Entitlement makes up for lost production

Joe Hockey was fond of talking about the end of the age of entitlement, basically meaning that people should not expect support from government and should buy their services in the market — including health and education services if he had had his way. There are, however, various good reasons why government should be fully involved in welfare and the delivery of services. I will look at one of them, one that we do not often think about.

Early this year in his pieces on tax reform, 2353 pointed to the fact that couples with young children may look to government for financial support because the children are non-productive members of the family. The question is whether that is a legitimate claim on the government. Joe Hockey would likely have said not but, historically, I believe it is because it is government, and society in general, that has played the major role in creating that situation by regulating access to the labour market.

The economic role of children has changed as society has changed. In hunter-gatherer societies children of both sexes from a very young age assisted in the collection activities of their mothers — they actually learned by being involved. As the boys got older, they would join their fathers, uncles and other males in the hunt and learn to track, pursue and kill game.

In agricultural societies (and even on modern farms), children also contribute from a young age. In Australia in the 1800s, after schooling became widespread, it was still common in rural areas for school attendance to drop significantly at harvest time as the children’s first priority was to help on the farm, and that applied to both female and male children. As an example, in 1870 at a place then known as Moorwatha in south-western NSW, a regular school attendance of over 40 dropped to fewer than 20 at harvest time.

In the early years of the industrial revolution, children as young as 7 or 8 worked in factories and mines but, even in Britain from the 1830s, the government changed the rules to limit the hours children worked and the age at which they could.

From the 1930s to the 1960s in Australia it was common for male children, usually around 12 to 14, to work as paperboys on city corners or walk suburban streets selling their newspapers, or to see them assisting with the daily delivery of milk or bread. (Who remembers milk and bread deliveries?)

So it can be argued that until about the mid 1900s children were not unproductive members of a family but were essential economic contributors. It was only the wealthy who had unproductive children (and, as much as I would like to, I won’t get into the argument that they also became unproductive adults).

We also made formal education for children compulsory and gradually increased the years of schooling that we thought necessary. Early on it was normal for children to leave education at the end of primary school (aged about 11 or 12): then 14 was made a compulsory age for schooling, and then 15. We now encourage everyone to complete Year 12 (aged 17 to 18) — some, but not all states have made 17 the new minimum age for leaving school — and then to undertake further tertiary education at TAFE or university so that ‘children’ now may not complete their education until they are at least 19 or 20, if not older, in effect giving up from 5 to 10 years of productive work.

In our modern society, students can find part-time work from age 15, particularly in the retail and fast food industries, and still remain in education. In that regard, there is still some scope to contribute economically but it is now more limited.

If society and government have changed the rules so that children can no longer contribute economically to their families as much as in the past, then who has the responsibility to make up for that lost production?

In many early societies, elderly people were acknowledged as the repository of wisdom, of experience, life skills and knowledge of the world in which a community operated. Even if they were no longer physically productive, they may know the best foods, the best places to search for food. They retained the knowledge of the medicinal qualities of plants. They were sought out and valued for that knowledge. That changed with the means of retaining knowledge in books, then those books being printed and becoming widely available. Now we have computers, the internet and the knowledge explosion. Older people are now often seen as ‘behind the times’ but that doesn’t mean they still don’t have extensive knowledge of life skills, of the informal rules that operate in their communities and emotional knowledge and understanding.

In some societies elders were (and still are) given additional status by the practice of ancestor worship. As the elderly approach the time at which they will join the ancestors they are cared for by the living to ensure that they continue to contribute to their descendants’ good fortune after they pass over.

Pensions were introduced partly to meet the needs of a growing population. It was a way of providing for people when they became too feeble to work. In the 1800s in England, older people often ended their days in ‘workhouses’ and later ‘alms houses’. A growing population meant it was cheaper to provide pensions and allow elderly people to support themselves rather than build many more alms houses. Australia never had a system of workhouses, so aged pensions were introduced, initially at the state level, some years before they were in the UK.

The other argument, based on Australia’s lead in social welfare, was that after people had worked for over 50 years, originally from age 12 or 14 to 65, they had made their contribution to society and deserved an adequate retirement. (It was a similar argument used to justify long service after each ten year period of service.)

Then came the baby boomers. Long term projections at the time raised the prospect that when the baby boomers entered the workforce there would not be enough jobs. There are two means by which the size of the available workforce has traditionally been managed: by lengthening the period of education and/or lowering the retirement age. To ensure enough employment would be available for the baby boomers, Australia relied mainly on lengthening the period of education, thus allowing time for more of the then existing workforce to retire before the baby boomers entered. We also allowed early retirement in some cases without changing the official age of retirement. In the current climate, with fears of a smaller workforce as the baby boomers retire, we have focused on increasing the retirement age rather than lowering the age for compulsory education. In Europe, facing a similar problem, many governments initially lowered the retirement age and are now increasing it again.

On the other hand, much modern work is information based, rather than relying on physical labour, and there is no good reason why older people cannot continue in such work. They would often be the keepers of corporate knowledge. With the knowledge explosion, we seem to have forgotten the old adage about learning from the past and not repeating its mistakes. In Australia people who lose a job when they are over 50 have considerable difficulty finding new work and often become long-term unemployed. Their life-time skills and knowledge are disregarded as irrelevant in our modern world.

I have a personal example when a young woman from another government department suggested her department had a ‘new’ idea for Aboriginal affairs. I informed her that it had been tried over 15 years previously and not worked: if it was to work, it required acceptance of higher costs and the government had not then, nor when we spoke, been prepared to accept those costs. I might say that without my corporate knowledge a mistake would have been repeated. Why such corporate knowledge is now seen as ‘old fashioned’ is a mystery to me.

Although the government in recent years has been encouraging people to remain longer in the workforce and offering incentives for employers to retain older people, it does not yet appear to be happening to any significant degree. The government allows the market to determine what it does and employers are not taking up the opportunities that changes in government policy are providing. So there is much lost productivity, for individuals, their families and the economy.

Longer periods of education are justified not only in terms of managing the size of the workforce but because more knowledge is available for learning and many jobs in the new economy require higher level skills. Hockey and his fellow neo-liberals have been keen to increase university fees on the basis that graduates will have access to higher incomes — that may be true but comes in return for giving up years of potential earning. That lost earning capacity comes at a cost not merely to the individual but to their family — which is one reason why participation of lower socio-economic groups in higher education has not improved as much as expected.

The point is that it is actually the government that is determining the period when people can be economically productive members of society.

Despite governments having over the years made the rules that reduced the productive activity of children and the elderly, the likes of Hockey, and other believers in the neo-liberal agenda, suggest that services for the young and old should be provided by the market — rather than alms houses we now have privately owned retirement villages and the encouragement of private schools. Can you see the inconsistency in that approach?

How can the young and the elderly purchase in the market when the government has put in place rules that restrict them from earning in the market? They are left with only two options: reliance on the earning capacity, and support, of the productive members of their families or reliance on government assistance, whether in cash or services. To the extent that the changes have reduced the total productive activity of families, by removing the young and the elderly, then surely it is logical that government meets the costs of the changes it has made.

I am not suggesting that we should turn back the clock to the worst of child labour, or elderly people working until they drop, but we need to acknowledge the historic changes that have taken place in our society, that have changed the economic contribution of the young and the elderly, and consider who bears the responsibility.

If it is government, as the political representative of society, that has changed the opportunity for effective economic productivity for children and the elderly then why shouldn’t it be government that accepts the cost? The argument becomes a market-based argument, not a welfare argument — which should be acceptable to Morrison, Hockey and their ilk: as a society we have, even if for good reason, removed the right of children and the elderly to participate in the labour market and therefore we, as a society, through our government, have an obligation to make up for that lost production for the individuals and their families.

What do you think?
As Ken has presented a very different and unusual argument supporting government provision of welfare and services, we will be very interested in your reaction. Does Ken’s historical argument stand up?

Next week, as the weather forecasters are predicting a severe El Nino this summer, Ken takes a look at the state of water in Australia and some of the politics involved, in ‘Where does all the water go?’.

The year of morals and ethics

It is likely that 2015 will be remembered around the world as the year when morals and ethics overcame deception and greed. There are a number of examples that could be given with regard to investment funds, rorting allowances and living circumstances as well as just corporate greed. Let’s just confine ourselves to a few.

In August this year, Fairfax and the ABC reported on a joint investigation into the chronic underpayment of wages to employees of 7-Eleven franchisees. According to Fairfax, 7-Eleven has 620 stores in Australia, predominately on the east coast. The joint investigation discovered that there were significant differences between the payroll records and the actual working hours of a number of employees — mostly overseas students in this country on student visas (which have restrictive work conditions).

The results of the investigation were reported by Fairfax on 29 August and broadcast by ABC on its Four Corners program on 31 August 2015. By 2 September, there were moves to call the 7-Eleven franchisor to appear before a Senate committee.

While the owners and operators of 7-Eleven may not be appreciating the attention at the moment, it seems that Fairfax and the ABC have reported fairly and accurately on a systemic failing of a large company. The company concerned is not denying the allegations, rather it has set up an ‘independent panel’ to assess the claims of affected employees (who are paid through the franchisor’s office) and to work with the Fair Work Ombudsman in the prosecution of a Sydney franchisee. The chairman of 7-Eleven Australia for many years, Russ Withers, as well as the General Manager Operations, Natalie Dalbo, have subsequently stood down.

Michael Smith, former Director of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and iiNet, was installed as Chairman of 7-Eleven with a brief to fix the problem and repair the reputation of 7-Eleven. He was reported as commenting:
7-Eleven was the tip of the iceberg for wage exploitation of young and foreign workers in Australia, adding: "We have a problem in this country."
Similar staffing accusations have been made against Australia Post contractors and United Petroleum franchisees which adds some veracity to Smith’s claim.

Clearly there is an issue. Unfortunately, the issue of deception is not limited to Australia. Around the world there are various regulations surrounding the emissions that motor vehicles are permitted to pump into the air. Some Volkswagen vehicles in the United States were discovered to be emitting up to 40 times the volume of some chemicals than they should have been. You can read about how the deception was discovered here and how VW organised it here.

After a number of high ranking VW employees ‘falling on their swords’ over the last month or so, the new CEO of Passenger Cars, Dr Herbert Diess, claimed the company ‘did some things that were wrong’. Surely an understatement from a moral point of view.

In the case of both 7-Eleven and VW, while the morals may be questionable, the objective was clearly to cut corners and enable a larger return to those that have a financial interest in the company. As a result of the reaction to the publicity regarding wage underpayment, the 7-Eleven franchise system in Australia has been altered to give those that actually operate the stores more than the previously contracted 43% of the store’s profit, and VW will be working out how to retrofit something like 11 million cars around the world so that they perform and emit the quantity of chemicals, as originally specified in the glossy brochure, with oversight from various countries that do care about emissions levels. (It is a telling point that in Australia, the ACCC is the agency investigating VW, not for the excessive emissions but for a breach of advertising standards.) In either case, there was short term financial gain with, one suspects, a fair degree of long term financial pain ahead.

While we could claim money is a motive for large companies to attempt to deceive, when governments do the same thing you have to ask why.

Days after the 2013 election, then PM Abbott and then Immigration Minister Morrison announced ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ where Abbott effectively said that he would implement his ‘no more boats’ slogan — whatever it takes. One of the early actions was to withdraw information from the public, claiming ‘operational security’. In their submission for the 2014‒15 federal budget, the Australian Churches Refugee Taskforce argued:
In 2013-14 Australia will spend almost two-thirds as much locking up in detention a few thousand people seeking asylum, as the entire UNHCR spend in the last financial year assisting tens of millions of refugees and asylum seekers worldwide. This is a grossly disproportionate amount of money and is unjustifiable waste in terms of both the financial and human costs; with men, women and children being held in inhumane conditions in detention camps offshore.
In addition:
The publicly known allocations to offshore processing alone for the Department of Immigration for 2013-14 thus far are in excess of $3.28 billion. This figure excludes other associated costs which have been earmarked as commercial in confidence and not released, costs for these operations borne by other departments or arms of government, and other significant incentives offered to those countries in order to gain agreement with these operations.
For reference:
Yet by comparison, in 2013 the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) announced that its annual budget (composed primarily of voluntary donations) had reached a ‘new annual high of US$5.3 billion’ at the end of June 2013. The UNHCR has staff of more than 7,600 people in over than 125 countries and helps tens of millions of people.
In the 2014 budget the Abbott/Turnbull government was attempting to introduce a $7 ‘co-payment’ for consulting with a medical practitioner in Australia and ensuring that those under 30 who were unfortunate enough to be unemployed would have to wait six months to receive help from the social security system. Those measures were justified as helping to ‘repair’ the ‘budget emergency’. The same people were spending $3.28 billion of your and my money on fulfilling an election policy that is inherently xenophobic and of little value to Australia.

In addition to the extravagant waste of money that could have been spent helping those in need or creating infrastructure (after all Abbott claimed he was to be the ‘infrastructure Prime Minister’), Australian military units breached Indonesian territorial waters on several occasions which created a gulf in the bi-lateral relations between Australia and Indonesia. Towing back boats is also probably illegal:
International maritime law prohibits Australia from interfering with boats that fly the flag of another country on the high seas for the purpose of preventing their entry into Australia. Prohibited interference on the high seas includes transferring passengers onto Australian vessels or “towing back” the vessel.
For those who managed to evade the ‘tow back to Indonesia’ option, the Australian government has another form of torture for the innocent refugee. These ‘lucky’ people are flown off to detention centres in Nauru or Manus Island — part of PNG — to fulfil the ‘promise’ that ‘boat people will never live in Australia’. The treatment of those sent to Nauru can be summed up by the story of a Somali woman, allegedly raped by security guards on the Island, flown to Australia for an abortion and returned to Nauru before the procedure, apparently just prior to legal proceedings occurring to prevent the woman being returned to Nauru. While the Government claimed the woman had changed her mind about undergoing the abortion (a claim disputed by her legal team), an academic writer has suggested that the actions of the Australian government are similar to the ‘extraordinary rendition’ process practised by the USA during the war against Saddam Hussain:
Extraordinary rendition depended on the CIA’s ability to exert de facto control over its allies while remaining at arm’s lengths from the dirty work they performed.

Australian refugee policy works in the same way.

“People who are in the regional processing centres are the responsibility of either the Nauruan government or the PNG government,’ Dutton told Emma Alberici on the ABC’s Lateline program earlier this month.

Of course, Nauru was formally administered by Australia until 1966, just as PNG was until 1975. Both nations are heavily dependent on Australian aid. When they were asked to host detention centres, the suggestion was, as Marlon Brando might put it, an offer they could not refuse.
Until February 2014, the Salvation Army had been providing recreational and mental health services to refugees on both Nauru and Manus Island in PNG. The contract with the government was cancelled late in 2013 by then Immigration Minister Morrison. Morrison danced around the reason for the cancellation as well as refusing to discuss who would take over the provision of humanitarian services:
“I wouldn't be making any comment on those matters at this stage, only to say that the contract arrangements for our offshore operations are in the process of being determined with a view to improving our operational effectiveness at all of those centres based on everything we've been gleaning for the past 13 weeks since we've been in office," he said.

When told the Salvation Army had confirmed the contract termination, Morrison refused to say whether another provider would be brought in to provide the services, saying: "I provided the answer I'm giving today."
Could it be that the reason for the cancellation was actually in the same news report?
In the past, Salvation Army workers have blown the whistle on harsh conditions at both Manus and Nauru.
Roll forward to October 2015 and nothing has changed. Fairfax reported:
Charities working in immigration detention centres were asked to pay multimillion-dollar bonds that could be forfeited if they spoke out against government policy, as the Coalition sought to maintain secrecy over border protection.

In what critics say is the latest evidence of the government's determination to control information about its immigration detention program, aid agencies including Save the Children and the Australian Red Cross were asked to offer "performance security" — in one case, of $2 million — during negotiations over contracts relating to work caring for asylum seekers and refugees.
Without trying for a Godwin, are the Governments that were led by Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull so concerned about the uproar that evidence of the true conditions on Manus and Nauru would bring, they tried to deny culpability? It didn’t work in Nazi Germany, it didn’t work for 7-Eleven, it didn’t work for VW so why on earth does the Australian government believe it’s going to work for them?

There has been one Australian journalist permitted to visit Nauru in the past 18 months and he comes from The Australian, an outlet that is usually friendly to the Liberal/National Government. This Guardian article reports on the lack of journalists going to Nauru, the $8,000 non-refundable application fee is apparently a significant disincentive!

There is still a month or so left in 2015: wouldn’t it be nice if the (forced) re-discovery of morals and ethics in the corporate world extended to the Australian government? Both 7-Eleven and VW have admitted error and claim they are working to correct the failures of the past. While it may all be smoke and mirrors, there are certainly processes in place to watch the two companies’ new-found honesty and credibility. Various governments around the world are certainly watching VW’s rectification process as the Fair Work Commission is watching 7-Eleven.

If the Australian government came clean on ‘offshore processing’, our budget position would be close to $5 billion better off; the refugees held in what are reported to be sub-human conditions in Nauru and Manus Island would be allowed to come to Australia (along with others in refugee camps around the world) to prove their credentials, with the potential to be re-settled in a kind and humane manner; our culture would be enriched (as the various waves of immigration over the past 40,000 years have done); and the Australian government wouldn’t have to tie themselves in knots defending the indefensible. It’s logical, honest and needs to happen, so that next time we sing the national anthem, we actually mean the fifth and sixth lines of the second verse.
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share
What do you think?
Oh what a tangled web we weave! When large corporations are held to ethical standards and own up to their breaches, why can’t we expect the same of governments? Have we become so cynical of politics, of election lies, of ‘core and non-core’ promises, that we no longer expect ethical behaviour of our politicians? If that is the case, we have indeed reached a sorry state in which politicians have woven their own web of deceit far removed from ethical standards.

Next week Ken presents a very different take on the reasons why government is obliged to provide welfare and services in ‘Entitlement makes up for lost production’.

You can't patent ethics

Recently you may have missed the news that Yvonne D’arcy won her case in the Australian High Court. D’arcy had been involved in legal action against Myriad Genetics, a US biotech firm that developed a test to determine if people have a predisposition towards breast cancer. This was ground breaking stuff — and showed that, at least sometimes, the human will overcome corporate goals.

To discuss why this result is so important, we need to go back to the early years of the 21st century — 2003 to be exact. A quick disclaimer is required here. My medical training is limited to occasionally being able to get a ‘band-aid’ to remain where I want it for a period of more than a couple of hours: so the explanation of why this court case and its implications are important isn’t full of medical English.

In 2003, scientists completed the mapping of the human genome: in essence humans could now read and manipulate the biological codes written in the 3 billion building blocks of who we are and how we exist — our genome (or DNA). The formal project took 13 years. Although DNA had been identified 50 years prior to the finalisation of the Genome Project, and some items of DNA were worked on prior to ‘the project’, it took a while to work out what the 3 billion building blocks actually did. While it took 50 years to gain the understanding, now that we have it, those with the knowledge can compare what is in your body to what is expected to be there and identify a treatment for you, rather than for the average person of your age, gender, weight and so on, which leads to less adverse side effects and the better use of resources.

U.S.News reported:
Genomic medicine may help determine a person's risk of developing several specific medical conditions, including:
Cardiovascular disease
Neurodegenerative diseases
Neuropsychiatric disorders

Researchers are actively investigating the genomic and genetic mechanisms behind — and developing predictive testing for — such diverse medical conditions as:
Infectious diseases, from HIV/AIDS to the common cold
Ovarian cancer
Cardiovascular disease
Metabolic abnormalities
Neuropsychiatric conditions, such as epilepsy
Adverse drug reactions
Environmental exposure to toxins
It is possible to ask your general practitioner to arrange for your DNA to be mapped to identify potential problems. Before you go rushing down to see your doctor, however, consider this: if you discover that you have a predisposition for a form of cancer, you would have to disclose that information to your partner, your family as well as potentially those that make a business decision to insure you. In addition, in a similar way to saying those that live in Southern Tasmania are less likely than Queenslanders to acquire skin cancer, while you may have a predisposition it doesn’t necessarily follow that you will acquire the particular cancer. In May 2013, actor Angelina Jolie decided to undergo a preventative double mastectomy due to family history of breast cancer, supported by testing that revealed she carried mutated BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins — indicators of a predisposition towards acquiring breast cancer. She had no signs of breast cancer when she underwent the operation and while the probability is that she would have developed the condition, it’s not a certainty.

Those who have, or have seen those close to them, endure cancer treatment over the years would be aware that medical advances, such as better testing, have meant that treatments for cancer are more effective and less debilitating now than they were 10 or more years ago. While in the past, it was common for people to lose their hair and be incapacitated for days after treatment; it is a far less common occurrence today. To an extent, this is an outcome of personalised medicine; the science has identified the correct targeting and dosage of the medicine to reduce adverse side effects while still being effective.

Medical science could now go from ‘taking a punt’ on a standardised dose of medicine having a beneficial effect to creating medicine based on the person it is meant for. Personalised medicine is still in its infancy — there seems to be a lot of potential for further advances. As you would expect however, some of the testing and development for the processes to be used is expensive. And here is the point of this article.

Some companies will develop a process, be it for medicine, software or vehicle safety (as examples) and patent it. According to IP Australia (the Government body that registers patents in Australia), a patent is:
… a right that is granted for any device, substance, method or process that is new, inventive, and useful. A patent is legally enforceable and gives you (the owner), exclusive rights to commercially exploit the invention for the life of the patent.
Others may determine that the invention is so important to humanity or their reputation that they decide not to profit directly from the invention. You sometimes hear of ‘open source’ computer software — it is software that is developed by a group and freely available for use by anyone. The theory is that others will improve further on the developed software, to the benefit of all.

Some things cannot be patented: again according to IP Australia:
You cannot patent human beings or the biological process for their generation, artistic creations, mathematical models, plans, schemes or other purely mental processes.
The Human Genome Project has identified that a piece of protein known as BRCA1 and BRCA2 suppresses tumours in breasts and other organs by trying to fix damaged DNA or destroy what it can’t fix. A company in the USA called Myriad Technologies developed a test to determine the ‘health’ of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 protein and patented the mutated ‘indicator’ proteins that it identified during its research.

Myriad Technologies launched their product that would test for the mutated BRCA1 and BRCA2 protein in 1996. Myriad, a spin off from the University of Utah and others, had a business practice of ensuring exclusivity for its testing product to allow a return of the money that investors placed into the company. Myriad, which commenced operations in 1994, employed around 2,000 people, was publically traded and boasted revenue of USD723.1 million in 2015

After Myriad had sent a number of research bodies ‘cease and desist’ letters in regard to the identification of mutated BRCA1 and BRCA2 protein, the US Association of Pathologists as well as some researchers took Myriad to court over the patenting of ‘non-patentable material’. After a prolonged period and a number of court cases, the plaintiffs won the final avenue of appeal in the US court system, thus invalidating the patents.

Yvonne D’arcy — assisted by a well-known legal firm — was going through a similar struggle in Australia. After an appeal to the High Court, she won the case, which ensures that others can supply test kits for the proteins in question. A legal precedent has now been created, making it more certain that the court system will not entertain future claims of a similar nature.

Unfortunately it was not the first time that a company that commercialises medical research had relied on exclusivity to gain a return on their investment. In 2004, a subsidiary of the Mayo Clinic in the USA commenced offering testing for some auto-immune diseases where the drug dosage had to be managed to ensure benefit to the patient, rather than buying the ‘test kit’ from Prometheus, who licenced the technology embedded in the tests from a Montreal hospital. Prometheus sued the Mayo Clinic subsidiary in the California District Court and lost. The case was appealed through the US Court system leading to the patent being invalidated.

Medical research is expensive and has to be done correctly. That is why it is so expensive. When the product has an unintended side effect, the results can be deadly. Thalidomide was ‘invented’ in 1957 and was routinely given to pregnant mothers in the late 1950s and early 1960s to overcome the effects of ‘morning sickness’ across various countries, including Australia. Unfortunately, the drug caused a large number of birth defects and miscarriages. While the drug is still in use, regulators across the world introduced controls over the development and usage of drugs as a result of the shortcomings surrounding the inappropriate use of that drug early in its life.

So where to from here? We now have the technology to determine at a human protein level what is needed to sustain a healthy life — and the technology to individually treat people to rectify mutated or defective DNA on a personal level. Unfortunately the research and development of these options is not cheap. Our society operates on the basis that we are all entitled to receive reward for our labour — regardless of the type of labour. By the same token, the cost of research and some profit for the drug development company could preclude the availability of the drug for those without sufficient income.

Yvonne D’arcy and her legal team have made a stand that suggests that companies that go from nothing to over USD700 million in revenue in a period of about 20 years is not equitable or fair to those that cannot afford the testing that is potentially life saving. As a result, the testing for the ‘breast cancer’ DNA should be a lot cheaper due to competition. In contrast the medical development company would suggest to you that they need to make money ‘while the sun shines’ as the next project may cost tens of millions and then be a complete failure at the final hurdle before release.

While no one would want another Thalidomide tragedy, the cost to government of health care in Australia is increasing rapidly. There is a need for proper research, development and testing — all of which costs money. While former Treasurer Hockey’s claim that ‘The starting point is if our health and welfare and education systems stay exactly the same, Australia is going to run out of money to pay for them’, might be overblown, there has to be a point where the ethics of trying to provide a reasonable quality of life for people and the cost of doing so can balance.

If there were no legal way to protect the investment made in researching, developing and commercialising a test or drug that contains human proteins — and is therefore not able to be patented — would the test or drug come to market? There are other options to commercialise the product and retain some control but they would reduce profit margins. Would that be acceptable to the company shareholders? The dilemma is profit versus human condition. It’s a shame that (in Australia anyway) only ethics towards shareholders is legislated.

What do you think?
The world of medical research and new drugs and tests is a complex one. As 2353 explains, attempts to patent genetic material have been overturned in US and Australian courts but will that slow down essential research if companies cannot protect their ‘discoveries’? There are many conflicting issues involved that need to be guided by medical ethics but do profits or ethics come first?

Next week 2353 continues looking at ethics when he compares the ethical behaviour of some corporations and our government in ‘The year of morals and ethics’.

Are you sure you’re not a radical?

Back in September the government released its radicalisation awareness kit. The example contained in it of radical greenie Karen became the centre of attention in the twitterverse, on social media and in the mainstream media but should our concern end there?

All the detail and the booklet is available on the Living Safe Together government website. It was prepared on expert advice but how much was reworded by the public service on the orders of ministers and ministers’ offices we will probably never know.

It identifies three issues or three steps:
  • radicalisation
  • radicalisation to violence
  • violent extremism
Radicalisation: a process during which an individual’s beliefs move from being relatively mainstream to being supportive of drastic change in society that would have a negative impact on the rights and freedom of others. It does not necessarily mean a willingness to use violence to realise those beliefs, but some individuals come to believe that violence is justified to achieve ideological, political or social change.
That definition, from the glossary in the booklet, ignores that many radical ideas actually have as their aim the improvement of the rights and freedom of others, not just a negative impact. In other parts, the booklet actually acknowledges that when it states:
These attitudes differ significantly from how most members of society view social issues and participate politically. In most instances such behaviour does not pose a danger and can even benefit the Australian community. [emphasis added]
So the booklet is treading a fine line between radicalism and radicalism associated with violence but, in my view, does not do it well. Despite the statement quoted above, the overall impression is that radicalism will most often lead to violence.

It insists that Australia is a free society and people can express their views in many legal ways but radicalism is dangerous as soon as non-legal means are used (or ‘criminal activity’ as it is termed). The booklet concedes that some such activities may not cause serious harm but are still illegal: such as vandalism, minor property damage, trespassing or protesting in a violent way. It does state that:
Many forms of activism … can be disruptive but are often used simply to draw attention to a cause through peaceful means. This is a legitimate expression of freedom of belief and free speech in Australia.
The phrase ‘radical activism’ is used but never explained or explored. That term would better fit some of the minor illegal activities listed above: after all, how violent is trespassing? Instead the booklet seems to make a leap straight to violent extremism. Its occasional statements to the contrary seem to get lost or are ignored in making the link between radicalism and violence.

The well-publicised case study of Karen the environmentalist clearly shows the booklet’s blurred line between ‘activism’ and ‘violent extremism’. Karen’s activities, as listed, fit the description of activities that do not cause serious harm and it is in relation to Karen that the phrase ‘radical activism’ is used but her case study appears in the section on ‘violent extremism’. Surely there is a difference between trespassing, even spiking trees (for which a warning has been given), and planting a bomb in a public place? — but this booklet does not make that distinction. Even the experts whose research and information was used said that the example of Karen was a real-life case but had been shared with the department, one said, ‘as an example of someone who in fact did not radicalise’; another said she was a radical ‘but that does not make her a violent extremist’.

The booklet says the following on violent extremism:
If a person or group decides that fear, terror and violence are justified to achieve ideological, political or social change, and then acts on these beliefs, this is violent extremism.
The problem with that description is that it can also be applied to governments — the war in Iraq was to achieve ‘regime change’. History also shows that violence often arises in response to the violence of the state. When peaceful protests are met by water cannon, tear gas, baton charges, or in more extreme uses of force and violence, shooting into the demonstrators and using tanks, people movements often form a militant wing. The Black Panthers in America arose from the violence meted out to the non-violent protests of the civil rights marchers. The ANC in South Africa created a militant wing in response to violent government suppression of demonstrations. The current civil war in Syria arose from the reaction of the Assad government when it sent tanks against the mass street demonstrations opposing the government — people decided they needed to defend themselves. My point is, the resort to violence is not always a simple choice made by a radical group to achieve its aims but can arise from the actions of the state, when what start as peaceful protests are met by state-sanctioned violence.

While the booklet mentions ‘terror’, it does not explain it but I think there is an important distinction between terrorism and other acts of violence in support of radical ideas. While not supporting extreme violence, I must point out that current terrorism is often aimed at the civilian population. While there were examples of pure terrorism, in the 1960s and 1970s, there were also many overseas militant groups who targeted government and infrastructure and often gave warning of their attacks to avoid, or at least minimise, potential loss of life. Attacking infrastructure, while disruptive to the general population, put pressure on governments in terms of the cost of restoring services. I consider that modern terrorism, and what I would call genuine terrorism, targets the civilian population with the intent of creating fear and terror and attempting to put pressure on governments in that way. They should realise that it has never worked. Even the Blitz on London can be seen as a terrorist act in this context: Hitler turned the Luftwaffe from bombing military targets (airfields) and factories, to heavy bombing of the civilian population of London. He hoped that would pressure the British government to come to terms with him. It didn’t happen.

The booklet mentions potential sources of radical information which an individual may seek out:
Along with physical social networks, literature and music, the internet is often used by individuals to seek out perceived justifications or rationalisations of their use of violence.
A moderate statement except for the inclusion of music. The booklet does not make music a major issue but it is mentioned as well in the case study of Karen: turning to ‘alternative music’ was presented as one step on her road to radicalism. I hate to tell them but they should listen to a lot of folk music if they want to hear anti-establishment, anti-government messages. Over the centuries folk music has been important in supporting the oppressed and Ireland and many countries in South America have a long tradition of revolutionary music. I would no longer be termed a revolutionary but I still enjoy immensely listening to political and revolutionary folk songs: does that make me a radical inclined to violent extremism? — according to this booklet, perhaps it does.

The booklet lists behaviours that indicate an increasing level of intensity towards radical violent extremism, and labels the behaviours as: ‘notable’, which should be addressed by those close to the person; ‘concerning’ which may require responses from a number sources, including law enforcement agencies; and behaviours requiring ‘attention’. To list some:
  • The individual begins to identify with a group or ideology that is very different from the mainstream. (notable)
  • Changes in normal behaviour may also occur. (notable)
  • The person becomes closed to those whose explanations or views do not agree with their ideology. (concerning)
  • They may begin to use language advocating violence or aggression. (concerning)
  • They are very hostile towards people they see as the ‘enemy’ including law enforcement and the government. (attention)
  • They see using violence as a way of achieving their ideological goals as acceptable and necessary. (attention)
Some of those would still fit me: I hold an ideological view that is different from the mainstream, in fact, I pride myself on it; I don’t think my normal behaviour has changed but that may be because I have held a radical view for so long; in many situations, I do see government and law enforcement as the enemy of the poor and oppressed; and I do accept that, in some circumstances, violence is acceptable and necessary, particularly in response to state violence. Luckily Australia is not so bad that I would apply all those views here.

Now Tony Abbott: he certainly held a radical view different to the mainstream, as evidenced by the popular rejection of his neo-liberal agenda in the 2014 budget; he was certainly closed to opposing views, including on climate change; and he used the language of aggression against his ‘enemies’ and certainly saw that as a means of achieving his political and ideological objectives, the only difference being he was in government and could legitimately use law enforcement and violence. So was Tony Abbott also a radical inclined to violent extremism? — perhaps so if you believe this booklet.

When you have two opposing ideologies like that and one is being enforced by the state, is there a reciprocal right to violence to oppose the state? That is the key philosophical question but, as I explained earlier, the violence should be directed against the state and not inflicted upon the civilian population if it is to be justified — otherwise, in my terms, it does become terrorism plain and simple.

While the booklet pays lip service to freedom of ideas and expression, it comes down strongly on the side of peaceful protest by legal means. If, however, governments change the laws, as Bjelke-Petersen did, to restrict demonstrations, then which rules apply? — the right to express dissent or the obligation to obey the law. In other words, legal protest may not always be possible, and this booklet cannot cope with that situation.

The booklet is very careful not to target Muslims and does use examples from the right and left of the political spectrum. It adds that religion can be a factor in underpinning radicalism and violent extremism but makes sure that it also mentions the violence of the more extreme Christian anti-abortionists. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Terrorism, Michael Keenan, however, made clear:
Despite the environmental case study, Mr Keenan said the main targets of the booklet were young people at risk of being radicalised by Islamic groups such as Islamic State.
So despite the efforts made to retain a ‘neutral approach’, Keenan laid bare the real intention. The NSW Teachers’ Federation suggested the booklet was ‘not to make anyone feel safer but to engender fear and intolerance’. I’m inclined to agree because, as I have pointed out, there are statements dotted throughout the booklet that offer a quite realistic assessment but they are over-shadowed by the general tone that any radicalisation is ‘bad’ and leads to violence. That is also what made me question whether words had been added, beyond the original words of the experts, to ensure that message came across — the experts’ own comments seem to confirm that.

Gary Bouma, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at Monash University and the UNESCO Chair in Intercultural and Interreligious Relations — Asia Pacific, one of the experts quoted in the booklet, has said:
… it was never intended to be distributed to schools.

“It was meant for professionals who are leaders in communities, and to be used in training sessions to make people aware of the background of social and cultural factors that lead in very rare cases to radicalisation,” he said. [emphasis added]

“We workshopped it with communities … then out of the blue the Attorney General’s Department decided to send it around to schools.”
The overt purpose of the booklet is, I think, legitimate. It is valid to try to stop young people being attracted to terrorism but its approach also threatens what I would consider legitimate radical activism which may include illegal activities that do not cause major damage nor harm to people. In that regard, the underlying purpose of the booklet is to maintain the status quo: you are allowed to protest, to express dissent, but only within the law, no matter how repressive those laws may be. You are a radical if you wish to change society, even without resorting to violence. As Michael Brull put it in an article for New Matilda:
The paper sets up only one type of violence that it rejects in every instance. That is, it always rejects violence devoted to radically changing the status quo. Violence used to uphold the status quo, however, is passed over in silence. Seeking change is by definition violent extremism. Accepting how things are is tacitly assumed to be ideologically neutral. Seeking change is treated as suspicious and problematic in a way that keeping things the way they are is not.
In that sense one can see the conservative mind-set driving the approach — any change is threatening. Where does that leave ‘progressives’, let alone radicals? If one can take account of all that is said in this booklet, it could be said to be relatively neutral, but that is not the prevailing message that comes through and if that message was to be believed then almost anyone demanding social or political change would be classified as a radical capable of violent extremism. It is itself an extreme message that appears to have twisted what the experts involved were saying. Perhaps it is best seen as a remnant of the Abbott era.

What do you think?
With Abbott gone we may hear less about ‘radicalisation’ but the booklet is out there — it was sent to schools. If Ken is right, the real message to young people is to ‘toe the line’ and not demand change in society. Without the ‘radicals’ of the past we would not have some of the freedoms and rights we do today, so such a message is for the conservative maintenance of society. It should not go unchallenged.

Next week 2353 discusses corporate attempts to patent genes in ‘You can’t patent ethics’.