Monday, November 28, 2016

Monday Forum - George Brandis, drop bears, yowies and other Australian fauna

Today's Monday Forum is another as you will.

I have been slowly working my way through the Ernst and Young cost-benefit analysis of the proposed move of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to Armidale (photo). I am trying to be objective, but it's hard.

As a piece of work, it sets out its approaches and assumptions clearly enough to be understood. That's good. However, it is also a clear case of the limitations of cost benefit analysis or, perhaps more correctly, the way the frame used determines the result. Its actually quite important as a case study in the misuse of comparative and input-output models. Among other things, the methodology is such that the move of an agency from a bigger to smaller centre is likely always to show negative results because of the structure of the model applied. Another problem is the reliance on generalised statistics based on the past.  

I will comment further when I have completed my analysis. meantime, 2t might like to read the report and respond!.  

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis finds himself in further trouble over the dispute with former Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson. I wrote about this first here and then here.You will find Senator Brandis's statement on the matter here.

This dispute must seem awfully obscure to people outside Australia and many within. The twitter streams and instant politician responses have very little to do with the issues but are simple repetition of opinions and other opinions that might appear supportive. The constitutional issues are quite important, but get lost in the immediate discussion.

I see that Tamworth City Council has named a new lane Drop Bear Lane. The Australian Museum describes drop bears in this way: "T he Drop Bear, Thylarctos plummetus, is a large, arboreal, predatory marsupial related to the Koala."

It goes on:
Around the size of a leopard or very large dog with coarse orange fur with some darker mottled patterning (as seen in most Koalas). It is a heavily built animal with powerful forearms for climbing and holding on to prey. It lacks canines, using broad powerful premolars as biting tools instead.
Clearly this is a dangerous beast. It reminds me of other dangerous creatures including the hoop snake. What advice would you provide tourists coming to Australia as to how they should manage all this wild life? We owe a duty of care and indeed need to ensure that our visitors provide informed consent.

There may be other dangerous creatures of which I am not aware. Please feel free to educate me. In this context, I came across an earlier story:
A $100,000 reward was offered 11 October by the board of directors of the Queanbeyan City Festival Ltd for the capture of the monster known as the Yowie. A Canberra radio station promptly matched the offer bringing the sum to a staggering $200,000. 
The offer is serious and expeditions are now being mounted, with world wide interest in the outcome. The eight-foot high Biped has been sighted in the Monaro region. Festival president, Jim Belshaw, said many people had reported their sightings since photos of Yowie footprints were published in a Queanbeyan paper.
Sadly, despite the many well-equipped exhibitions mounted to capture this creature, the reward was never claimed. But it does remain the most effective PR exercise ever mounted by the aforesaid Jim Belshaw.

So let your imagination run free. How do we assist visitors to Australia  to identify and manage the many risks they face?

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Dalwood House

My main post today is on the New England Australia blog, New England Travels - A visit to Dalwood part one.

Some time ago, I started writing New England Travels, subtitled journeys through space and time. Part history, part travel, part personal reminiscences,  the book gave me an opportunity to write beyond the usual confines set by the need to record sources, to sit within boundaries.

Like so many of my projects, it is only part written, but I decided that I should share some of the material via irregular posts.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Saturday Morning Musings - forgeries, fees, cash and all that stuff

I was really annoyed. I wanted to buy something but the place in question charges 30 cents for EFTPOS. So I went to an ATM from a bank a few doors away to get $40 in cash, two twenty dollar notes. When I came back, we discovered that one was a forgery. So I had to incur the EFTPOS charge plus lost $20. Grrr.

We have talked here from time to time about the changing role of cash, with some feeling that they should use cash more often (me), some that physical cash should be abolished (kvd). Quite a few of the smaller businesses actually do not accept credit cards or EFTPOS or add a surcharge. The surcharge is almost universal on things like Sydney's Opal card fare card top-up, presumably because the margins are so low. Many businesses also have a minimum amount that you must spend to use EFTPOS.

In all the shops that demand cash, there is one that has developed a unique business model. Certainly I hadn't discovered it before. When I offered my card, they said we only take cash, but we have an ATM machine that you can use, they said..Wishing to avoid the $2.50 charge for use of a foreign ATM, I walked out and found a machine that would not charge.

Thinking, about it, it's an interesting business model. This is high volume fast food business selling mainly a particular type of chicken and chips with a variety of add-ons. In these cases, cash is actually faster, especially if you are in an area where card transaction declines is likely to be greater than average. By using cash, you save a little time and fees. By having an ATM machine, you collect a return from that machine instead of paying out to the banks.

Mind you, ATM machines themselves are in decline in Australia. Australians were an early and enthusiastic adopter of ATM technology because of the convenience of the technology. Now we have all taken to tap and go with enthusiasm for smaller transactions under $100, the present limit.  

Growing up, I was an avid reader of science fiction often featuring dystopian worlds. They often featured cameras everywhere used to monitor citizens (tick); the use of cards and electronic systems to record individual activity (tick); constant regulation of what citizens could and couldn't do (tick); and often the abolition or restriction of the use of physical cash (coming tick). Most focus on the way the state used these systems to control, others on what happens when complex systems break down.

I didn't realise at the the time that all this reading was giving me a deep distrust of government, not government in general so much but about the inevitable misuse of power and decline of systems. Of course, the novels themselves often featured brave characters fighting successfully against odds to redress wrongs and overthrow corrupt powers. I am perhaps less sanguine about the second now.

Meantime, there is a practical reason for my continued desire to move to cash despite the forgery. Like many Australians, I cannot really be trusted to control my spending when spend is just so damned easy!            

Monday, November 21, 2016

Monday Forum - post-truth, alt-right and whatever occurs to you

Russia has formally withdrawn from the International Criminal Court following the Court's Ukraine ruling.I think that the gesture is more symbolic than real in that (I stand to be corrected here) Russia had not formally ratified the Rome Statute setting up the ICC. South Africa had, so its formal withdrawal is more substantive.

Leaving aside the somewhat heated rhetoric you will find in this Forbes opinion piece, International Criminal Court: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine Is A 'Crime,' Not A Civil War, the thing that struck me about the pattern of withdrawals was the way it mirrored the growing dividing lines in the architecture of the global community. By architecture, I mean simply the pattern of global multilateral arrangements, treaties and arrangements that have provided the institutional structure for multilateral and bilateral arrangements.

 At the APEC meeting in Peru, countries attempted to affirm the importance of global freer trade, but it was also clear that relationships were shifting as countries reacted to the void created by present uncertainties over the future direction of US policy. What do you think it all means in general and for Australia and New Zealand in particular.  

A story on the ABC reports that "Post-truth" has been proclaimed international word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries after beating off "alt-right" and "Brexiteer", a choice the publisher said reflected a year defined by emotive political discourse.  The Dictionary defines post-truth as:
"relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief".
I  would have thought that this was a pretty fair description of politics in general. To my mind, the coining of and then popularity of the term is more a reflection of challenges to prevailing orthodoxies that had themselves achieved the status of dogmas than anything else. I am not convinced that "post-truth" as defined is actually worse today. You may care to correct me.

The term "alt-right" is defined as "an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints, characterised by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content".

Whereas post-truth comes especially from the centre-left, alt-right appears to come from the extreme right as a way of making respectable certain extreme positions. I may be wrong here re the etymology, I have only just come across the term. I still remember my chagrin at discovering that the term culture wars appears to have been invented by the left as a way of describing certain challenges to prevailing views.

 A challenge. What words might you coin to describe views that you particularly object to?

As always, go in whatever direction you want.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Sunday Snippets - Round-up with a special focus on the Pew international migration statistics

At a time when the news is a tad depressing, its good to see Aer Lingus and Air New Zealand in a twitter war over something important, the respective merits of their two countries rugby teams.

The dispute over censorship of false news on Facebook largely passed me by. There are enough problems on FB now without the company being forced to try to use algorithms to screen out the fake. Even though conspiracy theories and false reports do abound, let people sort it out for themselves.

The one exception I might make is sponsored stuff where FB is taking money. Then the company does have some responsibility. But how do you distinguish between the satirical false news sites and the plain crap? In Australia, we have the Betoota Advocate (company site here, Wikipedia here).  They did fool me once. It was the first time I came across the site. The story was strange, a bit funny, but vaguely credible. What I couldn't work out was how there could be a Queensland country newspaper that I had never heard of in a town that that I had never heard of. A bit of investigation soon revealed the hoax.

The first story I saw from The Onion was harder to spot, in part because it is a US site and I didn't have the local familiarity. I also saw it via a repost from someone who had taken the story seriously. I actually felt a bit silly when I realised that it was a spoof even though it hadn't taken me that long to work it out. In a way, that's the point: these stories remind us of our own credulity.

Christopher Moore's History News continues to remind me of the similarities but also especially the differences between Canadian and Australian histories. Accepting that Canadian history is more complex, I am left with the feeling that Canadian historiography is deeper and more varied than that practiced in this country. And all this despite Christopher's sometimes complaint about the paucity of Canadian historiography.  

In one post, Christopher wrote:
Reconciling indigenous history into "Canadian" history? On the evidence of two substantial, successful Canadian books on what's a pretty thin shelf these days, still a long ways to go, historians. Not saying it's easy, either.
I really struggle with this one, a struggle that deserves a fuller post on my history blog. I don't have an answer.

It's been a while since I mentioned Gordon's lookANDsee blog, partly because he has been posting less regularly. This photo is a Kingfisher taken near his place to the east of Armidale.

The Pew Research Centre has a fascinating interactive, Origins and Destinations of the World’s Migrants, from 1990-2015. You can search by five years from 1990 to 2015, by nationality of overseas born in each country and by number of people from each country living elsewhere and in which country. Have a play. There are some problems with the numbers, but the results may surprise you. From a quick scan, here is a not inclusive list of countries where the total number of people living in Australia in 2015 is ranked in the top ten from the viewpoint of the source country: The numbers include students.
  • New Zealand first
  • Fiji first
  • United Kingdom first
  • French Polynesia around first
  • Cook islands second
  • South Africa second
  • Cyprus second 
  • Bhutan equal second
  • Gibralta second
  • Brunei around equal second
  • Croatia third
  • Canada third
  • Japan third
  • Ireland third
  • Greece third
  • Cambodia fourth
  • Chile fourth
  • Ecuador around fourth
  • Guam around fourth
  • Hong Kong fifth
  • Botswana equal fifth
  • Israel sixth
  • Italy sixth
  • Hungary sixth
  • Laos sixth
  • Burundi around equal sixth
  • China equal sixth
  • Czech Republic seventh
  • Iran seventh
  • Finland seventh
  • Denmark equal seventh
  • Burma seventh
  • Afghanistan eighth
  • Djibouti ninth
  • Angola around equal ninth
  • Bosnia-Herzegovina equal ninth
  • Indonesia tenth
  • Albania around equal tenth
  • Iraq equal tenth
  • Estonia around tenth
I am going to pause here both because I am out of time and because the material is better presented in tabular format.  Immigration statistics are usually presented from the viewpoint of the host country and then ranked in order of magnitude. If you look at it from the viewpoint of country of origin, a different perspective emerges.

If you look at the list above, two things stand out. The first is the diversity of Australia's immigration intake, the second the number of countries in which Australia ranks in the top group from the viewpoint of the source countries. This actually gives Australia a remarkable reach in international terms. But that's another story.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Mingoola, Dutton and immigration

My main post today, From Africa's Great Lakes to Mingoola's Field of Dreams, is a follow up post to a rather inspirational story from the ABC Australian Story program on the resettlement of refugees from Central Africa in the small Northern New England settlement of Mingoola.

The program came out on the Monday. The following Thursday, Andrew Bolt in combination with Immigration Minister Dutton took the immigration debate in another direction.

Thursday afternoon, the Melbourne Herald Sun carried a promo for  Mr Bolt's TV program that night. Under the heading " On my shows tonight - refugee crime and the great media meltdown", the paper stated:
On The Bolt Report on Sky at 7pm - The amazing Sudanese crime rate. Our refugee program puts us in danger yet again. My guests: Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, Rowan Dean, Graham Richardson and Bruce Hawker. And a round of the greatest media meltdowns of the week.
In the interview that night, Minister Dutton began by talking about Sudanese refugees, but then segued into refugees more generally. The transcript does not seem to be up on his website, so I quote the Channel Nine report:
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton says Islamic youth radicalisation and Middle Eastern crime gangs are the price Australia has paid for "flawed" policies by Malcolm Fraser in the 1970s. 
Mr Dutton was speaking after the federal government announced an inquiry into the settlement of migrants and links between young people and ethnic crime groups.
He said many Australians citizens who had joined foreign terrorist organisations were the children or grandchildren admitted to this country by the former Liberal prime minister. 
"The reality is Malcolm Fraser did make mistakes in bringing some people in the 1970s and we’re seeing that today, " he told Sky News. 
"We need to be honest in having that discussion. There was a mistake made. "
Earlier he was asked whether young Sudanese men were behind a crime wave in Melbourne. Mr Dutton said it was an "open question" what proportion of the Sudanese community was involved.
Back in October 2007, Mr Andrews, Tamworth and Sudanese Refugees, I found myself in the unusual position of defending then Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews over his remarks on Sudanese refugees against attacks that he had been racist. As in this case, the trigger for Mr Andrew's remarks had been the Melbourne shock-jocks. Sadly, the official links have all vanished, but enough remains to show the argument. In both this and the previous Tamworth case (the Tamworth stories are linked in the later post) a key concern was the way the main stream media misreported, attaching the racism tag in a way that (among other things) misreported while damaging Australia's international reputation. In both cases, an underlying theme was Australia's failure to provide sufficient resources to support refugee resettlement programs.

The world has changed. Xenophobia, dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries,.has always existed in Australia, as in most countries. I have argued and would still argue that Australia has been better at managing it that most countries. However, Mr Dutton and others appear to be playing to xenophobia, using it to score immediate political point.

The Australian Prime Minister argues that strong border policies are important (among other reasons) because they provide the base for Australian acceptance of migration. I think that there is some truth in that. I sometimes wonder, and this would not be a popular view, whether or not the White Australia policy was in fact a necessary precondition for the emergence of modern pluralist Australia. However, by playing too fear, Minister Dutton is undercutting the very consensus on which modern Australia has been based, one that the PM seems to accept.

Both left and right argue, if sometimes for different reasons, that Australia should stop accepting migrants. They may phrase it in different ways, but the effect is much the same, the progressive emergence of a new anti-migration consensus.

By all means, let's have a conversation as Minister Dutton suggests, but let's make it a real conversation, a dialogue. I happen to support immigration, although I don't think cramming people into a small number of metros is particularly sensible. For those opposed to immigration, do you want to stop all immigration or just reduce it? If opposed to all immigration, would you allow some measure of family reunion? If you would allow some measure of immigration, how much and on what basis?

The refugee intake is a small part of the total migration program. Would you stop all refugees or allow some in? If so, what level and what criteria would you use to accept refugees? There are more options here than people realise. For example, at present the refugee intake is centrally controlled and delivered. What would happen if it became community and family based within broad criteria? Refugees would be accepted, but on the basis that somebody - group or community - took responsibility for their support. The role of the state would then diminish from control to supporting individual, group or community endeavour.

On existing programs, it is nine years since I wrote that post on Mr Andrews and the Sudanese refugees. Clearly, some problems still exist. What are they? What can we learn? What might we do about it?

In all this, I think that we have to be prepared to call people out, to make them explain. Minister Dutton should not be allowed to simply assert that Mr Fraser made mistakes and that we are paying a price now and that this somehow justifies current actions. There is probably little point in defending Mr Fraser and his policies. Better that Mr Dutton should be required to explain his position. What does he mean by mistake? How serious is the problem? What would he have done instead? How many children or grandchildren? Are the proportions different from other groups? What has been the cost to the community?

One may disagree with his answers, but if forced to respond then his thinking will be exposed to the clear light of public scrutiny. In a conversation, it is necessary to let the other side answer, to use questions to clarify their views. We may not like the clarification, but we will know and can then respond.

Meantime, it is still nice to have a Mingoola to inspire.

Mingoola Follow Up

A brief note on follow up reaction to the Mingoola story.

On Wednesday 30 November 2016, Matt Bedford (Armidale Express) reported on a visit to Armidale by Emmanuel Musoni for discussions with local refugee advocates about the possible placement of some of the 200 refugee families now seeking country placements as a consequence of Mingoola.

The following day in an opinion piece in the Express (Australian Story episode on Mingoola refugees strikes a chord), Donna Ward reported that Deputy PM and member for New England Barnaby Joyce had been inundated with calls from all over Australia seeking to replicate the model in other small, rural towns. "Seeing what the refugees have brought to the Mingoola community," Donna wrote, "the arrival of African families is something we (Northern Tablelands) would welcome with open arms."

Just under a week later on Tuesday 6 December, Tawar Razaghi reported on AbC New England North West that more regional refugee resettlements were likely, backed by Deputy Prime Minister. She reported:
The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) plans to roll out a similar program in the next 12 months, with Armidale, in northern New South Wales, flagged as an ideal town to host it. 
The voluntary program is being developed by the NFF along with the Migration Council. 
The Federation's Sarah McKinnon said the Northern Tablelands city had been identified for a number of reasons. 
"Areas where there's a lot of rural and regional opportunity and there's good infrastructures and services there," Ms McKinnon said. 
"In many of these towns there are already established refugee populations. 
"They're the kind of towns that we're looking to begin the pilot because we want to give it the best chance of success." 
Other towns considered by the NFF to successfully implement the pilot model are Wagga Wagga in New South Wales and Toowoomba in Queensland.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Leaving Parramatta 1 - the Sotto Cafe

Friday was my last day on this working round in Parramatta. I hadn't expected to end up working in Parramatta again - I thought that part of my life was past but events dictated otherwise.

Most mornings, I would stop at the Sotto Cafe, 20 Charles Street, next door to the office. I was meant to be saving, building cash for the next round. Too often, I hadn't eaten breakfast so needed coffee plus raisin toast. Then during the day when under pressure I would sometimes get a cappuccino; always large with one sugar.

Over time, I got to know the crew pretty well. I was variously Jim, James, Jimmy or Jimbo depending on how people were feeling.

They all work hard at making people welcome and in promoting the business. One day recently, I came in and found them all in costume. Was it Halloween or the Zombie Apocalypse I asked? I am very familiar with the second because of youngest. No, Halloween. Ah.

On my final day after my farewell lunch I called in. After asking for a cappuccino, I didn't have to say how many sugars, I said that I was leaving and demanded a photo with the crew on duty. This was delivered, along with a free coffee and a lolly on a stick.

All this obviously made me happy!

 So if you are calling into Sotto for a coffee or lunch, say Jim or James, Jimmy or Jimbo, sent you. You may not get a free coffee, but you should get good service!

Monday, November 14, 2016

Monday Forum - the week's oddities, curiosities and awards

A week since the US elections. It seems a long time! Its been quite a topsy, turvy week.

One of the odder stories of the week was the lost houseboat that somehow managed to find its way from Canada to Ireland. A second odd story, again from the BBC, is that of Liberland, a Libertarian fantasy to create a new state on a patch of marshland between Croatia and Serbia claimed by neither.

The award for the most hamfisted policy of the week goes to the Indian Government for its attempt to remove certain notes from circulation. This one has been running hard, forcing Indian PM Narendra Modi into almost abject apologies. It's not that the move is necessarily unpopular, based on the reporting there is support for the PM's desire to defeat the black economy, but if you are going to remove over 80% of the cash in circulation in a country where cash is still king you had better have a good implementation plan in place. Sadly not.

The award for mea culpa of the week goes to the New York Times for its promise to rededicate itself to journalism:
As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.
Hat tip to kvd for this one.

The award for optimist of the week goes to the Canberra man who attempted to recover the cost of the engagement ring from his ex-fiancee. Hat Tip to Legal Eagle.

 The award for timing of the week goes to the Australian Government for its announcement of a one-off deal with the US to resettle refugees from Manus and Nauru in the US. I guess that they had to get it out there, the announcement was almost certainly delayed by the US election, but its hard to see how the deal can work given the views of President-elect Trump. I suppose the hope is that they will be able to make some progress before President Obama leaves office, but its messy.

A subsidiary award, the ring of steel award, goes to the Commonwealth Government for its decisive action in deploying naval forces north of the country to deter people smugglers who might want to take advantage of the US deal.
A "significant" Defence operation is now underway in waters off Northern Australia, with the Federal Government anticipating an increase in attempted boat arrivals by people smugglers.

"We recognise that people smugglers will seek to exploit this announcement," Mr Turnbull said, repeating the Coalition's policy of intercepting boats and turning them back to Indonesia or the Indian subcontinent.

The precise number of Defence assets is not known, but government sources describe the operation as a "ring of steel", and one of the largest ever peace-time deployments

Later information suggested that Australia had deployed its Armidale class patrol boats, its Border Force vessels, along with two naval support vessels. That should certainly work, with the most probable performance measurement being a total absence of people smugglers.

The award for protectionist of the week goes to Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten for his foreshadowed Australia First policy. So far, the rhetoric I have seen  - "we will buy Australian, build Australian, make in Australia and employ Australians" - comes straight from the Trump economic rhetoric.

Finally, the award for political error of the week goes not to Hilary Clinton nor the New York Times, but to the NSW Premier and Liberal Party Leader Mike Baird and his now departing Deputy Premier and National Party Leader Troy Grant for their remarkable success in the Orange by-election. Since this ABC story, continued vote counting suggests that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party will just win the seat, while the National's leader and deputy leader have resigned. This was truly a remarkable result with swings on the primary vote in some booths as high as 60 per cent.


I almost feel obliged in posting this link to say that I am not a Trump supporter and that is of itself an interesting commentary on just how polarised the debate has become. This piece by Scott Alexander, You are still Crying Wolf, suggests that the attacks on Mr Trump are misdirected and almost totally miss the point.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Pst, want to buy a Picasso?

Interesting short piece from Art Daily. Austrian police have busted a gang allegedly trying to sell off forgeries of famous artists such as Pablo Picasso. The photo shows Picasso in 1908.

The six men (five Austrian, one Slovenian) were arrested in a hotel room near Vienna airport as they tried to pass off five Picasso paintings for 50 million euros ($55 million), police said. The buyer was in fact an undercover police officer.

Subsequent raids in homes and cars found 14 fakes complete with forged artists' signatures and counterfeit certificates of authenticity signed by Picasso's son. Police also recovered 66 other works purported to be by 40 famous artists including Claude Monet and Gustav Klimt at the home of the Slovenian suspect.

Apparently the men, now on bail, told police they believed the works were genuine.

I blinked as I read all this, both at the euros involved and the ham handed nature of it all. Pst, want to buy a Picasso?

Monday, November 07, 2016

Monday Forum - as you will

Another Monday Forum. As always, feel free to go in in whatever

The UK Daily Mail got quite upset at the High Court's decision on the Brexit matter, leading to this Twitter comparison. UK PM Theresa May has, more or less, been forced to come to the defence of the High Court.  I must say that I thought that the Daily Mail heading was quite gross.

I haven't commented on the US elections since my very brief post on 8 October, Mr Trump - you are fired. We are almost at the end of this race and the results are still uncertain. We complained about the length of the last Australian election campaign. The US campaign has been going for two years!   In How far does Section 44 of the Australian constitution actually stretch? I commented on the apparent aging of Australian PM Turnbull. under the pressures of office. How on earth does one survive a two year campaign? Both US lead candidates have clearly aged during the campaign process. What might be done to shorten the process or, more broadly, to ease the load on political leaders? Or does it matter?

Last Tuesday was the Melbourne Cup, the race that stops a nation, well, more or less. People do let their hair done, providing lots of opportunities for photo journalists. For examples see here, here, here. This led Anna Usher in Sydney's Daily Telegraph to write a piece headed Ladies, you are an utter disgrace. It begins:
To the young women who mounted rubbish bins, vomited into paper bags, urinated in bushes and crash-tackled their friends at Flemington yesterday, I have just one thing to say: Ladies, you are an utter disgrace. 
In turn, this led Lucia Stern to write a feminist ABC piece on the whole thing: Has media coverage of women like 'wheelie-bin girl' focused too much on looks and 'ladylike' behaviour? The story came equipped with a photo that arguably ran against the message.To both ladies, if I am allowed to use that word, get a life.

Yes, there was too much drinking by both sexes and I feel a bit sorry for those whose images have now been emblazoned across the web. But people were having fun. In the meantime, focus on the real problem. As illustrated by the photo I chose, there was just so much rubbish generated. Let's fix that. It's dangerous, apart from anything else.


Like many people, I have followed the US elections all day. Now before my perceptions become crowded by others' commentary, a few brief comments.

I have no idea what Mr Trump will be like as President or actually just what he will do. Like many,  I did not want Mr Trump to win. It was very much like the Apprentice come to Washington, with Mr Trump and Ms Clinton in the role of candidates with the American people in the role of judge previously played by Mr Trump. Mr Trump has made big promises, including in his Victory speech; he has made many throw-away comments. Now he has taken on a role whose powers are constrained and work within a complex system. We will just have to wait and see what might happen. None of us know.

This graphic shows one reaction to Mr Trump's victory. It captures a common thread, incredulity.

Today, I found myself trying to explain what had happened. I made two points.

The first was that Mr Trump reached out to many Americans who saw themselves as disadvantaged, facing decline, sometimes economic but also culturally and politically. These were many of  the people in the UK who voted to leave the EU, now they gave Mr Trump his Brexit + 2 result.

My second point was that Ms Clinton had been a member of the established US power establishment for a very long time. She was tarnished. Because of the context of the discussion, I described it in this way. With Ms Clinton or those like her, whoever you voted for a Key Performance Indicator got in. I accept that's unfair, but I was trying to make a point.

Mr Trump appealed to those who felt disadvantaged, threatened. They covered a number of groups, including conservative evangelicals, but for most it was the loss of the American dream. The problem for this group is that when the establishment appears to offer nothing that might redress your decline, that might improve things, you will go with some one who at least appears to offer a choice. In many ways, it's the only sensible choice.


Sunday, November 06, 2016

Sunday Snippet - Canberra Times on NBN Chinese purchases

I blinked at this story, Revealed: China's Communist Party link to NBN. The story begins.
More than 1 million Australian homes and businesses have been connected to the National Broadband Network by components made in a Shanghai factory controlled by China's Communist Party.
The revelation comes at a time when China is suspected of mounting massive cyber-espionage attacks on Australia and after successive Labor and Coalition governments banned Chinese company Huawei from NBN involvement on security grounds.
Fairfax Media has confirmed that NBN contractor, France's Alcatel-Lucent, used its Shanghai-based subsidiary to make fibre optical and copper components used to link homes and businesses to the network.
Read with the cartoon, it suggests that a security risk has been created because the NBN has been buying "fibre optical and copper components used to link homes and businesses to the network" To support the allegation, the story contains a mix of information that actually has very little or anything to do with the primary allegation. Indeed, the story does not contain a single specific piece of evidence relating to the components in question.  

Do I believe that the Chines Government might use state controlled or influenced enterprises for espionage purposes? Yes. But that is a completely different issue from the sloppy reporting in this piece. 

Saturday, November 05, 2016

Mulvaney, Warratyi and the lengthening Aboriginal occupation of Sahul, prehistoric Australia

My main post today is on the New England History blog, Reflections on the life of John Mulvaney. It's a long post, a bit over 3,600 words. Its also a bit of a pastiche from other sources. I have given the sources at the end, so you will be able to see this. One of the most interesting sources is the 2000 Cambridge interview.

John overlapped two very different if linked periods of my life. The first was my undergraduate studies when I wanted to become an Australian archaeologist and prehistorian. That was an exciting time.

Events took me in different directions. I returned much later when I started on that endurance journey, writing a full history of New England over 50,000 years.

This map shows the Pleistocene coasts of Sahul with the sea 60 meters below current levels. The Pleistocene was a period of repeated glacial ages during which sea levels fell and then rose again; 60 meters below current levels was the average across the whole period.

The map comes from an ABC news story Oldest known evidence of Aboriginal settlement in arid Australia found in Flinders Ranges rock shelter. The story reports on an archaeological dig in the Flinders ranges published in Nature.

Known now as as Warratyi, the site, shows Aboriginal Australians settled the arid interior of the country around 49,000 years ago — some 10,000 years earlier than previously thought. It also shows mega-faunal remains suggesting clearly that the Aborigines did indeed both coexist with and eat Australia's mega-fauna. A previous site suggesting this, the New England site of Cuddie Springs, was much disputed. The site also shows the use of sophisticated technology much earlier than previously realised.

Warratyi then was much better watered than now. The desertification that was to come with the Late Glacial Maximum lay thousands of years ahead.

I'm not sure how far we can push back the absolute date of Aboriginal occupation of the continent,  there is an absolute limit set by the out of Africa event, but I don't think that matters. The point is that we have established a long period of existence on Sahul, the present Australian continent, that can hopefully be deepened with further discoveries.  .

Friday, November 04, 2016

Implications of the UK High Court's Brexit decision

I will bring an analysis up later. In the meantime, this link will take you to the text of the UK High Court decision on the Brexit appeal. It's important in constitutional terms with implications for all Westminster countries. While I am thinking, I would be interested in your comments.

Wednesday, November 02, 2016

How far does Section 44 of the Australian constitution actually stretch?

Being a senior politician appears to be an aging experience. The photos that are chosen probably don't help. Recent photographs of Australian Prime Minister Turnbull made me check his age. He is just 62. Its not only Mr Turnbull, of course. The frenetic pace now demanded ages all but the most durable.

The latest troubles involving Section 44 of the Australian constitution have not made Mr Turnbull's life any easier. The decision to ask the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed returns to rule first on the eligibility of former Senator Bob Day (Family First) and then Senator Rod Culleton (One Nation) to have even run for election at the last election has thrown the Senate (and the Government's legislative plans) into a degree of disarray. A challenge to Senator Cullerton was already in-train, but the Government now wishes to become a party to the challenge.

Section 44 of the Australian Constitution reads:
 44. Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.
Section 44 needs to be read in conjunction with Section 45.
45. Vacancy on happening of disqualification
If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
(i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or
(ii) takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or
(iii) directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State;
his place shall thereupon become vacant.
We have come across Section 44 (i) before in the context of the dispute over dual British/Australian citizenship, including the question of Mr Abbott's citizenship. It would have been inconceivable to the original drafters of the constitution that some one from the UK or indeed any of the dominions could or would have been classified as a citizen of a foreign power. Indeed, that was the case, I think, until the 1970s when attitudes changed.

Former Senator Day's case involves Section 44 (v). The constitutional question to be decided is whether the arrangements in regard to Senator Day's office constitute an indirect pecuniary interest for the purposes of 44(v) that made him ineligible to run for election last time. In the case of Senator Culleton, the question is whether his conviction in absentia at Armidale (the conviction was subsequently quashed) precluded his election under 44(ii).

There are lots of political atmospherics around all this. Put those aside and consider the wording of Section 44. What a mess. For example, does subsection (iv) mean that a person in receipt of an old age or disability support pension is ineligible to run for the Commonwealth Parliament? The exemption applied to (iv) in the last clause is limited to Ministers. Ordinary MPs are paid. Do they hold an office of profit under the Crown? I would have thought not, because they don't represent the Crown as such, but I don't know.

All members of Parliament are in receipt of allowances paid by Finance. Does this constitute a beach of (v)? If so, when? More broadly, how far does "agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth" stretch?

Finally, on 44(ii), there has been such a proliferation of criminal offences at State and Federal levels where the potential sentence is greater than a year that a remarkable number of people may be precluded from running for office.

No doubt the High Court will read the scope more narrowly than some of the questions I pose, but 44 is still a very messy section.


Piece by Professor Anne Twomey on The Conversation, Explainer: what is the challenge to Bob Day’s Senate seat all about? It includes a link through to the earlier decision on the Webster case..That, I think, is the strangest decision I have read!