ALP Caucus gives asylum seekers short shrift

According to today’s edition of Crikey, a motion by Labor Left MP Laura Smyth on the no-advantage test for asylum seekers, seconded by Janelle Saffin, was lost on the voices. Immigration minister Brendan O'Connor spoke against it. As Crikey says, it makes for interesting reading:

That this caucus calls for 1) an immediate independent assessment of the circumstances of asylum seekers held in offshore processing centres. In particular the assessment should address the condition of health infrastructure, mental health facilities and accommodation available to asylum seekers held at those facilities; and 2) the immediate development of guidelines pursuant to which the 'no-advantage principle' is to operate at the discretion of the minister of the day.

In other words, the ALP Caucus as a body would prefer to remain in ignorance of the circumstances of asylum seekers held in offshore processing centres, and what the “no disadvantage principle’ actually means.

We are not well served.

Meanwhile, according to an article by Greg Sheridan and Lauren Wilson in the 22 June 2013 edition of The Australian:

FOREIGN Minister Bob Carr has told a gathering of 40 non-government organisations in Canberra that their rhetoric about asylum-seekers is out of date, unhelpful and won't be accepted by the Australian people.

In the meeting on Thursday, Senator Carr told the leaders of more than 40 organisations that the old rhetoric about human rights and asylum-seekers no longer described the reality of Australia's situation.

Instead, Sri Lankans, Iranians and people of many nationalities with no genuine claims to refugee status were coming to Australia by boat. This, he said, was now a sophisticated and well-financed illegal immigration issue. The numbers, at 3000 a month, were intolerably high, Senator Carr said.

This is a highly irresponsible statement by our Foreign Minister who, under the Administrative Arrangements Order of 16May 2013, has general responsibility for “External Affairs, including … treaties …” The UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, which Australia was one of the first countries to sign when it was opened for signature in 1951, is, of course, a treaty. Under it, we have an obligation to assess on their individual merits the claims of all refugees who arrive in the jurisdiction. It makes no reference to a notion of a particular number of arrivals being tolerable or “intolerably high” as a factor to be taken into account in assessing those claims.

I am not sure how, in support of his remarkable claims, Senator Carr would explain the fact that the success rate of asylum claims by boat arrivals runs at about 94%, or how it is that the principal source countries for these arrivals (Sri Lanka, Iran and Afghanistan) are countries of which it is reasonable to believe that some of their citizens would have “a well-founded fear of persecution”.

Our Foreign Minister should be arguing for full-blooded performance of our obligations under the Convention, not making unfounded assertions to the effect that boat arrivals are just people seeking a better life.

Presentation of the UNE mace

In The University of New England Mace I presented a photograph I took in April 1957 of the beautiful silver mace which was donated that year to the newly autonomous University of New England by its then Deputy Chancellor, Phillip Arundel "P.A." Wright, a New England grazier and a great benefactor of the university.

The occasion was the first graduation ceremony after its donation, and the photo in the post linked above is a photo of the mace on display at afternoon tea on the Southern Lawn of Booloominbah.

During the graduation ceremony itself the mace was formally presented to the Chancellor, Sir Earle Page, by the University’s Master of Processions, Paul Barratt Snr, later to be appointed to the honorary position of Esquire Bedell.

I believe this photo to be an official one. It is a scan of a slide which I found in my father’s collection; I have another which I took with his camera from further back in the audience.

Productivity Commission referral: imported processed fruit and tomatoes

Following is the text of a joint media release issued this afternoon by The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP, Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, and The Hon David Bradbury MP, Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting on Deregulation.

Media release

The Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury and the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness Craig Emerson today announced that the Productivity Commission would undertake separate safeguard inquiries into the impact of imports of processed fruit and tomatoes on Australian producers.

The inquiries follow a request by SPC Ardmona to introduce safeguards measures against imports of canned tomatoes and multi-serve canned fruit products.

SPC Ardmona is one of Australia's largest food processors, employing more than 800 full-time-equivalent staff directly, and makes a substantial contribution to the economy of the Goulburn Valley.

As a World Trade Organization (WTO) Member, Australia has made binding commitments in relation to the trade of goods and services.

The WTO Safeguards Agreement allows Members to investigate whether safeguard measures are justified. Following an investigation by the Productivity Commission, WTO rules allow safeguard measures to be applied to respond to unexpected and unforeseen increases in imports which are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to the domestic industry.

The Productivity Commission is Australia's competent authority to investigate whether safeguard measures are justified under WTO rules.

It will conduct the inquiries in accordance with Australia's safeguards procedures. Australia will notify the WTO and relevant trading partners of these investigations.

As well as investigating whether there are grounds for definitive safeguard measures, the Commission has also been asked to provide an accelerated report examining whether critical circumstances exist to justify provisional safeguard measures.

The Commission is to provide the accelerated report to the Government as soon as practicable and, in any event, within three months.

Mr Paul Barratt AO has been appointed as an Associate Commissioner to the inquiries. Mr Barratt, an independent consultant and Chair of Australia 21 Limited, has more than 40 years' experience in policy advising and international negotiations.

His past appointments include Secretary of Defence and of Primary Industries and Energy; Deputy Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Special Trade Representative to North Asia; and Executive Director of the Business Council of Australia.

The Commission will seek expressions of interest from parties wishing to participate in the inquiry. All interested parties are invited to make a submission.

To register an interest in the inquiry or to find out more, details are available from the Commission at www.pc.gov.au. Terms of reference are attached.

Terms of Reference

Safeguard Inquiry into the Import of Processed Tomato Products
Productivity Commission Act 1998

I, David Bradbury, Assistant Treasurer, pursuant to Parts 2 and 3 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, hereby request that the Productivity Commission undertake an inquiry into whether safeguard action is warranted against imports of processed tomato products falling within tariff subheading 2002.10.00.60 of the Australian Customs Tariff.

The inquiry is to be undertaken in accordance with the World Trade Organization (WTO) safeguard investigation procedures published in the Gazette of S297 of 25 June 1998, as amended by GN39 of 5 October 2005.

The Commission is to report on:

• whether conditions are such that safeguard measures would be justified under the WTO Agreement;
• if so, what measures would be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment; and
• whether, having regard to the Government's requirements for assessing the impact of regulation which affects business, those measures should be implemented.

In undertaking the inquiry, the Commission is to consider and provide an accelerated report on whether critical circumstances exist where delay in applying measures would cause damage which it would be difficult to repair. If such circumstances exist, and pursuant to a preliminary determination that there is clear evidence that increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury, the Commission is to recommend what provisional safeguard measures (to apply for no more than 200 days) would be appropriate.

The Commission is to provide the accelerated report to the Government as soon as possible but not later than 3 months and a final report within 6 months of receipt of this reference. The reports will be published as soon as practicable.

The Commission is to consult widely, hold hearings and call for submissions for the purpose of the inquiry.

DAVID BRADBURY
Assistant Treasurer

---

Terms of Reference

Safeguard Inquiry into the Import of Processed Fruit Products
Productivity Commission Act 1998

I, David Bradbury, Assistant Treasurer, pursuant to Parts 2 and 3 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, hereby request that the Productivity Commission undertake an inquiry into whether safeguard action is warranted against imports of the following processed fruit products of the Australian Customs Tariff:

2008.30.00	Citrus fruit;
2008.40.00	Pears;
2008.50.00	Apricots;
2008.70.00	Peaches, including nectarines;
2008.97.00	Mixtures;
2008.99.00	Other.

The inquiry is to be undertaken in accordance with the World Trade Organization (WTO) safeguard investigation procedures published in the Gazette of S297 of 25 June 1998, as amended by GN39 of 5 October 2005.

The Commission is to report on:

• whether conditions are such that safeguard measures would be justified under the WTO Agreement;
• if so, what measures would be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment; and
• whether, having regard to the Government's requirements for assessing the impact of regulation which affects business, those measures should be implemented.

In undertaking the inquiry, the Commission is to consider and provide an accelerated report on whether critical circumstances exist where delay in applying measures would cause damage which it would be difficult to repair. If such circumstances exist, and pursuant to a preliminary determination that there is clear evidence that increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury, the Commission is to recommend what provisional safeguard measures (to apply for no more than 200 days) would be appropriate.

The Commission is to provide the accelerated report to the Government as soon as possible but not later than 3 months and a final report within 6 months of receipt of this reference. The reports will be published as soon as practicable.

The Commission is to consult widely, hold hearings and call for submissions for the purpose of the inquiry.

DAVID BRADBURY
Assistant Treasurer

Act first and think later

A comment by Richard Farmer in today’s edition of Crikey – a comment with which I can only agree.

Act first and think later

A common thread in the way our federal government performs is the tendency to talk and act first and think later. The evacuation of families from Manus Island is just the latest example. I am sure that governing would be far better if ministerial private staffs were reduced back to the meagre levels of 40 years ago and advice was given instead by public servants.

Some questions that need to be asked

Unimpressed with the standard of contemporary political debate in Australia, the Board of Australia21 has become increasingly concerned that a number of grave challenges are being ignored, bypassed or placed in the “too hard” basket, and that there is no sign of this changing as we head into vitally important national elections.

Accordingly, we commissioned a series of essays by a number of Australia21 Directors, Fellows, Associates and other contributors, which draw attention to threats arising from global change. These are threats that all Australians will need to manage in the near future, and need to be thinking about now. The resulting publication is available for download from the Australia21 website.

We hope that this series of essays will help to stimulate a constructive discussion between voters and political aspirants from all parties about the kind of Australia we will leave to our children in an increasingly hazardous, globalised and resource-constrained world.

We think political parties should take a long-term view when they frame policies to put to the Australian people. When they propose new policies, they should be expected to explain how sustainable they would be in the long term, and how they would fit into a longer-term context. We wonder whether politicians are acting responsible when they imply that Australians in full-time employment are “doing it tough” – “tough” against what benchmark, exactly?

So what do we propose? As a response to the concerns raised in these essays, we are posing a series of questions under twelve themes for consideration by voters across Australia.

They are not the only questions that come to our minds, but they are some of the more important ones, and if these twelve questions clusters can become part of the political discourse in the lead-up to the election of our next government, this small volume will have served a valuable purpose.

You might like to put some of these questions to our political leaders and your local candidates:

1. On Greenhouse gases:

What is your assessment of Australia’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and to the global effort to curtail their growth? Do you believe that we should radically curtail energy production from fossil fuels? If so, over what timeframe? Should we also curtail our mining and export of fossil fuels to other countries? What energy source(s) would you see as most promising replacements for fossil fuels in Australia, and what should we do to encourage rapid uptake? If you do not believe we should rapidly curtail reliance in fossil fuels, please outline your thinking on this matter.

2. On economic management and growth:

How long do you think we can sustain the current approach to economic management in which growth of GDP is required to maintain high employment and accordingly the rate of GDP growth is seen as an indicator of the health of the economy? Do you think we need to develop a more “steady state” approach to economic management, in which we can maintain full employment without rapid growth in the demands placed upon our resources and the biosphere? How (on the business principle of “what gets measured gets done”) can we better integrate the health of the environment and measures of human well being, in Australia and globally, into our measures of economic performance and economic “success”?

3. On defence policy:

What is your concept of what the Australian Defence Force (ADF) should be structured to do over the next two decades? Are we spending enough on defence for the ADF to be able to meet your expectations? Are you concerned about the prospect of strategic competition emerging between China and the United States, and how do you think Australia should respond? Do we have

the right decision-making processes in place to ensure that we go to war only for the right reasons, and with good prospects of success?

4. On food for our future:

What is your assessment of the prospects of Australia feeding itself in the context of rising temperatures, declining extent and health of croplands, and rising food prices and international famine? What policies would you support to ensure that your constituents will be resilient to what many predict is an imminent global food crisis?

5. On our dependency on oil:

In view of the tenuous state of Australia’s oil reserves and the firm likelihood of oil crises in the near term, what policies would you favour to build Australian resilience in this area? Do you think the Government should adopt policies to ensure that we have specified stock levels of fuels and lubricants in-country? Should the Government seek to develop the capacity to produce liquid fuels from non-conventional sources?

6. On prospects for the global economy:

What do you think is the likelihood of another global financial crisis? What should we do to prepare for such an eventuality? What is your assessment of Australian prospects of again withstanding major damage from a collapse in the international economy?

7. On protection against toxins and antibiotic resistance:

What role should government play in protecting the community against exposure to toxins and deterioration in antibiotic sensitivity?

8. On the valuation of services provided by ecosystems:

Do you agree that we should include in our evaluation of proposed developments or changed land use the economic value of the services provided by local ecosystems to human communities and to industry? If not, how do you think we should best protect ourselves from the loss of these services? If so, what role should government play in building the value of these services into our thinking about the economy?

9. On ecological footprints:

Should we be trying to reduce Australia’s current ecological footprint? Can we do this in a way that assists developing countries without simply transferring an equivalent part of our footprint to them?

10. On environmental refugees:

What role should Australia play in the accommodation of environmental refugees from the South Pacific and from South-East Asia as sea levels rise? What impact should such refugees have on the numbers taken from other migration categories? How should we best integrate provision for refugees from the results of climate change into our immigration policy?

11. On domestic travel:

Do you think that the rising demand for rapid movement between our major cities can be met into the indefinite future by increasing civil aviation capacity? Can you foresee a time when exclusive reliance on air travel might become a problem or face constraints?

12. On responding to the needs of the coming generation:

Is Australia preparing its younger population adequately for the likely risks ahead as climate change and resource scarcity challenge the conventional wisdom of endless economic growth?