MICHAEL MULLINS’ TINY LETTER

There is a certain bitter irony in the fact that widespread child abuse is occurring within the Federal Government’s regime of immigration detention at the same time that the government sponsored Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is seeking to achieve justice for victims of past abuses. 

This begs the question of why Immigration Minister Scott Morrison continues to enjoy popular support for his management of border protection policies that facilitate child abuse even though there is overwhelming public backing for the work of the child abuse Royal Commission.

Surely the explanation lies in the extraordinary level of resourcing that the Government allocates to the Immigration Department to manage and manipulate public opinion. In March Fairfax reported that the Department employed a 66 strong team of ‘spin doctors’ and communications staff, up from just 13 under the previous government in 2011. By June this year, Fairfax was reporting that the number had risen to 95. 

If churches and institutions caring for children had made that kind of investment and successfully controlled the flow of information, it is less likely that there would have been the groundswell of public opinion that prompted former PM Julia Gillard to call the Royal Commission in November 2012. The scale of institutional child abuse would remain hidden and many victims denied eventual justice.

In July, the Human Rights Commission invited Sydney University Medical School paediatrician Elizabeth Elliott to join Professor Gillian Triggs in observing the health and well being of children in detention on Christmas Island. Her report, which described the children’s chronic physical and mental illness, was chilling. 

In commenting on the the minister’s announcement on Tuesday that 150 young children and their families would be released into the community on bridging visas, Dr Elliott asserted that ‘when it comes to children in need, most Australians feel compassion’ but compassion had ‘gone missing’. 

Most likely this has happened because the channels of communication – and consequently compassion – had been blocked by the Department’s media managers and the stories of these children have not been allowed to reach the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians.

Such compassion is a vital trigger that helps people access legal protections that they have a right to. It involves individuals talking and having their stories heard, far and wide if necessary. The stories become common knowledge, at least in general terms, and the compassion of Australians follows. This has occurred in the case of victims of past child victims of sexual abuse in churches and institutions.

Dr Elliott says ‘conversations with teenagers who could articulate their predicament were particularly poignant’. It is a pity that most detained children are not afforded the opportunity to reach professionals such as Dr Elliott, who could then advocate on their behalf. It is outrageous that the system actively denies this such opportunity in a calculated manner, particularly as the minister is, in many cases, their legal guardian and therefore responsible for their well being.

The Abbott Government shelved plans to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act because it feared alienating ethnic minorities. The prime minister declared: ‘I want the communities of our country to be our friend, not our critic. … I want to work with the communities of our country as “Team Australia”’.

He was keenly aware that alienation of minorities caused by the 18C changes would have been likely to contribute to an increase in the number of young Muslim males travelling to wars in the Middle East, and subsequently return to Australia radicalised and skilled to carry out terrorist attacks here. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop had said that preventing Australian citizens from becoming involved in terrorist activities was one of Australia's highest national security priorities.

It would seem reasonable to assume that ‘Team Australia’ refers to a nation in which social inclusion is a priority for government policy. Such a term would indeed be meaningless if the government did not care about social inclusion. That’s why it’s so significant that the May Budget was one of the most divisive in the nation’s history.

One of the more extreme measures in the Budget was the proposed rules forcing young people to wait six months before getting unemployment benefits and require them to apply for 40 jobs per month. This divisiveness of this was amplified with Thursday’s release of statistics that show Australia’s unemployment rate is at its highest in 12 years.

How can the nation’s young unemployed feel part of Team Australia if they sense they are being punished by such a draconian regime? Surely they will feel excluded, sitting on the sideline with the chill wind running through their veins. 

Young Muslim males are well represented in the ranks Australia’s young unemployed, yet the government hopes they will identify with Team Australia and not be subject to the discontent that makes them open to the recruitment pitches of Muslim radicals.

It’s fine to protect young Muslim males from being excluded from mainstream Australia through vilification. But there’s little point to that if they feel excluded by a set of judgmental welfare rules. The government will be completely outflanked by their Muslim radical brothers in offering means towards self-validation.

It’s likely there’s a political imperative behind the government’s toughness against the young unemployed. Voters like to see governments crack down on ‘dole bludgers’ in the way that they want the boats stopped. So perhaps It’s something they feel they have to do to remain electable. 

However a group of church welfare organisations this week suggested a way out, which is to de-politicise welfare payments. They want the government to transfer the power to set welfare payments to an independent body that is motivated by fairness rather than electability. It is similar to the idea of an ‘Australian Entitlements Commission’ that Catholic Social Services Australia suggested in 2008 to set and review welfare payments.

Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews has already dismissed this week’s suggestion, but in doing so he is ensuring the politics of division will dog his government’s wish to contain the threat of home grown terrorists who side with Muslim radicals and not Team Australia.

After a three day visit last month, Professor Triggs said 'almost all' of the children 'were coughing, were sick, were depressed, unable to communicate (and) weak'. Some of them were not leaving their cabins and were not eating. Triggs said there is 'no eye contact with some of them' and 'a lot of the younger babies are not crawling or not doing the things they should be doing at their age group simply because of the conditions'.

Under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 — the IGOC Act — the Immigration Minister is the legal guardian of children who arrive in Australia without a parent or carer. That means Morrisonassumes 'the same rights, powers, duties, obligations and liabilities as a natural guardian of the child would have'.

A report released last month by the Refugee Taskforce of the National Council of Churches in Australia argues that Morrison is not fit for the task and that an independent guardian should be appointed. The report, titled Protecting the Lonely Children, is written chiefly by Anglicare Southern Queensland mission and social justice researcher Jennifer Basham.

It points out that the minister has a conflict of interest in his roles as guardian, judge and jailer of unaccompanied children. Immigration ministers are generally not penalised for failing to consider or act in the best interests of the vulnerable asylum seeker children in their care, even though 'under law they have this most serious of duties'. In the IGOC Act, and in practice, the minister's border protection role takes priority over his guardianship responsibility.

As it happens, this subordination of Morrison's duty to protect children means he is not subject to social pariah stigma generally attached to parents, guardians or institutions that wantonly neglect the children they're responsible for. The majority of Australians voted for a government strong on border protection. Morrison is delivering in spades, so it seems they're prepared to turn a blind eye to claims of child neglect, especially if they're dismissed with such confidence by a rock star minister.

It's this suppression of information that is most significant, along with the repudiation of eyewitness accounts from erstwhile authoritative figures such as Triggs. Australians who voted for border protection are prepared to buy it, but for how long? The stories of the vulnerable children can't stay hidden forever. Their hope is that the increasing weight of evidence of the neglect will swing public opinion in their favour. After all, it's this kind of momentum that led to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

While some groups still believe that people infected with HIV should be stigmatised as a deterrent, the majority view at this month’s International AIDS Conference in Melbourne is that victims and the social groups to which they belong must be empowered. 

The media is being encouraged to listen to stories such as Sarah’s:

As a young woman, I was 21 when I was diagnosed, and it's that, it takes away your whole impression of what your life will be like. … And social stigma as well. It's really hard, like to be a young woman diagnosed, there's no education about it, you don't know how people are going to react to you. It's really scary, it's really scary.

Religious groups, school teachers, and the media can all choose to be part of the problem, or part of the solution, a source of fear or hope.

A few weeks before the conference, a health services practitioner in an eastern Victorian town reported that he or she was HIV positive. One media outlet played the fear card when it quoted a patient: ‘[I felt] pretty sick actually, very sick in the stomach’. 

Meanwhile the health worker had had the psychological strength to report his or her HIV positive status to authorities. This enabled them to take proper precautions, and it was therefore unlikely that any patients would contract the virus. If he or she had been been overcome by fear or shame, it is doubtful the alarm would have been raised, and the population would have been placed at greater risk.

Some continue to worry that infection rates are rising despite numerous campaigns, and feel that we therefore need stronger deterrence. In other words, greater stigma place on those living with HIV. The more positive way of thinking is to empower people in this situation to share their stories and experiences.

Associate Professor Trevor Cullen of Edith Cowan University is an expert in health journalism and reporting infectious diseases, especially AIDS. He is currently spearheading a pilot program promoting positive media education. He’s delivered media training to Conference delegates at the Melbourne AIDS Conference, andsays: ‘Research has shown that if effectively used, the media can lessen fear and stigma which are the biggest obstacles to seeking information and treatment.’

Former justice Michael Kirby is arguing that law reform is also essential in the fight against marginalising groups that are vulnerable to the AIDS infection. These include men who have sex with men, sex workers, injecting drug users, prisoners and refugees.

He says: ‘The law can be a guardian of people who are vulnerable and who are sick but the law … can be a burden on the person and their freedom, on their ability to see the importance of getting the HIV test, and getting onto antiretroviral drugs if they turn out to be positive.’

To this end, Victorian health minister David Davis has announced a move to amend the law criminalising intentional HIV transmission. Kirby praises the reform, adding that it is important that the message ‘should go to Africa, to Russia and other countries where [discriminatory] laws exist – and we should not be polite in the delivering of that message’.

Where the law and the media are prepared do stand with those living with the HIV – and not against them – there is hope that all concerned will take the necessary rational steps to contain the virus.

The Abbott Government's abolition of the price on carbon was part of its agenda to remove or weaken regulation that is thought to place a burden on business. Aside from the carbon tax, much of the Coalition's legislative program gives priority to capital over human need. The removal of important elements of the previous government's increased protection for consumers seeking financial advice is an example.

It is significant that the Abbott Government has a popular mandate to wind back its predecessor's policies that promoted social inclusion. This is despite the fact that many of the new Government's moves are clearly contrary to the common interest of the Australian people. For instance the mining super profits tax — which it is set to abolish — was designed to direct a proportion of the revenue from the nation's mineral wealth from large, predominantly foreign owned corporations, back to the common good of the Australian people. But the Australian people apparently want the big miners to keep their super profits.

Why? One possible answer lies in the symbolic value of business entrepreneurship. This is promoted as a good that trumps others, including — and especially — the social good. The social good has even been demonised, with welfare assistance depicted as the defining characteristic of the 'age of entitlement' that must be ended.

The glorification of business entrepreneurship has quite a bit of history, with the philosophy of the 'self made man' that came to dominate life in the United States and spread to other countries of the world, particularly in East Asia. Until now Australians have been proud to think of their nation as the land of the fair go, but it seems we've been won over by the promise of individual prosperity.

The culture of business entrepreneurship is difficult to avoid because it is linked to the globalisation of financial capital. But most especially, it dominates our education system, which must prepare young people to participate in the market economy. Future generations are likely to be indifferent, or even hostile, to the common good.

This was the scenario depicted earlier this month by Fr Benny Juliawan of the Jesuit Conference of Asia-Pacific, who was a keynote speaker at the Jesuit education colloquium in Sydney.

'School management, curricula and the general atmosphere in society idealise an entrepreneurial subject which revolves around discourses of competition and enterprise ... This underlying discourse of entrepreneurship redefines traditional values such as freedom and empowerment in a highly individualised sense.'

Juliawan believes the talents and personalities of today's students are geared toward joining a profession that will fulfil the material aspiration of the middle class, and that there is a serious shortcoming in the entrepreneurial self that is crafted through our education system.

The energy and focus of the activity of creating wealth is in itself admirable. But social — rather than business — entrepreneurship promises a better world. Business entrepreneurs measure performance in terms of financial profit and return, while social entrepreneurs offer profits for society and not just themselves. 

A good role model for aspiring social entrepreneurs is the Jesuit educated Australian rooftop solar pioneer Danny Kennedy, who featured on ABC1's 4 Corners two weeks ago. To realise his ambitions he had to leave his home country and settle in the US, where paradoxically he has discovered there is more appetite for social entrepreneurship than there is in egalitarian Australia. That's because it ultimately makes good business sense.

Former BBC Australian correspondent Nick Bryant has just published a book titled The Rise and Fall of Australia: How a great nation lost its way. He documents the Hawke-Keating policy reforms that continued under John Howard. The reforms got us through the GFC, but their impetus didn’t last. For a decade or more, populist politics and vacuous policy have been the norm.

We needed a circuit breaker and got Clive Palmer. He is demonstrating an ability to thwart some of the inequities in the Coalition’s Budget and legislative program. But he appears to stand for policy that is confused and inconsistent and lacking in the depth and long-term vision that is sorely needed. Moreover he is perhaps motivated more by self-interest and vengeance than social inclusion.

On the one hand Palmer is effectively performing the ‘keep the bastards honest’ role that was identified by Don Chipp when he founded the Australian Democrats back in 1977. Palmer is succeeding in his attempt to force the Abbott Government to embrace the tricky challenge of producing legislation that will ensure big business passes on to ordinary Australians the savings it will make from the abolition of the price on carbon. But on the other he plays hardball when there are attempts to scrutinise his own business dealings, as we saw in his instantly famous walk out from Thursday evening’s ABC 7.30 interview. 

Palmer is nothing if he’s not a man of surprises. Nobody expected that he would share a platform with Al Gore, advocating action on climate change. We don’t yet know whether this was merely a stunt, or if it will amount to something. If he sets his mind to it, anything is possible, and it might not matter what his motivation is if he is able to make a positive difference. In Twiggy Forrest, we have seen another wealthy and sometimes controversial mining magnate, join forces with world religious leaders including Pope Francis to support a network that aims to end slavery.

It’s unlikely that Palmer will do anything to facilitate the serious policy development that we need, and that is probably the role of others. There’s the recently established Melbourne Economic Forum, which Professors Ross Garnaut and Peter Dawkins are promoting. It aims to bring together leading economists to analyse policy ‘in the public interest’ in a way that is ‘independent of vested interests and partisan political connections’. 

But while the Melbourne Forum will advocate for a basic fairness that was lacking in the May Budget, their input will only go a certain distance in that it will regard the human person as an economic unit. They are experts in rationality but compassion is not part of their remit. To satisfy the broader human and spiritual needs of the population, it is necessary to pay attention to the vision of leaders like Pope Francis, who has a strong regard for both economic policy and common humanity. 

The pope and other religious leaders need to forge partnerships with high profile and entrepreneurial personalities from spheres of influence such as business and entertainment. In joining hands with Al Gore, Clive Palmer showed us that he is capable of forging unlikely alliances that could sidestep certain vested interests in order to make a better world. Clearly he has a mind to cultivate others, and Pope Francis could be on his list.

Earlier this month, Pope Francis visited Rome's Sant'Egidio Community, which is well known for its commitment to the poor. Before an audience that included many homeless people and immigrants, he once again blasted capitalism. 

He regretted that financial capital is often given priority over human capital: 'At the centre of today's global economy aren't men and women, but leaders and money. What isn't productive is thrown away.'

His answer is the concept of solidarity, which is fundamental to Catholic social teaching. It includes investing in — rather than discarding — humans who cannot be regarded as viable units of economic production.

'Some people have tried to take the word 'solidarity' out of our vocabulary,' he said.

But it is not true that all business leaders dismiss the idea of solidarity with those who appear chronically unproductive. Vinnies' CEO Sleepout (pictured), which took place overnight on Thursday, included investment bankers and other capitalist 'true believers' often in Pope Francis' firing line who are willing to express solidarity with those who are homeless.

The business leaders demonstrated that they were prepared to take a physically gruelling first step towards working with these people. Especially if they were able to look them in the eye, there is the possibility the CEOs will include their needs and aspirations in their own corporate thinking processes in the future. 

Hopefully the CEOs have seen for themselves that the profile of the homeless these days is no longer the stereotype of the dishevelled alcoholic man on the park bench. A Vinnies spokesperson cites victims of domestic violence and parents with kids who have just run out of options and can't afford the rent. Prospective employers with the imagination to believe in the future productive capacity of today's down and outs is one who is building a nation and not just his or her own business. 

Vinnies' CEO Sleepout seemed quite a crazy idea when it began five years ago. Coincidentally this week, investment banker and venture capitalist Mark Carnegie went further and proposed a form of compulsory 'national service' that might include older and younger Australians volunteering for organisations such as those assisting the poor and unemployed. 

Carnegie's vision is for a more inclusive and engaged Australia. It is to defeat the 'enemy' of an inequality that is the antithesis of solidarity.

The enemy that we face at the moment is growing inequality, growing divisiveness, growing disengagement, getting people through some universal program to get re-engaged is going to defend us against what's happening in America where you see the society just absolutely sheering because the rich and the poor are just getting further and further and further apart.

As long as a capitalist like Carnegie, and Pope Francis, can be fired up against the common enemy of social exclusion, there is hope for a better life for all of us. 

In 1969 the Victorian premier Sir Henry Bolte famously said of protesting railway workers: 'They can march up and down till they're bloody well footsore, it's nothing to do with me.' Bolte was unmoved by the protesters in much the same way that recently members of the current Coalition Government were unimpressed when students hectored Foreign Minister Julie Bishop at Sydney University and former Coalition identity Sophie Mirabella at Melbourne.

There is a place for strident but non-violent protest, but the cause is lost if the intention or effect is to intimidate or coerce. If protesters do manage to persuade authorities to agree to their demands, the change will be temporary or piecemeal unless they have also moved hearts and minds.

The best way of doing this is through meaningful symbolic gesture. We will long remember Pope Francis bowing his head in prayer during his May visit to the Middle East, at Israel's graffiti-covered concrete separation wall, with a Palestinian girl holding a flag by his side. This was an unscheduled moment that allowed him to cut through with his message that the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians is 'increasingly unacceptable'. 

It needed to be matched by a further act of symbolism on the other side of the security wall, hence Francis' subsequent unscheduled stop, at a cemetery for victims of terrorism at Mount Herzl. This allowed him to go some way towards establishing trust with Israelis skeptical of 'platitudes about Middle East peace that refuse to condemn Hamas terrorism'.

Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) took its cue from Francis and his mastery of the art of symbolism, when it embarked upon a campaign of National Lament for Australia's harsh and punitive policies against asylum seekers (CRA designated 1–8 June the campaign's Week of Prayer and Prophetic Presence). 

Francis had said last year: 'We are a society which has forgotten how to weep.' Heartfelt weeping, hesuggested, is 'the cry of the penitent, the cry of the brother and the sister who are looking upon so much human misery'.

The most potent moments in current affairs television occur when the person being interviewed is shown to cry, yet we're taught to believe that 'breaking down' shows we're not in command of the argument. In fact it reveals the humanity of the person, and often establishes an instant bond with those who witness their tears.

CRA stresses the National Lament is not a protest, but 'a symbolic action showing that we lament the treatment of people seeking asylum in Australia and are standing in solidarity with these people, our sisters and brothers'. The result could surprise.

We will never know what impact crying railway workers might have had on Bolte, But surely Bishop could not have been unmoved if the jostling students had instead wept, in a genuine manner, over the lost educational opportunity occasioned by the Federal Budget.

It seems the delays could have been caused by decisions to experiment and go against trend, to manufacture the products in the USA, rather than countries such as China, where more expedient production conditions prevail. 

We variously marvel at the cost-effective manufacturing processes in these countries and express alarm at the knock on effect on manufacturing here. The federal government's lack of will to subsidise local manufacturers is built on a conviction that workers here enjoy conditions that are unsustainable and our work conditions must be downgraded to ensure local industry is more competitive with overseas counterparts. 

We enjoy record low prices on products such as electronics and clothing and marvel at what we consider the 'miracle' of modern manufacturing in China, as if it is part of God's bounty. That this is far from the case is revealed in Baptist World Aid's recently released Behind the Barcode report. It is not a gift of God but our taking advantage of the disempowerment of fellow humans in less fortunate parts of the world.

The Baptist report focuses on widespread ignorance of the conditions of the people who produce electronic consumer goods. In other words, what we don't know won't hurt our conscience. It's our lack of knowledge of the exploitation of the workers and, more significantly, the lack of interest on the part of Australian and multinational companies in knowing about the human circumstances of the manufacture of these products.

The headline findings of the report include that fact that 97% of electronics companies could not demonstrate they were paying workers enough to meet their basic needs. Only 18% of companies had even partial knowledge of where their raw materials were sourced. Also 34% of companies had a code of conduct which included workers' rights to collective bargaining, but only one company could demonstrate that there was a collective bargaining agreement in place.

Nokia, which still managed only a 'B+' grading in the study, was the only company among 39 leading technology brands able to prove it was paying its manufacturing workers a living wage above the official minimum. The study defined a living wage as enough money for food, water, shelter, clothing and a bit extra for discretionary spending or emergencies.

Other companies such as Australian retailers Kogan and Dick Smith did badly, and were not prepared to cooperate with the study by providing information about the systems of monitoring labour conditions they did have. Dick Smith instead issued a statement complaining that the study 'does not fairly represent Dick Smith's current practices' and insisting the company 'has policies in place to ensure that our supply chain meets our strong ethical and environmental standards'.

The lesson for Australian consumers wanting to be as confident as possible that they are not supporting child slave labour is that they should buy products from companies such as Nokia, who can demonstrate better than their rivals that caring about workers' conditions. This is, if you like, a feature of their products, and should take this into account when purchasing.

For its part, the Australian Government needs to less cavalier and reticent to subsidise local manufacturers, who are obliged to be transparent about their work practices and bear the costs of this. For a relatively modest outlay, it could have saved the Electrolux factory in Orange NSW, and we would have confidence that our vacuum cleaners are not being produced by slaves and sold to us at bargain prices.

When Tony Abbott reintroduced knights and dames back in March, commentators said it was a sign he was 'stuck in the 1950s'. Another characteristic of 1950s Australian society was its sectarianism. The nation was bitterly divided along religious lines, with 'mixed' marriages frowned upon and Protestants often denied employment in Catholic dominated workplaces, and vice-versa.

There are echoes of 1950s sectarianism in last Tuesday's Federal Budget announcement that schools will lose the option of appointing non-religious welfare workers under the national school chaplaincy program, which has had its funding increased by $245 million when there were cuts to most other areas of education.

What is currently known as the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program was introduced in 2007 as a Howard Government initiative that provided for religious formation in a way that could have inflamed sectarian tensions had its original formulation remained intact. 

Chaplaincy services were specifically religious and mostly Christian, though they were not permitted to engage in direct proselytisation. But critics were asking questions such as how a successful and charismatic Protestant chaplain could not draw Catholic students towards the faith or his or her own denomination.

Significantly Labor education minister Peter Garrett cleared the air in 2011 when he revamped the program to give schools the option of employing a 'secular student wellbeing officer' in place of a religious worker, and to require qualifications such as a youth work certificate. 

This was seen to reflect the growing proportion of the population identifying as non-religious, and the increased regard for professional standards in the wider community. 96.5 per cent of the program's chaplains were Christian, even though only 64 per cent of Australians identified as Christian. By contrast, 0.01 of the chaplains were secular, whereas 19 per cent said they were not religious.

Australian Primary Principals Association president Norm Hart described the delicately balanced role of the chaplains in the program's current incarnation:

School chaplains work with primary schools students, not as religious workers but really as support officers, helping children with questions of, well, moral dilemmas that they might face in the playground and you know, questions about right and wrong that kids have and also where they're emotionally challenged or they have feelings of being hurt, a chaplain might well suggest ways that a child could help themselves in that situation.

The balance is bound to shift from the beginning of next year, when the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program becomes the National School Chaplaincy Programme. Oddly the new program'sfact sheet does emphasise the students' emotional wellbeing ahead of their religious development, but the removal of 'student welfare' from the title and non-religious welfare officers from its workforce is significant. 

The Atheist Foundation wonders why education minister Christopher Pyne insists that student welfare is the responsibility of the state education departments while the Commonwealth considers the funding of 'religious' chaplains a priority. It's unlikely that the Government wants us to return to the sectarianism of the 1950s, but it does need to explain why it is protecting the religious — and not welfare — role of its chaplains from the cuts of the harshest Federal Budget in nearly two decades.