Centre for Policy Development's Blog, page 89

Fiona Armstrong | How Climate Change Gets Lost in Translation

CPD fellow Fiona Armstrong poses the question of why climate change denialists deny? Communications research is suggesting that a person's political ideology has a large bearing on whether they choose to believe climate science or not. Thus the relationship between a conservative ideology and the inclination to dismiss climate science. The studies suggest that we are more likely to hunt out 'evidence' that one deems 'credible' from sources that generally subscribe to the same ideology. Even further, being exposed to more evidence that is inconsistent with your predisposition to hold that view can lead to even greater polarisation of views. Hence the continuing conflict between those who accept the science, and those who deny.

So how would one approach the unenviable process of converting a 'denier'? It's all about the framing. A large body of evidence is suggesting that the alternate framing of climate change data, such as on health issues and done in a positive manner, can prove more persuasive than a doom and gloom article on the predictions of climate change.

Why are political conservatives more inclined to dismiss climate science? Can one's political ideology influence the interpretations of data?

It turns out the answer is yes

Read the full article in the Climate Spectator here

[image error] Change can happen faster than you think – help us seize the moment and point to the alternatives. Add your voice to ours!

 

Ben Eltham | A Kinder, Gentler Mining Tax

Julia Gillard might not be popular but she's a very effective legislator. The mining tax might have been watered down, but passing it last night was a big score, writes Ben Eltham.

It's a funny thing, the Gillard Government. According to most of the opinion polls, and much of the commentary, this government can't take a trick. You've all heard the criticisms before. Gillard is unliked by ordinary Australians. She has a credibility problem. Her speeches are dull. Labor itself is increasingly on the nose. Voters oppose key policies. The Opposition would win an election held this weekend in a canter.

But when it comes to passing legislation, which is the thing that governments are supposed to do, you'd have to say this administration is pretty effective. Julia Gillard may not be the most popular prime minister in modern times — actually, she toppled the most popular prime minister of modern times — but she is certainly one of the most effective legislators.

Read the full article in New Matilda here

Chris Bonnor | Here Comes Another 2020 Vision

CPD fellow Chris Bonnor gives us a look at his crystal ball on Australia's education system in 2020, and it's not all that promising. The Gonski Report delivered to us the reality that our funding system needed to be revised, in order to attain an equitable solution for all of Australia's kids. Quoting from his co-authored book 'The Stupid Country' with Jane Caro, Bonnor predicts that a system based on reward and punishment funding, testing, and ranking will continue to drive a stake in the gap between those students from well-off backgrounds, and those who are not. The focus required needs to encompass all aspects that affect a child's education, especially those decisions made outside the school gates, such as funding. A wide scope of evidence is calling for a funding model that adequately reflects the different needs of students to enable resources to be directed to where they are needed most.

So much for almost three decades of constant and often manic school reform seeded by the neo-liberals and driven by successive governments urged on by compliant commentators.

It isn't working: we are not creating schools which provide even comparable quality and opportunities for all our kids.

Read the full article in Online Opinion here

[image error] Change can happen faster than you think – help us seize the moment and point to the alternatives. Add your voice to ours!

 

ACU Voice | Refugees: Human Rights and Our Ethical Obligations, 29 March, Sydney

There are more than 5,700 asylum seekers and refugees in immigration detention centres across Australia. More than two-thirds have been in detention for at least six months, and 97 people have been held for more than two years.

Is it ethical to detain individuals who have fled from persecution and war? How long is too long? What role do we as a country play in protecting their human rights? And how does our treatment of refugees compare to other developed nations?

You are invited to join the first ACU Voice debate of 2012 as key speaker Dr Deborah Zion explores the ethics surrounding the treatment of refugees. Led by award-winning journalist Geraldine Doogue, an exciting panel of experts, including CPD founder and Board Director John Menadue and ACU's Father Frank Brennan, will join the discussion.

When: 29th March 2012 5:30pm. Drinks & canapés served from 5.30pm; debate from 6 – 8pm

Where: The Australian Museum Theatrette – 6 College Street, Sydney (entry via William Street Reception)

Cost: Free – please extend this invitation to friends, family & colleague

RSVP: By Thursday 22 March, at www.acu.edu.au/acuvoice

Contact: For more information, please contact Natalie Sanders on (02) 9739 2221 or email Natalie.Sanders@acu.edu.au

 
This is the second event in the free ACU Voice public speaker series. A further three events will be held in 2012 – stay tuned to their website for updates.

 

[image error] Change can happen faster than you think – help us seize the moment and point to the alternatives. Add your voice to ours!

Dr Gunter Pauli | Progress on The Blue Economy, New Economics and Learning for Sustainability

CPD and Sydney Ideas co-present Dr Gunter Pauli at the law school foyer Sydney Uni.  April 3rd, 6pm to 7.30pm – this is a free event and open to all, entry will be on a first come first served basis.

Gunter Pauli founded the "Zero Emissions Research and Initiative" (ZERI) at the United Nations University in Tokyo. He subsequently established The Global ZERI Network, redesigning production and consumption into clusters of industries inspired by natural systems, based on open source research and experimentation with a worldwide team of eminent scientists and design thinkers.

The culmination is "The Blue Economy", published as a Report to The Club of Rome in 2010, now published in 35 languages. It is a new way of designing business: using the resources available in cascading systems, where the waste of one product becomes the input to create a new cash flow – jobs are created, social capital is built and income rises – while the environment that provides the basis for our lives is no longer strained and polluted. Thus, we can evolve from an economy where the good is expensive, and the bad is cheap, to a system where the good and innovative is affordable.

Gunter will outline progress with these initiatives around the world since his last visit in 2011, which featured his talk on The Blue Economy: 10 Years, 100 Innovations, 100 Million Jobs, and explore their relevance for Australia.

 

Gunter Pauli was born in Antwerp, Belgium, in 1956. He graduated in Economics from the University of Antwerp and obtained an MBA from INSEAD. His entrepreneurial activities span business, culture, science, politics and the environment.

He has founded and managed many companies that focus on delivering environmentally friendly services and products, including PPA Holding, the European Service Industries Forum (ESIF) and Ecover. He has been visiting lecturer and professor at universities around the world, and a board member of NGOs and private companies in Asia, USA and Latin America.

Since 2009 he has taken responsibility for the design of an economic development concept based on GNH (Gross National Happiness) principles and values as part of his advisory role in designing an economic development strategy for Bhutan.

He is a Fellow of the World Academy of Arts and Sciences (San Francisco, USA), a Member of the Club of Budapest (Hungary) and of the Club of Rome. Gunter has published 19 books and 36 fables bringing science and emotions to children. Fluent in seven languages and having resided on 4 continents, he is a world citizen.

 "Let us not demand more of the Earth. Let us do more with what the earth provides"

Post Carbon Pathways? Necessary. Possible. Urgent

Around the world an increasing number of detailed policy road maps are demonstrating the possibility – as well as the necessity and urgency – of a rapid transition to a just and sustainable post carbon future. The Post Carbon Pathways report, jointly published by CPD and the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, has reviewed eighteen of the most comprehensive and rigorous post carbon economy transition strategies.

Download Post Carbon Pathways: Reviewing post carbon economy transition strategies

In their report, CPD fellow John Wiseman and Taegen Edwards look at transition strategies produced by governments with the strongest emissions reduction targets, such as Germany, Denmark, the UK and California, as well as some of the most innovative and influential non-government authored strategies such as Zero Carbon Britain 2030, Zero Carbon Australia 2020 and World in Transition (German Advisory Council on Global Change). Analysis of these diverse approaches leads to the following key lessons:

•    Pathways to the emissions reductions needed to prevent runaway climate change remain open, but the gate is closing fast.
•    Technological barriers are not the most significant obstacles to a fair and rapid transition to a post carbon economy.
•    The biggest barriers preventing a rapid transition to a post carbon future are social and political, not technological or financial.
•    Following the examples of other developed countries, Australia must develop a longer-term agenda for emissions reductions to meet its targets. The federal government currently lacks a plan for how Australia's 2050 target (of an 80 per cent decrease on 2000 levels) will be achieved.

The authors' research leads to two challenging and urgent questions:
•    For less ambitious plans and strategies (generally government-led): Given that the proposed actions do not match the physical requirements of action needed to prevent runaway climate change, what can be done to bridge this gap?
•    For more ambitious plans and strategies (generally non-government authored): Given that political and social support for the rapid implementation of these proposals remains challenging, what can be done to bridge this gap?

Read more about the post-carbon pathways project at http://www.postcarbonpathways.net.au/

Ian McAuley | Can This Man Handle the Economy?

Joe Hockey's shortcomings on economic policy were on show again last week. Why do the media give the Shadow Treasurer such an easy run on economic issues, asks Ian McAuley.

It has been an article of faith among conservative economists that monetary policy is to be preferred over fiscal policy. They don't want governments engaged in direct decisions about spending. Rather, governments should take a back seat and let the "invisible hand" of the financial markets do the job. The only influence the government should exercise is through manipulating interest rates. Low interest rates stimulate business and domestic borrowing, and allow mortgagees to spend more, while high interest rates have a dampening effect.

The shortcoming of that theory is that while it is suitable for an Economics 1 exam question, it doesn't work in the more complex real world. It has long been known that decision-makers are very slow to react to changes in interest rates. It takes time for businesses to make plans for capital expansions, to get approvals and to arrange finance. Similarly, to take a domestic example, there are long time lags for households contemplating renovations.

Read Ian's full article in New Matilda here

[image error] Change can happen faster than you think – help us seize the moment and point to the alternatives. Add your voice to ours!

John Menadue | The Pacific Solution didn't work before and it won't work now

One-liners derived from focus groups and dog-whistling don't add up to an acceptable refugee policy. But that is what the Coalition offers. 'Stop the boats … turn them back to Indonesia … take the boat people to Nauru'.

It is important to examine carefully the so-called Pacific solution that Tony Abbott gives us as one-liners. The cost of Nauru in the 2000s was extremely high, both for the people imprisoned and the taxpayer, with minimal benefits to Australia.  It cannot be part of a regional arrangement.  In any event Nauru and the Pacific Solution cannot be repeated.  That is the clear view of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) and all agencies advising the government in this area.

Consider the following:

It is true that after 2001 the Howard Government's policy practically stopped boat arrivals. But asylum seekers continued to come by air at the rate of about 4,000 per annum. (In the last decade 76% of asylum seekers came to Australia by air.) Not surprisingly if one mode of unauthorised arrival is closed or made more difficult, desperate people fleeing persecution will make alternate arrangements. What is important is the total number of asylum seekers coming to Australia, not their mode of arrival. People smugglers sell their services to both boat and air asylum seekers seeking refuge. Fact Sheet 73 by DIAC is quite clear about this. 'Many (asylum seekers who come by air) use the services of people smugglers to come to Australia.'  So the boats largely stopped arriving but about 4,000 asylum seekers continued to come by air each year.The total number of asylum seekers declined after the peak in 2001. This occurred not just for Australia but for all major refugee receiving countries. As the Secretary of DIAC told the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee of the Senate of 17 October 2001, page 29, 'Given the events of September 11 [2001] and its aftermath, there was a significant return of over two million refugees to Afghanistan'. This process of refugees returning to Afghanistan was assisted by peacekeepers in Afghanistan in 2002. Not surprisingly the refugee flows to Australia fell considerably after 2001.If we compare the flow of asylum seekers to OECD countries and Australia in the years 2000 to 2009, it is quite clear that, with a few leads and lags, the flows of asylum seekers to Australia followed very closely those to other OECD countries.

Australian versus OECD asylum flows

[image error]

 

Flow of Afghani, Iraqi and Sri Lankan asylum seekers: 2001 – 2010

[image error]

Sources: UNHCR Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries (2005-2010), UNHCR Statistical Online Database (Asylum seekers originating from, 2001-2004), UNHCR Statistical Yearbook (2004).

The number seeking entry to OECD countries rose again after the mid-2000s. Several factors contributed to this rise. In 2005 a state of emergency was declared in Sri Lanka. In 2007 the US troop surge in Afghanistan commenced, which provoked further outflows of refugees. In 2008 the Sri Lankan Government withdrew from the cease fire with the Tamil Tigers and the civil war resumed. The result was another serge in asylum seekers to Australia and other OECD countries. In the last two years of the Howard Government asylum seekers coming to Australia rose from 3,094 in 2005 to 4,009 in 2007. The UNHCR Report in 2010 'Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialised Countries' noted that asylum seeker numbers have gone up for the sixth consecutive year i.e. since 2004.The trend of asylum seekers to Australia in the Howard years followed world trends. The figures show clearly that war, civil unrest and persecution determine refugee outflows rather than any deterrent policies in destination countries such as Australia.In the use and abuse of statistics, there is one very important lesson. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't necessarily mean that one causes the other. It is clear that the major reason for the fall of asylum seeker numbers in the early period of the Howard Government was not its own policies, but a decline in the number of asylum seekers in the world. Certainly boat arrivals did fall, but the total numbers are what are important. When world refugee numbers rose again after the mid 2000s, so did the numbers coming to Australia. The Howard Government policies had only a marginal impact on the total number of asylum seekers coming to Australia. The UNHCR does not differentiate by mode of arrival, but Tony Abbott deliberately encourages our obsession with boat people. It is obviously good politics to focus on boat people only. We never hear him admit that more asylum seekers come by air than by boat.  On the 10th December 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald reported from Wikileaks that a 'key Liberal Party strategist' told a US diplomat in Canberra in November last year, that the issue of asylum seekers was 'fantastic' for the Coalition and 'the more boats that come the better'. That 'key Liberal Party strategist' could not have been more explicit about the political game being played. I asked the President of the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott who that 'key Liberal Party strategist was. I did not receive a satisfactory answer from either.  Coalition  propaganda as expressed by Messrs Abbott and  Morrison is quite consistent with the view expressed to the US  Embassy by a 'key Liberal Party strategist' that the more boats that come the better.If Tony Abbott picks up the phone to speak to the President of Nauru, as he says he would if he became Prime Minister, he should remind himself that if he wants to get the budget back into surplus the Nauru and Manus solution cost the Howard Government $1 billion over five years.Yet after years of cruel punishment on Nauru, all but 45 of the 1,637 asylum seekers incarcerated in Nauru who were found to be refugees gained residence in Australia or New Zealand. The message is clear. Even if you are cruelly punished you are very likely to finish up in Australia or New Zealand .The very few asylum seekers in the future, who might know about the history of Nauru/Manus, will not see it as a deterrent. The Secretary of DIAC spelled out that what  meagre success Nauru might have had would not work again in the future. In the Senate Committee referred to earlier, p.29, he said 'dramatic, high-profile efforts (Tampa) together with the processing that occurred on Nauru was very much unknown to people (at the time). The people who were subject to it and the people-smugglers who were organising it were not able to predict what would occur. A point that I have often made is that what was unknown prior to the events of 2001 became known in hindsight. It became a certainty (that they would finish up in Australia or New Zealand)… the key point is that it (Nauru) could not be replicated.' He went on to say 'Our view (in DIAC) is not simply that the Nauru option would not work (again), but that the combination of circumstances that existed at the end of 2001 could not be repeated with success. That is a view that we held for some time and it is of course not just a view of my department; it is the collective view of agencies in providing advice in this area'.In April 2011, referring to deterrents generally, the UNHCR said 'Pragmatically no empirical evidence is available to give credence to the assumption that the threat of being detained, deters irregular migration'. The threat of detention is usually unknown. If it is known, the threat to life and limb in detention would need to be greater than the threat of war and persecution that they are escaping from. Is that what Tony Abbott has in mind – that life in Nauru would be worse than persecution by the Taliban?Australia needs to work constructively with our regional partners to develop comprehensive and durable protection systems along the 'migration pathway'. Nauru is not on that migration pathway and has nothing to offer in any regional arrangement. The successful Fraser Government's Indochina refugee program would not have been possible without the cooperation of refugee transit countries  such as Malaysia. The same is true today. Despite the reservations, the Malaysian Agreement created a new opportunity for a meaningful regional dialogue. This was a dialogue that was not conceivable even a few years ago. The Malaysian Agreement was historic. For the first time a non-signatory country to the Refugee Convention (Malaysia) and a signatory country (Australia) were in discussion on important principles of refugee protection in the region. For the first time Malaysia acknowledged the existence of refugees in its territory. UNHCR welcomed the Agreement. Nauru is not and never was a transit country. It has no role now or in the future in helping to build a regional arrangement. It would again be a temporary political 'quick fix'. There is no end-game with Nauru. It would not be a building block as Malaysia would be in an effective regional arrangement.Another part of Tony Abbott's flimsy Pacific Solution is the issue of Temporary Protection Visas for persons who are found to be refugees. One feature of these TPVs is that the holder cannot sponsor family members to join him (or her) in Australia. That is why when SIEVX sank off Indonesia ten years ago with the loss of 353 lives; 288 or 82% were women and children. These unfortunate women and children had decided if they could not be sponsored to join husbands, fathers or brothers in Australia, they would directly risk their own lives by boat. Few fair minded people would believe that TPVs make for humane and good policy.The other dubious part of Tony Abbott's boat people one-liners is to push the boats back to Indonesian waters. The Fraser Government in July 1979 rejected the policy of turning boats away. It said that if it did so, Australia 'would be courting international pariah status'. It is just as true today. In the Senate in November last year, Admiral Ray Griggs of the RAN said that turning boats around at sea was highly risky and that Navy personnel are bound by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and that the Convention 'would be the prime driver in the decision making of the Commanding Officer'. Despite all the evidence, the Coalition continues to assert policies that are dangerous or failed in the past.

It is clear to most people who look beyond the one-liners that Nauru, turning the boats back and temporary protection visas is not a viable policy.

Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, must have had Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison in mind when he said in Sydney on the 14th February this year that we should 'avoid simplistic or populist explanation for what are very complex and multi-dimensional issues … fears about projective floods of refugees in industrial countries are often vastly overblown … (the debate in Australia) is out of proportion in relation to the real dimensions of the issue as the number of people coming to Australia (about 6,000 asylum seekers per annum) are small by global standards.  … We need a sense of balance, perspective and compassion for those who are less fortunate.' He pointed out that Yemen, one of the world's poorest countries, received more than 100,000 asylum seekers and migrants in 2011 who crossed the Gulf of Aden … by boat. He added that last year 57,000 people arrived by boat in Italy and Malta. Our 'problems' are miniscule by comparison.

One-liners and dog-whistling do not make for good policy or indeed any policy at all. But unfortunately it does appeal to prejudice and our darker angels.

Two weeks ago Scott Morrison attacked the minimal government accommodation support for asylum seekers living in the community. He was assisted by the Daily Telegraph in promoting prejudice. Only last week he gave us another dose of xenophobia. He said that 'typhoid cases on the latest boats highlights the risk of Labor's border failures.' It was a shameful, suggesting that asylum seekers were spreading disease. His allegations have been effectively rebutted by an expert in infectious diseases Dr Trent Yarwood.

The performance of Messrs Abbott and Morrison remind me of the statement by the American satirist and journalist, H.L. Menchen, that 'the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the population alarmed'.

Persecuted and victimised by the Taliban and the Mullahs in their own country, asylum seekers are now persecuted by the Coalition in Australia for its own political purposes. It is one of the basest and most appalling features of human history – to attack the vulnerable person, the foreigner, the outsider or the person who is different. It is like the schoolyard bullying of the vulnerable and defenceless. The Coalition continues to appeal to the worst in all of us, our fear and selfishness.  The Coalition wants to frighten and bully its way into office. When will it stop? We are a better country than this. We have shown that with good leadership we will respond to the 'better angels of our nature'.

Australians showed in the outflow of 1.4 million people from Indochina after the fall of Saigon that with strong leadership we can act humanely and still protect our borders. After all, the 'problem' of asylum seekers coming to Australia is miniscule. We need more than one-liners and slogans.

And the Nauru "solution" is no solution at all. It failed before and will fail again.

John Menadue

Board Director, Centre for Policy Development and Secretary Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 1980-83

 

Eva Cox | The Feminist Exercise: Achieving Real Gender Equity

Do we have gender equity in today's society? CPD fellow Eva Cox asks whether we are truly satisfied with the fact that we have a female PM, Governor-General, a couple of premiers and CEOs as evidence that the glass ceiling can be broken? By attempting to distinguish what are actual feminist ideals in today's society, Cox calls for a redistribution of power so women and men can share responsibilities as well as rights, without these being limited by gender.

Being the first woman to take on a role is not necessarily progress or a feminist gain. We need to ask: has she made it easier for other women to follow? That disqualifies Thatcher and other female "pioneers" like her. They are useful in showing the possibilities, but only in a very limited way.

Read the full article in ABC The Drum here

[image error] Change can happen faster than you think – help us seize the moment and point to the alternatives. Add your voice to ours!

Serco: A case study in outsourcing community service delivery

Why Serco?

Six years ago Serco was described as "probably the biggest company you've never heard of"[1] and this still the case for many people. It's a multinational corporation that specialises in providing public services under government contract. Serco operates and maintains a surprisingly large and diverse range of services in both the UK and Australia, as well as in several other countries. Its website lists some examples of the scale of its operations including: traffic management systems covering more than 17,500kms of roads worldwide, managing 192,000 square miles of airspace in five countries, managing education authorities on behalf of local governments, and providing defence support services worldwide.[2] Serco also manages a number of hospitals, prisons and detention centres, and is involved in a host of other services.[3]

Private sector involvement in the delivery of public services (often referred to as privatisation, outsourcing, or commissioning, as well as many other terms) is a significant part of Big Society thinking. The argument usually made in support of privatisation is that it provides better value for public money, since the competitive environment of the private sector rewards the ability to provide equal or better services at a lower cost. Arguments have also been made that it results in more locally appropriate services by encouraging a diversity of providers,[4] and that accountability is greater in the private sector.[5] These arguments may well be correct in some cases. However, it is a mistake to think that privatisation will always deliver these benefits, and therefore that it is always appropriate.

Focussing on the company Serco, there have been numerous reports of instances where its service provision has been sub-standard, high-cost, has eliminated diversity, or has lacked accountability. Putting this focus on Serco's faults is not to say that it is any more prone to failures than other corporations in this area, or that it is always unsuccessful in its service provision. Rather, the point is to show clearly the dangers of privatisation, and why it must not be accepted as a universal good.

 

Concern: Social Justice/Human Rights

In the delivery of essential public services, sub-standard performance can result in serious injustices and even the violation of human rights. Serco has come under particularly strong criticism in its management of prisons and detention centres. In Australian immigration detention centres there have been cases of children having their crayons banned,[6] detainees referred to only by ID number,[7] and a suicide after a detainee was denied social contact and refused permission to attend an important religious event.[8] There has also been evidence of security personnel with inadequate (or even no) qualifications,[9] and a lack of mental health training for staff associated high rates of detainee self-harm and suicide attempts.[10]

In the UK Serco run prisons have been found by a government inspection to have a culture of "institutional meanness"[11] which included converting two-prisoner cells to hold three by putting a bed in the shared toilet.[12] And Serco-run youth detention centres have been found by the courts to have perpetrated a decade of unlawful abuse.[13] The worst case was that of a fourteen year old boy in a juvenile detention centre, who hung himself after being unlawfully assaulted by Serco-trained guards.[14]

Although most of the reports of sub-standard service provision have come out of prisons and detention centres, Serco has also come under criticism in other areas; such as the removal of an out-of-hours GP service from a UK community without any consultation, which raised concerns that lives could be put at risk.[15]

 

Concern: Value for money

The argument that privatisation will provide better value for taxpayer money is problematic in two ways: Firstly, in seeking the lowest cost model, service quality might suffer significantly. This may be the cause of some or all of the instances of sub-standard service mentioned above. As one Union representative put it: "Serco's track record in Australia in the detention centres is that they run their services very lean as far as staffing goes and that's how they make their money".[16] Secondly, the private sector is not somehow immune to inefficiency. For example, Serco and another company (G4S) have been accused incurring excessive costs in running secure units for youth offenders,[17] and of paying excessive salaries to their CEOs.[18]

Given the complexity of many public services it is often difficult to tell whether private providers are really providing better value, and sometimes this assessment is itself outsourced leading to further problems. Last year Serco won a tender to run a youth prison in Western Australia, as part of the tender process an estimate was made of the costs if the public sector were to run it. This estimate was made by the firm KPMG, which has previously worked with Serco on a number of projects and may have been advising Serco and the State Government at the same time.[19]

Even where assessments of value are not outsourced, private providers have the independence and financial ability to influence the process. In Bradford (UK) Serco took over the management of all state schools, it missed the education targets set out in its original contract, but convinced the council to lower the targets and award the company a performance bonus.[20] In Australia, the New South Wales State Premier has received advice from the head of the Serco Institute (its research think-tank) on "ideas to save money".[21]

 

Concern: Diversity

Despite claims that "opening up" the public sector will result in a diversity of organisations competing to provide public services,[22] this does not always occur in practice. There are a number of service areas in which Serco has managed to become the sole provider. In Western Australia they were recently the only bidder to run a new youth prison and currently hold all major justice contracts in the state.[23] They also run all of Australia's immigration detention centres, immigration residential housing and immigration transit accommodation.[24] In the UK Serco has various monopolies including running Dublin's traffic lights and looking after Briton's entire nuclear arsenal from creation to decommission.[25] One English newspaper has commented: "In some parts of Britain it has taken over so many local services it is virtually indistinguishable from the council."[26]

The Serco Institute itself has said that for public service market to work requires competition amongst private providers.[27] And yet Serco's actions have sometimes undermined competition, for example, by promising in a bid for service provision to cooperate and pass money on to charities and voluntary organisations, and then failing to do so;[28] also Serco continues to buy up smaller outsourcing corporations.[29]

 

Concern: Accountability/Transparency

Compounding the above concerns is a lack of transparency and accountability in many privatisation arrangements. It is possible that numerous other cases have not been revealed that involved violations of social justice, poor value for money, and/or a lack of diversity.

The problems in Australian detention centres have come to light largely due to a sustained effort by one media outlet, New Matilda. During this investigation they found a number of serious flaws in the accountability processes. Under the contract to run detention centres, clinical depression, childbirth, and voluntary starvation for under 24 hours, were considered "minor" incidents, which mean only 10% of the responses needed to be audited, and then only internally by Serco.[30] However, unauthorised media access was considered a "critical" incident.[31] There was no obligation to comply with an independent audit, and the system relied on self-report of incidents.[32] This means that reports could simply not be filed, and there were allegations by staff of underreporting of incidents,[33] including self-harm and suicide attempts.[34]

The lack of transparency prompted one senator to ask in a hearing: "So the contract whereby the list of requirements that Serco has to fulfil is not for public disclosure, the possible items that would qualify as a breach is not publicly disclosed, the performance of whether they are actually upholding or breaching that service delivery performance is not publicly disclosed — where in this process is there the public interest and transparency of this contract?"[35]

No efforts similar to New Matilda's have been focussed on Serco's other operations, but indications of transparency issues have been reported, such as a memorandum of understanding with the UK government being kept secret,[36] and a high-profile charity of which Serco was a major donor, deleted part of a report that criticised privatisation due to concerns over the company's reaction.[37]

 

[1] Martinson, J., 24/2/06, 'Happy, touchy-feely and driven by God', The Guardian [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/feb/24/columnists.guardiancolumnists

[2] Serco, 25/11/11, 'At A Glance', Serco Website [retrieved 6 March 2011]  http://www.serco.com/about/ataglance/index.asp

[3] Storrar, K., 25/2/06, 'So you thought it was Tony and Gordon in charge? Well, think again, and meet the men from Serco who really… Run Britain' Mirror  [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/so-you-thought-it-was-tony-and-gordon-in-charge-580043

[4] Dearden-Phillips, C., 7/3/11, 'How will the Any Willing Provider model affect public services?' The Guardian [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2011/mar/07/any-willing-provider-public-services

[5] Nelson, F., 23/2/12, 'The private sector exposes fraud where the state only lets it fester' The Telegraph (UK) [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9100817/The-private-sector-exposes-fraud-where-the-state-only-lets-it-fester.html

[6] Needham, K., 7/1/12, 'Serco drops ban on coloured pencils and crayons for asylum-seeker children' The Sydney Morning Herald [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.smh.com.au/national/serco-drops-ban-on-coloured-pencils-and-crayons-for-asylumseeker-children-20120106-1pogh.html

[7] Martin-Iverson, V., 28/4/11, '"Stripping people of their humanity"' New Matilda [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://newmatilda.com/2011/04/28/stripping-people-their-humanity

[8] Chan, R., 28/10/11, 'Shooty was one of the strong ones' New Matilda [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://newmatilda.com/2011/10/28/shooty-was-one-strong-ones

[9] Loewenstein, A., & Farrell, P., 9/11/11, 'Serco hires untrained guards' New Matilda [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://newmatilda.com/2011/11/09/serco-hires-untrained-guards

[10] Cordell, M., & Hooke, P., 8/12/11, 'Serco warns of "self-harm culture"' New Matilda [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://newmatilda.com/2011/12/08/serco-warns-selfharm-culture

[11] Travis, A., 12/4/06, '"Squalid" private jail was too mean to buy toilet seats' The Guardian [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/12/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

[12] Gaines, S., 22/7/08, 'Inmates sleep in toilets at overcrowded prison' The Guardian [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/22/doncaster.prison

[13] Macdonald, K., & Buckley-Carr, A., 15/1/12, 'Judge raps Serco for abuse of juveniles' The West Australian [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/12604836/judge-raps-serco-for-abuse-of-juveniles/

[14] Daily Mail, 11/1/11, 'Youngest person to die in custody, 14, was unlawfully hit by guard hours before suicide' [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346030/Adam-Rickwood-14-unlawfully-hit-guard-hours-suicide.html; Papas, C., 16/12/11, 'Serco to run youth prison' New Matilda  http://newmatilda.com/2011/12/16/serco-run-youth-prison

[15] Cornish Guardian, 21/12/11, '"GP service move will put lives at risk"' [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/GP-service-lives-risk/story-14199004-detail/story.html

[16] O'Brien, A., 1/12/11, '"Overwhelmed" Serco uses admin staff as security guards' The Australian [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/overwhelmed-serco-used-admin-staff-as-security-guards/story-fn9hm1gu-1226210624676

[17] MacKenzie, C., 17/12/11, 'Scandalous cost of justice: £861 a night to lock up young crime suspects… £650 to stay at the Ritz' Daily Mail [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075449/Scandalous-cost-justice–861-night-lock-young-crime-suspects—650-stay-Ritz.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[18] Laurance, B., 13/3/11, 'Revealed: The new public service Fat Cats and why they're immune from the cuts' Daily Mail [retrieved 6 March 2011] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365695/Revealed-The-new-public-service-Fat-Cats-theyre-immune-cuts.html?ITO=1490#

[19] Papas, 16/12/11.

[20] Laurance, 13/3/11.

[21] Aston, H., 27/2/11, 'Axemen advise O'Farrell' The Sydney Morning Herald [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/axemen-advise-ofarrell-20110226-1b98d.html

[22] Cabinet Office (UK), 2012, 'Big Society – Overview' [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/big-society-overview

[23] Papas, 16/12/11.

[24] Australian Government Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2012, 'Detention services provider contracts' [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/services/provider-contract.htm

[25] Clair, P., 2/12/09, 'Serco: Running nukes and prisons for profit' Hungry Beast [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/node/1036

[26] Laurance, 13/3/11.

[27] Dempster, Q., 7/4/06, 'From "PPP's" to "PFP's"' Stateline [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2006/s1611612.htm

[28] Boffey, D., 21/1/12, 'Charity slams David Cameron's Work Programme for unemployed' The Guardian [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/21/david-cameron-work-programme-unemployed?newsfeed=true

[29] Maidment, N., 31/10/11, 'Serco buying Excelior for up to A$13.2 million' Reuters [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/serco-idUSL5E7LV2HS20111031

[30] Loewenstein, A., Cordell, M., & Farrell, P., 9/11/11, 'Exclusive: Our contract with Serco' New Matilda [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://newmatilda.com/2011/11/09/exclusive-our-contract-serco

[31] Loewenstein, Cordell, & Farrell, 9/11/11.

[32] Loewenstein, A., & Farrell, P., 9/11/11, 'No audit requirement for Serco' New Matilda [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://newmatilda.com/2011/11/09/no-audit-requirement-serco

[33] Loewenstein, & Farrell, 9/11/11.

[34] Cordell, & Hooke, 8/12/11.

[35] Brereton, A., 24/5/11, 'Department admits "no one watching Serco"' New Matilda [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://newmatilda.com/2011/05/24/department-admits-no-one-watching-serco

[36] Laurance, 13/3/11.

[37] Maguire, K., 28/11/03, 'How British charity was silenced on Iraq' The Guardian [retrieved 7 March 2011] http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/nov/28/charities.usnews