Monday, 8 July 2019

Africa and Diaspora-friendly Citizenship


Increased African populations are now in diaspora. They tend to retain connection with mother countries through home visits and financial remittances. Remittances and its economic impact seem to get political attention. But there is so much scope for more African countries to put in place Diaspora-friendly policies and strategies – a theme of this blog post.

If I can start close to home. The motivation to write this piece grew from observations of my own beloved country of origin, Tanzania, in its attempt to connect with its diaspora over the last decade. Authorities reach out supporting diaspora folk with passport renewals. Going by media reports, there are also efforts underway to enable eligible Tanzanian diaspora voters participate at future elections (see: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-05/23/c_138083780.htm).

Researching the topic it quickly came up that Kenyan neighbours are well ahead in financial remittance inflows and their dual citizenship policies support reinforce inflows - that helps exercise the mind. Laugh-out-loud!

I thought, surely more that can be done by countries such as my motherland. First, there are growing numbers of African descendants born in diaspora who are left out. There are many mixed race folk where one parent is from Africa. There are 2nd and 3rd generation African descendants now living abroad.

Contemporary diaspora-friendly policies and strategies need to look beyond passport renewals.

I believe for countries like Tanzania, practical and strategic ideas can be identified and examined looking at what various countries around the world do. Each country has its own social, economic and political interest at heart. Africa is not alone in this; many countries around the world have grappled with diaspora interests before.

In a globalised integrated world each country thinks through and strategizes accordingly about ways it structures citizenship, and how it embeds diaspora considerations. There are many ways that each country manages to balance the benefits of flexible citizenship for diaspora population balanced with security interests.

I point out tangible examples from Africa itself, China, Australia, Italy and the EEU zone. For simplicity I highlight ideas in dot point.


Principles underlying Diaspora Citizenship

We are more familiar with ideas about national borders, and our rights to play part in economic, social and political life as citizens. We also have some awareness about rights and benefits that can be given to those who live amongst us such as permanent residents, temporary residents, skilled workforce/ expatriates, etc.

UNESCO’s description of citizenship is more helpful in enlightening any country wishing to pay serious regard to mutual interests involving their diaspora communities. To quote UNESCO:
Over the last decades, issues of citizenship have been seen…as the legal and political expression of nationality. A citizen has come to denote "a national with voting and passport rights". This has sometimes had the effect of reducing questions concerning citizenship to their legal minimum, i.e. matters of nationality. At the same time, migration and intermarriage undermine the traditional one-person/one state situation, so that many people are born with dual citizenship now. Though some states have suppressed the possibility of dual citizenship, citizenship laws in general are often being relaxed or disregarded.

There are two principles individually or in interaction as the basis for which countries grapple with how they structure diaspora citizenship rights. UNESCO defines these notions as:
·        jus sanguinis, the principle of blood, descent and heritage play a pivotal role in defining who is, and can become, a citizen. Where people were born is not as important as if and how they can trace their ancestry back to the origin country”
·        “jus solis, defines citizens as those born within the country, regardless of the citizenship of the parents”.

African Diaspora Citizenship - Advances

Already over half of African countries have adopted dual citizenship laws meaning their diaspora now largely “retain home country rights” (Whitaker, 2011). That is 30 countries out of 54 have taken account of globalising trends and ensured their citizenship structures leverages this.

Whitaker identifies measures implemented by various African governments:


The way individual countries balance concerns about diaspora rights on one hand and perceptions of security is interesting. Take Nigeria which has no problem allowing its dual nationals to hold public office, Ghana has spells out particular public roles to which dual citizens are excluded as illustrated below. All things considered, the rights enjoyed by the Ghanaian diaspora are still substantial.

Ghanaian Dual Citizenship - Extracts
The Citizenship Act (Act 591 of 2000) provides, among others, that, "A citizen of Ghana who acquires the citizenship of another country in addition to his Ghanaian citizenship shall notify in writing the acquisition of the additional citizenship to the Minister in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed."
Benefits
Dual citizenship policy is argued to create the following benefits.
·        It provides the individual the right to obtain passports from either country of citizenship.
·        It creates simpler procedure for individuals revisiting former homelands for extended periods of time.
·        It creates the opportunity to pursue employment opportunities in either country of nationality.
·        It improves the right to social benefits, to own land or property and to inherit assets from either country.
·        It creates the entitlement to convey nationality rights to offspring.
·        It caters for those who feel equal alliance to both countries of origin
Holders of dual citizenship cannot hold certain specified offices in Ghana, including the following:
·        Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court
·        Ambassador/High Commissioner
·        Secretary to the Cabinet
·        Chief of Defence Staff
·        Inspector-General of Police
·        Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Preventive Service
·        Commissioner, Value Added Tax Service
·        Director of Immigration Service
·        Director-General, Prisons Service
·        Chief Fire Officer
·        Chief Director of a Ministry
·        Rank of Colonel in the Army or equivalent in other security services
·        Any other public office that the Minister may prescribe by Legislative Instrument

Remittances – Sneak Peek

Since I mentioned remittances earlier, here is a sneak peek of the diaspora financial inflows to Sub-Saharan Africa below. For the inflows-minded, the figures may also arouse your interest as we talk of diaspora-friendly policies and strategies later.
Remittances to Sub-Saharan Africa
Remittances to Sub-Saharan Africa accelerated 11.4% to $38 billion in 2017…The largest remittance recipients were Nigeria ($21.9 billion), Senegal ($2.2 billion), and Ghana ($2.2 billion). The region is host to several countries where remittances are a significant share of gross domestic product, including Liberia (27 per cent), The Gambia (21%), and Comoros (21%). In 2018, remittances to the region are expected to grow 7% to $41 billion.


Kenya & Tanzania Remittance Inflows

Kenya Annual Remittance Inflow

2017 - $ 1.811billion
2016 - $ 1.739billion
Remittances as % of GDP for 2017:  2.4%
Tanzania Annual Remittance Inflow
2017 - $ 433million
2016 - $ 411million
Remittances as % of GDP for 2017:  0.8%

It is my hope that the dot points I provide below are understood as both strategies that extend rights to diaspora populations, and also these ideas are also about running modern economies supported by flexible and skilled labour force in this globalised world. There are many positive lessons to draw from.

Kenya’s Dual Citizenship

  •  Kenya legally approved dual citizenship in 2011, a change enshrined in the new constitution
  • Kenya legally approved dual citizenship in 2011, a change enshrined in the new constitution
  • If one of your parents is Kenyan you are automatically regarded as Kenyan by birth even if born in another country
  • Kenyan dual citizens no longer require a visa when they enter Kenya regardless of the passport used for entry
  • Source: http://www.kenyaembassyspain.es/diaspora-citizen-registration/
  • Kenyan citizens are now also eligible to vote even if residing oversea
Source: https://www.awmagazine.org/the-letter-kenyans-in-diaspora-ignored-in-2012-addressing-current-dual-citizenship-concerns/


Australia

The Australian Government highlights the following about its citizenship:
  • “Many Australians are citizens of 2 or more countries”
  • Australia permits its citizens to hold an Australian passport and a passport of a foreign country where eligible
  • If your parent lost the Australian citizenship, as a person descended from a former Australian citizen, you can still acquire an Australian citizenship


It is also common knowledge that
  • Australian citizenship may improve chances of accessing government jobs.
  • Australian dual citizens when in need can access the social security system and public hospitals, Medicare-funded doctor services, pathology and imaging tests, and prescribed medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
  • Australia largely relies on selective skilled migration to maintain desired population levels (net growth from child birth is lower compared to net migration).


Also, note that:
  • New Zealand citizens are allowed to enter Australia “to visit, study, stay and work as long as you remain a New Zealand citizen” under a special visa classification 444 granted on arrival. The only restriction applies to those with serious criminal convictions or health issues such as untreated active TB.

  • New Zealand citizens are also eligible to apply for permanent residency which makes them eligible for some government benefits
  • Australia also facilitates a Pacific Labour Scheme allowing workers to enter Australia and take up low and semi-skilled jobs. This includes applicants from Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Income generated through this scheme is “life changing”. It enables workers to “pay for their kids’ education, start a small business or build a house”.

Sources:
Gleaning through the Australian model may give you an idea about ways that a country embeds flexibility about who it wishes to enter the country and participate in economic activities for the mutual benefit of all sides. Info below quoted verbatim from government source:


Working in Australia
If you want to come to Australia to work you will need a visa that suits the work you intend to do.
We have work visas for:
·        skilled workers
·        people participating in specific activities
·        working holiday makers
·        highly specialised workers
·        trainees, short term
·        experienced business people
·        investors
·        Australia's offshore oil and gas industry

If you need a sponsor to be eligible for the grant of a work visa you can find a sponsor yourself, or you can put in an expression of interest using SkillSelect.
More info on these sites:

China & the Chinese Diaspora

I googled these points from the South China Morning Post:
  • Foreigners of Chinese origin now are permitted to a visa that allows them “to stay in China for five years or enter the country multiple times over that period”
  • This five-year visa is permitted to Chinese citizens who hold foreign citizenship and their descendants.
  • Also, this five-year visa is permitted to those with one or two parents that are ethnically Chinese, or grandparents or ancestor who was once upon a time was a Chinese citizen in any past generations.
  • Before, ethnic Chinese outside China were only eligible for a “one-year multiple-entry visa”
  • For the Chinese authorities, this is one way of enabling the Chinese diaspora to  “participate in China’s economic development”

Source: Ethnic Chinese and want to live in China? Find out if you qualify for new five-year visa, South China Morning Post, 29 Jan, 2018. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2131030/ethnic-chinese-and-want-live-china-find-out-if-you-qualify-new

Italian Citizenship

Italian citizenship is determined by “right of blood” (Jus sanguinis in Latin)
  • It means regardless where you were born whether in Italy or overseas, you have the right to Italian citizenship if one or both of your parents are citizens of Italy
  • Also in principle it recognises citizenship rights of people whose past ancestors descended from Italy. It embraces the “Right to Return” as per Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [For more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return]
  • Italian citizenship By birth in Italy to stateless parents, to unknown parents, or to parents who cannot transmit their nationality to their children
  • Italian citizenship is automatically acquired through marriage to an Italian national
  • Analysts say in practice, not every ethnic Italian in diaspora exercise these rights to massive Italian descendants in diaspora whose numbers exceed people in Italy.
  • But here is a point of interest: the Italian diaspora citizenship right has enabled many ethnic Italians from Latin America to migrate to EU countries like Spain by virtue of their Italian ancestry.


EU Citizenship

In addition to country-specific citizenship rights, nationals of EU countries have a:
  • Choice to move around and live anywhere in the EU zone
  • Choice to work anywhere in the EU zone
  • “EU citizens are also free to trade and transport goods, services and capital through EU borders, as in a national market, with no restrictions on capital movements or fees” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33152
  • Nationals of non-EU countries of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein (European Economic Area – EEA) have a “right of free movement and residence across the European Economic Area, as long as they are not an undue burden on the country of residence and have comprehensive health insurance…This right also extends to [their] close family members that are not EEA citizens
  • These EEA (non-EU) nationals become permanent residents after five years of living in the EU zone

Source:

Some Key Points

  • The idea of ‘right of blood’ allows a broader capture of diaspora populations such as descendants, etc.
  • A focus on who holds a currently renewed passport significantly limits understanding the numbers of African populations living in diaspora
  • Broadening the definition of who is defined as an African in diaspora is also likely to help increase remittance inflows and economic activity by diaspora populations because increased rights increases confidence in undertaking economic activity.  
  • Draw lessons from African countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Senegal, Ghana that seem strategically positioned to attract greater diaspora financial remittances – that is, their citizenship frameworks align with remittance objective
  • Observe ways that many Western countries including Australia leverages labour migration  globally, regionally, and they structures citizenship rights and those of permanent and temporary persons alongside economic objectives
  • Observe the flexible labour movement (working people) between countries such as Australia and New Zealand
  • EU citizens are also free to trade and transport goods, services and capital through EU borders
  • Observe the flexible labour movement involving the EU and non-EU countries of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, etc.
  • For the international development  minded, take a look at the Australia’s regional arrangements with Pacific nations and Timor-Leste allowing citizens of the Pacific Islands to work in Australia for up to three years supporting improve economic security
  • The revised Chinese approach is also instructive in that ethnic Chinese and descendants from foreign lands are enabled enter the country and stay for five years to pursue their economic interest as part of developing China.
  • The Ethiopian Origin ID Card valid for five years is also interesting in that it targets Ethiopians who have taken up foreign citizenship. Presumably the Ethiopian diaspora to pursue economic and social activities in Ethiopia without constraints
  • Central to most of those embracing either dual citizenship or some of diaspora rights, is the idea that the environment is created to ensure people move freely, pursue economic activities, deliver services and move capital
  • Recognise importance of future global networks and skills from 2nd and 3rd Generation descendants
  • Note that study and skilled migration is set to continue to produce children of mixed parentage.

It is my hope that these points are understood as both strategies that extend rights to diaspora populations, and also these ideas are connected to participating in modern economies in this globalised world. There is much that can be drawn upon, adapted or adopted.

Other relevant info link sites:

Readers may also be interested in looking at some of the news and scholarly sites below.
Tanzanians abroad send home Sh1 trillion yearly, The Citizen, April 18, 2018https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/News/Tanzanians-abroad-send-home-Sh1-trillion-yearly/1840340-4421572-enyv3e/index.html

Diaspora remittances outpace FDI, but costs remain a major hurdle, The East African, April 13, 2019. https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/business/Diaspora-remittances-east-africa-outpace-FDI/2560-5070004-c30kfhz/index.html

Kenya Receives Highest Diaspora Remittances in EA, The Kenyan Wall Street, April 16, 2019. https://kenyanwallstreet.com/kenya-receives-highest-diaspora-remittances-in-ea/

Beth Elise Whitaker, The Politics of Home: Dual Citizenship and the African Diaspora. The International Migration Review. Vol. 45, No. 4 (Winter 2011), pp. 755-783






Wednesday, 8 May 2019

Folau Religious Expression – Implications for Work Participation


Folau’s widely reported breach of Australia Rugby Code of Conduct and threat of a job loss for quoting bible verses on his social media contrary to his employer and sponsor wishes bring into focus tensions between religious faith and practices, and the new Australian cultural turn – where these are said to intersect with the world of work.

The Folau-Rugby Australia dispute points to far-reaching work participation implications beyond this particular Wallabies superstar.

This star re-sparked the controversy by expressing personal faith views about the passage of the Tasmanian State Parliament new laws making it optional for birth certificate registration to include gender – it is no longer compulsory for new-borns to be identified as male or female in Tassie.

This Tasmanian State law also allows 16+ year olds to change their previously registered gender without parents’ consent as per media reports see this links.

So what did he say to make some people take offense? Folau who we are told is also a preacher remarked on Instagram that “Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolaters, hell awaits you. Repent! Only Jesus saves.” If you Google you will see the verse is taken from 1 Cor 6:9. Here is the bible link.

Work participation is crucial for each person’s existence, survival and actualization of potential regardless of your faith, ethnicity, sexual identity, disability, and so forth. That’s how in the past we have understood the workings of Australian pluralist society.

But Australia is experiencing a cultural turn as shown in 61.6% who voted in favour of Same Sex Marriage contrasted with 38.4% who disapproved.

But does this mean the 38.4% or more are not allowed to comment on any flow-on effects of SSM legislative reforms such as registration certificates for newly-born or the 16 year olds in their social media communities or church?

Social media such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are significant spaces where community of believers conduct practices that support maintenance and growth of their faiths, aside from physical spaces. I presume they share info, discuss things of faith, and explore different ways of applying their faith and beliefs to everyday life.

These days in many churches preaching is not simply done by those with the mantle of a professional preacher. Neither should it be. There are many lay preachers who hold other jobs in other parts of secular society.

Following the ‘high-level breach’ verdict made by the Independent Panel against Folau, can we expect to see more people prevented from quoting various bible verses and risking losing their job with other employers?

Is there a danger of instilling totalitarian tendencies in how Australia thinks community of everyday believers are now to be governed and regulated to make them apparently fit the post-modernist and ‘post-faith’ society?

Obviously we can find many biblical verses on the gospel of ‘grace’, ‘love’, or on ‘not bruising a broken reed’. But I think for Christian commentators unless you are speaking from a position of spiritual revelation I don’t think many of us are in a position to say which verse would have been better used by Folau to make his criticism about birth certificate reforms.

It seems to me as Australia gradually shifts from pluralist democracy to identity politics as an underpinning of its governance system, new challenges are inevitable because two different sets of rights and belief systems are now at odds on some key areas. These points of contention are becoming more evident as time goes by.

In my view, there is more to this than simply whether those of us who profess to be Christians agree, disagree or are uneasy about how Folau made his point. It is no secret that many other reforms are in play across Australian jurisdictions reportedly as a way of aligning with the federal SSM changes. It just happens that this time the risk to work participation is highlighted in the Folau-Rugby Australia dispute.

In the past under Australia’s Equal Opportunity policies many people used to broadly think of access and equity in terms of ensuring people were not barred from safely participating in employment, service access and various public opportunities on basis of gender, religion, sexuality, disability, race and such. The new cultural turn involving identity politics seem to be suggesting that people can only contribute to the ‘nature of a good society’ by recanting some their Christian beliefs.

If we are to be honest, perhaps a decade before SSM was legalised in Australia, a few mainstream public institutions and non-government entities were already screening for some employment positions in favour of staff that can support greater acceptance of diverse sexualities and gender identities – and promote supportive environments for such groups.

Some notable employer websites already expect conformity with values and visions that require employees who can positively promote and celebrate the spirit of diverse gender and sexual identities. How many of these requirements are key to duties at hand, I wouldn’t know. Is it all legal or inclusive, I don’t know. In what way this aligns or conflicts with existing Australia’s EEO laws or the Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights? There is a fair bit to flesh out.

In my view I think there many issues that federal Parliament did not deal with prior to SSM legalisation or after about religious protections. The Ruddock Review Report got eventually released but in all honesty, given the state of politics, perhaps the timing was never conducive in sorting out religious protections legislatively.

Where to from here on the employment front? Whatever sanctions or settlement Rugby Australia reaches with Folau, there are emerging issues for Christians in private or public social media spaces they can expect to face. Even if you are the sort that uses the discourse of ‘grace’, will you constantly self-censor yourself just in case a discussion you are having with your social media tribe veers on when God brings the ’age of grace/dispensation to end’, or ‘that every human being is a sinner in need of cleansing and renewal’, or your tribes’ chats on ’redemption’ or ‘repentance from idolatry of our digital gadgets or money…. ’ (just some examples).

Do you abandon social media involving your local community, faith networks or whatever for fear of losing future job opportunities? Do you quit acknowledging that you are Christian in public forum for fear of being misunderstood or targeted within context or out of context?

Also, now that the overarching federal SSM legislation is in place, we could be seeing intensification of these sorts of employment dispute in the future unless religious protections are put in place. If you assume that 38.4% of the voting population did not support the SSM vote, and also a few more who supported assumed flow-on effects will not occur – then I think the Folau case is one of a few more others to come beyond the sports field.

In the near future, the Federal Parliament may be forced to adjudicate whether they believe employment in public and non-public institutions must demand that bible verses deemed offensive by some must not be used by Christians who seek to participate in such work life. Good luck to them how they sort this one out. Personally I think the UN did a better job in balancing everyone’s rights with Article 18.

As things stand, I think we will continue to see some individual organisations doing their own thing, and those aspiring to succeed playing greater part in celebrating and promoting diversity in gender and sexual identities. Whether this then means bible believers can expect reduced opportunities is something to watch.

On things community, it disturbing to think some of the Pacific Islander communities could have their participation into Rugby as community, elite sport and associated income possibly under threat because they share bible verses in church and social media spaces with their community folk and interested parties.

If mainstream society decides to sanction these groups, how long before you impact social cohesion?  It sounds to me that the wisdom of pluralism is going out of the window.

Pluralism assumes existence of groups with diverse and even competing interests. When you govern with some pluralist thinking in mind you know a way of governing partly and inevitably requires managing competing interests in while promoting a common good.

In a previous article I suggested Australia was at cross-roads when discussing the contestation around education and parental rights following SSM federal legislation. Today the Folau-Australia Rugby dispute puts a spotlight on risk to work participation. Some will say it’s not like our Parliaments didn’t know at some point they will have to grapple with these issues. It is also possible, who knows, perhaps the courts are gonna get busy.

The Gospel is clear about extending dignity to each other as human race and all born in the image of God. There is so much we have in common than what divides us. Pray for wisdom for those who lead us: See this verse.

Friday, 22 March 2019

Labor to Deliver Living Wage in Australia?



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:
        



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.


Thursday, 14 March 2019

Crisis in the Catholic Church and Beyond - Commentary


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.

Monday, 18 February 2019

Health Insurance Reforms – Changes and Questions


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

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.