It’s Our ABC

Despite my interest in politics and a one year stint in a political office, I never really got into the ABC’s Q & A however I really enjoy Insiders, which is the other big ‘political’ program on the ABC. The biggest difference between the two is the presenters. Barry Cassidy in my view asks the difficult questions in a respectful way. Tony Jones, on the other hand, well, I’m sure he thinks he’s very plithy.

Of course the other big problem with Q & A is the fairly obvious ‘seeding’ of the audience. These ‘random’ citizens delight in regularly lobbing the most delicious of hand grenades at the panellists. I’m sure we’d all agree it’s a great way to ensure a quality political discourse. Tony Jones has perfected his ‘I didn’t see that one coming’ face. That’s one thing he’s got down pat.

Q & A is almost like some type of political ‘Jerry Springer’ experience where the debate is often a fringe political issue where both sides of politics are trying to wedge each other. Then one of these questions, from someone who’s already been vetted by the ABC, gets lobbed in. Mayhem ensues. I can almost imagine the crowd chanting now. Tony – Tony –Tony – Tony.

All this is relevant because of the Q & A show which aired on 22 June 2015. This show immediately made headline news largely because of a question from audience member Zaky Mallah directed to Steve Ciobo, a senior member of the Government, who was on the Q & A Panel. The line of questioning from Mr Mallah is below (1).

"As the first man in Australia to be charged with terrorism under the harsh Liberal Howard government in 2003, I was subject to solitary confinement, a 22-hour lockdown, dressed in most times in an orange overall and treated like a convicted terrorist while under the presumption of innocence," Mr Mallah said. "I had done and said some stupid things, including threatening to kidnap and kill, but in 2005 I was acquitted of those terrorism charges.  "What would have happened if my case had been decided by the minister himself and not the courts?"

Mr Ciabo responded with the remarks below.

"From memory, I thought you were acquitted on a technicality rather than it being on the basis of a substantial finding of fact," Mr Ciobo replied. "My understanding of your case was that you were acquitted because at that point in time the laws weren't retrospective.  "But I'm happy to look you straight in the eye and say that I'd be pleased to be part of the Government that would say that you were out of the country. "I would sleep very soundly at night with that point of view."

Mr Mallah then responded with:

"The Liberals have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL because of ministers like him."

At which point Tony Jones, in a rare moment of insight, shut things down with: "I think that's a comment we are going to rule totally out of order. I'm sorry about that. I don't think there is much more to say at this point."

To top it all off Mr Mullah was not content with his efforts during Q & A. Mr Mullah later tweeted: "I would pay to see that Minister dumped on ISIS territory in Iraq". So it appears that despite his earlier arrest Mr Mullah is still happy to threaten another Australian citizen with kidnap over a difference of opinion.  

The director of the ABC, Mr Finlayson, has since praised Tony Jones for ruling Mr Mallah’s comments as out of order (2). Whilst clearly Mr Jones acted appropriately by shutting down the debate, I just don’t see how he or the ABC can conceivably avoid significant criticism over this whole episode.

As I understand it, the ABC vets everyone who asks a question on Q & A. As Mr Jones hosts the program I find it difficult to believe that he was not involved in the vetting process. It strains incredulity to suggest that Mr Jones wasn’t aware of Mr Mallah’s personal history.

One can only guess at the process surrounding the selection of Mr Mallah. He has a history which shows links to terrorism. He’s also previously attracted criticism for some of his online commentary. The episode is about an issue that is obviously sensitive to Mr Mallah along with a whole range of other Australians. What could possibly go wrong?

If this type of incident had occurred on a commercial station it’s likely that a number of the people involved with this would be moved on. Folklore has it that the late Kerry Packer personally had at least one program shut down mid broadcast. No doubt there will be further calls for action to be taken against the national broadcaster.

In my view any direct action taken against the ABC would be an overreaction. Q & A after all is just one program. Consider Insiders. In 2013 Piers Ackerman repeated some of the ridiculous questions lobbed at Prime Minister Gillard about the sexuality of her partner Tim Matheson by Howard Satterly (3). Cassidy not only shut it down, but he made it quite clear that Ackerman’s remarks were unacceptable. One was left with the impression that if Ackerman dared to repeat it again then Mr Cassidy would have told him to leave.  

Any action taken to reform Q & A on the other hand would be welcome in my view. When compared with the previous example of an issue on Insiders Tony Jones’s apology, whist appropriate suddenly seems like the weak response that it was. Not surprising given the clearly weak vetting process performed by a weak program whose weak guests often espouse weak ideas on issues that most Australians don’t care about.

I’m not sure where the ABC goes from here. There have recently been several instances where the ABC has shown questionable judgement regarding their sources, the conduct of their journalists and the overall presentation of the stories they report on. Sarah Ferguson was widely criticised for her interview of Joe Hockey (4). The ABC’s reporting of asylum seekers has also been questionable (5). I could go on.  

We need to remember that one role of news organisations is to expose facts that have been hidden. When hidden facts are exposed some people and organisations will be embarrassed. That is the same whether it is big business, back yard con men or the Federal Government. We should also remember that the organisation doing the exposing will often be criticised by those which they have exposed. For this reason some accusations of bias are to be expected.   

The ABC should disregard the criticisms levelled at them for bias and instead focus on their processes because that’s clearly where the problem is. Consider The Australian newspaper. It’s obviously biased towards the conservatives yet it isn’t criticised for bias. Why? Would the Australia let someone with a background like Mr Mallah air his views in the manner in which the ABC did? They are far too clever for that.  

Furthermore you don’t have to hardball a minister to conduct an insightful interview. You don’t have to or ambush them with an unexpected guest whose personal experiences obviously at odds with government policy in order to expose weaknesses in policy. The right question invites the respondent dig their own hole and then all the journalist has to do is insert a meaningful break – to let the viewer connect the dots in their own mind. Once again Cassidy is a master of this. Mike Willesee famously stitched up Hewson over the GST with just one question (6).

In my time in the hospitality industry one of the maxims drummed into me was that a good waiter ensures his guest has everything they need without them ever remarking on you. Journalism is similar in that the really good journalists know that it’s all about the story, not about the journalist, or the program. If people are talking about the journalist or the program then the journalist has gotten it wrong. I, along with most Australians I think would like to see the ABC get it right.

(1)        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/steve-ciobo-confronts-former-terror-suspect-zaky-mallay/6565434

 (2)        https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/28524774/abc-admits-error-in-q-a-terror-face-off/

 (3)  http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/piers-akerman-hits-back-at-his-critics-following-the-abc-insiders-program/story-fni0xqrc-1226664662916

 (4) http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/sarah-ferguson-interview-with-joe-hockey-breached-abc-bias-guidelines-review-20150217-13gbmj.html

 (5)     http://mumbrella.com.au/abc-reports-asylum-seekers-perceived-biased-213104

 (6)        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_cake_interview

The Balance

We’ve all been in a situation where we have had to do something that for some reason we don’t want to do. In our younger years it might be homework or cleaning your room. As we age it might be staying in a job that we don’t particularly enjoy. As our lives change, the challenges change but the one thing that remains fairly constant is that from time to time we’ll have to manage tasks that we’d rather not manage.

 When faced with the challenge of managing the unpleasant we all like to think that we’ll grit our teeth and push through it. The reality is unfortunately somewhat different and most of us postpone or otherwise avoid the tasks we’d rather not do from time to time. The longer we leave the important but unfortunate tasks in our lives, the harder it usually becomes to complete the tasks we have avoided and because of this, some people postpone those tasks for even longer. 

 On a national level our country faces one of these very unpleasant tasks. Due to mistakes initially made by the Howard government and then compounded by the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government our nations overall balance sheet isn’t particularly healthy. Just how bad things are depends on who you listen to.

 According to the Financial Review it’s pretty dire (1).

 The Guardian is equally pessimistic (2).

 The folks at the conversation seem less concerned (3).

 Lastly, you could read the government’s budget report (4).

In my view the actual situation is likely not as bad as some are suggesting but neither is it ideal. One thing that all sources seem to agree on is that without changes the situation is likely to deteriorate. Conservatives suggest that the answer lies in a reduction is government spending. On the other side the left seems to prefer an increase in revenue via changes to the way business is taxed. The question that doesn’t seem to have been asked here by either side of politics is what sort of an economic situation do we want our country to be in?

Whilst historically the budget deficit is high by Australian standards, when compared with other countries our situation is quite reasonable. If we are comfortable with running small deficits then we can continue to do so without the country becoming an economic disaster-piece which is sometimes associated with that policy approach.

To ensure that the budget deficit remains small much of the work required has already been achieved by the modest savings that actually made it through Parliament after the 2013/14 budget. Bracket creep will probably take care of the rest as long as the government doesn’t increase spending dramatically.

If on the other hand we want to consistently run a budget surplus the task becomes more difficult. Once again there are two broad approaches which could shift the budget to surplus. The government could make further reductions to spending and those cuts would likely lead to a reduction to the level of services. Alternatively the government could attempt to raise more revenue through new taxation or taxation reform of some kind.

No Government can reduce overall government spending without reducing service levels in some way to some areas. This will adversely affect the majority of Australians who are not high income earners and who rely on Government services to support them in a variety of areas.  

On the other hand attempts to increase revenue are inevitably paid for by your average Australian. Changes to personal taxation directly affect personal income. Changes to business taxation also wind up being paid for by everyday Australians as any increase to business costs from taxation reform are usually passed onto the consumer via an increase in the cost of goods and services.  

So whatever model the government chooses, should they elect to bring the budget back into surplus, will adversely affect Australian residents. This leads to a key point. If we want to run a surplus then we need to accept that we can’t always have everything that we want all of the time. There is a cost. The question is; are we prepared to pay that cost?

Furthermore there is also a cost associated with consistently running a small deficit. To run a deficit incurs costs in the form of interest for the amount borrowed. Now as long as the total deficit remains small, when expressed as a percentage of GDP, this cost is not a disaster but it is a cost none the less. That money which is currently used to service debt could be used to provide increased services, or lower taxes.  

It’s that last point, that deficits cost us all, which I feel is central to the argument. I don’t think anyone wants to have to pay more taxes or to endure a reduction in services. Nobody wants to pay money when they don’t have to. Yet if you’re comfortable running a deficit then paying money, interest on debt, when you don’t have to is exactly what you are doing.  This in turn results in less money for services and the need for higher taxes.  If you’re in favour of a deficit then that is what you are signing up for.

So whilst we don’t have to run a surplus, why would you not? The country faces a choice. Do we endure a relatively small period, of five to ten years, of slightly reduced services and or slightly increased taxes so that we can ensure sustainable services and similar or lower taxes into the future?

Or do we put off this difficult period which costs us anyway because of the costs in interest to service the deficit. It will continue to cost us into the future. It probably won’t, but it might threaten the overall sustainability of the services and low taxation which we currently enjoy. Is that really the most sensible choice?

When you do the homework and finish cleaning your room, I’m not sure how you could argue that this job (fixing the budget) that we don’t particularly enjoy isn't one that needs to be done. We should simply set about doing it.  

(1) http://www.afr.com/news/policy/budget/federal-budget-2015-worst-cumulative-deficits-in-60-years-20150512-gguuug

(2) http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/03/australias-budget-deficits-to-blow-out-by-47bn-over-four-years-modelling-shows

(3) http://theconversation.com/budget-explainer-debts-and-deficits-is-australia-really-the-worst-40086

(4) http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/overview/html/overview_01.htm

Environmental Concerns

Global warming shits me. In particular the theory that global warming is caused by carbon emissions really shits me. I’m currently in the ‘global warming denial’ camp but should the evidence change I’ll adjust my position. I rarely discuss the matter. Sure if people ask me I’ll talk about it, but more often when people talk about global warming I simply reach for the nearest bit of cheese to stuff in my ears. Thus I avoid the usual stupidity banded about by those who have rarely made even a cursory attempt to study the matter.  

Previously, I firmly believed that global warming was caused by carbon emissions. I shifted my stance on the issue around 2008. I clearly remember what prompted this. I was putting together submissions to Parliament about climate change for my employer. There were well over a hundred encompassing both sides of the debate. As was my habit, I skimmed a few. Then I read a few. Over the next few days I checked the research on what I had read. Things became clearer.

I’m not going to enter into the specifics of the debate in this piece. I would however direct you towards an article by Doctor David Evans. Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005. (1)

There are two things in particular which really upset me about the Global warming debate. The first of these is that whilst everyone is talking about global warming and the evil coal industry there are other very important environmental issues which are not being discussed.

An example of one of these in Australia is the quality of our soil and in particular the increase in the salinity of our soil. A fact sheet produced by the CSIRO in 2008 describes the current situation quite nicely. (2)

Now ask yourself, when was the last time the mainstream media reported on this issue? Yet the ‘white death’ is a major concern for the Australian farming community. No one argues about the science surrounding it. All agree that it is a huge problem that is escalating over time.               

What about a global issue, for example global fishing stocks. Fifty three percent of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, and thirty two percent are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion. If you were wondering why fish has become so expensive – that’s why. If the situation remains unchanged the numbers of all species currently fished for food are predicted to collapse somewhere between 2040 and 2060. That would be disastrous not just to the worlds environment but to world food supply also. A 2010 report by the FAO is alarming reading, link is provided below. (3)

I could go on and on. There are many pressing environmental concerns where the science is not in dispute and little is being done because all of the ‘air’ in the environmental debate is blown at the coal industry.

Now whilst that upsets me, what really turn’s me from merely annoyed to apoplectic with rage is the actions of people who believe that coal is the source of all our environmental ills. They do – nothing. They continue to switch on the lights, pump up the air conditioning, utilise their mobile devices and all the rest of it. They would be able to do none of this, without the power industry which is driven largely by fossil fuels.

If they felt so passionately that coal is the cause of our problems, are so sure of the science and care so much about the environment then why don’t they just switch of the lights? Turn off the mod cons. I mean seriously who do they think demands the power which requires the use of all this coal? It’s them! It’s that utter hypocrisy that sends me right over the edge.

The people who are seeking an abrupt end to the coal industry are seeking to potentially ruin the livelihood of those people and their families who are currently employed by the coal industry.  Yet they, themselves are most often prepared to do nothing to reduce their own power usage, power supplied by burning coal. .

If you believe coal is the great evil then you’re entitled to your view. Surely then the true believers should be off to the commune. They can weave themselves a hemp hammock and can sleep soundly at night firm in the knowledge that they are doing their bit for the environment.

Personally, I’ll be going with the off grid solar but that’s not because coal is the black nuggets of Satan, but rather it’s because in a world where power is increasingly expensive it makes financial sense to do so. Furthermore coal is not a sustainable way to produce power and I’m a firm believer in being sustainable. 

I’ll conclude with an observation. I remember back in the naughties when the media reported and the politicians cavorted about global warming it was reported as global warming. Now, it’s referred to as the much less definite climate change. I wonder why that might be……

(1)   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

 (2)   http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csiro.au%2F~%2Fmedia%2FCSIROau%2FDivisions%2FCSIRO%2520Land%2520and%2520Water%2FSalinityFactsheet_CLW_pdf%2520Standard.pdf&ei=Un-sVJrkJcK1mwXspYCQCQ&usg=AFQjCNGejDx645hsbWoOFRkrXX0Uuqzs6Q&sig2=dAcJ4TW51gv7Y-19tTFUtw&bvm=bv.83134100,d.dGY

 (3)   http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e01.pdf

The Block

Imagine if you will a block of units. It’s a public housing block owned by the government. Let’s say the block is ten stories high with twelve units on each level. The units themselves are mostly three bedroom one bathroom affairs. The block looks like it’s in pretty bad condition from the outside and seems older than its actual age of about twenty years.

Police services have identified that the residents of the block are regularly committing a variety of serious offences. Some residents are charged and convicted, others are not. Eventually the government gets wind of the block and decide to investigate.

During those investigations the government encounters a range of issues. To begin with each three bedroom unit houses an average of seven people. The median age of the occupants is forty with fifty seven percent of them male and forty three percent of them female. Sixty eight percent of the occupants are unemployed.   

Whilst forty one percent of people don’t drink, fifty nine percent of people do. Unfortunately of the fifty nine percent who drink the majority of them consume over eight standard drinks per day. The people who do not drink are of course still adversely affected by those who do. The result is that sixty two percent of the residents have prescribed medication. Ambulance officers report that in almost all cases where they are required to attend at the block the patients are intoxicated.    

A variety of support services have reported that the women in the block are twelve times more likely to be the victims of assault. People in the block are four times more likely to suffer sexual abuse although eighty eight percent of them go unreported. Incidences where twelve year old girls are placed on birth control medication are not uncommon.

When you examine the recent (entirely justified) furore about violence against women can you imagine the outrage directed at the government if that government were to do nothing about the block. When you examine the recent, (again entirely justified) horror uncovered by the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse how could a government allow this block, which it funds, to continue.

As the more perspicacious of you have no doubt determined this ‘block’ actually does exist. Well ok, the block itself doesn’t exist but a number of communities of a similar size exist. They are the remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia which many social commentators are so completely against closing. The East Kimberly Homelessness Project (2014) provides a detailed analysis of the issues confronting these communities (1). 

There are some very good reasons to keep these communities open. Perhaps the best of these is that should one of these communities be closed, there is no guarantee that the raft of issues experienced by the residents will abate. What is more likely is that the residents will simply move elsewhere carrying their issues with them thus negatively affecting the new communities they settle in.

A less convincing reason is that these communities facilitate the resident’s cultural tie to the land. The accepted historical opinion is that whilst some Aboriginal communities lived in semi-permanent villages the majority of the tribes were semi nomadic. The existence of fixed remote communities in no way facilitates the Aboriginals traditional role as custodians of the land.   

Furthermore to imply that living in a fixed community with modern amenities whilst more than half of the population consumes alcohol to excess on a daily basis is in any way related to historical aboriginal cultural traditions is absurd.

On the other side of the coin there are two main arguments for closing these communities. The first of these is a fairly straight forward economic argument. The cost associated with providing services to these communities is significant. Could that money be better spent providing better health and education services in areas with a higher population density thus assisting a greater number of West Australians?

The economic argument for closing communities is in my view a poor one. Closing the communities will reduce the direct cost of funding those specific communities. However it is likely that much if not most of the existing costs will simply be transferred to other communities as the problems experienced by the communities move when the residents move to other communities. They do not simply disappear.

The second argument for closing these communities is based upon the fairly obvious risk to younger people living in these communities and the harm the lifestyle chosen by many inhabitants does to themselves and those around them. These concerns have has been well documented over a number of years by a range of reports and investigations by both Federal and State governments.

It’s the resistance from some people to the medical arguments that I find most baffling. The West Australian Police Commissioner went on the public record pointing out the fairly obvious health reasons as to why these communities might be closed (2). Labor MR Ben Wyatt responded by questioning the source of the commissioners claims and stating that he had been unable to find the source of the claims. It’s the Robinson Report (1999) Ben, which is also supported by Gordon, Hallahan & Henry (2002). A paper by Janet Stanley in 2003 provides a good overview (3).

Whilst some Australians remain in denial, most are deeply uncomfortable with the existing situation in remote Aboriginal communities. The current situation should not be allowed to continue. It is difficult to argue that the existing communities are not adversely affecting the health of the residents.

Ideally the solution should empower the Aboriginal people to continue their traditional role as the custodians of the land. However this should be done in an economically sustainable way. Above all the solution should provide a safe environment for the Aboriginal people as opposed to the quite clearly harmful existing one.

With that goal in mind I would suggest the following comprise solution. A small number of the existing communities, which historically have been gathering places for the Aboriginal people, should be expanded and enhanced. These will become centres where the Aboriginal people can celebrate their culture and share it with other West Australians and foreign tourists. These centres will have full health, power, policing and social services which will provide not just the required support for the residents but also local employment for residents.

The remaining smaller communities will not have power, health, police and social services provided. Basic community housing will remain but the housing will be modelled on shared community accommodation rather than a number of smaller free standing dwellings.

By providing both these options Aboriginals can engage in their traditional semi nomadic lifestyle of travelling between communities. They can also to engage the services they require when required by returning to the larger communities periodically. Alternatively Aboriginals can chose to stay in the larger communities and those doing so will have greater exposure to job opportunities.

This solution addresses the economic argument by reducing the existing costs associated with providing key infrastructure to several hundred communities. It also provides greater employment opportunities for those seeking them. It may even provide a further economic boost as there would be construction associated with the expanded and enhanced communities.

The people living in existing communities would not be forced into the existing city centres. There would be greater opportunities to better manage the existing problems with alcohol, violence and sexual abuse. The new larger regional centres would also act as safe harbours for those adversely affected by the various issues confronting Aboriginal people.

Lastly adopting this model gives the Aboriginal people the opportunity to share their culture through the larger regional centres and practice their traditional role through the smaller centres. The solution is far more inclusive. It provides choices for Aboriginal people allowing them to continue their relationship with the land and contribute to other West Australians.    

Of course at present this idea is little more than a high level plan. Further research would need to be conducted into the expected reduction in costs and analysis would be required to identify potential risks associated with the initiative.

In most business cases there is a default option of ‘Do Nothing’. In this instance I believe the default option is irresponsible. It would represent yet another failure of government to provide for an important part of our community. The ‘Do Nothing’ option should not be considered.

(1)   http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/EAST-KIMBERLEY-HOMELESSNESS-PROJECT-FINAL-REPORT.pdf

 (2)   http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/remote-aboriginal-communities-child-sex-abuse-figures-questioned/6447594

 (3)   http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/2003-abuse/stanley.pdf