Critical shortage of AFP officers a grave concern

Australian Federal Police Association Media Release The critical shortage of police officers across…

Nuclear Concerns – Hiroshima, Maralinga and Dutton’s Australia

By Michele Madigan  As always, on August 6th we commemorated the 1945 bombing…

Track Replacement Services Lacking

By Jane Salmon “Fast Track” Visa Process DeRailed, Connecting Service Missing: Mass Transit to…

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill…

On 19 September 2024, the Senate referred the provisions of the Communications…

Why are so many women and children being…

By Bert Hetebry The statistics are horrific. On October 7 last year, 1200 Israelis…

RMIT expert responds to PM’s negative gearing comments

RMIT Media Release Debate around negative gearing reform and capital gains tax has…

It's Not Just The Gearing That's Negative!!

Oh no, it wasn't the government who asked for Treasury to look…

Neoliberalism and Tradie Shortage in Australia

By Denis Hay Description Explore how neoliberalism in Australia led to tradie shortage, changing…

«
»
Facebook

Search Results for: open letter

Julian Assange and Albanese’s Intervention

The unflinching US effort to extradite and prosecute Julian Assange for 18 charges, 17 of which are chillingly based upon the Espionage Act of 1917, has not always stirred much interest in the publisher’s home country. Previous governments have been lukewarm at best, preferring to mention little in terms of what was being done to convince Washington to change course in dealing with Assange.

Before coming to power, Australia’s current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had made mention of wishing to conclude the Assange affair. In December 2019, before a gathering at the Chifley Research Centre, he described the publisher as a journalist, accepting that such figures should not be prosecuted for “doing their job”. The following year, he also expressed the view that the “ongoing pursuit of Mr Assange” served no evident “purpose” – “enough is enough”.

The same point has been reiterated by a number of crossbenchers in Australia’s parliament, represented with much distinction by the independent MP from Tasmania, Andrew Wilkie. In a speech given earlier this year to a gathering outside Parliament House, the Member for Clark wondered if the UK and Australia had placed their relations with Washington at a premium so high as to doom Assange. “The US wants to get even and for so long the UK and Australia have been happy to go along for the ride because they’ve put bilateral relationships with Washington ahead of the rights of a decent man.”

The new Australian government initially gave troubling indications that a tardy, wait-and-see approach had been adopted. “My position,” Albanese told journalists soon after assuming office, “is that not all foreign affairs is best done with the loudhailer.”

Documents obtained under freedom of information also showed an acknowledgment by the Albanese government of assurances made by the United States that the WikiLeaks founder would have the chance to serve the balance of any prison sentence in Australia. But anybody half-versed in the wiles and ways of realpolitik should know that the international prisoner transfer scheme is subordinate to the wishes of the relevant department granting it. The US Department of Justice can receive the request from Assange, but there is nothing to say, as history shows, that the request will be agreed to.

Amidst all this, the campaign favouring Assange would not stall. Human rights and press organisations globally have persistently urged his release from captivity and the cessation of the prosecution. On November 28, The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El País and Der Spiegel published a joint open letter titled, “Publishing is not a Crime.”

The five outlets who initially worked closely with WikiLeaks in publishing US State Department cables 12 years ago have not always been sympathetic to Assange. Indeed, they admit to having criticised him for releasing the unredacted trove in 2011 and even expressed concern about his “attempt to aid in computer intrusion of a classified database.”

Had the editors bothered to follow daily trial proceedings of the extradition case in 2020, they would have noted that the Guardian’s own journalists muddied matters by publishing the key to the encrypted files in a book on WikiLeaks. A mortified Assange warned the State Department of this fact. Cryptome duly uploaded the cables before WikiLeaks did. The computer intrusion charge also withers before scrutiny, given that Chelsea Manning already had prior authorisation to access military servers without the need to hack the system.

But on this occasion, the publishers and editors were clear. “Cablegate”, with its 251,000 State Department cables, “disclosed corruption, diplomatic scandals and spy affairs on an international scale.” They had “come together now to express [their] grave concerns about the continued prosecution of Julian Assange for obtaining and publishing classified materials.”

Very mindful of their own circumstances, the media outlets expressed their grave concerns about the use of the Espionage Act “which has never been used to prosecute a publisher or broadcaster.” Such an indictment set “a dangerous precedent, and threatens to undermine America’s First Amendment and the freedom of the press.”

The same day of the letter’s publication, Brazil’s President-elect Lula da Silva also added his voice to the encouraging chorus. He did so on the occasion of meeting the WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson and Joseph Farrell, an associate of the organisation, and expressed wishes that “Assange will be freed from his unjust imprisonment.”

The stage was now set for Albanese to make his intervention. In addressing parliament on November 30 in response to a question from independent MP Monique Ryan, Albanese publicly revealed that he had, in fact, been lobbying the Biden administration for a cessation of proceedings against Assange. “I have raised this personally with the representatives of the US government.”

The Australian PM was hardly going to muck in on the issue of the WikiLeaks agenda. Australia remains one of the most secretive of liberal democracies, and agents of radical transparency are hardly appreciated. (Witness, at present, a number of venal prosecutions against whistleblowers that have not been abandoned even with a change of government in May.)

Albanese drew a parallel with Chelsea Manning, the key figure who furnished WikiLeaks with classified military documents, received a stiff sentence for doing so, but had her sentence commuted by President Barack Obama. “She is now able to participate freely in society.” He openly questioned “the point of continuing this legal action, which could be caught up now for many years, into the future.”

For some years now, the plight of Assange could only be resolved politically. In her address to the National Press Club in Canberra delivered in October this year, Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson acknowledged as much. “This case needs an urgent political solution. Julian does not have another decade to wait for a legal fix.” This point was reiterated by Ryan in her remarks addressed to the prime minister.

The telling question here is whether Albanese will get any purchase with the Washington set. While enjoying a reputation as a pragmatic negotiator able to reach agreements in tight circumstances, the pull of the US national security establishment may prove too strong. “We now get to see Australia’s standing in Washington, valued ally or not,” was the guarded response of Assange’s father John Shipton.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Is Labor Stuck Between The Economic Reality And The Political Reality Or Has The Canberra Bubble Burst?

There’s something about the whole Stage 3 tax cut thing that reminds me of the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

For those of you who don’t remember it went something like this:

“Hand over your weapons of mass destruction or else!” 

“We don’t have any. You made us get rid of them after the last Gulf War.”

“We don’t believe you. We’re going to send weapons inspectors in.”

“Ok, they won’t find anything.”

A little while later.

“The weapons inspectors haven’t found anything because you’ve hidden things and fooled them. Hand over your WMDs of we invade.”

“We told you. We don’t have any!”

After invasion, “Well, they certainly hid them well. Still it was good to get rid of that Hussein guy because he was an awful dictator who fooled us into thinking that Iraq had WMDs.”

The reason that Stage 3 tax cuts remind me of this is because Labor keep saying that they haven’t changed their policy while the media and the Opposition – which some days do seem like the same entity – keep asserting that Labor are considering a change of policy, so why aren’t they being honest and explaining exactly what their change of policy is.

Now, I’d just like to make the simple point that Labor would be foolish if they weren’t considering all options in the current economic circumstances, but with this particular change they have to weigh up making the correct economic call against the political fallout from a broken election commitment. And while they’re weighing that up, they HAVEN’T changed their policy and it’s pretty hard to come out and say we haven’t decided what we’ll do yet because we’re tossing up whether we should ignore the right thing in order to keep a promise we weren’t that keen on anyway.

Keeping promises isn’t always given the blessing of the media anyway. Here in Victoria, Dan Andrews went to the 2014 election promising that he wouldn’t be building the East-West link, so the Liberals quickly signed contracts in the period just before caretaker conventions kicked in. Was it the Liberals who were attacked by the media? No, it was Dan Andrews for wasting a billion dollars on something that didn’t get built. Nobody talked about sunk costs, opportunity cost and the fact that building the road would have committed Victorians for billions more and maybe those billions could have been better spent on something else.

Some people respected Andrews for keeping his promise, but one person I spoke to thought that he should have broken it. Not because of the billion dollars to break the contract, but because it was going to take twenty minutes off her commute to work.

And that’s the point with the Stage 3 tax cuts. The extent to which people care will largely be the extent to which they miss out. As Jack Laing is reported to have said: “In the race of life, always back self-interest, at least you know it’s trying.”

So, while we all agree that it’s important to keep promises, the extent to which we judge people depends on a whole range of things, but one of the most important things is how it affects us personally, For example, you’re unlikely to really care when I tell you that you can’t trust Sally because she promised to give me a foot massage in 1998 and I’m still waiting. It certainly won’t stop you giving her a job, if all her referees give her a glowing report.

So when politicians break election promises, they usually get away with it if it only affects a minority. For example, when they promise more resources for indigenous Australians to help close the gap, the majority might be a bit disappointed that it didn’t happen but when you balance that against the beaut, new sporting clubrooms the government built, well, it’s priorities, isn’t it? They can’t be expected to do everything…

Similarly, if Labor decide to keep the changes in the bracket where the tax drops from 32.5 cents to 30, then fiddle around with the bracket starting at $120,000 and lift it by a figure that covers enough people in that range, they can say screw you to those on $180,000 or more, the outrage of the few that are affected will just make them seem like they don’t appreciate how lucky they are to be on more money than the people who just got a tax cut. In fact, Labor could even raise the $180,000 to $200,000 just to show that they’re not really the Marxists that the Murdoch sabre rattlers would have you believe.

Whatever, I keep coming back to my fundamental point: Labor do not have a definite, confirmed position on the Stage 3 cuts yet, so the idea that they should make it very clear that they in the process of balancing good policy against political damage and they’ll let us know when they’ve decided which way they’re going is just naive.

After all, if you listen to Peter Dutton on “Insiders”…

You have my sympathy.

But as to the substance of what he was saying on the Liberal position when asked if the Liberals would go to the next election promising to reinstate them, if Labor changed the legislation, well, there wasn’t any. Substance, that is….

As he said when asked about what his policy would be at the next election for those earning more than $200k, “We will take a policy to the next election and when we’re successful at the next election, in government, we will honour it…”

So, he’s still committed to the cuts even if he’s not committed to stating exactly what the policy will be, if Labor change the legislation. Which is fair enough, if you’re the Liberal Party, because only the Labor Party should be forced to state what their plan is while they’re still working it out. And he’s committed to calling Labor liars at every opportunity, as well as suggesting that there’s a big rift between Albanese and Chalmers on the tax cuts. The Liberals are a “broad church”, but Labor have rifts.

Ah, just like the mainstream media I’ve spent all this time discussing something which hasn’t happened yet and I’ve completely ignored the story about how Mathias Cormann is stuffing up his job at the OECD and how 26 economists and academics have written an open letter expressing concern about how he has effectively shut down the New Approaches to Economic Challenges which they believe was working efficiently.

Yes, when Mathias left the Liberals to work at the OECD, he managed to reduce the competency of both groups. It’s really pretty amazing that a body like that could employ a man who didn’t even notice that he’d forgotten to pay “HelloWorld” for his holiday.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Platinum Jubilees and Republican Questions

The platinum jubilee will bore and cause some to yawn. It might certainly agitate the republican spleen in the fourteen countries where Queen Elizabeth II remains a constitutional head of state. But the question remains: How does the institution this figure represents endure, if it should at all?

A rash of countries have expressed an interest in severing ties with the monarchy. In November last year, Barbados did so with some pomp, swearing in its first president, Sandra Mason, a former governor general. “Today,” Mason proclaimed, “debate and discourse have become action.”

Through 2022, the royals made visits to the Caribbean that showed waning enthusiasm for the Windsors. In Belize and Jamaica, local protesters gathered to call for a formal apology for their family’s role in encouraging that other institution, slavery. A government committee in the Bahamas did not mince its words in calling upon the royals to issue “a full and formal apology for their crimes against humanity”.

The Jamaican Advocates Network was deeply unimpressed by the visit of Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge, publishing a scathing open letter signed by a hundred people from doctors to religious leaders. “We see no reason to celebrate 70 years of the ascension of your grandmother to the British throne because her leadership, and that of her predecessors, have perpetuated the greatest human rights tragedy in the history of humankind.”

The March tour by the royal couple also proved something of a public relations disaster, poor in terms of what political commentators call “the optics.” During a visit to Trench Town in Jamaica, Kate and William were photographed shaking hands with children through wire fences, the pale hands of saviours making contact with black skin.

The couple then rode the same Land Rover used by the Queen and Prince Philip during their 1953 trip to Jamaica. During a military parade, they stood in the open-top vehicle waving to spectators, spectacularly ignorant to the scene. “These unfortunate images are a relic of the past and could have been taken in the 1800s,” came the scornful suggestion from civil rights campaigner Rosalea Hamilton.

In countries such as Canada and Australia, the monarchy has been battered by occasional republican waves without enduring consequence. An Angus Reid survey published in December 2021 found that 52 percent of respondents thought that Canada should not remain a constitutional monarchy indefinitely, though a quarter did.

In Australia, the new Labor government has expressed interest in revisiting the question of becoming a republic, though it is by no means certain how far they will go. Memories still remain of 1999, when the issue was put to a referendum. The republican movement, self-sabotaging and outmanoeuvred, suffered a stunning defeat.

The party’s 2021 national platform did stump its support for the idea and promised to “work toward establishing an Australian republic with an Australian head of state.” Speaking on the occasion of the jubilee, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, while paying tribute to the Queen’s “remarkable seven decades on the throne” noted that the relationship between colonial power and former colony had altered. “No longer parent and young upstart, we stand as equals.”

One source of potential republican inspiration concerns the issue of succession. Durable, seemingly deathless Queen Liz is popular; the next in line, is not. According to the latest YouGov poll, Prince Charles is the sixth most popular, behind Princes Anne and the Duchess of Cambridge. Popularity measures are also generational, with millennials coming in at 40 percent; Gen X, at 57 percent; and Baby Boomers, at 62 percent. Even ardent royalists struggle to find appeal in the idea of Charles III.

Walter Bagehot, in his 1867 work The English Constitution, put much stock in two ruling concepts: the “efficiency” component comprising responsible government and statecraft and the “dignified” part to encourage homage. The latter was “one to excite and preserve the reverence of the population,” the former, “to employ that homage in the work of government.” With a popular monarch, such matters are easier to reconcile. With a real boob on the throne, things can sour.

Under the Queen’s rule, the institution has absorbed the punches and blows of scandal and threat. Anti-royalist sentiment in Britain has failed to become an indignant stampede of constitutional reform. With the death of Princess Diana in 1997, the Windsors seemed to have reached their lowest point. Scottish academic Tom Nairn, on looking at the throng of mourners in the Mall, saw the “auguries of a coming time” when the United Kingdom would be rid of those “mouldering waxworks” in Buckingham Palace. “England is due a future – one that can smartly exorcise the ghosts of Balmoral and Windsor.”

No exorcism came, and republicans have been left twiddling. This has not stopped the anti-monarchist group Republic from launching its “Not Another 70” campaign. “While a vocal minority will want to celebrate the queen’s seventy year reign,” stated the organisation’s chief executive officer Graham Smith, “we must all start looking to the future. The prospect of King Charles is not a happy one, and there is a good, democratic alternative on offer.”

As celebrations were underway, Smith was full of figures on how many people would be celebrating the occasion. “The polling is quite clear on this, only 14 percent said they were planning to do anything and 11 percent in another poll said they were very interested in it.” Less convincingly, he drew upon figures that showed a fall in the monarchy’s approval ratings from 75 percent to 60 percent, with one poll showing an approval for abolition “up to 27 percent.”

These views, when aired on BBC Breakfast, did not convince the anchor, Roger Johnson. “Why do you not think [the monarchy] is a good idea? The soft power the Monarchy projects, the tourism that [it] attracts in this country? You know the argument.”

The soft power concept, Smith shot back, was “a nebulous and meaningless argument.” The constitution, he argued, should be based “on principles like democracy, not on what people enjoy doing on their holidays.”

Unfortunately for Smith, pageantry and entertainment comes before ideology and political purpose, and when a festival on this scale is organised, entertainment takes precedence. Those keen to raise constitutional questions can come across as prigs. In that sense, the organising machine of Buckingham Palace has been very canny indeed.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Scott Morrison’s national security fail

The Morrison Government likes to flap their arms and say they’re strong on national security, but the evidence actually proves otherwise.

It has been reported today in The Guardian the American Government is privately saying that Australia has dropped the ball when it comes to the Solomon Islands. Indeed, the foreign minister hasn’t visited the Solomon Islands to discuss the situation with China, nor has Mr Morrison for that matter, and this national security failure in our backyard has disappointed the Americans.

This situation regarding the Solomon Islands only proves the Morrison Government is incompetent on national security, for many reasons.

I kindly ask you take your minds back to 11 September 2015, when The Guardian published footage of Mr Dutton, Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison indulging in Mr Dutton’s recorded comments of; “Time doesn’t mean anything when you’re, you know, about to have water lapping at your door.” Mr Abbott laughed at the remark, and Mr Morrison nodded his head before realising the boom Mike and cameras were on. This insensitive, or may I even say incendiary, remark by Mr Dutton enraged our Pacific neighbours. It was a huge diplomatic blunder that enraged our Pacific island neighbours, and despite as reported in The Guardian on 13 September 2015 an apology was made by Mr Dutton he still managed to further outrage our Pacific neighbours by saying, “it was a light-hearted moment with the Prime Minister.” What could possibly be light-hearted about island nations going under water because of climate change? Neither Mr Abbott nor Mr Morrison made any form of apology to our Pacific neighbours, nor did they admonish Mr Dutton.

As reported in the Australian Financial Review on 21 August 2020, short-term thinking by the Morrison Government towards foreign policy had become by then the political norm. The Morrison Government placed 1,000 potential coal jobs ahead of the Turnbull Government’s ‘Pacific Step Up’, announced in 2017 to counter China’s growing influence in the Pacific. Once again, this failure in foreign policy and national security by the Morrison Government enraged our Pacific neighbours who were having to address climate change driven rising sea levels.

To add insult to injury Mr Morrison further insulted our Pacific neighbours at the Pacific Islands Forum in October 2019. The Guardian reported on 23 October 2019, the former prime minister of Tuvalu said he was “stunned” by Scott Morrison’s behaviour at the Pacific Islands Forum, which he thought communicated the view that Pacific leaders should; “take the money … then shut up about climate change.” Fiji’s Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, described Australia as “very insulting and condescending” in climate talks. The Pacific leaders also said the funding was repackaged from the existing ODA [official development assistance] to the Pacific and other sectors. That is a familiar story when it comes to the Morrison Government.

In an open letter dated 1 December 2020 all the leaders of our Pacific neighbours criticised Australia’s response to climate change (reported in The Guardian on 1 December 2020). Rather than being conciliatory and seeking to come to a mutually agreeable position, Mr Morrison maintained his rambunctious attitude towards the Pacific leaders by saying; “Australia is successfully meeting our commitments and our targets and in fact we are exceeding them,” a claim which was substantially untrue.

On 2 November 2021 it was reported in the PNG Attitude Mr Morrison was still not listening to the Pacific leaders about climate change, a matter of major international embarrassment for Australia regarding our ongoing failure with our foreign affairs and national security policies in the Pacific. Mr Morrison announced at Glasgow in November 2021 an extra $100 million a year for the next five years to cover all Pacific Island and South-East Asian countries which left his audience cold. Pacific leaders had told Mr Morrison they would rather he made sharper cuts to Australia’s emissions. Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said he told Morrison to slash Australia’s emissions by 2030. Mr Morrison has of course remained obstinate even up to today with an ineffectual 2030 target of a 28% reduction in emissions by 2030.

So, this national security and foreign policy failure is not a recent phenomenon, it has been 7 years in the making of successive Liberal governments insulting our Pacific neighbours, including how the Liberals have treated our Pacific neighbours’ concerns about climate change. What is most concerning is that after it was reported a number of weeks ago the Solomon Islands was entering into a closer relationship with China, not one single member of the Morrison Government travelled to the Solomon Islands to address the relationship with China, until last night after Mr Albanese called out the government for this national security disaster.

Of course, the majority of the Fourth Estate have ignored the Morrison Government’s massive national security failure, but the Americans aren’t happy with Australia for dropping the ball, and of course, the Port of Darwin has been previously leased to China.

This is undoubtedly the most embarrassing era for us in foreign affairs policy, and the Morrison Government has compromised our national security in the Pacific.

Vote the Morrison Government out, Australia.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

We’re with you, Helen: We need an Integrity Commission

After decades as a nurse and midwife, one of the reasons I entered politics was to bring the standards I saw in my professional life, upheld by everyday people, into politics.

On Tuesday, I stood beside 59 eminent Australians who wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister calling on him to immediately establish a strong, effective and independent integrity commission. 

The letter was signed by some of Australia’s most formidable legal minds including former Justice of the High Court Mary Gaudron QC, Tony Fitzgerald AC of the famous Fitzgerald police corruption inquiry, as well as the former Member for Indi Cathy McGowan AO. When these people put their name to something, you’d be a fool to ignore it.

But that’s exactly what this government is doing.

The 8th of September 2021 will mark 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised the Australian people that he would legislate an integrity commission. But still we’ve seen nothing.

I’ve had enough of the government’s stalling tactics, and I’ve been letting them know in Parliament House. While we’ve been waiting for them to deliver on their promise, scandal after scandal has been piling up.

Time’s up. Integrity can’t wait. Sign my petition to demand Scott Morrison establish a robust federal integrity commission now. 

In Question Time yesterday, I asked the PM whether he would deliver an integrity commission before 8 September. In his answer, we saw the same obfuscation and delay he’s brought to getting this body established. A Government clearly not taking this issue seriously.

Tell our politicians that you expect better. Sign my petition to say time’s up and integrity can’t wait. 

Last October I introduced the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill into Parliament, to establish an integrity commission that could hold politicians and public servants to account.

So the PM has two choices. Deliver a robust integrity commission now. Or let Parliament vote on my Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill.

Yours faithfully


Helen Haines MP
Independent Federal Member for Indi

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Overheated war talk is irresponsible – Parliament must decide

Media Release  

69 prominent Australians have signed an open letter to the Prime Minister Scott Morrison calling for a full parliamentary debate and vote before any new commitment to fighting overseas wars.

The letter is signed by several high-profile Australians including former Liberal leader John Hewson, former Labor minister Melissa Parke and the Lord Mayor of Sydney Clover Moore.

It also includes many historians and multiple ex diplomats including Richard Butler AC, former Ambassador to the United Nations.

The call follows several irresponsible comments about a potential war over Taiwan by Peter Dutton, Mike Pezzullo and some media pundits.

The full letter, published by Australians for War Powers Reform is below.

Open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia

With multiple military and defence commentators offering increasingly bleak assessments of the possibility of armed conflict, now is the time to carefully consider Australia’s position.

Australian military forces are to be withdrawn from the 20-year conflict in Afghanistan that produced indifferent results at great cost. Repeating the experience now with another such deployment is neither rational nor necessary.

A major war today would be very different from past wars. Today a single weapon can cause massive destruction of life and property and permanent contamination of the environment. No current threat to Australia justifies taking such a risk.

The human and financial costs involved in deploying troops overseas are immense and require sound decision making and clear, realistic goals.

In the past these life and death decisions have been made without reference to the views and wisdom of the wider community as expressed by its representatives in Parliament.

The way in which governments decided on military interventions in the past will not do for the future.

If a new proposed deployment becomes a reality, the reasons for it should be fully disclosed before any decision is taken by the Prime Minister and the executive.

The stakes are too high for another ill-judged decision by the Prime Minister alone, as we saw with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Australia should not automatically follow U.S. foreign policy priorities.

Our defence and foreign policies should be fully independent and based on our own best interests.

To ensure this, the House of Representatives and the Senate must have a considered debate followed by a vote on any proposed involvement by Australia in another overseas war.

 

Signatories

Dr Chris Aulich; Retired Professor of Public Administration, University of Canberra

Greg Barns SC; Former National President, Australian Lawyers Alliance

The Honourable Emeritus Professor Peter Baume AC DistFRSN

Andrew Bartlett; Former Senator

Allan Behm; Director, International & Security Affairs program, The Australia Institute

Professor Frank Bongiorno AM

Susan Biggs; Sydney Peace Foundation

Dr Alison Broinowski AM; Former diplomat

Richard Broinowski AO; Former diplomat

Dr David Brophy; Senior Lecturer in Modern Chinese History, University of Sydney

Dr Scott Burchill; Senior Lecturer Deakin University

Richard Butler AC; Former Ambassador to the United Nations, Chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq

Helen Caldicott; Founding President, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985 Nobel Peace Prize

Emeritus Professor Joseph A. Camilleri OAM; La Trobe University

Dr Susan Carland; Monash University

Dr Eileen Chanin; Author

Joe Collins; Australia West Papua Association

Paul Daley; Author and journalist

Professor Phillip Deery; Historian

Andrew Farran; Former diplomat, law academic and currently company director

Professor Raelene Frances AM; Dean and professor of history, ANU

Bill Gammage; Humanities Research Centre, ANU

Sam Gazal; Company Director

Bruce Haigh; Former diplomat and political commentator

Michael Hamel-Green; Emeritus Professor, College of Arts & Education, Victoria University

Professor John Hewson; ANU

Dr Marianne Hanson DPhil Oxon; Associate Professor of International Relations, University of Queensland

John Hughes (PhD. FAHA); Filmmaker, Adjunct Professor RMIT

Brendon Kelson; Director, Australian War Memorial, 1990-1994

Tony Kevin; Author and former senior Australian diplomat

Dr Julie Kimber; Senior lecturer, Swinburne University

Dr Kristine Klugman OAM; President Civil Liberties Australia

Mary Kostakidis; Journalist

Professor Marilyn Lake AO, FAHA, FASSA; Professorial Fellow in History, University of Melbourne

Antony Loewenstein; Independent journalist, author and film-maker

Ian Lincoln; Former diplomat

Scott Ludlam; Former Senator

Gavin McCormack; Emeritus Professor ANU

Dr Michael McKinley; International relations expert

Dr Ross McMullin; Historian and biographer

John Menadue AO; Publisher

Kellie Merritt; Widow of Flight Lt Paul Pardoel, killed in Iraq

Rachel Miller; Author

Geoff Miller AO; Former Australian diplomat

Professor Rob Moodie AM; School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne

Clover Moore; Lord Mayor of Sydney

Douglas Newton; Historian

Tim O’Connor; Amnesty International Australia

Sally O’Neill; Historical Researcher, Australian Dictionary of Biography, ANU, retired

Bob O’Neill; Professor of Strategic and Defence Studies Emeritus, ANU

Tony Palfreeman; International relations expert

Melissa Parke; Former Minister for International Development

The Hon. M. A. Pembroke

Dr Carolyn Rasmussen; Historian and biographer

Professor Henry Reynolds; Historian

Dr Jamal Rifi AO; Muslim community leader and GP

Henry Rosenbloom; Publisher, Scribe Publications

Tilman Ruff AO; Co-President, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Founding Chair, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Professor Charles Sampford, DPhil Oxon; Barrister at Law, Foundation Dean of Law and Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law

Professor Ben Saul; Challis Chair of International Law, University of Sydney

Professor Bruce Scates; Professor of History, ANU

Professor Peter Stanley, FAHA; UNSW Canberra

Professor Richard Tanter; School of Political and Social Science, University of Melbourne

Kellie Tranter; Lawyer and human rights activist

Robert Tickner AO; Ambassador for ICAN Australia (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), Former Government Minister

Peter Timmins; Australian Press Council Press Freedom Medal 2017

Noel Turnbull; Honorary Doctor of Communication RMIT University

Dr Sue Wareham OAM; President, Medical Association for Prevention of War

Ernst Willheim; Visiting Fellow ANU College of Law

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Priti Patel and the Death of Asylum

Nothing makes better sense to the political classes than small time demagoguery when matters turn sour. True, the United Kingdom might well be speeding ahead with vaccination numbers, and getting ever big-headed about it, but there is still good reason to distract the voters. Coronavirus continues to vex; the economy continues to suffer. In February, the Office of Statistics revealed that Britain’s economy had shrunk by 9.9%. The last time such a contraction was experienced was in 1709, when a contraction of 13% was suffered as a result of the Great Frost which lasted for three devastating months.

With Brexit Britain feeling alone, it is time to resort to mauling targets made traditional during the 2016 campaign to exit the European Union: the asylum seeker, the refugee and anyone assisting in that enterprise. And the person best suited to doing so is the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, who outlined the government’s New Plan for Immigration on March 24th. It has three objectives with one overarching punitive theme “to better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum.” The authenticity of that need will be aided by deterring “illegal entry into the UK, thereby breaking the business model of criminal trafficking networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger.” Those with “no right to be” in the UK will also be more easily “removed”.

It is in the nature of such policies to conceal the punitive element by extolling virtues. “The UK accepted more refugees through planned resettlement schemes than any other country in Europe in the period 2015-2019 – the fourth highest resettlement schemes globally after the USA, Canada and Australia,” reads the policy statement. “The UK also welcomed 29,000 people through the refugee family reunion scheme between 2015 and 2019. More than half of these were children.”

This self-praise ignores the inconvenient fact that the UK received fewer applications for asylum than European states such as France and Germany in 2020. According to the UNHCR, both countries received four times the number in 2020. “The number of arrivals in the UK in 2020,” remarks academic Helen O’Nions, “was actually down 18% on the previous year.”

It does not take long, however, to identify and inflate the threats: people crossing the English channel in their “small boats reached record levels, with 8,500 … arriving this way” in 2020. Sinister imputations are made: 87% of those arriving in small boats were male. In 2019, 32,000 illegal attempts were made to enter the UK, but foiled in Northern France while 16,000 illegal arrivals were detected in the UK.

The Home Office laments the rapid increase of asylum claims; decisions cannot be made “quickly”; “case loads are growing to unsustainable levels.” Never mind the UN Refugee Convention and human rights: what matters is bureaucratic efficiency. To achieve that, Patel hopes to “stop illegal arrivals gaining immediate entry into the asylum system if they have travelled through a safe country – like France.” Any arrivals doing so could not be said to be “seeking refuge from imminent peril.” Stiffer sentences are also suggested for those aiding asylum. “Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.”

Much of what the Home Office makes of this is nonsense. It entails a fantasy about a model cut, idealised asylum seeker: those with state documents from the persecuting state, clearly of the identifiable sort, all morally sound. The murkier reality necessitates deception as an indispensable part of the process. To not have documents makes travel impossible. Alternative routes and means are therefore required.

The threat to relocate and refuse those seeking asylum would also breach the UK’s own Human Rights Act of 1998, obligating the state to prevent people from being returned to places where they are at the risk of torture, inhuman, degrading treatment or cruel and unusual punishment. That principle is also a cardinal feature of the Refugee Convention.

The view from those who actually have more than a passing acquaintance with the field is vastly different from Patel’s. Politely, some 454 immigration scholars in the UK have told the Home Secretary in an open letter that she does not know what she is talking about. The New Plan, for instance, may have 31 references, but “there is just one reference to research evidence, a research paper on refugee integration.” The undersigned scholars suggest that Patel look more deeply, as the plans being proposed “not only circumvent international human rights law, but are also based on claims which are completely unfounded in any body of research evidence.”

The scholars also note that asylum seekers and refugees lack safe and legal routes, with countries across Europe, North American and Australasia going “to huge efforts and massive expense in recent decades to close down access to the right to asylum.”

The markings of the New Plan resemble, all too closely, the Australian approach of discrimination which has become an exemplar of how to undermine the right to asylum: an obsession with targeting those people smuggling “gangs” and associated business rackets, merely code for targeting those fleeing persecution; distinguishing the method of arrival in order to demonise the plight of the asylum seeker; the decision that, irrespective of the claims of asylum, no sanctuary would ever be given to certain individuals because they chose to jump a phantom queue and not know their place.

The open letter also notes the “distinct and troubling echoes” of “the Australian Temporary Protection Visa programme and the vilification of people with no option but to travel through irregular means to flee persecution and seek sanctuary.”

Another unsavoury aspect of the British turn in refugee policy towards the antipodean example can be gathered by the possible use of offshore detention centres. Canberra relies on the liberal use of concentration camps on remote sites in the Pacific, centres of calculated cruelty that serve to destroy the will of those whose governments have already done much to encourage their flight. The official justification is one of killing asylum seekers with kindness: We saved you from almost certain drowning at sea, only to seal you within the confines of legal purgatory. In the New Plan, one senses a touch of envy for it.

In October last year, it was revealed that the UK Prime Minister’s office was considering the detention of asylum seekers in places as varied as Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea. According to documents obtained by The Guardian, the Foreign Office had been charged with a task by Downing Street to “offer advice on possible options for negotiating an offshore asylum processing facility similar to the Australian model in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.” Patel herself had flirted with the idea of establishing centres at Ascension and St. Helena, though she has had to content herself with ill-suited military barracks on the mainland that facilitated the spread of COVID-19.

Alison Mountz, in The Death of Asylum, makes much of this transformation of the island from a point of transit to that of hostile containment. From field research conducted in Italy’s Lampedusa Island, Australia’s Christmas Island and the US territories of Guam and Saipan, Mountz argues that “the strategic use of islands to detain people in search of protection – to thwart human mobility through confinement – is part of the death of asylum.” Officials such as Patel are happy to help matters along.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

His name is Fousseny Traoré

This is an open letter to the people of Australia and the rest of the Western World,

I’m writing to you today because I am angry. In fact I am positively furious, and I have been for the better part of a year. Finally I have found the words to say it aloud!

I have a brother, he’s not the brother you would define, but a brother all the same because we are one and the same. Both he and I share an ancestral connection, and though this may seem trivial to some, not 400 years ago our ancestors called the same place home. Intercontinental genetic comparisons confirmed that I am 1.4% African and my grandfather is 1.5%, a deep connection I will never ignore. I have an African brother, his name is Fousseny. Let me tell you the story of my brother, Fousseny Traoré.

It is 3am, my heart is pounding, tears are flowing down my cheeks and I am crying because I feel so helpless. I receive a message – the 10th message I have gotten from him in the space of a few hours and I am crying, because now 9 months on I have no answers for him yet again. “My sister, I am not credible”. “They will not listen-it has to be you sister”. “You are white and you are from The West, I do not have a voice, for you see I am not from The West”. “Please, they do not hear me, I can’t do this anymore, they ignore me. “You must understand they will always only ignore me”.

[“My sister, I am not credible”. “They will not listen-it has to be you sister”. “You are white and you are from The West, I do not have a voice, for you see I am not from The West”.

“Please, they do not hear me, I can’t do this anymore, they ignore me. “You must understand they will always only ignore me”]

I wipe my tears away as I read the message and red hot guilt flows through my body, and I try to formulate a sentence. I want to explain that people do care, but I know that’s a lie and he also knows that’s a lie. I know everything he is saying is none other than the truth. The West doesn’t see Africa, the west doesn’t hear AFRICA, and the west barely acknowledges its existence. In the words of my brother: “They care not, Africa is the garbage dump of the West”.

[“They care not, Africa is the garbage dump of the West”]

I am exhausted and it is exhausting to write this but the first thing I have to say is this: I’m really angry, and you should be too and this is why. You stood in the streets and you screamed in protest but… there was millions you left out. When you stood in your streets and screamed that ‘BLACKLIVESMATTER’ where were the screams for BLACK AFRICANS? When you stood in the streets and you screamed for human rights, for people of colour; and for the stolen generations, where were the screams for them? When you waved your sign in the air through your masked protection, where were screams for the Mother Land? When you rose up and demanded equality for all, where were the screams for Black Africans? Where were the screams for AFRICA? All that came from the west, was only for the west and nothing more. You went into the streets and you forgot! Where were the screams for your brothers and sisters in AFRICA? You forgot them. When they silently protested on social media, did you even hear them? Did you see them? Can you even name any African protesters? Even one? If you learn one thing today let it be his name: Fousseny Traoré.

To tell you his story we first have to address the African elephant in the room. Somehow between the 80’s and the 90’s the voice for most of Africa fell off the map. Somewhere along the lines, the words: ‘Give Help, Send Help and SOS’, lost all meaning. The very nature of these words have almost become perverse, almost as if human suffering is now a crime and ‘how dare anyone send out a distress signal on my meme scattered newsfeed’. For the first time in history, our African brothers and sisters are right in front of us and they are screaming for our help and we can do nothing but ignore them. During the BlackLivesMatters protests you NEVER amplified their voice! In your anger for the injustice in The West, you forgot Africa; and they watched you through a looking glass as you IGNORED THEM.

Spend 5 minutes on a public forum and you quickly learn of the mirror they hold up to our society; revealing what it truly is, a festering selfish world full of disgusting and filthy inequality. I want to you to ask yourself how many people who ask for help don’t want help? How many people who are suffering, are lying about it? Now I want you to think about this: if you’ve had a social media post that had some or a substantial outreach; go to your posts, go to your messages and I can guarantee someone in a dire situation has desperately tried to communicate with you. They saw you as a beacon and you ignored them, because they don’t know what a scam is, they don’t know how to ask for help, they don’t know the world through your eyes. So through their oppression sending a distress signal on social media is all that they can do. Here’s the thing, it doesn’t take an intellectual to see another human’s pain and suffering, it doesn’t take a genius to verify the authenticity of a story being told, you just need to do one human thing and LISTEN, listen because it doesn’t take a genius to hear a genuine scream.

This is what I heard. Fousseny is from Bamako, Mali West Africa. In 2019 Fousseny Traoré led the FRIDAYSFORFUTURE movement, [well he used to lead the movement but more on that soon] his last protest had an audience of 2,000 Malians – but you’ve never heard of him. Fousseny is an incredibly remarkable young man, he’s kind, generous and would do anything for anyone. He would give anyone the clothes off his back if it meant he could change anything for the better. He started numerous campaigns to fight plastic pollution and has worked for pennies to feed himself and others in his community. With only his smile and determination and with little resources, he has encouraged hundreds to clean up the streets, to plant trees and live sustainably; and caused hundreds more to take to the streets in protest for Climate Action. He’s no Greta Thurnberg, no, but he is deserving of the stature all the same, because he is a deeply oppressed Black African Muslim and it is incredible what he has accomplished so far, but he’s invisible to you.

If he was a Westerner he’d be all over the news, but he’s not and so you don’t even know his name, so I’m saying it again, his name is Fousseny Traoré. I have no words to describe how remarkable he truly is, but do you know what the most remarkable thing about Fousseny is? He’s real and it was profoundly easy to verify the authenticity of his words, PROFOUNDLY EASY, so I helped him. Here’s what I have learned from that: no-body gives a HOOT about Black Africans. Quite frankly I’m sick of it, I’m sick of the excuses, I’m sick of heartless cowards and reacts with no intentions. I’ve had an ocean full of plastic of it. I’ve had so much of a barrel of it that both Fousseny and I feel like we are screaming into a blackened void- but that isn’t even the half of it! Like most people who live in a constant state of war and unrest Fousseny’s circumstances changed, initially we were all so filled with joy for him, but sadly things did not turn out as planned.

Earlier this year Fousseny won a scholarship from a French organisation for his efforts with the FRIDAYSFORFUTURE movements, and he flew all the way to Tunisia in North Africa for a month long workshop to learn how to become a future leader in climate activism. He would take these skills back home to Mali to lead the Climate Justice movement. Sadly Fousseny never made it home and now he can’t go home. Since both COVID-19 and the military coup in Mali, we can’t get him home and out of Tunisia. Exhaustingly, I have had to explain this to countless organisations, consuls, government bodies and humanitarian agencies with no or little reply, explicitly dictating that Fousseny can’t go home. There is a war in Mali, Mali is a no fly zone, and there is a high chance he would be held at gun point and forced to do unspeakable things on threat of his life. This isn’t a joke or an embellishment, this is real life. If forced to go home, especially since he is considered a political activist, Fousseny if he goes home will in all likelihood be murdered – that’s just a cold hard fact. Fousseny is thousands of km away from home and he’s never been outside Mali until now, he hasn’t seen his family in almost 9 months and he’s never been this far from them in his entire life. Fousseny was Mali’s only hope for Climate Justice and his efforts have faded into the deep oppression into nothingness. In the space of 2 months Fousseny and his people went from running Climate Action protests to: starving, running for their lives and being murdered- and this was barely before COVID-19 had graced their shores.

Fousseny Traoré

Fousseny also speaks 3 languages, and French is his first, he’s an incredibly gifted and talented environmentalist and everything he does is selfless, he is an asset to humanity and any country should be lucky to take him! But none of that matters, because he does not have a right to seek asylum in Tunisia, apparently that’s where his human rights just abruptly end? Fousseny is a refugee. To add to this, I have even had Westerners tell me he should seek asylum in Tunisia, and that he should be grateful that he isn’t in Mali… but you can’t seek asylum in Tunisia, a refugee can’t work nor start a new life in Tunisia! That is why people die in refugee camps in Tunisia. Fortunately he is not at the refugee camp in Tunisia, because even if it comes out of my own pocket, I will not subject to him to such torture, because it is a place of misery and suffering. It is completely inhuman the way they treat refugees in Tunisia. Even in his dark room, from his 1 bedroom flat that he can barely make rent on (from small donations), thousands of kilometres from home, he is still trying to reach out and create awareness for Climate Justice and he would do this until his last breath I’m sure. Fousseny needs urgent refugee protection now! He is getting sick, and his mental health is starting to destroy his mind and body, he also desperately needs treatment for his sickle cell anaemia and left foot disability. Imagine being in a country with not-the-right to seek asylum and being expected to die there, because of a war you didn’t start in a country on a continent the world doesn’t care about. What kind of soulless being do you have to be to believe he does not deserve to seek asylum in a foreign land? Why does he not deserve to seek asylum in Australia? These questions keep me awake at night.

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has done nothing for Fousseny – save issuing him a useless card and his refugee status in Tunisia only adds to his invisibility, and with it carries a certain stigma. He is completely ignored by communities that 9 months ago were singing his praises. These are the communities he is supposed to be a part of that have left him for DEAD. This is what makes me angry the most, his distress signals on social media are completely ignored! No matter how much time we spend sharing his campaign, it’s blocked from Climate Activism Groups. The Admins of these groups delete the posts, because apparently a real life black African refugee and FridaysForFuture activist, is not authentic enough to warrant their support? If only they knew his pain and bothered to hear his cries, if only they knew he is very much a victim to the very injustice they are fighting for. They refuse to help someone who has done so much for the FRIDAYSFORFUTURE movement and for Climate Justice – they refuse to help their own. They have completely forgotten him. I am incensed beyond comprehension at this injustice Fousseny is being forced to endure, all the while being completely ignored by communities that he depends on so much. I am disgusted with these groups. So I have a message for those Climate Activists and groups who have deleted his posts. To those who have broken my brother’s spirit: you should BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES, for you know nothing of his sacrifice and NOTHING of his pain! Who do you think you are and why do you ignore his distress signal? Is this not what you are fighting for after all?!

To make things worse it is because of Australian laws, and our utterly useless refugee policies, that Fousseny is not likely to seek protection from Australia. Canada, is where he wants to go because it is French speaking, but mainly because they sponsor refugees, unlike Australia! So I desperately want to fly him to Canada under refugee protection but we haven’t been unable raise enough money, not-with-standing we don’t even know if this is the correct path forward and since his Visa has expired we are afraid of him being detained by the Tunisian government. There are also legal issues as well as Tunisian taxes we can’t seem to get past. Not to mention numerous other barriers and probably many more invisible ones we also can’t seem to get a straight answer for. I want to find him a sponsor from Canada but since I’m not Canadian, this seems an impossible feat and we can’t seem to get a straight answer out of anyone! I am so disgusted with humanity, to the point I don’t even know who to be disgusted with anymore! I am disgusted with Australia for pretending that refugees like Fousseny do not exist and most of all (and I never thought I would say this) I am disgusted with the UNHCR!

My brother is fading into the festering swamp of vast human injustice and inexplicable inequality. The morale for human rights have gone, and I can do nothing but watch from the sidelines because so far no one has been able to help us, and their silence is all we can hear. I am one person and I have never felt more alone and ignored in my life, it’s as if nobody cares at all. Not a single humanitarian organisation or human rights advocacy group has come to this remarkable young man’s aid and I have no words to express my rage. He doesn’t understand why. We both don’t understand why. If people out there do care, WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU? We need you so desperately right now, I need you, Fousseny needs you. My heart aches, because you, the readers of Australian Independent Media, are my last hope to save my brother. I have no idea what is going to happen to him, and his only crime was being born a Black African.

[‘If I die on this journey then so be it’.]

Sadly, Fousseny no longer believes there is help out there and come January or February next year, Fousseny will risk his life and attempt to cross the Mediterranean, in a tiny boat over rough seas. He is so desperate to leave Tunisia he would rather die than stay there, and I quote ‘If I die on this journey, then so be it’. Please don’t let this happen, I beg you. Please don’t let him die. How can it be this hard to get help for someone who needs it most? Is he not human enough? I am failing him and it isn’t even my fault. I am afraid no one will ever come to his aid and with that I am afraid he will die.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE, IF YOU KNOW HOW TO HELP AND YOU’RE READING THIS, DO SOMETHING AND HELP HIM NOW!

Please don’t let him die, I cannot do this on my own, someone do something before for it’s too late. I need legal aid, sponsors, humanitarian and human rights advocates, someone, anyone… just someone other than just me to do something, anything!! Why is he being ignored? Please don’t let this go on. Help me save Fousseny, please help me get him out of Tunisia before he makes this dangerous journey and before it’s too late, help him seek refugee protection. He is all alone, please don’t let him die, BlackAfricanLivesMatter.

Sincerely,

Nicole F Clark

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

The David McBride Case: Whistleblowing, Afghanistan and Australian War Crimes

Much complaint can be had of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report. It exempts political actors of responsibility for alleged atrocities and war crimes. It suggests that those in the highest echelons of the Australian Defence Forces are ignorant in incompetent innocence. It spares the desk warriors and flays the field operatives. Heavily redacted, this document suggests that no serious cleansing of the Augean stables is going to take place any time soon.

One recommendation in the report does stand out for its logical decency. “Perhaps the single most effective indication that there is a commitment to cultural reform is the demonstration that those who have been instrumental in the exposure of misconduct, or are known to have acted with propriety and probity, are regarded as role models.”

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who the people being recommended for promotion or pardon are, their names furiously blacked out in the public version of the report. But hints can be gathered from the explicit reference to the role played by whistleblowers. “Too often, not only in the military, have the careers of whistleblowers been adversely affected.”

One such whistleblower is Major David McBride, who once cut his teeth as a military lawyer and participated in two deployments to Afghanistan. Between 2014 and 2016, McBride passed on information to the ABC on alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan by Australian soldiers. It began with the gathering of files from computers located in the joint-operations headquarters near Bungendore, east of the nation’s capital. A report documenting alleged atrocities by special forces in Afghanistan came into being, though it bulked to cover the mishandling of sex abuse allegations within the military, and the treatment of women in the armed forces. Avenues of internal disclosure were used, and exhausted. McBride even sought to tempt the Australian Federal Police. No one bit.

In 2017, the material gathered by McBride became the trove of documents and revelations called The Afghan Files. They were disturbing, enlightening, and did much to expose the whole sordid business of committing special forces to such theatres of war as Afghanistan. But McBride’s view on the information was more panoramic and less specifically focused on the minutiae of brutality. Australia’s special forces, he suggested in what can only be regarded as an eternal theme, were scapegoats for desk bound commanders and bureaucrats. While soldiers killed and bled in the field, the pen pushers back in Canberra thrived. “It’s a real sickness we need to work on,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald in June 2019. “Everyone has an opinion poll. No one wants to make a decision.”

In that sense, McBride remains conventional, keen on proper process, and far from a garlanded peacenik. He stares at officialdom, finds them wanting: they want to send soldiers to war, but in doing so, hobble them. “If you are worried about Afghan deaths, why not pull us out? If you want us to fight the war, you have to be able to let us do it.”

For his deeds, McBride faces five charges centred on theft of Commonwealth property, breaching the Defence Act and disclosing information without due authorisation. In a preliminary hearing in 2019, he pleaded not guilty to all charges.

His case has put a few Australian parliamentarians in a sour mood, though not those of the major parties, who remain characteristically cowed and cowardly on such subjects. The well-meaning and often sound independent MP Andrew Wilkie is entirely clear about what should happen to McBride. “The federal government must stop going after whistleblowers who risk everything to reveal what happens in dark corners.” To that end, the government “must drop all charges against Mr McBride.”

Senator Rex Patrick, another independent, has also urged the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to drop the charges. McBride “is a hero” and in the absence of the CDPP failing to drop the case, “the Attorney-General should order the discontinuance of the prosecution under the powers afforded him by section 71(1) of the Judiciary Act.”

Nick Xenophon, law partner of the firm representing McBride and himself a former federal parliamentarian, is also a standard bearer for whistleblowers. In an open letter to the chief of the Australian Defence Forces, General Angus Campbell, he argued that it was only “whistleblowers like McBride and a handful of others who made the Brereton report possible by refusing to be intimidated into silence. In my view, they have redeemed the reputation of our nation. They do not deserve jail cells.”

The answer supplied by General Campbell was nothing if not predictable. When called upon to have a view on the subject of McBride’s liability, he retreated to the bunker of dispassionate propriety. “I can’t speak to issues at play in a current court process,” he explained to the press last month. “I am not in a position to do so. I understand your concern and I appreciate that many here will speak to that issue, but I am not able to talk to it.”

A petition started by Afghan Australian lawyer Arezo Safi, is bustling away to its intended target of 50,000. (To date 38,552 have signed it.) “As an Afghan-Australian and a lawyer, I am deeply upset by the persecution of David McBride, the brave whistleblower who exposed Australian Defence Force’s war crimes in Afghanistan.” Democracy, she claims, is at stake without the exploits of McBride and his like.

Support is also forthcoming from the Afghan Community Support Organisation of New South Wales. In commending the efforts and findings of the investigation, its president Nadir Azami wanted the government to “go all the way and finish this goodwill and drop charges against Mr McBride.” Doing so would show “good intention” in supporting future whistleblowers.

Safi is dedicated in her advocacy for McBride, certain that he is “being celebrated for his bravery by the general public.” But the approach to whistleblowers in Australia is at best fickle. The system of protections are perniciously poor for those exposing national security information. The best McBride can hope for at this point are sensible decisions made by the CDPP based on the public interest, a concept regularly used against, rather than for, the whistleblower.

Should the matter ultimately wind its way to the Attorney-General Christian Porter, advocates for McBride will have every reason to be perturbed. Porter is a dreary authoritarian who relishes the prosecutor’s garb. He has already given a clue to fellow parliamentarians on what members of the public can expect. Intervening in the McBride case “would be utterly extraordinary and would necessarily, by its very nature, represent political intervention in a process which has conventionally been independent.”

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Digital media code closer to passage after ABC and SBS win inclusion

A mandatory Australian media code legislation aimed at Silicon Valley’s largest digital media giants is now closer to passage after the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) relented on its original draft and has now included public broadcasters ABC and SBS in the government’s proposed mandatory news code legislation.

Whereas the ACCC’s original draft excluded the ABC and SBS on the presumed justification of those organisations already receiving taxpayer funding, they will now be eligible to receive payments from digital giants such as Facebook and Google, joining in with other mainstream media giants such as News Corp and Nine/Fairfax, to receive payments for running their news content.

Previously, federal communications minister Paul Fletcher said that the bill – under its official name of the News Media Bargaining Code Bill (2020) – did not originally apply to the ABC and SBS, because they “[were] not the policy focus when it comes to remuneration aspects of the proposed mandatory code.”

However, common sense has prevailed: this bill in question, that of essential modern reform, exists as being too important to exclude any of Australia’s media entities which produce content that the likes of Google and Facebook utilise.

The move, initiated by federal treasurer Josh Frydenberg and implemented in the new draft by ACCC chairman Rod Sims, is now slated to win bipartisan support, particularly from renewed numbers from Labor and the Greens, ahead of the updated legislation’s tabling for debate slated for December 10.

The bill would mandate that any digital media enterprise – including but not limited to Facebook and Google – must pay Australian media companies for their content or else face heavy penalties and fines.

Sarah Hanson-Young, the Greens’ senator from South Australia who holds the party’s communications portfolio, was pleased that the party’s demands to amend the legislation to include the public broadcasters was met.

And moreover, Hanson-Young has pledged her party’s support for the proposed legislation.

“It was the wrong decision to lock the public broadcasters out of the draft code and allow Facebook and Google to continue to profit from their content,” Hanson-Young said.

Hanson-Young also said that the future, enhancement and maintaining of public interest journalism, particularly on the ABC and SBS, would stand to benefit if and when the legislation is passed.

“Their inclusion is an important part of tackling the power and greed of the tech giants and protecting public interest journalism,” said Hanson-Young.

Hanson-Young and the Greens had always maintained that the role of fairness to not just the public broadcasters, but also to the ongoing survival of the AAP Newswire service and to smaller media outlets for their digital content as well.

“If it’s good enough for the global tech giants to pay Murdoch for content, then it is only fair that our public broadcasters are compensated for the use of their high-quality journalism, too,” she said.

“We are yet to see the legislation for the code – but when we do, we will also be looking to see that it guarantees simple and cost-effective benefits for small and independent media players.

“If the aim of this code is to ensure the viability of Australia’s media, then not only was it vital ABC and SBS were included, but it’s also important AAP doesn’t fail and small and independent publishers don’t miss out,” added Hanson-Young.

The Greens are not alone in advocating passage of the bill’s new version as being an essential influence on the future of public interest journalism.

Both the Public Interest Journalism Initiative (PIJI) and the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas (JNI) – upon making joint lobbying submissions on behalf of amending the bill – are also pushing for the bill’s immediate impact with its passage.

“There are several issues of paramount importance to public interest journalism within the Code,” said Anna Draffin, PIJI’s chief executive.

“One of these key factors is media diversity, meaning the inclusion of news producers of all sizes, across regional, rural and metropolitan areas.

“The Code must incorporate fair value exchange in both directions, starting with a fair information exchange to ensure equitable commercial outcomes,” added Draffin.

“There has been a lot of talk about the need to encourage more reliable and accurate journalism and the Code can be a world-leading, practical step towards doing just that,” said Mark Ryan, JNI’s executive director.

As Google has been critical of the proposed legislation, even going as far as lobbying the ACCC itself for its vested interests on the bill, it and Facebook have been cooperative in negotiations with the Australian government about the legislation itself.

But the legislation also has the support from various media companies as well, as evidenced in a joint open letter from factions such as Nine, News Corp, Seven West Media and the Guardian Australia.

“Australians also know that trusted local news sources are under threat. Many have closed, forever silencing local voices,” the letter opened.

“The global digital platforms should care about the local media landscape. They should care about ensuring the sustainability of the local news media sector.

“Why? Because they benefit from it – enormously. But the financial ledger in producing the content is currently very one-sided,” the introduction added.

Fighting for a level playing field for everyone should be the ultimate aim of the bill, the letter concluded.

“Google has publicly said it wants to help fund the future of Australian media. That is certainly something that we welcome.

“Supporting a fair and reasonable Code is the first step. The Code is essential to arrest further declines in professional news content in Australia – something our democracy depends on,” it said.

 

The ABC’s recently-remodeled Melbourne TV and radio facility, in the city’s Southbank precinct (Photo from Decon Corp)

 

Also by William Olson:

Casuals due to get relief in Victoria in lieu of national action

Unions call for thaw of superannuation freeze

Ignore the spin – unemployment still up, says ACTU

CDP is still useless, claims ACTU group

 

[textblock style="7"]

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

ASEAN trade deal may not employ Australians – ACTU

The Morrison government is due to sign a trade agreement whose final stages have been secretly negotiated among itself and 14 other nations in the Asia-Pacific region, but the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) remains sceptical as to whether jobs for any Australians will come up as a result of the pending and imminent agreement.

The behind-closed-doors negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) between Australia and China, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam are expected to culminate on Sunday in a virtual Zoom-type meeting to mark a free trade agreement that has been nearly a decade in its planning and negotiations.

Australia represents one of five countries – along with New Zealand, China, Japan and South Korea – which are already partners in various free trade arrangements with the remaining countries in the pact, who make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Together, in signing the RCEP, they will constitute 30 per cent of the world’s population and just under 30 percent of the global GDP, thereby making this pact the largest of its kind.

The ACTU’s reservations about the deal concern in its coverage of 2.2 billion people residing among the 15 nations, that Australian workers won’t be used at the preference for cheaper labour.

Citing the global COVID-19 pandemic, the current domestic economic recession, and Australia’s current unemployment and under-employment rates of 6.9 and 11.4 per cent respectively, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the ACTU possesses an uncertainty over how many or if any Australian jobs will be required within the FTA program.

“We need an independent assessment of the value of this deal for Australian workers,” said Michele O’Neil, the ACTU’s president.

“Workers deserve to know what is being negotiated on their behalf. The system is broken and anti-democratic,” she added.

As such, the ACTU has implored the Morrison government to commission an independent social, economic and health assessment of the RCEP to the expected immediate ratification of the pact between all of its international partners.

The ACTU’s concerns are justified, given its shortcomings in FTA’s in the recent past, as was the case with a 2015 arrangement with China (ChAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) of 2018.

“The Australian trade union movement supports expanding exports and trade deals that are fair,” said O’Neil.

“Despite Government claims, past trade deals have delivered negligible benefits for the Australian economy and left Australian workers worse off,” O’Neil added.

What also raises a sense of trepidation for the ACTU are red flags raised about many of the signatory countries – specifically Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines and Thailand – possess histories of labour and human rights abuses, many of which are centred around child labour, forced labour for migrants, arbitrary arrests, and the detention and/or imprisonment of trade union leaders and workers.

“The deal includes countries where there [are] significant evidence of labour rights and human rights abuses such as China, Brunei and Cambodia,” O’Neil says.

“But we know of no provisions in the agreement to deal with issues like forced labour or child labour,” O’Neil added.

The concerns of O’Neil and the ACTU are well-founded.

From a 2018 Sydney summit detailing the various broad category of human rights abuses in ASEAN member nations, the Human Rights Watch organisation submitted a paper where it cited:

  • In Cambodia, where its Trade Union Law was violated to the points where some unions were prevented from legally registering and operating in the way of establishing actions of collective bargaining, workers’ rights and proper working conditions;
  • In Indonesia, female domestic workers in the Middle East continue to face abuse by employers, including long working hours, non-payment of salaries, and physical and sexual abuse;
  • In Singapore, labour exploitation occurs on many fronts. Foreign migrant workers are subject to labour abuse and exploitation through debts owed to recruitment agents, non-payment of wages, restrictions on movement, confiscation of passports, and sometimes physical and sexual abuse;
  • Also in Singapore, foreign domestic workers – incidentally, barred from joining, organising, and leading in unions – are still excluded from the Employment Act and many key labour protections, such as limits on daily work hours;
  • And in Thailand, migrant workers from Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam are vulnerable to physical abuses, indefinite detention, and extortion by Thai authorities; severe labour rights abuses and exploitation by employers; and violence and human trafficking by criminals who sometimes collaborate with corrupt officials.

In an open letter to then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop at the summit, Human Rights Watch regional directors Brad Adams and Elaine Pearson wrote: “We recognise that your government has an interest in forging closer trade and security ties with ASEAN members. At the same time, a number of ASEAN leaders preside over governments that deny basic liberties and fundamental freedoms.

 

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who was asked to find common ground with ASEAN partners on FTA’s and human rights (Photo from abc.net.au)

 

“These governments routinely commit serious human rights violations, crack down on civil society organisations and the media, and undermine democratic institutions by allowing corruption to flourish. Lack of accountability for grave abuses by state security forces is the norm throughout ASEAN.”

Meanwhile, O’Neil sees the potential that such a wide-ranging FTA can achieve, but hopes that the Morrison government possesses a vision of execution of the process, something which the ACTU cites that the government has yet to address.

“The agreement could also open up essential services like health, education, water, energy, telecommunications, digital and financial services to private foreign investors and restrict the ability of future governments to regulate them in the public interest,” said O’Neil.

“We need greater accountability and oversight to protect Australia’s national interest in this process,” she added.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Viral Optimism: The Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine

The announcement that Pfizer Inc., along with its collaborative partner BioNTech SE, had come up with a successful vaccine candidate to combat the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 sent the markets soaring. In New York, Pfizer’s shares rose by 15 per cent in pre-market trading; those of BioNTech, Nasdaq-listed, rose 25 per cent. “Today is a great day for science and humanity,” a confident Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla crowed. “We are reaching this critical milestone in our vaccine development program at a time when the world needs it most with infection rates setting new records, hospitals nearing over-capacity and economies struggling to reopen.”

Bourla was in no mood to be modest about the record of the mRNA-based vaccine candidate, called BNT162b2. “With today’s news, we are a significant step closer to providing people around the world with a much needed breakthrough to help bring an end to this global health crisis. We look forward to sharing additional efficacy and safety data generated from thousands of participants in the coming weeks.”

The phase 3 clinical trial began on July 27, using 43,538 study participants. “The first interim analysis of our global Phase 3 study provides evidence that a vaccine may effectively prevent COVID-19,” explained Uğur Şahin of BioNTech, its co-founder and CEO. “This is a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort.”

Bourla, perhaps realising that sceptics and the unsure will be eyeing such claims with reservation, has done much to squeeze the public relations process. In an open letter on October 16, he assumed a voice almost presidential in character. Forget elected officials or world leaders – here was Bourla as de facto vaccine president and humanitarian rescuer, “wanting to speak directly to the billions of people, millions of businesses, and hundreds of governments around the world that are investing their hopes in a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine to overcome this pandemic.”

He promised transparency in the three areas where success had to be shown before approval for public use could be sought. The vaccine had to first be effective in preventing COVID-19 “in at least a majority of vaccinated persons.” It had to be demonstrated as safe “with robust safety data generated from thousands of patients.” It also had to be shown “that the vaccine can be consistently manufactured at the highest quality standards.”

Pfizer has also not exactly been transparent in releasing the full details of its preliminary analysis, but it certainly has been keen to celebrate the findings so far. The vaccine candidate, for instance, was “more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis.” Data was also drawn from 94 confirmed COVID-19 cases, though nothing has been said about the vaccine’s effectiveness on the issue of re-infection.

Of the enrolled participants, 42% had “diverse backgrounds” (“racially and ethnically”). No serious safety concerns were noted. Submission to the US Food and Drug Administration for Emergency Use Authorization is anticipated once “the required safety milestone is achieved.” The clinical trial is set to continue to its final analysis of 164 confirmed cases “to collect further data and characterize the vaccine candidate’s performance against other study endpoints.”

Such news, despite being based on interim data as yet unpublished in peer-review literature, delighted certain members of the scientific community. Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, could barely contain his excitement. “I am probably the first guy to say that [life will be back to normal by spring], but I will say that with some confidence.” Anthony Fauci of the US National Institutes of Health found the returns of the trial “just extraordinary”.

But even amidst the frothy enthusiasm, notes of caution gurgled. Erika Edwards for NBC News lists a few reservations. “Pfizer’s vaccine is a new type of technology that’s never been used in mass human vaccination before and experts caution that much remains unknown about its safety, how long it might work and who might benefit most.”

One such expert is Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota. “We don’t know anything about groups they didn’t study, like children, pregnant women, highly immunocompromised people and the eldest of the elderly.” Virologist Brenda Wren of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is another. “It is a case of ‘so far so good’ but more confirmatory safety and efficacy studies are required.”

The heralded nature of the untried technological feature of the vaccine – at least when it comes to being applied to humans – lies in the speed and scale it can be manufactured at. Messenger-RNA (mRNA) tutors the immune system to target the spike protein of the virus. As Isabelle Bekeredjian-Ding of Germany’s Paul Ehrlich Institut describes it, “An mRNA is basically like a pre-form of a protein and its [sequence encodes] what the protein is basically made of later on.” Once delivered into the body, the cells read the mRNA as a set of instructions to build the viral protein in question. The molecules of the virus are thereby created but do not form the virus itself. The immune system, tricked as it were, picks up on the presence of such viral proteins, producing a defensive response.

Pfizer’s bubbly confidence will have to be read alongside its history of data manipulation and publication strategy, all in the service of profit maximisation. In 2008, it was found that Pfizer had tinkered with the publication of studies on the use of its epilepsy drug Neurontin, enabling it to sell the drug for uses not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Studies undertaken showing negative outcomes for the use of the drug for unapproved uses were suppressed or delayed.

In 2014, the company agreed to pay $325 million to resolve claims it defrauded insurers and health care benefit providers by marketing Neurontin for those unapproved uses. Despite forking out in the settlement, Pfizer refused to admit wrongdoing. Worth thinking about as more data from the BNT162b2 trials is gathered and released.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Stop the lies, Morrison. Your gas-led recovery is a toxic sham.

In any other universe, recovering from one public health crisis by worsening another would spark immediate backlash. An “asbestos led recovery” would be career-ending; as would a “tobacco led recovery” or a “AK-47 led recovery”. But fossil fuels have locked their harm so deeply into our lives that we have become desensitised to this incredible, radical significance of proposing to hurt humans as a pathway to helping them. What is happening here is simultaneously deadly and ludicrous. (Ketan Joshi Renew Economy).

In pristine white hard hat and air sea rescue orange Hi-Viz vest fluoro fancy dress, Scott Morrison is like some surreal, grotesquely upscaled, Lego minifigure in a budget horror movie as he bobs up like a turd in the surf off Nobby’s Beach to spruik his latest role as our national saviour in Santos and Origin’s Gas Chooses itself.

After spending a week singing an aria to himself and his government which gets things done – because “that’s what we do” as he tells Coalition toady, David Speers, on ABC Insiders, by Sunday, he’s changed his tune. His threat to build a massive new 1GW gas-fired power station to replace Liddell won’t be happening.

Yep. Scotty’s “can do” government can also undo. Why? Morrison bullshits about how private enterprise has saved us from yet another crisis. As if he’s talked them into it. Why, Energy Australia has a fabulous new gas-fired generator in the wings and – look over there – corporations have batteries and stuff just waiting to go.

No mention of Mike Cannon-Brookes who throws down the gauntlet, declaring he’ll bid for Liddell’s replacement if Scott Morrison can identify the rules of engagement. Calls Scotty’s bluff. Worse.

“Giant fossil fuel companies need subsidies to extract gas and export it? No they don’t, that is bullshit. So declare the rules of the game. That’s the way to get assets built.”

Bizarre? It’s what we’ve come to expect from a government which has no energy policy. Not a clue. But what a stunt! Trust Scotty to launch his gas-led recovery show in Tomago, home to another aluminium smelter, Coalition policy is helping to kill. It’s twenty-two minutes inland from coal terminal and post-industrial rust-bucket Newcastle. Described – along with winsome Wollongong – by John Quiggan as a “vibrant and diversified” regional centre, Newcastle has a ten per cent unemployment rate; a seventeen year low.

The Tomago smelter, one of the Hunter’s last big metal producers, is 51% owned by model corporate citizen, Rio Tinto. Drawing twelve per cent of NSW’s electricity, it’s the state’s biggest user. At mates’ rates, of course.

Our smelters typically rely on heavily subsidised coal-fired electricity with gas back-up plants. If they shut their doors, as Rio keeps threatening, power companies’ would have to shut a few generators down, too.

Tomago claims rising power prices will force it to close. But experts point to a glut of aluminium world-wide. China produces 62 per cent to our 3.3. In 2017, moreover, Tomago forged an eleven year baseload power supply contract deal with Macquarie Generation. AGL is plans to build a 250MW back up gas generator at Tomago but it costs three times as much to burn gas to make electricity than to burn coal.

Smelters account for sixteen per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector but there has been not a hint of any Coalition roadmap towards encouraging the industry to adopt renewables. Conspicuously lacking from Morrison’s roadmap is any acknowledgment that unless Australian industry invests in green energy then it will decline along with fossil fuels.

“Australia is one of the world’s most emissions-intensive aluminium producers. Deployment of renewable electricity is a path out of this quagmire, and the rapid fall in cost of renewables makes it more viable than ever before.”  Clark Butler reports for The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA)

Simon Holmes à Court argues, Tomago’s crippled by Coalition incompetence; politicised mismanagement.

Australia’s four aluminium smelters are salvageable. They also offer stability to our national grid. Above all, they provide employment and support whole communities. They will be scrapped because Morrison’s government won’t admit that renewable energy is the key to their future. Will it clean up its act? Phase out fossil fuels as soon as possible? Pigs might fly. Instead the PM has a surreal cop-out, “Gas Chooses Itself”.

Sure it does. Despite being flogged as a transition fuel, gas is not good for the environment. Morrison’s messaging on gas originates in US industry bodies and think tanks. The fantasy that gas is a “transition fuel” or a “bridge” to renewables stems from the 1990s. The spin was fabricated by the American Gas Association as more evidence emerged on global warming.

Crikey’s David Hardaker refers to Marian Wilkinson’s The Carbon Club which traces the influence of US fossil fuel lobbyists to 1997 when the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation fossil lobbyists arrived in Canberra to work us over before we sent our representatives to cheat at Kyoto – “It’s not global and it won’t work.”

Wilkinson’s book begins by noting that when Tony Abbott became PM, a raft of legislation was introduced to shut down everything from the emissions trading scheme, the CEFC and the Climate Change Authority. Tim Flannery recalls being sacked from the Climate Commission. It was the first act of the Abbott government and Flannery doubts that cabinet had even met. Morrison’s leadership is still appeasing the same push.

As for (mainly methane) natural gas being any type of bridge to renewables, the notion is risible. If fully unleashed, Australia’s gas resources could be responsible for up to three times the annual carbon emissions of the entire world, reports The Australia Institute in a landmark new report, Weapons of Gas Destruction.

“Gas is a high-pollution industry that won’t create jobs while unleashing triple the world’s annual emissions into the atmosphere. To say it is ‘lose-lose’ is an understatement,” concludes Climate and Energy Program director, Richie Merzian.

Of course Gas Chooses Itself is a winner for the gas industry which is a huge user of gas, burning twice as much gas as Australian households and nearly as much as our manufacturing sector. But ScoMo’s no fool.

The plot reworks an old routine. Santos and Origin make a mozza from rigging the already extortionate price of gas. Laugh all the way to the bank. Demand booms, thanks to the Coalition’s, Gas-led Recovery Plan. Santos and Origin also rake in millions in subsidies for their Pythonesque carbon capture and storage (CCS) scam.

CCS is ludicrous. Capture, transport and bury millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from coal power plants? How good is Peabody Coal’s propaganda unit?  US Coal baron Robert Murray freely admits that CCS is baloney. A fantasy. Murray says CCS is a con. It ‘does not work’ and ‘is just cover for the politicians.’

Trust Scotty to promise a con that the UN Development program says would “arrive on the battlefield far too late to help the world avoid dangerous climate change”. Bush fire victims know all about his late arrivals.

CCS is expensive and impracticable. Not only is energy wasted burying carbon, retrofitting a 2100-megawatt brown coal-fired power station in Victoria would “conservatively” cost a whopping $2.45 billion per boiler.

Governments showered $1.3 billion on CCS from 2007-13 with not one commercial working model to show for the money, but “simp” Scotty from marketing believes in it; he’ll surely find a bit extra in the kitty for his mining pals. Cut back on social services, hospitals and widows’ pensions. Incentivise self-reliance.

Scotty’s chosen the right setting to announce his gas-fired delusion. Newcastle is spiritual godfather to our state of the art asylum-seeker gulags and our perverse delight in punishing the elderly, infirm and those out of work. Debit where debit is due, our PM himself, was quick to back our Robodebt extortion scam which led some pensioners to take their own lives. Over 2000 people died after receiving Centrelink debt notices.

Yet their debts outlived them. Anastasia McCardel received a call from a Centrelink in May. Told her son Bruce owed $6,744.52. When would she repay his debt? Bruce had died six months earlier, in November 2018, aged 49. He was born with Noonan syndrome, a genetic condition that affects the heart and other vital organs.

You can’t just blame Scott Morrison. Success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan. As treasurer in 2016, former social services supremo, Morrison was supported by Christian Porter, Alan Tudge and Stuart Robert, who were high-fiving and jiving at the promise of automated welfare debt recovery. But not this week.

The Federal Court learns at a pre-trial hearing on Monday that Gordon Legal plans to argue that Big Al Tudge, who was Human Services minister in 2016-17, either knew or was “recklessly indifferent” to the fact the botched program was unlawful. Luckily Tudge, is tied up at the moment explaining how he had nothing at all to do with the taxpayer paying $30 million for a $3 million parcel land for a Sydney airport.

The Australian National Audit Office finds that the federal government bought land from dairy farmer and Liberal Party donor, Leppington Pastoral Company, at 10 times its market value while developing Western Sydney Airport. Urban Infrastructure Minister, Tudge has a stunning reverse Nuremberg alibi.

There “is no question of ministerial involvement”, he swears. The matter “goes to the administrative actions of the department, more than two years ago”. Doubtless Big Al will quickly get Robodebt to retrieve the overpayment from Leppington Pastoral. The letter threatening debt collection’s already in the mail.

Beyond the joy it gives our MPs to further impoverish men and women struggling to exist on forty dollars a day by imposing debt repayments, while fat cats in our gas industry cartel get massive handouts, double punishment is a tradition: like double standards, it is rooted deeply in our convict colony origins.

Newcastle, like Norfolk Island, was a penal settlement inside a penal colony – or a place of secondary punishment for convict re-offenders until 1813. For nearly 20 years, wayward convicts were flogged amidst idyllic natural beauty, a place where summers are warm and humid and winters are short and cool. Plants flourished in fertile, soft, absorbent carbon rich soils until cloven-hoofed sheep and cattle ruined them.

Punishment, however, is perennially problematic. Although it was easy to dispense, flogging was not foolproof. It often killed the convict or reduced his capacity to work. Furthermore, when convicts were unable to work because they had been flogged, they needed to be flogged again for not working.

Similarly, job-seekers cut off from all extra support on New Year’s Day 2021 will need to present themselves at job interviews they can’t afford to attend – having frittered away their recklessly generous work incentive-sapping allowances on op-shop clothing, fares, haircuts and the chore of having to feed themselves.

Or pay the gas bill.

Unemployed or underemployed workers are already punished by the humiliation of having to apply for jobs under the Job Active scam, a privatised “job-provider” service they may not be able to get to and double punished should they not attend. Their meagre payments can be suspended. Meanwhile, Rick Morton estimates that job-providers have banked $500 million of taxpayers money during the pandemic.

But Morrison’s got that covered. As he explains, gas will bring back jobs. At least for a few mates. Scotty’s role has a touch of the post-apocalyptic zombie as he helps the Liberal Party’s craven mining oligarchy mates prop up dying coal and gas industries as they collude to cook the planet and snuff out life as we know it.

Left-leaning, (as our national media love to dub any outfit not funded by our barons of industry) Grattan Institute calculates that ScoMo’s gas led recovery” would benefit fewer than 1% of Australian manufacturing jobs currently in gas-intensive industries. The report is leaked to the left-leaning The Guardian Australia.

15 facilities that together employ just 10,000 people consume two-thirds of gas used in manufacturing.

“There are almost no jobs in [gas] … If we were going to see a massive boom in gas-based manufacturing, we should be seeing it right now. And we’re not seeing it,” says The Grattan Institute’s Tony Wood.

Gas Chooses Itself features our elected representatives tipping buckets of public money into a failing private cartel. Origin and Santos. Scotty promises subsidies of $52.9m, support to “open up” five new gas basins and a beaut new National Gas infrastructure plan.

His announcement sounds eerily similar to a leaked paper from a working party of his gas-industry dominated cabal, the National Covid Coordination Commission (NCCC) which meets in secret under the stewardship of nifty Nev Power to further its own interests under the guise and confidentiality of a cabinet committee.

But there’s more. Santos and Origin will be subsidised under the carbon capture and storage boondoggle. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency will be tweaked so it can fund CCS, a scam which has already cost us a fortune. He’ll also kill off innovation, undermine renewable energy and prop up costly failing fossil fuels, warns Christine Milne, global Greens ambassador and former leader of the Australian Greens.

The world’s largest coal port, Newcastle’s is also NSW’s post-industrial rust belt: 4000 manufacturing jobs vanished since 2015. Green steel made with hydrogen is the answer says The Grattan Institute. Not coal. Nor gas. Hydrogen is also proposed for aluminium smelting. But you can’t tell the PM anything. He’s out overacting again; hamming it up in his blokey construction costume; lying about gas and coal.

Talk about miracle Morrison. Gas will bring back Australian manufacturing (like Lazarus from the dead).

He’ll say anything. On ABC Insiders, he tells David Speers that “Gas has chosen itself” just in case you think his decision has anything to with his secret cabal of gas industry barons cunningly dubbed his Covid Commission. Coal is the key way to keep electricity prices cheap he bullshits.

“In Australia, you cannot talk about electricity generation and ignore coal,” he rants in his pants on fire plan.

Coal, Morrison says, will not only “continue to play an important role in our economy  for decades to come”, but “with new technologies such as carbon capture and storage continuing to improve, it will have an even longer life”. New? Continue to improve? CCS has never worked. KFC employs more of us than thermal coal.

The proportion of the total workforce employed in thermal coal is one quarter of one per cent of our total workforce of twelve million – or around 20-25,000. The ABS calculates, on the other hand, that 20,000 of us work in renewable energy activities.

Oddly Scotty doesn’t mention steel. While one in five local youngsters are seeking work, the steel town is in the Hunter whose iconic thermal-coal-mines employ at best five per cent of NSW’s workforce, whatever its MP, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources, Joel Fitzgibbon wants us to believe. Or Morrison or Matthew Canavan whose brother is big in coal mining for that matter. And thermal coal is plunging to an average price of $60-70 a metric tonne from $100 in January.

Peabody plans to sack half its workforce at Wambo, blaming Coronavirus but demand for coal is dropping in Europe and the US while China is using more domestic coal and less of the more expensive imported black rock, especially from Australia. Aping Trump’s poke a panda policy is costing us dearly.

Even so, why does, our Trumpista PM head to coal central to promise his preposterous gas-led recovery?

Could it be just bastardry? Fitzgibbon is Labor’s shadow minister for resources.  So entrenched is Labor bashing that already 9 News is crowing about a Labor split over gas. This is part of Morrison’s crafty plan.

So, too is the nobbling of any emissions target. The government’s position is not to have a position.

“The renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won’t be replacing that with anything,” climate denialist Energy Minister Angus Taylor boasts.

But what’s this? Not even Simon Benson is in attendance, Tuesday – Scotty from marketing heroically risks anti-climax or exposing his signature, saponaceous, insincerity. Of course, his list of talking point slogans, boasts and empty promises is dropped to every media outlet in the land – and beyond – his government is gunner,

“… reset the east coast gas market … create a more competitive and transparent Australian Gas Hub by unlocking gas supply, deliver an efficient pipeline and transportation market, and empower gas customers.”

Perhaps it’s prudent that, he holds no “How good is gas?” presser afterwards.  Embracing Big Gas as our saviour, creating jobs and driving down prices, may trigger a repeat of his Cobargo bushfire reception where he was run out of town.

Of course, crocodile teary Scotty could still be smarting from his rebuke over bullying Annastacia Palaszczuk to secure a quarantine exemption for Sarah Caisip to attend her stepfather’s funeral in Queensland. Palaszczuk’s office reports Morrison shouting down the phone, “You will do this.” Then there’s his politicising private grief.

In an open letter to the PM, Caisip’s stepsister Alexandra Prendergast excoriates Morrison for using her grieving family “to try and advance your political agenda”. But Morrison will stop at nothing.

As Christine Milne opines in The Guardian Australia, as she calls out the government’s wilful sabotage of its renewable energy agency, there is one certainty you can rely on in Australia. “Namely the Morrison government’s championing of fossil fuels, relentless attacks on renewable energy, lies about its commitment to emission reductions, openness to fossil fuel donations and sabotaging any institutional framework that works in driving investment in the technologies desperately needed to get us to a zero emissions future.”

It’s a calculated snub. If Morrison intended to do anything about emissions or energy he would not have Angus Taylor as Energy and Emissions Minister. But how good is Gus at browning off greenies?

Whether it’s poisoning endangered grasses or trashing Clover Moore’s environmentalism by falsely accusing her of jet-setting based on a web document no-one’s been able to find, go-getter Gus is always on the go. Like his PM, he’s all for “moving on – I’ve dealt with that.”

Don’t even try to bring up the $79 million, Eastern Australia Irrigation, his Cayman Island registered company made in 2017 from selling overland flow water licences, on its Clyde and Kia Ora farms after the same sort of water at two southern Queensland cotton farms, nearby, was valued at zero.

OK, Barnaby Joyce signed off on the record closed tender deal. But he was only the Water Minister at the time. And, as he tells ABC’s Pats Karvelas, any claims of any wrongdoing are “an absolute load of horse poo.” Curiously, his puerile protest is repeated in every major daily and every online regional newspaper in the land.

This week, Taylor and Morrison send the whole country back to the future with a gas-led recovery plan boondoggle: a plan to have a plan to sell us methane – always spun as “natural gas” king – along with a vision of a West-East trans Australia pipeline. But, wait, there’s more. Before, seven days’ later, it’s revoked.

A state-run, gas-fired power plant will replace Liddell in Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon’s electorate. If need be. Only a week later, it’s not. Morrison’s “major speech” on energy policy is a tour de force of absurdist theatre. If it ain’t broke, don’t mean we won’t bullshit about fixing it. And if it’s broke, don’t mean we can’t make it worse. Gas powered electricity will only serve to push up prices and help cook an overheated globe.

“We are in the ludicrous situation of having a gas policy we don’t need, and none of the climate policy that we actually do,” warns The Saturday Paper’s Mike Seccombe.

Yet Taylor’s on thin ice. Only two years ago, Gufee Pty Ltd (as Angus James Taylor calls himself in his personal private company) was colluding over sushi, tempura washed down with a frosty XXXX Gold at Kagawa in Dickson, to install Spud Dutton and topple Kermit Turnbull, the PM his deluded opponents see as a Green-Left Galaxy mole, according to Morrison stenographer at The Australian, Simon Benson.

Liberal renegade Mal’s NEG emissions target is the last straw. Benson claims a senior cabinet minister blabs,

“I have been wrong all along. I thought he should have joined the Labor Party. Turns out he should have joined the Greens.” Yet not one Liberal opposed Turnbull’s $1.75m donation to help buy it the 2016 election.

But the coup proves a fiasco. Numbers man, Matthias Cormann can’t add up. Dutton’s cabal is stooged by another player. Spud’s weights are put up by party race fixer, soapy ScoMo, whose followers first fake a plunge on Dutton, to force a spill only to change their votes to Morrison in a second ballot.

Disraeli called soapy Sam Wilberforce, unctuous, oleaginous, saponaceous, in the 1860 Oxford evolution debate. He could have been describing our current PM. But only if he overlooked the killer instinct.

No good deed goes unpunished in Scotty’s playbook. Duttonista Gus finds his mind greatly exercised now that Scotty’s just slipped Spud a political Novichok cocktail. Dutton will find his new dog’s breakfast of Defence and Border Force just as unworkable as Turnbull’s Home Affairs of federal police, ASIO, Australian Border Force, immigration, counterterrorism and emergency management.

Samuel Johnson knew a thing or two about Taylor’s likely frame of mind, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

Morrison’s not going to push Gus under a bus tomorrow but pushing him out on stage and praising him as a deep thinker; the intellectual heavyweight of the Coalition energy team cannot bode well. The PM’s hyperbole is damning.

“He brings an enormous amount of intellect and experience to these tasks.”

“What we are speaking of today really is the extraordinary work that Angus has done in this portfolio as energy and emissions reduction.”

Some accuse Gus of being a lightweight. Or dilatory. But that would be to wilfully misread our political class. True, seven years down the track, the Coalition has no energy policy. But that’s its policy. Just as Morrison’s way of dealing with the pandemic and a collapsing economy is business as usual.

So calamity Taylor takes a gas axe to renewables this week. Bugger the planet. Gunner Morrison’s fossil fuel energy and noxious emissions minister can’t say when or how but he’s in the job to profit the Liberal Party’s mining industry mega-donors. Crony capitalism. Scott’s been promising we’re gunner have a gas-led recovery. Or snap-back as our ruling elastic band of Liberal toadies and big business and banking sycophants has it.

But Gus is not all gaseous catastrophe, however much the assonance appeals to Katharine Murphy. To Murpharoo, Scott Morrison’s power plan is nothing but a gas-fuelled calamity. A rump in the government even protests Morrison’s prioritising of gas over coal, as David Crowe reminds the rapidly declining readers of Nine newspapers Friday. Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon is cheering them on. Yet things could turn bad in November.

Perhaps Morrison’s been tipped off that Russian interference in the US Presidential election, will confer victory upon Trump, the useful idiot who has been putty in the hands of American fossil fuel barons.

The alternative is sobering. “The Biden administration will impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations.”

Or as Peter Brent writes, “Australian global warming politics is broken. If we’re too hopeless to price our carbon, someone else should price it for us.”

Pulling the pin on wind and solar? News this week confirms hard-nosed investors have taken flight; fled the electricity generating field by the gigajoule, which is how you measure the energy content in natural gas if you can afford any. Utility scale generation of green energy dropped by half during 2019 thanks to “Herbicide” Taylor’s climate-denialist sabotage of our children’s futures. But you can’t blame him for our gas cartel which fixes prices to suit itself and which is not even obliged to let the government know its reserves.

If you want affordable Australian gas, best emigrate to Japan. Customers in Japan buy Australian gas more cheaply than we can, reports Michael West. Some of this gas is drilled in the Bass Strait, piped to Queensland, turned into liquid and shipped 6,700 kilometres to Japan … but the Japanese still pay less than Victorians. It’s enough to drive a family back to burning dung. Two billion people worldwide swear by it.

But you’d be hard pressed to pick our venture capitalists’ mass stampede. All round business investment is plummeting. Bernard Keane reckons it’s at 2010 levels – propped up only because China is smiling on our mining exports. For the time being. Poking the Panda may look cute to our US overlords but China is poking back. Private investment in infrastructure has dipped to 2006 levels. Blind panic seizes our intrepid profiteers. After seven years of obstruction, obfuscation and chicanery – and Abbottising of our energy policy

It’s no mean feat. Renewables are hugely profitable compared to fossil. Yet ensuring the bottom falls out of investment in safe, clean power generation in the land at the arse-end of the world, as Keating fondly called his home, is the one enduring achievement of Scotty’s kakistocracy. Gus Taylor, take a bow.

True, Snowy 2.0 is still in the frame, despite a $10bn cost blowout, experts warn, but like Fizza Turnbull’s other dud, his high speed fibre to the node NBN, now fourth slowest in the OECD and one of the most expensive in the world, Snowy 2.0 is shaping to be another gigantic white elephant.

A Dear John letter from a group of no fewer than thirty-seven eminent Australian energy, engineering, economic and environmental experts, reaches Teddy Kunkel former Rio Tinto lobbyist and other former mining industry executives and coal lobbyists who dominate Scott John Morrison’s office Friday.

“It is now even more clear that there are numerous alternatives that are lower cost, more efficient, quicker to construct, and incur less emissions and environmental impacts,” the letter warns. AEMO forecasts that “inefficient, unnecessary and damaging Snowy 2.0” will never pay for itself; nor be needed until the 2030s, when emerging technologies like battery storage and demand response will have come into their own.

Unless you are a gas or coal baron, that is. Then you can count on gorgeous Gus, the Morrison government’s high-maintenance Energy and Emissions Minister to bring home the bacon; put a bit of pork on your fork.

Luckily, pumping water uphill will still require a shitload of fossil fuel so mining companies will still do well out of the twelve billion dollar pipe dream – especially big donors Santos, Origin and Woodside who funnel money into Liberal Party coffers. So what if Snowy 2.0’s pumped hydro will hike power prices and diminish supply?

Has Gus pulled the plug? Star of byzantine epic “Watergate”, featuring fellow silvertail and veteran game of mates grifter and Nats’ sideshow carnival barker, Barnaby Joyce, “Grassgate” a Tarantino homage to herbicide as an obliging Environment Minister, played by Josh Frydenberg helps Gus farewell some of the last remnants of all-but extinguished temperate grasslands and the whodunnit “Clovergate” fake document download scandal knows how to power down. In renewables, that is.

Less than two years after his PM set him up as muppet for our mining barons, aka Energy and Emissions Minister, silvertail Gussie’s buggered new wind and solar farm start-ups from near-record highs to near-record lows. Only three new projects reached completion in the last quarter – and 90 per cent of that capacity came from a single solar farm courtesy of the Queensland Labor government.

Morrison’s theatre of the absurd energy policy show is no roadmap to lower emissions, cheaper power or more jobs. It is just another calculated insult to those who have worked to honour our Paris agreement; to those who have worked tirelessly to decarbonise our economy. The rug has been pulled out unceremoniously because that’s what Scotty does best. And he’s been watching his mentor and enfant terrible Trump.

Scotty’s right wing coal warriors such as Matt Canavan may be appeased – for five minutes – Nats with interests or mates with interests in the gas industry may tolerate the sociopath and bully in him a little better, while his embrace of gas will appease key Liberal Party donors. Above all, Morrison will shrewdly have done the bidding of his cabal of mining industry executives under the guise of a coronavirus recovery plan while setting up Angus Taylor to take the blame when the inevitable repercussions are felt.

Best of all he will wedge Labor over their policy on gas.

Where it will all go pear-shaped is when gas becomes even less affordable and fails to provide jobs, let alone fulfil his rash and glib promise of bringing back a manufacturing sector – now around ten per cent of the economy – that neoliberal ideology is helping to banish forever. Emissions will continue to climb. The need for “new technology” he preaches will be exposed as a sound-bite sham. There are no new technologies that need to be developed to be decarbonised. There are, however, sports rorts yet to be accounted for.

Worse, Morrison may be exposed as a bare-faced liar as CCS is seen to be a coal industry fiction and an expensive indulgence of powerful party mates as the economy further contracts in 2021 with his ill-advised and inhumane cutting back on pensions for those out of work and those unable to work given their disabilities. The Panda factor can only exacerbate a downturn in our trade in a Coronavirus recession world

Trade with China is suffering because of Morrison’s witless desire not only to align with Trump’s trade war with Beijing but to enlist as an active belligerent. China will do us slowly write Crikey’s Michael Sainsbury. Unemployment and underemployment will soar in the New Year. Morrison has already alienated thousands of university teachers. His promised IR reforms threaten to make a bad system worse. As Dennis Atkins warns,

The all too apparent human toll of this insecurity is not enough to deter the Morrison Government from its determination to further deregulate the labour market.

The “energy roadmap” in all its intellectual and moral poverty is studded with disinformation. Despite what he claims, for example, renewables can’t “stand on their own two feet”. The Prime Minister’s gaslighting merely underlines his abdication of responsibility; his failure to provide real leadership when it was most needed.

Morrison may already have neutralised rivals, Dutton and Taylor but he will rapidly lose the confidence of MPs in marginal seats and despite his daggy dad routines; his carefully orchestrated relentless curry and cubby home-loving hubby PR campaign, voters are not mugs. They know when they’re being taken for a ride.

It may take a while given our Murdoch orchestrated cheer squad that is the mainstream media but truth will out. Especially when you can’t get work or the hours you need to put food on the table and pay the rapidly rising power bills the Prime Minister falsely promised his gas-led recovery would reduce.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Pandemic Reflexes: Lockdowns and Arrests in Victoria

Ugly. Rough. Police in the Australian state of Victoria muscling their way in. The father and children watching. It had all arisen because the pregnant mother in question had engaged in conduct defined as incitement. In a post on her Facebook page, Zoe Buhler had urged Victorians to protest the coronavirus lockdown rules over the weekend. She encouraged the practising of social distancing measures to avoid arrest and the wearing of masks, subject to medical exceptions. “Here in Ballarat we can be a voice for those in Stage 4 lockdowns [in metropolitan Melbourne]. We can be seen and heard and hopefully make a difference.”

Social media sniffers in the state police picked up the scent and repaired to her Ballarat home in Miners Rest. Buhler promised to take down the post. “I didn’t realise I was doing anything wrong. I’m happy to delete the post. This is ridiculous.” She noted the presence of her children; the fact that she was due for an ultrasound appointment in an hour. She inquired about clarification about the term “incitement”, a word she genuinely did not comprehend.

Subsequently, she claimed the police had shown some basic courtesy. “Sorry about my bimbo moment,” she stated on reflection. But she refused to resile from her view that the conduct had been “too heavy handed, especially [to arrest me] in front of my children and to walk into my house like that.” She remains ignorant about the meaning of incitement.

The Buhler arrest was coarse, incautious, suggesting a tone-deafness prevalent in law enforcement. It was unusual in ploughing common furrows across the political divide. The Australian was assuredly predictable in its denunciation, having never quite taken the virus that seriously (deaths we shall have, but managed responsibly), though it was hard to disagree with associate editor Caroline Overington’s plea. “You can accept lockdown and support saving lives but you should still oppose cuffing anyone – much less a pregnant woman.”

Janet Albrechtsen took matters into another register with her school girl claim of fascism, a term she had no inclination to define. Albrechtsen has never been troubled by forensic details, but she was correct to assume that Buhler will not necessarily be seen as hero or martyr. Protesters are approved or repudiated depending on the flavour of the moment, and the ducking stools would be out. “Maybe she’s into crystals?  Maybe she’s an anti-vaxxer?” She certainly did not share views “common with rich hippies in Byron Bay.”

The legal fraternity were more than a touch unsettled. The Victorian Bar was deeply unimpressed by a police operation that seemed, not merely rough in execution but untutored, and said so in its media release on September 3. “We recognise,” its president, Wendy Harris QC explained, “the importance of compliance with the law, but enforcement of those laws needs to be proportionate and consistent.” Arresting Buhler and handcuffing her in her home in front of her partner and children “appeared disproportionate to the threat she presented.” Case law in Victoria – Slaveski v Victoria and Perkins v County Court of Victoria – had held “that a police officer is not entitled to use handcuffs on a person merely because an arrest is made.”

Another thing also niggled the Victorian Bar Association. “Consistency in the enforcement of the law is also critical; without it, confidence in the rule of law is undermined.” This was a less than subtle swipe at mixed responses from the police: the enforcement measures taken against Buhler were “apparently at odds with other reported and more measured responses by authorities to organisers and protesters of similar protesters planned or carried out in contravention of public health directives.”

Greg Barns, National Criminal Justice spokesman of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, was similarly shaken. Writing in The Age, he was baffled by the views of Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius, who claimed that the police had been “polite” and “professional.” Police were good enough to assist Buhler to contact the hospital to make another appointment for the ultrasound. Hardly the point, fumes Barns. “They should not have arrested her in the first place.” The result of such muscular policing has been to gift Buhler the PR campaign and ensure “greater sympathy for those who are wanting to launch protests against the Premier [Daniel Andrews] and his government’s draconian laws.”

The mild mannered Rosalind Croucher, president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, also took to the debate, “dismayed” by the Buhler arrest. “In times of crisis, such as this pandemic, our rights are as important than ever.” Temporary measures to limit rights and freedoms to control the spread of infection might have been necessary but “must always be proportionate to the risk – and managed appropriately.”

Buhler’s case is one of several arrests conducted this week, some of which would have caused fewer twangs of sympathy or outrage. James Bartolo decided to mix reality television with pandemic law enforcement, filming his own arrest and posting it to Facebook. Unlike Buhler, Bartolo is your traditional figure of practiced conspiracy, claiming to have better insight into the world of manipulated wickedness than most. Through The Conscious Truth Network, he chest-thumpingly advertises his credentials as “truth seeker, freedom fighter, utopian advocate.”

This fine former specimen of the Australian army and addled body builder is convinced that COVID-19 is but a Trojan horse, the fiendish, fictional product of a “treasonous and corrupt network of filth” intent on enslaving us.A truculent Bartolo, in his three-minute long video, is seen arguing that the police was unlawfully trespassing on his property. “You don’t have authorisation to be on the property.” But the paperwork was in order; the police duly made their way in, arresting the 27-year-old for alleged incitement, possession of prohibited weapons and two counts of resisting them. An advertising stunt had been successfully executed.

These displays have caught the Victorian Police flatfooted. It was always bound to resonate with some politicians. On September 4, David Limbrick of the Victorian Legislative Council and member of the Liberal Democrats wrote an open letter to Victorians expressing his shock and disappointment with the state government’s response, claiming that those authoritarians who had forced Victorians to wear masks “and their enablers have been unmasked.” While not explicitly pointing out specific acts of the Victorian police, the theme of his note was clear enough. “The intrusion into our lives gets more personal and more extreme every day. The Government has given the police free reign [sic], so no wonder their behaviour just gets more outrageous.”

Limbrick has also encouraged protests, but suggests forms that do not breach the regulations. “It’s simple – bring your pots and pans, beep your horns at 8pm, and let your neighbourhood know that we don’t have to suffer in silence.” An even sounder suggestion is advanced by Barns. Make better laws, avoid sloppy drafting which leaves “enormous discretion in the hands of the police” and “educate and try to reduce tension and stress in the community.” As for Buhler’s case, they could have made things simple and civil: take her up on the offer to remove the Facebook post, explain why it was in breach, and be on their way. A sensible thought for an insensible time.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Vulgar Militarism: Expanding the Australian War Memorial

It was a decision both rash and indulgent. In November 2018, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, after being nudged incessantly by then Australian War Memorial director Brendan Nelson, committed to a redevelopment project intended to double the exhibition space in Campbell. The amount for the project would be just shy of a half-billion dollars and would be, Nelson claimed with eye-brow raising plausibility, an exercise of therapy for veterans and their families “coming to terms with what they’ve done for us and the impact [war] has had on them.”

Voices in opposition grew, many not exactly fitting the description of pinko defeatist types. Former Department of Defence secretary Paul Barrett, author Thomas Keneally and eighty-one others appended their signatures to an open letter claiming that the Memorial was “being given preference over other national institutions, and the money could be better spent.” Nelson’s aims of giving more prominence to supposedly “forgotten” conflicts while fostering a program of healing veterans were questionable aims: the former had to be seen in terms of proportionality and perspective; the latter was the purview of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs. $350 million had already been disgorged on the occasion of the Anzac Centenary and the Sir John Monash Centre in France. “Should further money be spent on these extensions rather than on other needy cultural institutions or direct benefits to veterans and their families?”

On one level, the Memorial expansion project was merely typical of the sorts of fripperies wars encourage. Commemorations and building programs reflecting on the effects of war often have the unintended effect of glorifying the very thing they are meant to eschew. To the victor go the spoils and the celebrations. Besides, good narratives to justify killing or being killed are always needed.

Australians generally do not regard themselves as warlike, yet their leaders have deployed them in every major conflict since the late nineteenth century. Such decisions have often been as emotive as they have been strategic, the former often taking precedence over the latter. A survey of these engagements reveal the shedding of blood across virtually every continent on the planet. Be it Britannia or the US imperium, Australian soldiers will do the bidding of others, and happily so. Resentment, much as that shown to the Australian War Memorial redevelopment, will be dismissed as the ranting of “special interest groups”, traitors or closet fifth columnists.

Before the Parliamentary standing committee on public works on July 14, the egg heads were particularly testy, with the testiness taking various forms. Former memorial directors Brendon Kelson and Major General Steve Gower both felt slighted at having been left off the drinks list. That did not stop Kelson from making the point that the expansion was distinctly vulgar. “The Australian War Memorial is a poignant tribute to those who died on, or as a result, of active service in the nation’s wars.” The AWM was “dedicated to their commemoration and a place to pause and reflect on the costs of war, a national icon, unique among the world’s great monuments.”

It did not take long for the narrative of the coronavirus to find its way into the hearings. It seeps, cloys and will out. Former AWM principal historian Peter Stanley found Nelson’s argument on expanding the memorial in the name of healing as almost laughable, “the museum equivalent … of hydroxychloroquine.” There had been “no demonstrable therapeutic benefit in traumatised veterans visiting a display of their former weapons vehicles or aircraft.” Such an argument supplied a “meretricious” attraction, but was unsustainable given the findings of clinical studies.

The medical opposition was also shored up by Margaret Beavis, secretary of the Medical Association for Prevention of War. The literature on veterans’ mental illness had “no reference to memorial-based therapy.” The notion of such healing derived “from wishful thinking” and untested anecdotes.

Architect and town planner Roger Pegrum had concerns about the way the expansion was going to be implemented in terms of structural and symbolic integrity. The character of the building would be affected by the bombastic nature of the project. The memorial was merely meant to be a “simple statement of sacrifice and valour” intended to house small objects to best understand why Australians served in conflict. “If built as drawn, it is an irreversible and complete change to the memorial”.

The current AWM director Matt Anderson tried to buck the trend in the specialist literature on trauma and healing using a technique politicians are often receptive to: the scientifically untested anecdote. He had been “told by veterans and their clinicians” that such acts as signing the Tarin Kowt wall for Australians who had served in Afghanistan had “positive mental health benefits.” Susan Neuhaus, a longstanding member of the AWM council, similarly voiced the therapeutic line. She suggested the need for larger displays, illuminating other areas of conflict Australians had perished in. There was still, she argued, a “fracture line separating the worthy dead and the unworthy dead.”

The Australian War Memorial Council chair, Kerry Stokes, was characteristically dismissive. Expanding war memorials was exactly what those involved in war memorials ought to do. If the public want to see weapons, let them. Stokes also sniffed the sort of hypocrisy that accretes over time. “Only after the final designs came out did the special interest groups seem to gather their momentum.” Most of them, in any case, were based in Canberra; most Australians seemed to relish the prospect of war as glory. “The number of people who claim not to have been involved is very small.”

Stokes may have a point. War, packed with its uniforms and lethal toys, is vulgar. This project, should it be envisaged in the form Nelson intended it, promises to be the most vulgar of all. Commemorative solemnity has its role, but Australia’s ruling classes have little intention to pause and reflect about the losses the country has either endured or inflicted over the short existence of the Commonwealth. With money being poured into a delusionary defence budget to fight fictional enemies, the distasteful cinematic joke of healing veterans by reminding them of their weapons of death and destruction seems aptly grotesque.

 

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button