In May 1999 I accompanied Defence Minister John Moore on an
official visit to China, Korea and Japan. Others in the party included Vice
Chief of the Defence Force Air Marshall Doug Riding, and Head of the Strategic
and International Policy Division Allan Behm, now Chief of Staff to Greg
Combet, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
The trip was a bit of a nightmare, but it produced a few
passable photographs.
One of the early items on the itinerary was a visit to
Shanghai Naval Squadron, where the Minister inspected the Guard of Honour and
we went on board a vessel that was in port:
In the course of his composing career Sergei Rachmaninov
wrote 24 Preludes in three sets: the famous Prelude in C Sharp Minor, Op. 3
No.2, then the ten Preludes Op. 23, written in 1901 and 1903, and finally the
thirteen Preludes Op. 32, written in 1910. Together they span all the major and
minor keys.
They are longer than the traditional musical fragment which
had hitherto been associated with the term Prelude – Chopin’s for example – and
tend to be musically complex and technically demanding. They are beautiful
pieces, and the great Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter was the master of
them.
As a sampler, try these examples from YouTube, all played by
Richter:
On 28 June 2012 the Prime Minister and the Minister for
Immigration and Citizenship announced that the Governments was establishing an
Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers to provide a report on the best way for
Australia “to prevent asylum seekers risking their lives on dangerous boat
journeys to Australia”.
The Panel is being led by Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston
AC AFC (Retired). The other members of the panel are Mr Paris Aristotle AM,
Director of the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc (also known
as Foundation House), and Professor Michael L’Estrange, AO, Director, National
Security College.
It is to provide advice to the Prime Minister and the
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship prior to the start of the next sitting
period in August 2012. The Panel’s advice will be released publicly.
The substantive parts of the Terms of Reference are as
follows:
The Panel will provide advice and recommendations to the Government on
policy options available, and in its considered opinion, the efficacy of such
options, to prevent asylum seekers risking their lives on dangerous boat
journeys to Australia.
As part of its review, the panel will take into account, and provide
policy advice on:
- how best to prevent asylum seekers risking
their lives by travelling to Australia by boat
- source, transit and destination country
aspects of irregular migration
- relevant international obligations
- the development of an inter-related set of
proposals in support of asylum seeker issues, given Australia’s right to
maintain its borders
- short, medium and long term approaches to
assist in the development of an effective and sustainable approach to asylum
seekers
- the legislative requirements for
implementation, and
- the order of magnitude of costs of such
policy options.
Several things
strike me about the task which Angus Houston and his colleagues have been set:
(1) Although a nicer word is used, we are
talking about deterrence here. The Australian Government has no direct means to
prevent asylum seekers from embarking; what it wishes to do is to deter them
from making that decision.
(2) This raises an important threshold question
about what place there is for “deterrence” in any policy framework that deals
with the quest for asylum by people with “a well-founded fear of persecution”.
The notion of deterring people from seeking asylum by whatever means they might
have to hand seems to me to contradict the whole scheme and purpose of the
United Nations Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees.
(3) A second threshold question is what, if any,
responsibility does the Australian (or any) Government have to prevent
non-citizens, to whom it acknowledges no other duty, from taking risks which
those non-citizens themselves have decided, having regard to their own
particular circumstances, it is in their best interests to take? The Australian
Government does not prevent its own citizens from taking risks like smoking, or
risks that travel insurance companies normally exclude from cover: skydiving,
off-piste skiing, or climbing Mount Everest, for example.
(4) If some basis can be discovered for
Governments seeking to deter asylum seekers from risky behaviour, should asylum
seekers also be deterred from crossing mountain ranges, trudging across
deserts, put themselves in the way of potential dangers from bandits, swimming
fast flowing rivers or those containing crocodiles or piranha, etc?
(5) As to the means of deterrence, most of the
options are depressingly familiar:
- Mandatory detention (introduced by the
Keating Government in the late 1980s and maintained ever since). This procedure
flies directly in the face of the provisions of the Convention, which permits a
short initial period of detention for identity and health checks, buts state
that detention should be a last resort.
- Limitation on access to services and right to
work. Again, contrary to the provisions of the Convention, which states
expressly that persons seeking asylum should be permitted to work (and to
practice their profession where they have recognised credentials) at the
prevailing remuneration rate.
- Limitation on prospects for family reunion.
This one flies in the face of one of the principles on which the Convention was
established: the international conference which led to the Convention
specifically recognised the principle of the unity of the family and stated
that is an essential right of the refugee
- Automatic diversion to another country
(“offshore processing”). This too seems to me to fly in the face of the
provisions of the Convention. Each refugee is an individual and entitled to
have his/her claims assessed on their merits.
- Temporary Protection Visas, introduced by the
Howard Government and advocated now by the Opposition. These had, and would
have on the basis that the Opposition intends, a specifically deterrent intent,
and so were attended by inhumane provisions such as no family reunion, right to work compromised by their temporary status, and restricted access to social services, all of which seem to me to be contrary to our obligations under the Convention. They also seem to me to be contrary to
good sense: if we accept that people are in need of refuge, it is in our own
interest to get them out of detention as quickly as possible, and do all we can
to assist them to re-establish themselves and become productive citizens.
- Sending them to another country for the
explicit purpose of placing them “at the back of the queue”. Apart from the
fact that there is no queue, this strikes me as so inhumane, such a shocking
example of dehumanising people and treating them as chattels, that I am amazed
that anyone even thought of it – or at least amazed that anyone who did think
of it was shameless enough not only to admit it but to promote it as a good
idea.
Inherent in many of the policy approaches that has been
adopted over the years has been an underlying approach that harsh treatment of
asylum seekers who arrive by boat will discourage others from making the
journey. The idea of treating people more harshly than they deserve in order to
influence the behaviour of others is offensive in the extreme, and of dubious
legality.
As far as the problem the Government has set Angus Houston
and his colleagues is concerned, my tentative conclusions would be:
- Clearly anything that makes the prospective
treatment on arrival more unpleasant is likely to have an influence at the
margin.
- For the genuine refugee: it is unlikely that
anything we might be prepared to do would act as a deterrent for someone who
thinks “I can’t go back, and I can’t stay here, my best hope is to head for
Australia and hope for the best”.
- Any framework that rules out family reunion
is likely to have the perverse effect of encouraging people to embark on the
boat voyage on the grounds that the only prospect of reunion is to arrive in
the jurisdiction independently.
I wish Angus Houston and his colleagues all the best in a
task which I don’t envy them. I don’t know what the sort of advice the
Government expects will come out of the intensive process of consultation and
deliberation in which the panel is currently involved, but knowing two members
of the panel well and one slightly, I am confident that they will be fiercely
independent in coming to their conclusions, that they will call the issues as
they see them. Where that will leave the Prime Minister, or for that matter the
Leader of the Opposition, remains to be seen.
My lifelong friend Professor Helen Beh, one of my father’s
first PhD students, who went on to become Head of the Department of Psychology
at Sydney University, died on 7 February 2012.
The following obituary was written by her husband, Cyril
Latimer; the Paul Barratt referred to therein is my father.
Professor Helen C. Beh. 1941 –
2012. Obituary
Most scientists would not
expect to publish in the prestigious journal Science at any stage of their careers. In 1965, within two years of the commencement
of her academic career, Helen Beh and her co-author Paul Barratt published
their paper “Discrimination
and Conditioning during Sleep as Indicated by the Electroencephalogram” in Science.
This landmark paper, demonstrating that changes in electroencephalograms
indicate that subjects respond more frequently to significant or meaningful
stimuli during sleep than to non-significant stimuli, and that conditioned
reactions may be induced in sleeping subjects, is still regularly cited today.
Professor Helen Beh went on to become an
internationally recognized expert in sleep research, psychophysiology, human
performance and sports psychology. In a
university career spanning 38 years, she published four books and 73 papers in
peer-reviewed journals. She was regularly invited as a keynote speaker at national
and international conferences, and acted as guest and consulting editor for
journals such as the Psychological
Bulletin and the Journal of
Experimental Psychology. She held
numerous overseas research appointments, including: Birkbeck College, University
of London; McGill University; and the University of California, Berkeley. Besides holding many research grants herself,
she regularly reviewed grant applications for the Australian Research Council
and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Helen Beh
acted as a consultant to many NSW State Government Departments and Australian
Companies. These included the NSW RTA,
QANTAS, NSW Cricket Association, the Australian Football League and the Sydney
Opera House.
Helen Beh was an excellent
teacher, and in 1993 was one of the first academics to receive an Excellence in
Teaching Award at the University of Sydney.
She supervised 83 honours students, 18 masters students and 20 PhD
students, many of whom now hold senior academic, government and business
positions in Australia and overseas. She
recognised very early the potential of computer technology in teaching,
particularly in her courses on psychophysiology and human performance, and this
insight, together with her superb communication skills, ensured that her
lectures and tutorials were regularly crammed with enthusiastic psychology
students. Even today, her students
attest to her presence at the lectern, her critical thinking, her ability to
challenge, inspire and exhort them to “seek ever to stand in the hard Sophoclean
light and take their wounds from it gladly”.
Professor Helen Beh with some of her postgraduate students
Many academics would be satisfied
with excellence in teaching and research, but some would argue that Helen Beh’s
major contributions, particularly to the University of Sydney, were achieved in
her role as a senior administrator. Having
served as Sub Dean, Associate Dean and Pro Dean in the Faculty of Science, and also
Head of the Department of Psychology, she was appointed Acting Dean 1995-1997. This was a very difficult and turbulent time
in Australian universities, a time of fiscal uncertainty and a time when central
resources and power were devolved upon the faculties and thence the individual
departments. It was a time for fortitude,
clear thinking, a thorough understanding of what universities are and should be
about, innovation, sharp negotiating skills and a willingness to compromise –
an environment in which Helen Beh thrived. For various periods during 1996 and 1997, she
was Acting Pro-Vice–Chancellor, Sciences Group, and in 1999 was awarded an
Honorary Professorial Appointment in the Faculty of Science. She was the first woman to hold a Dean’s
appointment in the Faculty of Science at the University of Sydney, and is
remembered for her outstanding negotiating skills, her economic and business
acumen and her ability to inspire confidence and extraordinary loyalty in
colleagues and staff.
Helen relaxing with Faculty colleagues Damon Ridley (left) and Bob
Hewitt (right).
Helen Charmaine Beh was born on
the 31st of July 1941 in Singleton, NSW, daughter of Florence
(Simpson) and Frederick Charles Beh. She
attended Singleton Public and High Schools and was awarded a BA (Hons) at the
University of New England in 1963. In
1969, she was the first woman to be awarded a PhD in Psychology at UNE. In 1973, she became the first woman to be
appointed Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Sydney. For her services to the Faculty of Science,
she was awarded a Master of Science (ad
eundem gradem) by the University of Sydney in 2000.
For someone who never suffered
fools gladly and rarely took prisoners, she could be incredibly generous with
her time, her advice and her finances.
She assisted dozens of students financially, and steered and encouraged
many uncertain young postgraduates into successful careers in universities,
government and business. She always knew
a good set of neurons when she saw one, and very rarely were her charity and
support misplaced. Formidable and
tenacious in argument, when her pistol misfired, she would, like Dr Johnson, simply
reverse the weapon and bludgeon her opponent with the butt end. From personal experience,
when insulted, she had a very fast and very accurate straight right. She was a
mean chess and scrabble player, and gloating opponents would often find the
board and pieces in their laps. Helen
had a devilish sense of humour that was used effectively against those with an
inflated sense of their own importance, and often to restore perspective in
many a committee meeting.
Raised on the land, she was an
excellent horsewoman, a sport to which she returned in later life.
Colleagues often remarked on her
capacity for working long hours and on her ability to achieve goals quickly and
effectively. I recall her sitting down
regularly at her computer in the evenings after cooking the family meal, and
over the period of a few weeks, writing not one, but two textbooks – one on
Human Performance and the other on Psychophysiology. She then formed her own publishing company
and had them printed. They were highly
successful and students bought them by the hundred.
Helen’s fighting spirit was
exemplified when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1999. She immediately
enrolled in a part-time Law degree at Macquarie University, collected several
prizes and graduated with first-class honours and the Dean’s Award for topping
the year in 2005.
In August 1999, Helen Beh
resigned from the University of Sydney to become the first CEO of the
Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA).
Using her sound financial skills, she was involved in increasing
members’ equity by almost $10 million in eight years. This despite membership fees having
effectively decreased by around 30% over the same period. With her enduring interest in training
programmes and continuing education, she ran workshops to train orthopaedic surgeons
who acted as interviewers for the AOA training programme, and oversaw the
development of a national training program and establishment of a national
selection process. She was influential
in bringing about the swift and successful completion of the Memoranda of
Understanding and Service Agreements for the training of surgeons between the Royal
Australasian College of Surgeons and the Specialist Surgical Societies. These formal arrangements were essential to
the College receiving accreditation from the Australian Medical Council, and
everyone involved valued Helen Beh’s leadership, intellectual input and
commitment to the process. Some believe
that her most significant contribution to the AOA was her knowledge and
advocacy of proper corporate governance in the workings of AOA Boards and
associated committees.
In early 2007, Helen was
diagnosed with a malignant and aggressive brain tumour, and without treatment,
given weeks to live. The fighting spirit
resurfaced, and she enrolled in a counselling course! With the help of her excellent medical teams
at the Prince of Wales Hospital, the Sacred Heart Hospice, Darlinghurst, and
Milford House Nursing Home, not to speak of the love and care given by her
family and friends, she defied all the statistics of her disease, surviving
almost six years, and being able to play with her beloved grandchildren Will
and Honor. Helen, being Helen, had no
funeral or memorial service – just a simple cremation and Wake at which many of
her family, friends, colleagues and students remembered and celebrated a life
well lived. Helen’s Memorial is to be a
dedicated Holm oak and bench seat overlooking Randwick Pond in Centennial Park. She is survived by daughter Phillipa, sons
Jason and Steven, husband Cyril and her beloved cats, “Screamer” and “Big Cat”.
A week or so ago I was interviewed on the telephone by Keri
Phillips of ABC Radio National for a Rear
Vision program which was to explore the parallels between the efforts of
the 1970s Whitlam Government and the Rudd/Gillard Government to secure for the
public a greater share of the economic benefits of Australia’s mineral wealth.
The program went to air on Sunday 20 May, with the title Labor, Mining and Scandals, and it contained
quite substantial slabs of that pre-recorded interview. More importantly, it is
a good piece, well worth a listen.
Live audio of the broadcast, or a download of the podcast,
are accessible here.
The F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant of Lockheed-Martin’s
Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter completed ship suitability testing aboard the
amphibious assault ship USS WASP off the coast of Virginia in October 2011.
Combined, F-35B test aircraft BF-2 and BF-4 accomplished 72 short takeoffs and
72 vertical landings during the three-week testing period.
