By Gordon Menzies

Photo: The error of consequentialism is that it ignores the morality of the means. (Submitted: Lyn Sinclair)

The sole concern of Australia's asylum seeker policy can't simply be the net balance of people saved, otherwise there should be no moral limit to the signals that we send in order to stop the boats, writes Gordon Menzies.

The Government wants to stop the boats. How about sinking them?

If the overriding 'good' of the current policy regarding those seeking asylum is to, once and for all, prevent people from risking the journey across the Indian ocean, drastic action is necessary. Suppose that the Navy simply sank every illegal vessel that entered Australian waters. This policy would provide the strongest possible deterrent for all future boat people. Probably a single boat, a mere few hundred souls, would achieve the goal.

Indeed, since the people on the unfortunate vessel are going to end up dead anyway, camera footage of some splutterers climbing aboard naval vessels only to be hurled back into the sea at gunpoint would be a real media moment. No one would ever want to come to this country again (and a few of us might want to leave).

It has taken a while, but it now appears that both the major parties, and a good deal of their support base, have reached agreement in principle on a tough stance towards boat people. The majority of voters, assailed by the twin fears of terrorism and the "wrong kind of person" entering the country, are broadly supportive of a "whatever it takes" approach to dissuading asylum seekers from coming to our shores.

It's hard to deny that these concerns should have some weight when policies are crafted, but what is more debateable is the basis on which the recent policies have achieved such wide acceptance.

"The ends justifies the means" captures the broad spirit of the time when it comes to the way we organise our society. It's clear that we have witnessed an increased tendency to judge policies purely on their consequences regardless of the path taken there. Ethicists call this "consequentialism". For example, consequentialism can be glimpsed in the tenets of free market economics where the bottom line is all that counts. Such thinking is not confined to markets, but has leached into our thinking more generally.

The driving force of the current policy regarding refugees emerges directly from consequentialism: tough treatment now will deter future arrivals down the track.

It is important to realise, too, that this line of thought can be compassionate, which is why it has penetrated some notably left-leaning political minds. Stopping people from risking their lives is surely a compassionate goal?

Proponents of the current tough stance on refugees are being more accurate than they realise when they dismiss concerns about inalienable human rights, or God-given dignity of refugees as "idealistic". The alternative to consequentialism is indeed to embrace some principles - ideals, if you will - whether or not they are convenient or "work" in a straightforward way.

It is arguably good to be idealistic in this sense, though, because being immediately effective is not always a good thing. Consequentialist policies could be put forward that work too well for their own good, hence the extreme example of torpedoing boats on arrival.

On purely consequentialist criteria, this would be a good policy. The bottom line is that a few hundred bad consequences, in the form of a sunken vessel, can be traded off for possibly tens of thousands of good consequences in the future. Think of all the misery that those later voyagers will be spared by never setting out on their perilous journey here?

According to this way of thinking, the unbending will of the Government's current plan represents good policy too. The recent death of one man in detention will have its own invaluable deterrent effect.

Any consequentialist, irrespective of their valuation of human life, should pursue these policies. As long as the number of travellers that are stopped is bigger than the number who perish up front, in the sea or in a riot, any calculation that values people equally will pass a cost benefit analysis. However, it will be most appealing to compassionate consequentialists who give the highest weight to the net balance of people saved.

Nor is it any good objecting to the splutterer overboard moment, or inhumane detention, on the basis that it sets a bad example. If consequences, and not the means to them, are all that matters, this is in fact the right stance of policy. Therefore a good, not bad, example would be being offered to the world. Other countries might adopt our policy, and the scourge of people smuggling might forever be solved.

I do not mean, by my illustration, to suggest that our politicians shouldn't concern themselves with consequences at all. The error of consequentialism is not that it considers consequences, but that it so fixates on them that the morality of the means is no longer important. Of course consequences of actions are important, in public policy no less than in everyday life.

A principled refugee policy would recognise this. But, in addition, it would also draw on good ideals and refuse, sometimes at great inconvenience and expense, to bend international law or mistreat people as a means to an end.

Dr Gordon Menzies is Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Technology in Sydney, and a Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity. View his full profile here.

Want to send a message? Why not sink the boats? - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Posted by Greg Jericho

Thursday 27 February 2014 theguardian.com

As Joe Hockey prepares a tough budget, many countries are finding ‘cuts only deepen short-term economic woes’

Treasurer Joe Hockey during question time in parliament. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

Every year from now until May we experience a fair bout of pre-budget softening. The messages of doom and tough cuts and choices ahead are standard political fare. No treasurer is foolish enough to promise goodies in a budget and then come the second Tuesday in May find that his words are not greeted with all the joy he had hoped. Far better to be gloomy, then at least any surprises will be positive ones.

Joe Hockey is following the script well. He and other ministers have already put out soundings about tough choices ahead. The prime minister, in reacting to a bad Newspoll this week, has even suggested the tough job ahead of repairing the budget would inevitably lead to bad polling.

But it remains to be seen whether talk of tough austerity will be just that. Deputy prime minister Warren Truss has suggested the budget “repair” will not be completed in this term, and the strategy reported in the Australian Financial Review appears to be to put the ugly costs of cuts to education and health off until after the election.

Such a strategy is not only policy savvy, but economically smart, as there is almost zero need for Australia to embark on a bout of quick, deep austerity.

At the G20 meeting last weekend, the IMF and the OECD suggested a number of measures which fit within the government’s narrative of the need for “reform”, but both organisations are less hyped up about the need for fast budget repair.

The G20 communiqué, which outlined Joe Hockey’s desire for a greater growth target over the next five years, specifically stated of fiscal or government-led budget repair that the G20 nations would do so only in a manner which took “into account near-term economic conditions, so as to support economic growth and job creation, while putting debt as a share of GDP on a sustainable path”.

Such wording underscores the view of the majority of the G20 nations that while perhaps, as Tony Abbott loves to say, no nation ever taxed its way to growth, neither is there much support for the view that cutting expenditure while growth is weak will do anything other than make things worse in the short term.

When it comes to fiscal austerity the key is knowing when to embark on such a path, and then doing it in a manner that acknowledges the economic situation.

The OECD has suggested that among the best areas to target are health and education. This certainly is in keeping with the Abbott/Hockey strategy.

The reason for this was highlighted in a paper last year issued by the OECD on the “Politics of fiscal austerity”. It noted that fiscal consolidation in advanced economies is required because with an ageing population and rising health costs, “unlike previous recessions, the return of strong growth” will not be enough to solve budgetary issues. By the time strong growth returns, the health bill will have continued to grow well beyond what it had previously during past recessions.

But the paper also noted that “as many European countries are finding today, cuts only deepen short-term economic woes”.

Certainly the experience of the Eurozone countries has shown that sharp austerity during an economic downturn appears to exacerbate the downturn.

But the Eurozone is unique and perhaps the experience of those countries only serves to prove that if you are going to embark on a period of deep fiscal austerity, don’t do it with a joint currency.

When looking across the entire OECD, the link with higher austerity and weaker growth remains, but it is less strong.

Certainly those countries with the lower growth tend to have tightened their budgets the most, but even the many nations with strongest growth lie in the middle of the austerity range and have not taken extreme measures. This suggests that if you are going to be austere, it’s best not to go overboard.

And certainly, Australia has adopted this approach over the past three years. Looking at the change in the general structural deficit gives us a good proxy for the impact of government budgets on GDP growth.

On this measure, in the past three years the reduction in the budget deficits of the federal and state governments has reduced GDP growth by just over 0.5% each year. This austerity is not as strong as was seen in the 1990s by the Keating and Howard governments, but is above what the Howard government undertook in the mid 2000s.

The UK by contrast has seen government austerity reduce GDP growth in three of the past four years by more than ever occurred in the 1990s and even by more than the Thatcher austerity years of 1981 and 1982.

America as well, despite what the Republican party would have you think, has also indulged in sharp austerity – according to one estimate – the sharpest such austerity for 50 years.

Australia was also fortunate that we were able to begin our fiscal consolidation when growth was near trend. The OECD has noted that past evidence of large austerity measures shows they work best when “the macroeconomic environment ... had already turned favourable before consolidation started”.

On this measure, the UK rather jumped the gun.

It is well known however that Australia’s debt situation is relatively better than other nations, for our economy has a lot less fat to trim than other nations – and thus has fewer easy cuts to find.

On health, the OECD estimates efficiency reforms here would see only 0.5% of GDP in savings – certainly still a sizeable amount, but the second lowest among OECD nations:

This suggests that the path back to surplus does not involve finding easy efficiencies – these have already been found. And given the government is already pledging to increase the annual defence budget by 0.5% of GDP, it means other cuts will need to be made – or extra revenue raised.

It suggests that unless Hockey is also willing to look at the revenue side of the budget, there will be cuts in areas like pensions, and government sector wages and benefits. In this context, it is no surprise these areas have also been targeted in the pre-budget softening-up period.

We will have to wait and see how deep and how fast the cuts will be, but from his rhetoric, it would appear Hockey does not believe slow and steady cuts win the race to growth.

Quick, deep budget cuts? Australia needs austerity like a hole in the head | Business | theguardian.com

By Paula Matthewson

Photo: Don't expect any great satisfaction from this week's debate on asylum seekers.

Labor will attack Scott Morrison over the Manus Island riot, but both sides of the political divide are guilty of inhumane policies spanning more than two decades, writes Paula Matthewson.

Voters paying attention to recent events on Manus Island are going to be disappointed by this week's parliamentary session; particularly if they think it will go any way to lessening Australia's inhumane treatment of asylum seekers.

Following Scott Morrison's dance of the euphemisms – conceding but not admitting on the weekend that he told untruths at media conferences following the fatal Manus Island riot – the Labor opposition will latch onto the Immigration Minister having misled the media and Australian people but dance around the morality of what caused the riot in the first place.

Their Question Time tactics and a likely attempt at a censure motion will focus on Morrison's poor briefing, obfuscation and implied incompetence. But there will be little soul-searching over the wisdom of locating a processing centre in a sovereign state that still struggles to control violence and anarchy within its own populace.

Labor's demands for Morrison to be held to account already sound tentative and hollow. That's because they're picking their way through a minefield. Calls for accountability and censure can be tricky manoeuvres when almost everyone shares the blame. And perhaps more than any other contemporary political issue, the events on Manus Island are the product of successive Australian governments' mandatory detention policies, regardless of the party in office.

The Keating Labor government introduced onshore mandatory detention for asylum seekers in 1992, resulting in the first cases of self-harm, riots and escape attempts. The Howard Coalition government upped the ante, introducing offshore processing, establishing detention centres across a troupe of island states and surreally designating some Australian territories as no longer part of the nation for immigration purposes. A processing centre on PNG's Manus Island was established as part of this Pacific Solution.

Labor's Kevin Rudd vowed to dismantle the Pacific Solution, and so he did on the attainment of government in 2007, only to have this taken as a sign by people smugglers that Australia's borders had reopened. The renewed influx of asylum seekers created all manner of difficulties for the Rudd, Gillard and re-ascendant Rudd governments, which over time reintroduced much of the worst elements of Howard's offshore approach.

These extreme actions were taken by parties on both sides of the political divide ostensibly to protect Australia's borders, prevent deaths at sea and destroy the people smugglers' business model. Yet the principal purpose of "stopping the boats" is considerably less honourable: it's to allow politicians to claim kudos for protecting Australians from a threat that doesn't actually exist.

Both sides ruthlessly exploited nascent voter anxiety about asylum seekers into a full-blown paranoia. By framing the issue as one of border protection rather than immigration or human rights the Howard government implicitly encouraged voters to make a connection between asylum seekers, terrorists and the war on terror. It's hard not to conclude that Howard's ill-founded observation about "people like that" throwing their children overboard wasn't similarly confected to demonise asylum seekers.

Then as the events of September 11, 2001 faded, at least in the minds of Australians, voter unease over asylum seekers emerged as a by-product of the industrial relations battle. Having been brought to a state of high concern by both parties claiming the other was putting their job security at risk, voters began to equate asylum seekers as yet another threat to their employment prospects. Neither side has ever attempted to dissuade this misapprehension, with prime minister Gillard even reinforcing it by capitulating to the unions and imposing a limit on the use of 457 visas for skilled foreign workers.

Voter antipathy for asylum seekers has been kept at a fairly vigorous simmer ever since – it's just too electorally valuable to the parties to be let to go off the boil.

Perhaps most shockingly, Kevin Rudd exploited it on his re-election as Labor leader in an attempt to consolidate his Messiah 2.0 status. Erasing from that prodigious brain any memory of his denunciation of the inhumanity that was the Pacific Solution, Rudd unleashed the ultimate deterrent (and hopeful vote-winner) by vowing that no asylum seeker would ever reach Australia and instead would be settled in PNG.

After Rudd's defeat it was no surprise Tony Abbott also embraced this extreme policy, having pinned his electoral legitimacy on "stopping the boats" (shorthand for "not letting those foreign devils steal Australian jobs, crowd our trains or marry our daughters").

If they were so inclined, shock jocks could rightly claim both Labor and the Coalition have bloodied hands after the fatal riot on Manus Island.

Mandatory detention and offshore processing are bipartisan policies. The Manus Island facility was established by the Coalition and reopened by Labor. And it was Labor's policy, since adopted by the Coalition, to deny any asylum seekers settlement in Australia that reportedly sparked the protest and subsequent riot.

This week's parliament will be filled with raised voices, dramatic gestures and righteous calls for Morrison to be held to account. It's likely former Labor immigration ministers will join the fray. Look closely for looks of chagrin or embarrassment on their faces – this may be an indication of the extent to which they also feel accountable for the policies that led to fateful events on Manus Island.

Paula Matthewson is a freelance communications adviser and corporate writer. View her full profile here.

Manus Island riot: a plague on both your houses - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Mungo MacCallum

Photo: Iranian asylum seeker Reza Berati died in a riot on Manus Island on February 17. (Supplied)

Australia's recent asylum seeker policies have been more about results than morality. But their unintended consequences can no longer be ignored after the events on Manus Island, writes Mungo MacCallum.

So now the Chinese have joined the international chorus of condemnation of Australia's policy on asylum seekers.

It would be easy to brush this aside with talk of pots and kettles, to point to Beijing's ruthless repatriation of desperate escapees from North Korea. But while doing so is entirely legitimate, it ducks the real issue: the criticisms undoubtedly have substance.

It is no longer seriously denied that the policies of successive governments have breached Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on Refugees, or that human rights of the asylum seekers in detention, especially in the offshore gulags of Nauru and Manus Island, are being abused. And, as the tragic events of the last week have made abundantly clear, the debate is no longer just about legality or even politics; it has become a question of basic morality.

In a sense it always has been; since Paul Keating first implemented the policy of mandatory detention, opponents of the increasingly draconian measures used to deter the boat people have argued that they are cruel and inhumane. But by and large the objections have been dismissed as impractical idealism and the protesters derided as do-gooders and bleeding hearts.

Morality seldom intrudes on realpolitik. When it comes to dealing with the more immediate concerns of the voters, toughness is seen as a positive virtue, and mercy and compassion as weakness to be avoided at all costs.

The current supreme commander of our borders, Scott Morrison, insists that his religious faith has taught him the value of kindness, justice and righteousness, but he adds immediately: "The Bible is not a policy handbook." The sermon on the mount may be all very uplifting in its place, but government has to deal with harsh reality.

One of the few politicians who does accord morality a wider role in everyday life is Kevin Rudd, and he designed the Papua New Guinea solution in the full knowledge of the ethical dilemma it involved. As he tells it, the imperative was to end the drownings at sea, and to achieve this end, any means could be justified.

If asylum seekers were so desperate that they were prepared to risk the leaky boats in the hope of salvation, then that hope had to be removed: it had to be made clear that the end of their voyage, if they achieved it, would be as bad as, if not worse than, the beginning. Manus would be a hell on earth; even the camps of Indonesia would be preferable.

And of course Tony Abbott has embraced the principle with enthusiasm, although in public his reasoning has been rather less complex than Rudd's: Abbott's slogan has always been Stop the Boats, not End the Drownings. And the public, uninterested in splitting moral hairs, has generally been happy to endorse any measures taken by either side, as long as they work.

At least it has up till now. But the death of one man and the injuries to scores of others in the melee of last week last week has meant that the unintended consequences of the policies can no longer be ignored. If the Manus Island solution ever was sustainable, it is not so any longer. The antipathy between the locals and the inmates has passed the point of no return.

The asylum seekers, having been informed that they have no chance of asylum in Australia and therefore nothing left to lose, will continue to rebel and the islanders, resentful of the incursion of those who insult them personally and denigrate their culture, will be a continuous hostile presence, their anger enhanced by the more generous payment and treatment of outsiders employed by the government, even - or perhaps especially - if many of them are their fellow countrymen from other wantok clans.

There have been reports of clashes between local employees and the PNG police as a result, with the detainees caught in the middle. Papua New Guinea has always been a volatile mix, impossible to control from a central government; the extra elements added on Manus Island have put it into meltdown.

The outsourcing has not absolved the Australian government of ultimate responsibility for the break down. Canberra, through the responsible minister Scott Morrison, still has a legal and moral duty to care for those in its charge, and if he cannot fulfil that duty under the present policy, he will have to adapt the policy until he can. Abbott can bluster all he likes about not succumbing to pressure and moral blackmail but we are no longer talking theoretical abstracts and hypothetical outcomes, but actual events. One man is dead, and as things stand, more deaths, injuries and general mayhem are inevitable.

Confronted with another death recently, an Indian student who hung himself in a detention centre as he faced deportation for overstaying a visa, Morrison shrugged it off: asked by the ABC's Barrie Cassidy if anything could have been done to prevent the suicide, he quipped: "Could he have avoided overstaying his visa?" Very droll, minister, but the situation has gone a little beyond that point.

If Morrison does not recognise it, there are signs that some of the military, who have been conscripted to his command, are starting to feel a little uncomfortable. The Defence Forces chief General David Hurley, the head of the Navy Admiral Ray Griggs and of course Morrison's personal C-in-C, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, have all been forced to make personal appearances in the last couple of weeks to defend the actions of those under their command.

And they have not looked happy. Perhaps they even thought of another interrogation, a more formal one; one in which the response "I was only obeying orders" was dismissed as totally inadequate. When the full history of these troubled times is written, its verdict may be a harsh one.

Mungo Wentworth MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator. View his full profile here.

The morality of Manus can no longer be avoided - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By PNG correspondent Liam Cochrane, staff

Video: A witness says guards allowed armed locals into the Manus Island detention centre. (7.30)

A witness to violence at the Manus Island detention centre last Monday night says guards from the security firm G4S allowed locals armed with makeshift weapons into the facility.

The Federal Government has backed away from its initial claims about what happened during the violence at its off-shore detention centre that killed one detainee and left dozens more injured.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison initially said 23-year-old Iranian man Reza Berati sustained a fatal head injury on February 17 while outside the detention centre, but on Saturday he said new information suggested the incident, along with much of the riot, occurred inside the centre's perimeter.

At the scene that night were expatriate G4S guards, mostly Australian and locally engaged Papua New Guinean G4S guards - in uniform, out of uniform and those in riot gear, known as the Incident Response Team (IRT).

By all reports, PNG's notoriously brutal police mobile squad were the only ones who had guns.

A Papua New Guinean guard employed by G4S has told ABC's 7.30 program - on condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job - that the unrest began when asylum seekers were taunting the local staff.

A large crowd of local residents had also gathered to watch a stand-off that continued for several hours.

The detention centre is separated into various compounds, each fenced with an internal perimeter.

The protests were concentrated in Mike compound, but as detainees in Foxtrot compound were taken to a nearby playing field for safety some escaped and joined in the riot.

A witness who watched the unrest from about 100 metres away - who would not be identified for fear of repercussions from security guards - said 10 to 15 locals armed with lengths of wood got involved.

He says asylum seekers were taunting local staff with highly offensive insults and G4S guards asked the locals to come inside the centre.

Claims security staff let locals into the centre

Photo: The image from February 17 reportedly showing of G4S security guards outside from Manus Island centre.

A photo from the night of February 17 appears to show the G4S riot team at the outside fence.

The witness says the G4S guards wanted to get into the compound.

"The police fire warning shots and that scared the clients and they went into their rooms. And that's when G4S went in," he told the ABC.

"And when the G4S get into the camp they belt, they fight with the clients and belt them very badly. Some are wounded, blood run over their face."

Witnesses and guards say some G4S staff were injured by stones or by asylum seekers fighting back but there have been conflicting reports about whether local residents joined in the brawl.

"The locals came to see what's happening, they were on the road to see what's happening," the witness said.

"The G4S guards just break the fence down they told everybody to go in and stop them and hit them and fight them.

We as a company do not tolerate violent or abusive behaviour from our employees

G4S statement

"Because the G4S guards want manpower to help them so they took them inside, the locals helped them."

Besides firing the shots, according to this witness, the police mobile squad played a limited role and he claims it was Papua New Guinean G4S guards who did most of the fighting.

This has been backed up by another witness and the guards themselves.

Some of the asylum seekers who tried to escape the violence by hiding in their rooms or in a gym were dragged out and brutally assaulted, the witness says.

The expat guards reportedly stayed out of the violence for the most part trying to calm the situation and overseeing operations.

A spokesperson said the security company supports the government review and it takes allegations that G4S staff were involved in violence "seriously".

"We as a company do not tolerate violent or abusive behaviour from our employees," the company said in a statement last week.

"We support the investigation of the incident that was announced by Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, and we will fully cooperate with that investigation."

Injured detainees sustained 'blunt trauma' to the head: doctor

Photo: Iranian asylum seeker Reza Berati died in the disturbance. (Supplied)

An Australian G4S guard - who requested anonymity because of his contract with the company - told the ABC that Mr Berati was hit with lengths of wood and metal poles taken from beds, and had his head or neck stomped on.

However, the ABC cannot verify the accuracy of this information.

Other seriously injured asylum seekers were rushed to the local hospital 20 kilometres away.

Dr Changol Amai, acting director of medical services at Lorengau Hospital treated two of the seriously injured asylum seekers that night, including the man who was shot in the buttocks and a man with a head injury.

"Someone with a blunt, possibly a blunt trauma to the left orbit. It was grossly swollen, he couldn't look out the left eye," Dr Amai said.

He says almost all of those treated by medical staff were Iranian.

A local doctor, familiar with tribal violence, says asylum seekers underestimated what could happen when a group of Papua New Guinean men felt slighted.

Once the first punch is thrown, it will go right until the end. That's one thing which I'm sure the refugees or even the Australian government hasn't taken into account.

Dr Changol Amai

"Once the first punch is thrown, it will go right until the end. That's one thing which I'm sure the refugees or even the Australian government hasn't taken into account, because this is the way we are," Dr Amai said.

Some locals on Manus Island believe the violence could be repeated if the processing of refugee applications is seen to drag on.

Following the deadly riot, the protests have stopped and security around the facility has been tightened.

Manus Island detention centre security staff allowed armed locals into facility, witnesses say - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 Paul Farrell theguardian.com, Sunday 23 February 2014

Immigration minister concedes most events – including the death of one asylum seeker – took place inside compound’s perimeter

Scott Morrison: conflicting information. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

Scott Morrison has contradicted his previous account of last week’s unrest at the Manus Island processing centre, now conceding the events – including the death of one asylum seeker – occurred largely within the perimeter compound.

The immigration minister released a statement late on Saturday night saying: “I wish to confirm that contrary to initial reports received, I have received further information that indicates that the majority of the riotous behaviour that occurred, and the response to that behaviour to restore order to the centre, took place within the perimeter of the centre.

“As advised on the afternoon of Tuesday February 18, I indicated that I had received further information which meant that I could no longer confirm that the deceased man sustained his injuries outside the centre. The further information I have now received casts further doubt on the initial advice that his injuries were sustained outside the centre.”

Protests at the Manus centre escalated last Sunday night, leading to violence involving guards, local contractors and asylum seekers. One asylum seeker was killed during the disturbance and several were seriously injured.

At media briefings during the week Morrison berated journalists for raising reports that contradicted his initial statements about the location of events. Morrison had emphasised the greater risk to asylum seekers who had left the perimeter of the facility and the limited guarantees of protection Australia could provide for those outside.

The revised account also casts serious doubt on the accuracy of information from the service provider G4S. In its statement on Tuesday G4S described claims that asylum seekers had breached the perimeter only to flee attacks by local residents who had entered the compound as “unfounded.”

“A number of transferees were injured after they breached the perimeter fence and the matter became a law enforcement issue for PNG authorities.”

In a further remarkable development, G4S appeared to have been unaware of Morrison’s statement. A G4S spokesman asked Guardian Australia to forward a copy to the company on Sunday morning. G4S said it was preparing a statement in response to Morrison’s new remarks.

The opposition immigration spokesman, Richard Marles, said Morrison appeared to have no understanding of the facts on Manus.

“Earlier in the week Scott Morrison did not speak on advice, he spoke personally and emphatically when he gave an assurance that the tragic events that did so last week occurred outside the Manus Island dentition facility,” Marles said.

“This is a man who has no idea of what the facts are. This is a man who is not in charge of the Manus Island detention facility and it raises enormous questions about his ability to manage this issue.

“He now needs to hold himself accountable to the Australian people … this goes to the safety that is being provided to asylum seekers within an Australian-run detention facility.”

The Greens leader, Christine Milne, called on Tony Abbott to sack Morrison over his handling of the situation.

“The prime minister must sack the minister and close his cruel refugee prisons immediately,” she said.

“Tony Abbott must take personal responsibility for the failure of the morally bankrupt and cruel offshore processing regime that was started by Labor and embraced by his government.

“Tony Abbott had a direct line of duty of care to Reza Berati and he is now dead. He must take personal responsibility. Blaming the victims of this tragedy is cowardice.”

The Labor frontbencher and former immigration minister Chris Bowen said on Sunday the developments were “deeply concerning”.

“We’ve had a death, which is a tragedy, and we’ve got a minister who frankly treats the public, the parliament and the media with contempt and drip-feeds out information – and now we see that information is wrong as often as it is right,” Bowen told the ABC on Sunday.

“If he thinks a written statement at 9 o’clock on a Saturday night is being transparent then he is sadly mistaken. He should explain not only what went on here but also when he was told that the information he had previously released was wrong.”

Bowen said Morrison was “very certain of his facts last week”.

“He was lecturing the Australian people and journalists and the shadow minister and everybody to be clear of their facts. Now we know he was the one that was wrong and he’s got a lot of explaining to do.”

Bowen said the Manus Island centre was an important part of Australia’s immigration policies but Morrison must ensure it was being run in a way that did “not unduly endanger human life”.

At a media conference about the unrest on Tuesday, Morrison said: “The deceased person involved a head injury and that person passed away on transfer to the Lorengau Hospital. The injury was sustained outside the centre.”

On Friday Morrison identified the dead asylum seeker as Reza Berati, a 23-year-old from Iran. Berati had arrived in Australia on 24 July, 2013, and was sent to Manus Island.

It is not yet clear whether the PNG coroner will also conduct an inquiry into Berati’s death. Coronial inquests must be approved by the PNG National Executive Council. It has yet to issue any approval in Berati’s case.

Morrison initially appeared certain about the accuracy of the information he was receiving about the riots, but he has gradually retreated from his original statement.

In Tuesday’s media conference he emphasised the limited protection Australia could offer asylum seekers who had escaped the perimeter compound.

“If people chose to remove themselves from that centre then they are obviously putting themselves at a place of much greater risk and in an environment like that where there is violent behaviour on the part of those who are breaching the perimeter fence and going out of the centre then this is a disorderly environment in which there is always great risk.”

In his second media conference he said he had received “conflicting reports” about the incident and the location of the asylum seeker who was killed.

“Where physically this took place based on the information I have received this afternoon, that is a matter where there are some conflicting reports.”

A review has been commissioned into the incidents at Manus Island that will examine the conduct of service providers and people found to be within the compound. An investigation by Papua New Guinea authorities is also under way.

 

Scott Morrison contradicts first account of Manus Island unrest | World news | theguardian.com

February 22, 2014 

New life ... Kevin Rudd will split his time between Australia, China and the US. Photo: Wolter Peeters

Former prime minister and noted sinophile Kevin Rudd will lead research on US-China relations at Harvard University.

Mr Rudd has been appointed a senior fellow with Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and a visiting fellow with Harvard's Institute of Politics. He will take up the posts next week.

In a statement, the ivy-league university announced that Mr Rudd would be at the forefront of the school's major research on the "possibilities and impacts of a new strategic relationship between China and the United States".

"With China on track to surpass the US as the world's largest economy during the next decade, the initiative will explore the shape of a new relationship and its impact on the global order," the Harvard statement said.

"Mr Rudd is a Chinese language speaker, a student of Chinese history, and has lived and worked in China. His China-related career goes back 30 years."

He will split his time between Boston, China and Australia.

"We are extremely fortunate to have Kevin Rudd joining the Harvard community,” Belfer Center director Graham Allison said. “Drawing on lessons learned during a distinguished career in politics and government, he will bring a unique strategic and practical perspective on a range of international challenges."

Mr Rudd said: "I am delighted to be working at Harvard.

“I am very much looking forward to working in America's oldest university, as well as the leading university in world rankings. I believe the China project is important if we are to advance both the concept and the substance of what the Chinese call 'a new type of great power relationship' between Washington and Beijing. This will also impact China's neighbours in Asia, and in time the future of the broader regional and global rules based order."

The statement from Harvard noted Mr Rudd's stewardship of Australia's response to the global economic crisis, saying Australia's response to the crisis "was reviewed as one of the most effective stimulus strategies in the world with Australia the only major advanced economy not to go into recession".

Kevin Rudd goes to Harvard

Australia’s first female Governor-General, Quentin Bryce (centre), on Friday hosted Janet Yellen (right), the first woman to head the world’s most influential financial institution, the US Federal Reserve, and Christine Lagarde, the first woman to lead the International Monetary Fund. Dr Yellen and Ms Lagarde will attend the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meetings this weekend. Photo: James Brickwood

Treasurer Joe Hockey has used the world stage to warn that Australia will run out of money for health and education, and must consider unpopular options such as lifting the retirement age to 70, introducing big new taxes, and redesigning the economic system.

''The starting point is, if our health, welfare and education systems stay exactly the same, Australia is going to run out of money to pay for them,'' Mr Hockey said ahead of the G20 forum in Sydney.

''We will either have to have a massive increase in taxes - and that means fewer jobs at the end of the day - or we are going to have to look at ways that we can restructure the system to make it sustainable.''

We must work more and pay more for health, welfare and education, warns Treasurer Joe Hockey ahead of the G20 forum in Sydney. Photo: Bloomberg

Mr Hockey said tough choices could not be avoided after Health Minister Peter Dutton earlier in the week floated the idea of Medicare changes, including a co-payment for GP appointments.

Mr Hockey said Commonwealth outlays on health were growing exponentially, rising from $65 billion at present to a projected $75 billion in three years time.

''That is the equivalent of imposing effectively half the carbon tax to a full carbon tax just to pay for the growth in Medicare,'' he said.

Also on Friday Mr Hockey nodded as the OECD secretary- general, Angel Gurria, outlined what he called a "road map" for Australia, including an increase in the rate and coverage of the goods and services tax.

The deliberately startling comments painted a picture of an economy in decline from serious structural problems, just as leaders of the world's major economies praised Australia's economic achievement.

The Treasurer used the setting to shock voters ahead of what is being billed as a horror budget.

The tough talk threatens to leave voters confused, as the Abbott government issues mixed messages over health funding, having promised to quarantine it from cuts before the election.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has again said he will honour a pledge of zero cuts to health funding, confirming ''we will absolutely keep our commitments''.

''I want this government to be the best friend that Medicare has ever had,'' he said on Friday.

However the strength of Mr Hockey's language also reflects the politically diabolical choices outlined in the government's Commission of Audit interim report received last week.

Among the issues, he said, was Australia's retirement age, which would need to keep climbing, probably to 70.

"Something I didn't know until today, two other ministers have told me that it was [the 19th century German statesman] Otto von Bismarck who set the pension age at 65," he said. (Although this is a myth - Germany set the retirement age at 70. It was dropped to 65 well after Bismarck died.)

"It was set at that level in Australia in 1908 when life expectancy was 55. Life expectancy is now 85 and yet as of today 65 is still the pension age. The previous government announced plans to increase it to 67, but as the United Kingdom and others are doing we will have to look at ways to continue to increase it as we live longer.

"A lot of countries are facing a challenge of an ageing population and I would challenge everyone in Australia to participate in a mature debate about the quality of life we want in Australia - what is sustainable, what is the quality of healthcare, what is the quality of aged care, how are we going to give Australians the finance to live with dignity."

Mr Gurria, a former Mexican diplomat, said of the OECD's roadmap: "We are all strapped for cash. Consumption taxes are a trend in the whole of the world … We all think that our own country is very original and different. And of course Australia is, but not so much.

"There are certain things that have a common strand. More consumption taxes is one, and closing the loopholes in goods and services taxes. The second is property taxes. They distort economic activity less and are more difficult to avoid. The third is green taxes. I know that you are having a discussion in Australia, but you need a mechanism that will reduce emissions. I think we all agree that we are on a collision course with nature."

Industrial relations is also in the reform frame for the economy. Mr Abbott brushed aside suggestions the government's Productivity Commission inquiry into the Fair Work laws, which is due to begin in March, would quickly lead to cuts in penalty rates.

"I wouldn't want people to get overexcited about any particular commitment. We will keep all of our commitments, including that one,'' he said.

Health, welfare and education: Tough choices loom for Treasurer Joe Hockey

By political correspondent Emma Griffiths, staff

Tuesday 18 Feb 2014

Video: Scott Morrison confirms asylum seeker killed in Manus Island riot (ABC News)

Photo: Scott Morrison has confirmed there has been another serious incident at the detention centre. (Refugee Action Coalition)

One asylum seeker is dead, another is in a critical condition and 13 are being treated for serious injuries after a second night of violence at the Manus Island detention centre.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said it was his "great regret" to report the extent of the injuries sustained by asylum seekers in the riot.

He has promised a full inquiry into the incident from which 77 asylum seekers were treated, 40 had been discharged and 22 suffered minor injuries.

"There were 13 serious injuries, there was one critical injury, and there is one person who is deceased," Mr Morrison said.

"The deceased person involved a head injury and that person passed away on transfer to the hospital."

Mr Morrison said the person was injured outside the centre.

The asylum seeker who is listed as critically injured received a skull fracture and one seriously injured asylum seeker was shot in the buttock.

'They will kill us'

A man describes the frantic call he received from his asylum seeker brother as the riot erupted on Manus Island.

 

Both are being transferred to Australia for treatment.

The Minister said the majority of asylum seekers were not involved in the riot and were evacuated to a nearby oval for their safety. Non-essential staff were also moved out of the centre.

He said it was possible some asylum seekers were still missing.

"We're still not in a position to have accounted for every transferee which is in that centre and I hope to provide further information on that today," he said.

The Minister described the situation, which he says was brought under control at 3am (local time), as "very tense and very stressful".

"The news of a death is a great tragedy and our sympathies are extended to the transferee's - that person's family and friends who would have been in the facility as well," he said.

More on this story:

• Manus Island breakout occurred after detainees learnt of PNG fate
• Asylum seekers escaped from Manus detention centre, Morrison confirms
• PNG considers options for refugee resettlement
• PNG judges surprised at lack of challenge to Manus Island detention centre
• Scott Morrison says Navy intrusion report to be shared with Indonesia

"This is a tragedy, but this was a very dangerous situation where people decided to protest in a very violent way and to take themselves outside the centre and place themselves at great risk."

Mr Morrison said the incident was the latest in a series of "largely peaceful" protests stretching back for weeks.

"This is a very distressing situation but it is not a situation, sadly, that was not anticipated," he said.

"The Government has been taking steps over recent weeks to increase our security presence at that centre."

He said the Government had learnt lessons from previous attempts to "take down" centres on Nauru and emphasised that the Manus Island centre "has not been destroyed".

"The centre will be able to resume operations, as it has this morning -  breakfast has been served," he said.

The latest incident follows one on Sunday night, when 35 asylum seekers escaped from the detention centre but were quickly recaptured.

The ABC has obtained video footage of that incident, shot from the perimeter of the compound.

Video: Watch vision of Sunday night's disturbance (ABC News)

It shows detainees shouting and throwing stones at guards and houses nearby.

The detainees are also seen rushing towards the main gate.

Mr Morrison says that breakout was the result of "much-heightened" tensions at the facility.

The Minister is in Darwin, where he planned to inspect patrol boats, but says he is returning to Canberra as soon as possible to be briefed.

Refugee advocate claims 'savage attacks' on asylum seekers

Refugee Action Coalition spokesman Ian Rintoul says the latest incident began with locals breaking into the centre.

"The perimeter fences were breached by locals, the centre had already been evacuated, and PNG police and locals carried out systematic attacks, savage attacks on the asylum seekers last night," he told ABC News Breakfast.

"If there are asylum seekers outside the perimeter fence it's because they've fled for their lives late last night from those attacks."

Video: Refugee advocate Ian Rintoul speaks with ABC News Breakfast (ABC News)

He says up to 50 people have been injured inside the compound.

"Bashings, cuts from machetes, with sticks, gunshots were heard overnight," he said.

"I don't know of anyone being shot, but people - one person we were told - was actually thrown off the first floor of one of the buildings."

The ABC has been unable to verify Mr Rintoul's claims.

Mr Morrison said the claims were "not correct" on the information he had been given.

A man who said he was an asylum seeker at the Manus Island centre phoned the ABC last night saying shots were fired and most of the detainees had fled.

He refused to give his name and the ABC has been unable to confirm his statement.

Opposition wants inquiry as Wilkie slams 'hell hole'

The Opposition has demanded a full inquiry into the incident and wants to know what steps the Government will take to stop the violence.

"The facility is utterly critical to Australia's asylum seeker policy approach," Labor's immigration spokesman Richard Marles said.

"It is the cornerstone of the strategy that our country has in place to see boats stop coming from Indonesia."

The previous Labor government reopened the centre in November 2012 after closing it down shortly after coming to power in 2007.

PNG correspondent Liam Cochrane has told The World Today some asylum seekers could have fled: I've got no official information on whether all detainees have been located or not. Security guards were going to try to match up faces to photos this morning and account for everybody, but perhaps I can just describe the location of the centre. On one side is a beach and water and on the other side is some thick jungle and all around there are some residential properties. So it is possible that people could have fled, could have perhaps fled into the jungle and could still be hiding out. But the centre is located within a navy base and it would be a very difficult place to hide out for very long.

It was first set up by the Howard government in 2001.

Greens spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young says the detention centre should be shut down.

"The centre must be closed, and it must be closed now," she said. "This gulag on Manus Island is untenable."

The violence has prompted independent MP Andrew Wilkie to renew his call for the Government to stop processing asylum seekers offshore.

"We should not have offshore processing. We should not have a hell hole like Manus Island clearly is," he said.

"We should not have mandatory detention. We should act like a rich and fortunate country and a signatory to the Refugee Convention."

But Mr Morrison says the Government's determination to stick to its policies is "absolute".

"The Government's resolve when it comes to our policies is very clear and that resolve won't break," he said.

 

Manus Island: Immigration Minister Scott Morrison confirms one asylum seeker dead, 77 injured during second night of unrest - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Australian Associated Press

theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 February 2014

Former federal Labor MP found guilty of dishonesty offences over misuse of his Health Services Union cards

Former federal MP Craig Thomson has been found guilty. Photograph: Joe Sabljak/AAP

Former MP Craig Thomson has been found guilty of dishonesty offences over the misuse of his Health Services Union credit cards to pay for escorts.

Thomson has been found guilty of spending money on escorts and making cash withdrawals, but not guilty of charges related to adult movies.

The 49-year-old was accused of using his Health Services Union credit card to pay for escorts and personal expenses while he was the organisation’s national secretary and a federal Labor MP. He pleaded not guilty to more than 140 charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception, theft and obtaining property by deception, and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

Thomson was accused of misusing a total of $28,449 between 2002 and 2008 but has been cleared of some offences.

He has been found guilty of some charges that related to funds spent on spousal travel but the magistrate said some of the spending could not be proved to be criminal.

Thomson was found guilty of obtaining financial advantage by deception over the use of the cards to pay for cigarettes and for expenses incurred after he resigned from the union.

Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg said Thomson “must have known” that using the credit cards to pay for escorts was not allowed under the union’s rules. However, he said buying movies while staying in hotels under union business did not meet the required standard to prove the charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception.

Rozencwajg said it did not matter that the movies were pornographic.

He said it was an “affront to common sense” that payments to escorts could ever be considered a legitimate expense.

Rozencwajg said it was clear Thomson had no authorisation to make cash withdrawals with the cards, and found him guilty of 16 charges of theft totaling $6,250. He said on some occasions Thomson was guilty of deception by using the cards to pay for his then wife, Christa, to travel, but not guilty over other occasions in which he paid for her flights and accommodation.

Thomson showed no emotion as the verdict was read. After the verdict was delivered, prosecutor Lesley Taylor SC unsuccessfully applied for Thomson to surrender his passport. However, Rozencwajg ordered that Thomson not leave Australia and remain at a static address.

Rozencwajg adjourned the case for a plea hearing on 18 March.

Craig Thomson guilty over use of union credit cards to pay for escorts | World news | theguardian.com

By Leith van Onselen Posted Mon 17 Feb 2014

Photo: Drought assistance appears to have become a permanent feature of the farming sector. (Pool: Fairfax Media)

For all its talk of reducing welfare and entitlements, the Federal Government continues to prop up non-viable businesses while treating politician and executive pay as off limits, writes Leith van Onselen.

While the Abbott Government talks tough on welfare and entitlements, it continues to take contradictory positions that risk undermining its legitimacy.

In addition to providing taxpayer support to Qantas and Tasmanian firms Huon and Cadbury, the Coalition has reportedly ear-marked tens-of-billions of taxpayer dollars to local defence manufacturing, when high quality imports are available at a fraction of the cost:

Tony Abbott's Coalition government is considering a $10 billion to $15 billion-program to help the inefficient local defence industry make 1,000 armoured vehicles and at least $50 billion for naval shipbuilders...

However, if Australia wants to improve its defence capability, it should import high-quality weapons, rather than spending billions extra on trouble-plagued local production. Backed by the Victorian and South Australian governments, the local industry is pressuring Abbott to "create jobs" by building a long list of weapons. Topping the list are uniquely designed submarines for about $40 billion, although proven high-performance subs can be imported for $5 billion to $6 billion.

The Coalition's hard line on industry assistance appears curious when viewed alongside its defence procurement policy. The fact remains that Australia could easily purchase proven, fit-for-purpose military hardware from abroad at a fraction of the cost of developing similar technology locally, saving taxpayers billions in the process. While there's an argument for local jobs, this same argument could equally be applied to manufacturers like Holden, Toyota, or SPC Ardmona where the subsidies were infinitesimal by comparison.

Contradictions are also apparent with the Coalition's proposal to extend aid to farmers hit by drought:

Yesterday in a shearing shed in Bourke, in outback NSW, as rain poured down, Mr Abbott pledged to assembled farmers that his government would do much more to help them cope financially and socially with the current drought...

"This is a government that is determined to stand by the people of Australia in good times and in bad." The Prime Minister promised to take a drought relief package to cabinet "within days", expected to be Monday next week. It is expected to focus on widening the existing $420m cheap farm loan scheme introduced by the Labor government in June by adding an expected $280m to the loan pool; lowering interest rates from 5 per cent to less than 4.5 per cent; repayable to the government over 10 years, rather than five; and allowing farmers to refinance up to $2m of debt instead of the current $650,000.

Drought-stricken farmers are also likely to become eligible for disaster-relief cash payments and ongoing welfare funding...

While it is true that agriculture is different to other industries in that its output and survival depend primarily on the weather, pests and disease - which is not something that most other industries face - drought assistance does appear to have become a permanent feature of the sector, stretching well beyond "exceptional circumstances". Moreover, as noted by Judith Sloan today, a significant proportion of assistance is provided to "failing farm businesses" that never make a profit even during the good times. There is also an argument that continual drought assistance has created moral hazard in farming, whereby some farms spend their profits during the good times, whilst socialising losses during the bad.

In any event, farm assistance is an area where the Government is walking a tight line between ameliorating genuine hardship and propping-up businesses with no viable long-term future, which opens it up to claims of inconsistency on corporate welfare and entitlements.

Finally, as outlined by Lenore Taylor over the weekend, Joe Hockey's claim that "everyone has to live within their means, whether it's a company, whether it's a family, whether it's an individual, whether it's a government" would hold more weight if politicians and executives also agreed to take a haircut, rather than expecting the working-class and disadvantaged to bear the burden of cuts:

There is a group of workers whose conditions far exceed the perks at SPC Ardmona...

Perks available to this lucky group include a round the world first class fare for themselves and their spouse, with accommodation and expenses, every year, as well as allowances to buy any books and publications they want and generous airfares and travel allowances with a very broad definition of the "work" they need to be doing to qualify. And, guess what, they get to determine a lot of the guidelines and rules for the perks themselves.

This group of workers is of course federal politicians...

It would be much easier to win support for a national "heavy lifting" effort, to combat rising unemployment and get the economy through a period of very difficult change, if there was clear evidence that everyone - workers, executives, even politicians - were putting in a bit of the grunt.

Lenore Taylor is spot on. How the Government can beat up on workers, whilst ignoring politicians own perks and the outrageous sums paid to the nation's executives, is staggering [for example, Qantas' Alan Joyce received $3.3 million last financial year].

The above examples highlight why the Government needs to have a consistent and transparent methodology if it is to achieve its goal of "ending the age of entitlement". Slashing benefits to some sections of the economy, whilst allowing egregious lurks to remain in others - including politicians and executives - is less likely to garner community support for reform, and will also ensure that the burden of adjustment is not broad-based, undermining its efficacy.

This piece was originally published at MacroBusiness.

Leith van Onselen writes as the Unconventional Economist at MacroBusiness. View his full profile here.

Abbott talks gruel while lavishing pork - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Paula Matthewson

Photo: Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are paving the way for some tough new budget decisions. (Paul Miller: AAP)

Abbott and Hockey appear to have mastered the alchemy of public opinion transformation, but will face their biggest test when they release their first budget, writes Paula Matthewson.

Given the option, most politicians would prefer to do what the community wants instead of what it needs. But governments that configure their policies to meet only the voter popularity test inevitably will be faced with a humongous bill and the twin terrors of debt and deficit.

The solution to this conundrum is surprisingly straightforward: Simply convince the public to support an otherwise unpopular but necessary government action. While not quite an act of sorcery, this ability to transform public opinion can help a politician or government lead a relatively charmed life. And it is often seen as the measure of a truly effective government.

Kevin Rudd once had the knack, being able to turn public opinion 180 degrees in his favour. His most audacious prestidigitation was as opposition leader in 2007 when he told Australians made comfortable by years of middle-class welfare under John Howard that "this reckless spending must stop". Capturing the public's imagination as well as that of the media and political commentators, Rudd made fiscal responsibility the new black and thereby relegated Howard to the Whitlam and other Profligates' Hall of Shame.

It's a matter of record that Rudd's eventual successor as prime minister, Julia Gillard, did less well in convincing Australians to bear a little carbon price pain for some climate action gain. Gillard did, however, prove to be a more adept apprentice as time went on, transforming both the potentially unpopular increase to the Medicare levy for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the scrapping of the surplus into actions widely welcomed by the media, commentariat and broader community as sensible and appropriate.

And now Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are proving to be keen acolytes, converting what could have become public opprobrium into widespread support for scrapping assistance to the car manufacturing industry.

Abbott and Hockey did this by slowly but persistently chipping away at the locally-based but foreign-owned operations' credibility, questioning their intentions, and undermining their grass-roots support by implying they were nothing more than spivs and carpet-baggers.

The Productivity Commission inquiry into the domestic car manufacturing industry, the results of which were never in doubt, was meant to be the final piece of damning evidence against car industry subsidies. But events moved more quickly than the government expected after Hockey clumsily called Holden's bluff in December.

Despite Hockey's over-reach, public opinion has moved from supporting the local manufacturers to the government. Back in January 2012 an Essential poll found 68 per cent of Australians supported the current levels of assistance to the car manufacturers and 58 per cent supported giving them even more. Public approval of subsidies was still high at 58 per cent in October last year, but by December only 45 per cent approved of subsidies to Holden (and even less of increased subsidies to keep Toyota in Australia). The latest poll by Essential finds support has now dropped to 36 per cent*.

This change of sentiment suggests Australians can see the broader merit of some tough decisions being made by the government, which is admittedly easy to do if it's not your own pay cheque on the line. The next test of whether Abbott and Hockey have mastered the alchemy of public opinion transformation will come when the federal budget is handed down in May.

By all accounts, the first Abbott/Hockey budget is going to be a harsh one – for households, businesses and marginal seat holders.

Having talked tough on fiscal responsibility since being elected (although not consistently walking that talk), the government's gestures and incantations – from MYEFO and the Commission of Audit to keynote speeches and feature articles - are all crafted to shape voter expectations into acceptance, if not support, for a budget that shares the pain around. The age of entitlement, according to Hockey, has become the age of responsibility. In short, he's trying to recreate the Rudd magic of 2007.

Expectations management for the budget is just the beginning. The many reviews and inquiries, accompanied by thought-bubble debates in the media suggest the government is also trying to frame the debate, shape views and normalise unpopular reform plans for a range of contentious matters including welfare payments, privatisation of government assets, the unions, and the ABC.

The government may see these also as a simple matter of convincing the Australian public to want what the country needs. But the latter point – what the country needs – might well become hotly contested ground.

* The Essential poll questions on subsidies for the local car manufacturing industry vary, but nevertheless indicate a downward trend over time.

This is the first of a weekly column by Paula Matthewson. View her full profile here.

Coalition eases us into tough love policies - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Donald Rothwell

Photo: Parts of Operation Sovereign Borders are legally dubious and raise serious questions.

Australia has a legal right to defend its shores, but the Abbott government's border protection policy has begun to drift into some legal grey areas, writes Donald Rothwell.

Images of bright red lifeboats appearing unannounced along the Indonesian coast and Australian diplomats being summoned in Jakarta to receive formal protests over the conduct of Operation Sovereign Borders are the latest chapter in the saga of the Abbot government's border protection policy.

An inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the violation by the Australian Navy of Indonesian sovereignty had also recently been completed with a public version of that report about to be released.

Meanwhile, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Marty Natalegawa, continues to voice his concerns over Operation Sovereign Borders, indicating that the use of lifeboats has escalated the diplomatic rift and that he will be raising Australia's conduct this week in talks with the US Secretary of State, John Kerry.

While the Abbott government refuses to discuss any "on water" matters associated with Operation Sovereign Borders, it would seem reasonable to conclude that lifeboats are being used to return asylum seekers to Indonesia.

The recent purchase of lifeboats by the Australian government has been confirmed. Video images of a lifeboat being towed by an Australian government vessel have not been disputed. At least two lifeboats have washed ashore in Indonesia, baffling local authorities as to their origin and ownership.

Australia has a considerable capacity to protect its sea borders with the Convention on the Law of the Sea providing the legal framework.

Both Australia and Indonesia are parties to the convention, which alongside provisions of the 2000 People Smuggling Protocol to the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime give to Australia a wide array of powers to stop, search and exercise control over vessels carrying asylum seekers that enter Australia's maritime zones. Those powers extend to taking control of those vessels, many of which are not flying the Indonesian flag and appear to be stateless, and removing them from Australian waters.

However, towing or escorting those vessels back into the adjoining Indonesian exclusive economic zone without Indonesia's consent is legally dubious.

In particular, Indonesia could assert that any Australian tow back operation within the Indonesian exclusive economic zone is inconsistent with the freedom of navigation.

Official descriptions of Operation Sovereign Borders as a "military-led, border security operation" in which Australia asserts sovereignty over its borders, necessarily leads to the conclusion that Australia is asserting an aspect of its sovereignty during a tow back or escort operation. Evidence in the public domain appears to support the view that Australian Navy and Customs ships have towed vessels, which may include lifeboats, into Indonesian waters and at some point that activity is discontinued with the expectation that the towed vessel make its way towards the Indonesian coast and eventual landfall.

Such an activity cannot be characterised as Australia exercising the freedom of navigation but rather bringing another vessel into Indonesian waters without consent.

While Australia is protesting the unauthorised entry of asylum seeker vessels into its waters, Indonesia also has equivalent rights and obligations to Australia within its maritime zones.

In that respect it needs to be made clear that the mere presence of an Australian Navy ship within the Indonesian 12 nautical mile (22km) territorial sea is not a violation of international law. Australian Navy ships enjoy a right of innocent passage within the Indonesian territorial sea and associated navigation rights throughout the greater Indonesian archipelago.

These navigational rights are critical to Australian trading interests in South-East Asia and are also a component of Australia's maritime security.

However, the entry into Indonesia's territorial sea by an Australian Navy or Customs vessel that has control over an asylum seeker boat by way of a tow line, with the intention of returning that boat to Indonesia, would not be consistent with the right of innocent passage.

In that instance, Indonesia could, under the law of the sea, take steps to prevent such passage, including interdiction by its Navy. Reports that Indonesia has increased maritime patrols of its southern borders suggests that Australia will need to exercise great care to ensure a maritime clash is avoided.

The use of lifeboats into which asylum seekers are transferred and returned to Indonesia raise additional legal issues. These extend to Australia's responsibility under international law for the control that it has exercised over the asylum seekers including the refusal to consider their asylum claims, providing them with a lifeboat by which they are directed to return to Indonesia, and the safety and security of that lifeboat.

Legal issues would arise if the lifeboat is not adequately provisioned with fuel, food and water and has appropriate navigational equipment. It also raises questions as to whether the persons placed in control of the lifeboat have the seamanship skills to be able to successfully navigate their way back to the Indonesian coast.

Variables would also need to be taken into account to ensure the safe return of the lifeboat to shore such as the prevailing sea conditions and the weather, both at the time of release of the tow line but also in the coming hours and days. If a maritime disaster was to strike a lifeboat resulting in loss of life then Australia's responsibility under international law could be considerable.

Donald R Rothwell is Professor of International Law at the ANU College of Law, Australian National University. View his full profile here.

Border policy strays into uncharted waters - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Sun 16 Feb 2014

Video: Scott Morrison speaks with Insiders (Insiders)

Photo: Scott Morrison says the report will be shared with Indonesia before being released publicly. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts)

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says an internal report on Australian intrusions into Indonesian waters will be shared with Indonesia before it is released publicly.

Mr Morrison says the Customs-Defence report confirms Australian border protection ships inadvertently entered Indonesian waters during Operation Sovereign Borders.

He revealed last month the Navy had breached Indonesian waters on several occasions.

Speaking on the ABC's Insiders program this morning, Mr Morrison reiterated the intrusions were unintentional and said the review findings would be shared with Indonesia before being made public.

"The first thing we did when this was brought to our attention is that our Chief of Navy spoke to his counterpart in Indonesia and had a lengthy discussion," Mr Morrison said.

"There will be further discussions along those lines in relation to this report.

"It was inadvertent, it was contrary to the Government's policy and a thorough report and review has been conducted.

"We'll be sharing that with our counterparts in Indonesia."

Mr Morrison refused to reveal how many ships breached Indonesian waters.

"This is the subject of a report which has gone to the CDF (Chief of the Defence Force) and has gone to the chief executive of Customs and the appropriate way for it to be released is how they've determined," he said.

"I'm not going to pre-empt the report."

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says the Government is addicted to secrecy.

"We have our military forces who are subject to rumour and innuendo because of addiction to secrecy by the Abbott Government," he told reporters in Adelaide, where he was launching Labor's state election campaign.

"They should trust the Australian people with information."

Indonesia welcome to raise concerns with US: Morrison

Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa has said he will raise Australia's asylum seeker policy during talks with United States secretary of state John Kerry, who arrived in Jakarta today.

Dr Natalegawa has taken particular issue with the Navy sending asylum seekers back in lifeboats.

He called in Australia's ambassador to Indonesia, Greg Moriarty, to discuss the matter.

Mr Morrison said Indonesia is welcome to raise concerns about Australia's border protection policies with the US, but the Government remains determined to stop asylum seeker boats coming to Australia.

He said what is discussed between Indonesia and the US is a matter for them.

"We've held a very consistent dialogue with Indonesia over all of these issues and that's been continuing and it will continue into the future," he said.

"But one of the long-standing irritants of this relationship has been this issue of vessels coming to Australia.

"We're addressing that. We have now gone over eight weeks without one successful people-smuggling venture reaching Australia.

"Now that is news I welcome. It's news I hope all Australians welcome."

Scott Morrison says Navy intrusion report to be shared with Indonesia - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Kate Lamb in Jakarta and Oliver Laughland in Sydney

theguardian.com, Friday 14 February 2014

Exclusive: Indonesian navy says incursions were occurring ‘more and more often’ before 6 January incident

Damage sustained by asylum seeker boat that landed on Rote island on 6 January after being turned back by Australian navy. Photograph: Indonesian navy report

Australian naval ships entered Indonesian territorial waters often and with ease before the incursions sparked a diplomatic incident in January, according to a leaked Indonesian navy report, and an Indonesian navy spokesman reiterated that the 6 January incursion was a knowing and intentional breach.

The dossier, signed off by a senior naval commander in eastern Indonesia, is an official report into the boat that landed on remote Rote island on 6 January after being turned back by the Australian navy. The report suggests three Australian naval vessels had entered Indonesian territorial waters and implies the incursion may have been intentional.

“It was too easy for the Australian warships to enter Republic of Indonesia territorial waters without detection,” the report says.

The same boat was the subject of allegations that asylum seekers on board had their hands burned by naval personnel. The report, parts of which have been seen by Guardian Australia, also contains further details on those allegations.

The report says incursions were becoming more regular: “In anticipation of the entry of Australian warships (foreign war vessels) into Indonesian territorial waters, already occurring more and more often, it is necessary to increase Indonesian sovereignty in carrying out more patrols in and around the waters of Rote Ndao and Dana Island, so that foreign warships do not enter Indonesian territorial waters again,” it says.

The document provides the first official documentation that an Australian naval incursion had occurred, and shows that Indonesian agencies were aware the incursions were continuing.

Previously, Operation Sovereign Borders commander, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, had admitted to unintentional territorial breaches on “several occasions” but would not say where or when they had taken place and how many vessels had been involved.

Recent reports have indicated that about five incursions occurred between December and January.

An asylum seeker aboard the boat, Yousif Ibrahim Fasher, who detailed allegations of the burned hands to Fairfax media, also said that the accompanying Australian naval vessels had turned their lights off during the last two nights of the journey on 4 and 5 January. His account also suggests that only two Australian naval vessels had accompanied the asylum seekers.

On Friday, Indonesian navy spokesman Commodore Untung Suropati told Guardian Australia the 6 January incursion was a knowing and intentional breach by the Australian navy.

Suropati said Indonesian naval intelligence showed that the Australian vessels had come within seven miles (11km) of the shore on Rote island. Indonesia’s territorial waters extend to 12 nautical miles (22km).

“In the current era, navigation equipment to determine the position of a ship is very advanced. Therefore, it is not reasonable if it is said to be unintentional or not knowing,” Suropati added.

“This is not only the view of Indonesian navy, but is also shared with all other institutions and our stakeholders, especially those operating in sea, that the Australian navy has violated Indonesian territory,” Suropati told Guardian Australia via email.

While the Indonesian government seeks further clarification, Suropati says the navy has already moved to boost patrols, relocating warships, including torpedo and missile craft, to prevent further incursions.

The movement of Indonesian vessels to the southern border was widely reported in the context of incursions in January.

On Friday, a spokeswoman for the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, reiterated that the incursions occurred “unintentionally and without knowledge or sanction by the Australian government”.

On Thursday night, Australian Customs chief Michael Pezzullo also repeated that the incursions were “thoroughly inadvertent”, having read a detailed report into the incidents, which seems unlikely to be publicly released.

Morrison’s spokeswoman told Guardian Australia the government would “advise Indonesia on the results of the joint [Defence and Customs] review undertaken into these incidents”. Commanders had “taken operational steps to ensure there is no recurrence of these incidents”, she said.

The Indonesian report also shows that the asylum seekers aboard made allegations of “acts of violence from the Australian navy” and includes more photographs of the injuries they allegedly sustained.

One photograph documents, “burn wounds on the right hand of an immigrant resulting from being forced to hold onto the ship’s engine, which was hot, by the Australian navy”.

Photograph: Indonesian navy report

Another shows a young female woman who, according to the image caption, was “pushed by the Australian navy resulting in a sprained ankle”.

Photograph: Indonesian navy report

Another image is captioned: “Right thigh of immigrant bruised as a result of being trodden on by the Australian navy.”

Photograph: Indonesian navy report

The report also contains the first images of the landing of the asylum seeker boat, which is described as “struck by waves on to the coral reef”. It shows a picture of the damage sustained to the hull.

First images of the landing of the asylum seeker boat, which is described as being ‘struck by waves onto the coral reef’. Photograph: Indonesian navy report

The photographs relate to the widely reported allegations that a number of the asylum seekers aboard the boat were assaulted by Australian naval personnel, with three allegedly having their hands burned on the motor of the boat.

These allegations have been consistently denied by Scott Morrison and the prime minister, Tony Abbott, who said there was “absolutely no evidence for them”.

Morrison’s spokeswoman told Guardian Australia on Friday: “The repetition of unsubstantiated and wild allegations doesn’t make those claims any more credible or deserving of further review.

“The minister has been advised there has been no request for assistance or request for information in relation to this matter from Indonesian authorities or any non-government organisation.”

Photograph: Indonesian navy report

The government has been under pressure to mount an investigation into the claims.

Suropati told Guardian Australia the Indonesian navy’s investigation with the Indonesian police had “strengthened the existence of [evidence of] physical violence which were experienced by some asylum seekers. And this is a fact that happened.”

He said he could not comment on the status of Indonesian police inquiries.

Australian navy went into Indonesian waters 'too easily' and 'often' | World news | theguardian.com