My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 30 March 2021

Two really dumb ideas to combat assaults on women

The past months have seen an escalation of suggestions to help women facing sexual assault, rape or domestic violence. Some good, some really dumb. Let’s look at two spectacularly dumb ones.

Firstly, we heard of an app for consent. Secondly came the not very bright idea of women fleeing domestic violence being able to withdraw $10,000.00 from their superannuation.

NSW Police Commissioner Mick Mr Fuller suggested an app could be used to record consent before an encounter took place. He likened this transaction to scanning QR codes on Covid apps. He pointed out that “You can’t walk into a shop at the moment without scanning in.” 

Likening women’s bodies to shops that have to be scanned on entry is a spectacularly insensitive suggestion at the best of times. During a national reckoning on sexual assault it is astounding.

It quickly proved incendiary, condemned and mocked as unworkable, bizarre and wholly counterproductive. Even premier Gladys Berejiklian did not publicly back the proposal.

Josephine Tovey wrote in the Guardian Australia, “Police commissioner Mick Fuller’s proposal fundamentally misunderstands what consent is”. Consent is nothing like signing a contract or ticking a box. It is ongoing and negotiated throughout an encounter by the people involved.

Legal experts were also quick to point out that an app like this may only serve to strengthen perpetrators and their defence lawyers. Andrew Dyer, a senior law lecturer at the University of Sydney, said “If the evidence of consent on the app came into evidence at a trial then it could be used against the woman to discredit her.”

There is also the worrying possibility that a woman could be forced into providing consent on an app, particularly in situations where a perpetrator may have access to her phone.

We don’t need male leaders freelancing thought bubbles in their paper of choice (Mr Fuller), or warning women of the dangers of being attractive (Defence Chief Angus Campbell), or delivering platitudes about fatherhood (PM Scott Morrison).

What we need is suggestions that will actually work. One that is gaining traction is Restorative Justice, as suggested by Arlia Fleming of the Elizabeth Evatt Community Legal Centre. In a future column I’ll look in detail at what this means.

Now to the second dumb idea: women raiding their super to fund a flight from domestic violence. It’s hard to believe, but this thought bubble that women should be allowed to withdraw $10,000 was put forward by the Minister for Superannuation, Jane Hume. Minister Against Superannuation might a better role title for Ms Hume.

“If we must raid someone’s super to fund women fleeing violence, it should be the perpetrator’s” wrote columnist Jane Caro. Well put, Jane.

ScoMo’s government has now backed down on this dumb proposal, but Liberal MP Tim Wilson is also running a campaign proposing people should be able to use their super to buy a house.

It goes without saying that this particularly neoliberal Liberal government is uncomfortable with compulsory superannuation. The Lib/Nats are philosophically committed to choice, the free market and individual enterprise. So they oppose a compulsory saving-for-retirement scheme that was introduced by a Labor government. The industry super funds have been particularly successful, leading to claims from the neoliberal mob that they benefit the union movement.

The success and popularity of the industry funds shows the neoliberal belief that the private sector always outperforms everything else for what it is: a lie.

This half-baked suggestion would be devastating for women who find themselves in a violent and abusive relationship. It would guarantee that women fleeing violence will be left impoverished.

We should be encouraging women to build their super balances, not erode them. Domestic Violence have pointed out how easily a terrified woman could be coerced by an abusive partner to give him access to any money she draws down.

Women have given birth to every taxpayer. They are of course also taxpayers themselves. We should not begrudge investing some of that money in their safety and future wellbeing.

The solution, apart from raiding the super of the perpetrators, is for government working to boost superannuation balances for women, their pay and opportunities. This should include giving them the financial help they need to flee abusive relationships. It’s not rocket science.

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 23 March 2021

Federal government funding cuts and privatisation to blame for our failing aged care system

The federal government is to blame for our failing aged care system. Why on earth we continue to elect governments that condemn our elderly citizens to live in squalor is a topic for another day.

Instead, this week there is only room to briefly examine the Royal Commission’s chief recommendations.

I’ll also look at the financial cost of repairing this broken system. It is such a sorry state because of successive Lib/Nats coalition government funding cuts and their mania for the privatisation of public assets.     

Central to the recommendations is the overhaul of the 1997 Aged Care Act, which the commission found had been motivated by Howard government attempts to make budget savings. The cuts have continued under succeeding Liberal/Nationals coalition governments.

The commissioners were unanimous in their assessment that the sector needs significant funding boosts and favour a levy to raise funds from taxpayers. Similar to, but separate from the Medicare levy.

The two commissioners were not united on this recommendation. Commissioner Pagone believed the Productivity Commission should be tasked with investigating and determining the amount of the levy, while Commissioner Briggs, a former chief executive of Medicare, has recommended a flat rate of 1%.

To replace the Aged Care Act, the commissioners have proposed legislation that defines aged care with references to maintaining the independence of older Australians, including their mental and physical capacities, and levels of “social participation accessible to members of society generally”. To do this, they recommend a system based on “a universal right to high quality, safe and timely support and care”.

The act would also enshrine rights to be free from mistreatment and neglect, as well as free from “degrading or inhumane treatment or any form of abuse”, the ability to exercise choice over their care and to retain general autonomy, including “freedom of movement and freedom from restraint”.

Both Pagone and Briggs have called for the creation of an inspector general of aged care to identify and investigate systemic issues and to report its findings.

The commission has recommended a star rating system that grades providers on staffing levels, feedback from patients, complaints, and other quality indicators. The ratings will be publicly available on the My Aged Care website.

Providers would also be forced to always have at least one registered nurse on site.

Unfortunately neither the report nor its recommendations paid any attentions to LGBTIQ+ residents in aged care facilities.

So what would it cost? The Guardian Australia said the “Cost of Australia’s aged care system to soar to $36bn a year if cheapest royal commission reforms were adopted.

Economists from Deloitte and the Grattan Institute have made conservative estimates that between $7.6bn-$8.7bn more will need to be spent on aged care each year, but told the Guardian the most ambitious and costly reforms recommended by the royal commission, additional yearly costs could soar to $15.5bn.

PM Morrison’s announcement of an initial injection of $452m to ‘fix’ the system is laughable in its inadequacy. Or tragic, if you want to be more realistic. He also trotted out his government’s routine opposition to tax increases to pay for the necessary improvements.

Why is our aged care system in such a bad way? “Weak and ineffective: Government cost-cutting slammed in damning aged care report” headlined the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Greens Leader, Adam Bandt quite correctly pointed out that “Privatisation and deregulation of aged care, driven by thirty years of neoliberal ideology, have produced a perfect storm of a casualised workforce and substandard service. It is causing heartache for residents and their families.”

“Big corporations are profiting from the misery of their residents and the failure to protect their workforce. Worse, the public is subsidising these big corporations’ mega-profits while standards of care keep slipping.”

“The Prime Minister must act. The government is on notice that privatisation is failing older people and residents in aged care facilities across the country are particularly vulnerable,” Bandt said.

To conclude, the Saturday Paper pointed out that “Morrison announced his government will spend $452 million to ‘fix’ the aged care system, which is less than the $500 million he announced for the expansion of the Australian War Memorial.” Go figure.

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 16 March 2021

Important petition calls for early consent education

I had intended this week’s column’s topic to be on the Royal Commission’s report into aged care, but something else that needs urgent attention has arisen to replace it. Given the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison governments’ usual tardy or non-responses to the recommendations from royal commissions, the aged care one can wait a week.

I’m replacing it with something much more immediate. Something that is not only very topical, but very urgent. I’m referring to the launch of the ‘Teach us consent’ e-petition.

Backed by NSW women MPs from across the political spectrum, Chanel Contos launched this NSW e-petition on International Women’s Day. The petition, sponsored by Jenny Leong, a Greens NSW MP and member for Newtown, requires 20,000 signatures to trigger a debate in the Legislative Assembly. It calls for holistic consent education in our schools, from a much earlier age than current practice allows.

Chanel Contos, who started Teach Us Consent and the e-petition, said: “Recent events have enlightened Australia that we live in the midst of a rape culture. Although there are many things we can do to combat this as a community, I see education as the biggest catalyst for change. Teaching holistic and thorough consent education, before students are sexually active, will reduce rates of sexual assault. It will also minimise the amount (sic) of students who have the horribley delayed realisation that they were victims, or perpetrators of sexual assault.”

“An injustice has been done to the past students of Australia, and therefore we must take the advice of academic specialists on how to best instigate this systematic change within our educational system.”

“It is vital this topic is discussed in parliament to trigger a curriculum change. Members of Parliament can’t ignore this any longer – this has become a human rights issue.”

Jenny Leong, who is also Greens Women’s Rights spokesperson, and sponsor of the petition, said “Current and former students have made it clear from their brave disclosures of sexual assault that there is an urgent need for change, and it is crucial that these calls are heard and debated on the floor of the parliament.”

“I may be the sponsor of this petition, but it’s crucial that the issue of consent is something that is a priority for all law makers in NSW and across the country.”

“As women MPs we have a responsibility – and a determination – to work together and act to end to sexual violence.”

Marjorie O’Neill MP, Labor Member for Coogee told us “As the NSW Government is currently undertaking a once in a generation curriculum review. It is fundamental that age-appropriate consent education is a part of this review, so it is embedded into the education of all young people.”

Felicity Wilson MP, Liberal Member for North Shore said “Chanel Contos has opened the door for thousands of our youngest members of society to disclosure their history of horrific and widespread sexual assault. All MPs owe it to them to hear their voices, and deliver the social and structural changes we need.”

This important initiative follows on from the earlier e-petition that went live on 18^th February. Also created by Chanel Contos, a former student of Sydney’s Kambala girls’ school, it justifiably created major headlines around the country because it gathered more than 2,000 testimonies of sexual assault from current and former Australian private school students. It has subsequently been opened up to all schools across Australia.

It revealed that 72 per cent of 300 of her friends had said they or someone they are close to had experienced sexual assault from students attending all-boys schools, she told the Guardian Australia. 

It includes first-hand accounts of sexual assault from women during their schooling years, with schools in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and New Zealand involved. Some victims alleged to have been as young as 12 at the time.

Yet all we’ve seen from our federal government is a proposal for an advertising campaign. Given the PM’s nickname of Scotty from Marketing that’s hardly a surprise, but nonetheless it is crushingly disappointing.

If this column has brought up buried memories or recent experiences readers are welcome to contact the National Sexual Assault, Family & Domestic Violence Counselling Line by calling 1800 737 732.

The link to the e-petition can be found at https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/Pages/ePetition-details.aspx?q=E1vJM17r85TsPf4J7KNUbg==

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 9 March 2021

Carbon emissions way below Paris targets

Here in Australia we lament our federal government’s refusal to set a date to achieve net zero carbon emissions. The generally accepted date necessary to prevent climate catastrophe is 2050. Based on recent scientific findings more informed opinion now recognises that the necessary date is 2030. Unfortunately, the Greens are the only party to wake up to this urgency.

Looking at the rest of the world the news is just as bad. Not because of a ScoMo-like refusal to commit to a date, for many countries, including China, have made such a commitment. The problem is that, as UN Secretary general António Guterres recently announced, the world’s nations’ pledges are ‘far away’ from the Paris target.

Let’s look at the detail of this ominous announcement. The first assessment of countries’ pledges to cut their greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade, a vital component of the Paris climate agreement, has found they are only a fraction of the effort needed to avoid climate breakdown, the Guardian Australia reported.

If all of the national pledges submitted so far were fulfilled, global emissions would be reduced by only 1% by 2030. Scientists have said a 45% reduction is needed in the next 10 years to keep global heating to no more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, in line with the Paris agreement.

The assessment, published by the UN on Friday, covers countries responsible for only about a third of global emissions. Only 75 of the 197 signatories to the Paris accord submitted their national action plans for reducing emissions between now and 2030, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), in time to be assessed.

Some of the world’s biggest emitters, including China, the US and India, have still to formulate NDCs. They face renewed pressure to do so urgently. The UN has said that without them, the Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow in November will fail.

The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said: “2021 is a make-or-break year to confront the global climate emergency. Today’s interim report is a red alert for our planet. The major emitters must step up with much more ambitious reduction targets for 2030 in their NDCs well before the November conference in Glasgow.”

The US and China will now be firmly under the spotlight. China could publish its NDC soon, when the government is expected to unveil its next five-year plan. The US is holding a major international climate summit on 22 April, at which it could come forward with plans.

Helen Mountford, the vice-president of the World Resources Institute, called for stringent plans from both. “The US should set an ambitious and attainable 2030 emission reduction target of 50%, while China should peak its emissions by 2025, which our research shows is possible.”

Aubrey Webson, Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, many of which face inundation if temperatures rise by more than 1.5C, said: “Large emitters that have not yet made pledges must do so immediately. If we are truly determined to limit global warming to well below 1.5C, these emitters must do better. They must go further. And they must implement their climate targets faster.”

Japan submitted its NDC early last year. Australia and Brazil also submitted NDCs, but, no surprise here, they are widely regarded as inadequate. EU member states agreed a target of 55% emissions cuts by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, though many MEPs wanted to go further.

Carolina Schmidt, Chile’s environment minister who hosted the last Cop talks in 2019, said that of the major economies only the EU and UK had pledged enough. “Others have either failed to present new NDCs or presented NDCs with no increase in ambition. They must all now step up if we are to keep the hopes of Paris alive.”

Meanwhile, in fear of a back bench revolt by coal-loving MPs, ScoMo still refuses to set even a date to achieve net zero emissions. Our Deputy PM, member for Riverina Michael McCormack, is even more unhelpful, foolishly telling the world he isn’t concerned about what will happen in 30 years’ time. And by implication, neither should we, as the ‘Big McC’ is looking after us. Your problem, Michael, is that we are in fact all too aware about what will happen in 30 years’ time.

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 2 March 2021

Scotty from Marketing’s advertising tricks fail to hide his failures

Much had been written about the Brittany Higgins Parliament House rape case. No doubt by the time this column is published more will come to light as the ripples spread ever wider. So today I’ll focus on a few of the most egregious implications. That is, those that relate to the culpability of those who should know better.

“The government has done just about everything wrong when dealing with workplace assault. This mishandling presents yet another credibility crisis for Scott Morrison” wrote Crikey.com.

The first point of concern is the Prime Minister bringing his wife Jenny and his two daughters into the picture. ScoMo rather naively told us “Jenny and I spoke last night and she said to me, ‘You have to think about this as a father first. What would you want to happen if it were our girls?’ Jenny has a way of clarifying things, always has.” The mind boggles at the thought processes of a Prime Minister who thought this would help his case.

For as the Daily Advertiser has pointed out, it shouldn’t need a reference to one’s own children to make one aware of the appalling enormity of the problem. Yet another example of a Scotty from Marketing advertising campaign gone wrong.

Morrison was also again demonstrating that he is incapable of viewing women as deserving of compassion unless he is first reminded of their relationship to a man. He seems not to realise that all girls/women are someone’s daughter. His should not merit special reference because their father happens to be PM.

It also occurs to me that if one of the daughters of Scott and Jenny Morrison happened to be black we would have succeeded in ‘closing the gap’ some time ago.

Attempting to spin his way out of yet another government scandal, Scotty from Marketing announced four inquiries into the matter. Four! And all for the price of one, as a marketing campaign from Scotty would no doubt advertise. The PM may know the price, but he seems to be oblivious as to the cost.

The real issue isn’t the blatant attempt to convince the public that more is better. The main problem is that they are all internal parliamentary inquires, when what we really need is an honest to goodness totally independent one. What ScoMo is offering is as credible as putting the foxes in charge of an inquiry into a raid on the chook house!

The Defence minister, Linda Reynolds, is also in the firing line, for missing the cues. Ditto other ministers. And the prime minister, over what he knew and when he knew it. Higgins told news.com.au it was the sight of Morrison standing beside Australian of the Year Grace Tame, a survivor of sexual assault, that pushed Higgins to go public.

So many of the elements of this story had the recurring features of a government that once again “humbly” promises accountability and transparency only to do its best to hide from view its failures and disregard for earlier conventions of behaviour, as the Saturday Paper pointed out.

When bad news is dominating the headlines, the best solution for a prime minister is to come out with a good news story. Scotty from Marketing had two such stories to hand that would distract from the bad news.

Firstly, Facebook banning Australian news sites, which allowed Scotty and Josh to play David battling Goliath. Following this they were finally able to announce that the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine had been approved by the TGA in Australia, followed by the actual roll out. And, true to form, using the excuse that he was demonstrating its safety, ScoMo was one of the first to receive the jab. Of course, he didn’t let on that it would be an excellent photo op after a horror week for him.

The PM has also taken umbrage at a major business group’s comments about a pervasive “culture of disrespect” in politics. His response was that “if any workplace thinks that this is just confined to the parliament, they’re kidding themselves”.

They aren’t. They were just pointing out that Parliament is a particularly toxic workplace. Which leaves us realising that ScoMo really doesn’t ‘get it’. It’s high time we had a PM who did.