZ deal comes to pass, on previous indications it would only involve a limited number – the offer was for 150 annually, and there are currently 635 people on Nauru including the children.

And in all the talk, the hundreds of single men on Manus hardly get a mention.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As children are airlifted from Nauru, a cruel and inhumane policy may finally be ending



File 20181023 169831 chyly1.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
If refugee and asylum seekers are not resettled in Australia, the humanitarian crisis will only worsen.
AAP/Jeremy Ng

Alex Reilly, University of Adelaide

Australia’s off-shore detention policy is unravelling. Predictably, after five years of detention, the mental health of adults and children who have been left in indefinite detention on Nauru is collapsing. On Monday, 11 children and their families were flown to Australia for urgent medical attention.

The New Zealand deal, under which some asylum seekers could be resettled in New Zealand as long as they are banned from ever coming to Australia, is now being seriously considered.

Good politics, bad policy

From the middle of 2013, when off-shore processing was re-started on Nauru and Manus Island, the Rudd government, and later the Abbott government, made bold and irresponsible claims that no asylum seeker attempting to enter Australia by boat would ever be resettled here.

This played well to an Australian public spooked by a dramatic rise in boat arrivals under the Rudd government between 2009 and 2013, and set the foundation for a policy that has systematically brutalised hundreds of innocent people.




Read more:
Same old rhetoric cannot justify banning refugees from Australia


The claim, in the name of deterrence, relied on hopes Australian governments would find places to resettle the asylum seekers and refugees on Nauru and Manus Island in other countries. But there was no plan as to where they might go and, predictably, resettlement proved very difficult.

An agreement with the Cambodian government failed because Cambodia lacks the capacity to resettle people of such different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

Malcolm Turnbull seemed to have stumbled upon a resolution when the Obama administration agreed to take sone refugees from Nauru and Manus.

The current US administration has resettled 276 people from Nauru and rejected a further 148. There may be more resettlements to come, but there is no clear timetable, and it will be a resolution for only some of the 652 people remaining on Nauru.

Inexplicably, the Australian Government has repeatedly rejected an offer from New Zealand to resettle 150 refugees there, fearing that people will take advantage of open migration between Australia and New Zealand and will end up resettling here.

Under renewed pressure from opposition parties, the government is reconsidering the New Zealand offer, but only if there is a travel ban preventing refugees ever coming to Australia. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has drawn, once again, on the tired justification that to allow asylum seekers any right of entry to Australia may encourage people smuggling.

Why the people smuggling argument does not stack up

The people smuggling narrative does not withstand reasonable scrutiny. How much cruelty to innocent people on Manus and Nauru is really needed to stop the boats?

A comparison with the Howard years is instructive. From 2001 to 2008, of the 1,153 refugees and asylum seekers resettled on Nauru and Manus Island, 705 went to Australia, 401 to New Zealand and 47 to other Western countries. Most were resettled between 2002 and 2004.




Read more:
Resettling refugees in Australia would not resume the people-smuggling trade


These resettlements were not followed by a resumption of the people smuggling trade. From 2002 to 2007, 18 boats arrived with 288 asylum seekers. In addition, one boat was turned back with 14 passengers.

What remained important for deterrence was the possibility of being detained offshore with no guarantee of being settled in Australia and New Zealand. Only when this possibility was removed (when the new Rudd government dismantled the Howard government’s offshore processing and turn-back policies) was there a dramatic spike in asylum seekers arriving by boat.

The message of deterrence is clear

The systemic cruelty of detaining refugees in offshore detention centres indefinitely has sent an unequivocal message to any asylum seekers who might contemplate seeking asylum in Australia by boat. No person would countenance subjecting themselves to the mental and physical trauma suffered by detainees on Nauru and Manus Island for the chance of receiving protection in Australia. And no parent would risk subjecting their child to a lifetime of mental illness.

The Australian government has proved its mettle. It is prepared to subject innocent people to the cruellest of punishments, to disregard basic principles of human dignity, and to ignore its obligations under international law. This is deterrent enough for any prospective boat rider.

Time to end an inhumane policy

It is well past time to resettle every refugee and asylum seeker on Manus and Nauru in Australia. If this is done while the policies of boat turn backs and offshore detention remain in place, this will not lead to a resumption of people smuggling operations. And if I am wrong in this, we can be confident of stopping the boats again, as the government did with startling effectiveness in 2001 and 2013.

It seems that the government may finally be softening its untenable hard line. With no other resolutions on the table, most of the refugees on Nauru and Manus must end up in Australia or New Zealand.

Until this happens, the mental health of refugees stuck on Nauru and Manus will continue to deteriorate, and courageous whistleblowers will continue to risk their employment revealing the brutality and trauma of conditions in detention.

All this pain and suffering, and economic cost, for a deterrent that is not needed.The Conversation

Alex Reilly, Director of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit, Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

View from The Hill: Energy policy and Turnbull’s leadership plunge into debilitating uncertainty


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The most fraught day of his prime ministership has seen the implosion of one of Malcolm Turnbull’s key policy pledges – to deliver certainty on energy policy – that only weeks ago seemed on course.

As Turnbull threw everything at shoring up his leadership, business critics denounced the compromise he unveiled to appease rebellious backbenchers.

His energy policy rework placated some internal dissidents, but the capitulation has left his authority weakened and the issue itself back in confusion. Stakeholders have been left dismayed and bewildered.

After the announcement, the government was insisting the National Energy Guarantee policy was alive, as some of its backbench critics were pronouncing its demise.

Asked “is the National Energy Guarantee dead?” Treasurer Scott Morrison said on Sky, “No, not at all. It remains government policy.” He told the ABC: “The policy remains as we took it to the party room with improvements.”

But Kevin Andrews, one of Tony Abbott’s close allies, told Sky: “The reality is that the NEG, for at least the term of this parliament, is dead in the water. There is more chance of seeing a Tyrannosaurus in the local suburban street than seeing this legislation come into the parliament.”

Turnbull’s energy compromise has two parts.

First, legislation to set the 26% emissions reduction target has been shelved, on the ground that a bunch of Coalition MPs would cross the floor.

Turnbull didn’t dare to risk the hazardous route of negotiating the legislation’s passage with Labor, which might have come to nothing but an embarrassing failure, and anyway would have incited the hardliners in his ranks. And a brief flirtation with implementing the target by regulation was abandoned after that caused its own backbench backlash.

Second, a set of highly interventionist measures will be rolled out for use against recalcitrant power companies, including the possibility of breaking up those which abuse their market power.

The initiatives are based on the recent report from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, but even the ACCC didn’t support divestiture.

“Requiring the divestiture of privately owned assets is an extreme measure to take in any market, including the electricity market,” it said.

It is certainly an extraordinary course for a pro-market Liberal prime minister to contemplate.

Notably, the Nationals were happy – they had been pressing for the government to take this route. As former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said with enthusiasm, it means “if you play up, we can break you up”.

So where is the great NEG adventure left?

Battered by political bastardy, with months of good work by Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg trashed. Without a legislated target. With less chance of an agreement with the states, which need to tick off on the mechanism. Throwing up fresh problems for investors and promising a continuation of the political climate wars.

As Innes Willox, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group put it succinctly: “Long-term investment certainty in the energy sector remains further away than ever. Despite the best efforts and goodwill of many, energy policy has again fallen victim to short-term political gamesmanship”.

And where is Turnbull’s leadership left, as backbenchers contemplate whether they would be better off under a Peter Dutton prime ministership?

No one quite knows.

Morrison told the ABC: “I spoke to Peter today in Question Time and he said his position hadn’t changed and he was fully supportive of the Prime Minster and the government’s policies.”

Just think about that. The Treasurer is asking (in question time no less) a senior cabinet colleague about his intentions.

Basically anything could happen, anytime.

On Tuesday morning, as chance has it, there is a separate Liberal party meeting, before the joint Coalition parties meeting. At the very least, it will be an interesting discussion. Whether more occurs, who knows?

On Monday night Dutton, the man on the leadership stair, was reportedly very angry after the Ten Network ran a story raising a question about his eligibility for parliament under section 44’s pecuniary interest provision.

Ten has said the story was not political leak, and the timing coincidental. But Dutton would naturally see it as a strike from the Turnbull camp.

If the next few days go quietly, Turnbull will live now from poll to poll, with enemies circling like crows over a weakened animal.

Those enemies could hardly have anticipated they would be able to do so much damage to him, in just a week, after a Coalition parties meeting that actually strongly endorsed the original NEG policy.

<!– Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. –>
The Conversation

They’re watching, waiting. If, or when they judge Turnbull is vulnerable – that he has lost his numbers – they are ready to strike. Now or later.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Yes, the US border policy is harsh – but Australia’s treatment of refugee children has also been deplorable


File 20180625 152164 l7lecu.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Villawood Detention Centre, NSW. There are currently 200 asylum seeker children in detention, in Australia and offshore.
Australian Human Rights Commission

Deborah Zion, Victoria University

US President Donald Trump’s policy of separating children from their families at the Mexican border has sparked outrage in recent months, both in the US and abroad. It became so heated that he eventually ended the separation of families, though their fate remains unclear.

However, Trump is not the only leader to incarcerate children and use their suffering as a form of deterrence. The detention of asylum-seeker children has a long and brutal history in Australia. Trump’s policy invites us to reflect on our own policies regarding the detention of asylum seekers and the situation of children and families fleeing persecution.

Currently, over 200 children are in asylum-seeker detention, including on Nauru, in mainland detention centres and in community-based detention. Many have endured prison-like conditions, with no clear date for their release for months, if not years.

While most children remain with one of their parents, my research has found that separation of families is common. This includes the removal of young men on their 18th birthdays from their families with no warning or follow-up as to their whereabouts.

The mandatory incarceration of asylum-seeker children is an uncommon practice globally. It contravenes important human rights instruments to which Australia is a signatory, most notably the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This states:

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily … (This) shall be used only as measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

The degree of despair felt by children and their families is well-documented and goes back many years.

In 2004, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) published A Last Resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention. This document outlined the privations of the lives of those held in detention centres in Australia, including the famous case of Shayan Badraie. He was detained for nearly two years, witnessing attempted suicide, self-harming and violence that resulted in several hospital admissions before the family was released.

The report also documents physical assault by guards, mental illness and lack of appropriate food, shelter and education.




Read more:
Accusations of deliberate, cruel abuse of refugee children must prompt a more humane approach


A Last Resort not only documents terrible human rights abuses, but the ongoing effects on those who experienced them. But, far from ending the incarceration of children and their parents, the policy of detention as deterrence has continued. In this regard, Australia is unusual, being the only developed country that imposes mandatory detention on people arriving by boat.

In 2014, the HREOC conducted another investigation, The Forgotten Children. This report documents in detail ongoing breaches of human rights, unsafe living conditions, medical neglect and physical and sexual assault.

Dehumanisation occurs on every level. One 16-year-old boy stated:

People were called by boat ID. People had no value. No guards called me by name. They knew our name, but only called by boat ID.

Children are also constantly exposed to the trauma of other detainees. One father said:

The word of “suicide” is not an unknown word to our children anymore. They are growing up with these bitter words. Last week a lot of women took action to suicide in Construction Camp. All the kids were scared and crying. How do we remove these bad scenes from our kids’ memories?

The report documents other cases of despair. A 13 year-old-boy detained on Nauru expressed to the treating doctor “a complete loss of hope; despair”. The doctor described how “[h]e had no appetite and no will to eat. He lost over 10 kilograms, which would be about a quarter of his body weight.”




Read more:
Sending children back to Nauru risks creating a generation of damaged people


The Australian government has tried to hide the conditions experienced by those held in places like Nauru and Manus Island. In particular, the Border Force Act (2015-17) imposed criminal sanctions on workers who speak publicly about what they see.

However, there is overwhelming and easily accessible evidence that Australia’s policies cause both immediate and ongoing trauma to children, and indeed all those incarcerated in detention. We must recall that Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention and that seeking asylum is enshrined in this instrument.

So while we can express moral outrage about things that occur far from home, our own policies ensure human rights breaches that cause unnecessary suffering and trauma for long periods of time.

There is now substantial evidence of the poor treatment of asylum-seeker children. This has come from a plethora of reports from human rights organisations, healthcare providers and detainees like Behrouz Boochani, who document and publish the conditions of incarceration.

The ConversationThey remind us of what the Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer said: “Do not be a victim; do not be a perpetrator; and above all, do not be a bystander.”

Deborah Zion, Associate Professor and Chair, Victoria University Human Research Ethics Committee, Victoria University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Here’s what a privacy policy that’s easy to understand could look like



File 20180606 137315 1d8kz0n.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
We need a simple system for categorising data privacy settings, similar to the way Creative Commons specifies how work can be legally shared.
Shutterstock

Alexander Krumpholz, CSIRO and Raj Gaire, CSIRO

Data privacy awareness has recently gained momentum, thanks in part to the Cambridge Analytica data breach and the introduction of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

One of the key elements of the GDPR is that it requires companies to simplify their privacy related terms and conditions (T&Cs) so that they are understandable to the general public. As a result, companies have been rapidly updating their terms and conditions (T&Cs), and notifying their existing users.




Read more:
Why your app is updating its privacy settings and how this will affect businesses


On one hand, these new T&Cs are now simplified legal documents. On the other hand, they are still too long. Unfortunately, most of us have still skipped reading those documents and simply clicked “accept”.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could specify our general privacy preferences in our devices, have them check privacy policies when we sign up for apps, and warn us if the agreements overstep?

This dream is achievable.

Creative Commons as a template

For decades, software was sold or licensed with Licence Agreements that were several pages long, written by lawyers and hard to understand. Later, software came with standardised licences, such as the GNU General Public Licence, Berkeley Software Distribution, or The Apache License. Those licences define users’ rights in different use cases and protect the provider from liabilities.

However, they were still hard to understand.

With the foundation of Creative Commons (CC) in 2001, a simplified licence was developed that reduced complex legal copyright agreements to a small set of copyright classes.

These licences are represented by small icons and short acronyms, and can be used for images, music, text and software. This helps creative users to immediately recognise how – or whether – they can use the licensed content in their own work.




Read more:
Explainer: Creative Commons


Imagine you have taken a photo and want to share it with others for non-commercial purposes only, such as to illustrate a story on a not-for-profit news website. You could licence your photo as CC BY-NC when uploading it to Flickr. In Creative Commons terms, the abbreviation BY (for attribution) requires the user to cite the owner and NC (non-commercial) restricts the use to non-commercial applications.

Internet search engines will index these attributes with the files. So, if I search for photos explicitly licensed with those restrictions, via Google for example, I will find your photo. This is possible because even the computers can understand these licences.

We need to develop Privacy Commons

Similar to Creative Commons licences under which creative content is given to others, we need Privacy Commons by which companies can inform users how they will use their data.

The Privacy Commons need to be legally binding, simple for people to understand and simple for computers to understand. Here are our suggestions for what a Privacy Commons might look like.

We propose that the Privacy Commons classifications cover at least three dimensions of private data: collection, protection, and spread.

What data is being collected?

This dimension is to specify what level of personal information is collected from the user, and is therefore at risk. For example, name, email, phone number, address, date of birth, biometrics (including photos), relationships, networks, personal preferences, and political opinions. The could be categorised at different levels of sensitivities.

How is your data protected?

This dimension specifies:

  • where your data stored – within an app, in one server, or in servers at multiple locations
  • how it is stored and transported – whether it is plain text or encrypted
  • how long the data is kept for – days, months, years or permanently
  • how the access to your data controlled within the organisation – this indicates the protection of your data against potentially malicious actors like hackers.

How is your data spread?

In other words, who is your data shared with? This dimension tells you whether or not the data is shared with third parties. If the data is shared, will it be de-identified appropriately? Is it shared for research purposes, or sold for commercial purposes? Are there any further controls in place after the data is shared? Will it be deleted by the third party when the user deletes it at the primary organisation?




Read more:
94% of Australians do not read all privacy policies that apply to them – and that’s rational behaviour


Privacy Commons will help companies think about user privacy before offering services. It will also help solve the problem of communication about privacy in the same way that Creative Commons is solving the problems of licensing for humans and computers. Similar ideas have been discussed in the past, such as Mozilla. We need to revisit those thoughts in the contemporary context of the GDPR.

Such a system would allow you to specify Privacy Commons settings in the configuration of your children’s devices, so that only appropriate apps can be installed. Privacy Commons could also be applied to inform you about the use of your data gathered for other purposes like loyalty rewards cards, such as FlyBuys.

Of course, Privacy Commons will not solve everything.

For example, it will still be a challenge to address concerns about third party personal data brokers like Acxiom or Oracle collecting, linking and selling our data without most of us even knowing.

The ConversationBut at least it will be a step in the right direction.

Alexander Krumpholz, Senior Experimental Scientist, CSIRO and Raj Gaire, Senior Experimental Scientist, CSIRO

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.