Saturday Morning Musings - The Turnbull Ascendancy?

In a number of recent posts one of the issues discussed is just what we can expect from Malcolm Turnbull, how might a Turnbull ministry shape itself? In doing so, I have indicated some of my own reservations about Mr Turnbull.

Looking back, similar threads seem to be emerging in casual conversation, in comments on this blog and in some of the polling. One is simply a sense of relief at the departure of Mr Abbott, even among many Coalition supporters. In the end, the Abbott Government was too inflexible, too unstable to survive, lurching from crisis to crisis. There seems to be a common view too that Mr Shorten and Labor having locked themselves into policy positions effectively defined by Mr Abbott's slogans are now left bereft, at sea without a rudder, to use a maritime analogy of the type that now seems to be favoured by Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull has also enjoyed a remarkable media honeymoon, one reminiscent of that enjoyed by Mr Rudd in the first period of his prime ministership. All this has translated into improved polling for the Coalition quite dramatically illustrated in the attached chart from William Bowe's The Poll Bludger. Red is Labor support, blue coalition support. You can see how the two lines have switched.

This is reflected in the betting odds.Here regular commenter 2tanners advices that currently *one year out* Sportsbet has Coalition paying $1.15 for a win and Labor $5.50.

Malcolm Turnbull's recent speech to the Melbourne Institute has been well received, even treated as a landmark speech. This is one example, this a second also from the ABC. I have taken the liberty of reproducing the speech below in full so that you can read it for yourself following my comments.

The first thing to note is that Mr Turnbull was a senior figure in the previous Abbott administration, jointly responsible with others for the decisions of that administration outside Mr Abbott's personal captain's picks.This includes those decisions that have eroded Australian's personal freedoms, that have given the Government an authoritarian flavour. This includes the evolving mess resulting from recent changes to the Migration Act. These provide, among other things, that any foreigners who serve a prison sentence greater than 12 months will automatically have their visas revoked, a change previously defended by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton because it targeted people who were detracting from Australian society, not adding to it.

In the three years July 2011 to July 2014, 372 people had their residency revoked, itself a not insignificant figure. However, since the legislation changed in December 780 have had their residency revoked of which 151 have been deported. The rest are apparently held in immigration detention. On Christmas Island, refugees are being replaced by former residents awaiting deportation, including some very bad eggs indeed.

A core problem with the legislation is that the twelve months is bringing within the scope of power people guilty of relatively minor offences who have spent most of their life in Australia. Apart from tearing families apart, this is a severe form of double jeopardy.

Turning now to the speech and leaving aside the twee use of she for sailor instead of a gender neutral phrasing, the speech continues the distancing process from the Abbott Government while also trying to present the good points, a difficult balancing act The government, Mr Turnbull says, is "not trying to reduce complex issues to slogans." Ouch Mr Abbott, take that. Instead, the Government is charting new directions.

In this context, Mr Turnbull attempts to address two concerns. One is the widely held view that the Abbott Government was unfair, inequitable. Here My Trumbull suggests that we all want Australia to "continue to be a high wage, generous social welfare safety net, first world economy. A nation that is as fair as it is open to opportunity." By the way, like Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull likes short paragraphs. However, unlike Mr Abbott, some paragraphs actually contain two sentences!

The second concern Mr Turnbull addresses is that of lack of trust in Government. Here he makes suggestions linked to his broad objectives about the policy process itself. This is where I found myself saying yes, yes yes please. How could I not, for these are things that I have been arguing for some years?

The first is that all things should be placed on the table, not just those after everything else has been ruled out The second is that policy should be subject to open discussion .The third that policy should be flexible, should change as events change, should change in light of experience. This directly attacks the shopping centre, mandate approach that I have so criticised. The third suggestion is that Governments should explain why they are doing things, including why they have changed their mind.
All this makes life diabolically difficult for Mr Shorten and the ALP, for they have to try to respond in a far more fluid environment without the clear goal posts previously provided by Mr Abbott. Now in fairness to Mr Abbott, he did set up processes that were intended to achieve longer term policy discussion, but those processes were either too constrained in terms of acceptable answers or were simply submerged by events.

Inevitably, the speech included references to new technology. There was something almost breathless here in Mr Turnbull's words. I am skeptical. While I accept and respect Mr Turnbull's business experience, there hasn't been a new Australian policy idea in this area for twenty years. I wait to see if things have changed.

Mr Turnbull's speech follows:

"Economics is often said to be the dismal science.

Well, there should be nothing dismal about today's discussions.

And that's not just because we are in marvellous Melbourne – somewhat damply glowing with joy and pride at the way in which Michelle Payne gloriously despatched first another glass ceiling and then her detractors with a pithy candour politicians can only envy.

We are living in the most exciting times in human history.

Free markets, globalisation, long periods of peace and above all the acceleration of technological change has produced economic and political transformations at a speed never seen before.

In the lifetime of almost everyone in this room, China has gone from barely contributing to the world economy to becoming the single largest national economy.

In just a generation we've seen the Internet and the smart phone connect most people in the developed world and before long most people in the entire world to each other and potentially to all the knowledge mankind has accumulated.

The first iPhone was released only eight years ago; Google was founded 17 years ago; Facebook with 1.5 billion active users - and YouTube with 1 billion users - are ten years old, Twitter is nine years old and Airbnb and Uber are seven and six years old respectively.

Most of the companies reinventing our world would still be at school if they were humans.

And the venerable elder statesmen of the digital age - Microsoft and Apple - are 40 and 39 years old respectively. Think about it.

In the midst of all this change - economic, political, technological - the opportunities for Australians have never been greater or the horizons wider.

But how do we seize those opportunities, how do we ensure that in the midst of this dynamic region, in the midst of so much growth and change, we are able successfully to transition our economy to one that wins and keeps on winning.

We talk a lot about reform, especially here, but that's just a means to an end. Let's talk about where we want to be - a big national goal.

Surely it is that we should continue to be a high wage, generous social welfare safety net, first world economy. A nation that is as fair as it is open to opportunity.

And how do we do that?

Clearly as an open market economy in a much larger, more competitive world, we must be more productive, more innovative, more competitive.

Across the board, we must acquire not just the skills but the culture of agility that enables us to make volatility our friend, bearing fresh opportunities, not simply a foe brandishing threats.

So reform, since that is the topic of your conference, should not be seen as a once in a decade or two convulsion, accompanied by a hyperbolic scare campaign.

Rather it should be seen as a change of political culture that sees us like the sailor, surrounded by the uncertainty of the sea and the wind, who knows only two things for sure - where she needs to go and that she has the skill to get there..

Sometimes the sailor reaches the mark with rapid ease, her sails big bellied in a following wind; sometimes with slow and deliberate tenacity, sails close hauled, tacking into the teeth of a gale.

But her vision is as clear as her destination is certain. How to get there and how quickly is the measure of her skill.

As we focus on our future course, it requires us above all to be open and honest about our circumstances, understanding and explaining both the challenges and the opportunities.

It is fair to point out where mistakes have been made and being only human inevitably concentrating on those made by our opponents while treading lightly past our own.

But over the years I've noticed the public, on whose goodwill all hope of reform depends, is impatient with the blame game.

The first step in persuasion is to understand and respect the intelligence of your audience - in this case that is the Australian people.

We need to explain that every vector, every sinew of our government's policy is designed to deliver better jobs and greater opportunities - in short a more prosperous and secure future for them and their children and grandchildren. And above all that one that is fair both to those who want to get ahead and those who, for whatever reason, are not able to do so.

That is why good open discussion and consultation aids the task of reform. Because it is not enough to persuade the public that your motives are good - you also have to demonstrate that you've taken decisions in a thoughtful, open, consultative way, that you've carefully weighed up the various options and arguments.

And that is why we are not trying to reduce complex issues to slogans, why we are not playing the rule in rule out game, that's why we welcome every contribution to this debate.

So, across government, business, the labour movement, the wider community, we need to have a grown up discussion which first clarifies the policy goals and then identifies and removes any obstacles that may be hampering our capacity to generate growth, productivity, investment and jobs.

We need to work practically and in partnership, to anticipate economic opportunities as they emerge and to be brave enough and smart enough to make the most of them.

If a particular policy approach doesn't deliver as required or anticipated, we have to be ready to reappraise it, reset as and when needed so objectives can still be met.

If a policy doesn't work, chuck it out, if you see somebody is achieving your objective in a better way remember the sincerest form of flattery is plagiarism, copy them, take it over. Adjust, tweak, agility is the key, the objective is what we're all about. Remember we are like that sailor of whom I spoke, we know where we want to go. We are surrounded by uncertainties and we have to adjust our course, our tactics, our policies to get there. Agility in today's world, in a world of volatility is absolutely key and that requires a very significant change to the political culture and political discourse.

This new discourse, this new culture that embraces change, which is by the way no more than what the business world does all the time, I mean we have, what we are seeking to do is to talk about policy in the same way practical men and women in the business world have been doing forever. What we need to do is embrace change, be adaptable, flexible, innovative.

Structural shifts in today's global economy are not dissimilar in scale and scope to the transition from the agrarian to an industrial society, but it is the velocity of change that is unprecedented.

It is the velocity of change, the rapidity. The changes that used to take centuries are now taking years, maybe a decade.

Right now, for us in Australia, there is also the challenge of making the transition to the post mining boom era. As you know at the beginning of the last decade, the rapid industrialisation of emerging economies led by China and in particular by China's massive stimulus response to the Global Financial Crisis, drove unprecedented demand for raw materials like coal and iron ore.

Prices rose sharply, they delivered a massive windfall gain to Australian incomes and a boom in new resources projects globally. In Australia alone, mining investment rose from less than two per cent of GDP in the early 2000's to a peak of over seven a decade later.

As this new supply has come on stream, as China is rebalancing to have more consumption, move towards - still a long way to go I might add - move towards a more conventional share of GDP than it is today.

We've seen a sharp fall in our terms of trade. This was always going to happen by the way, this was always going to happen. We can't rely on rapid growth in commodity prices to fuel future income growth.

But there are enormous opportunities available to us and to his great and enduring credit, Andrew Robb, fellow Victorian has opened up the doors to these markets and in particular the China market with the Free Trade Agreement.

It's not so long ago I was in this very room of this hotel with a Chinese online business JD Worldwide, the largest in China which was opening up its virtual doors to Australian businesses. Did you know that the Chinese online commerce market is already larger than that of the United States? The rapid growth of this economy at the consumption level is remarkable. For the first time in 300 years, if you believe Angus Matterson's work, which of course we must, the number of Asian middle class consumers equals the number in Europe and North America combined.

Our services exports have been growing by nine per cent over the last five years which has seen rapid growth in agricultural exports, food and drink and so forth, education, tourism, design - right across China you see the work of Australian architects.

Now these are enormous opportunities. How do we equip ourselves best to take advantage of them? A key focus of our Government is innovation. I said earlier, we need to be more innovative, we need to be more technologically sophisticated. We will deliver next month an innovation statement, a set of policies that will focus on how we attract and retain talent, how we support and encourage start-ups. How we, across the Government and the country, encourage a culture of innovation, ensure that our children are requiring the STEM skills that they need, that they have the understanding or familiarity with machine languages that they will need in the future.

Let me say a little about tax, it is much in the news but the Treasurer will be speaking later. The object of the taxation system is plainly to raise the revenue the Government needs for its services it provides. But it must do so in a manner that backs Australians to work, save and invest, that backs them in rather than holds them back. That has, in the language of the Melbourne Institute, the minimum dead weight loss, the minimum handbrake on economic activity.

Now of course any set of tax reforms must be fair which is why picking off one of the by now very venerable reform proposals, I am waiting to see one that hasn't been around for a decade or so. We need a new idea here. I am looking at Chris Richardson, in particular. Surely there must be one!

They have been kicking around for a while and there is no harm in that. That is why picking off one of these by now venerable proposals in isolation to others is always going to be misleading. I think you understand the point I am making there. A reform package must at the very least, raise the revenue we need, share the burden fairly across the community and do so in a way that incentivises employment, investment and innovation. Fairness I repeat is absolutely critical. Any package of reforms which is not and is not seen as fair will not and cannot achieve the public support without which it simply will not succeed.

There are many other elements of reform in this field and I'll just touch on one of them the Ian Harper report – that will not gather dust. It poses important challenges for all Government, especially, or including if not especially State Governments. There are very big - still very big structural breaks on growth. I heard the Chairman of the Productivity Commission talking this morning on the radio about the supply side constraints on development and planning. The Federal Government's arms are a long way from those levers. Nonetheless, it is something we have to recognise.

It is one of the reasons why we have a Minister for Cities and the Built Environment, why we are engaging with cities, with States on matters of infrastructure in a thoroughly non-ideological manner. Why we will support and indeed invest in infrastructure based on what it delivers, analysed in a rigorous, cost benefit manner and without discriminating between one type of infrastructure or another.

I have outlined a few ways here where we are seeking to deliver those goals. A high wage, generous social welfare net first world economy, one that is more innovative, more competitive, more productive.

That is the goal of the Government. That is what we are seeking to do in this field. We will use every measure that we can to achieve that. Everything we do will be assessed by that test.

Is this making Australia more prosperous? Is this making us more competitive? Is it enabling us to compete more effectively? Is it enabling us to seize the opportunities of the future rather than, as some would have us hiding under the doona, shuddering at the changes around them.

We are living in the best times in human history. There has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. The challenge for our Government is to do everything we can, with your help, with all of the ideas and the advice, with all of the consideration and thought that you and so many other Australians can muster, to do all we can to ensure that we enable Australians to do their best, enable them to realise those opportunities, seize that future, confident, optimistic, proud and strong. This is a great era of opportunity. We are a great nation with a great future. Thank you very much"

ENDS.

Updating history blogs - and computer frustrations

This is inside the old moat and bailey castle that forms part of Cardiff Castle.

I have been updating my history blog list.Painstaking process checking individual links and then making sure that they open in new windows. The idea is that people should be able to browse, click, look, close and move on.

I do find computers and the internet frustrating sometimes.So time wasting. This came via Facebook

Windows vs Ford...

For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated,

"If Ford had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, Ford issued a press release stating:

If Ford had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics (and I just love this part):

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash.........twice a day.

2.. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3... Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4.... Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5..... Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6...... The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

7....... The airbag system would ask,"Are you sure?" before deploying.

8........ Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9......... Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10.......... You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.

PS - I'd like to add that when all else fails, you could call "customer service" in some foreign country and be instructed in some foreign language how to fix your car yourself!""

Reflections on the British Museum

One of the things that amazed me about the British Museum was its sheer size. Yes, I had been there before, but I had forgotten the scale.  You really need to come several times, tasting on the first visit, then coming back in a targeted way.  Sadly, we didn't have the time on this trip.

The main thing I realised this time is just how little I know. I didn't properly recognise this on my last visit all those years ago. My immersion in history since makes it easier to see relationships, to recognise gaps, to be struck by the scale of things that I do not know.

The sheer size of the collection may be overwhelming, but this is also a plus for it makes it easier to see patterns, similarities and differences. This is aided by the provision of descriptive material that is such a feature of modern museums everywhere..

 .When I first studied history at school, so much less was known about the detail of life. Who knew, for example, that one's vision of Greek statues as featureless white was wrong, that they were painted in bright colours? We also didn't have easy access to the great museum collections, having to rely on a limited number of books.

I am well aware of modern arguments about cultural imperialism as exemplified in things such as the debate over the Elgin Marbles.Whatever the arguments, it's just so nice that things survived that can be enjoyed.

This time I passed the Elgin Marbles with a passing glance.I guess that I'm Greeked out. It's interesting, though. The more recent things become, the more descriptions in museums carry an overload of current opinion as opposed to a description of what was. Not that the Elgin Marbles are recent, but the current debate is very much connected with current views. It also reflects the British (and descendants) long obsession with things Greek, something I have written about. You don't get the same obsession with, say, Egyptian or Middle Eastern artifacts.

 My own view? I think that they should be returned because they would make more sense in a Greek context with the Parthenon nearby. But I don't regard it as a great moral issue. It just makes more sense.  

Postscript

For JC from comments.  The Gayer-Anderson cat. I had no idea how famous it was when I took this photo!

Michelle and Stevie Payne - a truly remarkable Melbourne Cup

It's hard not to go past the Melbourne Cup. It was a complete fairy tale that had absolutely everything.

I almost didn't watch. the Cup. I have drifted away during the years when I worked so much alone. The Cup is a thing to be shared. This year a friend put me in her work sweep. I watched. So glad I did.

This was a total fairy tale combining elements that, in total, would be regarded as totally implausible in normal circumstances.

Big racing family, early death of mother, triumph in the midst of hard luck, down syndrome brother, horse rank outsider. first female jockey to win, pretty and articulate, question of whether or not she should ride, woman backed by men and family who believed in her made it possible, earlier life threatening injuries, a total fairy tale package. A story that combines just so many things. I had tears in my eyes.

I really don't know how one could combine so many things in fiction. No one would believe you. Take Stevie Payne, obviously loved and loving whose simple enjoyment in the success of his horse and sister shone through the coverage. This was his triumph as much as hers. I felt so pleased for him. Or the joy of the Payne family members present. For a moment, the industry that is modern racing was totally personalised.

Yes, the world will move on. But we are all better for yesterday's  Cup.  

Turnbull, honours and the irrelevance of the republican debate

The decision to once again abolish knights and dames from the Australian honours system came in the form of a very short press statement:  "The Cabinet recently considered the Order of Australia, in this its 40th anniversary year, and agreed that Knights and Dames are not appropriate in our modern honours system." Later, the PM amplified his position in a brief doorstop comment.

PRIME MINISTER: Knights and dames. Look, can I say to you, I'm glad you’re, yeah ok, knights and dames. Look it is a long way from being the most important issue in Australia today. But it is a change as you know, removing knights and dames from the Australian Honour System has been, is a decision the Cabinet has taken. Her Majesty's agreed to amend the Letters Patent which are essentially the rules of the Order of Australia and this reflects modern Australia, knights and dames are titles that are really anachronistic. They're out of date, they’re not appropriate, in 2015, in Australia. Thank you very much.

Tim Mayfield from the Australian Republican Movement gloated,  

Goodbye knights, hello possums: The republican dividend in the honours debacle, 

seeing it as an opportunity to re-start the republican cause. Monarchist David Flint took a different view. 

Well I was not surprised that this should be the first significant policy change of the Turnbull Government. The change of government of course was hardly to do with any policy problems, it was more about personal ambition...... I've no doubt that Mr Turnbull wishes to impose a Republic - a politicians Republic on Australia at some time when he deems that he thinks that it would be victorious.

I was surprised not so much at the decision as its form and timing. It wasn't necessary at this point since new appointments can only be made on the Government's recommendation. It did continue the process of distancing Mr Turnbull from Mr Abbott, but also reinforces suspicions that many Australians have about Mr Turnbull.

It is no secret that I support Australia's current system of government. I am frankly puzzled by the deep often a-historical views held by certain groups who support the republican cause. They seem to be still fighting old wars that didn't actually make a lot of sense at the time. I think that this helps explain the virulence, as well as the continued sense of disappointment when the broader public dismisses their views.

I don't think any of this matters a great deal, except to the degree that shows light on continued confusions about Australia's history. Australia is not going to become a republic any time soon. There are frailties in the current constitutional system that may make a republic inevitable in the longer term. But no system survives for ever.

Perhaps ironically, the confusions and debates in the broader Australian community are reshaping the narrative among Aboriginal activists. I haven't attempted to write about this yet, although I have referred to it in passing from time to time. For the moment, one element might be summarised as boat people go home !    

Monday Forum - China's one child policy, Turkish elections, Labor's isolation

This Monday's post is a short round-up. Take it where you will.

During the week, China effectively moved from a one child to two child policy. Mei Fong looks at some of the impacts of the one child policy. Leaving aside the social and human effects, in purely economic terms the policy gave China a demographic dividend that has now gone into reverse. I don't properly understand why China didn't go the whole way and simply abolish all state imposed limits on family size. Given the impact the policy has had, it seemed appropriate to formally record its end.

The photo shows Mehmed VI, the last Ottoman Emperor, going into exile. The events that followed the end of the First World War saw massive change in the area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire, including the establishment of the modern Turkish state under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

It seems appropriate to mention all this now because of the unexpectedly strong showing of the AKP party in Sunday's Turkish elections. According to Turkey's Anadolu news agency, the division of seats in the 550-seat parliament is likely to be as follows:

• AKP (Islamist-rooted) - 316
• CHP (centre-left secularist) - 134
• HDP (pro-Kurdish) - 59
• MHP (far-right nationalist) - 41

The map shows the distribution of votes across Turkey. AKP in yellow. It seems to have been a convincing win, despite complaints of electoral irregularities.

Based on the reporting, I was surprised at the strength of the AKP vote. It seems that Turkey has moved towards the conservative, towards strong rule, in the face of turmoil and challenge.

Finally, here in Australia we have a fascinating case study of what can happen when a political party locks itself into a position of opposing someone else. Mr Abbott was a polarising figure. The Labor Party defined its position by supporting certain things (refugees, national security) where they believed their was majority popular support. On others, they grabbed for opposition in often inconsistent ways where they believed their was majority political support, With time, these positions became locked in.

As I outlined in Saturday Morning Musings - reflections on Malcolm Turnbull, I am not a Turnbull supporter. However, I find quite fascinating the ways in which the policy and political shifts introduced by Mr Turnbull have left the ALP all at sea. In opting to maintain, at least for the present, the refugee and security positions where there is bi-partisan support but make other things open, the Turnbull Government has effectively forced the ALP to scramble to find new positions.

Mr Turnbull has been effective in isolating Mr Abbott and his supporters, but in doing so he has also isolated Federal Labor. It's a fascinating study.

GST anyone?  What would you advise Mr Shorten to do?

Postscript

Interesting simple analysis of the Turkish election results. 

End of Rugby World Cup 2015

I fear that I have been greatly distracted by the Rugby World Cup.

Our campaign began in Copenhagen on Friday 18 November at the Globe Irish pub. There in the presence of a large and increasingly well-oiled crowd we watched the opening ceremony and the England play Fiji. in front of 80,000 people.

The next day we flew to Edinburg via a long and somewhat tortuous route involving Ryan Air. That night we watched games in a pub in Leith Walk that we made our temporary World Cup HQ while in Edinburgh. As we traveled through the UK, we watched games in pubs and clubs and motor way service centres as well as the grounds. as well as attending three games at the grounds.

It wasn't all rugby, of course. There was plenty of time for Helen and I to explore our various interest. Helen captioned this one "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy.  I have no idea what she means!

Coming back to Australia, I then spent the following weekends watching rugby!

Last night I watched the finals from Daceyville, Helen from another pub in Copenhagen, exchanging notes during the game.

Watching all these games has certainly improved my knowledge of the modern game; there has been some very good rugby indeed. It's been an interesting and sometimes intense time. Still, it's just as well that it's over.

It's not just that I don't respond to sleep deprivation as well as I once did. It's also time that I moved onto other things. I fear that my writing is now well behind schedule. Despite all this, I'm going to miss the competition and the sharing.  

Ethnicity, the European migrant case and the Australian model - Musings on the European experience 2

I had not intended to follow up yesterday's post, Hygge, ethnocentricity and war - Musings on the European experience 1, today, but Mr Abbott's remarks in London yesterday made this post inevitable. You will find a transcript of Mr Abbott's remarks here.

To set a context for this post, the population of the European Union is around 508 million. The population of the Schengen area, the free travel area within the EU, is presently around 420 million. So far in 2015, some 700,000 people have crossed to Europe by boat, mainly from Syria. That's a very large number, but only a tiny percentage of the current EU or Schengen area population. Again to provide perspective, at its peak, boat arrivals in Australia at 50,000 per annum were higher proportionate to the much smaller Australian population.

The migrants who have come have come via two main routes, by sea from North Africa to Italy or, again mainly by sea. from Turkey into Greece. This map from the BBC shows the second route. It also summarises some of the country responses.

The absolute numbers may be small relative to either the EU or Schengen area populations. However, the funneling effect flowing from geography in combination with  individual country responses creates a serious load effect on individual transit countries relative to the size of domestic populations and resources. The political repercussions now threaten the survival of current Schengen arrangements and the free flow of people that has been central to EU economic success over the life of the Union.

Schengen has two major advantages. In doing away with the network of previous border controls, countries achieved significant budgetary savings. More importantly, Schengen made transport, tourism and (more broadly) doing business within Europe faster and easier. To understand this, imagine what it it would be like if  you had to go through border control if you moved between Sydney and Melbourne for the day.  The UK is not a member of Schengen. On our recent trip to the UK we flew in from Copenhagen. It took more than an hour and half to get through UK Border Force controls at Luton.

I will talk about other aspects of the EU migrant problem in other posts. For the moment, I want to focus on Mr Abbott's prescriptions for Europe. I quote from his speech:

Now, while prime minister, I was loath to give public advice to other countries whose situations are different; but because people smuggling is a global problem, and because Australia is the only country that has successfully defeated it – twice, under conservative governments – our experience should be studied. 

In Europe, as with Australia, people claiming asylum – invariably – have crossed not one border but many; and are no longer fleeing in fear but are contracting in hope with people smugglers. However desperate, almost by definition, they are economic migrants because they had already escaped persecution when they decided to move again. 

Our moral obligation is to receive people fleeing for their lives. It’s not to provide permanent residency to anyone and everyone who would rather live in a prosperous Western country than their own. That’s why the countries of Europe, while absolutely obliged to support the countries neighbouring the Syrian conflict, are more-than-entitled to control their borders against those who are no longer fleeing a conflict but seeking a better life. 

This means turning boats around, for people coming by sea. It means denying entry at the border, for people with no legal right to come; and it means establishing camps for people who currently have nowhere to go. 

It will require some force; it will require massive logistics and expense; it will gnaw at our consciences – yet it is the only way to prevent a tide of humanity surging through Europe and quite possibly changing it forever. 

We are rediscovering the hard way that justice tempered by mercy is an exacting ideal as too much mercy for some necessarily undermines justice for all. 

The Australian experience proves that the only way to dissuade people seeking to come from afar is not to let them in. Working with other countries and with international agencies is important but the only way to stop people trying to gain entry is firmly and unambiguously to deny it – out of the moral duty to protect one’s own people and to stamp out people smuggling. 

So it’s good that Europe has now deployed naval vessels to intercept people smuggling boats in the Mediterranean – but as long as they’re taking passengers aboard rather than turning boats around and sending them back, it’s a facilitator rather than a deterrent.

Australia was dealing with a relatively small number of refugees. We had an intermediate country, Indonesia, that provided a barrier as well as an entry point. This allowed us in a fairly ruthless and costly way to push the problem back on Indonesia. We stopped the boats, but this came at a cost. Part of the cost lay in our relations with Indonesia. Part of the cost was actually pushing the people flow in the direction of Europe. I don't think it a coincidence that Afghans feature heavily in the latest European statistics. Part of the cost lay in the creation of running sores on Manus and Nauru that continue to bedevil Australia today. Part of the cost lay in the diversion of aid funding from its original intent to border protection. And part of the cost lay in a coarsening and dehumanising of the Australian political debate.

These costs may have been acceptable if Australia had been able to create a regional framework that would facilitate cooperative regional action on the problem, but if anything the actions of the Abbott Government impeded such an outcome.

The European position is very different from that facing Australia. There we have an arc of instability that extends through Africa into the Middle East. Libya, once a partial barrier, is a failed state. Syria is in flames and has itself become a source of refugees. We are dealing with large numbers of people and a complex geo-political mess. European nations resumed rescuing people at sea because the human tragedy from drowning had become just too great to be borne.

If Europe is to apply the Australia solution, questions like these need to be answered:

1. Where are the boats to be pushed back to?
2. Where are camp equivalents to Manus and Nauru to be established?
3. Which countries might take refugees if, as happened in the Australian case, the very act of getting on a boat precludes subsequent resettlement in Europe?  .
4. How will the costs of the program be funded?

Clearly Europe has to take coordinated action. However, the application of simplistic principles will not provide a solution. In the meantime, the Australian case and rhetoric is feeding into the growth of national aurtarchy , the re-emergence of old nationalist and ethnic attitudes that gave us war and that great inhumanity that remains a blot upon Europe. I will look more at this issue in a later past.

Postscript  

Earlier in this post I wrote:  "Part of the cost lay in the creation of running sores on Manus and Nauru that continue to bedevil Australia today. ....And part of the cost lay in a coarsening and dehumanising of the Australian political debate."

One of the very real difficulties in this country is the constant negative effect of the continuing stories about immigration detention. In just the last week, we have had the release of the Amnesty report .By Hook or By Crook: Australia's Abuse of Asylum Seekers at Sea, In response, Minister Dutton stated that Australia would not be bullied, while Prime Minister Turnbull said that he would not comment on security matters, asserting that Australia had taken great care to operate within the law.

We have had the continuing saga of the sad case of Abyan, while doctors have stepped up their campaign against children in detention. Immigration issues have become a running sore in the relationship between Australia and New Zealand, with over 200 New Zealanders now held in immigration detention.

One  can debate the rights and wrong of particular cases. For example, I am suspicious of the objectivity of Amnesty reporting. However, so many stories running at so many levels in the media including the local press has become quite debilitating. We also have a problem in the re-reporting of stories globally, a re-reporting that affects Australia's international reputation.

Part of the government's problem lies not just in what is being done but the rigidity and lack of subtlety in the way it is done.  A measure of the erosion that has occurred is that many Australians simply don't believe what the Government says. To the degree that I am right, I think that's becoming a major long term problem.      . 
  .   

Hygge, ethnocentricity and war - Musings on the European experience 1

On my first morning in Copenhagen, I left the flat early in the morning just to wander. I wanted to familiarise myself with the immediate area. By accident, I ended up in the Christiansborg Slot precinct. I will describe my full reactions later. For the moment, I want to focus on one things I found, a public art photographic exhibition.

Studying the exhibition in the early morning light, I found that it was an expression of what in Australia would be called progressive views. The first section focused on refugees, the second on families, families of all types and compositions - single. merged, gay couples, a whole pot pouri of relationships.

In the period leading up to my departure, the Australian and European media had been full of the growing European refugee crisis. For that reason, I was very interested in the display. I apologise for the standard of the photos.

The introduction to the refugee component is set out below. You can see the focus on refugees and conflict, on the local experience. You can also sense underlying tensions in the use of first names for the sake of "their own and their families safety."  

By comparison with Sweden, the number of refugees in Denmark appears relatively small both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the Danish population. On the streets of Copenhagen or on public transport, the proportion of those visibly different whether by ethnicity or dress is very small compared to say Sydney.

Australians forget or don't  always realise just how diverse Australia has become especially in the big cities compared to many other parts of the world. In Denmark, difference stands out.

While the values coming from Denmark's Lutheran heritage continue, modern Denmark is a very secular society, more so than Australia measured by the proportion of the population professing religious faith or engaged in religious activities. In these circumstances, it is the evolving values of the secular society that provide the dominating glue that holds the society together.

I discussed hygge in Introducing the Danish concept of hygge. As an Australian and especially one from a country background, I found aspects of hygge instantly familiar. The Australian equivalent is mateship. Like hygee, mateship is a secular phenomenon. Like hygge, mateship can be interpreted in various ways. Like hygge, mateship is incorporated in national dialogue and affects behaviour in different ways.

While hygge and mateship have significant differences, both have a common origin in the need for people to combine in the face of adversity. Hygge with its emphasis on coziness, harmony and cooperation can provide a vehicle for integration, for admission. Indeed, I saw aspects of this on the streets of Copenhagen. However, it can also be a vehicle for exclusion, for a restatement of them and us.

Denmark has experienced war in a way Australia has not. This is true for all European countries. It affects attitudes. This quote from the German Lutheran theologian Martin Niemöller was included in the display.

The Second World War was all about ethnicity. Yes, other elements were present, but ethnicity was central. In saying this, we generally focus on the treatment of the Jews and Gypsies, but this was a result of a deeper ethnic divide.

The concept of lebensraum was central to the Second World War in Europe. Lebensraum involved a desire to bring together a scattered people considered to be superior, the Germans, and give them an expanded homeland. More than 50 million people died as a result, many millions more were forced to relocate during and after the War, The scars exist to today.

The political battles now going on in Europe represent a conflict between those who want to re-assert national or ethnic identity and those who seek a broader vision. There is actually nothing wrong in wishing to preserve identity, although many on the left would deny this. However, it becomes very problematic indeed when the desire to preserve identity becomes wrapped in language that asserts superiority, the special value of difference.  .

I will continue this muse in my next post, looking at further aspects of the European experience.

Rugby World Cup musings

As you might expect, the New Zealand papers are covering the World Cup Rugby in blanket fashion. I can understand that. This places New Zealand on a world stage.

Helen and I drove into Cardiff past all the crowds. There we discovered the All Blacks bus. Further comments follow the photo.

People, Helen included, were rushing up to have their photos taken by the bus. This was a mild crowd. Later there was a lengthy queue!.

The New Zealanders have just moved into the HQ previously occupied by England. In a Facebook exchange with cousin Anne, part of the NZ Belshaws, she said that she would still love us despite the results. Just as well. As a part Kiwi, I cheer for NZ in many things including the rugby league. But when it comes to rugby union, I'm one eyed.

I guess it's partly an underdog thing. In league, Australia is traditionally stronger. After all, league is very much a minority sport in NZ. Union is different, a national NZ religion. Both England and Australia actually have more registered players than NZ, but passion and focus trumps this.

This makes Australia an underdog so, as a good traditional Aussie, the underdog status adds to my support. I really doubt that Australia can win next weekend. Still, and despite my growing sleep deprivation. I will be there to support the team.

Will I forgive cousin Anne if we lose? Yes. There is always the next round. But will Anne forgive me, especially given that I am likely to rub an Australian win in? Yes, although I am likely going to have to work on that. I may have to discipline myself!

For both of us, and for Helen too, there is now World Cup Japan in 2019. Helen reckons the two of us should go. It will be the first Asian World Cup, a very different experience. It would be nice to go. Maybe some of the NZ Belshaws might come?        

.  

Monday Forum - as you will

I watched the New Zealand versus South Africa World Cup rugby game on Sunday morning and then the Australia v Argentina this morning, This morning's game was gripping throughout, with Australia finally running out the winner 29-15, setting up a final with New Zealand.

The only problem in all this is that I'm quite pooped. For that reason, I'm not going to attempt to dictate a forum topic today, but just leave it to you to comment on what you will.

I know that sometimes this generates discussion, other times not. Still, I leave it to you to wander (or not) as the mood takes you!

Watching Henry V on the 600th anniversary of the battle of Agincourt

Six hundred years ago today, Friday 25 October 1415, an English army under Henry V defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt.  Almost six hundred years later, 30 September 2015,  Helen and I attended a performance of Henry V put on by the Royal Shakespeare Company at Stratford-upon-Avon.

We had been staying nearby at Harvington in the Cotswolds and decided to visit Stratford for the day. I will talk about my overall impressions of Stratford in another post. For a moment, I want to focus on Henry V.

Helen has been interested in drama since she was young and has taken part in a number of Shakespearean productions, so we went looking for the Royal Shakespeare Company. There Helen found that a production of Henry V was on that night and that tickets were available. The lure of seeing Shakespeare performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company in Shakespeare's birthplace was irresistible, and we promptly bought tickets. Since Harvington was so close, we were able to return there, eat and get back for the production.

Employing 700 people, the Royal Shakespeare Company is a very substantial organisation. Its Stratford Complex has recently been refurbished at a cost of £112.8 million. That's a fair bit of money.

The main theatre is built in the form of an open rectangle around the stage, with various seating levels stretching up into the high ceiling.   The kit built into the ceiling including the various lighting boxes is quite phenomenal. This allows for the use of minimal sets, since varying back-drops can be projected onto curtains.

As it turns out, I had neither read nor seen Henry V. I thought I had read it, but as the play proceeded I realised that I could not have. It was completely unfamiliar and the inclusion of large slabs of what was apparently French in the dialogue came as a surprise. I found it an unsatisfying play, in some ways unformed. I really needed the program notes to help guide me through the performance.

The Battle of Agincourt forms a key part of the play.. It is here late in the play that the most famous lines from the play appear.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

To give you another perspective, here is Kenneth Branagh with the same speech, this time in full.


The politics surrounding the original play are confused, as were the events themselves all those years ago. Shakespeare was writing for multiple audiences, including a population weary of the war that had been raging in Ireland. To my mind, this mixture of audiences helps explain what I saw as disconnects within the play. Interestingly, the program notes themselves displayed similar ambivalence, feeling an apparent requirement to deprecate or explain certain things in the pay in a way that reflects current British cultural and political attitudes and uncertainties.

Coming down in the lift afterwards, I listened to a well dressed older group who were clearly regulars. This was, one averred, the best production of Henry V he had ever see, going on to compare it to various productions dating back to the 1944 film staring Laurence Olivier. Not having seen the play before, I couldn't comment. However, while I greatly enjoyed the play, I thought that there were weaknesses from a purely technical viewpoint in the production, including camping up some scenes better played a little straighter.

  .