Contemporary politics,local and international current affairs, science, music and extracts from the Queensland Newspaper "THE WORKER" documenting the proud history of the Labour Movement.
MAHATMA GANDHI ~ Truth never damages a cause that is just.
‘It may well be military-grade [security] on the central servers of the
My Health Record system. It’s demonstrably not military-grade for all of
those 900,000 practitioners.’
Photograph: Alamy
Australia’s former privacy commissioner warned government officials about the dangers of an opt-out My Health Record system six years ago, but said his cautions were ignored.
Malcolm Crompton, now an adviser at one of Australia’s leading
information privacy consultancies, has also warned digital health
records will not be secure unless a widespread audit of every GP clinic
in Australia is conducted.
“It may well be military-grade [security] on the central servers of the My Health Record system,” Crompton told Guardian Australia. “It’s demonstrably not military-grade for all of those 900,000 practitioners.
“Literally because nobody knows. Nobody has actually audited those
900,000 practitioners to make any statement of any sort on how secure
they are.”
Last week Malcolm Turnbull pledged to address privacy concerns raised about the government’s My Health Record system. Healthcare and social security groups have expressed significant concern
about the lack of privacy safeguards in the legislation governing the
system, which could allow warrantless access by a broad range of
government departments, including Centrelink, Medicare or the Australian
Tax Office.
IT experts also say the system is prone to cyber threats,
particularly because the records will be accessible by a vast range of
people in the medical workforce, many of whom will have weak cyber
security.
Health minister Greg Hunt has repeatedly stated the data will be secure and no access will be allowed without a court order.
What is My Health Record? – video explainer
Crompton,
the privacy commissioner between 1999 and 2004, said the government had
been repeatedly warned about the security risks now being canvassed. In
2012, Crompton addressed health department officials directly about the
dangers of an opt-out system during a roundtable on digital health records.
“I said ‘the change from opt-in to opt-out is inevitable, and these
are the risks of doing so and some of the actions necessary to redress
the imbalance’. Department of Health people were present,” he said.
“Others have issued similar warnings. So there are no surprises about
any of these issues now being raised. The difference is that they were
dismissed or not dealt with properly. They are still being raised and
are being taken seriously, or at least seriously enough for Mr Hunt to
be talking to the doctors.”
The Deeble Institute for Health Policy Research is among those who have also warned of the privacy and security risks of moving to an opt-out system.
In 2015, the institute published a report calling for a “comprehensive system security and privacy safeguard review” before the implementation of the opt-out system.
Following this review, the government would need to “implement a mix
of technology, policy and process mechanisms aimed at strengthening
security and privacy controls”, the report said.
It also recommended a major public education campaign before moving
to opt-out, to demonstrate the privacy and security safeguards of the
system.
A spokesman for Hunt said he would meet this week with the presidents
of the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College
for General Practitioners to “work constructively” with them about their
concerns.
He said Australians had a choice to opt-out if they wished, and could decide how their medical information was controlled.
“Labor brought in this legislation in 2012 and it has been operating
for six years and just under six million Australians are already on the
system,” the spokesman said.
“My Health Record is subject to some of the strongest legislation in
the world to prevent unauthorised use and backed up by a world-leading
cyber security team.”
Crompton, who has himself opted out, said he had little faith in the
government’s ability to resolve the myriad of privacy and security
issues.
“They will be pushed to make minimal change amid extreme noise,” he said.
Crompton said the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
is under-resourced to cope with such a vast scheme. He compared OAIC’s
resourcing for audits with the kind of money corporations spent on
financial auditing.
“The privacy commissioner is doing the commissioner’s darnedest to be
as effective as possible with the budget they’ve been given,” he said.
“But somebody in the department of finance keeps on leaving off a
couple of zeros before the decimal point. It’s not just under-resourced
... it’s criminally under-resourced.”
Josh Frydenberg and Malcolm Turnbull both attended a meeting with a
small not-for-profit foundation that was offered $443.8m in funding
without a tender.
Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP
Malcolm Turnbull was at the meeting where $443.8m in funding was offered to a small not-for-profit foundation without a competitive tender process or any application for the money, an inquiry has heard.
Anna Marsden, the managing director of the Great Barrier Reef
Foundation, told a Senate inquiry on Monday the organisation was offered
the funding at a meeting in Sydney in April between Turnbull,
environment and energy minister Josh Frydenberg, the foundation’s chair John Schubert and environment and energy department secretary John Pratt. The inquiry is examining the process
by which the foundation, which had just six full-time staff at the
time, was awarded the funds and whether it has the capacity to deliver
work required under the government’s reef 2050 plan.
“I’d like to state for the record that the foundation did not suggest
or make any application for this funding. We were first informed of
this opportunity to form a partnership with reef trust on the 9th of
April this year,” Marsden told the hearing.
“And who was it that contacted you about that and who did they speak to?” said Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson.
“That was a meeting between the prime minister, minister Frydenberg,
the secretary of the department and our chair,” Marsden said.
Marsden said the foundation was informed an allocation was being
announced in the May federal budget and the government invited it to
partner with the Reef Trust to “distribute these funds across five
component areas of the reef 2050 plan”.
She said this was the sole purpose of the 9 April meeting and the
foundation was not aware beforehand what the meeting was about.
Marsden
said she was not present in Sydney but spoke with the department’s
secretary Pratt and assistant secretaries the next day to discuss next
steps if the foundation accepted the offer.
She said a series of “collaboration principles” were determined and
put to the foundation’s board “and once they were approved there was an
exchange of letters between the minister and the chairman which cemented
the agreement to enter into a partnership”.
Marsden said it was the foundation’s intent to be as transparent and
accountable as possible “with everything the foundation is doing under
this partnership” and the organisation had, in part, been selected
because of its ability to attract additional money from the private
sector.
The inquiry heard the foundation’s chairman’s panel, a corporate
membership group made up of chief executives and directors of companies
including Commonwealth Bank, BHP, Qantas, Shell and Peabody Energy, has
55 members, each of whom pay $20,000 a year for membership.
Marsden said the organisation tried to find members that shared similar values and commitment to the reef.
Asked how the values of coal companies such as Peabody aligned with
reef protection, she said “they share a commitment to moving forward and
transitioning away from fossil fuels and ensuring we can build the
resilience of the Great Barrier Reef”.
She said the foundation was in the process of developing an
investment policy and one of the key concerns the draft would address
was how it would manage any potential conflicts of interest. But she
said advice on projects the funding would pay for would be “grounded in
science” with advice taken from key agencies such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Later in the hearings, Labor senator Kristina Keneally asked the environment and energy department about its role in the awarding of the funds.
“It’s still not clear to us how it came to be that the prime minister
felt that he could meet with this foundation and offer them $443m of
money,” she said.
Officials said the decision happened in “the confines of the budget
process” and the government decided to approach the foundation.
Earlier in the day, environment NGOs said they were concerned the
money was not awarded directly to agencies already working on the reef,
that there was no tender process and that the grant agreement had little
mention of climate change, which is the key threat to the reef.
The transition from renting to home ownership is becoming less common in Australia.
Photograph: James Ross/AAP
Household disposable income has stagnated since
2009, rates of home ownership among young adults have fallen in recent
years, and “housing stress” among renters has risen.
But the nationwide poverty rate has declined since 2001, and the child poverty rate is now the lowest it has been in 16 years.
Those are some of the key findings of the latest Household, Income
and Labour Dynamics in Australia (Hilda) survey, released on Tuesday,
which provides a detailed picture of the wellbeing of Australian
households.
By interviewing the same households and individuals every year since
2001, the Hilda survey allows policymakers to see how the wellbeing of
specific households has changed over time.
The longitudinal data reveals “dynamics” – family, health, income and
labour dynamics – rather than statics. It offers information about
persistence and recurrence of poverty, unemployment and welfare
reliance.
The data can illuminate the antecedents and consequences of poverty,
unemployment, marital breakdown and poor health, by showing the paths
that individuals’ lives have taken.
This report presents data from interviews conducted between 2001 and 2016.
On a macro-level, the Hilda report shows household disposable income
has stagnated for Australians since 2009, after rising strongly between
2001 and 2009.
Between 2009 and 2016, the mean household disposable income grew by
just $2,168, or 2.4%, while the median household disposable income
barely moved ($79,160 in 2009, compared to $79,244 in 2016).
The Hilda survey has found income mobility has also declined slightly in Australia since 2001.
“Income mobility” refers to the ability of individuals or families to
improve (or worsen) their economic status by changes in their income.
If household income is relatively immobile, and the same households are
ranked as high-income and low-income from one year to the next, it
suggests inequality between households is persistent.
The Hilda survey shows income mobility has worsened slightly since the turn of the century.
“While the increase in income stability from year to year is a
positive development for people with good incomes, this is not a good
development for people with low incomes, since they are more likely to
have persistently low incomes,” the report says.
However, the report shows household expenditure on home energy has been decreasing in recent years.
It says one potentially important source of economic hardship is the
cost of home energy, and home energy expenditure peaked as a share of
household income in 2011 and 2012, when it accounted for 3.1% of income.
It has since fallen to 2.8% of income.
Renters
More people are renting, with the share of people living in
private rental accommodation increasing to 28% in 2016, up from 23% in
2001.
People aged 25 to 34 are the most likely to rent, while those aged 55-plus are the least likely to rent.
There has been a slight decline in renting among 15 to 24-year-olds,
to 34.5% from 36.6%, driven by the trend to remain longer in the
parental home.
And the transition from renting to home-ownership is becoming less
common, particularly among younger age groups. Between 2013 and 2016, an
average of 7.6% of renters between the ages of 18 to 24 moved into
home-ownership each year, compared with 13.5% between 2001 and 2004.
Childcare
The use of paid childcare is increasing.
Around half of parents with children under the age of five – 49.1% of
couple parents, 50.4% of single parents – now use some form of paid
childcare. This is up from approximately 44% in 2013-14.
The use of work-related childcare is on the rise. Between 2002 and
2016, it has increased from 71% to 86% for parents in a couple, and from
57% to 63% for single parents.
Hourly rates and time spent in care is increasing. Median weekly
expenditure on childcare has risen in real terms between 2002-03 and
2015-16, by 119% for parents in a couple (from $71 to $154), and by 133%
for single-parent families (from $44 to $102).
Gender roles and work
Australians (aged 15-64) are becoming increasingly open to non-traditional gender arrangements of parenting and paid work.
However, despite these more progressive views, men spend more time
(35.9 hours) on employment than women (24.9 hours per week in 2016),
while women spend more time on housework (20.4 hours, compared to men’s
13.3 hours) and care (11.3 hours, compared to men’s 5.4 hours).
Men have increased their share of time spent on housework (1 extra hour per week) and care (0.6 hours per week) since 2002.
However, when children arrive, the traditional gendered division of
labour in couples becomes more apparent: among married couples with
children, women do only 29% of the paid work but 65% of the housework
and 63% of the care.
About 647,000 single Australians receive Newstart and youth allowance.
Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP
For Sherri Prendergrast, life on Centrelink can feel like being stuck inside a feedback loop.
“It just takes up everything,” the 22-year-old from Glenorchy, in
Hobart’s northern suburbs, told Guardian Australia. “There’s this huge
stigma around being on government benefits, like you’re too lazy to
work. So you feel all this pressure to get a job.
“But then you get knocked back and knocked back and knocked back.
People always tell me to volunteer to get experience. That’s a great
idea, but if you’re on Centrelink you barely have enough money to pay
rent so even the cost of travelling to do that is too much.”
Prendergrast is about to transition from youth allowance to Newstart,
which will bump her fortnightly income from $445 to about $538.
She’s
far from alone – about 647,000 single Australians receive Newstart and
youth allowance – but a new report from the Australian Council of Social
Services and the University of New South Wales suggests she may be
right that fewer people understand what it’s like to live in the
country’s lowest income bracket.
The Inequality
in Australia report maps changes in income and wealth inequality over
time. Released on Tuesday, the report paints a picture of a country
increasingly divided by its back pocket.
It says the richest 20% of Australian households own 62% of all
wealth, while the lowest 50% own just 18%. The average household wealth
in the highest 20% group is $2.9m, five times that of the middle 20% and
almost a hundred times that of the lowest 20% at $30,000.
The report found that a person with a household income in the highest
20% of the population has five times the disposable income of the
lowest 20%.
At the extreme end of the scale, the top 1% have an average weekly
disposable income 26 times the income of a person in the lowest 5%.
Acoss chief executive Cassandra Goldie said the report’s
findings “deeply challenges our sense of Australia as an egalitarian
country”.
“The Australian experience in recent decades shows that inequality
has increased strongly in economic boom times and flattened with a
slower economy and slow wage growth across the board,” she said.
“We should not accept increased inequality as an inevitable byproduct of growth.”
While income inequality has stagnated since the global financial
crisis, the report warns that “inconsistent social security policies”
such as the decision to freeze Newstart payments
while indexing pensions to earnings, along with “a long-term trend
towards greater inequality in hourly wage rates, and growing inequality
in the distribution of wealth” were “likely to reassert themselves and
increase inequality once stronger economic growth is restored”.
But while income inequality has slowed, household wealth has become
even more concentrated thanks in part to “generous tax treatment for
superannuation and a property boom”.
Wealth
inequality increased most strongly between people under 35 years,
thanks mainly to “rapid growth in the average value of shares, financial
and business assets and investment property held by younger
households”, and the concentration of these assets in wealthier, younger
households.
Prendergrast said she could see the differences in income among her peers.
“You can see it. It feels like everyone else my age is out partying
and seeing their friends all of the time and I’m at home applying for
jobs ,” she said.
“It can be frustrating because some people are born with privileges
that they can’t control. They don’t see that they’ve got a leg up
already to getting decent jobs and things like that. It makes it
difficult to join in.”
If you feel like you're treading water with your household finances don't worry, you're not alone.
The
latest instalment of HILDA data shows the typical Australian household
hasn't seen their post-tax real income rise noticeably since 2009.
That year, the median household had a disposable income of $79,160, at 2016 price levels.
In 2016, the latest year of HILDA data available, the median income was $79,244.
This
information comes from the Melbourne Institute's study of Household
Income and Labour Dynamics, or HILDA as it is affectionately known.
One piece of good news is that real incomes
— that is adjusted to cancel out the effects of inflation — did rise
1.8 per cent compared to 2015.
Another is that Australians enjoyed
massive real income growth of 29 per cent between 2003 and 2009, thanks
to the flow-on effects of mining boom mark one.
A third was that
income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, remained
relatively steady throughout the entire period since HILDA started in
2001.
HILDA data is closely watched by the Reserve Bank and other
policymakers as it provides a detailed snapshot on the social and
financial details of more than 17,000 Australians each year, allowing
researchers to track changes in the community.
Underemployment jumps as men lose full-time work
One of the contributors to stagnating household incomes has been the rising prevalence of part-time work and underemployment.
The
report's authors observe that, while Australia escaped the worst
immediate effects of the global financial crisis, it marked a turning
point for the labour market from which workers have never fully
recovered.
"From 2001 until 2008, employment participation had been rising and unemployment had been falling," they wrote.
"Since
then, the labour market has been relatively flat, with the proportions
of men and women employed remaining below their 2008 peaks and the
proportions unemployed remaining above the 2008 trough."
The
change has been particularly stark for men aged between 18-64, for whom
the part-time employment rate rose from just over 10 to approximately
14 per cent, while full-time employment slumped from 73.3 per cent in
2008 to 67 per cent in 2016, although full-time employment for women
aged 18-64 was also slightly down on its pre-GFC peak of almost 40 per
cent.
Coinciding with the increase in part-time work has been
a steep rise in underemployment, which has jumped to well over 8 per
cent according to Bureau of Statistics data, after spending most of the
1980s below 4 per cent and the bulk of the 1990s and early-2000s below 7
per cent.
The HILDA study shows more than a third of part-time
workers are working fewer hours than they would like to, with
underemployment most prevalent amongst those aged under 24, full-time
students, immigrants from non-English speaking nations, those without
post-high school qualifications, single people and those with moderate
or severe disabilities.
Notably, almost 50 per cent of people aged
20-24 and immigrants from non-English speaking countries of any age who
worked part-time wanted more hours.
No-one going to the gig
However, according to HILDA, they are not working in the so-called "gig" economy.
At least to 2016, rates of self-employment had actually declined significantly since the turn of the century.
In
2001, close to 10 per cent of employed persons were solo self-employed,
while more than 7.5 per cent of employed people not only worked for
themselves but also employed others.
By 2016 this had fallen to 8.5 and just over 5 per cent respectively.
The report's authors say this debunks two
common beliefs — that there has been a rise in the use of independent
workers and that small business is not driving employment growth.
"The
HILDA survey evidence indicates that, if the gig economy is growing as
rapidly as is commonly believed, then either it involves the
substitution of one type of self-employed worker for another (as might
be happening in the taxi industry) or it is largely consigned to second
jobs," they wrote.
"This
coincidence of declining employer numbers with high employment rates
suggests that self-employment is not the engine of employment growth
that it is so often claimed to be.
"Less clear is the
source of this decline. The most likely explanations, however, lie in
factors such as globalisation and technological change that have worked
in favour of larger firms."
Higher education doesn't close gender gap
The
HILDA survey shows a massive increase in university attendance over the
15 years between 2001 and 2016, especially for women.
In 2001,
22.6 per cent of both men and women aged 25-64 had a university degree.
By 2016 this had jumped to 31.1 per cent of men and 35.7 per cent of
women.
The increase in masters and doctorate level degree was
even more striking, with the proportion of people holding this level of
qualification more than doubling from 4.2 per cent of men and just 2.4
per cent of women to 8.5 and 7.4 per cent respectively.
However, this disproportionate growth in tertiary education for women has done little to close the gender pay gap.
Between
2001 and 2016 the average weekly earnings of full-time employees
increased 23 per cent for males and 22 per cent for females, meaning the
pay gap remains virtually unchanged, despite a higher proportion of
women than men holding tertiary qualifications.
Josh Frydenberg is seeking to maximise the government’s chances of winning agreement for its national energy guarantee.
Photograph: Alex Murray/AAP
Josh Frydenberg
has flagged a two-stage process with state and territory ministers in
an attempt to maximise the government’s chances of achieving sign-off
for the national energy guarantee in August.
State sources have told Guardian Australia the commonwealth has
floated a proposal where ministers would sign off on the detailed design
of the Neg mechanism at a meeting of the Council of Australian
Governments energy council long scheduled for 10 August.
The first meeting would also cover the legislation states will have
to implement in their own jurisdictions to give effect to the policy.
Assuming in-principle agreement to proceed, the energy minister has
now flagged a second conversation on the following Tuesday, on 14
August, where the states would be briefed about the more controversial
emissions reduction components, which are scheduled to be put to the Coalition party room in Canberra earlier in the day.
Frydenberg is expected to seek party-room sign-off for federal
legislation covering the emissions reduction target, the use of domestic
offsets, and the treatment of emissions-intensive trade exposed
industries once parliamentary colleagues return from the winter recess –
a process that will inevitably reignite the government’s internal
energy policy debate.
Guardian
Australia understands the states and territories are seeking an
assurance that the commonwealth legislation will reflect the details set out in a policy paper
– and not be gainsaid by a noisy group of Neg sceptics in the Coalition
party room. The second briefing on 14 August is an attempt to
ameliorate those concerns.
Given that a number of states are worried about the consequences of
the low ambition of the Neg’s emissions reduction target, some states
are also understood to be pushing for access to the detailed modelling
underpinning the final design paper to have access to the assumptions
used in the analysis.
At least one jurisdiction has privately flagged delaying a final
decision on the Neg beyond August, but the commonwealth and energy
market officials are resisting that entreaty on the basis the current
problems in the energy market need an urgent solution. In an effort to coax the states to the table,
Frydenberg last week offered an olive branch, telling state energy
ministers the emissions reduction target of 26% by 2030 could be
reviewed after five years – stepping back from an ambit claim that it be
locked in for a decade.
In an effort to give the states political cover to sign on, the Energy Security Boad also told state governments
in the final design paper it circulated last week in unequivocal
language that they could sign on to the policy mechanism without
endorsing the federal government’s low emissions reduction target.
“Support by the energy council for the detailed design of the
guarantee mechanism, as summarised in this paper, does not constitute
approval, agreement or endorsement of the elements of the emissions
reduction requirement that are the responsibility of the Australian
government,” the ESB said in the final design paper.
It also reassured jurisdictions reluctant to sign on that the final
design of the Neg “does not limit the ability of states and territories
to set and meet their own emissions reduction or renewable energy
targets”.
The unusually direct observation from officials is an implicit reference to the fact that Victoria and Queensland
are under pressure from the environment movement, parts of the solar
industry, and the progressive activist group GetUp to reject the Neg
because of the demonstrable insufficiency of the emissions reduction
target.
The groups are running a grassroots campaign
which declares if the states rubber stamp the Neg in August, they will
“own” the 26% emissions reduction target, which a range of experts say
is too low to see Australia meet its obligations under the Paris climate
agreement. Victoria,
understood to be rattled by the offensive, is particularly exposed to a
campaign by progressive activists because the government of Daniel
Andrews faces a difficult election in November.
The Queensland energy minister, Anthony Lynham,wouldn’t be drawn on where his state would land in the looming deliberations. “We
are still analysing some aspects and will be expecting further
information on how this affects Queensland’s non-negotiable components,”
he told Guardian Australia.
The ESB’s final design paper on the Neg confirms the concerns of many experts that the policy as now envisaged will add very little to Australia’s efforts to reduce emissions over the decade to 2030.
The Neg will only deliver additional emissions reduction of 38m tonnes
between 2020-21 to 2029-30 relative to a scenario without the
guarantee. The ESB paper says emissions in the national electricity
market are expected to be 24% below 2005 levels by 2020-21 – which means
the decade-long target is almost reached in the first year of the
scheme.
A number of stakeholders – not just environment groups – are worried
that the target is set to low to give investors in the energy market
certainty. The market will assume the target will need to be raised to
see Australia conform with its international climate commitments.
If Frydenberg manages to emerge from the next fortnight with sign-off
from the states, the political battle will switch to the federal arena,
with Labor muscling up to fight the 26% target.
Before dawn, 13-year-old Ruby Scott is already behind the wheel of a ute, performing a delicate operation.
She
has to drag a massive bale of hay onto the tray of the ute before her
family starts the painstaking task of feeding their hungry sheep, goats,
cattle and horses.
Her two younger sisters Eliza and Heidi are on the back. They all pulled their boots on before 4.30am.
They sling their arms around each other and smile. They are in this together.
Rob and Trisha Scott have been performing this gruelling ritual with their children every day.
The
family-of-five hit the paddocks with the feed and as the sun hits the
horizon they hope the light will confirm their precious stock have all
survived the night.
But the ewes are lambing and some are not strong enough to give birth and survive.
Trisha has been pulling dead lambs from their mother's wombs. Her children don't flinch anymore.
They enter each paddock and are mobbed by animals desperate for food.
The sheep are counted and checked for any signs they are flagging.
Dust
rises as Ruby drives on and the hay, now a scarce commodity across the
state, is spread on the rain-starved ground in each paddock.
Bloodlines
Rob Scott's family has been breeding Angora goats for mohair on this property since the 1960s.
He wants to pass the land and its unique bloodline to his children.
But this family, as tight-knit as they have become in the face of adversity, is close to breaking point.
Trisha Scott can't remember the last time she had spare time.
Her quiet moments are just space for the financial worries to creep in.
It's the three girls, with Ruby at the head of the pack, who are now willing their parents to keep going.
To keep "feeding out" their animals with hay and oats as the supplies dwindle.
At first Rob says he was "too proud" to ask
for charity as the farm turned to dust and the feed supplies they had
stored ran down.
But Trisha Scott made the difficult decision to ask for help.
They've had donations of feed, anonymous money left in envelopes.
Rob Scott is a shearer, but as people sell off stock his skill set is seldom needed, his off-farm income can't be relied upon.
Sacrifices are being made and nothing is left to waste.
If
one of their prized sheep or Angora goats does founder in the paddock
he's likely to shear off the wool of the dead animal — still a lucrative
commodity.
The carcass is fed to the working dogs who are needed to help round up stock.
Quick Shear
Ruby Scott also loves to dance. Specifically hip-hop.
Once the feeding is done around 9.00am she's still full of energy.
She swaps her work boots and tattered hat for a gold and black dance outfit.
This year the Yeoval shearing competition — known as "Quick Shear" — was cancelled because of the drought.
It's been running for a decade and is the key community event for the local residents and farmers.
In
its place the young girls of the town are instead performing for their
families, who are crowded around the back of the Yeoval Pub beer garden
with homemade slice and babies on their hips.
Ruby is a star. They all are.
She's crumping with the crew in full makeup and laughing with her friends.
And she'll be up and ready tomorrow morning to loop the string around the next bail and put the ute in gear.
None of the girls talk about what happens when there are no more squares of hay to throw off the back.
They don't want to think about that now.
Instead they'll keep smiling, and making their parents laugh through their tears.
‘From a policy sense, there is little that would see Turnbull wishing to be separate from Trump.’
Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP
There
are those in Australia who look across the Pacific and wonder what it
would be like to have a Trump-style government, and whether such a
calamity could happen here. The correct answer, of course, is not only
that it could but that it is happening right now.
Yes, some of the more horrific aspects of the Trump presidency – the
alleged collusion with Russian forces, for example – are absent, but
from a policy sense there is little that would see Turnbull wishing to
be separate from Trump.
Tax cuts that favour the wealthy? Hell yes. The Turnbull government’s
key economic policy has been to bring in tax cuts which when fully
completed will overwhelmingly favour the wealthy and which will exacerbate income inequality. Tax
cuts for corporations? Yes please! While the Turnbull government has
been unable to get the bulk of its company tax cuts through, there are
few doubts that they won’t occur. Pauline Hanson is expected to give the
government her support once the Longman byelection is out of the way
and she doesn’t have to explain to voters why she supported a policy
most of them do not.
A willingness to hit the racial dog-whistle? Why certainly. The signs
are already here that the next election is going to be a horror show of
talk about migrants and crime and blaming immigration for everything
from wages to housing prices to congestion, and all coated with a very
thin veneer of racial anxiety.
Trump has spent much of the past year talking up fears of the MS-13
gangs to such an extent that despite no evidence of any growing
activity, 85% of those who voted for Trump now believe the gang is a very serious or a somewhat serious “national threat”.
For Malcolm Turnbull and his government, substitute MS-13 for “African gangs” in Melbourne. Last week on 3AW Turnbull
responded to Neil Mitchell’s question of whether he believed “people in
Melbourne are frightened to go to restaurants because of Sudanese
gangs?” by saying, “Well I’ve heard that from people in Melbourne and
Neil you’re a person in Melbourne. Well I’ve heard it, I’ve heard
people, colleagues from Melbourne say that there is a real anxiety about
crime in Melbourne. It is a real issue.”
There was a time Turnbull might have been expected to take a stand
against such fear-mongering. A time when “heard it from people” would
not within a sentence turn into “a real issue”. But those days are long
gone.
He might not be as vulgar as Trump, but Turnbull is just as willing to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
And what about thin-skinned responses to criticism? The ongoing attempts from the Turnbull government to discredit the ABC is only marginally less subtle than Trump’s railing against the “fake media”.
The Turnbull government is not content to merely seek to have the ABC
remove content it finds displeasing. This week the health department
sought to have the parliamentary library take down a post which highlighted just how weak are the privacy provisions surrounding the My Health Record.
I suspect that censoring those who are pointing out reasons the
public should not trust a government service is not the best way to have
the public believe they can trust that service – or their government.
And finally, how about a preference for big business?
As we have seen with the company tax cuts that is certainly evident,
but a perfect example of where the Turnbull government’s priorities lie
came this week with the announcement of Nine taking over Fairfax.
The deal is a terrible one for those who value a diverse media. I
suggested on Twitter that talk the new company would have “plenty of
Fairfax DNA” was like saying the Brisbane Lions have plenty of Fitzroy
DNA. But as a few people pointed out to me, at least Brisbane kept the
“Lion” name and also makes an effort to keep the Fitzroy legacy alive as
best it can.
That the new company couldn’t even be bothered keeping “Fairfax” in a
manner similar to “Seven West Media” or “Time Warner” shows how little
care there is about what Fairfax represents, and does not bode well.
You can blame the Fairfax management – and it sure as heck deserves plenty – but this takeover would not have occurred had the Turnbull government not removed the cross-media ownership laws last year.
That legislation – made possible with the support
of One Nation, Nick Xenophon and Derryn Hinch – was designed to provoke
such takeovers. It is not about competition in the free market, it is
not about greater diversity of media voices or giving media companies a
better ability to hold governments and corporations to account.
It is about – as is inevitably all pro-business legislation – ensuring consolidation of power in the market.
In defending the legislation this week Turnbull stated that
“all the media companies strongly supported these laws”. It was a view
parroted by the communications minister, Mitch Fifeld, justifying the legislation
because it was supported by “Nine, Seven, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern
Cross Austereo, News Limited, Fairfax, Free TV, Commercial Radio
Australia and Fox”.
Yes, companies wanting to buy other companies and companies wanting
to be bought by other companies liked the legislation. I am shocked.
It does highlight how the government will default to doing what
business wants rather than what might be best for workers, or in this
case our democratic society.
If business says it is what is needed, well then that is what is supplied, and that is how it is justified.
It all makes for a pretty awful mix. And while those in the US are
wondering whether the changes wrought by the Trump presidency can ever
be undone, here too the impact of the Turnbull government will be long
lived.
![‘It may well be military-grade [security] on the central servers of the My Health Record system. It’s demonstrably not military-grade for all of those 900,000 practitioners.’](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/89355c79d4d32225ce78f473bda41215374114e2/0_237_5157_3095/master/5157.jpg?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=98bc468b170430660e2aa4288e57aeb5)
Yes, some of the more horrific aspects of the Trump presidency – the alleged collusion with Russian forces, for example – are absent, but from a policy sense there is little that would see Turnbull wishing to be separate from Trump.
Tax cuts that favour the wealthy? Hell yes. The Turnbull government’s key economic policy has been to bring in tax cuts which when fully completed will overwhelmingly favour the wealthy and which will exacerbate income inequality.
Tax cuts for corporations? Yes please! While the Turnbull government has been unable to get the bulk of its company tax cuts through, there are few doubts that they won’t occur. Pauline Hanson is expected to give the government her support once the Longman byelection is out of the way and she doesn’t have to explain to voters why she supported a policy most of them do not.
A willingness to hit the racial dog-whistle? Why certainly. The signs are already here that the next election is going to be a horror show of talk about migrants and crime and blaming immigration for everything from wages to housing prices to congestion, and all coated with a very thin veneer of racial anxiety.
Trump has spent much of the past year talking up fears of the MS-13 gangs to such an extent that despite no evidence of any growing activity, 85% of those who voted for Trump now believe the gang is a very serious or a somewhat serious “national threat”.
He might not be as vulgar as Trump, but Turnbull is just as willing to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
And what about thin-skinned responses to criticism? The ongoing attempts from the Turnbull government to discredit the ABC is only marginally less subtle than Trump’s railing against the “fake media”.
The Turnbull government is not content to merely seek to have the ABC remove content it finds displeasing. This week the health department sought to have the parliamentary library take down a post which highlighted just how weak are the privacy provisions surrounding the My Health Record.
I suspect that censoring those who are pointing out reasons the public should not trust a government service is not the best way to have the public believe they can trust that service – or their government.
And finally, how about a preference for big business?
As we have seen with the company tax cuts that is certainly evident, but a perfect example of where the Turnbull government’s priorities lie came this week with the announcement of Nine taking over Fairfax.
The deal is a terrible one for those who value a diverse media. I suggested on Twitter that talk the new company would have “plenty of Fairfax DNA” was like saying the Brisbane Lions have plenty of Fitzroy DNA. But as a few people pointed out to me, at least Brisbane kept the “Lion” name and also makes an effort to keep the Fitzroy legacy alive as best it can.
That the new company couldn’t even be bothered keeping “Fairfax” in a manner similar to “Seven West Media” or “Time Warner” shows how little care there is about what Fairfax represents, and does not bode well.
You can blame the Fairfax management – and it sure as heck deserves plenty – but this takeover would not have occurred had the Turnbull government not removed the cross-media ownership laws last year.
That legislation – made possible with the support of One Nation, Nick Xenophon and Derryn Hinch – was designed to provoke such takeovers. It is not about competition in the free market, it is not about greater diversity of media voices or giving media companies a better ability to hold governments and corporations to account.
It is about – as is inevitably all pro-business legislation – ensuring consolidation of power in the market.
In defending the legislation this week Turnbull stated that “all the media companies strongly supported these laws”. It was a view parroted by the communications minister, Mitch Fifeld, justifying the legislation because it was supported by “Nine, Seven, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, News Limited, Fairfax, Free TV, Commercial Radio Australia and Fox”.
Yes, companies wanting to buy other companies and companies wanting to be bought by other companies liked the legislation. I am shocked.
It does highlight how the government will default to doing what business wants rather than what might be best for workers, or in this case our democratic society.
If business says it is what is needed, well then that is what is supplied, and that is how it is justified.
It all makes for a pretty awful mix. And while those in the US are wondering whether the changes wrought by the Trump presidency can ever be undone, here too the impact of the Turnbull government will be long lived.