Centre for Policy Development's Blog, page 46

New CPD report on Australia’s climate security challenge | 22 June 2015

Report launched by Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, former UK Government Climate & Energy Security Envoy, and Admiral Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force.

CPD has released a report exploring Australia’s preparedness for the coming security impacts of climate change, and examining how our defence force must adapt.

The Longest Conflict draws on extended interviews with senior military planners and security strategists in Australia and from around the world.

It finds that Australia is critically underprepared for a coming climate security crisis bound to have disproportionate impacts in Australia and in our immediate region.

Download the report here: The Longest Conflict

View the press release here: Climate change a national security threat to Australia

The Longest Conflict reveals our closest allies, the United States and United Kingdom, are taking climate security extremely seriously. Yet Australia’s defence establishment has not developed a strategic framework addressing climate security. Nor do we have a robust, whole of government plan for climate change.

This is an unacceptable oversight for a country facing its own particular exposures to extreme weather and climate change, and whose peace and security will be significantly influenced by developments in a climate-changed Indo-Pacific region.

Asia will be the front line of climate change crises. Security and humanitarian risks from climate change in the Indo-Pacific are significantly higher than in other regions of the world.

More frequent extreme weather, climate-related displacement and the compounding effect of climate instability on competition over food, water and energy resources will pose real risks to human security and geopolitical stability.

But if prudent policy continues to be obstructed by fractious climate-change politics, our key military institutions and defence establishment will be unable to prepare effectively for a century-defining risk to our peace and security.

In launching the report, Rear Admiral Morisetti will emphasise that Australia’s 21st-century defence capability will be incomplete without a comprehensive approach to climate security:

“The security environment is changing. The world around us is changing. Australia’s defence strategy and operational plans need to reflect these changes.”

The report outlines vital actions Australia’s defence establishment can take now to manage climate security risks prudently.

As a starting point, the upcoming Defence White Paper must take this challenge seriously by laying out a roadmap for strategic action on climate security.

This should be followed by development of a Climate Security Strategy, an organisational shift to prioritise climate security across the civilian structure and the services, and commitments to enhance the effectiveness and preparedness of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Australia should engage constructively with regional neighbours to address climate security and provide leadership to ensure interoperability among military forces for humanitarian and disaster relief.

The security implications of climate change are known, real and have begun. It is vital we prepare ourselves before a ‘burning crisis’ combining economic, security and environmental impacts exposes Australia’s failure to act.

The post New CPD report on Australia’s climate security challenge | 22 June 2015 appeared first on CPD.

New CPD report on Australia’s climate security challenge

Report to be launched by Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, former UK Government Climate & Energy Security Envoy, and Admiral Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force.

Today CPD releases a report exploring Australia’s preparedness for the coming security impacts of climate change, and examining how our defence force must adapt.

The Longest Conflict draws on extended interviews with senior military planners and security strategists in Australia and from around the world.

It finds that Australia is critically underprepared for a coming climate security crisis bound to have disproportionate impacts in Australia and in our immediate region.

Download the report here: The Longest Conflict

View the press release here: Climate change a national security threat to Australia

The Longest Conflict reveals our closest allies, the United States and United Kingdom, are taking climate security extremely seriously. Yet Australia’s defence establishment has not developed a strategic framework addressing climate security. Nor do we have a robust, whole of government plan for climate change.

This is an unacceptable oversight for a country facing its own particular exposures to extreme weather and climate change, and whose peace and security will be significantly influenced by developments in a climate-changed Indo-Pacific region.

Asia will be the front line of climate change crises. Security and humanitarian risks from climate change in the Indo-Pacific are significantly higher than in other regions of the world.

More frequent extreme weather, climate-related displacement and the compounding effect of climate instability on competition over food, water and energy resources will pose real risks to human security and geopolitical stability.

But if prudent policy continues to be obstructed by fractious climate-change politics, our key military institutions and defence establishment will be unable to prepare effectively for a century-defining risk to our peace and security.

In launching the report, Rear Admiral Morisetti will emphasise that Australia’s 21st-century defence capability will be incomplete without a comprehensive approach to climate security:

“The security environment is changing. The world around us is changing. Australia’s defence strategy and operational plans need to reflect these changes.”

The report outlines vital actions Australia’s defence establishment can take now to manage climate security risks prudently.

As a starting point, the upcoming Defence White Paper must take this challenge seriously by laying out a roadmap for strategic action on climate security.

This should be followed by development of a Climate Security Strategy, an organisational shift to prioritise climate security across the civilian structure and the services, and commitments to enhance the effectiveness and preparedness of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Australia should engage constructively with regional neighbours to address climate security and provide leadership to ensure interoperability among military forces for humanitarian and disaster relief.

The security implications of climate change are known, real and have begun. It is vital we prepare ourselves before a ‘burning crisis’ combining economic, security and environmental impacts exposes Australia’s failure to act.

The post New CPD report on Australia’s climate security challenge appeared first on CPD.

The War on Terror has morphed into the War on Citizenship, writes Peter Hughes | 16 June 2015

The plan to strip Australian Jihadists of their citizenship is more complex than it might at first seem and could be a recipe for statelessness, writes Peter Hughes.

It’s hard to be sure when the “War on Terror” became the war on Australian citizenship.

Perhaps it started in March 2014 when the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Brett Walker SC recommended in his report that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection be given the power to revoke the Australian citizenship of dual citizens on national security grounds.

Even though the idea of dealing with Australian Jihadists by revoking their Australian citizenship has been around since then, there has not been a convincing sense of urgency or clarity about it as an effective solution. The Prime Minister announced the government’s commitment to implement the idea in February 2015 and re-announced it again on 26 May, but no legislation has yet been introduced into Parliament.

Public discussion to date has shown that the idea is extremely problematic in terms of its actual effectiveness against the Jihadist problem, the processes to be used to make revocation decisions and the collateral damage it would do to the status of Australian citizenship.

—

“ISIS is already winning a victory on this. They have got us discussing proposals that would have us reduce the certainty of Australian citizenship to something comparable to a tourist visa.”

—

The crucial details of the proposal are still not available for scrutiny.

In a statement with the Orwellian title of “Measures to Strengthen Australian Citizenship”, the Prime Minister describes in very broad terms who will be the targets of the proposed citizenship revocation powers.

However, neither the actions nor personal affiliations that will make Australians the target of citizenship revocation are clearly specified. The statement refers to people who fight with or “support” groups “such as” ISIL or Daesh.

Nor does the statement tell us what impact adopting these extraordinary measures would actually have either in terms of stopping the return of Jihadists or removing any from Australia.

Australian dual nationals are said to be the primary target, but the prime Minister is reported as saying that only 40 to 50 per cent of the Australian jihadists fighting overseas appear to be dual nationals. The actual nationalities have not been stated publicly.

The government already has powers to restrict their movement through cancellation of travel documents. Revocation of Australian citizenship might be a further barrier to the return of some Jihadists, but it would still leave them at large to engage in further political violence.

In terms of the domestic targets of such legislation, the statement is silent as to the extent of their dual nationality. Even if the Australian citizenship of dual citizens of concern in Australia could be revoked, this does not necessarily mean that they would leave Australia. For example, in some cases, foreign governments refuse to accept their own nationals back if the person concerned does not want to return voluntarily. Citizenship solutions are not as easy as they look.

—

“The government has not made a convincing case that a wide ministerial discretion to deprive Australians, who are in some way connected with terrorism, of their Australian citizenship is going to have any serious impact on the problem.”

—

The government has compared its proposed new powers to the existing provision in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 which mandates automatic loss of citizenship when an Australian dual citizen serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. However, unlike the current proposals, the test in the existing legislation is crystal clear and relates to facts which are objectively verifiable.

And then there is the question of how a decision to take away Australian citizenship would be made. Existing Australian citizenship policy sets a high bar for revocation. Before revocation of the citizenship of a naturalised citizen can even be considered by the Minister, the person must have been convicted of a serious offence (primarily fraudulent acquisition of citizenship) committed before becoming an Australian citizen. Offences committed after becoming a citizen are a matter for the criminal law.

The process proposed by the government by which an Australian would lose citizenship is that the decision would be at the discretion of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (apparently based on undisclosed intelligence information). This is an extraordinary weakening of the status of Australian citizenship, even if judicial review is available. It is also the thin end of the wedge. There are other crimes which might be considered equally repulsive as those the government has targeted.

The completely new proposition, put up for public comment (meriting only one paragraph of a seven page discussion paper), is depriving an Australian of citizenship when they don’t actually have the citizenship of another country, but “there is reasonable grounds to believe the person is able to become a national of another country”. This is a recipe for statelessness.

The government’s arguments for these measures have been backed up by references to similar powers being available in the United States, United Kingdom, France and New Zealand. However, it appears that what is proposed in Australia goes beyond what these countries have done.

The government has not made a convincing case that a wide ministerial discretion to deprive Australians, who are in some way connected with terrorism, of their Australian citizenship is going to have any serious impact on the problem. However, there is no doubt that the availability of such a power would dramatically weaken the status and certainty of Australian citizenship.

Prosecution and incarceration of Australian citizens breaching Australian law on terrorism is the only thing that will keep them out of circulation. If criminal law standards for this type offence are the problem, why not look at them rather than targeting something as fundamental as our Australian citizenship?

One thing is sure, ISIS is already winning a victory on this. They have got us discussing proposals that would have us reduce the certainty of Australian citizenship to something comparable to a tourist visa.

 

Peter Hughes

Visiting Fellow

Crawford School of Public Policy

Visitor

Regulatory Institutions Network

 

15 June 2015

 

“This piece was first published on Policy Forum, the website of the Asia and the Pacific Policy Society: http://www.policyforum.net/the-war-on-australian-citizenship/ ”

—

Annual Report of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Brett Walker SC, 28 March 2014

(http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/peterdutton/2015/Pages/New-measures-to-strengthen-Australian-citizenship.aspx)

http://theconversation.com/proposals-to-strip-citizenship-take-australia-a-step-further-than-most-42398

The post The War on Terror has morphed into the War on Citizenship, writes Peter Hughes | 16 June 2015 appeared first on CPD.

CPD agrees with Obama’s statement that climate change a major threat to national security | 27 May 2015

On 20 May 2015, US President Barack Obama publicly stated that climate change is a major threat to the national security of the United States, observing that ‘Our military leaders — generals and admirals, active duty and retired — know it’s happening.‘

 

The US president re-stated what scientists have been telling us for years. No area of the world is immune to the impacts of climate change such as extreme storms, food and water shortages, drought and crop failure and forced migration of displaced people. He noted that this meant the military needed to prepare for a changed operating environment and raised new strategic challenges.

 

The US president’s speech has been greeted warmly by key institutions like The Center for Climate and Security. However John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticised Obama for saying climate change was an immediate risk. Presumed Republican presidential frontrunner, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, acknowledged a changing climate but emphasised that man’s role in climate change remained ‘convoluted’.

 

We at the CPD think Obama is right. The international community confronts a range of short- and long-term security challenges. Climate change is one of the most significant.

 

CPD itself is preparing to launch in June a major report on the security implications of climate change for Australia. Feel free, meanwhile, to watch an excerpt from Obama’s speech (courtesy of the Wall Street Journal).

The post CPD agrees with Obama’s statement that climate change a major threat to national security | 27 May 2015 appeared first on CPD.

McLeod suggests budget lacks appetite to govern and long-term vision | 15 May 2015

Travers McLeod has critiqued the new budget, finding fault in its lack of vision. McLeod’s piece, which appeared in The Conversation, expresses concern that ‘the government wants everyone to “have a go”, but seems reticent to do so itself.’

‘It’s like the cricket captain sending in the nightwatchman without facing up to the challenge himself… The result is a hollow and contradictory approach to fiscal management and a slap-dash approach to supporting the structural economic transition Australia needs.’

McLeod cites several concerns.

‘After years of indiscriminate cuts, a more surgical approach might allow focus on allocative and dynamic efficiency. But surely these qualities cannot prosper in a public sector cut to the bone – not to mention the $80 billion of cuts to health and education that remain.’

Meanwhile cuts to foreign aid ($3.7 billion over the next three years) simply make Australia more prone to ‘the butterfly effect of poor development’ and reduce our regional influence.

Equally pressing for McLeod is the gaping deficit between the ‘conversation we need to have about the future and the one we’re having.’

He suggests Australia’s future lies in an ‘ideas boom,’ but laments that ‘we aren’t investing in winning ideas. The net result for innovation in the budget was poor: cutting $263 million from the Sustainable Research Excellence program salvaged the Research Infrastructure Fund.’

‘Small-target politics is a far cry from what Australians want: effective long-term policy solutions infused with values as well.’

The post McLeod suggests budget lacks appetite to govern and long-term vision | 15 May 2015 appeared first on CPD.

McLeod suggests long-term vision missing in budget evincing slap-dash reticence | 15 May 2015

Travers McLeod has critiqued the new budget, finding fault in its lack of vision. McLeod’s piece, which appeared in The Conversation, expresses concern that ‘the government wants everyone to “have a go”, but seems reticent to do so itself.’

‘It’s like the cricket captain sending in the nightwatchman without facing up to the challenge himself… The result is a hollow and contradictory approach to fiscal management and a slap-dash approach to supporting the structural economic transition Australia needs.’

McLeod cites several concerns.

‘After years of indiscriminate cuts, a more surgical approach might allow focus on allocative and dynamic efficiency. But surely these qualities cannot prosper in a public sector cut to the bone – not to mention the $80 billion of cuts to health and education that remain.’

Meanwhile cuts to foreign aid ($3.7 billion over the next three years) simply make Australia more prone to ‘the butterfly effect of poor development’ and reduce our regional influence.

Equally pressing for McLeod is the gaping deficit between the ‘conversation we need to have about the future and the one we’re having.’

He suggests Australia’s future lies in an ‘ideas boom,’ but laments that ‘we aren’t investing in winning ideas. The net result for innovation in the budget was poor: cutting $263 million from the Sustainable Research Excellence program salvaged the Research Infrastructure Fund.’

‘Small-target politics is a far cry from what Australians want: effective long-term policy solutions infused with values as well.’

The post McLeod suggests long-term vision missing in budget evincing slap-dash reticence | 15 May 2015 appeared first on CPD.

McLeod discusses CPD’s response to the IGR on Sky News | 3 May 2015

Travers McLeod recently appeared on Sky New’s Saturday Agenda to discuss CPD’s response to the IGR in Budgeting smarter, not harder: the failure of long-term thinking in the 2015 Intergenerational Report.

McLeod highlighted the conversation deficit between the conversation Australia needs to have on the key challenges that will position us for the future and the conversation that we are having.

McLeod discussed how the pathways envisaged by the IGR are illusory, overly punitive to low-income earners and pass rising costs on to states. As part of his consideration, he noted also that the IGR missed the beat on core challenges vital to intergenerational wellbeing.

As part of responding to revenue difficulties, McLeod reiterated the importance of a frank conversation about the balance of taxes and concessions that apply to wealth, capital, land, labour and consumption.

Watch the interview below:

http://cpd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Travers-McLeod-web-Cellular.m4v

 

 

 

The post McLeod discusses CPD’s response to the IGR on Sky News | 3 May 2015 appeared first on CPD.

McLeod, Triffitt discuss in The Conversation democratic governance’s quiet crisis | 22 April 2015

Travis McLeod and Mark Triffitt recently wrote in The Conversation about how the evolution of climate change as an issue has exposed the least obvious crisis of the 21st century: our system of democratic governance.

‘It is on the tip of our tongue every time we speak of the difficulties in resolving climate change – our frustration with the lack of future-focused, coherent action. But we rarely articulate it,’ they write.

Triffitt and McLeod note that there has been a failure to deliver: competent, future-focused policy; reconcile expert knowledge and community opinion; gain and sustain long-term consensus; or achieve effective action by devolving power to local communities or projecting solutions across borders through transnational collaboration.

By way of solutions, the authors offer some novel ideas:

More deliberative systems that directly engage citizens and deepen debate.
Expert and citizen panels that are genuinely intergenerational and cross-sectoral, favouring younger generations.
Granting more decision-making power to institutions independent of the government of the day, but still accountable to parliaments.
Enabling the appointment of some ministers from outside the parliament.
Synchronising state and federal electoral terms (to be a minimum of four years), with state and federal elections to take place at two-year intervals: meshing short, medium and long-term planning, complete with clear milestones.

The post McLeod, Triffitt discuss in The Conversation democratic governance’s quiet crisis | 22 April 2015 appeared first on CPD.

Hurley joins the IGR conversation, advocating in a new report the importance of budgeting smarter, not harder | 15 April 2015 | REPORT

CPD policy analyst Sam Hurley has responded to Treasurer Hockey’s call for a national conversation on Australia’s intergenerational challenges and opportunities in CPD’s new report, Budgeting smarter, not harder: the failure of long-term thinking in the 2015 Intergenerational Report. 

The report is available here: ‘Budgeting smarter, not harder‘.

A press release is available here.

Hurley argues that the fiscal consolidation scenarios contained in the IGR are fanciful, with key planks of the Government’s proposed and currently legislated policies unlikely to stand the test of time.

‘Consolidation scenarios that rely on policies like freezing the age pension in real terms, cutting public hospital funding to states and retaining bracket creep simply bake in inequities and double down on problems that will have to be dealt with down the track.’

‘Overall, the Government’s approach succeeded in being harsh on those who can afford it least and shifted costs without solving problems. But the consolidation it forecast was illusory.’

The report is garnering media attention. Hurley has discussed it in Fairfax publications – being run in the likes of The Age, and The Canberra Times. Jacob Greber in the Australian Financial Review has covered the report. The Daily Telegraph has responded to some of the report’s considerations.

The report argues that the government should budget smarter, not harder – by developing measures that build on Australia’s existing policy strengths and smarts rather than directing harsh cuts to the safety net and public services relied on by the most vulnerable.

Hurley identifies three areas that must be debated as part of a reform package, namely:

Means testing of the age pension;
Reforming superannuation tax concessions; and
Examining options for broadening the base of the GST.

These measures could form the backbone of an approach to budget reform that strengthens the safety net, protects the overall progressivity of the tax and transfer system, and sets Australia up to tackle the real longer-term challenges, Hurley observes.

The report argues that the most worrying gap identified in the IGR is the one between the conversation it contains and the conversation we need to have about our longer term wellbeing. The discussion, Hurley suggests, must be expanded. ‘The IGR’s clear focus on long-term trends in population, participation and productivity is crucial – but it is not enough,’ Hurley writes.

‘Its formulaic nine-page foray into ‘Preparing for the Future’ is a poor substitute for a fully-fledged discussion of what matters to intergenerational wellbeing.’

The report highlights five issues that attracted only passing attention in the IGR but are fundamental to the sustainability of intergenerational wellbeing. These are:

Childhood development and community wellbeing;
Cities policy;
Changes in commerce and capital flows;
Climate change; and
Australia’s engagement with Asia.

Australia can shape its own destiny far more constructively than the IGR allows. It is time to get the conversation back on track.

The post Hurley joins the IGR conversation, advocating in a new report the importance of budgeting smarter, not harder | 15 April 2015 | REPORT appeared first on CPD.

Hurley joins the IGR conversation, advocating in a new report the importance of budgeting smarter, not harder | 15 April 2015

CPD policy analyst Sam Hurley has responded to Treasurer Hockey’s call for a national conversation on Australia’s intergenerational challenges and opportunities in CPD’s new report, Budgeting smarter, not harder: the failure of long-term thinking in the 2015 Intergenerational Report. 

Hurley argues that the fiscal consolidation scenarios contained in the IGR are fanciful, with key planks of the Government’s proposed and currently legislated policies unlikely to stand the test of time.

‘Consolidation scenarios that rely on policies like freezing the age pension in real terms, cutting public hospital funding to states and retaining bracket creep simply bake in inequities and double down on problems that will have to be dealt with down the track.’

‘Overall, the Government’s approach succeeded in being harsh on those who can afford it least and shifted costs without solving problems. But the consolidation it forecast was illusory.’

The report argues that the government should budget smarter, not harder – by developing measures that build on Australia’s existing policy strengths and smarts rather than directing harsh cuts to the safety net and public services relied on by the most vulnerable.

Mr Hurley identifies three areas that must be debated as part of a reform package, namely: means testing of the age pension, reforming superannuation tax concessions and examining options for broadening the base of the GST. These measures could form the backbone of an approach to budget reform that strengthens the safety net, protects the overall progressivity of the tax and transfer system, and sets us up to tackle the real longer-term challenges

The report argues that the most worrying gap identified in the IGR is the one between the conversation it contains and the conversation we need to have about our longer term wellbeing. The discussion, Hurley suggests, must be expanded. ‘The IGR’s clear focus on long-term trends in population, participation and productivity is crucial – but it is not enough,’ Hurley writes.

‘Its formulaic nine-page foray into ‘Preparing for the Future’ is a poor substitute for a fully-fledged discussion of what matters to intergenerational wellbeing.’

The report highlights five issues that attracted only passing attention in the IGR but are fundamental to the sustainability of intergenerational wellbeing. These are: childhood development and community wellbeing; cities policy; changes in commerce and capital flows; climate change; and Australia’s engagement with Asia.

Australia can shape its own destiny far more constructively than the IGR allows. It is time to get the conversation back on track.

The report is set for release shortly, while the Australian Financial Review is scheduled to run a piece on the report on the 15th April.

The post Hurley joins the IGR conversation, advocating in a new report the importance of budgeting smarter, not harder | 15 April 2015 appeared first on CPD.