What’s the new COVID vaccine indemnity scheme? Two legal experts explain

Hau Dinh/AP/AAP

Bill Madden, Queensland University of Technology and Tina Cockburn, Queensland University of TechnologyOn Monday night, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a new vaccine indemnity scheme.

An indemnity scheme would mean health practitioners who are found liable to pay compensation for any serious adverse events suffered by people receiving COVID vaccines, will have the compensation paid for them by the Commonwealth of Australia.

Morrison also said if people under 60 wish to access to the AstraZeneca vaccine, they can “go and speak to their doctor”.

The media reporting that followed suggests there’s some confusion as to what all this means, for people and health practitioners.

So how does an indemnity scheme work, and does it provide any benefits to people in the very rare event they get a serious adverse reaction to a COVID vaccine?

Wait, what was announced?

Currently, Pfizer is the preferred vaccine for under-60s in Australia.

But the national cabinet media release said “GPs can continue to administer AstraZeneca to Australians under 60 years of age with informed consent”.

The expert panel of immunisation experts which advises the federal government has always said people under 60 can get AstraZeneca if the benefits are likely to outweigh the risks, and if they make an informed decision to consent.

---

Read more:
Under-40s can ask their GP for an AstraZeneca shot. What’s changed? What are the risks? Are there benefits?

---

The prime minister also said the new COVID-19 vaccine indemnity scheme “will provide confidence to medical practitioners to administer both AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines to Australians”.

The proposed indemnity scheme is designed to support health practitioners, and reduce real or perceived barriers to them administering the AstraZeneca vaccine to under-60s.

However most, if not all, relevant health practitioners already have indemnity insurance in place, either through private medical indemnity insurers or through their employers.

The proposed new vaccine indemnity scheme therefore appears to shift exposure to claims for compensation from the existing insurers to the Commonwealth of Australia. It’s unlikely to prohibit health practitioners being sued, for example, for negligent advice in relation to the risks and benefits of a particular vaccine.

It’s also worth noting this doesn’t just apply to GPs, but other health practitioners too, such as nurses.

What does the new vaccine indemnity not do?

The new vaccine indemnity doesn’t provide automatic access to the AstraZeneca vaccine for anyone who simply asks for it.

A health practitioner will use their professional judgement as to whether the AstraZeneca vaccine is suitable for a particular patient.

Some patients may have pre-existing conditions which make them unsuitable, and in those circumstances a health practitioner may well refuse to provide that vaccine.

It’s also worth noting individual health-care practitioners aren’t protected from facing complaints or disciplinary action if they engage in any unsatisfactory professional conduct. Perhaps seriously inappropriate advice or treatment could give rise to disciplinary action.

Are there new benefits for you?

Australia doesn’t have a no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme or bespoke COVID-19 vaccine compensation scheme. Countries such as the United States and United Kingdom do have such schemes, even if they are perhaps imperfect.

In these countries and some others, in the very rare instance you have a really bad reaction to a COVID vaccine and, for example suffer a prolonged or permanent disability, you can access compensation.

Some media reports interpreted Australia’s new vaccine indemnity announcement as including such a “no-fault” injury compensation scheme to compensate Australian patients who suffer adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

Adding to the confusion was that on Tuesday federal Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly mentioned such a scheme was coming.

Details of the proposed indemnity scheme have not been released. But the prime minister’s announcement made no direct reference to no-fault compensation.

Without a special vaccine compensation scheme, patients may only get compensation if a health practitioner fails to exercise reasonable care or acts in breach of Australian Consumer Law. Sometimes actions against vaccine manufacturers are also possible.

One exception might be an injury flowing from a vaccination related to someone’s employment.

In other words, compensation almost always requires fault on the part of the health practitioner or the vaccine manufacturer.

Could I get compensation without a vaccine injury compensation scheme in place?

There are existing pathways for people to obtain financial assistance when there’s been no fault on the part of the health practitioner advising or administering a vaccine.

Subject to meeting eligibility requirements, people may obtain sickness benefits from Centrelink, or in cases of persisting disability, a disability support person.

Financial supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme are also available, but only for people under 65 who suffer significant permanent disabilities.

In the very rare event a vaccine causes someone to die, accessing assistance for their dependants is somewhat more complex.

What should happen next?

The new vaccine indemnity may encourage health practitioners to provide the AstraZeneca vaccine more broadly, by reducing financial risks to them and their insurers.

Most people seeking vaccination will be purely motivated by the health benefits. But some people might like the idea of being compensated in the very rare instance something goes badly wrong. One group of researchers from the UK argue that a better financial safety net for patients would encourage more people to seek vaccination, more quickly. Whether this will happen in Australia is a question the national cabinet could consider.

We will know more when the details of the new vaccine indemnity scheme are released. It seems unlikely at this stage but perhaps we’ll be pleasantly surprised by the inclusion of a benefit scheme for anyone who suffers a serious adverse event from a COVID vaccine.

Bill Madden, Adjunct Professor, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, School of Law, Queensland University of Technology and Tina Cockburn, Associate Professor, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology

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

Bad reactions to the COVID vaccine will be rare, but Australians deserve a proper compensation scheme

John Cairns/AP/AAP

Katie Attwell, University of Western Australia; Marco Rizzi, University of Western Australia, and Shevaun Drislane, University of Western Australia

This week brings more good news on the vaccination front, with reports that yet another COVID-19 vaccine trial has produced encouraging results.

According to the federal government, Australia is “on track” to administer the Oxford University AstraZeneca vaccine as early as March next year.

---

Read more:
Why the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is now a global gamechanger

---

This means we need to be thinking more carefully about how the roll-out will work. This includes looking at a no-fault compensation scheme in the rare and unlikely event someone is harmed by a COVID-19 vaccine.

Most Australians would get vaccinated … but not all

Many Australians will be eager to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible. Research in April found nearly 86% of Australian adults surveyed would have a vaccine.

But a significant proportion of people are either unsure about the COVID-19 vaccine, or say they would not have one. This could affect the uptake rates needed for community protection.

CSL in Melbourne has already begun manufacturing the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Darrian Traynor/AAP

In October, a survey done for the ABC also found only 70% of respondents thought a vaccine would be “safe” or “mostly safe”.

Vaccines are rigorously tested and monitored for safety prior to, during, and after administration. But most of us have not given these background processes much thought until recently.

Adverse reactions to vaccination are typically minor, such as brief soreness at the injection site. Sometimes a reaction will need medical attention and cause a short or long-term health impairment. A serious adverse reaction following vaccination is extraordinarily rare.

For Australians who would not automatically get a COVID vaccine, their trust and confidence in both the vaccine and the system could be bolstered if they knew they would be taken care of in the extremely unlikely event of a serious adverse reaction.

Existing protections are not good enough

In the recent federal budget, the government promised to indemnify vaccine manufacturers if members of the public were to sue following an adverse reaction.

This would make the companies feel safe about operating in the country. However, it is a missed opportunity to also make the public feel safe about what would happen following an adverse event.

---

Read more:
Who pays compensation if a COVID-19 vaccine has rare side-effects? Here’s the little we know about Australia’s new deal

---

Usually, an injured victim must bring a case to court in order to receive compensation. To win, the victim must demonstrate they suffered a harm, the defendant was at fault, and there is a causal connection between the defendant’s fault and the harm. This is more complex than it sounds.

For example, victims of the recent pelvic mesh implant scandal had to initiate a class action, which has been going since 2012. Victims are still waiting for compensation.

A further problem is that when it comes to vaccinations, extremely rare adverse reactions often occur without negligence. This means there is no one to sue.

Why a no-fault scheme makes sense

A no-fault compensation scheme removes both the adversarial nature of litigation and the onerous requirement of establishing fault.

An injured party is only required to demonstrate they suffered a harm and some form of causal link between the harm and the vaccine.

These schemes already exist in most high-income countries — including the United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand — for non-COVID vaccines.

However, to date, Australia has not had a no-fault compensation scheme for vaccine injury, despite policies that compel Australians to vaccinate their children.

Other countries are leading the way

The lack of no-fault scheme in Australia is problematic in general. In the current pandemic, this policy gap is even more of a concern.

The COVID-19 vaccine will need to meet rigorous safety and efficacy criteria to be approved in Australia. However, the truncated timeframe for its development means governments need to be prepared for any unknowns.

Experts in the UK are also looking at a specific compensation scheme for a COVID vaccine.
John Cairns/AP/AAP

Some might conclude the National Disability Insurance Scheme could take care of anybody who suffered an adverse event following vaccination. However, the NDIS follows fundamentally different logic, in that it provides services for people living with disability, rather than compensating for an injury.

Other countries with existing no-fault compensation schemes are on the front foot to deal with this issue. So far, some experts in the UK have called for a “bespoke” scheme just for a COVID vaccine rather than using existing systems. This is because the rare adverse events that may follow COVID-19 vaccination are as yet unknown.

So, how should Australia design one?

The roll-out of a COVID-19 vaccine provides a unique opportunity for Australia to implement either a standalone scheme for COVID-19 in the first instance, or move straight to a more comprehensive scheme to cover all vaccines.

There are numerous funding options available. We believe this should be funded out of general government revenue — through the tax system — as this can be targeted towards different incomes and reflects the fact it is a common good.

---

Read more:
How to read results from COVID vaccine trials like a pro

---

There are risks in implementing a no-fault compensation scheme, either for routine vaccination or COVID-19. In the US and the UK, such schemes have not necessarily reassured people about vaccine safety, and in some cases have created narratives for anti-vax activists (that certain vaccines are “dangerous”).

However, the absence of such a scheme leaves our country open to scare campaigns about unforeseen injuries. This could place our entire vaccination program in jeopardy.

Aside from the damage of a “bad news” story, we also need to make sure people are properly compensated if they are the rare victims of a vaccine that benefits everybody.

The time of thinking about vaccination as an individual matter is over. Similarly, it is time to stop leaving the rare risk of vaccine injury as a burden on individuals.

Katie Attwell, Senior Lecturer, University of Western Australia; Marco Rizzi, Senior Lecturer, University of Western Australia, and Shevaun Drislane, PhD Candidate in Political Science, University of Western Australia

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

The government’s UNGI scheme: what it is and why Zali Steggall wants it investigated

Laura Schuijers, University of Melbourne

Independent MP and barrister Zali Steggall recently drew public attention to a federal government program that supports gas, hydro and coal power projects through underwriting.

Writing to Auditor General Grant Hehir, Steggall called for an investigation into the “underwriting new generation investment” (UNGI) program, saying it lacks transparency at a time when visibility of public spending is crucial.

---

Read more:
The government’s electricity shortlist rightly features pumped hydro (and wrongly includes coal)

---

“Underwriting” is when a degree of financial risk associated with a project is taken on by the government, rather than the project’s proponent.

Amid an economic crisis and a pressing need to transition to lower-carbon energy, people are understandably interested in where government money is being invested within the energy sector, and on what grounds.

As we face mounting job losses and stranded assets from the transition away from coal – and from the COVID-19 pandemic – taxpayers have a right to anticipate that the government’s investments will be strategically sound.

But the UNGI program lacks the important detail needed to assure the public that smart decisions are being made.

UNGI explained

The UNGI program was introduced in 2018. It followed the collapse of Malcolm Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee and an Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) inquiry, which found competition in Australia’s electricity sector needs to be stronger to reduce prices.

The federal government describes UNGI as “technology neutral”. This means the government’s focus is on supporting “best and lowest cost” energy generation options to get off the ground – whether coal, gas, or renewables.

What’s unclear is the extent to which a costs analysis under UNGI will consider long-term and indirect costs, such as by using social costing metrics.

A holistic analysis like this is important in the context of the climate crisis, which could set the Australian economy back more than A$762 billion in damages by 2050. Only considering short-term and direct costs is a recipe for long-term damage when it comes to energy and the impacts of climate change.

---

Read more:
It’s clear why coal struggles for finance – and the government can’t change that

---

Half the projects currently shortlisted for potential support are fossil fuel projects. The other half are renewables-powered pumped hydrogen projects.

But as Steggall has written, the government hasn’t been transparent about how they decide on which projects to underwrite.

These 12 shortlisted projects were chosen without any final guidelines published informing the public on the selection process. Preliminary criteria, identified in the request for proposals, hasn’t been converted into a decision-making mandate, despite an indication this would happen.

Does the UNGI program have legal support?

Steggall’s letter to the Auditor General referenced research by the Australia Institute think tank, which has criticised the UNGI program as having no legal foundation.

The institute published advice from barristers Fiona McLeod SC and Lindy Barrett, which outlines hypothetical ways UNGI could proceed. These include via an agreement with states, existing legislation, or new legislation. They concluded that there was no identifiable support mechanism in place at the time of the advice.

More than a year later, there hasn’t been any new legislation. And the government has flagged the Clean Energy Finance Corporation’s Grid Reliability Fund as the existing mechanism to support the UNGI program.

So why might that be a problem?

There are restrictions on the types of financial instruments this fund can support, as well as on what types of projects. While the Clean Energy Finance Corporation can provide loans, it may not be able to support the types of contracts envisaged by the early UNGI documents.

As the name suggests, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation could not support a coal project. And yet a coal project has been shortlisted.

The Grattan Institute’s energy program director Tony Wood also expressed concern, saying last year that UNGI appeared “quite different” to what the ACCC inquiry called for: a scheme to provide certainty for debt financing and facilitate new entrants into the wholesale market.

---

Read more:
Scott Morrison’s gas transition plan is a dangerous road to nowhere

---

And the CEFC is apparently not on the same page as the government that has designated its role in supporting the UNGI program, either. Although it welcomed the funding, CEO Ian Learmonth noted there was no investment mandate, and the Grid Reliability Fund was separate to UNGI.

No transparency

Steggall and the Australia Institute’s main concerns voiced over the past couple of days seem spurred by an unwillingness or inability of the government to provide information around how UNGI is proceeding.

Transcripts from parliament both last year and earlier this month reveal a number of important questions into the program are repeatedly bookmarked.

Still, several of the shortlisted projects, particularly the gas projects, have been promised support. This includes two already the subject of preliminary agreements and one that’s all but guaranteed funding through an agreement with the NSW government. This suggests the government is ploughing ahead with UNGI despite the lack of clear process or identifiable support mechanism.

Do we really need to support more gas?

Energy Minister Angus Taylor has noted growth in gas supply could emerge from natural competitiveness flowed from the effects of COVID-19.

Whether we need to underwrite more gas at this stage is questionable, given the oft-touted role of gas as a transition fuel is not clear-cut. And in any case gas will not have long-term viability in a net-zero emissions context.

Post-COVID-19 recovery stimulus must be focused on markets, industries and technologies that need support, but which also, as Steggall puts it, “have a future”.

---

Read more:
5 big environment stories you probably missed while you’ve been watching coronavirus

---

Yes, competitive pricing is important, as is reliable energy supply. But how that’s achieved must not frustrate the ability to address climate change, or compound current economic concerns by locking in future costs.

At the very least, clearer information about how projects are meeting the “best and lowest cost” criteria, and what financial and legal mechanisms are supporting UNGI as it proceeds, is what we require – and deserve.

Laura Schuijers, Research Fellow in Environmental Law, University of Melbourne

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

Government sets up concessional loan scheme for drought-hit small businesses

The business drought loans will be up to $500,000, and include a two-year interest free period.
AAP/Dan Peled

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The government will provide concessional “drought loans” for small businesses dependent on agriculture, as well as improving the terms of loans under the existing scheme for farmers, in a package approved by cabinet on Wednesday.

Measures to be unveiled on Thursday also include hundred of millions of dollars of direct investment into communities.

The initiatives come after intense pressure on the Coalition to do more for those hit by one of the country’s worst-ever droughts, with Scott Morrison very sensitive to how the issue is playing not just in the regions but among metropolitan voters.

Costings were still being finalised late Wednesday but sources said the package was worth more than $500 million.

The business drought loans will be up to $500,000. They will include a two year interest free period and interest only payments for years three to five, with interest and principal repayments in years six to ten.

Those set to benefit would include harvesting and shearing contractors, carriers, stock and station agents, and businesses dealing in agricultural equipment and repairs.

Businesses not directly linked to the farming sector – such as the local hairdresser or newsagent – would not be eligible.

The loans will be made through the Regional Investment Corporation – a Commonwealth body – with a small business defined as one with 19 or fewer employees.

The loans will be available immediately and no legislation is needed.

The improved terms for farmers loans will be see up to two years interest free, interest only payments for years three to five, and interest and principal payments for years six to ten. The current arrangements are interest only for the first five years and principal and interest for the rest of the 10 year loan.

The former co-ordinator-general for drought, Stephen Day, told the government that concerns had been constantly raised with him about the survival of small businesses in areas in drought.

Morrison said these businesses had been forced to seek overdrafts or other finance.

“Rural communities can’t function without these small businesses – that’s why we’re stepping in to provide this extra support,” he said.

The government says its planned extra direct investment will flow into projects that boost local businesses and jobs.

Six more local government areas will be added to the Drought Communities Program, at a cost of $6 million, and another $122 million will be available for the 122 local councils which have already received support of $1 million each.

The program funds infrastructure and local activities. An extra $50 million discretionary fund will support additional councils when needed. But this will be after a review of the program early in the new year.

Some $200 million will be redirected from the Building Better Regions Fund to set up a Special Drought Round, providing up to $10 million per project in local government areas.

Supplementary payments will be made under the Roads to Recovery program for 128 local government areas in drought for upgrades and maintenance. This is a re-purposing of $138.9 million.

Drought minister David Littleproud said the federal package was not linked to any requirement for state funding, which would have carried the risk of the states not matching the money. But he called on state governments to provide some relief on rates and payroll tax.

“We’re going to cut the cheque and we’re going to get the money out, because that’s what these local economies need now. They need stimulation …. We’re not going to play politics, we’re going to get on with the job and deliver, and hopefully the states will complement us with things like rate relief and also payroll tax”.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said: “This suite of measures go to the heart of what matters to these communities. From small businesses to primary producers, we are working with communities to take the pressure off one of the worst droughts in history.

“Not only is the government continuing to respond as the drought progresses, but we are working on measures to assist in the recovery when the rains come, which includes the government’s billion dollar investment in water infrastructure.”

Agriculture Minister Bridget McKenzie said: “I know our farmers and our communities are doing it really tough right now but despite the current drought Australian agriculture has a bright future”.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

Compensation scheme to follow Hayne’s indictment of financial sector

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The Morrison government has promised to establish a compensation scheme of last resort – paid for by the financial services industry – as it seeks to avoid the outcome of the banking royal commission becoming a damaging election issue for it.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, releasing Commissioner Kenneth Hayne’s three-volume report which excoriates the financial sector, said the government would be “taking action” on all 76 recommendations.

The commissioner has made 24 referrals to the regulatory authorities over entities’ conduct in specific instances. All the major banks have been referred except Westpac. AMP, Suncorp, Allianz and Youi are among entities that have been referred.

Commissioner Hayne has made civil and criminal conduct referrals – he was dealing with entities rather than individuals.

In an indictment of years of bad behaviour which has left many customers devastated, Hayne says “there can be no doubt that the primary responsibility for misconduct in the financial services industry lies with the entities concerned and those who managed and controlled those entities”.

“Rewarding misconduct is wrong. Yet incentive, bonus and commission schemes throughout the financial services industry have measured sales and profit, but not compliance with the law and proper standards,” the commissioner says.

“Entities and individuals acted in the ways they did because they could.

“Entities set the terms on which they would deal, consumers often had little detailed knowledge or understanding of the transaction and consumers had next to no power to negotiate the terms.”

Hayne says that “too often, financial services entities that broke the law were not properly held to account.

“The Australian community expects, and is entitled to expect, that if an entity breaks the law and causes damage to customers, it will compensate those affected customers. But the community also expects that financial services entities that break the law will be held to account.”

---

Read more:
Banking Royal Commission: no commissions, no exemptions, no fees without permission. Hayne gets the government to do a U-turn

---

The commissioner stresses that “where possible, conflicts of interest and conflicts between duty and interest should be removed” in financial services.

Hayne says that because it was the financial entities, their boards and senior executives, who bore primary responsibility for what had happened, attention must be given to their culture, governance and remuneration practices.

Changes to the law were “necessary protections for consumers against misconduct, to provide adequate redress and to redress asymmetries of power and information between entities and consumers”.

The commission’s multiple recommendations propose:

• simplifying the law so that its intent is met

• removing where possible conflicts of interest

• improving the effectiveness of the regulators, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

• driving cultural change in institutions and increasing their accountability

• increasing protection for consumers from “misconduct or conduct that falls below community standards and expectations”, and providing for remediation.

The government has provided point-by-point responses to the recommendations.

The commission had seven rounds of public hearings with about 130 witnesses, and reviewed more than 10,000 public submissions. It dealt with banking, financial advice, superannuation and insurance.

While there have been claims the fallout from the commission could risk a further tightening of credit for small business in particular, Hayne has been careful in his report to minimise that danger.

But he makes it clear there should be no excuse for avoiding needed action. “Some entities used the undoubted need for care in recommending change as a basis for saying that there should be no change. The ‘Caution’ sign was read as if it said ‘Do Not Enter’.”

The commissioner has some sharp words for the NAB in his report, saying that “having heard from both the CEO Mr Thorburn, and the Chair, Dr Henry, I am not as confident as I would wish to be that the lessons of the past have been learned.

“More particularly, I was not persuaded that NAB is willing to accept the necessary responsibility for deciding, for itself, what is the right thing to do, and then having its staff act accordingly. I thought it telling that Dr Henry seemed unwilling to accept any criticism of how the board had dealt with some issues.

“I thought it telling that Mr Thorburn treated all issues of fees for no service as nothing more than carelessness combined with system deficiencies […] Overall, my fear – that there may be a wide gap between the public face NAB seeks to show and what it does in practice – remains.”

Among his specific recommendations Hayne says that grandfathering provisions for conflicted remuneration “should be repealed as soon as is reasonably practicable”. The government has said it will do this from January 2021.

Hayne proposes a new oversight authority that would monitor APRA and ASIC.

He lashes ASIC for not cracking down on fees for no service.

“Until this commission was established, ASIC and the relevant entities approached the fees for no service conduct as if it called, at most, for the entity to repay what it had taken, together with some compensation for the client not having had the use of the money.

“That is, the conduct was treated as if it was no more than a series of inadvertent slips brought about by some want of care in record keeping.”

In a number of recommendations about mortgage brokers, Commissioner Hayne says the borrower, not the lender, should pay the mortgage broker fee for acting on home lending. But the government is not accepting the proposal at this time.

In relation to the sale of products the commission recommends the removal of the exclusion of funeral expenses policies from the definition of “financial product”. It should be put “beyond doubt that the consumer protection provisions of the ASIC act apply to funeral expenses policies.”

On superannuation the commission says that “hawking” of superannuation products should be prohibited, and that a person should have only one default account.

In a statement Scott Morrison and Frydenberg said that in outlining its response to the commission “the government’s principal focus is on restoring trust in our financial system and delivering better consumer outcomes, while maintaining the flow of credit and continuing to promote competition.”

They said the government would expand the remit of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) so it could award compensation for successful claims going back a decade.

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said that Labor accepted all the recommendations “in principle”.

“The government simply cannot say that they’ve accepted the recommendations … they’ve got weasel words in there about various recommendations,” he said.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

How America can copy Australia’s asset-recycling scheme

Asset recycling could lead to more US infrastructure spending.
Shutterstock

Caroline Nowacki, Stanford University; Ashby Monk, Stanford University, and Raymond Levitt, Stanford University

US Vice President Mike Pence announced the administration’s desire to emulate the Australian model of infrastructure asset recycling as part of President Trump’s US$1 trillion infrastructure plan. Our research shows that good governance is key to making it work in the United States.

New South Wales (NSW), a state that has had some success in asset recycling, created an independent agency to oversee its program. The agency is staffed by employees with private sector experience. Senior public figures are on the board to ensure independence.

The result has been an asset-recycling program that received high prices for government assets and has prioritised new projects based on cost and impact. Other Australian states have adopted this model, which will be key for the US too.

Recycling directs money to new infrastructure

Under an asset-recycling scheme, governments lease existing infrastructure assets to private companies and invest the proceeds in new infrastructure projects. In 2013, the Australian government started a A$5 billion incentive program giving state governments an additional 15% of the capital recycled from existing assets and reinvested in new infrastructure.

Between 2013 and 2016, NSW leased about A$15 billion of infrastructure assets to private investors, and allocated about A$6 billion to new projects, without raising additional public debt.

Infrastructure asset recycling manages to fund new projects by addressing the mismatch between government infrastructure promises and the goals of private investors.

Governments often lack the capital to invest in infrastructure and are worried about rising public debt. The World Economic Forum estimates the gap between infrastructure demand and investment is around US$1 trillion a year globally.

Meanwhile, private investors prefer to invest in infrastructure that is already built. These investments have lower risk than building something new, and offer the promise of consistent, inflation-adjusted returns over decades.

But the freed-up capital is not really free — governments forgo the future revenues from the leased assets. If the proceeds from privatising the asset are smaller than the future stream of payments forgone, and new projects do not produce revenues, government might need to levy a new tax or cut programs.

This is why good governance is key to ensuring the scheme works. Governments need to get the highest price for their assets and build the best projects for the lowest cost.

Good governance was key to NSW’s success

Between 2013 and 2015, NSW leased two ports, a desalination plant and an electricity distribution network for close to A$15 billion. The process was fast and the lease proceeds were high compared to similar deals. This indicates that the bidding process was effective at tapping into investors’ interest.

A key point is that the NSW legislature did not directly oversee the asset-recycling scheme. In 2011, the government created an independent statutory body, Infrastructure NSW, to identify and prioritise the delivery of critical public infrastructure in NSW.

Infrastructure NSW is made up of specialised units staffed with skilled professionals. One of these manages Restart NSW, the infrastructure fund into which lease proceeds are deposited.

Studying Infrastructure NSW, we see a number of reasons for its success.

While a relatively small agency, Infrastructure NSW is staffed with employees with private sector experience and has representatives of key ministries on its board. The private sector experience means employees are able to monitor and work effectively with private partners, and the knowledge and information gap between the private sector and the government is low.

Its prominent board also means Infrastructure NSW has the power to influence and stand up to the state legislators and administration, with sufficient independence to ensure politicians cannot fund low-priority projects in politically advantageous constituencies. The broad skill set of employees also helps to break down administrative silos and enables an integrated vision of infrastructure.

The importance of these characteristics aligns with results from research on other state-owned investment funds. And the NSW model has been copied.

Infrastructure Victoria, Building Queensland and Infrastructure Tasmania were all created in 2015 with similar characteristics to Infrastructure NSW. These agencies are independent from government, have an integrated vision for infrastructure, and private sector members sit on their boards.

Challenges and opportunities for the US

The use of public-private partnerships in infrastructure service delivery is increasing in the US, but has not reached anywhere near the scale of Australia or Canada. Many US states still lack the legislation, processes and structure to manage it effectively.

Another challenge for the US is identifying new projects with a sustainable source of funding. This is what makes asset recycling appealing for the private sector.

Considerable infrastructure governance and planning efforts are needed at the state level to make a success of asset recycling in the US. A federal initiative along the lines of the Australian government’s incentive program would afford states the opportunity to share their experience and work toward more unified legislation and procurement processes.

In Australia, asset recycling came with the creation of independent agencies and state infrastructure funds. If it wishes to follow Australia down the asset-recycling path, the US should also consider these kinds of governance to equip states with an integrated vision for infrastructure development, and the capabilities to work more effectively with the private sector.

Caroline Nowacki, PhD Candidate, Global Projects Centre, Stanford University; Ashby Monk, Executive and Research Director of the Global Projects Center, Stanford University, and Raymond Levitt, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University

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

Australian Politics: 16 July 2013

Today in Australian politics there was a stoush over butlers and pillows between the Queensland Premier Campbell Newman and Kevin Rudd. It all seems a bit too much Campbell (he started it), trying to deflect attention from his own pay rise issues I’d suggest.

For more visit:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/rudd-has-a-cushion-carrier-qld-premier/story-fni0xqi3-1226680183388

Kevin Rudd also announced the end of the carbon tax and a move towards an emissions trading scheme from July 1, 2014. Measures to cover the lost revenue were also announced.

Turkish Court Seeks to Link Murder of Christians to ‘Cage Plan’

Scheme to destabilize pro-Islamic government believed to be part of Ergenekon conspiracy.

ISTANBUL, December 29 (CDN) — Malatya’s Third Criminal Court on Friday (Dec. 25) took further steps to connect the murders of three Christians in southeastern Turkey to a Turkish military plan to destabilize the pro-Islamic government.

Evidence surfaced in Turkish press last month linking the murders of the three Christians in the southeastern city of Malatya with army activities to overthrow the government in a special operation called the “Operation Cage Action Plan.” The Malatya prosecutor and plaintiffs on Friday requested that the Istanbul prosecutor further probe links between the Malatya case and the Cage Plan, which included an elaborate scheme to attack Muslim-majority Turkey’s religious minorities.

They also requested that the Malatya court open to plaintiffs the currently “classified” prosecutor’s investigation into links between the Malatya murders and an alleged operation by the military and other political figures to destabilize the government known as Ergenekon.

Evidence of the Cage Plan, believed to be part of Ergenekon, centers on a compact disc found in April in the house of a retired naval officer; it was decrypted and leaked to the press last month. The plan, to be carried out by 41 named naval officers and dated March 2009, termed as “operations” the murders of the three Christians in Malatya, the 2006 assassination of Catholic priest Andreas Santoro and the 2007 slaying of Hrant Dink, Armenian editor-in-chief of the weekly Agos.

“This Cage Plan starts with a reference to the Malatya, Dink and Santoro cases and mentions them as previous ‘operations,’” said one of the plaintiff lawyers, Orhan Kemal Cengiz, adding that a connection of the murders with the Cage Plan would be difficult for any court to ignore.

Hearings for Ergenekon are ongoing in Istanbul. Istanbul prosecutors handling the Ergenekon case sent a response to the Malatya court this month in which they reported they have not been able to find a direct connection with the Malatya murders yet. The Malatya court is waiting for further investigations into possible connections with Ergenekon.

Cengiz said that although investigations are moving slowly, he is pleased with the willingness of the Malatya prosecutor to cooperate and find who is behind the murders.

“I see a good will on the part of the prosecutor,” said Cengiz. “He’s really trying to discover the possible links, and I’m glad to see his effort, and he was helpful and supportive to us. It was important.”

Turkish Christians, Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel and German Christian Tilmann Geske were tortured and stabbed to death in Malatya on April 18, 2007 at Zirve Publishing Co., which distributed Bibles and literature in the area.

Suspects Emre Gunaydin, Salih Gürler, Cuma Ozdemir, Hamit Ceker and Abuzer Yildirim, who were caught at the crime scene, are still held in prison in Malatya. Two other suspects, journalist Varol Bulent Aral and Huseyin Yelki, a former volunteer at Zirve, are not under arrest, but the court expects them to attend all hearings.

Aral and Yelki are believed to have crucial links with the alleged masterminds of the murder plot.

The next trial is set for Feb. 19, 2010.

Report from Compass Direct News 

Plot Targeting Turkey’s Religious Minorities Allegedly Discovered

CD indicates naval officers planned violence against non-Muslim communities.

ISTANBUL, December 16 (CDN) — ISTANBUL, December 16 (Compass Direct News) – Chilling allegations emerged last month of a detailed plot by Turkish naval officers to perpetrate threats and violence against the nation’s non-Muslims in an effort to implicate and unseat Turkey’s pro-Islamic government.

Evidence put forth for the plot appeared on an encrypted compact disc discovered last April but was only recently deciphered; the daily Taraf newspaper first leaked details of the CD’s contents on Nov. 19.

Entitled the “Operation Cage Action Plan,” the plot outlines a plethora of planned threat campaigns, bomb attacks, kidnappings and assassinations targeting the nation’s tiny religious minority communities – an apparent effort by military brass to discredit the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). The scheme ultimately called for bombings of homes and buildings owned by non-Muslims, setting fire to homes, vehicles and businesses of Christian and Jewish citizens, and murdering prominent leaders among the religious minorities.

Dated March 2009, the CD containing details of the plot was discovered in a raid on the office of a retired major implicated in a large illegal cache of military arms uncovered near Istanbul last April. Once deciphered, it revealed the full names of 41 naval officials assigned to carry out a four-phase campaign exploiting the vulnerability of Turkey’s non-Muslim religious minorities, who constitute less than 1 percent of the population.

A map that Taraf published on its front page – headlined “The Targeted Missionaries” – was based on the controversial CD documents. Color-coded to show all the Turkish provinces where non-Muslims lived or had meetings for worship, the map showed only 13 of Turkey’s 81 provinces had no known non-Muslim residents or religious meetings.

The plan identified 939 non-Muslim representatives in Turkey as possible targets.

“If even half of what is written in Taraf is accurate, everybody with a conscience in this country has to go mad,” Eyup Can wrote in his Hurriyet column two days after the news broke.

The day after the first Taraf report, the headquarters of the Turkish General Staff filed a criminal complaint against the daily with the Justice Ministry, declaring its coverage a “clear violation” of the laws protecting ongoing prosecution investigations from public release.

Although the prime minister’s office the next day confirmed that the newly revealed “Cage” plot was indeed under official investigation, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan criticized Taraf’s public disclosure of the plan as “interfering” and “damaging” to the judicial process and important sectors of the government.

But when the judiciary began interrogating a number of the named naval suspects and sent some of them to jail, most Turkish media – which had downplayed the claims – began to accept the plot’s possible authenticity.

To date, at least 11 of the naval officials identified in the Cage documents are under arrest, accused of membership in an illegal organization. They include a retired major, a lieutenant colonel, three lieutenant commanders, two colonels and three first sergeants.

The latest plot allegations are linked to criminal investigations launched in June 2007 into Ergenekon, an alleged “deep state” conspiracy by a group of military officials, state security personnel, lawyers and journalists now behind bars on charges of planning a coup against the elected AKP government.

Christian Murders Termed ‘Operations’

The plot document began with specific mention of the three most recent deadly attacks perpetrated against Christians in Turkey, cryptically labeling them “operations.”

Initial Turkish public opinion had blamed Islamist groups for the savage murders of Italian Catholic priest Andrea Santoro (February 2006), Turkish Armenian Agos newspaper editor Hrant Dink (January 2007) and two Turkish Christians and a German Christian in Malatya (April 2007). But authors of the Cage plan complained that AKP’s “intensive propaganda” after these incidents had instead fingered the Ergenekon cabal as the perpetrators.

“The Cage plan demanded that these ‘operations’ be conducted in a more systematic and planned manner,” attorney Orhan Kemal Cengiz wrote in Today’s Zaman on Nov. 27. “They want to re-market the ‘black propaganda’ that Muslims kill Christians,” concluded Cengiz, a joint-plaintiff lawyer in the Malatya murder trial and legal adviser to Turkey’s Association of Protestant Churches.

In the first phase of the Cage plot, officers were ordered to compile information identifying the non-Muslim communities’ leaders, schools, associations, cemeteries, places of worship and media outlets, including all subscribers to the Armenian Agos weekly. With this data, the second stage called for creating an atmosphere of fear by openly targeting these religious minorities, using intimidating letters and telephone calls, warnings posted on websites linked to the government and graffiti in neighborhoods where non-Muslims lived.

To channel public opinion, the third phase centered on priming TV and print media to criticize and debate the AKP government’s handling of security for religious minorities, to raise the specter of the party ultimately replacing Turkey’s secular laws and institutions with Islamic provisions.

The final phase called for planting bombs and suspicious packages near homes and buildings owned by non-Muslims, desecrating their cemeteries, setting fire to homes, vehicles and businesses of Christian and Jewish citizens, and even kidnapping and assassinating prominent leaders among the religious minorities.

Lawyer Fethiye Cetin, representing the Dink family in the Agos editor’s murder trial, admitted she was having difficulty even accepting the details of the Cage plot.

“I am engulfed in horror,” Cetin told Bianet, the online Independent Communications Network. “Some forces of this country sit down and make a plan to identify their fellow citizens, of their own country, as enemies! They will kill Armenians and non-Muslims in the psychological war they are conducting against the ones identified as their enemies.”

No Surprise to Christians

“We were not very shocked,” Protestant Pastor Ihsan Ozbek of the Kurtulus Churches in Ankara admitted to Taraf the day after the news broke.

After the Malatya murders, he stated, Christians had no official means to investigate their suspicions about the instigators, “and we could not be very brave . . . Once again the evidence is being seen, that it is the juntas who are against democracy who [have been] behind the propaganda in the past 10 years against Christianity and missionary activity.”

Patriarch Bartholomew of the Greek Orthodox Church also openly addressed the Cage plot, referring to recent incidents of intimidation against Christian and Jewish citizens in Istanbul’s Kurtulus and Adalar districts, as well as a previous raid conducted against the alumni of a Greek high school.

“At the time, we thought that they were just trying to scare us,” he told Today’s Zaman. Several of the jailed Ergenekon suspects now on trial were closely involved for years in protesting and slandering the Istanbul Patriarchate, considered the heart of Eastern Orthodoxy’s 300 million adherents. As ultranationalists, they claimed the Orthodox wanted to set up a Vatican-style entity within Turkey.

Last summer 90 graves were desecrated in the Greek Orthodox community’s Balikli cemetery in the Zeytinburnu district of Istanbul. The city’s 65 non-Muslim cemeteries are not guarded by the municipality, with their maintenance and protection left to Greek, Armenian and Jewish minorities.

As details continued to emerge and national debates raged for more than a week over the Cage plan in the Turkish media, calls came from a broad spectrum of society to merge the files of the ongoing Dink and Malatya murder trials with the Ergenekon file. The Turkish General Staff has consistently labeled much of the media coverage of the Ergenekon investigations as part of smear campaign against the fiercely secular military, which until the past two years enjoyed virtual impunity from civilian court investigations.

According to Ria Oomen-Ruijten, the European Parliament’s rapporteur on Turkey, the long-entrenched role of the military in the Turkish government is an “obstacle” for further democratization and integration into the EU.

Report from Compass Direct News 

Prisoners Freed in Acteal, Mexico Case Yet to Return Home

 

Christians bear no grudges, fear no threats from accusers.

TUXTLA GUTIERREZ, Mexico, October 12 (CDN) — Alonso Lopez Entzin, a Tzotzil-speaking Christian in Chiapas state, Mexico, spent 11 years and eight months in prison for a crime he did not commit. Accused of participating in the tragic “Acteal massacre” in December 1997 in which 45 persons died near San Cristobal de las Casas, he and more than 80 of his neighbors were summarily arrested and charged with the murders.On Aug. 12, the Federal Supreme Court of Mexico ordered that Lopez Entzin and 19 other indigenous men accused in the Acteal killings – 18 are Christian, including Lopez Entzin – be freed from El Amate Penal facility in Chiapas. Their release came as a surprise to him and his fellow prisoners, as well as to thousands of people in Mexico and around the world advocating their release.

Of the 18 Christians released, only five were Christians when they were arrested; the rest came to trust in Christ while in prison. At least 27 innocent men who were Christians at the time of their arrest remain in prison, according to advocacy organizations.

“I thank God that I have been granted freedom,” Lopez Entzin told Compass. “We are no longer imprisoned thanks to the power of God. There is no other person that has this kind of power, only God.”

The court is reviewing the cases of another 31 men convicted in connection with the massacre. Six more defendants will be granted new trials.

“Right now we see the first fruits of our prayers,” said Tomas Perez Mendez, another of the 20 freed prisoners. “We are confident in the Lord that the rest of the brothers are going to obtain their freedom as well.”

Lopez Entzin added that winning their freedom will not be easy.

“When we were inside El Amate, we began to pray, fast and glorify our Lord Jesus Christ. There are thousands and thousands of brothers who prayed for us inside the jail – thank God He answered those prayers,” he said through tears. “That’s why those brothers who remain behind in El Amate believe that if God’s will is done, they will soon be free.”

Most of the remaining Acteal inmates are evangelical Protestant Christians sentenced to 25- and 36-year prison terms. For years, human rights advocates and legal experts have presented legal arguments showing that the men were convicted on dubious evidence. The district court of the state of Chiapas, however, has consistently ruled against the defendants in appeals.

Attorneys for the defendants finally succeeded in bringing the case before the Federal Supreme Court in Mexico City. The justices who reviewed the case found clear violations of due process and on Aug. 12 overturned the convictions in a 4-1 decision.

The court ruling stated that the decision was not a determination of the guilt or innocence of the men, only that their constitutional rights had been violated during their arrest and conviction.

Though grateful to be free at last, Agustin Gomez Perez admitted that prison was “very difficult, very difficult indeed.”

“There inside the jail, everybody loses,” Gomez Perez said. “I saw it. Many lost their wives, their families, their homes. In the years I was in jail I lost my son. It was May 7, 2005. Twelve families were traveling in a truck to visit us in El Amate. They had an accident, and my 3-year-old son Juan Carlos was killed.”

Inmates expressed gratitude for church groups and international organizations that lent support to their families during their incarceration. Some groups supplied chicks, piglets and coffee plants for wives and children to raise on family plots. A volunteer team of doctors and nurses from Veracruz provides free treatment to prisoners and their dependents.

The prisoners said that one of the greatest helps was regular visits from their families. International Christian organizations raised money for bus fares and chartered vehicles to ensure that the prisoners’ families, who could not otherwise afford the travel, saw their husbands and fathers as often as possible.

Normalcy Not Returned

Despite being freed, the 20 men have yet to resume normal life with their families.

“When I left jail, I didn’t think I would be stuck half-way home,” Gomez Perez said. “I was thinking I would come home and see my wife and children. But we haven’t got there. We are left here half-way home.”

“Half-way home” for the released men is the market district in hot, bustling Tuxtla Gutierrez. They are living in makeshift half-way houses provided by the federal government, awaiting resettlement on land that state authorities have promised them.

Compass met with seven of the former inmates in a rented building they occupy with their wives, children and, in some cases, grandchildren. The families share windowless, sparsely furnished rooms with bare cement floors. Government food rations sustain them. While the half-way house is better than prison, it is nothing like the lush, green Chiapas mountains to which they long to return.

The men agreed to the relocation scheme because the farms they worked before going to prison have long since reverted to their heirs or, in some cases, neighbors. They welcome the assistance to get back on their feet financially.

Government officials, however, insist that the Acteal prisoners must relocate to new communities because they fear violent clashes will flare between them and their old rivals.

The seven freed men were unanimous in their opinion that such confrontations would not happen.

“In the first place, we do not agree with what the government is saying,” Gomez Perez said. “We hold no grudges against those who accused us. What happened, happened. We are not thinking vengeance.”

Perez Mendez agreed with Gomez Perez that the men feel no ill will against those who accused them and no resentment for what they suffered in jail.

“God does not want that we hold grudges or take vengeance against anyone,” he said. “There is not really much danger out there in our communities either. When people saw the news on television on Aug. 12 that we were getting out, they were happy. Well, now we hear that they found out we are not coming home, that we are here in Tuxtla, and some are saying, ‘Why don’t they come home? Tell them to come.’”

The Acteal prisoners have reason to hold grudges. Their attorneys say many of them were arrested in random police sweeps in the days following the massacre simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Public indignation over the brutal slayings, fueled by numerous inflammatory press releases from Las Abejas, a civic group whose members were primary targets in the massacre, as well as by the left-leaning human rights organization Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, swelled to fever pitch in December 1997.

Authorities responded by arresting dozens of “suspects,” without evidence or warrants, to quell the outcry.

Some Acteal defendants found themselves accused of the crime by allies of the rebel Zapatista guerrilla army. A land dispute between Zapatista sympathizers and opponents of the rebels intensified during the waning months of 1997, claiming the lives of 18 indigenous men, the majority of them Protestant Christians. Attorneys say indifferent law enforcement officers failed even to investigate the murders, let alone arrest the perpetrators.

Frustrated with the authorities’ foot-dragging and desperate to defend themselves against further aggression, nine indigenous young men armed themselves and confronted their enemies on Dec. 22, 1997. The ensuing firefight and subsequent massacre at the Catholic hermitage in Acteal ended with 45 dead, many of them women and children who were participating in an Abejas-sponsored program that day.

Five of the nine armed men have confessed to participating in the Acteal shootings and insist they acted alone. Those five are serving prison terms in El Amate. Two others were arrested and released because they were minors at the time of the crime. Two more remain at large and, ironically, have reportedly come under the protection of the Zapatistas.

Las Abejas and its allies continue to assert that that the Acteal killings were carried out by “paramilitary” units equipped and assisted by the Mexican army. With the passage of time, many of those who hold this thesis have admitted that most of the Acteal prisoners did not, in fact, participate in the shooting. Nevertheless, they insist that until the “intellectual authors” of the atrocity come forward and confess, not one prisoner – even though innocent of the crime – should be released.

That strange logic has helped to keep more than 50 innocent men in prison for nearly 12 years.

“It is certain that we suffered an injustice for nearly 12 years,” Perez Mendez said. “A lot of people tell us that we are guilty. But as far as we are concerned, God knows all. We did not commit that crime.

He implored Christians to pray for the innocent men who have yet to be released.

Pray as well for we who are not at home in our communities,” he said. “I ask that you not forget us.”Report from Compass Direct News