Hendra virus

Hendra virus is in the news again. In the last month, the disease has struck in the Gold Coast hinterland and again in northern New South Wales. The Queensland and New South Wales governments have provided additional funding of $6 million over three years for further research.

Hendra virus can live in horses, bats, humans and, as recent events have demonstrated, dogs. This is a nasty virus. About 70% of horses who get the disease will die from it. Of even more concern is the fact that it has also proved fatal to people. Where did it come from, and what can be done about it?

Proposed Changes to Environmental Protection law

The principal federal environmental legislation over the past eleven years has been the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). In 2008 the then Minister for the Environment Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, commissioned an independent review into the EPBC Act. The review was undertaken by an expert panel led by Dr Allan Hawke, and the report was tabled in Parliament on 21 December 2009. The review put forward 71 recommendations. The Australian Government has now released its response to the review on 24 August 2011. In a speech to the National Press Club, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, outlined some of the more important aspects of this response.

Tampa: ten years on



Image source: Project Safecom



26 August 2011 marks the tenth anniversary of the beginning of what became known as the ‘Tampa incident’ where 433 asylum seekers were rescued from an Indonesian fishing boat by a Norwegian container ship—the MV Tampa. Australian authorities spotted the fishing boat during a routine surveillance flight and broadcast a call to ships in the area to render assistance even though the boat was within the Indonesian search and rescue zone. A five day standoff ensued between the Howard Government and the captain of the Tampa over where the rescued passengers were to be taken.

In a speech in Parliament on 29 August 2001, the Prime Minister made the Government’s position very clear:

It remains our very strong determination not to allow this vessel or its occupants, save and excepting humanitarian circumstances clearly demonstrated, to land in Australia, and we will take whatever action is needed—within the law, of course—to prevent that occurring.

The Opposition offered the Government its support for this position. However, this support did not extend to supporting legislation to enshrine the domestic legal basis for actions taken in relation to foreign ships within Australia’s territorial waters. The Bill was introduced, and passed in the House Of Representatives, on the same day that the Tampa entered Australian waters, but was rejected by the Senate the following day. Kim Beazley later complained that the Opposition had been ‘wedged’ and its reputation damaged over the issue.

The impasse was resolved when Australia reached an agreement with Nauru and New Zealand to take all of the people aboard the vessel for initial processing. The Tampa incident is outlined in detail in the final report of the Select Committee on A Certain Maritime Incident.

The Tampa incident has been characterised as the catalyst for the introduction of a new border protection policy in Australia that came to be known as the ‘Pacific Solution’. Under this policy 1637 asylum seekers, including most of those those rescued by the Tampa, were sent to Offshore Processing Centres in Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.

What became of these people?

One hundred and fifty of the Tampa asylum seekers went straight to New Zealand for processing, and the remainder were sent to Nauru where the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) agreed to conduct refugee status determinations for them. According to the report on A Certain Maritime Incident processing claims began in late 2001 with the majority of decisions being handed down by June 2002. However, not all Tampa cases were resolved so quickly; in August 2004, three years after the incident, 22 Tampa asylum seekers remained on Nauru. By January 2005 these cases had been resolved and no asylum seekers from the Tampa remained on Nauru.

In January 2005, the UNHCR produced a media backgrounder, UNHCR Nauru case load Tampa, outlining the outcomes for the 424 Afghan, 3 Pakistani and 6 Sri Lankan asylum seekers from the Tampa. By January 2005, 186 of the Tampa caseload had returned to their country of origin, 1 had died on Nauru and the remainder (246) had been resettled, mostly in New Zealand. All 3 Pakistanis voluntarily returned; 4 out of the 6 Sri Lankans voluntarily returned, and 2 were resettled in Sweden. Of the 424 Afghans, 179 voluntarily returned following negative refugee status determinations, 1 died on Nauru, 208 went to New Zealand, 29 to Australia, 5 to Sweden and 2 to Norway.

Between 2001 and September 2003 a total of 1544 asylum seekers were accommodated under the Pacific Solution, with a peak population of 1515 in February 2002. By September 2003 there were only 335 remaining on Nauru (although there were later transfers of asylum seekers from Christmas Island in 2006 and 2007).

When the Rudd Government dismantled the Pacific Solution in February 2008, a ministerial press release noted that a total of 1637 people had been detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities. Seventy per cent were resettled to Australia or other countries. Of those, around 61 per cent (705 people) were resettled in Australia.
The conditions on Nauru and Manus Island attracted criticism, including from refugee advocates, journalists and Parliamentarians. The report of the inquiry into A Certain Maritime Incident outlined many of these concerns and noted that the Nauru site initially lacked water, sanitation or electricity with asylum seekers housed under harsh conditions. Evidence to the Select Committee suggested that the facilities on Manus were a slight improvement on those in Nauru; however, several asylum seekers contracted malaria.

Several witnesses to the Committee expressed concern about the lack of independent scrutiny, difficulty in obtaining access to the facilities, and an apparent lack of legal advice for detainees. Australian Lawyers for Human Rights told the Committee that when they sought to send a team of lawyers to Nauru to provide legal advice to asylum seekers the Nauruan Government refused them visas. The report also included comments by the UNHCR expressing concern that people who had been found to be refugees on Nauru and Manus were left in limbo while resettlement options were sought.

In 2007, a report by A Just Australia, A price too high: the cost of Australia’s approach to asylum seekers, outlined numerous concerns relating to the Pacific Solution, including the mental health impacts on asylum seekers, including serious psychological damage, people engaging in hunger strikes, and self-harm. The report also argued that the Pacific Solution was a costly and highly inefficient exercise and estimated the total cost was at least $1 billion.

Ten years on from Tampa, asylum seekers are again a major political issue in Australia. In the lead up to the 2010 election campaign Prime Minister Gillard announced plans to establish a regional processing centre for asylum seekers in East Timor. In the end no such centre eventuated, but negotiations with other countries to establish offshore processing have proved more successful. Just three years after the Pacific Solution was formally ended the Gillard Government is planning to reopen the facility on Manus Island, but so far has rejected calls by the Opposition to reopen the centre on Nauru. Instead, the Government has signed an agreement with Malaysia under which up to 800 asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat will be transferred there for processing. Ten years on from Tampa, processing of asylum seekers outside of Australia is once more the preferred solution to the ‘problem’ of boat arrivals.

Authored with Janet Phillips

Australian Public Service staffing

Australian Public Service (APS) staffing levels have received attention recently with the Opposition indicating the possibility of abolishing one government department if it is in government and reportedly searching for further public service expenditure reductions.

The Opposition has had a policy of reducing public service staff numbers for some time as part of a broader drive to identify savings in government expenditure. In its May 2010 response to the 2010–11 Budget the Opposition stated that in government it would reduce staff numbers by 12 000 over two years through a recruitment freeze and natural attrition (i.e. without redundancies), with exemptions for front-line service and uniformed staff. In the lead-up to the 2010 election the Opposition’s election policies identified projected savings resulting from the recruitment freeze, and the commitment to reduce staff numbers by 12 000 was reiterated in the Opposition’s May 2011 response to the 2011–12 Budget.

Caring for Older Australians report: a sector in need of reform




Image source: Aged Care Australia

  Last week, the Government released the Productivity Commission’s (PC) report, Caring for Older Australians. Most stakeholders have broadly welcomed the recommendations although concerns have been raised in relation to the capacity of the workforce. Concerns also persist among some pensioner groups about the prospect of having to sell their home in order to pay for aged care. The main differences between this final report and the earlier draft report is the proposed arrangements for accommodation bonds and the accommodation subsidy for supported residents. Analysis on the recommendations on the draft report can be found here.

Science Weeks and Years

National Science Week (13-21 August) is now upon us, with more than one thousand events across the country. Also unfolding, with perhaps less publicity, is the International Year of Chemistry. Both foster public awareness of science and technology and associated careers.

International Year of Chemistry 2011

The United Nations declared 2011 the International Year of Chemistry (IYC) under the unifying theme ‘Chemistry—Our Life, Our Future’. Here, the International Year of Chemistry celebrates the achievements of chemistry and its contributions to the well-being of humankind, with opportunities for public participation (particularly for young people and women), at the local, regional, national and international levels. The IYC Opening Ceremony was preceded by the first IYC 2011 global activity celebrating women in chemistry.

The Year also celebrates the 100th anniversary of Madame Marie Curie’s Nobel Prize for Chemistry and the founding of the then International Association of Chemical Societies. During the IYC, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry is led by its first female president. As part of the IYC, prominent scientists highlight advances in chemistry and its role in solving major problems faced by humanity in energy, food, water and health.

For Australia, a coordinating body is the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI). As well as supporting the professional needs and interests of its members, the Institute advocates the importance of chemistry to the public, to educational institutions, to industry, and to government. Each year in July, the RACI produces National Chemistry Week, a campaign that promotes chemistry to the general public, and this year’s week has recently concluded.

When launching the IYC in Australia during February, Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr noted that the Excellence in Research for Australia 2010 National Report confirmed that chemistry is an area of notable strength for Australia. According to the report, of the research units assessed in this area, 86 per cent were rated at world standard or above. The Australian Academy of Science through the National Committee for Chemistry also promotes the IYC.

International Week of Science and Peace

Globally, the International Week of Science and Peace has been observed every November since 1986. The United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 43/61 in December 1988, which proclaims the “International Week of Science and Peace”, to take place each year during the week in which 11 November falls. The associated “World Science Day for Peace and Development” is on 10 November 2011. However, there appears to be minimal local commemoration.

National Science Week 2011 and Inspiring Australia

On the other hand, Australia’s National Science Week (13–21 August 2011) provides many public events across the nation with ongoing support from the Federal Government and key science industry bodies like the CSIRO, with the ABC and the Australian Science Teachers Association (ASTA). The Week aims to take science into schools, workplaces, cultural organisations, community groups, shopping centres and public spaces. The event will engage people across Australia with scientific displays, shows, theatrical events, debates, workshops, and projects with an aim to celebrate science in all its forms and benefits.

National Science Week now serves as part of the Inspiring Australia program, which received 2011–12 Budget funding of $21 million over 3 years. In February 2010, the report Inspiring Australia: a national strategy for engagement with the sciences was launched by Innovation Minister Carr. The report was the first national strategy for science communication in Australia. The Australian Government’s Science portal website provides details of our national capabilities. Also note that the Royal Institution of Australia has programs in public science education, akin to a national science exchange that support Science Week.

Despite the important ideas behind National Science Week, and its undoubted successes, there remains the question of whether it is essentially ‘preaching to the converted.’ Those who are already in some way interested in or knowledgeable about science take advantage of what is on offer, but how is Australia’s general science education faring? And how good is the public’s level of scientific awareness, at a time when scientific findings underpin many political decisions and areas of national discourse? These questions may form part of the Inspiring Australia agenda into the years ahead.

(Image source: Australia's Chief Scientist)

National Health Reform Agreement: what might it achieve?

Image Source: Access to Justice

After nearly four years in government, an 18 month independent inquiry into the health system, a Prime Ministerial listening tour of the nation’s hospitals, several fraught Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meetings and one unsuccessful attempt, the federal Labor Government has finally secured a health reform deal with all states and territories.

The National Health Reform Agreement announced this week is essentially a detailed implementation plan for the Heads of Agreement on National Health Reform, which was negotiated at COAG in February 2011. Most commentators agree that the scope of reform has been scaled back over time. The reforms outlined in this Agreement and the earlier Heads of Agreement are less extensive than those outlined in the April 2010 National Health and Hospitals Network (NHHN) Agreement (for a summary of the changes made to the NHHN Agreement see here). The contentious proposal to hold back GST from the states in order to fund reforms has disappeared (this was the main reason Western Australia refused to sign up before). Other discarded reforms include plans for a Commonwealth ‘take over’ of primary health care and to become the majority funder of public hospitals.

National Homeless Persons' Week

Image Source: Homelessness Australia

This week is National Homeless Persons’ Week. The theme title this year, MY Address: diversity in homelessness, seeks to draw attention to the many different people who are homeless for many different reasons.

A previous FlagPost briefly considered the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) current review of the way in which homeless people are counted in Australia. This review proposed a number of changes to the Counting the Homeless methodology with a view to improving estimates of the number of homeless Australians.

Putting citizens first



Image source: APS Blueprint

In March 2010 the Australian Government released its blueprint for reform of the Australian Public Service (APS) entitled Ahead of the Game. But rather than leading with a focus on policy and values, the blueprint makes citizens the focus.

In Australia and elsewhere, concepts such ‘co-creation’ and ‘co-production’ have emerged to describe the deep collaboration needed between public servants, professionals, citizens and communities. Such approaches constitute a major shift in how the task of public administration is conceived and carried out.

A recent national conference, Putting Citizens First, was devoted to the theme of citizen engagement, and the Parliamentary Library has also published a research paper on the issue. But engaging citizens is not for the faint-hearted. It makes serious demands on public servants and on citizens. And it requires ministers and agency heads to devolve power to frontline professionals. Is it all a bridge too far ?