Rudd tougher on asylum seekers than Howard

Great news if it's true across the board. Refugees from Africa have been the sort of disaster that everyone without his head in the sand would have expected. There is no place in the world where Africans are not far out ahead of everyone else in committing violent crimes

THE Rudd Government is rejecting asylum seeker applications at a higher rate than the Howard government, according to an analysis of new figures. An Asylum Seeker Research Centre report says the immigration department has knocked back 41 of the 42 cases it has had referred to it since Labor took power after the November 2007 election, a rejection rate of 97.6 per cent. The report, authored by ASRC chief executive Kon Karapanagiotidis, says that is the highest rejection rate since the Victoria-based ASRC started in 2001.

ASRC community campaign co-ordinator Pamela Curr conceded some of the 42 did not have compelling cases, but said others certainly did. "There is no way you can look at some of these cases and, with the guidelines for ministerial decision making, reject them," Ms Curr said. "We don't have the figures yet from other advocacy agencies but we know this is going on all around Australia."

Ms Curr said wrong decisions were being made because of Immigration Minister Chris Evans' emphasis on clearing backlogs and making decisions more quickly. She said the figures made a mockery of Senator Evans' assurance that he would bring humanity back to the immigration portfolio. "I think that this government is absolutely dead scared on the refugee issue, after all they lost an election on this back in 2001," she said. "Now they're in power, they've got a wonderful majority, they've got the country behind them but they're too gutless to tackle the hard issues."

Ian Rintoul of the Refugee Action Coalition said he believed the promise of a new dawn in immigration was not being delivered. "I think the minister is still paying too much attention to the immigration department rather than trying to implement the cultural change that was promised," he said. Mr Karapanagiotidis said while it was too early to form a complete picture of Senator Evans' approach, it was looking as if the change in government had not brought change for asylum seekers.

Jack Smit from refugee advocacy group Project SafeCom called the figures "disturbing". The ASRC claims to be the largest provider of aid, advocacy and health services for asylum seekers in Australia.

Source







Blessed are the sceptics



In 1633 Galileo Galilei was hauled before the religious authorities of his day, the Inquisition, for daring to concur with Copernicus that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and also that it orbited the sun rather than the other way around. For his pains, he was placed under house arrest and forced to recant. Giordano Bruno failed to recant and suffered a crueller fate.

Today we are faced with a newer religion known as environmental activism which has insinuated itself into some aspects of science. It shares some of the intolerance to new or challenging ideas with the old. Immolation at the stake is no longer fashionable but it has been replaced by pillory in the media. The new faith makes it apostasy to question the proposition that our river systems are dying and that nothing like this has ever happened before. And it is the blackest heresy to suggest that the beatification of StAl and the Goronites may be a little premature.

The symbols and practices of the new and the old faiths are remarkably similar. The crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine; where before there was the hair shirt and self-flagellation, mortification of the flesh now consists of switching off your airconditioner when it's hot and your patio heater when it's cold.

The head of the University of Tasmania's school of government, Aynsley Kellow, has pointed out the close similarity between medieval papal indulgences and carbon offsets. However, these things matter less than the corruption of science by faith and the failure to recognise the contingent nature of scientific concepts. Concepts are only valid until such time as they are demolished by the scientific methods of observation, measurement, experimentation and analysis. Phrases such as "the argument is over, the science is settled" are so much fatuous nonsense and should almost never be used in the scientific community.

Throughout history dissenters, sceptics, contrarians and innovators have suffered criticism, abuse and even persecution, but it is these people who have driven progress. To quote Thomas Huxley, "scepticism is the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin". Where would we be without the Galileos, Newtons, Darwins and Pasteurs? I would like to think that some time in the future we could add the names of our scholars to that list.

So what is this partnership between the Institute of Public Affairs and the University of Queensland to support environmental research about? What are we doing it for? There are two main reasons. First, to provide a haven for our scholars without ideological or commercial interference and with no prescription as to the end point of their inquiries. If they challenge orthodoxies and assumptions, particularly mine, then that's good. If they find that conventional wisdom is correct, then that's good, too. The only criterion is to seek empirical evidence.

Second, it is important that any research that our scholars undertake is made available to aid the development of better, more rational public policy. Good public policy means applying our resources more efficiently to achieve the outcomes we desire, such as lifting the poor out of their poverty, feeding the hungry, healing the sick and, in our case, managing our environment sensibly and productively.

I would like to think that what we have launched today is just the first step in something much bigger. I envisage that, in the future, to environmental lawyers and scientists we will add other disciplines: biologists, economists, statisticians, even philosophers. What we need to do is shine the hard light of reason and critical thinking on our environmental problems, aided by multiple skills and points of view. As they say, from tiny acorns do mighty oak trees grow; or, to make the metaphor more geographically relevant, from tiny gumnuts do mighty river red gums grow.

That's all I have to say but I would like to leave you with one thought. For those of you have a feeling of despair about the direction that some aspects of environmental science is taking, remember that most people now believe that Galileo was right.

The above is an edited version of a speech by Perth philanthropist Bryant Macfie, who is funding a research partnership between the Institute of Public Affairs and the University of Queensland.

Source







The expected union mayhem is getting underway

Rudd will need more than easy tokens to deal with this. He will lose the next election unless he gets tough with union coercion

UNIONS have launched a direct challenge to the Rudd Government and the ACTU by pursuing wage claims of up to 19 per cent to offset rising inflation and to "catch up" on pay rises lost under the Howard government. As Kevin Rudd came under pressure last night to release Treasury analysis on the inflationary effects of his industrial relations changes, unions in Victoria vowed to chase annual pay rises of up to 6 per cent for the next three years to compensate for the 4.2 per cent inflation rate and suppressed pay under John Howard.

Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Brian Boyd told The Australian a deal struck by teachers in Victoria endorsing pay rises of up to 15.2 per cent exemplified the catch-up increases unions wanted under the Prime Minister. "I am quite aware that a number of key private sector unions and groups of workers are arguing for 5 per cent (a year) to get ahead of that 4.2 (per cent)," he said. "There are agreements already being looked at around 15 per cent over three years, and some will even go to 18-19 per cent. "(It's) not only to compensate for inflation but also to compensate for the restriction on the ability you had for decent wages under the previous government."

The Australian understands the pay push includes unions in the construction, manufacturing, transport, electrical and plumbing sectors. The Victorian teachers' deal has also buoyed public servants across several states - including teachers and nurses - on the verge of pay negotiations. The wage push came as Brendan Nelson demanded Mr Rudd release Treasury advice prepared in February showing whether his industrial relations reforms would drive up inflation.

Mr Rudd rejected the relevance of earlier Treasury advice, prepared in April last year, which criticised Labor's industrial relations policies as likely to cause wage spirals and drive up interest rates. The Australian published the leaked advice yesterday. Mr Rudd said the leaked advice was written before Labor had released its full policy and implementation plan, which included the abolition of the Howard government's individual workplace contracts, known as Australian Workplace Agreements.

The Opposition Leader seized on the comment to demand that Mr Rudd disclose the more-recent advice, which Treasury last week refused to release in full in response to an application by ABC television under Freedom of Information laws. "What Mr Rudd must do now is show Australians the evidence that his changes to workplace relations will not result in unemployment and higher inflation," Dr Nelson said. "The question for us is: 'Why is he not coming clean with Australians and telling Australians that Treasury has told the Australian Government that its plan to get union bosses back into workplaces is actually going to put people out of work and push up inflation?"'

Mr Boyd said the Victorian teachers' deal was a "good case in point" of unions playing catch-up after wages were suppressed under the Howard government. "There has been a lot of wages curtailed in the last three or four years of the Howard government and people are trying to catch up," he said. Ordinary working people were not responsible for rising inflation, but were entitled to receive compensation for higher petrol and grocery prices, he said. "The union movement is an independent voice for trying to find a fair market price for workers they represent in the capitalist market place," he said. "We have put up with 11 years of IR laws that have been aimed at restricting our ability to find a fair price for labour. "Just because (John) Howard got elected for a decade doesn't mean we accept that these harsh IR laws were justified in restricting our ability to find a fair price for labour. "So I have no qualms in saying if we want to play the catch-up game for wages and conditions, we'll do it."

Mr Boyd said he did not accept the wage push would exacerbate game for wages and conditions, we'll do it." Mr Boyd said he did not accept that the wage push would exacerbate inflationary pressures. "Ordinary working people didn't cause the inflation situation," he said. "Other factors caused that. The oil price internationally is one of them, and grocery prices going up has nothing to do with what workers do. "They're entitled to get compensation for that. That's why I'm calling it a catch-up process, not a breakout process."

Mr Boyd denied the pay push could lead to a wages breakout. "It's not really a wages explosion, in my view. It's a catch-up that is currently going on because of what happened over the last few years of Howard," he said. "It's making up lost ground. I think there should be an understanding that a lot of the workforce across the country, not only in Victoria, are viewing their situation in terms of inflation and (consumer price index) rises, in terms of the cost of living, in terms of petrol prices and power prices, and so on. "It's all about catch-up in terms of their current situation, and what their situation as ordinary people has been for the past few years. It's got nothing to do with an explosion. It's catch-up."

Dr Nelson said the leaked Treasury advice showed "John Howard was right and Kevin Rudd was wrong" about industrial relations, despite his having said several times since Labor won November's election that the Howard government's Work Choices laws were a mistake.

Earlier yesterday, The Australian asked Mr Rudd through his office to furnish the February Treasury advice. As of late yesterday, he had not replied. Wayne Swan had nothing to add yesterday when asked whether he was concerned that excessive wage demands could fuel an upwards pay spiral and feed into inflation, referring The Australian to his comments at a media conference on Tuesday after wage concerns were raised by the Reserve Bank. Asked at the press conference if he was concerned about wages claims, the Treasurer said: "No, I'm not, because our industrial relations policy has wage rises based on productivity. What we should have with wage settlements is settlements which are reached based on productivity."

Victorian Premier John Brumby yesterday insisted the teachers' pay rise was not out of step despite being above inflation, saying significant productivity improvements were factored in. [It's hard not to laugh at the "productivity improvements". They seem to consist of teachers agreeing to work an extra 10 minutes per day! Will anybody notice?]

Source






"Healthy lifestyle" absurdities

READING policy documents can be a hard way to make a living. But sometimes you simply can't believe what you are reading. Last year the Labor Party released its GP super clinics policy, co-authored by Kevin Rudd and Nicola Roxon, which contained the following statement: "Preventative health care needs to be made more accessible to ordinary Australians struggling to find the time in their busy lives to look after their own health. We can't expect people to take better care of their health if we won't help provide the health services they need to make this a reality."

Not sure whether to laugh at the absurdity or be outraged by the patronising tone, I was intrigued to figure out how anybody could endorse such an extraordinary notion. Public health experts have argued since the 1970s that people make unhealthy choices out of ignorance and that governments, therefore, have a duty to tell them through public health education campaigns how to change their lifestyle to protect their health. For more than 30 years, Australian governments have told us to quit smoking, eat moderately and exercise regularly, most memorably through the "Life! Be In It" campaign. We have listened, up to a point at least, and the easy prevention work has now been accomplished.



Many middle-class people are converts to the wellness cult: they have stopped smoking, improved their diet and started to exercise. But many others, particularly those on lower incomes, prefer to live for the day and have ignored the healthy lifestyle message. Recent reports on public health policy in Britain and Australia found that despite decades of spending on prevention programs, levels of physical activity have not increased and obesity levels have shot up. Obesity-related chronic disease already puts pressure on the health system and it will accentuate the challenges we face as the population ages.

Prevention hasn't worked because however intensively the health lifestyle message is pushed, it comes down to individuals to have the will, self-discipline and impulse control to change longstanding behaviours that are often pleasurable. As international studies have found, the main reason anti-obesity initiatives have failed is that many people find it difficult to sustain lifestyle modifications for long periods.

But instead of acknowledging these limits to prevention, public health experts are going further, to justify even greater public health spending. Obesity has been redefined as an epidemic, as if victims passively contract it (infected, of course, by wicked and coercive fast-food advertising). As the victims of this epidemic are concentrated in lower-income groups, obesity has also been classified as health inequality, which makes it a social problem. The blame for it falls on "a catastrophic failure of governments to implement effective evidence-based action".

Even though governments took health experts' advice and spent millions on preventive education, it is now the government, rather than the individual, that the experts deem responsible for obesity, because it has not done enough to force people to drop their hamburgers and get off the couch. While this obviously ignores the role individuals play in continuing to make unhealthy lifestyle decisions, this argument has nevertheless managed to convince some politicians that governments must indeed take action to stem the epidemic.

Hence we have the truly remarkable, paternalistic policy endorsed by the Labor Party. The Government's policy documents acknowledge that public health campaigns had at least made most people aware of the lifestyle changes required to promote good health. But in Rudd and Roxon's view, what recent history - the failure to curb obesity - really demonstrates is how the system failed to provide help to turn knowledge into practice. So-called ordinary Australians therefore need Medicare-funded preventive health care, of course, because unless the government was prepared to help them, how could they be expected to take care of their own health.

The Labor Party has announced an initiative: a national network of super clinics to be located in lower-income communities. In a forerunner of the Prime Minister's one-stop shop childcare centres proposal, the Government's plan in health is to bring a range of allied health services under one roof, so super clinics can deliver what are ominously titled lifestyle interventions. The Government will pay teams of sleek middle-class health professionals to harass the bulging lower orders and help them eat food they don't like and get exercise they don't want to take.

Life! The Government Will Make You Be In It: this could be the slogan of the super clinics. But the Government can't make you be in it, and its policy is neither evidence-based nor effective. Unsurprisingly, studies show that even high-intensity lifestyle interventions have little impact, especially on long-term diet and exercise habits. Why, then, is the Government lumbering all of us with the cost of ineffective preventive care?

Cheered on by the experts, the Rudd Government is determined to unfurl a new range of preventive policies to try to contain the future cost of Medicare. Prevention's better than cure, as they say. But the evidence suggests the Government's policies won't work. It should let ordinary Australians be and help ordinary taxpayers instead. Millions of taxpayers' dollars are already wasted every year preaching the virtues of brown bread, wheatgrass juice and jogging to those who won't be converted.

Source