tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/barry-ofarrell-4282/articlesBarry OFarrell – The Conversation2017-01-23T01:33:11Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/716232017-01-23T01:33:11Z2017-01-23T01:33:11ZNew NSW premier will have her hands full with issues that took the shine off Baird<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153767/original/image-20170123-30995-1d2c61n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gladys Berejiklian was elected unopposed to lead the NSW Liberal Party and become the state's next premier.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Moir</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gladys Berejiklian is undoubtedly one of the best-prepared candidates to take over the premiership of New South Wales in modern times. The Liberal partyroom <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-23/gladys-berejiklian-to-replace-mike-baird-as-nsw-premier/8202820">confirmed her elevation</a> as party leader and premier on Monday morning, with Dominic Perrottet to serve as her deputy.</p>
<p>Most of Berejiklian’s successful predecessors – Neville Wran, Nick Greiner, Bob Carr and Barry O’Farrell, for example – came to the job with much less experience of government, relying on strong performances as opposition leader. Berejiklian has successfully managed two of the most difficult portfolios – transport and treasury – with responsibility for the Hunter and industrial relations thrown in for variety. She also has experience as a senior member of the team that won a landslide victory over Labor in 2011.</p>
<p>However, being well prepared does not guarantee an easy time in office. Berejiklian inherits a Liberal Party that was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/29/nsw-premier-mike-bairds-popularity-plummets-in-poll-after-greyhound-ban">losing public support</a> in the last year of Mike Baird’s administration. </p>
<p>A vague smell of corruption over Liberal Party electoral funding practices <a href="https://theconversation.com/electoral-commission-makes-a-stand-on-liberal-breaches-of-nsw-donations-laws-56920">also lingers</a>. This is helped along by the Coalition’s recent decision to restructure the management of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) – a move many saw as designed to weaken the body that exposed those funding practices.</p>
<h2>Internal policy fights</h2>
<p>The NSW Liberal Party is still strongly factionalised at both the parliamentary and local level. O’Farrell was able to neutralise the influence of the radical right faction, while Baird promoted a raft of economic policies that were generally acceptable to the right. </p>
<p>If Berejiklian, who is from the left, wants to choose a different policy mix then she can expect the right will exert its influence. The right faction does not have any viable alternative leadership candidates of its own, but has a strong enough presence in the partyroom to make life difficult. </p>
<p>Berejiklian’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-23/gladys-berejiklian-where-does-she-stand-on-big-nsw-issues/8197238">stated intention</a> to concentrate on economic development issues should not have factional implications, although any more PR disaster projects <a href="https://theconversation.com/modelling-for-major-road-projects-is-at-odds-with-driver-behaviour-63603">like WestConnex</a> will not be well received. One of the interesting questions is how well she will be able to stare down opposition in the partyroom.</p>
<p>Berejiklian will certainly face a much less compliant National Party. This is a result of the recent shock defeat of the Nationals candidate at the recent <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/orange-by-election-2016/results/">Orange by-election</a>, attributed to a perception in rural areas that the Nationals had ignored the interests of rural communities when it allowed the Baird government to ban greyhound racing (a decision it later reversed).</p>
<p>As a result of the by-election loss the Nationals also have a new leader, John Barilaro. He seems to have learned the lessons of the defeat in Orange. </p>
<p>The first issue Berejiklian will face on that front is <a href="http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/4416562/mike-baird-resigns-and-now-john-barilaro-wants-to-stop-council-mergers/?cs=7">local council and shire amalgamations</a>. There will also be pressure to take a greater interest in the provision of good schools, hospitals and roads for country areas, which she should be able to accommodate without difficulty.</p>
<h2>The next election and the future</h2>
<p>Relations with the Nationals will be important as the next election approaches, since the Liberal Party is likely to be in deep trouble in its favoured electorates. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party’s success in Orange will certainly give it a higher profile in lower house seats. And the resurgence of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation will result in contests in most – if not all – rural seats.</p>
<p>There have been strong challenges in some electorates from local independents in recent state elections. There will be no safe seats for the Nationals. </p>
<p>Fortunately for Berejiklian, Labor is not in a position to profit from this situation. The “Country Labor” brand has made little impact in country areas in recent elections.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, given there is currently a swing against the Coalition, and a tight election is likely, a hung parliament after the next election is a real possibility.</p>
<p>Although Labor under Luke Foley has improved its position quickly after the catastrophic election defeat in 2011, it does not offer a great threat to the Berejiklian. Labor cannot win from opposition unless the government makes a complete mess of things – as Baird was threatening to do.</p>
<p>Berejiklian is a more instinctive political animal than Baird. She is less ideological, more pragmatic and prepared to compromise, so one would expect her to consult more and spend more energy on convincing the electorate of the value of her political initiatives.</p>
<p>Overall, while local press, radio and TV commentators prefer Liberal to Labor politicians, and were initially supportive of O’Farrell and Baird, any apparent mistakes will be jumped on. But this premier is female.</p>
<p>After the overtly sexist trashing of Julia Gillard by Tony Abbott, and of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump – both enthusiastically supported by right-wing media outlets – one has to wonder whether a female premier in NSW will be treated fairly. </p>
<p>Media handling of the state’s first female premier, Kristina Keneally, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/23/i-have-no-advice-for-gladys-berejiklian-but-i-do-have-some-for-the-media?CMP=share_btn_tw">wasn’t particularly friendly</a>, but that was not primarily because of her gender. It probably helps that Berejiklian is on the conservative side of politics. </p>
<p>Shock jock Alan Jones has <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/politics/alan-jones-slams-incoming-nsw-premier-gladys-berejiklian/news-story/1fd2e507916c87645d67cac85730337a%5D">already fired</a> one broadside against her. But on this issue – as on many others – we will just have to wait and see.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71623/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Hogan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Gladys Berejiklian becomes NSW premier with a great deal of experience, but she needs to overcome several problems – internal and external – to arrest sliding polls.Michael Hogan, Associate Professor and Honorary Associate, Department of Government and International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/715532017-01-19T01:13:27Z2017-01-19T01:13:27ZBaird’s early exit means NSW loses a leader whose best years were yet to come<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153347/original/image-20170118-26548-1yeg0kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mike Baird is to resign as NSW premier and retire as a state MP.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Miller</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It used to be the case that participation in political life was considered to be a vocation, and that those who chose it were in it for the long haul, through thick and thin. The most prominent example of this in Australian history was <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/hughes-william-morris-billy-6761">Billy Hughes</a>. Even after he lost the prime ministership in early 1923 he continued to be a member of the House of Representatives until his death in 1952.</p>
<p>That has all changed. Mike Baird’s <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/premier-mike-baird-resigns/news-story/c23b24d808dccecc654741106f9f64f7">resignation</a>, both as New South Wales premier and from the state parliament, comes as somewhat of a shock. He is only 48, has been an MP for less than ten years and premier for less than three. One would have thought his best years in public life were ahead of him.</p>
<h2>No scandals and no internal ructions</h2>
<p>Baird has <a href="http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/01/19/11/00/familys-health-issues-came-at-a-strong-personal-cost">cited personal reasons</a> for his decision to leave politics, and one can well sympathise with him in regard to the health of his parents and sister. Public life is demanding and invariably takes a toll on the personal lives of those who participate in it.</p>
<p>One should point out, though, that this is the case in many occupations, including the law, high-level finance and executive positions in the public service.</p>
<p>Baird is the fifth NSW premier in the last ten years, and only one of them lost their job as the result of an election. His predecessor, Barry O’Farrell, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/nsw-premier-barry-ofarrell-to-resign-over-icac-grange-wine/5393478">resigned</a> in the wake of allegations he had failed to declare a bottle of Grange Hermitage as a gift.</p>
<p>One should ask if it is a good thing that the NSW premiership has been turned over so often in recent times. In this regard, it seems to resemble the <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-avoid-relegation-turnbull-must-restore-an-authority-missing-since-howard-47492">turnover at the federal level</a>.</p>
<p>Baird’s resignation was not caused by scandal or political machinations leading to him being overthrown. In his relatively short time as premier he has performed reasonably well. NSW has performed quite well in economic terms; there have been no issues in the area of power generation; and, as Baird points out, there has been infrastructure development.</p>
<p>Sure, there have been a few problems over the past year relating to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/huge-benefits-premier-mike-baird-champions-council-amalgamations-20161017-gs48e8.html">council amalgamations</a> and the attempt to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-11/greyhound-ban-baird-government-confirms-backflip/7921000">close down the greyhound industry</a>. Certainly 2016 was a much more difficult year for Baird than 2015.</p>
<h2>The great unknown</h2>
<p>One could argue, though, that the problems of 2016 could have been an important aspect of Baird’s political education, and one would have hoped it would make him a better and more effective premier. Alas, that is not to be the case.</p>
<p>Politicians like to argue that a political career is like any other career. This means they develop skills and capacities that make them good at their job. It also means they should become more effective the longer they spend in politics. </p>
<p>This was certainly the case with John Howard, who did not become prime minister until he had been in public life for more than 20 years.</p>
<p>In this regard we shall never know just how effective Baird might have been as a political leader. He became premier in 2014 and initially enjoyed <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/mike-baird-resigns-how-mr-popular-ended-up-on-the-scrapheap/8193616">considerable popularity</a>. He <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-28/live3a-2015-nsw-election-night/6354264">won an election</a>. And, like any political leader, he made a few mistakes that dinted his popularity. </p>
<p>At this stage, one would have expected that he would have taken advantage of his setbacks, as did Howard, to grow as political leader.</p>
<p>We will now not know the true capacities of Baird as a leader. Instead, a successor will have to take over and learn the ropes. It will be interesting to see how the NSW people react to yet another change in leadership.</p>
<p>The issue would seem to be that in the new world, for many politicians, a time in politics is just another stage in their careers as they progress to other things. This is not to deny that political life is a hard life. The problem may be the modern way of thinking of it as a career, as something one does just to satisfy ambition.</p>
<p>Australia, both federally and at the state level, needs good leadership if it is to thrive. Good leaders just don’t appear out of nowhere. They become good leaders by working hard and growing into their jobs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71553/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Melleuish receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Gregory is a member of the Academic Advisory board of the Menzies Research Centre.</span></em></p>Mike Baird is the fifth New South Wales premier in ten years, and only one of them lost their job to an election. There’s little time, it seems, to learn and grow as a political leader.Gregory Melleuish, Professor, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/606392016-06-24T23:28:24Z2016-06-24T23:28:24ZPaying the piper and calling the tune? Following ClubsNSW’s political donations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127054/original/image-20160617-11101-1mr4ssl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell struck a deal with ClubsNSW while in opposition.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Part of the reason why the poker-machine lobby is successful in defeating any attempt to contain it is its capacity to give big money to political parties. It can also outspend most lobbyists on public campaigns.</p>
<p>We have identified 31 individual politicians or specific re-election campaigns from both sides of politics receiving ClubsNSW donations. These are the donations <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=48&ClientId=16043">we can track</a>; currently, donations of less than A$13,000 <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-our-political-donations-system-work-and-is-it-any-good-60159">do not need</a> to be publicly disclosed.</p>
<p>There is no suggestion the donations directly influence MPs’ decision-making. But while such donations don’t determine decisions they do, presumably, allow ClubsNSW to gain access to policymakers. </p>
<p>What’s also apparent is politicians hear the voice of ClubsNSW and other pokie operators loud and clear. Those seeking to reform poker-machine and other gambling regulations would argue this is to the detriment of good policy, and harmful to the well-being of those affected by gambling harm.</p>
<h2>Carrot-and-stick campaigning</h2>
<p>In October 2010, New South Wales’ then-opposition leader Barry O’Farrell <a href="http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=3D1D98B49789B59B0E460BF1B4B74CBE?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=3&clsPage=1&docID=SHD120520F61H12ISQK5">signed a “memorandum of understanding”</a> with ClubsNSW. This provided a raft of benefits for the clubs if he was elected, including a $300 million tax break and limits to competition.</p>
<p>Two months before O’Farrell and his gaming spokesman George Souris signed the deal, Julia Gillard began to stitch up a deal of her own with various crossbenchers to become prime minister. One independent MP, Andrew Wilkie, undertook to support Labor <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3001404.htm">on the basis</a> that it would introduce a system of pokie pre-commitment.</p>
<p>Half of Australia’s 200,000 pokies are in NSW; 70% of those are in clubs. Pokies make their operators a fortune – <a href="http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/index.php">more than $11 billion per year</a>, as of 2013-14, with about $5.4 billion of that in NSW.</p>
<p>It’s no surprise, then, ClubsNSW went to war over the Wilkie-Gillard reforms. If they were effective, they would strip out a substantial chunk of the pokie revenue – maybe as much as the 42% of pokie losses estimated to <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2009/report/gambling-report-volume1.pdf">come from problem gamblers</a>. With some clubs in NSW getting 80% or more of their revenue from pokies, any serious harm-minimisation measures would push them to the edge.</p>
<p>What the clubs did was textbook political campaigning. It involved both a carrot and a stick. </p>
<p>The carrot? Political donations to the major parties, and in particular to selected politicians from within the major parties. </p>
<p>The stick? A <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck/">highly effective</a> marginal seats campaign, coupled with broadcast advertising and local campaigns targeting specific politicians proposing gambling reform.</p>
<p>The result was a very nervous Labor backbench, <a href="http://www.armidaleexpress.com.au/story/935470/labor-mps-revolt-over-pokies-deal/">particularly in NSW</a>. Kevin Rudd capitalised on this, promising to ditch the reforms <a href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/12996948/clubs-confirm-pokie-reforms-meeting/">if re-elected as leader</a>. In the end, Gillard gave in, abandoning the deal with Wilkie and overcoming her government’s dependency on his support by appointing Liberal defector Peter Slipper <a href="http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=3D1D98B49789B59B0E460BF1B4B74CBE?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=3&clsPage=1&docID=SHD120520F61H12ISQK5">as speaker</a>. </p>
<p>If that was the solution, the problem Gillard faced must have been wicked indeed.</p>
<h2>Money, money, money</h2>
<p>A search of the Australian Electoral Commission political donor records reveals that between July 1999 and June 2015, ClubsNSW declared political donations <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=56&ClientId=16043">worth $2,569,181</a>. Almost all of this money went to either the ALP ($886,505) or the Coalition parties ($1,682,676). </p>
<p>Other funds went to entities linked to the parties, including a <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">$29,600 donation</a> to the Liberal Party-linked Millennium Forum in 2012-13. This was just before the body was drawn to the public’s attention in unhappy circumstances before <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-liberals-launch-fundraising-body-to-replace-discredited-millennium-forum-20140725-zwppv.html">NSW’s Independent Commission Against Corruption</a>.</p>
<p>For its campaign against the Wilkie-Gillard reforms, ClubsNSW allied with casinos, the Australian Hotels Association, and major players such as the Woolworths subsidiary, pokie operators ALH Ltd. It declared additional expenditure of $3,478,581 for this during <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/PoliticalExpenditure.aspx?SubmissionId=48&ClientId=16043">2010-11</a> and <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/PoliticalExpenditure.aspx?SubmissionId=49&ClientId=16043">2011-12</a>. Of that, $2,989,600 was for broadcasting expenses.</p>
<p>Another $490,624 was spent on polling and electoral research – some of which may well have found its way <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/gambling-and-alcohol-money-to-target-antipokies-senator-nick-xenophon-greens-20160604-gpbjl5.html">into party-political hands</a>.</p>
<p>Lobbying politicians effectively may sometimes require exchanges of ideas and, clearly, the exchange of funds. Until 2010, ClubsNSW donated only to Labor and Coalition party coffers directly. After that period, donations began to flow regularly to individual politicians and their campaigns.</p>
<p>A number of individual politicians, or their re-election campaigns, were substantial beneficiaries of ClubsNSW’s largesse after 2010. These included the Coalition’s <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=16043">Craig Laundy</a> ($20,000), <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Craig Kelly</a> ($6,500), <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Bob Baldwin</a> ($4,000), and <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Luke Hartsuyker</a> ($3,000). On the Labor side, the recipients included <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=16043">Joel Fitzgibbon</a> ($8,500), <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=48&ClientId=16043">Jason Clare</a> ($9,250), <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Chris Bowen</a> ($3,700) and <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Mike Kelly</a> ($3,000).</p>
<p>And a donation of $50,000 <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=49&ClientId=16043">went directly</a> to a Gold Coast PO box, naming then-Liberal Party federal director Brian Loughnane, in 2011-12.</p>
<p>Liberal MP Kevin Andrews received $40,000 in donations for his Menzies campaign account up until 2014-15. <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=16043">Two of these donations</a>, for $20,000 and $10,000, were originally earmarked as being for the Liberal Party’s Victorian division. However, they were, in fact, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/follow-the-money-clubs-nsw-donated-to-kevin-andrews-victorianbased-menzies-200-club-20150726-gikryw.html">intended for Andrews’ campaign</a>.</p>
<p>Clubs NSW donated a <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=56&ClientId=16043">further $10,000</a> to Andrews’ campaign in 2014-15.</p>
<p>Andrews was a frontbencher with responsibility for gambling policy in the lead-up to the 2013 election. He opposed the regulation of poker machines, and was supported strongly by ClubsNSW <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/video/video-news/video-national-news/clubs-nsw-paid-20000-to-support-kevin-andrews-20150727-3zyr6">in the election campaign</a>.</p>
<p>Andrews became social services minister and was responsible for gambling once the Abbott government was elected. He repealed the Gillard government’s very modest gambling reforms <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2013/November/Gambling_reforms_to_be_wound_back">in November 2013</a>, just two months after winning government.</p>
<h2>Toward reform</h2>
<p>It seems there is a coterie of politicians on both sides who are trusted, or at any rate supported by, the pokies lobby. Whether they are agents of influence, intelligence conduits, neither, or both, we do not know. </p>
<p>What is clear is that gambling reform has been stymied by powerful vested interests. This has been facilitated – in fact, made possible – by very poor political donation disclosure laws. </p>
<p>If we are to have anything like a timely window into who is giving money to our politicians, and perhaps buying influence with them, reform of this system is urgently needed.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading:</strong> <a href="http://theconversation.com/is-there-any-hope-for-gambling-reform-in-a-new-parliament-60638">Is there any hope for gambling reform in a new parliament?</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian governments (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens and of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. He submitted to the O'Farrell review and met with Mr O'Farrell during the course of his review. The research reported in this article was funded by the Alliance for Gambling Reform.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maggie Johnson is a recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) funded by the Australian government. </span></em></p>There is a coterie of politicians on both sides who are trusted, or at any rate supported by, the pokies lobby.Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityMaggie Johnson, PhD Student, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/527512016-04-29T05:47:48Z2016-04-29T05:47:48ZGovernment ignores elephant in the room in response to online gambling review<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120494/original/image-20160428-30976-74k56v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government has vowed to close a loophole that allows some online bookmakers to circumvent the ban on online in-play betting.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government has released its <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/communities-and-vulnerable-people/programmes-services/gambling/government-response-to-the-2015-review-of-the-impact-of-illegal-offshore-wagering">response</a> to former NSW premier Barry O’Farrell’s <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/communities-and-vulnerable-people/programmes-services/gambling/review-of-illegal-offshore-wagering">review</a> of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/iga2001193/">Interactive Gambling Act</a>. O’Farrell’s review supposedly focused on “illegal offshore gambling providers”, but also covered issues including consumer protection and credit betting.</p>
<p>Releasing the review, Human Services Minister Alan Tudge <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/government-closes-online-live-sports-betting-loophole/7367406">vowed</a> to close a loophole that allows some online bookmakers to circumvent the ban on online in-play betting. </p>
<p>Some bookmakers offer a service that opens the computer’s microphone, theoretically establishing a voice connection. No-one speaks, but bookmakers claim this meets the legal requirement for such bets to be placed via a telephone call, or by walking into a TAB.</p>
<h2>What’s in the review and the response?</h2>
<p>In-play betting increases the possible frequency of betting. </p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=C_omSZQyfYcC&pg=PT116&lpg=PT116&dq=gambling+event+frequency&source=bl&ots=XeekNEsNaS&sig=gxcV1sT8g42sbIjoKGEu41I5fk8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf-cuV-7LMAhVluYMKHfBZCFEQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=gambling%20event%20frequency&f=false%E2%80%99">“Event frequency”</a> is crucial to the development of compulsive or addictive gambling behaviour. It provides increased reinforcement, or stimulus – which is key to addicting someone. </p>
<p>That you can place a bet every couple of seconds is critical to poker machines’ “success” in this regard. A handheld device with a capacity for continuous wagering would be more likely to promote addiction than one without.</p>
<p>Although O’Farrell’s review was supposedly focused on disrupting “illegal offshore” providers, it acknowledged that estimating the extent of this is difficult. The review suggested the annual amount Australians spend on such sites is between A$64 million and A$400 million.</p>
<p>Even at the top end, this represents about 1.9% of Australia’s annual gambling losses of $21 billion. It also pales into insignificance alongside the $11 billion lost on pokies annually.</p>
<p>The good news from its response is that the government has given consumer-protection measures priority. These include establishing a national self-exclusion register and providing punters with regular reports on their activity.</p>
<p>Most significantly, the government says it will prohibit credit betting – where bookmakers provide lines of credit to their online customers. This has potentially catastrophic consequences for gamblers. And, because bookmakers charge no interest, it is not captured by Australian consumer credit laws.</p>
<p>However, the government’s measures have not extended to prohibiting the use of credit cards, nor to any concrete proposals relating to the links between bookmakers and fringe credit providers such as payday lenders.</p>
<p>There is also only a passing reference to regulation of inducements such as “free” bets. These are to be subject to some form of inquiry to make sure they are consistent with “responsible gambling”. It’s arguable, however, that inducing people to bet is inconsistent with any reasonable notion of responsibility. More definitive action on this would not have been out of place.</p>
<p>The government also wants to strengthen the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s powers to stop unlicensed offshore gambling providers offering their wares to Australians. Quite how this is to be achieved is unclear. No jurisdiction in the world has succeeded in this so far.</p>
<p>Naming and shaming, blocking access at the ISP level on a voluntary basis, blocking banking transactions and communicating better with other jurisdictions are strategies invoked. Clearly, this is a work in progress.</p>
<h2>What about advertising?</h2>
<p>The elephant in the room, however, is the government’s failure to seriously address the extent of broadcast advertising that promotes online wagering. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/online-inplay-betting-will-stay-illegal-loopholes-to-be-closed-says-coalition-20160428-goh930.html">Tudge claimed</a> this was not in the review’s terms of reference. This is not quite the case; the review’s final term included a catch-all around harm minimisation.</p>
<p>In any event, two of the review’s 19 recommendations refer to advertising. The government’s response is to propose more industry self-regulation. This has allowed bookmakers to advertise as much as they want if it’s during a sporting broadcast. </p>
<p>Online wagering is likely to be very harmful to a new generation of gamblers who habitually use mobile devices. It has the capacity to be very high intensity. It threatens existing operators, such as Tabcorp and – importantly – the powerful pokie sector. </p>
<p>But, above all, the barrage of gambling ads that regularly confronts sports fans has provoked considerable public concern. Parents are <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-just-a-bit-of-fun-why-sports-gambling-and-kids-are-a-bad-mix-14517">faced with young children</a> who know more about the odds than they do about the players.</p>
<p>Advertising has fuelled growth in the fees that major sports command for their <a href="http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2508-billion-broadcast-rights-deal-stacks-up-well-with-other-sports-leagues-worldwide/news-story/934466dae31b486ab3124008988734fc">broadcast rights</a>. This is because broadcasters, confident of the revenue they can extract from bookmakers, have escalated what they are prepared to pay for these rights. </p>
<p>It’s not just bookmakers profiting from the 800,000 online gambling accounts operating in Australia. Major sports like AFL, NRL and cricket, and the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/tv-radio-hooked-on-advertising-from-sports-gambling/news-story/3a1f2e2029d4c763a7779281232acea4">broadcasters</a>, are also enjoying a hefty slice of the action. </p>
<h2>What now?</h2>
<p>So the government’s response is a bit like the proverbial curate’s egg – good in parts. This might be reasonably acceptable if it were all to be rolled out soon. Unfortunately, it’s not.</p>
<p>The response is critical of the multiple jurisdictions and even broader range of legislation governing gambling in Australia. This is a reasonable criticism. </p>
<p>However, the Commonwealth has clear jurisdiction over online gambling, consumer credit, and television and internet advertising. Yet the government’s proposals involve working with the states and territories to implement almost all its proposals – most notably, the consumer-protection reforms.</p>
<p>The government could clear up the regulatory confusion with a single piece of legislation, and without any credible threat of a constitutional challenge. Draft legislation has neither been prepared nor, it seems, contemplated. This is the case even in relation to the strengthening of the provisions around in-play betting.</p>
<p>The co-operative process with the states is supposed to occur over the next 12 months. But no timeline is suggested. Some of the states and territories have a lot of revenue from online gambling (especially the Northern Territory). In such discussions, vested interest has a way of triumphing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52751/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian governments (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens and of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. He submitted to the O'Farrell review and met with Mr O'Farrell during the course of his review.</span></em></p>Online wagering is likely to be very harmful to a new generation of gamblers who habitually use mobile devices. It has the capacity to be very high intensity.Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/519912016-01-05T19:18:30Z2016-01-05T19:18:30ZVested interest the safest bet as online gambling review’s release looms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107104/original/image-20160103-11914-mzut14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Barry O'Farrell was tasked with reviewing Australia's online gambling regulations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Former NSW premier Barry O’Farrell <a href="http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/mitch_fifield/news/ofarrell_review_into_illegal_offshore_wagering#.VodVmsB953I">handed his review</a> of online gambling to the federal government late last year. The government says it will publicly release the report and its response together.</p>
<p>Under the <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/iga2001193/">Interactive Gambling Act</a>, only wagering may lawfully be offered online to Australian gamblers. Offering other forms of internet gambling, such as casino-style games or online poker, is illegal. However, gamblers who use such services do not commit an offence.</p>
<p>Gambling reformers hoped that the current review would concentrate on the harm already being done by licensed Australian wagering providers. A <a href="http://www.financialcounsellingaustralia.org.au/Corporate/Publications/Reports">report</a> released just prior to the review’s announcement highlighted some of the dubious practices of current licensed bookies. These include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>offering unsolicited credit;</p></li>
<li><p>providing inducements to gamble;</p></li>
<li><p>calling and chasing gamblers who may not have bet recently; and</p></li>
<li><p>apparently sharing data about customers with other bookies.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>When they were announced, however, the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/communities-and-vulnerable-people/programmes-services/gambling/review-impact-of-illegal-offshore-wagering-terms-of-reference">terms of reference</a> for the review were a disappointment to those who had hoped for reform.</p>
<p>The review was explicitly identified as being into “illegal offshore wagering”. Three of its four terms of reference were focused on this. A fourth allowed the review to examine consumer protection measures more broadly.</p>
<h2>What was submitted</h2>
<p>The review received 79 submissions, according to the Department of Social Services. Those <a href="https://engage.dss.gov.au/review-impact-of-illegal-offshore-wagering/impact-of-illegal-offshore-wagering-public-submissions/">made public</a> included submissions from online bookies such as CrownBet, bet365, Sportsbet, and Tabcorp.</p>
<p>The bookies want to be able to offer in-play betting. At the moment they can’t do so lawfully. The law prohibits in-play bets over the internet, although you can place such bets at a TAB or over the phone.</p>
<p>Online bookmaker William Hill has a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/william-hill-ladbrokes-in-afp-sights-over-live-bets/news-story/5a857663bb7323d32c057d6550ee2204">workaround of dubious legality</a> on its app, which opens the device’s microphone to emulate a phone call. No-one need speak, but it argues that this gets around the current prohibition. The Australian Federal Police <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/tom-waterhouse-wins-betting-battle-with-regulators-20151028-gkkkri.html">declined to investigate</a> this practice, indicating that its resources were not adequate for pursuing it.</p>
<p>The bookies are not asking, at this stage, for micro-bets. These are bets in-play on specific activities – such as who will kick the next goal, or whether the next over will include a six. The sports don’t want this: it makes the job of maintaining integrity too hard. Integrity agreements (side deals to sponsorships, mostly) provide for sports approving the types of bets that can be made. </p>
<p>The Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports <a href="https://engage.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/COMPPS-2015-Submission-Illegal-Offshore-Wagering-Oct15-Final.pdf">asserts that</a> making in-play betting lawful for Australian licensed operators will stop people going offshore. This, it is argued, will improve the integrity of Australian sport because bookies will share data and detect irregularities. </p>
<p>This is pretty much the line that the bookies take, too. Bet365 <a href="https://engage.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/bet365-Submission-to-the-Review-of-Illegal-Offshore-Wagering.pdf">basically argues</a> that it can be trusted, because it is licensed in Australia (and other places), not in some tiny tax haven. <a href="https://engage.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Sportsbets-Submission-to-the-Review-of-the-Impact-of-Illegal-Offshore-Wagering.pdf">Sportsbet</a> argues the same, but also maintains that its self-exclusion and voluntary pre-commitment programs are first-class. </p>
<p><a href="https://engage.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CrownBet-Pty-Limited-Submission-to-offshore-review-November-2015.pdf">CrownBet</a> has a big program of reform. It wants the government to enforce the act to prosecute offshore operators, and impose penalties (no-one has ever been prosecuted under the act). It wants to have such providers blocked via ISPs. </p>
<p>CrownBet also wants online in-play bets legalised for Australian operators but it wants a national policy framework and an active federal regulator. It also wants a national self-exclusion register and to include non-account cash-based betting in this.</p>
<p><a href="https://engage.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Hon-Barry-OFarrell-re-Impact-of-illegal-offshore-wagering-review-1611151.pdf">Tabcorp</a> also wants the act enforced and it wants gamblers who use offshore providers penalised. However, Tabcorp wants to limit online live betting to retail venues. This would be of considerable benefit to its chain of venues. It argues that it doesn’t want to harm hotels and clubs, which also host TAB outlets. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107128/original/image-20160104-11917-z038cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107128/original/image-20160104-11917-z038cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107128/original/image-20160104-11917-z038cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107128/original/image-20160104-11917-z038cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107128/original/image-20160104-11917-z038cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107128/original/image-20160104-11917-z038cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107128/original/image-20160104-11917-z038cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Online in-play betting is likely to be a big growth area for bookmakers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What to expect</h2>
<p>Overall, vested interest is the predictable horse to back in this review. And this is hardly surprising. </p>
<p>Online in-play betting is likely to be a big growth area for the bookies, and consequently for the TV stations (who don’t want TV advertising any more regulated than it already is). FreeTV’s <a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/media/Code_of_Practice/Free_TV_Commercial_Television_Industry_Code_of_Practice_2015.pdf">ad code</a> was recently revised so that gambling ads can be shown after 7PM. It used to be 8:30PM. </p>
<p>Sports broadcasts continue to be exempt from this modest restriction. More money means more ads. That also seems to be the motive behind the professional sports’ argument – if the bookies are making more money, they can spend more of it on sponsorship.</p>
<p>The problem is that in-play bets will permit quite high-intensity (and uncapped) gambling via mobile apps, for example. Even without micro-bets (and these may not be far off), gamblers will have more capacity for sustained gambling. High-intensity and regular bets are a risk factor for developing addiction; in-play bets are a step closer to that, particularly if it’s available in your pocket 24/7.</p>
<p>What reforms would offset this danger? An IT-based national self-exclusion register is a good idea. Punters should be able to effectively exclude themselves from every operator in the country with one click. The technological platform of online gambling makes this much easier than for poker machines.</p>
<p>Such a system could be configured to allow gamblers to set maximum bets and daily, weekly or monthly limits for their gambling. If the bookies are serious, they need to demonstrate it by adopting such approaches.</p>
<p>It would be great if the federal government implemented <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/helping-problem-gamblers">its own policy</a> and banned credit betting, as well as requiring gamblers to transfer funds via direct deposit rather than via credit cards. Getting rid of inducements to gamble is also an excellent idea.</p>
<p>The government’s policy also talks about regulating advertising if the gambling industry fails to respond adequately. The watered-down code might easily be construed as such a failure. </p>
<p>It’s hard to know if O’Farrell or Social Services Minister Christian Porter have the will to take on not only the bookies, but broadcast TV stations and major sports. Gambling addiction has many under its sway – state governments, major sporting codes, TV stations and gambling businesses, to name a few. They are all addicted to the seemingly endless stream of revenue. </p>
<p>Sports betting is <a href="https://theconversation.com/online-gambling-review-should-not-ignore-the-problems-in-our-own-backyard-47155">worth around A$750 million</a> in Australia. In-play bets could boost this even faster than the 16% growth rate of recent years. </p>
<p>This comes at a cost to the economy and society. But the costs of gambling don’t seem to weigh heavily on the bookies. Perhaps O’Farrell and Porter can bear that load, and balance the interests of bookies, sports and TV stations with those of the partners, children, and employers of any new wave of gambling addicts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51991/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian governments (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens and of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. He made a submission to the 'Illegal Offshore Wagering Review'.
</span></em></p>Online in-play betting is likely to be a big growth area for the bookies, and consequently for TV stations. If legalised, what harm might this bring?Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/441382015-07-06T04:23:24Z2015-07-06T04:23:24ZFollow the money: the difficult path to political donation reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87116/original/image-20150702-10601-1n9jrp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The O'Farrell government had a law limiting political donations struck down by the High Court.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Revelations of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-30/call-political-donation-reform-after-mafia-linked-to-politicians/6582450">mafia-linked donations</a> to the Liberal Party have once again prompted calls to reform Australia’s extraordinarily lax system of political finance regulation. Former Liberal leader John Hewson <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/renewed-calls-for-an-overhaul-of-political-donation-laws/6582736">said</a> the only way to guarantee transparency is to ban all corporate or union donations, to limit individual donations to A$1000 and to have immediate disclosure.</p>
<p>The shadow special minister of state, Gary Gray, was less ambitious in his call for timeliness and the lowering of the threshold for disclosure. At the federal level, disclosure often comes long after the electoral event for which the donations were made. Labor <a href="http://www.alp.org.au/regular">already discloses</a> donations of more than $1000, but the Coalition has traditionally <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/01/28/joke-political-donation-laws-hide-half-the-story-from-voters/?wpmp_switcher=mobile">opposed</a> legislation requiring this.</p>
<p>So, what is an achievable way forward on reform?</p>
<h2>History of public funding and reform</h2>
<p>Public funding of election campaigns was <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/ElectoralFinancing#_Toc320870071">first introduced</a> in NSW in 1981 and federally in 1983. It was intended to reduce the dependence of political parties on private money. However, parties accepting public funding were not required to refrain from taking private money. The dependence of the major parties on private money continued to grow. </p>
<p>This helped pay for increasingly expensive television advertising campaigns. Australia lacked any restrictions on this, unlike comparable democracies like <a href="https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Political-advertising.aspx#.VZSyn-2qpBc">the UK</a>.</p>
<p>A series of scandals at state level involving <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/scandal-unparalleled/story-e6frg6n6-1111117701661">political donations by property developers</a> led to a tightening of political finance regulation in NSW and Queensland. This started with a ban on developer donations <a href="http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/131a07fa4b8a041cca256e610012de17/03e92a72eea3ff92ca257678001448de/$FILE/b2009-162-d16-House.pdf">in NSW</a> in 2009 and led on to the introduction of caps on donations and expenditure in both states. However, some candidates still <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/i-feel-like-a-walking-atm-newcastle-lord-mayor-jeff-mccloy-admits-giving-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-to-liberal-candidates-20140814-103plf.html">believed</a> they could ignore political finance rules.</p>
<p>In 2012, the NSW government <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nsw-political-donations-case-the-implied-freedom-of-political-communication-strikes-again-after-21-years-21676">attempted</a> to go beyond existing caps and source restrictions to follow the <a href="http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=ces&document=part6&lang=e">Canadian example</a> of banning all corporate or union donations. The right to make political donations was to be restricted to individuals on the electoral roll.</p>
<p>The legislation was extremely controversial because it prevented the payment of union affiliation fees to the Labor Party, thus interfering with the party’s 100-year-old internal structure. It also required that any electoral expenditure by affiliated unions be counted towards the party’s expenditure limit. </p>
<p>The High Court <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/58.html">struck down</a> the legislation on the grounds that it was impermissible to discriminate between donors who were electors and those who were not (such as permanent residents), or to apply aggregation to unions but not to other kinds of third parties.</p>
<h2>The way forward</h2>
<p>Reformers tend generally to favour caps rather than a ban on donations. This is to avoid High Court challenges and ensure a mix of sources of party funding, both public and private. </p>
<p>Internationally, small donations (below the level of political influence) are regarded as desirable and to be encouraged through means such as tax deductibility or credits. Proposals for total reliance on <a href="https://theconversation.com/nsw-is-introducing-full-public-funding-of-major-political-parties-by-stealth-33028">public funding</a> would undoubtedly and perhaps unsurprisingly result in a “snouts in the trough” reaction.</p>
<p>Despite some to-ing and fro-ing as governments have changed or High Court challenges have been mounted, it is at the state and territory level that most progress has been made in the past five years. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/new-funding-rules-for-sa-elections/story-e6frfku9-1227423693403">South Australia</a>, cross-party agreement has been achieved for a new system whereby parties or candidates that want public funding have to agree to comply with expenditure caps. Nonetheless, the loopholes in Australia’s political finance regulation cannot be closed without movement at the federal level.</p>
<p>Expenditure caps at the federal level were removed in 1980. While once a source of pride, they had become anachronistic through referring only to candidates and not to parties. In the new era of centralised political campaigning, one of the many arguments for expenditure caps is a reduction of the volume of negative advertising, with all its consequences for political trust.</p>
<h2>Why now?</h2>
<p>It is unfortunate that it is only scandals and the perception of corruption or criminal involvement that prompt moves to reform Australia’s political finance regime. While it is important to remove perceptions of undue influence, it is equally important to uphold democratic principles such as that of political equality and a level playing field for electoral competition. </p>
<p>Those whose supporters have deep pockets should not be given an unfair advantage in electoral competition. Nor should cashed-up voices be able to drown out others in the electronic media.</p>
<p>Political equality does not exist when some are able to purchase access to ministers or senior political figures through large political donations or paying inflated prices for seats at a dinner. </p>
<p>While systems of public funding and access to broadcast time are not perfect, they are based on relatively transparent formulas such as votes at the last election. They do enable all parties with a threshold level of community support (<a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/public_funding/funding-guide.htm">usually 4%</a>) to get their message out during elections. This is important for healthy electoral competition.</p>
<p>Yet there can be major problems with the way in which public resources are used for undeclared political purposes. This unfairly advantages incumbents over challengers in elections. Unlike comparable democracies, Australia has taken a laissez-faire approach to the use of staff and parliamentary travel allowances for electioneering rather than representational purposes. </p>
<p>Campaign launches are now delayed until after pre-poll voting has already begun, because of the convention that restrictions only begin with the policy launch. The use of government advertising for partisan purposes in Australia is also notorious.</p>
<p>In a context where the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-wa-senate-election-and-the-rise-of-money-in-australian-politics-25477">unrestricted role of private money</a> and the abuse of public resources has become normalised in Australian elections, the shock of discovering mafia involvement in political donations may be a positive one. Hopefully, there will be renewed momentum for electoral reform – concerned with first principles, not just with integrity issues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44138/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marian Sawer receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>It is unfortunate that it is only scandals and the perception of corruption or criminal involvement that prompt moves to reform Australia’s political finance regime.Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/253912014-07-03T20:32:28Z2014-07-03T20:32:28ZWill the climate debate end up being fought in court?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/52929/original/qyzpfrr2-1404355446.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Could politicians and scientists in the future be charged with "climate negligence"?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/go_greener_oz/3046225225">Julie G/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Society generally has a clear idea of what constitutes a crime, and those in positions of power are usually held to very high standards. Politicians charged with making decisions on the needs of society are held accountable for unprofessional behaviour.</p>
<p>New South Wales Premier Barry O’Farrell, for example, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/nsw-premier-barry-ofarrell-to-resign-over-icac-grange-wine/5393478">chose to resign</a> in April over a “massive memory fail”, after initially denying he had received an expensive bottle of wine from an Australian Water Holdings executive.</p>
<p>Neglecting to take action can also be considered criminal. In the same way that doctors who fail to diagnose an illness may be charged with malpractice, politicians can face similar charges for failing to adequately do their jobs.</p>
<p>These crimes may seem more clear-cut – but what happens when it comes to accountability for environmental issues, and more specifically, climate change?</p>
<h2>Predicting disasters and legal risk</h2>
<p>When government action or inaction leads to the direct harm of citizens due to environmental risks and natural hazards, they should be held to account. </p>
<p>This logic saw residents of New Orleans sue the United States government for damages caused by flooding associated with Hurricane Katrina, after a federal judge ruled the US Army Corps of Engineers <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/19/nation/na-katrina-flooding19">displayed gross negligence</a> by failing to maintain a shipping channel next to a levee protecting the city. </p>
<p>In another case in 2009, seven scientists and civil servants were <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-found-guilty-for-laquila-earthquake-deaths-but-why-10292">convicted of manslaughter</a> after failing to give adequate warning of an impending earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, that killed 309 people. </p>
<p>We are yet to see if and how politicians and scientists will be held accountable for increased greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change. But a recent area of legal development is arising in this area, known as <a href="http://www.brrmedia.com/event/117353/mark-baker-jones-special-counsel">climate legal risk</a>, defined as the risk of liability or adverse legal outcomes arising when the impacts of climate change (such as flooding, bushfire and coastal hazards) affect an organisation’s operations. </p>
<p>“Unacceptable impacts from predicted climate change” has been used to reject planning applications. In 2010 the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal <a href="http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/9043/">rejected a proposal</a> to subdivide a coastal property for development due to predictions that the land would be inundated within a century. The case marked a critical point in planning law and sent an important message to coastal planning decision makers about the increasing relevance of climate-related flooding.</p>
<p>In another case brought to the courtrooms by environmentalist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Gray_(activist)">Pete Gray</a>, the <a href="http://www.lec.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lec/index.html">Land and Environment Court of New South Wales</a> found that the approved expansion of the Anvil Hill Coal Mine had failed to properly assess the greenhouse gas pollution impacts of the future use of mined coal. </p>
<p>The most recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-health-ipcc-reports-emerging-risks-emerging-consensus-24213">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report</a> paints a bleak picture of what will happen if we continue to pump greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. The risks of extreme weather, droughts, floods, cyclones and marine inundations are all significantly increased.</p>
<p>Currently, governments and mainstream politicians that openly dispute human-caused climate change are rare. What is far more prevalent is a <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26824943">lack of meaningful action</a> in government to combat it.</p>
<p>But with the IPCC so clearly stating the need for action, there is now the very real risk that politicians, media outlets and scientists could face legal prosecution for their role in delaying action that could have saved properties, livelihoods and lives. </p>
<p>A broader international criminal framework identifying destruction of ecosystems, including through increasing greenhouse gas emissions, has been developed and termed “<a href="http://www.eradicatingecocide.com">ecocide</a>”, though it has yet to be legislated.</p>
<h2>Should scientists be held accountable for inaction?</h2>
<p>As the number of climate change related extreme events increase, we need to ask who should be held accountable for them. As we saw in L'Aquila, some believe that at least some of the responsibility falls on scientists. Perhaps it is the role of scientists to ensure that climate change warnings (such as those made by the IPCC) lead to actions like evacuation of natural disaster areas and meaningful policy change.</p>
<p>Scientists don’t have the power to make decisions in government or society. They are funded as researchers and experts, to advance knowledge and advise our elected officials. Scientists can only control what they say, and the urgency that they attach to it; not what is done with that advice. </p>
<p>But, like other people, scientists can be prone to hyperbole. Scientists have been <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/Policy_Commissions/Communication-climate-science/Communication-climate-science-report/TIME_FOR_CHANGE_Final_Proof.pdf">criticised for overdramatising</a> the consequences of inaction with regards to climate change, which can be overwhelming and may lead to a paralysis of action - a situation termed “climate fatigue”. </p>
<p>Transforming scientific research into policy is a messy process. It requires a range of scientific, communication and change management skills, the combination of which most scientists do not possess, and perhaps should not be expected to. However as we have seen, individuals and groups can be held accountable for inaction that leads to disastrous outcomes, and neither climate scientists or policy makers are likely to get a free pass.</p>
<h2>Avoiding lawyers at 50 paces</h2>
<p>In most situations, legal action comes only as a last resort when all other avenues of communication have broken down. And so in the climate debate, lawyers at 50 paces may only further inflame and entrench positions.</p>
<p>The climate issue needs leadership, not recrimination. We need leadership from scientists who can move from proclaiming the problem into practical uptake of solutions. </p>
<p>Likewise, leadership is needed from elected officials, who need to start working with the scientific community they have supported to develop evidence-based policy. </p>
<p>We need <a href="https://theconversation.com/chief-scientist-urges-corporate-chiefs-to-show-leadership-on-climate-change-26404">leadership from industry</a>, to start engaging with the climate debate. And in the run up to the <a href="http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit2014/">United Nations Climate Summit</a> set for September 2014 in New York and further talks <a href="https://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php?year=2015">in Paris next year</a>, we need <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/04/23/3990450.htm">global leaders</a> to step up to help move society to the next phase of climate action.</p>
<p>In the future, it will not have been enough of a defence to say that climate change inaction was a result of lack of evidence. <a href="http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/hillary-clinton-states-stand-on-biotech-and-climate-change/81250038/">We have the evidence and we know that we should act</a>. If we do nothing now, future generations may take a legal perspective on our actions, or lack of them, bringing to The Hague a retrospective crime against humanity – climate negligence.</p>
<p><em>The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of Tim Vines in discussion of the ideas behind this piece.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25391/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefan Caddy-Retalic is Director of the Australian Transect Network, a facility of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN). TERN receives funding from the Department of Education.</span></em></p>Society generally has a clear idea of what constitutes a crime, and those in positions of power are usually held to very high standards. Politicians charged with making decisions on the needs of society…Andrew Lowe, Professor of Plant Conservation Biology, University of AdelaideStefan Caddy-Retalic, Transect Ecologist, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/257012014-04-16T05:50:21Z2014-04-16T05:50:21ZHistory repeats: how O'Farrell and Greiner fell foul of ICAC<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46537/original/jx4pww4q-1397626379.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">NSW premier Barry O'Farrell has fallen victim to the state's ICAC, resigning his post earlier today over a 'memory fail' in the evidence he gave before it.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today, the New South Wales Independent Commission into Corruption (ICAC) claimed its biggest political scalp in two decades. Liberal state premier Barry O’Farrell <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/04/16/nsw-premier-barry-o-farrell-announces-resignation">resigned</a> after what he has described as a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barry-ofarrell-resigns-after-being-caught-out-over-bottle-of-wine-20140416-36qpg.html">“massive memory fail”</a> in relation to accepting a A$3000 bottle of wine from Nick Di Girolamo, the then-chief executive of the company at the centre of the ICAC investigation, Australia Water Holdings (AWH).</p>
<p>O’Farrell had previously contended in evidence before ICAC that he did not remember receiving the wine. His resignation adds to the raft of misconduct allegations already faced by some members of the NSW Labor Party. After all, how many times in living memory has a premier resigned because of questionable conduct? </p>
<p>Well, twice, if you’re in New South Wales. Before O'Farrell’s demise there was the case of Nick Greiner. In 1989, Greiner championed the establishment of ICAC, only to himself fall victim to it in 1992. At the time of his resignation, Greiner argued it wasn’t corruption, it was <a href="http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/dmdocuments/pub2_22i1.pdf">“politics”</a>. </p>
<p>The two cases share a number of similarities. The <a href="http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/dmdocuments/pub2_22i1.pdf">allegations</a> levelled at Greiner were that he misused his position as Liberal Party leader to secure independent MP Terry Metherell’s resignation from state parliament to achieve political advantage. This fits in nicely with the <a href="http://www.apec.org.au/docs/06ASCC_HCMC/06_9_1_Balboa.pdf">commonly accepted definition</a> of corruption: a misuse of public office for private gain or personal advantage.</p>
<p>It is alleged that AWH lobbied O’Farrell to facilitate the rolling out of water infrastructure with AWH and state-owned Sydney Water Holdings. Lobbying exists within the grey area of corruption. At the very least it creates significant corruption risk.</p>
<p>However, what tipped the balance in O’Farrell’s case was his failure to declare the wine. By not declaring it, the message he sent was that he did not want people to know about it: that it was a personal advantage.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46545/original/h5fmw94b-1397628776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46545/original/h5fmw94b-1397628776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46545/original/h5fmw94b-1397628776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46545/original/h5fmw94b-1397628776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46545/original/h5fmw94b-1397628776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46545/original/h5fmw94b-1397628776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46545/original/h5fmw94b-1397628776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46545/original/h5fmw94b-1397628776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The ‘thankyou note’ which ended the premiership of Barry O'Farrell.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/ICAC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both of these acts rely on individuals achieving gain (be it in the form of Shiraz or political advantage), yet both point to a corrupted political culture. And the increase in public awareness of ICAC’s scope and of the acts that constitute corruption under law means those involved in the AWH case currently before the ICAC (O’Farrell included) have no excuse.</p>
<p>The NSW ICAC is not only the longest running independent anti-corruption organisation in Australia, it is also widely considered to be successful, both in <a href="http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/component/docman/doc_download/4164-community-attitudes-survey-report-on-2012-survey-july-2013">NSW</a> and <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ibac-admits-it-cannot-do-its-job-20140415-36pv9.html">in Victoria</a>. It has teeth, and it isn’t afraid to bite. Coupled with a comparatively high level of investigations and prosecutions, the powers awarded to the NSW ICAC make it a thorough and well-oiled organisation.</p>
<p>The NSW ICAC relies on the public to <a href="http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/">report</a> cases of corruption. These allegations, should they prove to be viable or substantiated, are then heard in open hearings. This ensures that the public is engaged with the ICAC which, in turn, promotes awareness of the organisation.</p>
<p>The New South Wales ICAC does not have the ability to charge or sentence individuals who appear before it. Rather, it reviews evidence, makes findings, and then passes it all on to the state Director of Public Prosecutions, who can lay charges over corrupt activity.</p>
<p>Some <a href="http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/documents/doc_download/2213-new-york-police-department-preventing-crime-and-corruption">academics</a> talk about the 20 year life cycle of corruption; that two decades will pass between corruption taking root and corruption scandals being played out. The NSW experience more or less supports this theory. </p>
<p>What needs to be understood, however, is that this 20 year cycle is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is about the time it takes for corruption charges to be proved, corrupt cultures disabled and disentangled, and for observers to leave the workforce. As the living memory of institutional corruption lessens, corrupt cultures slowly start to rebuild, and the cycle starts anew.</p>
<p>For the past 20 years, the NSW ICAC has targeted these factors, with <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=3836">varying levels of community support</a>. What is needed is ongoing internal monitoring, and a renewed emphasis on educating office holders as to what is acceptable conduct. You can never entirely get rid of corruption, but you can manage it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Olivia Monaghan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Today, the New South Wales Independent Commission into Corruption (ICAC) claimed its biggest political scalp in two decades. Liberal state premier Barry O’Farrell resigned after what he has described as…Olivia Monaghan, PhD Student in the School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/257052014-04-16T05:01:39Z2014-04-16T05:01:39ZO’Farrell fell short of basic standards in business and public life<p>It is tragic that New South Wales has lost an able and dedicated Premier apparently over a bottle of wine, even if it is a $3000 bottle of 1959 Penfolds Grange. Many will be sad to see Barry O’Farrell go. He is one of the most skilled politicians in the recent history of a state not well endowed with people of his capability and determination.</p>
<p>But what this ICAC revelation demonstrates once more is the tawdry state of the NSW government and Parliament. Single-handedly Geoffrey Watson SC, the counsel assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), is apparently clearing out an Augean Stables of greed, graft, bribery, and deceit.</p>
<p>In the catalogue of alleged influence peddling, misdemeanours, fraud and theft revealed in successive ICAC hearings concerning Australia Water Holdings, this bottle of wine incident might appear fairly trivial. Especially when you consider the corrupt coal licences at Doyles Creek, Mount Penny and Glendon Brook, all allegedly revolving around the financial interests of Eddie Obeid. </p>
<p>Nor should O’Farrell be pilloried for forgetting that he received the gift, if we grant him the benefit of a considerable doubt and assume he’s telling the truth. Premier O’Farrell has put himself forward as a defender of honesty, integrity and fair-dealing in the NSW Government. He even took the brave step of cancelling the mining licences awarded in dubious circumstances. But in accepting that bottle of wine he broke a fundamental rule in public or business life: do not accept gifts or favours in any circumstances (other than as a substitute for a fee for a service, such as a conference speech).</p>
<p>It was a career-ending mistake to accept an expensive bottle of wine from AWH chief executive Nick Di Girolamo, a man whose company stood to receive extraordinary benefits from a badly drafted contract with Sydney Water that allegedly allowed him to rort NSW taxpayers at will. To make matters worse at the time AWH was also bidding for a potentially lucrative new Public Private Partnership deal.</p>
<p>In many leading businesses there is a simple rule not to accept gifts of any kind from anyone in the course of business. It’s really not worth the hassle of imputations of potential corruption. In other companies and organisations small gifts may be allowed (less than $100) and anything larger must be handed over to the company, or handed back to the giver. Once Alan Greenspan, the Chair of the US Federal Reserve was asked to give the annual address at Enron. He was offered a cheque for US$30,000 and a gold statue after the speech. He left both on the Enron board table when he walked out.</p>
<p>In public life gifts have to be recorded, and large gifts handed over. In NSW parliament gifts over $500 have to be declared on the register of pecuniary interests. According to <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/icac-grills-premier-barry-ofarrell-over-missing-3000-bottle-of-grange/story-fni0xqrc-1226885756117">a report in The Daily Telegraph</a> no such declaration was made. </p>
<p>The alternative to strict adherence to such rules is that those with the deepest pockets and worst intentions can exert undue influence over decision makers. These systems of graft are often prevalent in developing economies, and undermine and divert economic growth and development. But as the ICAC inquiries have shockingly revealed, they can also occur right here and now.</p>
<p>Australian government and Australian business has to set higher standards. Barry O’Farrell has done the right thing in resigning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25705/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Clarke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It is tragic that New South Wales has lost an able and dedicated Premier apparently over a bottle of wine, even if it is a $3000 bottle of 1959 Penfolds Grange. Many will be sad to see Barry O’Farrell…Thomas Clarke, Professor, Centre for Corporate Governance , University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/126052013-03-07T23:52:37Z2013-03-07T23:52:37ZJulia Gillard’s western Sydney road show: the good, the bad and the ugly<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21079/original/wrd25b8m-1362698704.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Has Julia Gillard's tour of western Sydney been the vote winner she hoped? The answer is yet to come.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paul Miller/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The announcement that Prime Minister Julia Gillard would spend a week in the western suburbs of Sydney was <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/26/pms-four-star-rooty-hill-blitz-try-the-wagyu-say-locals/">greeted with mild amusement</a> by some, and became the base of jokes about “beige rooms” for others. </p>
<p>It was an important visit, however, as opinion polls are indicating least ten federal seats in the area could be lost to the Liberals at the next election. Western Sydney seems to capture the imagination of the media – Howard’s Battlers that morphed into the Aspirational Classes - to this week’s attempt by Gillard to reclaim a “Labor Heartland’. </p>
<p>The reasons for this are complex, but I suspect that it is a microcosm of broader Australia: a multicultural region with a growing population, with long neglected infrastructure that is slowly choking the region. <a href="http://newmatilda.com/2013/03/07/western-sydney-isnt-anyones-heartland">As I wrote recently</a>, it captures both the best and most negative aspects of Australian society. As such, while there is much that is unique about western Sydney, it also acts as a mirror for the rest of the country.</p>
<p>The question then: how did Julia Gillard do on her journey way out west, and what will be the likely result?</p>
<p>Let’s begin with the good. The Prime Minister gave an inspiring speech on the opening night to the Labor faithful. She proved once again that she is eloquent and motivating in her delivery. Her approach showed no signs of the latest poll figures and her discussion about "quality of life” was something that would appeal to most of us.</p>
<p>There are elements of government policy that are popular with the electorate that the Gillard highlighted. Key here is the National Broadband Network, which while painfully slow in its rollout, is fundamental for the efficiency and the economic prosperity of a large sprawling city such as Sydney, not to mention the rest of the country.</p>
<p>Then there is the unavoidable bad. The bad also started on the very night of her opening speech when Gillard stated that the residents of Western Sydney were not “second class citizens”. I am not sure who inserted that line, but when it was heard, the reaction was “who said we are?” </p>
<p>Rightly or wrongly, the Abbott Opposition has framed the Gillard government as making policy on the run. Unfortunately for Gillard, two of the key announcements from the Rooty Hill sojourn appeared to confirm this. </p>
<p>The first was <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3703055.htm">promise of a billion dollars</a> worth of funding for the so-called Westconnex Link. It was a funding commitment made with conditions attached that surprised NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell, who quickly described it as “back-of-the-envelope affair”.</p>
<p>O'Farrell quickly dismissed the idea and said his government would not support it – and as such it died a lonely death. There is no doubt that such an infrastructure project is fundamental for the region, but these things are always years off and the region needs relief from congestion immediately. The announcement failed to be accompanied by a more integrated transport plan in both the short and long term, something that is not possible without broader consultation. But as a region that has seen many such plans come and go, it was not surprising that this did not have much traction.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21081/original/g6x2ydpx-1362699375.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21081/original/g6x2ydpx-1362699375.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21081/original/g6x2ydpx-1362699375.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21081/original/g6x2ydpx-1362699375.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21081/original/g6x2ydpx-1362699375.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21081/original/g6x2ydpx-1362699375.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21081/original/g6x2ydpx-1362699375.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Julia Gillard’s appearances at the Rooty Hill RSL have been met with a mixed reception by locals.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alamo25</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second such <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-under-fire-on-gun-crime-20130116-2ctvs.html">policy announcement</a> was the focus on new gun and anti-gang laws. The promise of a $64 million anti-gang taskforce was encased in a description of soaring gun crime and gangs out of control. While gun crime is a problem in specific sections of western Sydney, it was one of those generalisations that people make about the region that is all too often repudiated. </p>
<p>It was not surprising that the PM’s announcement would put offside three conservative premiers, it was when NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics director Don Weatherburn, stated that claims that shootings have “soared”. The plan <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/pm-gun-figures-shot-down-by-statistics-chief-20130306-2flrw.html#ixzz2Mt7ca3Ym">began to unravel</a> when Dr Weatherburn, stated that the non-fatal shooting offences in NSW had peaked in 2001 and then began to fall.</p>
<p>Now to the ugly – and this was <a href="https://theconversation.com/gillard-and-abbott-bet-on-australias-xenophobia-12639">elegantly captured</a> by Michelle Grattan earlier this week. Grattan noted that both the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader have started courting xenophobic attitudes. </p>
<p>Just how ugly this was <a href="http://www.afr.com/p/national/hanson_backs_gillard_on_foreign_gSNBeFUoA7xgLWcSskKkHP">became evident</a> when the most enthusiastic supporter of the announcement was Pauline Hanson. </p>
<p>While any system is open to abuse, when pushed Gillard could not provide specific information regarding such instances or discrimination against Australian workers.</p>
<p>The Prime Minister’s trip to Western Sydney was important – as it would have been if she announced an extended stay in any region of Australia. Like the western suburbs of Sydney, each region has its own specific challenges and being exposed to them can only break down barriers that have emerged between politicians and the everyday experiences of the Australian public. </p>
<p>The problem for the Prime Minister, however, is that this trip happened after she had announced the longest election campaign in Australian history. </p>
<p>It has been seen as an election stunt, and this has clouded the aims of her trip. Unfortunately, a great opportunity for all involved was lost amongst the roadshow and media circus that followed. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12605/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Arvanitakis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The announcement that Prime Minister Julia Gillard would spend a week in the western suburbs of Sydney was greeted with mild amusement by some, and became the base of jokes about “beige rooms” for others…James Arvanitakis, Lecturer in Cultural and Social Analysis, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/107582012-11-15T23:32:52Z2012-11-15T23:32:52ZRoyal Commission: abuse victims need to be helped, not just heard<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17651/original/9w2ffb5q-1352944807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will help for victims of clergy abuse extend beyond the Royal Commission?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Miller</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been a great deal of focus on the role of a Royal Commission in delivering “justice” for victims of sexual abuse. Justice is a powerful, symbolic principle, and being listened to can be a moving and meaningful experience for survivors. My experience interviewing child abuse survivors suggests the opportunity to tell their story in a validating and comfortable environment can have a range of emotional benefits for them.</p>
<p>However, once the drama of the Royal Commission is over, survivors must return to their day-to-day lives. Some recover well, but many continue to experience high rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicide. They suffer in silence or are bounced between health and welfare services that are not funded to meet their needs. The worst affected wind up in prison or on the streets.</p>
<p>NSW premier Barry O’Farrell said that sexual abuse has “<a href="http://www.theherald.com.au/story/931677/poll-widening-sex-abuse-inquiry/?cs=12">robbed young children of their futures</a>”. The implication is that the lives of child abuse survivors have been irrevocably compromised and the only substantive action we can take is to prevent abuse from occurring in the first place; once it has happened, it’s too late to do much. This represents the state’s failure to provide adequate health services to child abuse survivors.</p>
<p>Ensuring the quality of life of survivors into the future should be a key focus of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Safety and justice are fundamental human rights, but so are health and wellbeing. The World Health Organisation defines health as an individual and collective “<a href="http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story046/en/index.html">resource for everyday life</a>”. We build and preserve this resource as a community, first by creating healthy environments in which people can live happily and safely, and second by ensuring that care and support are available.</p>
<p>In both regards, Australia has failed child abuse survivors. They grew up in spaces where they were not safe or protected. Many were not provided with the opportunity to disclose what had happened to them, or when they did, they were ignored. Now, as adults, they find themselves unable to access health care that addresses the impact of trauma and abuse on their lives.</p>
<p>As a result, they are often subject to inappropriate, ineffective or even dangerous forms of treatment that compound the harms of abuse. But effective treatment does exist for child abuse survivors. The fact is that successive governments have not invested in them, made them available or provided enough abuse-specific training to the health workforce.</p>
<p>Royal Commissions have the power and scope to address systemic policy issues. The prevention, detection and reporting of child abuse is one such issue. Providing and ensuring access to effective mental health care in the aftermath of abuse is the other side of the coin – and it has long been neglected. Child abuse is at the very centre of the burden of mental illness in the community. Until steps are taken to address the health needs of survivors, this burden will remain, at a significant financial cost to the community, not to mention the personal cost to survivors, their friends and families.</p>
<p>When it comes to child abuse, justice, safety and health are inextricably linked. Children protected from abuse are less vulnerable to mental illness. Where they are abused, early detection and intervention can result in better outcomes for the child, and the identification of offenders and protection of other children.</p>
<p>For those victims enduring the long-term impacts of abuse, however, real justice must deliver more than the symbolic opportunity to attest to their victimisation. It must provide them with access to the care and support that has previously been denied them. </p>
<p>This is one of the main challenges that faces the Royal Commission and, in my view, if this challenge is not addressed then the current rhetoric about justice and safety will remain just that - rhetoric.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10758/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Salter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There has been a great deal of focus on the role of a Royal Commission in delivering “justice” for victims of sexual abuse. Justice is a powerful, symbolic principle, and being listened to can be a moving…Michael Salter, Lecturer in Criminology, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.