Labor to Deliver Living Wage in Australia?

Share

The cost of living debate took a serious turn lately with the Labor Opposition Party declaring its intent to deliver a living wage for working people in Australia if it gains the 2019 election. Just what that means is not yet clear.

This is how this developing news is covered by some of the media such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the the ABC, and the Conversation. Also take a peek at the Guardian article. We are told Labor will ‘increase minimum wage’, reinstate ‘penalty rates’, deliver pay equity for women, tackle sub-standard labour hire and independent contracting practices.

Broadly Labor has made a strong case for wage enhancement for months, but has not put forward persuasive policy strategic measures to deliver a living wage for all working people.

Many of us support higher wages. But it is equally true that the nature of Australian economy has been significantly transformed from the days when the nation had a centralised wage-fixing system. To make a policy difference you have to grapple with the structural change that has taken place.

We have witnessed massive changes in the way goods and services are produced; government business operations and service delivery have been long hollowed out. The technological revolution and globalisation has transformed some of the spaces within which work takes place. Innovation

Quite rightly some commentators are now asking Labor to spell out exact measures it will use to deliver aliving wage for all Australians if its pronouncements are to be taken seriously.

My article tries to highlight through use of some examples the workings of a modern economy that must be understood and taken into account if all the talk about a living wage is to be meaningful.

For readers new to social policy you may first be interested in a quick glimpse on the history of the living wage and centralised-wage fixing in the below, or if familiar you can skip and go to the next heading.

A Historical Context

The concept of living wage was established well over a century when Justice Higgins President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court made a momentous decision known as the 1907 Harvester Judgement. The thinking to this decision is reflected in key judgement phrases such as:

‘…The normal needs of an average employee, regarded as a human being living in a civilised community’

‘…framers of agreement would have to take, as a dominant factor, the cost of living as a civilised being’

Resource Link

You can find informative historical details from these links:

        

https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/intguide/law/harvester.pdf

https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/15931

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5098461

As the global neo-liberal economic project took hold in many parts of the world during the 1980s and 1990s, gradually the idea of a living wage waned. By 1991 Australia was shifting from centralised fixed wages to enterprise bargaining. To be fair, the Labor Government at this time integrated neoliberal ways of running a modern economy with a strong safety net and industrial welfare (ala introduction of superannuation for all working people).

A Transformed Economy

In its heyday it appears the living wage was not just consolidated through centralised wage-fixing measures. Once upon a time the Federal and State Governments were huge public sector employers. And they run many Government Business enterprises. These spaces played part into securing professionals and trades people into salaried jobs paying a living wage and above.

Remember when the Federal Government used to own the likes of Telstra (then Telecom), the Commonwealth Bank, Medibank, just to name some? It sounds like a very different lifetime (as they say, laugh out loud!)

Likewise State Governments have contracted out, commercialised and privatised a substantial part of their own public sector operations and Government Business Enterprises since the mid-1990s. Electricity, gas generation and distribution are case in point.

The Telstras and their kind are still around but with less monopoly power due to new market competitors. Businesses make profits for their shareholders and their executives, that’s what they do. Off course when you sell off assets you have less control over employment objectives over any privatised entity. We see Telcos running product shops perhaps with substantial sales people and maybe franchisees.

Reluctantly we have now accepted that if we ring Telstra about most operational matters we will be attended by overseas staff that takes care of issues digitally – you can get a new or revised plan connection, you can sort out your account and so on. Telcos may maintain some local staff, contractors, and franchisees, but also it can be safely presumed a good chunk of their jobs are globalised, right?

My question is - if Governments have long flogged off many public-owned businesses, what methods or strategies Labor will use to influence higher wages and job security?

Whether your politics are of economic Centre, Left or Right is not the point here. If we are talking about living wage we have to factor in structural changes to the economy and employment patterns amidst this globalised world. To me, it doesn’t make sense to debate wage adequacy in a vacuum. I keep coming to this point.

Government Contracting-Out & Living Wage?

For over two decades Federal and State Governments have contracted out massive levels of service operations to the Not-for-Profit sector and private operators. Examples include Job Active (formerly Job Networks), disability services, aged care services, Migrant Settlement Services, etc. We are talking billions and billions of dollars.

Use of contracted Third Parties by Government is believed to bring about greater efficiency. Government require Third Parties to carry out specific contracted deliverables. Governments have long moved away from funding salaried positions to funding specific deliverable tasks and outcomes.

So Governments say the get to deliver more efficiently with less. But also in offloading operations to Third Parties that’s how the size of Government agencies is kept in check. It is not practical for cash strapped Not-for-Profit Organisations to make substantial wage increases for services they deliver on behalf of Governments. Where is that money coming from?

Needless to say the sectors mentioned above are female dominated, receiving minimum wage and possibly some a bit more. But even the OECD acknowledges that ‘Across countries, including Australia, women are much more highly concentrated in service jobs, which tend to pay less.’ OECD Source

It is not clear if Labor will increase funding to its contracted Third Parties to fund salary improvements (NGOs & private operators). Centralised wage-fixing makes sense in this instance if Feds recognise the part they play in this dynamic. It is also not clear what financial capacity exists for the Feds and State Government to increase funding levels so that the contracted parties mentioned benefit from salary increases.

So it makes sense to puzzle about what measures Labor intends to use to boost wages for the services it contracts out to Third Parties?

Digital & Automation

The growing digital and automated economy is transforming the way a range of goods and services are produced, as seen in the transformation of major ‘old’ industries that can now operate digitally from local, global and virtual sites, and save some wage costs.

This also includes new industries such as rideshare and food delivery. A young person could be working in a food outlet serving hamburgers or latte – another could be classified an independent contractor facilitating food delivery across the city through the new digital food delivery platforms.

I presume the flexible mode of production (i.e. ways goods/services are produced and accessed) is what is making possible for this economy to gain ground. It is fascinating to see the rising popularity of services such as UberEats across geographical areas.

The way I think about this is that when you think less young and not-so young people in the at present and in the future are likely to be employed at Coles, Woolworths or McDonalds because of automation, then it is sensible for them to engage in emerging digital economic platform.

Basically the architecture of capitalism is evolving. As reported in the Australian Financial Review, redundancies have been in the making as Coles automates. 

This SMH story also explains how major supermarkets have succeeded using automation to significantly reduce wages costs as per link.  

Now it seems to me for any future Government pursuing a minimum or living wage, it is important to recognise that not all measures around these objectives are achieved through centralised wage-fixing. Where people are employed of course centralised wage-fixing, collective bargaining or enterprise bargaining can be the way to go.

But if people work as independent contractors, in some cases different policy instruments can be helpful in enhancing incomes by taking account of the contractor’s costs of production and that their earnings enable them to maintain a ‘cost of living as a civilised being’ (to use Justice Higgins' expression from a century ago). I suppose that means their earnings as contractors capture basic costs such as super and holiday pay.

These days you keep hearing from some media and political commentators that people must be classified as employees and not independent contractors. Instead of being too preoccupied about classification in the case of rideshare, why not simply work on policies that ensure regardless of classification business cost operation models capture basic standards of living?

It is hard not to recall the genius of the Hawke-Keating era when Labor thought big and managed to take account of the workings of the global economy, while balancing this with a sophisticated social wage and superannuation system.

I was watching a program the other day which indicated 60,000 independent working people (driver-partners) in Australia have joined one of the major rideshare platform, and four million service-users are utilising this particular platform. The practical me was thinking this means less people on the Centrelink queues. Some will say “What are you saying? ‘Why don’t they eat cake?’”(follow my drift?)

It’s not like Australia is about to unscramble the project of neo-liberalism in a hurry, if that. I mean the public sector has shrank; the Government Business Enterprises are far less than what we used to have; the contracted Third Party Not-for Profit and private operators are no longer funded salaries per head, but on deliverables. Private businesses are globalised with local and offshore digital operations – and this is all part of what makes a flexible capitalist economy.

Before anyone gets me wrong, I support improved incomes. The point I have laboured to make is that grasping the workings of a modern economy is a step towards thinking how to address ideas about income improvements without undermining the existence of new economic activities.

One Dollar Litre Milk!!

As I am about to complete this article I hear news on Tele that Aldi is joining Coles and Woolworths in abolishing the $1 per litre milk supplies. I don’t know anyone who will complain about paying ten or even twenty cents extra per litre to ensure farmers are paid to cover the cost of production.

There is a lesson here about Governments working with business stakeholder and relevant parties. Obviously such progress cannot be achieved through centralised wage-fixing which works for some groups. The challenge for Labor is to think about policy instruments that fit particular contexts.


Franchisees

Recent stories about the plight of some franchisees are a reminder that notions of a living wage no longer make sense if only understood in terms of employee-employer relationships.

A few decades ago policy-making took account of the working poor and Labor led in generating policy instruments around social wage and beyond to ensure wage adequacy and ‘civilised living’. Alas, how things shift. Increasingly we are hearing some franchisees joining the ranks of the working poor due to asymmetrical franchising arrangements.

It turns out we are talking pizza chains, petrol stations, cafes, you name it. The SMH coverage on these issues is an eye opener. See this article  and further info here.

To me this reinforces the point that any notion of a living wage can only be achieved if policy instruments are not reduced to a single solution.

Of further interest is the fact that perhaps more than before growing numbers of people are engaging in income generating activities in areas where industrial laws regulating employment practices are not applicable. The economy has been transformed and very much subject to further changes. The political and policy elite can support the country better if they grapple with the architecture of the modern economy in in-depth way.

Much More

There is much more that can be said about the transformation in Australia’s economy and patterns of employment and unemployment. For the purposes of this article, the examples used to illustrate the change simply serves to indicate the need for nuanced thinking in terms of how the political elite may approach issues about a living wage.

Share

Crisis in the Catholic Church and Beyond - Commentary

Share

A recent ABC Q&A Program brought attention to what was explained as a church in crisis plaguing significant sections of Australian Catholic community and the country at large. This follows on not only from the conviction of Cardinal Pell (case under appeal, author respects court processes and rights of all involved to due process), but also the aftermath of revelations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse.

I want to make a few observations but I suggest first best you watch this compelling Q&A for yourself. It raises pertinent questions about faith. https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2019-04-03/10838558.

The panel conversation touches on subjects of trauma victims and survivors have been subject to. There are hints about mental health and some resorting to self harm, overwhelmed by what had been inflicted upon them.

There are also crucial indications in the program about inadequate institutional redress and patchy national compensation schemes for victims. How after the Royal Commission has concluded Australia has not fully succeeded in setting up a decent compensation framework and scheme that reduces re-traumatisation of victims and survivors is a puzzle. There is some compensation framework to be sure, but events this week brought the matter before public eyes that not all is well with the patchwork of current schemes.

Most telling during the televised sentencing of the Cardinal this week survivor groups outside the court were demanding fair compensation. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming appeal in the criminal case involving the Cardinal, as a nation it seems more need to done in establishing a workable compensation scheme.

How some of the complex compensation issues are tackled, I don’t know – God help us! Some months back I heard on tele stories of churches needing to sell some of their property including a cemetery and church buildings. The irony is that some local communities (including non-Catholics and non-Christian) at times use these facilities as part of community resources.

Of course there are also those abused in State and various secular institutions, one hopes their redress and care needs are being attended, especially following the completion of the Royal Commission work.

People of Faith

As for the faith community, the program summation about despair and trauma is palpable. This compelling ABC discussion motivated my putting pen to paper. People spoke about ‘loss of faith’, experiences of ‘sorrow’, ‘trauma’ and ‘despair’ upon learning about abuse, cover ups and protection of abusers for decades leading to multiple repeat offending that could have been avoided  had steps been taken.

It was noted that substantial numbers are quitting church, no longer attending or disconnected from church community. I have come across a few Catholics over the last year in my everyday going about who testified to quitting church and didn’t understand why anyone would still engage with it.

It’s almost impossible to comprehend the burden people have carried from their trauma. Even for those of us non-Catholic, but believers in Christianity and beyond, you can’t fail to be touched by what has happened.

For some of us church goers (albeit non-Catholic) it’s simply a question of ‘there goes I but by grace of God’.

A non-believer lawyer who has represented over thousand victims remarked on Q&A “don’t let your church be stolen from you”. Others made comments on the lines of “a church is something bigger than individual or a group of clergy”.

I learnt that one of the difficulty besetting Catholics in crisis is the notion of clericalism, and how this notion lead to reverence of Catholic priests, even at the expense of Christian biblical word of God. This is an eye opener. I googled up the concept of clericalism – it’s worth looking up for yourself folk. It also turns out even the current Pope has warned about the dangers of clericalism!! According to those in the know the concept of clericalism is also seen in the secular sphere – go figure.

Here are some links to what clericalism is about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clericalism and here is what the Vatican has to say about it at least according to Google: https://aleteia.org/2018/08/23/what-is-clericalism/

If you watched you will see questions raised posed about where to from here? Personally I believe on things spiritual only God knows. But we are also God’s co-labourers. Yes? (See 1 Cor 3:9). And we know those who search for Him will find Him.

I hope those searching will find God in the New Covenant, Christ the High Priest and redeemer instead of clericalism. We need to remember the veil of the temple in Jerusalem was literally torn apart at the hour Jesus freely sacrificed Himself on our behalf (See MT 27: 50-51).

What with the veil? The veil no longer separates the Holy of Holies. Yes, spiritual talk now for fellow folk on the journey. We can access the Almighty directly through Jesus. I respect the Christian clergy and the anointing God places on them (if anointed for the role), but we are also no longer in the Old Testament times when Aaron and His descendants served as priests with the veil separating the Holy of Holies. Jesus finished that. I don’t mean the Old Testament is not relevant. And I don’t mean the church institutions are not relevant.

Pray that those who search for Him will find Him and not completely give up. And may the foundation of our faith be built on the rock alone (See LK 6:48). Luckily we can all even access the bible online and read for ourselves. While we are at it, pray the Holy Spirit guides us in ways forward to discern institutional aspects that are man-made and those build on the rock.

Folks, as man-made stuff fall away I hope you can cling to your Jesus.

Share

Health Insurance Reforms – Changes and Questions

Share

I took time to cast a gaze on the opaque private health insurance hoping this will help me make better informed consumer choice. Where I started months back is not where I ended. But I learnt in the process that the Federal Government has put in place a regulatory Parliamentary reform requiring insurers to categorise their products into a simpler format – Gold/Silver/Bronze/ and Basic.

If you are like those of us who find private health insurance rather foggy when making a sense of what is covered and what is not, and if it is value-for-money, then check out the new reforms.

The change may not be a panacea, but may contain some positive info in empowering consumer choice.

Here is the link to this updated regulatory framework titled Private health insurance reforms: Gold/Silver/Bronze/Basic product tiers: 

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/private-health-insurance-reforms-fact-sheet-gold-gilver-bronze-basic-product-categories

Many of us prize the Australian Medicare public system, but private cover gives a sense of security that if a need arise you get to choose your specialists and avoid long hospital waitlists.

The new Gold/Silver/Bronze/Basic product tiers may be a good start in reducing complexity in the private healthcare product structure. But it is still not clear if this change is enough to reduce the exodus from this system as people vote with their feet on grounds that they are not receiving value-for-money.

After browsing through the rule change, I am left with the following questions:

1. What guides the decisions of private insurers about what items to include and which to exclude under each product category?
2. Is the product structure regarded as the optimal framework by clinicians on the ground such as GPs and relevant primary healthcare providers who see patients every day and make referrals to hospitals and specialists?
3. If you pay for your premiums year in year out why should and insurer decide one day to exclude some items from a given package, presumably calculated to get people on higher level costly packages?
4. How can policy makers ensure insurers will not simply chop and change items in the packages as a way of transferring future cost risk to customers?
5. Back in the day before privatisation the Australian Government had in place its own Medibank Insurance to drive competition in the healthcare insurance sector. Since the Government sold off Medibank, what other methods can be used by the Feds to drive better health choice and outcomes?
6. What government policy review systems are in place to monitor system improvements as a way to balance consumer and insurers interests?

Whichever way the upcoming election pans out the federal Government spends substantial tax-payer money to subsidise private healthcare insurance on top of premiums we pay for each individual cover.

Accountability requires Governments of all persuasion to pay attention to this area of public policy. Tax payer dollars need to deliver value-for-money, much as companies need to be profitable.

Share

Superannuation and New Flexible Economy

Share

The Feds on both the Government and Opposition side are busy pitching their agenda about how they will better our lot in Australia. It is electioneering time already. Fair enough. I am curious to see how Labor (ALP) addresses superannuation in relation to those participating in the growing flexible shared digital economy.

Last year Labor elevated inequality as the key issue set to differentiate itself from the Coalition. The 1990s Labor-Keating era brought about ground breaking superannuation reforms ensuring for the first time that all working Australians received super for their retirement. Whether you are an executive or café waitress, a tradesperson or professional, part-time or full-time, fixed-term and casual or permanent, every worker became entitled to super.

This is great still. But the changing digital economy is bringing about new categories of working producers falling between the cracks.

Growing numbers of independent contractors such as some of those in the digital shared economy exemplify one way that the nature of our capitalist economy is fast changing. Governments are slow to recognise the nature of this change and ways that it interacts with Australia’s retirement policies. In terms of Centrist or Centre-Left politics, it begs the question whether Labor remains committed to universal superannuation – that is super for all working people.

The political powers are also surely well aware that we are so, so far gone into the Post-Fordist era (i.e. as a mode of capitalist production). Some of the jobs being created today rely on flexible choices for participants on all sides. I reckon that’s partly how we have less Centrelink queues – partly.

Perhaps this is not a space to delve much into the character of modern capitalism with its aspects of flexibility, fragmentation and individualisation as a way it makes a buck. Suffice to say this change is real and not just confined to the private sector, it permeates government operations and the Not-for Profit sector too.

So where is the Federal retirement super policy falling behind? If Labor wants to ensure superannuation coverage remains for all working people in the future, then Labor should make the effort to work productively with relevant new digital industry groups in the shared economy (peer economy) and encourage them that their cost structures capture superannuation costs. That means emerging industry groups that use independent peer contractors can factor the 9.5% super in their cost structures.

Imagine if the Keating Government had decided that super be extended to unionised sectors or/and to those in professional industries only! If this was the case we would not be where we are today. Issues and consequences of inequality would be far pronounced today.

A challenge for any modern government today in my mind is not simply how a country supports and secures the middle class important as this is; it is also how you bring along vulnerable groups while securing the broader economy. To me that was part of the genius of the Accord. But that was then.

Now though that flexible, individualised, and even fragmented modes of production are part of what makes it possible to participate in modern production and generate incomes and wealth, it is essential Labor take account of the conceptual big picture change that is play.

I am suggesting that addressing inequality requires a more nuanced understanding and collaborative ways of working with those new industry groups.

Share

Removal of Sex Classifications from Birth Certificates in Australia?

Share

Review of Western Australian Legislation in Relation to the Registration or Change of a Person’s Sex and/or Gender and Status Relating to Sex Characteristics

This Report was tabled in the State Parliament Legislative Council recently (December 2018). It was commissioned by WA Attorney General and produced by the Law Reform Commission of WA. Key points covered include:

• Proposal that the law be changed ‘to remove sex classifications from birth certificates’

• The report says that reforms involving removal of sex classifications from birth certificates ‘is happening in other Australian jurisdictions and abroad at a rapid rate’

• Proposes legislation to ‘expressly prohibit the recording of sex or gender on birth certificates’

• It puts forward 17 recommendations including proposal to amend The Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1998 (WA), and the The Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA).

Here is the link to the report, have a look:

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/WebCMS/WebCMS.nsf/resources/file-lrc-report-108/$file/LRC%20Project%20108%20Final%20Report.pdf

Share

Religious Freedom Report – Web Link

Share

A previous article on religious freedoms mentioned the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review. The Federal Government has now released this report (December 2018). For those interested here is the link to this report.

https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review

·         Expert Panel Report: Religious Freedom Review - PDF

·         Expert Panel Report: Religious Freedom Review - DOCX

·         Australian Government response to the Religious Freedom Review - PDF

·         Australian Government response to the Religious Freedom Review - DOCX

 

Share

Religious Freedoms Challenged – Australia at Crossroad

Share

Religious School Freedoms - A Glance

There is a titanic cultural shift seeking to dislodge certain religious freedoms and values that permeate Australian society. This article highlights freedoms connected to Christian school practices. This contested shift is playing out in diverse ways – in federal and State Parliaments, political parties, school institutions, churches, to name some.

The implications go beyond these Christian institutions. This cultural turn is awakening examination among some about what freedoms are threatened. Some questions go to the crux:

• Do Christian parents have a spiritual obligation and a right to raise their children in line with their Christian teachings? 

• Do Christian schools have a right to run schools in line with their spiritual values and practices?

• Does any Australian Government have a superior authority to put in place laws or school-socialisation programs to foster in children beliefs about fluidity in sexual and gender identities against wishes of some parents?

• Is it right and just for a Government to put in place legislation forcing Christian school institutions to employ any qualified teacher, even if the teacher does not adhere to Christian ethos or school pastoral care practices?

• Does the Australian Government hold a superior right to sanctions schools such as withdrawal of funding subsidies where such schools are refusing to nurture diverse sexual orientation in their school pastoral care practices?

These are just some of the concerns at the centre of religious freedom battles in Australia. These cultural and spiritual battles have been simmering for a while. Now the issues are coming to the surface in a somewhat disjointed, pre-emptive and reactive fashion - whether by design or not. It is historical and ground-shaking stuff.

Policy Debates Frames We are Used to

We are used to policy debates about positive/ collective rights (e.g. universal education, healthcare and welfare). We are accustomed to debates about individual rights (e.g. property rights, freedom to conduct business, travel, freedom from coercive laws impinging on individual rights, etc.) Individual rights now also include Same-Sex Marriages (SSM) granted by law a year ago.

Choice at Core of Christianity

Christians are familiar with notions of choice. The Holy book they follow from beginning to end asks them to choose. So it is not a surprise some Christians went along with the idea of Australia holding the SSM plebiscite (vote). As they saw it this choice does not seek to force any individual human being to adopt Christian beliefs. So in a way, SSM may turn out to be even less contentious compared to any idea that Christian schools should be forced to adopt non-Christian ethos.

Why is it more contentious? This is my take. Christianity at its basic level requires every parent to bring up their child in line with Christian teaching. They affirm this during child baptism/ dedication – and the whole congregation is asked to affirm it. It’s not just a cultural tradition - it is an expression of faith. Their biblical texts, from the Old to the New Testament requires of them do so.

Now that SSM is legalised, the impact on other areas of policy means Australia is confronted with having to mediate conflicting choices. Conflicting because what one group sees as their relationship to the Divine, another group sees it simply as a right to be recruited and teach in a school of their choice without regard to the Christian ethos.

These two conceptions are in conflict.

School Issues Not Debated Before Plebiscite

Before the SSM became law some religious freedom advocates expressed concern that legalisation would lead to erosion of religious freedoms. There were strong views by many commentators that debating issues in-depth is psychologically harmful to those of different sexual orientation. Some commentators went as far as making known their views that erosion of religious rights was a positive thing.

At the time many media commentators and politicians maintained that legalisation of religious freedoms will not conflict with SSM rights. They completely dismissed concerns about extent of flow on effects as fear-mongering. Presumably, some in the public believed this line, and others didn’t.

Even a few Christian clergy appearing on media seemed unconcerned about religious rights. Surprisingly some just framed this discussion in terms of clergy’s rights to freely officiate in churches without intrusion. The question of believers (not simply clergy) did not get much attention. It was knowingly or unknowingly assumed by some that believers are not impacted (ale their spiritual practices).

The then PM Turnbull commissioned a review of Religious Freedoms chaired by Philip Ruddock. Perhaps to placate religious groups who had expressed concern that legalisation of SSM was likely to have flow-on effects leading to erosion of religious freedoms. The Ruddock Religious Freedom Review was the expression of this ‘compromise’. https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review.

Although The Religious Freedom Report was submitted to the Turnbull Government in May 2018, it never saw the light of day. The New PM Morrison is yet to release it either.

Some activist forces pre-emptively leaked selective bits of this Ruddock Report and effectively set a policy agenda. Going by what I saw in the media, many asserted in the media that religious rights must be overridden to accommodate choices and needs of students and teachers that are of same-sex orientation. Initially this seems to have caught the religious freedom advocates on the back foot, but not for too long.

The whole thing has sent shockwaves through some religious adherent circles. Shock waves because of realisation that SSM appear to go beyond what some previously understood it to be. A range of laws are in the process of being reviewed and updated Australian State and Federal Parliaments to accommodates rights that are believed to flow-on from SSM law.

Australian Religious Diversity – ABS Data

It is useful to just keep in mind where Australia is at in terms of people’s self-reported beliefs. According to the ABS (2018) the last 2016 Census found:

• 61% (14 million) Australians belong to a religion or spiritual belief
• 86% of all the people identified as religious are Christians
• 14% (two million) indicated a religion other than Christianity
• Islam - 600,000 people
• Buddhism - 560,000
• Hinduism - 440,000
• Sikhism - 130,000
• Judaism - 90,000
• 30% (7 million)  -  No Religion/ secular - Atheism, Humanism or Agnosticism

 Source: ABS 2018: Australia’s religious diversity on World Religion Day

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/8497F7A8E7DB5BEFCA25821800203DA4?OpenDocument

Fragmentation & At Cross-purposes

Australia seems to be at a crossroad. Take the idea of Christians who encouraged holding a SSM plebiscite - to them the exercise was about freedom of conscience. Freedom to make choices – for oneself and the family they are rearing. This freedom also lets others choose for themselves how they live their lives.

On the other hand, those opposed to religious freedoms are concerned about advancing their own rights in terms of how they live their lives, express and choose relationships. Going by media reports, it seems some are also keen to teach in Christian schools and in their view they don’t see why recruitment practices should exclude them based on their sexual orientation and lack of support of the Christian ethos.

Here it gets puzzling in terms of maintaining community cohesion and harmony. First, Christian schools are not just about secular education - they are also about doing pastoral care. If they are doing their job well, these pastoral care practices would be influenced by Christian values or those sympathetic to such ethos. Let’s say someone is not sympathetic to Islamic, Buddhism or Scientology, is it wise that they work in organisations run by either of such faith? What exactly is the intention? What will be the result?

Same with Christian schools. Such a change if it was to occur will also mean the Australia political leaders in their wisdom are prepared to dismiss spirituality and treat it as something that can simply be reconstructed through a political process.

Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human rights - Article 18 specifically affirms religious rights. If any current or future Australia Government decides to ignore Article 18 it seems to me this would be a fundamental shift in how competing secular and religious values have been mediated – in terms of freedoms, it will be a decisive generational shift that erodes autonomous religious choices.

As already noted, while some Christians are concerned about erosion of their freedoms, some appear less so. Some denominations appear to have a shared formal position; others hold more than one position. Some religious organisations may also hold varied positions. So while we are told 61% of Australians identified themselves in Census data as Christian, a substantial 61.6% of those who participated in the SSM plebiscite voted ‘yes’ and 38.4% ‘no’. Notwithstanding that some people did not participate in the plebiscite, as a nation this issue indicates diversity even within the church.

But it cannot be assumed that all the Christians who voted ‘yes’ in SSM would necessarily approve that all school institutions should abandon their Christian ethos where such ethos found itself in conflict with the rights of teachers or students who identified themselves as gay or intersex.

The bottom line seems to be – are there circumstances where the Federal and State Governments will be seeking to force Christian schools to deliver sexual and gender identity content that is opposed to Christian ethos?

On the subject of schisms, currently the Liberal Party is bearing the brunt of it. The divisions emerging out of the SSM flow-on policies are just one. It doesn’t help that some conservative leaders seem oblivious of their role as guardians or custodians of this earth, opting to disregard climate change and energy policies, not even policies framed using market mechanisms. They have also faced a backlash whenever a few in their midst deploy the ‘race’ card to win elections.

Internal party battles are matters on public record. PM Turnbull is gone although active on public sphere. His long seat long held by Libs is gone. We have seen resignations from the party and public battles over what makes the ‘heart of the party’ and who defines it. Add to this, some in the Liberal ranks and their voters want to see gay and intersex rights extended beyond SSM law, who knows where the party will land.

The Labor Party was a strong SSM legalisation supporter and so far has escaped open internal divisions experienced on the other side of politics. So far it appears if it returns to office Labor will further extend those rights in sectors such as schools and perhaps beyond.

Labor seems to look at religion in humanistic or socially constructed terms. Like some of media commentators or even some  Christian ‘moderates’, Labor (perhaps in good faith) seems to see Christians schools as just engaging in discrimination by not showing willingness to recruit gay teachers in the future. There is lack of recognition here that Christian practices are way of life.

Another point of division is evident in some distinct Labor held seats. Official reports show that some key Labor electorates voted ‘no’ during SSM vote. The media and ABS reports include Blaxland, Watson in Western Sydney and McMahon electorates. We also know more Non-English speaking background people were likely to say ‘no’ compared to English-Speaking background Aussies.

Labor is ahead in Party preferred opinion polls by a significant margin. However, if elected, and once a full impact of revisions of federal and State laws flowing on from SSM start filtering down, it will just be a matter of time before those Labor voters are forced to evaluate their willingness to give up religious freedoms.

What Also Comes to Mind

As I have thought through these issues, some political and philosophical thinkers came to mind. What do they have to say about complex situations when you have competing ideas and traditions in need of adjudication? I thought of John Stuart Mill and how he approached the idea of Tyranny of the Majority. I have thought of civil and political rights and protections such as those discussed by contemporary writers such as Patrick Dunleavy. I couldn’t help but also look up T.H. Marshall and his citizenship thesis. And I took a little glimpse of Immanuel Kant.

And if some Politicians in Australia decide it okay to ‘extinguish’ Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, what is this precedent setting for the future? And which group could be next?

As I finish this article, I cannot see how it will be possible for Australia to take away Christian freedoms relating to schools and parenting without consequences. It is a big change if it is to be imposed. This is not simply about political competition between major parties and the median voter. The ramifications could go far beyond the two major political parties in the longer term. We are talking about the stuff of life, people’s relationship to what they consider to be their transcendent. What is cultural battle to one person, for others their God is what they live for – it’s where they find meaning. It’s what imparts in their being to love their neighbour. And love their God.

These are by no means the only flow-on religious freedom questions exercising the minds and the hearts at the moment. And Christian institutions or families are not the only ones concerned. As a student of Christianity this is my take of it.

Share

PM Scott Morrison Worships and Prays - Some Troubled!

Share

Over three decades ago I learnt from locals that here in Australia religion is a no go zone in everyday conversations. It is a no at BBQs and all manner of social settings. It is impolite and a bit weird to chat about it, I learnt. In late August 2018 Australia unexpectedly got a PM who prays and worships – and in a Pentecostal fashion too - this has some folk incensed!

SCOMO as the Prime Minister is popularly known got into trouble for raising-hands in the church. I listened to one of the elite media channels and thought to myself, ‘praying and raising hands in church gets one in trouble, what’s the big deal?’ Honestly, I have laughed out loud a few times.

His Pentecostal or evangelical affiliations have been noted and debated in mainstream and social media with much unease. Going by some elite media reports, even some folk on SCOMO’s own side of politics wants him to tone down his spiritual expression.

Despite Australia being regarded a free society it is surprising that some pretty basic aspects of Christian spiritual expression invoke great unease and suspicion among some elite.

But for goodness sake, what is heretical about worshipping and praying hands-raised? It is one of many Christian worship expressions. Christians all over the world engage in worship and prayer – they kneel down, stand, some close their eyes, sing liturgy, hymns, Songs of Praise, Psalms and such.

Image: Pixabay sourced

What if critics saw the biblical King David dancing before His Lord? Mind you it is quite possible some of these critics may include those who profess to be Christian. For those of faith, it is an interesting to go read – it is illuminating.

According to mainstream media some concerned folk leaked a video of SCOMO praying in church. Whether or not the video went on line because of people's concern is not clear to me. What is clear is the concern held and reflected by some in the mainstream and social media.

But why are some folk concerned about his prayer! What did the PM do wrong by praying?

It turns out SCOMO prayed for the Indonesian President Widodo and people of Sulawesi during a disaster there not long ago. He also prayed for Australian farmers and for drought facing the country to break. Here is a Youtube link:

Honestly? Folk are incensed about that? What do critics think people do when they go to church? Needless to say in mainstream churches it is normal to pray for Government leaders in any weekly service. This is even more formalised in some traditional mainstream churches – check out liturgical texts. It’s not heretical. It is basic biblical New Testament instruction.

If anything, perhaps some Pentecostal-type churches do less regular Sunday prayers for Governments compared to churches using liturgical service. In any case commentators who profess to subscribe to Christianity cannot be unaware that the Gospel requires Christians to keep their Governments leaders in prayer.

At a time when the Liberal Party is experiencing major cracks in their political platform, the least the public need to worry about is the PM’s prayer and worship practices. While on the subject, I hope he keeps worshipping and praying in any style that resonates with his religious values and his God.

To everyday folk who loves prayer and worship, happy praising the Xmas season is upon us. And may many hands be raised. And may many still fall on your knees as you pray and worship.

Share

Share

My Health Records Blow Up

The digital revolution was promised to bring about improved coordinated and better healthcare outcomes for our populations. Privacy and notions of consent were given some consideration at the start. Recent changes to Australia’s My Health Records from voluntary Opt-in to Opt-out is proving a disaster. In fact, the term Opt-out is misleading as the window to opt-out is limited – after which, you are forced to remain in the system by default!

So even if you never agreed with anyone in healthcare setting to store, transmit or share your data into the My Health Records system, if you don’t take steps to opt-out, authorities will keep you in the system as required by Government legislation.

Whatever happened to choice? When did we change our assumed shared understanding of what constitutes consent? Is this consent, let alone informed consent? Listening to one Radio or TV Station, they claimed 20,000 people exited the system (opted out) on Monday last week alone. First thing though, the system offers some benefits.

Benefits

In principle My Health Records has a lot to offer especially people with chronic conditions, those with transient lifestyles, the remotely-located and in emergencies. Longer term, it saves public money too as doctors/ healthcare providers upload patient summaries on the PCEHR system that can be accessed by a treating provider. Provided medical info is promptly uploaded and the internet connectivity is up to scratch! But it is now clear the system has incorporated new objectives – this has brought the integrity of the system into question.

Enforcement Bodies to Access Data

Surprisingly under this Act, the government has included enforcement objectives not necessarily related to individual healthcare. My Health Records Act makes it clear it will be used for purposes of prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and enforcement of criminal matters. And that enforcement bodies can also access data for preparation, conduct, proceedings and implementation of tribunal and court orders. It gets more disturbing as the Act also allows enforcement bodies to access a person’s centralised data for ‘the protection of the public revenue’.

It seems like too many governmental objectives have been lumped together. The end result is that notions of individual consent and privacy have been weakened. As we are learning more about this, it is pity as this is the sort of thing likely to demoralise some vulnerable people who could have benefited from the system. They may not have much to hide, but most sensible people would agree that embedding surveillance regimes within a healthcare system compromises the pursuit of healthcare objectives.

Government Responsibility

There is also a provision under My Health Records Act which says ‘This Act does not make the Crown liable to be prosecuted for an offence’. I read this and thought what does this legal jargon mean? Are they saying the Government is not legally liable for any breaches? Given the extent of freedom the Government has in accessing this data, is it sensible that there are no corresponding responsibilities? e.g. where data is misused or conditions breached by a Government entity to the detriment of an individual, is the Government saying there is no legal remedy? There are many players in the healthcare provision – government, private entities, profit and not-for-profit entities.

It is just not clear within which parameters the Government then becomes exempt from being subject to liability? I am thinking that given that the Government is doing away with notions of consent connected to permission to opt-in, if something is later proved to have resulted in serious harm to an individual because the Government took away consent, how can the Government not take moral and legal responsibility?

The list of institutions whose data is being hacked or plainly misused is rising all the time. From Banks, social media organisations, recruitment agencies, big and small businesses, you name it. In inserting other non-healthcare objectives, it means in some cases patient data will not simply be accessed by professionals who can be tracked through their Healthcare Provider Identifiers.

What means has an individual of keeping accountable anyone else accessing their healthcare data without one’s knowledge and without any understanding of the purposes for which such access is being made?

.

Interaction with Privacy Act

Although some supporters of My Health Records system say that we are protected by the Privacy Act, this is hardly reassuring as no one really seems to have strong privacy oversight over PCEHR. What a year it has been to reflect on the weaknesses of our regulatory institutions like those regulating Banks and financial institutions. Okay forget ASIC and Banks. My Health Records Act requires all PCEHR actors to abide by requirements set in the Act in interaction with the Privacy Act.

The legislation indicates that the Privacy Commissioner would regard as breach a situation where an approved entity within the PCEHR system infringes provisions under the Act.

However, following the recent My Health Records opt-in blow up, we have to be asking if the current legislation gives enough powers to the Privacy Commission in protecting privacy, let alone promoting privacy. The issues are just so many – and they cover multiple aspects of peoples’ lives. The concerns are not just medical, they are not just about coordinated care or better health outcomes – as important as these are. They go so far beyond. If someone gets it wrong and information goes in the wrong hands there is so much at risk.

Who thought we will need to be highlighting that hey, let’s not throw away a highly prized Western libertarian value called privacy. It is almost feeling like a parallel universe – like, ‘how did we get here?’ But times are changing.

Erosion of Trust

Like many commentators, I question the wisdom of doing away with an Opt-in arrangement. The consequences of this change may erode more trust. Worse still, some people that are likely to benefit the most from PCEHR, are likely to be among those opting-out. This may be unfortunate as in my view some of the benefits from these e-Health records cannot be dismissed. In weakening the PCEHR framework, a lot more is lost.

Institutional Policy Framework Lacking

Given the level of unprecedented data breaches in many sectors, it is concerning the glaring lack of an overarching institutional policy framework governing data collection, processing, transmission, sharing, storage and such in Australia.

This is not simply about clinical and ICT governance. The issues that have left people frightened and running to exit My Health Records system go well beyond healthcare delivery. Privacy has a bearing on every aspect of a person’s life from employment, wellbeing, and equitable participation in society, to name some.

Whether you are tuning on TV, Radio or social media, the My Health Records blow up is shedding light on community concern rightly or not that data matching is being consolidated without debate. From My Gov, to ABS info, location tracking survey(s), cameras, government face-recognition and voice-recognition technologies, and so forth. People are also concerned that business entities do collect data without always disclosing upfront who they are sharing with and what for purposes.

So maybe it is not just the social media that is contributing to a trust downward trend? Although the Government should try to do all it can to ensure third parties (providers, transmitters, repository agencies of PCEHR) maintain data security, we also know there is still a measure of risk in all system.

Given the data consolidation trajectory in many areas of our lives, and given many businesses, government and non-government players that require collecting data for their operations, it makes sense for Australia to formulate a clear institutional policy framework to address the big picture.

Besides, if we simply take a laissez faire approach to all this data sourced from multiplicity of areas, we should be questioning who is making decisions on algorithms that go into making-meaning of data that is collected? And what does this mean for democracy and our freedoms? In terms of big picture, we don’t have a Bill of Rights that guarantees our right to privacy. It seems we don’t even have a fundamental broader framework to fall upon to protect in our favour simple values such as consent.

It is also critical that future policy and legislative reviews must ensure genetic information produced or synthesized from PCEHR sources is not misused by authorities and private entities to the disadvantage of any specific groups in society e.g. ethnic groups and many others. Learning from past history, it is essential that a guiding policy framework embeds in future legislation.

Perhaps as significant numbers of people try to opt-out of My Health Records system, some good could still come out of this if it leads to a building and strengthening a clear broader policy framework governing things data well beyond the healthcare settings.

Hopefully, we can even be pro-active in pursuit of this rather than just wait to respond individually when a breach occurs. It remains to be seen if the Federal and State Governments decide to take leadership in this matter or if we will remain stuck with a laissez faire approach for much longer.

Key words:

My Health Records; Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records; PCEHR; Health Records Privacy; Data Matching

Postscript:

As we go to press, it is understood from media info that the Government will be revising the legislation in a bid to restore confidence. To what extent integrity in My Health Records can be restored, much may depend on the fine print. It still remains that without a broader institutional policy framework to govern digital data, the public is left vulnerable.

Share