Thursday, July 30, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
DentiCare should be extracted from the grand vision
Why?
Well, will taxpayers shell out for lazy blighters who can't be bothered looking after their teeth?
Why don't public hospitals install dental chairs so the indigent and those with chronic health problems can have quick and easy solutions for teeth that cannot be saved?
Well, will taxpayers shell out for lazy blighters who can't be bothered looking after their teeth?
Why don't public hospitals install dental chairs so the indigent and those with chronic health problems can have quick and easy solutions for teeth that cannot be saved?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Kaxgar
Letters editor, The Australian
Paul Kelly's call to arms ('PM must think like a war leader or quit field', 22/7) is a cogent statement of facts. He presents the case for a righteous mission that is at risk of losing popular support. But the other half of the narrative stems from the position of Western liberalism, as we are flanked by two emergent tyrannies. Extreme Islam is a form of theocratic totalitarianism, in that it brooks no redaction of its sacred foundational text.
In that context, one of the West's strengths resides in religious pluralism. In terms of local relationships, it is good to hear of increasing cooperation at many levels between secular Australia and Indonesia with its plurality of expressions of Islam.
But, as Kelly alludes, the endurance of our rule of law is in its' ability continually to adapt and refine, with fulsome input from public debate. It is our system of law that upholds, refines and codifies our military endeavours. This estate seems to be in stark contrast with the state system in China. Some may look to China for the manner in which it deals with the threat of disturbance by minority groups. In that direction, however, is as profound a mistake as bending to Sharia.
We are looking into a dark and forbidding place when we face the dilemma of the detention in China of Mr Hu Stern. It seems every step of that process is in contrast to what we expect and demand from our own laws. So, it's not too much of a stretch to observe that our approaches to situations arising in the Central Asian republics, Afghanistan and Pakistan will be warped by the lens of China's laws.
We could hope that Australia and China engage in a permanent and friendly dialogue over our disparate legal systems. It is important to have that forum, not just for Mr Hu Stern and those that will follow him, but for the sake of Afghanistan's future.
--
Letters editor, The Australian Financial Review
The situation of Mr Hu Stern is part of the kaleidoscope that is Australia's future. It should not be restricted to a case that can be considered on its own merits (Paul Kerin, 'China says it has evidence against Hu', 23/7). It is part of a broad narrative that takes in the reasons behind our military presence in Afghanistan.
Western liberalism is flanked by two emergent tyrannies. Extreme Islam is a form of theocratic totalitarianism, in that it brooks no redaction of its sacred foundational text. In that context, one of the West's strengths resides in religious pluralism. In terms of local relationships, it is good to hear of increasing cooperation at many levels between secular Australia and Indonesia with its many expressions of Islam.
Our rule of law endures by its' ability continually to adapt and refine, with fulsome input from public debate. It is our system of law that upholds, refines and codifies our military endeavours. This estate seems to be in stark contrast with the state system in China. Some may look to China for the manner in which it deals with the threat of disturbance by minority groups. In that direction, however, is as profound a mistake as bending to Sharia.
We are looking into a dark and forbidding place when we face the dilemma of the detention in China of Mr Hu Stern. It seems every step of that process is in contrast to what we expect and demand from our own laws. So, it's not too much of a stretch to observe that our approaches to situations arising in the Central Asian republics, Afghanistan and Pakistan will be warped by the lens of China's laws.
We could hope that Australia and China engage in a permanent and friendly dialogue over our disparate legal systems. It is important to have that forum, not just for Mr Hu Stern and those that will follow him, but for the sake of Afghanistan's future.
Paul Kelly's call to arms ('PM must think like a war leader or quit field', 22/7) is a cogent statement of facts. He presents the case for a righteous mission that is at risk of losing popular support. But the other half of the narrative stems from the position of Western liberalism, as we are flanked by two emergent tyrannies. Extreme Islam is a form of theocratic totalitarianism, in that it brooks no redaction of its sacred foundational text.
In that context, one of the West's strengths resides in religious pluralism. In terms of local relationships, it is good to hear of increasing cooperation at many levels between secular Australia and Indonesia with its plurality of expressions of Islam.
But, as Kelly alludes, the endurance of our rule of law is in its' ability continually to adapt and refine, with fulsome input from public debate. It is our system of law that upholds, refines and codifies our military endeavours. This estate seems to be in stark contrast with the state system in China. Some may look to China for the manner in which it deals with the threat of disturbance by minority groups. In that direction, however, is as profound a mistake as bending to Sharia.
We are looking into a dark and forbidding place when we face the dilemma of the detention in China of Mr Hu Stern. It seems every step of that process is in contrast to what we expect and demand from our own laws. So, it's not too much of a stretch to observe that our approaches to situations arising in the Central Asian republics, Afghanistan and Pakistan will be warped by the lens of China's laws.
We could hope that Australia and China engage in a permanent and friendly dialogue over our disparate legal systems. It is important to have that forum, not just for Mr Hu Stern and those that will follow him, but for the sake of Afghanistan's future.
--
Letters editor, The Australian Financial Review
The situation of Mr Hu Stern is part of the kaleidoscope that is Australia's future. It should not be restricted to a case that can be considered on its own merits (Paul Kerin, 'China says it has evidence against Hu', 23/7). It is part of a broad narrative that takes in the reasons behind our military presence in Afghanistan.
Western liberalism is flanked by two emergent tyrannies. Extreme Islam is a form of theocratic totalitarianism, in that it brooks no redaction of its sacred foundational text. In that context, one of the West's strengths resides in religious pluralism. In terms of local relationships, it is good to hear of increasing cooperation at many levels between secular Australia and Indonesia with its many expressions of Islam.
Our rule of law endures by its' ability continually to adapt and refine, with fulsome input from public debate. It is our system of law that upholds, refines and codifies our military endeavours. This estate seems to be in stark contrast with the state system in China. Some may look to China for the manner in which it deals with the threat of disturbance by minority groups. In that direction, however, is as profound a mistake as bending to Sharia.
We are looking into a dark and forbidding place when we face the dilemma of the detention in China of Mr Hu Stern. It seems every step of that process is in contrast to what we expect and demand from our own laws. So, it's not too much of a stretch to observe that our approaches to situations arising in the Central Asian republics, Afghanistan and Pakistan will be warped by the lens of China's laws.
We could hope that Australia and China engage in a permanent and friendly dialogue over our disparate legal systems. It is important to have that forum, not just for Mr Hu Stern and those that will follow him, but for the sake of Afghanistan's future.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Better run it past CSL
Dear Editors
It's very good news that the government will pay to have an extra two million Australians vaccinated against the seasonal influenza. Let's overlook the matter that these vulnerable groups could have been offered free annual injections well before this.
We do need to concentrate our attention on provisions for the future. There are two issues, crucial to the planning of vaccination for influenza, about which we know almost nothing. One is whether or not the current vaccine for seasonal influenza affords any protection against the new H1N1 variant. The first question, then, is resolved by looking at the data. But, where is that data and who is responsible for collating it into evidence of effectiveness?
The second issue is vital for success of any plan to vaccinate the whole population against the new variant. The World Health Organisation has stated, very clearly, that any program of immunisation against the new variant must be followed with rigorous surveillance in order to identify any harmful outcomes of vaccination. That's because it is highly likely that entirely new methods of vaccine production will be used and citizens will be exposed to synthetic, novel molecules.
If the new variant remains in its present state and runs through the population without any greater morbidity and mortality than any other variety of influenza, the community will have plenty of time to be involved in proposed plans. However, in the event of increased deaths of healthy young people, buttons will be pushed to accelerate a program of mass vaccination. In that scenario of heightened concern, it may be suggested that arguments for the usual, cautious process will be out-weighed and that short-cuts should be taken.
Now is the time to address the matter of post-marketing surveillance of new vaccines. Who pays for it, who collects the data, who owns the data and will it be scrutinised by methods accessible to the public?
It's very good news that the government will pay to have an extra two million Australians vaccinated against the seasonal influenza. Let's overlook the matter that these vulnerable groups could have been offered free annual injections well before this.
We do need to concentrate our attention on provisions for the future. There are two issues, crucial to the planning of vaccination for influenza, about which we know almost nothing. One is whether or not the current vaccine for seasonal influenza affords any protection against the new H1N1 variant. The first question, then, is resolved by looking at the data. But, where is that data and who is responsible for collating it into evidence of effectiveness?
The second issue is vital for success of any plan to vaccinate the whole population against the new variant. The World Health Organisation has stated, very clearly, that any program of immunisation against the new variant must be followed with rigorous surveillance in order to identify any harmful outcomes of vaccination. That's because it is highly likely that entirely new methods of vaccine production will be used and citizens will be exposed to synthetic, novel molecules.
If the new variant remains in its present state and runs through the population without any greater morbidity and mortality than any other variety of influenza, the community will have plenty of time to be involved in proposed plans. However, in the event of increased deaths of healthy young people, buttons will be pushed to accelerate a program of mass vaccination. In that scenario of heightened concern, it may be suggested that arguments for the usual, cautious process will be out-weighed and that short-cuts should be taken.
Now is the time to address the matter of post-marketing surveillance of new vaccines. Who pays for it, who collects the data, who owns the data and will it be scrutinised by methods accessible to the public?
Friday, July 03, 2009
A Passion for Policy
Essays in Public Sector Reform from ANZSOG
The Role of Departmental Secretaries
Personal refections on the breadth of responsibilities today
Andrew Podger
The Role of Departmental Secretaries
Personal refections on the breadth of responsibilities today
Andrew Podger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)