See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289529670

Ethics in the information age

Article in The Australian quarterly · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 184

2 authors, including:

Amy Antonio
University of Southern Queensland
37 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amy Antonio on 07 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Vol 87 Issue 1 JAN–MAR 2016

Indefinite
Disinformation:
The Political Capital of Fear

including: Julian Burnside | Prof Wendi Rogers | Dr David Tuffley | Dr Ainsley Newson

A rough climate Being human: Ethics in the

for migration Genome Editing information age
How to subscribe
Subscribe and pay online at www.aips.net.au/aq-magazine/subscribe
The subscription period is based on the calendar year: January to December - 4 issues per annum. Back copies will be forwarded.

Subscription Rates Rates include GST. *GST does not apply on overseas subscriptions.
Postage included in rate. Airmail used for overseas distribution.
AQ Individual and schools subscription $26
AQ Individuals (Overseas) $35* Organisations (Australia) $132
Individual Digital Subscription $14.99 Organisations (Overseas – Asia & Oceania) $145*
(through www.pocketmags.com.au) Organisations (Overseas – Other than Asia) $165*
AIPS Membership includes AQ subscription $88 AIPS Membership Overseas includes AQ subscription $110*
 AQ
CONTENTS Vol 87 Issue 1 JAN–MAR 2016

3 19 32

9 25 35

IMAGE CREDITS: Please see article placements

3 19 32
Being Human: Ethics in the On the Cutting Edge:
The Ethics, Law, and Scientific Information Age Ethics and Surgical Innovation
Progress of Genome Editing Dr David Tuffley & Prof Wendy Rogers
Dr Ainsley Newson & Dr Amy Antonio
Dr Anthony Wrigley

9 25 35
Indefinite A Rough Climate Australian Party
Disinformation: for Migration: Think Tanks:
The Political Capital of Fear Ethics, Climate Change Symptoms of Party Malaise
Julian Burnside AO QC and Forced Migration and Party Resilience
Dr Elaine Kelly Dr Narelle Miragliotta

40
References

COVER IMAGE: © Fotolia - jorgenmac100

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 1

 AQ
a word Australian Quarterly

I
n a world of lightning fast information, where competition for resources now occurs
on a global scale, where innovation is progressing faster than any other time in
human history: is the slow, considered application of ethical principles still relevant? Editor:
Grant Mills
Or do ethics burden the already self-regulating principles of the free-market with
impractical philosophy? Assistant Editor:
Camille Thomson
Welcome to a truly bumper issue of AQ. In this year’s Special Edition we look at what role
ethics still has to play in our lives, from climate change, to medicine, through to the depths Design and production:
Art Graphic Design, Canberra
of the internet.
Printing:
How does the concept of ethics play into our everyday, where is it critical that ethical Newstyle Printing, SA
standard remain enforced and where have we let our ethical responsibilities be usurped by
Subscriptions:
politicking and fear?
www.aips.net.au/aq-magazine/
We are very lucky to have Julian Burnside QC returning to the pages of AQ, providing subscribe
a long, hard look at the last 15 years of Australia’s border policy. The piece is a powerful enquiries to:
reminder of how far we have strayed from the Aussie values of the fair go that we, perhaps Camille Thomson,
wrongly, still wear as a badge of national pride. General Manager,
AIPS,
In recent years the field of genome editing has been thrown open by the development of simpler, PO Box M145,
cheaper and more accurate methods of altering the DNA of any living organism. Prominent Missenden Road NSW 2050 Australia
bioethicists, Dr Ainsley Newson and Dr Anthony Wrigley walk us through the issues in an Phone: +61 (02) 9036 9995
Fax: +61 (02) 9036 9960
area of science that could fundamentally change the idea of what it is to be human.
Email: info@aips.net.au
Australia’s two biggest political footballs continue to be ‘refugees’ and ‘climate change’. But Website: www.aips.net.au/
aq-magazine/
what happens when the two become one, and we begin seeing climate-refugees, those that
Facebook: www.facebook.com/
have been pushed off their land by rising sea levels and extreme weather patterns? How will AQAustralianQuarterly
Australia react, and should our ethical responsibilities to these people begin before they even
ISSN 1443-3605
leave their home country?
AQ (Australian Quarterly) is published
We also examine whether ethics can or should be applied to IT and the internet, investigate by the Australian Institute of Policy
the balancing act between ethics and innovation, and take a look at the history of Australia’s and Science.
political party Think Tanks. This project is supported by the
Commonwealth Government
It’s an exciting issue that I hope will entertain as well as challenge. Share your thoughts via through a grant-in-aid administered
our Facebook (@AQAustralianQuarterly) or Twitter (@AQjournal). by the Department of Finance and
Grant Mills Deregulation.
Editor ACN 000 025 507
The AIPS is an independent body
Notes for Contributors which promotes discussion and
understanding of political, social and
AQ welcomes submissions of articles and manuscripts on contemporary economic, political, social and philosophical
scientific issues in Australia. It is not
issues, especially where scientific insights have a bearing and where the issues impact on Australian and global connected with any political party or
public life. All contributions are unpaid. Manuscripts should be original and have not been submitted or published sectional group. Opinions expressed
elsewhere, although in negotiation with the Editor, revised prior publications or presentations may be included. in AQ are those of the authors.
Submissions may be subject to peer review. Word length is between 1000 and 3000 words. Longer and shorter
lengths may be considered. Articles should be written and argued clearly so they can be easily read by an informed, Directors of the
but non-specialist, readership. A short biographical note of up to 50 words should accompany the work. The Editor Australian Institute of
Policy and Science:
welcomes accompanying images. Authors of published articles are required to assign copyright to the Australian
Institute of Policy and Science, including signing of a License to Publish which includes acceptance of online archiving Richard G McLean (Chair)
and access through JSTOR (from 2010) or other online publication as negotiated by the Australian Institute of Policy Leon R Beswick
Andrew Goodsall
and Science. In return, authors have a non exclusive license to publish the paper elsewhere at a future date. The
Maria Kavallaris
inclusion of references and endnotes is the option of the author. Our preference is for these to be available from
Janelle Kyd
the author on request. Otherwise, references, endnotes and abbreviations should be used sparingly and kept to Suresh Mahalingam
a minimum. Articles appearing in AQ are indexed ABC POL SCI: A Bibliography of Contents: Political Science and Ross McKinnon
Government. The International Political Science Abstracts publishes abstracts of political science articles appearing Peter M McMahon
in AQ. Copyright is owned by the Australian Institute of Policy and Science. Persons wishing to reproduce an article, or Peter D Rathjen
part thereof, must obtain the Institute’s permission. Contributions should be emailed to: The Editor at info@aips.net.au Robert Wells

2 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016

 This paper draws on a Background Paper on
Genome Editing, which the authors prepared
for the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (UK).
The report can be accessed online.1

Being Human:
The Ethics, Law, and Scientific
Progress of Genome Editing

G
Genome editing can be viewed as a disruptive technology enetic engineering in itself is,
of course, not new – various
– fundamentally changing how scientists alter genomes. techniques that allow scien-
Despite the technique remaining imperfect, there is now a tists to modify genes have
real possibility that we can precisely and accurately change been around for some time.
But the difference with genome editing
almost any part of any genome, including plants, animals, is that it is simple, cheap, and accurate;
and human beings. The question is, should we? thereby opening up the potentials of
genetic engineering on a hitherto unseen
scale.
ARTICLE BY: Dr Ainsley Newson & Dr Anthony Wrigley
Genome editing has a broad range of
possible applications in areas such as novel
medical treatments, vaccine development,

image: © Dave Fayram - Flickr

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 3


crop innovation and environmental reme-
diation. A variety of approaches fit the
genome editing moniker, but the emer-
gence of CRISPR-Cas9 has captured the
most attention.
What is CRISPR-Cas9?
Editing a genome involves introduc-
ing a change to a chosen target within a
cell’s DNA. The change can take numerous
forms, from introducing a small deletion to
effecting a precise sequence change.
There are several methods of genome
editing, but CRISPR-Cas9 is currently the
easiest to set up and use. The CRISPR-Cas9
technique was first published in 2012,2
but is based on a knowledge of short
DNA sequences found in simple cells;
around since the 1980s. “CRISPR” stands
for “clustered regularly interspaced short
palindromic repeats”.
In April 2015, a Chinese research team
published the first (albeit not very successful)
use of CRISPR-Cas9 in human embryos;
with the aim of engineering out the mutation
that causes β-thalassemia.
The technique involves two main steps.
First, components of a custom-designed
nuclease (called an endonuclease) are
introduced to a recipient cell, whereupon
they self-assemble. This endonuclease
then targets and cuts one or both strands
of a chosen DNA sequence. Second, the
4 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016
Being Human
recipient cell’s inherent DNA-repair machin-
ery then repairs the cut and in so doing,
introduces the designed change. These
changes can comprise anything from a
single base pair change to the insertion or
deletion of whole genes.3,4
CRISPR-Cas9 is a very flexible system
and can be used without expert protein
engineering expertise. The nature of the
method also means that several changes
can be introduced to a cell simultaneously.
Scientific publications using this system are
rapidly increasing; with over 800 citations
in the database PubMed as at November
2015.
However, despite its simplicity and rela-
tively low cost, CRISPR-Cas9 is not perfect.
Problems can arise, such as ‘off target’ cleav-
age, which occurs when the endonuclease
attaches to and cuts at the wrong site in
the DNA helix. There are also concerns that
unwanted DNA repair events will occur.
One paper in
particular among
the increasing
literature has
led to significant
debate. In April
2015, a Chinese
research team
published the first
(albeit not very
successful) use of CRISPR-Cas9 in human
embryos; with the aim of engineering out
the mutation that causes β-thalassemia.5
If these embryos were implanted (which
was not the intention of this work) they
could have led to the birth of humans with
an engineered germ-line – meaning that
image: © Mike Towber-Flickr
the changes could be passed to future
generations. The experiment was subject
to criticism on both scientific and ethical
grounds and soon after, the National
Institutes of Health in the United States
announced that it would not fund research
that used genome editing in human
embryos.6
Caplan et al rightly point out, however,
that our examination of ethical aspects
of CRISPR-Cas9 should not become too
narrow in focus.7 While genome editing
in embryos is ethically significant, issues
also arise in other applications: generating
transgenic animals; developing novel ther-
apies in humans and releasing genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). CRISPR-Cas9
may represent a ‘tipping point’ for ethics; a
point we return to below.
What Role for Bioethics?
The power and precision of this tech-
nology means that it’s no surprise that
everyone involved recognises how its
implications could be profound. The issue is
getting the balance right between respon-
sible deliberation and governance; and
facilitating the development of promising
interventions.
Bioethics has historically been a dis-
cipline in which philosophers have
developed arguments on key concepts
or developments in science, health and
medicine. Other disciplines, such as law
and sociology have also entered the fray,
resulting in an ongoing debate over the
scope and methods of bioethics and the
nature of expertise within the field. Sitting
 Being Human

alongside academic bioethics is research

ethics; or the manner of approving research
studies that involve human or certain
non-human animal participants; or which
involve ethically contested materials such
as human embryos.
Writing about CRISPR in August 2015,
psychologist Stephen Pinker presented his
view on the role of ethics in the genome
editing debate, stating that bioethicists
should “get out of the way”.8 He was con-
cerned that bioethicists holds up scientific
progress (causing harm) and broker moral
panic. He criticised bioethicists for mis-pre-
dicting the future and over-inflating risks.
He implied that ample existing protec-
tions and informed consent processes are
enough to allow genome editing to safely
prosper.
Our take on Pinker’s piece and the
ensuing debate (of which there was plenty)
is that we need to be careful not to tar aca-
demic bioethics with the same brush that is
used for the definitely imperfect and often
cumbersome research ethics process.
Pinker also pitches an unfair stereotype
of bioethics; not one that we recognise
as representing the discipline. Bioethics
is inherent to the development of new
technologies. Its role is not one of simply
pointing out all the problems with a tech-
nology or stating why something shouldn’t
be done. The challenge for bioethics is
to work in collaboration with researchers
to scope issues, frame the potential of
genome editing as accurately as possible,
and to find ways to appropriately facilitate
promising research.
The central underlying ethical concern here is one that applies
to any application of human genetic modification: that it may
unintentionally change the genome forever.
Should We Be Worried About
CRISPR-Cas9?
The ethics of genetic modification,
particularly involving humans, has had
an uncomfortable history which has
often given rise to a highly precautionary
approach to its use. In other words: don’t
do anything until you know for sure that
it will be safe and beneficial. And while
genome editing may not present us with
any specifically new ethical issues con-
cerning genetic modification – it is in that
regard just another technique that allows
such modifications to take place – that is
not the end of the story.
The important question is not, there-
fore, whether genome editing raises new
questions. Instead, we need to ask whether
genome editing warrants further special
attention than has already been given to
the ethics of genetic engineering in its
various forms.
The major concern driving the call for
this further attention is a direct result of
genome editing’s potential for success. As
it is so effective and easy to use, there are
worries that it may be put into use far too
rapidly. This, in turn, will have implications
for the ethical debate as the use of the
technique may outstrip our understanding
of its safety and our window of opportu-
nity to think about whether - and how - it
should be controlled.
So just what are the ethical aspects
surrounding genome editing? As indicted
above, modifying the human genome
gives rise to the most concern. The central
underlying ethical concern here is one
that applies to any application of human
genetic modification: that it may unin-
tentionally change the genome forever;

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 5

 Being Human

Even within the boundaries of legitimate

Regulation and Oversight
scientific enterprise, there are concerns about
In Australia, genome editing will be ‘directed evolution’.
subject to regulation under several
existing instruments. For example, the
genome editing of crops will fall under
the ambit of the Gene Technology Act causing harm. This is a debate that has much more nuanced genetic modifications
2000 (Cth) and the relevant procedures long been considered and which often to be made. However, even if changes to
underpins the difference between somatic the genome turn out to be ‘safe’ there are
it dictates, including licensing. In
and germ-line genetic modifications. implications arising from the scope and
humans, somatic (non-inheritable)
Somatic-cell modifications allow for the scale of the techniques.
gene therapy is likely to require therapeutic use of gene modification to If a technique can be used widely and
approval from a Human Research Ethics help treat identifiable genetic disorders in a efficiently, without careful guidance of its
Committee. particular person. The crucial element is that use, a certain ‘tipping point’ can be reached
If a clinical trial, the Therapeutic these are non-heritable changes. Germ-line that changes the status of the technology.
interventions, however, make changes that Widespread use can change expectations
Goods Act 1989 (Cth) and clinical trial
are heritable. While this has the advantage to the point where genome editing would
regulations will also apply; as may
that unwanted genetic conditions may be become a norm in many areas of life.
the Gene Technology Act; although the
permanently removed if the germ-line is Moreover, such massive increases in scope
definition of a ‘genetically modified altered safely and as intended, any errors or and scale may mean that current scientific
organism’ (GMO) under the Gene unwanted consequences from altering the governance may no longer be sufficient to
Technology Act specifically excludes a germ-line will also be passed on. deal with the wider implications surround-
human who is only modified due to Genome editing is interesting in this ing such issues as access, resources and
having undergone somatic cell gene regard because the accuracy of the tech- social impact of its use.
therapy (s10). nique minimises (although by no means The crossover between ethics and
eliminates) the risk of error and allows a adequate governance in science seems
The permissibility of genome editing
research in human embryos will be
dictated by the Research on Human
Embryos Act 2002, as amended (Cth)
and the Prohibition of Cloning for
Reproduction Act 2002, as amended
(Cth) (as well as mirroring legislation
in states and territories). These laws
permit certain types of embryo
research, subject to licence. However
until a licence is applied for we cannot
predict how the legislation will be
interpreted; especially because genome
editing did not exist at the time these
laws were written.
A search of the NHMRC licensing
database indicates that at the time of
writing, no licences involving the use
of genome editing in human embryos
in Australia have been granted nor
applied for.
image: © dna-1165401

6 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016

 Being Human

image: © F.S. Church - Wiki Commons

particularly acute in the case of genome development of highly drought-resistant,

editing. The creation of such a cheap
and effective means of modifying genes
can lead to a need to limit the potential
for these techniques to be misapplied in
other areas; what is known as the ‘dual use’
problem. These might include the genetic
manipulation of viruses, gene transfer as
a weapon, or commercial exploitation in
crops and animals to produce specific traits.
Even within the boundaries of legitimate
scientific enterprise, there are concerns
about ‘directed evolution’, whereby the
boundaries of the scope of genome editing
need to be established and decisions
made about who should select the genetic
properties of any organism to edit. This will
require global agreements as to exactly
how gene editing is to be managed.
Although genome editing techniques
present a relatively low cost means of
achieving genetic modification, wider
issues of social justice remain that attach to
the equity in distributing its benefits. First
amongst these would be whether equitable
access to technology is both warranted and
available. This may be a particular problem
for low and middle income countries due
to the likelihood that research interests will
focus significantly on problems linked to
‘Western’ medicine and disease.
Commercialisation may further extend
many potential inequalities if patents
or other means of restricting access to
resources developed through genome
editing techniques take hold (and patents
over CRISPR-Cas9 are already being granted
and fought over). Imagine the situa-
tion where genome editing leads to the
disease-resistant, high-yield crops, destroy-
ing commercial opportunities for those
who are unable to pay the high price
demanded for the genetically altered
product. Competitive advantage may be
even further affected due to the disrup-
tive nature of genome editing, as it may
supplant alternative gene-modification
technologies.
Social justice concerns have also been
raised by specific interest groups that see
genome editing as potentially directly
affecting them. Should genome editing
involving germ-line modifications go
ahead, it has the potential to perma-
nently eradicate certain genetic disorders.
Although this may seem at first glance like
a universally good thing, some argue that
the attempt to eradicate certain conditions
permanently implies a lack of respect for
people who have those genetic diseases
by viewing not only the conditions them-
selves as something undesirable but also
the existence in society of such people
with those conditions.
Concerns about social justice need not
all be negative, however. Although only a
small number of people are likely to benefit
initially, the economic advantages of
genome editing may readily lead to a rapid
expansion of application of the technique.
This, in turn, has the potential to benefit
populations that are often disadvantaged
under current conditions of scientific
research and innovation, such as those who
live with rare diseases that would otherwise
not be viable areas of research.
The development of research and
testing of genome editing techniques on
human populations in the first instance
will, however, still be a major challenge.
The nature of such trials, on whom, and
how risks are assessed for research subjects
and society in general will all have to be
addressed.
Is Genome Editing Legal?
There is currently little specific gov-
ernance of genome editing technology
anywhere and it is an open question as
to whether specific regulation is required.
But at a minimum, it does seem appropri-
ate to query how genome editing will be
governed in Australia (see Regulation and
Oversight breakout, p 6)
One broad consideration is to query
what role governance could or should play
in the development of any new technol-
ogy. What aspects of genome editing
should be regulated, and how? While it
is perhaps too early to answer this ques-
tion, considerations of the approach to
governance and the need for regulation of

Although only a small number of people are likely to benefit

initially, the economic advantages of genome editing may
readily lead to a rapid expansion of application of the technique.

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 7


genome editing should not be forgotten as
the field continues to develop.
In recent years, academics and
policy-makers who research emerging
biotechnologies have been engaging in
a dialogue over how to govern rapidly
emerging biotechnologies. The problem
is that legislation can be problematic: it is
slow to make and difficult to change. Using
regulations instead of statute laws is one
way around this; as the recent regulations
governing mitochondrial donation in the
United Kingdom (UK) have shown.
In the UK and Europe, responsible
research and innovation (RRI) has recently
gained traction. While there is not yet a
single definition or approach to RRI, there
are three common features: (i) democratic
governance over the appropriate rationale
and end-points for research and innovation;
(ii) broadly framed responsiveness to current
and future innovations and their impacts to
both science and society; and (iii) framing
‘responsibility’ within a climate of all stake-
holders working under uncertainty.9 RRI
is also hallmarked by ongoing interaction
between researchers and regulators. Yet RRI
is also complex, requiring a significant com-
mitment of time and resources to ‘get right’.
RRI does not yet seem to have entered the
policy landscape in Australia; and it would
be interesting to consider how such an
approach might work here.
Do We Need A Moratorium?
One way to prevent problems arising
from a new technology is not to do it at
all. When the recombinant DNA revolution
IMAGE: © Dag Terje Filip Endresen- Flickr
8 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016
Being Human
When the recombinant DNA revolution occurred in
the early 1970’s, scientists mutually agreed to a
moratorium until more was known.
occurred in the early 1970’s, scientists editing, until the ethics can be worked
mutually agreed to a moratorium until out. This should then be done with wide
more was known. Something similar might consultation and debate.
be considered for genome editing; in par-
ticular its applications that could alter the Where To Next?
human germ-line. In 2015, concerns about
Many of the ethical issues in genome
the implications of genome editing in
editing also arise elsewhere. It does,
humans and their descendants led to calls however, create something of a new
for a moratorium on the use of this tech- context arising from the implications of
nology where it might impact the human the scope of the techniques. Potentially
germ-line.10,11 Others have taken a position infinitely editable genomes using an accu-
that encourages prudence and transpar- rate and relatively inexpensive technique
ency, but stop short of a moratorium.12 presents the potential for changing many
In our view, while moratoriums have more aspects of the genome in humans,
been successfully used in the past, it’s animals, plants and other organisms, and
not clear that one is indicated here. Most on a significantly greater scale, than has
countries already have laws or guidelines in previously been considered.
place that robustly regulate modifications CRISPR-Cas9 is an exciting technology,
of the human germ line. Further, a mora- with possible applications across almost
torium will prevent the exact research that all living species. The ethical issues arising
we need to undertake to look carefully at from this should be considered openly by
is implications, such as safety and efficacy; a variety of stakeholders. Genome editing
which in turn will assist with weighing up also offers new opportunities to assess how
the potential benefits, risks and harms. Thus we regulate and govern emerging technol-
instead of a blanket ban, we should instead ogies; including limitations to current legal
encourage all nations to enforce restric- approaches and opportunities to assess
tions on some applications of genome novel governance frameworks. AQ
AUTHOR:
Dr Ainsley Newson is Senior Lecturer in Bioethics at the University of
Sydney. She has taught and researched in bioethics for nearly 20 years and
has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Wellcome
Trust and the European Union, among others. She has degrees in science
and law, in addition to a PhD in bioethics. Her research focuses on ethical
aspects of genetics, genomics and their applications.
AUTHOR:
Dr Anthony Wrigley is Senior Lecturer in Ethics at the University of Keele,
UK. He has been teaching ethics for 20 years and published widely in
the fields of bioethics, research ethics, and philosophy. His research has
focused on genetics and ethics, consent, and harm to future generations.
Indefinite ARTICLE BY: Julian Burnside AO QC

Disinformation: S
uddenly there were no terror-
ists: only Muslim terrorists. And
no boat people: only Muslim
boat people. Suddenly, boat

The Political Capital of Fear

The arrival of the Tampa in Australian waters in 2001 marked
a dramatic turning point in Australia’s response to boat people.
Judgment in the Tampa litigation was handed down at 2.15pm
(Melbourne time) on 11 September 2001. Nine hours later the
attack on America happened, and John Howard had a potent new
political weapon.
people were “illegals”. And sud-
denly, we were persuaded to be mortally
afraid of terrorism. Suddenly, fear and
loathing were part of Australia’s political
dynamics.
But we are a complex country, full of
contradictions. Ned Kelly – an Australian
folk hero – was also a terrorist by our
modern definition. Ian Jones’ latest theory
of Ned Kelly is that his murderous exploits
were motivated by his wish to establish a

image: © Kate Ausburn - Flickr

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 9

 Indefinite disinformation

Recently, the government flagged its

intention to extend the use of control orders to
children as young as 14.

republic in north-east Victoria. Laudable as

that aim may have been, it had the ideo-
logical element needed to convert ordinary
criminal conduct into a terrorist offence.
Reading the Jerilderie letter gives a
useful reminder that Kelly was a man who
wanted to overthrow the existing order,
by force if necessary. He criticises many
aspects of the colonial police force:

… a parcel of big ugly

fat-necked wombat headed big
bellied magpie legged narrow
hipped splay-footed sons of Irish
Bailiffs or English landlords
which is better known as … the
Victoria Police …

The Jerilderie letter ends with a promise

not to kill those members of the Victoria
Police who promise to throw down their
weapons and leave the force, and insists “...
my orders must be obeyed”. If an ultima-
tum like that had been delivered by Osama
Bin Laden, it would be held up as a mark
of his depravity. That it was delivered by
Ned Kelly, now revered as a folk hero, and
remembered in the idiom “as game as Ned
Kelly”, must tell us something about the
complexity of our national values.
Likewise the Eureka uprising, celebrated
in December each year. By any standard
it was a terrorist event. Its leader, Peter
Lalor, later became Speaker of the Victorian
Parliament. Any attempt to identify
Australian Values will have to take account

IMAGE: © UK Department for International Development

10 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016


of the puzzling fact that several fairly
serious terrorist acts are bound up in our
cherished history and are deeply embed-
ded in our shared mythology. These events,
as much as mateship, are part of who we
are and how we see ourselves.
Building up the Bogeymen
At least since the Tampa episode,
Australian politics have been marked by
fear and loathing. Inducing fear in the com-
munity and hatred of boat people have
been powerful, but toxic, influences in this
country.
In our exaggerated response to the threat
of terrorism, Australia has passed some of
the most extreme anti-terror laws in the
Western world. Recently, the government
flagged its intention to extend the use of
control orders to children as young as 14.
The effect of a control order may range
from house arrest without access to
electronic communications, to a restric-
tion on the people you can associate with.
The order can remain in effect for up to
12 months. It can be obtained in a secret
hearing about which the subject knows
nothing at all, until they are arrested and
served with the order. And even then they
are not to be told what the evidence was
that was used against them.
So if someone made a mistake, the
subject of the order won't know and they
can't find out because they are not allowed
to see the evidence that was used against
them. Mistaken identity now assumes seri-
ously dangerous possibilities to members
of the Australian public.
The idea that a 14-year-old could be subject to house arrest
for 12 months, based on secret evidence in a secret hearing,
is impossible to reconcile.
Indefinite disinformation
Image: © Rosenfeld Media-Flickr
The idea that a 14-year-old could be
subject to house arrest for 12 months,
based on secret evidence in a secret
hearing, is impossible to reconcile with the
values and principles which, until recently,
were regarded as basic to this country’s
character and identity. The potential for
injustice is very great.
But what is most objectionable, in my
view, is that control orders are just one
element of a formidable array of measures
that are said to protect our way of life
against terrorism.
And I would say that our Society, as we
know it, is less threatened by terrorism
than it is by laws like these, which dramati-
cally compromise the principles which are
thought to be central to our national
character.
Now, make no mistake about this: I do
not approve of terrorism, but our paralysing
emphasis on terrorism looks very much like
a political strategy: it has been recognised
for a long time that a sure path to politi-
cal popularity is to make the public fearful
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dic-
and then offer them safety. Terrorism is the
tatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
perfect device for this strategy. The attack
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people
on America on 11 September 2001 made
the game easy in Western democracies. can always be brought to the bidding of
A senior politician once said this: the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do
“Why of course the people don't want is tell them they are being attacked, and
war. Why should some poor slob on a farm denounce the peacemakers for lack of patri-
want to risk his life in a war when the best otism and exposing the country to danger.
he can get out of it is to come back to his It works the same in any country.”
farm in one piece? Naturally the common That was said by Herman Goering in
people don't want war…That is understood. 1946, during his trial at Nuremberg.1 It
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country would not be surprising to hear the same
who determine the policy and it is always sentiment from a Canberra politician today
a simple matter to drag the people along, in a candid moment.
IMAGE: © www.josephfeil.com
JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 11
 Indefinite disinformation

The average death toll in Australia from terrorist events is a bit less
than one person per year… By contrast, two women die each
week as a result of domestic violence

Overcoming Empathy events is a bit less than one person per terrified the potential victim is; no matter
year. The largest ever death toll from any how justified her fears are.
Over the past 14 years we have heard a terrorist event on Australian soil was 26. Fear triggers a response in the amygdala
lot of political rhetoric intended to make That was at the Eureka Stockade in 1854. that is more potent than anything the
us fear terrorism and hate boat people. By contrast, two women die each week cerebral cortex can manage. But the cortex
We heard a lot about the ISIS “Death Cult” as a result of domes- can analyse the thing
from Tony Abbott, but very little about the tic violence. The risk said to be fearful, and
fact that boat people were, many of them, of a woman dying in neutralise it. So let’s
The Taliban found
looking to be protected against that same Australia as a result of give the cerebral cortex
him and, when they
“Death Cult”. We are constantly reminded domestic violence is at a chance to see what
least one hundred times
caught him, they we are doing.
of overseas terrorist events. We are forever
greater than her risk of threw him down Empathy is a puz-
being put in fear of terrorism, so that we
will approve and applaud new and ever dying in a terror attack. the village well. zling human emotion.
tougher laws to combat the thing we fear. Deaths that result from Then they dropped It needs two things:
But we do need to keep a sense of pro- domestic violence make a hand grenade the ability to under-
portion: our local anti-terror legislation will the terrorist death toll after him. stand the feelings of
only have an effect on local terror attacks. pale into insignificance. another person, and
Australian laws are not likely to deter terror- A woman who has the capacity to respond
genuine reasons to fear appropriately to that
ists in other countries. So, what is the scale
domestic violence is unlikely to get much recognition.
of the problem which is said to provide
help from the police, and certainly would It is a normal human frailty to assume
a reason to trash our basic freedoms? On
not get a control order, since domestic vio- that others’ emotional responses match
the most generous view of the figures, the
lence is not a terrorist event, no matter how our own. But as Simon Baron-Cohen has
average death toll in Australia from terrorist
shown, the human capacity for empathy
varies widely between individuals. A couple
of examples will do.
In mid-2002, I received a report from a
friend in Afghanistan. An Afghan Hazara
boy, who had been rejected by Australia as
a refugee, was sent back to Afghanistan. He
returned to his village in Ghazni Province.
There, the Taliban found him and, when
they caught him, they threw him down
the village well. Then they dropped a hand
grenade after him. Most people would
have trouble bringing themselves to do
that - to anyone.
In China in 1937, after the Japanese
had sacked Nanking, they took civilians

image: © Jon-Eric Melsæter-Flickr

12 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016


bound hand and foot and pushed them
over a steep embankment. At the foot
of the embankment, Japanese soldiers
used the tumbling bodies for bayonet
practice. Photographs of their activity still
survive, taken by Japanese soldiers. Again,
most people would have trouble bringing
themselves to do that - to anyone. Or so we
would like to think.
Human history is littered with examples
of willful cruelty, generally willful cruelty
towards a group who have been air-
brushed off the map of human-kind. The
20th Century was disfigured by a number
of genocides. But it showed no greater
ingenuity in brutality than the torture
machines of earlier centuries, or the prac-
tices of the Americans at Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo Bay in the present century.
Most of us find these things incompre-
hensible. We wonder how anybody could
treat someone else this way. Yet what links
these stories is that the victims have gener-
ally been disparaged to the point that they
are no longer recognised as fellow human
beings. If you are persuaded to think of
them as “vermin” then they will fail to evoke
an empathetic response.
The decent treatment of refugees neces-
sarily calls on our capacity for empathy.
One episode of the SBS series “Go Back to
Where You Came From” included a very
telling observation by a participant called
Darren. After one gruelling encounter, he
protested that the group was being forced
to be empathetic “without our consent”.
It is clear that an empathetic reaction is
not a matter of “consent”. An empathetic
response, on the other hand, is voluntary. A
Indefinite disinformation
image: © Takver - Flickr
person might weep at the plight of another
but choose to do nothing about it. Darren’s
point, I think, was that he did not welcome
being placed in a position where his better
nature was inclined to respond with help,
but intellectually he was not willing to yield
to that impulse and resented the sense of
guilt which naturally followed as his amy-
gdala wrestled with his cerebral cortex.
Indefinite Disinformation
Let me apply the empathy lens to
Australia’s response to boat people. In the
public at large, the response is predictably
variable. At one end of the spectrum are
those who advocate shooting boat people
out of the water, or pushing their boats
back regardless of the obvious risks. Many
of them email me, or troll me on social
media, urging these responses. Some send
me death threats.
Others express sympathy, but say that
boat people should be kept away at all
costs because they are “illegals” and “queue
jumpers” and a “threat to our borders”.
This group – who are the most numer-
ous – present a more complex case.
Their reaction shows some empathy,
but their response is conditioned by It is clear that an
a misunderstanding of the facts. That
misunderstanding was created deliber- empathetic reaction is
ately by the Howard Government, and
was perpetuated and magnified by the
not a matter of “consent”.
Abbott government. And in case I sound An empathetic response,
party-political, I note that Labor has been
conspicuously unwilling to denounce on the other hand,
Coalition lies about asylum seekers.
Boat people are not “illegal” or is voluntary.
JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 13

“queue-jumpers”. On the contrary, every
human being has a right to seek asylum
anywhere they can find it. That is found in
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights:
Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to
seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from
persecution. …
Australia played a significant role in draft-
ing the UDHR, in the aftermath of WWII.
Boat people do not commit any offence
by coming here without papers, without
an invitation. But our politicians call them
“illegal” and persuade us that mistreating
them is OK.
And in Kabul or in Tehran or in Baghdad
or Damascus there is no queue to join.
Let me be plain about this: calling boat
people “illegal” or “queue jumpers” is a lie.
14 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016
Indefinite disinformation
In our ostensible concern about boat
people drowning, we punish them if
they don’t drown.
Politically effective, but a lie.
And they went on about “border control”.
The Abbott opposition regularly taunted
the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments about
losing control of our borders. But consider
this: the largest number of uninvited boat
people to arrive on our shores in any year
since 1788 was 25,000, in 2009. That same
year, the number of people arriving on
our shores with visas – most of them for
tourism or business – was about 5 million.
So border control worked effectively in
about 99.5% of cases. Back when I was in
school, I thought 99.5% was a pretty good
mark. Certainly not a failure.
When Abbott won government, “border
control” became “border protection”. It
was not easy to watch an interview with
Scott Morrison, when he was Immigration
Minister, without hearing him talk about
“illegals” and “border protection”. It is a
matter of history that the Abbott gov-
ernment, whose leading figures were
conspicuously Christian, were so dedicated
to vilifying refugees, that they renamed
the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship: it is now the Department of
Immigration and Border Protection. And
Morrison, as Immigration Minister, ordered
public servants to refer to boat people as
“illegal”.
But boat people do not break any law
by coming here, they do not threaten
our borders in any sense, and we do not
need to be protected from them. But
government propaganda has persuaded
a significant percentage of the Australian
public that we are being protected from
dangerous criminals.
Most people, even the most empathetic,
would not resist the idea that criminals
should be sent to jail. And if boat people
are “illegal” then placing them in detention
seems natural and reasonable. It does not
evoke a reaction of empathy.
The matter is different once you rec-
ognise that the people held in detention
centres are not guilty of any offence. It
looks different when you see that boat
people are held in detention for an indefi-
nite time – for as long as it takes to resolve
their claim for protection. They may be
jailed for months or years or perhaps even
forever. No-one can tell them in advance
how long they will stay in detention. It
looks different when you realise that, in
our ostensible concern about boat people
drowning, we punish them if they don’t
drown.
The Damaging Realities
As months drift into years, asylum
seekers held in detention eventually break
down. When they break down, they will
either harm themselves or damage their
Image: © Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
surroundings. When detainees in Woomera
threw themselves onto the razor-wire or
sewed their lips together, Phillip Ruddock
criticised them for “attention-seeking
behaviour”.
It was an attempt, broadly successful, to
make sure that most people in the commu-
nity did not react with a sense of empathy
because what they saw was a group of
criminals trying to manipulate the system
rather than a group of men, women and
children, innocent of any offence, driven
 Indefinite disinformation

IMAGE: © DIAC images - Wiki Commons

Let me be plain about this: calling boat people “illegal”
or “queue jumpers” is a lie. Politically effective, but a lie.

mad by the puzzling uncertainty of indefi-
nite detention in a hostile environment.
Let me tell you a story about the realities.
A family arrived in this country from Iran
in early 2001. They were members of a reli-
gious minority who have been traditionally
oppressed. They are regarded as unclean
by the religious majority.
The family fled after a shocking episode
in which one of their daughters suffered
grievously and the authorities offered no
help whatever. They arrived in Australia and
ended up in a desert camp. There, over the
next 14 months, the condition of the family
deteriorated inexorably.
Mother and father, eleven-year-old
daughter, seven-year-old daughter, all
gradually getting worse and worse. But
especially the eleven-year old. She had
completely fallen apart. A psychiatrist in
Adelaide became aware of the problem
and went to Woomera to speak to the
family. He wrote a report in which, among
other things, he said of the child:
“She refuses to engage in self-care activi-
ties such as brushing her teeth. She has
problems with sleeping; tosses and turns at
night; grinds her teeth; suffers from night-
mares. She has been scratching herself
constantly. She doesn’t eat her breakfast
and other meals and throws her food in
the bin. She is preoccupied constantly with
death, saying ‘do not bury me here in the
camp. Bury me back in Iran with grand-
mother and grandfather’.
She carried a cloth doll, the face of which
she had coloured in blue pencil. When
asked in the interview if she’d like to draw
a picture, she drew a picture of a bird in a
cage with tears falling and a padlock on the
door. She said she was the bird.”
After a number of pages to similar effect
the psychatrist observed:
“It is my professional opinion that to
delay action on this matter will only result
in further harm
to this child and
her family. The
trauma and per-
sonal suffering
already endured
by them has
been beyond the
capacity of any
human being.”
The report
urged that the
family be trans-
ferred from the
desert camp to
a metropolitan
camp where
at least they
would get proper clinical attention that
the eleven-year-old desperately needed.
Back then, if a detainee in Woomera was
in extreme need of psychiatric help, they
would be able to see the visiting psychia-
trist about once every six months.
The Immigration Department moved the
family to Maribyrnong Detention Centre
in the western suburbs of Melbourne.
Although the reason for moving them
was that the 11-year-old girl needed daily
psychiatric help, for the first two weeks of
their stay in Maribyrnong, nobody came to
see her: not a psychiatrist, or a doctor, or a
social worker: nobody. Then, on a Sunday
night in May 2002, while her parents and
her young sister were in the mess hall
having their dinner, the eleven-year-old
took a bed-sheet and hanged herself. She
did not know how to tie the knot properly,
and she was still suffocating when the
family came back
from their dinner.
She and her
mother were
taken to the
emergency
ward of the local
hospital where
she was put into
intensive care
straight away.
They had two
guards with
them, so that,
as a matter of
legal analysis,
they were still
in Immigration
Detention. The lawyer who had been
looking after their refugee application
heard about this and went to the hospital
at about 9.00pm. He didn’t need to intro-
duce himself because he is a regular visitor
at the Detention Centre. He said he wanted
to speak to the mother to see if there was
anything he could do to help. He was told:
‘No you can’t see them, because lawyers'
visiting hours in Immigration Detention are
nine to five’. They sent him away. He rang
me at home at 10 that night and told me
what had just happened. That moment was
probably the most significant turning point
in my life.

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 15

 Indefinite disinformation

That little girl was treated in the Child

and Adolescent Mental Health Unit of the
Austin Hospital for 12 months: until she
was assessed as well enough to be sent
back into detention.

Human Nature or Human

Nurture?
It is disturbing how harsh we can be
when we have been persuaded that the
people we mistreat are a danger to us,
or are unworthy of decent treatment.
A Study in Cruelty Between 1915 and 1923, The Ottoman
Mr H had fled Saddam Hussein’s regime. Within a couple of weeks of his arrival in detention in Australia, government of Turkey managed to exter-
officers of the Immigration Department noted that he had suffered torture in Iraq at the notorious Abu minate one and a half million Armenians.
Ghraib Prison and that the form of torture which most frightened him was being locked in a small room. Between 1933 and 1945 the German
In Abu Ghraib, he had regularly been held in a small cell where he was randomly electrocuted through people were persuaded that Jews were
water in the floor. sub-human and 6 million were exter-
minated. Between 1975 and 1979, the
After about 15 or 18 months in detention, he fell into hopelessness and despair. Khmer Rouge murdered about 2 million
When Mr H fell into hopelessness, he started self-harming. Whenever he could find a bit of broken glass Cambodians: nearly a quarter of the
or a bit of razor wire, he would cut himself. When he cut himself, the Immigration Department did two population. In Rwanda in 1994, the Hutu
things: they gave him Panadol (which seems to be the universal treatment in immigration detention) and were persuaded that the Tutsi were vermin,
they put him in solitary confinement – in a small cell. This did not help him. and should be exterminated: in 100 days of
unrestrained slaughter, about 900,000 Tutsi
After a couple of weeks in solitary confinement, he would come out even more damaged than when he were killed.
went in. He would then harm himself again and the Department would give him Panadol and solitary
When we are filled with fear and loath-
confinement. This cycle went on for five years. Eventually, he was sent to Glenside psychiatric hospital in
ing, human beings are capable of doing
Adelaide for assessment and, if necessary, for treatment.
things even wild animals would not do.
When Mr H was taken to Glenside he was assessed mentally and physically. The physical assessment But with a clear understanding of the
showed that he had 10 metres of scarring on his body from his self-harming in Immigration Detention. facts, most people will respond empatheti-
This was a person who, according to Immigration Department orthodoxy, needed only Panadol and cally. Some will not, because they cannot
solitary confinement. He subsequently got a protection visa, but his health is ruined. Saddam Hussein see asylum seekers as human beings who
tried to kill him and failed. Australia tried to incapacitate him and succeeded. have inner lives, hopes and fears just as rich
and real as their own.
But whether an empathetic reaction
is carried into an empathetic response is
another matter entirely. Several things get

IMAGE: © Connie Ma - Flickr

16 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016

 Indefinite disinformation

Of all the asylum seekers in the world, fewer than

0.1% try to come here as boat people.

in the way. The first, and most obvious, is do nothing.

that most members of the community feel The problem is that it turns on an
that they are powerless to do anything unstated premise that is false. We are not Implicitly or
useful to give voice to their empathetic asked to take everyone. Of all the asylum explicitly, the imperative to ‘love
reaction. They cannot change government seekers in the world, fewer than 0.1% try your neighbour as you love
policy; they cannot change the way the to come here as boat people. A similar yourself’ is at the heart of every
tabloid press stir up hatred and fear; they percentage come here by plane with
Western polity. It expresses
cannot, by their concern, conjure detainees tourist or student or business visas, and
out of detention and into a decent life. So they seek asylum while they are here. We itself in laws protecting
the issue rests as just another blemish, to don’t lock up this group, because they are workers, in strong social
be accepted not put forward security safety nets, and in the
or overlooked, as a problem.
readiness to take in refugees.
and empathy is In fact, most
converted into Australians It's what makes us decent and
anguish and don’t even humane countries as well as
hand-wringing. think about prosperous ones, but – right
Others whose them, much now – this wholesome instinct
reaction is less worry
is leading much of Europe into
empathetic may about them
be less easily or fear them. catastrophic error…
turned aside Tony Abbott’s
from action. response was
Over the past 14 years, Liberal and
But another as irrelevant as
Labor governments alike have sought to
fact is thrown asking what
in play by the Christ would deflect the possibility that the public will
Government: have the Good demand an empathetic response to asylum
there are Samaritan do if seekers. They have used various techniques.
millions of he had encoun- Diverting attention from the true ethical
refugees in the tered 10,000 issue is one of those techniques. Howard
world – we can’t beside the did this by saying that boat people were
take all of them. This interesting distrac- road in need of help. The proportions are “illegals”, “queue jumpers” etc. Having so
tion was deployed by Tony Abbott soon the same, the shift in the moral question is grossly misrepresented asylum seekers,
after he became leader of the Opposition. just as great, and the attempt to evade an Howard sold a tough detention policy and
Asked what he would do about refugees empathetic response is just as clear. the Pacific Solution by saying that it was
if he were the Good Samaritan, he said in This reworking of Christian teaching “sending a strong message” and adding
substance “we can’t take all of them”. It was – ironic in a man who trained for the priest- that “we will decide who comes to this
a clever response, because it has a superfi- hood - was renewed when, in his Margaret country and the circumstances in which
cial plausibility and it eases the conscience Thatcher speech on 27 October 2015, Mr they come”.
of the empathetic by offering an excuse to Abbott said: This sounded sensible even to those

IMAGE: © Tony Peyser

JAN–MAR 2015 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 17


How many empathetic
Australians would have
supported Abbott’s
line if they saw an
Afghan child caught
between the Taliban and
a people smuggler?
18 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016
Indefinite disinformation
whose initial reaction was empathetic: after
all, wasn’t Howard simply warning others
not to break the law? Well no, actually: he
was punishing innocent people to gain
electoral advantage.
Abbott switched the message to one
of “breaking the people smugglers’ busi-
ness model” and thereby side-stepped the
ethical problem of attacking boat people.
But it had two other problems. First, it
overlooked the fact that not all people
smugglers are equally bad: they cannot
be lumped together in one moral basket.
To do that would be to equate the worst,
most callous people smuggler with Oskar
Schindler and Dietch Bonhoeffer and
Captain Gustav Schroeder of the MS St
Louis.
This approach feigns concern about
asylum seekers by suggesting that we do
not want their lives put at risk by unscrupu-
lous people smugglers. But it leaves aside
altogether the reality that, without people
smugglers, the asylum seekers are left to
face ethnic cleansing at the hands of the
Taliban or genocide at the hands of the Sri
Lankan Government.
Gillard did something similar.
Apart from its inaccuracies, this line over-
looked the fact that refugees need people
smugglers. It’s a demand-driven business.
Without people smugglers, refugees have
no means of escaping persecution. When
Abbott “broke the
people smugglers’
business model”,
AUTHOR:
he “stopped the
boats”, in the Julian Burnside AO QC is a barrister, author, and human rights
sense that he and refugee advocate. He was made an Officer of the Order
prevented boat of Australia in 2009 and is listed as a National Living Treasure.
people from arriv- http://www.julianburnside.com.au/
ing in Australia.
He sold this to us
as a good thing
because it would “Stop the Drownings”. A
person who responds with empathy to the
plight of asylum seekers may think it good
to protect them from the evils of people
IMAGEs: © R D Ward - Wiki Commons & © Melanie Lazarow-Flickr
smugglers and the perils of the sea, but
may not recognise that it simultaneously
ignores the risk that the refugee may perish
in a different attempt to find safety, or be
killed by their persecutors. They are still
dead, just as if they had drowned.
My great objection to the “Stop the
Boats” mantra, is not just that it was not
heard when the SIEV-X sank, with the
loss of 353 lives, on 19 October 2001. In
truth it was directed to sparing us the
pain of seeing people die on the shores of
Christmas Island. The government knows
that if refugees cannot get to safety here,
they will look for safety somewhere else,
and risk dying somewhere else. But we
will not know about it, so our conscience
remains untroubled.
I wonder how many empathetic
Australians would have supported Abbott’s
line if they saw an Afghan child caught
between the Taliban and a people smug-
gler. Most people recognise that, in the
same circumstances, they would chance
their arm with a people smuggler.
One of the worst legacies of the cruelty
of Howard and Abbott, and the duplic-
ity of Gillard and Rudd, is that Australia
has responded to innocent people with
increasing cruelty and fear. It is not a reflec-
tion of our true character. It misrepresents
us and it shames us. We deserve better
politicians than these. It remains to be
seen whether Malcolm Turnbull can show
genuine leadership and help Australia
realise how seriously we have betrayed our
true nature. AQ
Ethics in the
Information Age
Most Internet users love what they can do with it; access
information on any conceivable topic at almost the speed of
light. It is enormously useful at making everyday life easier,
but there is also the dark side. Spies, paedophiles and drug
dealers; a whole cast of shadowy figures lurking in virtual
back alleys. George Orwell’s dystopian vision of 1984 seems
prescient; governments and others now have a window into
almost everything we do. Our public and private lives open
to scrutiny. It conjures the unsavoury image of a voyeur
peering in at one’s window, camera in hand.
ARTICLE BY: Dr David Tuffley & Dr Amy Antonio
JAN–MAR 2016
Technologists are powerful
change agents
Behind it all are the technologists who
make it happen. Technologists in the 21st
Century are among the most powerful
people in the world. Hundreds, even thou-
sands of years in the future, it is likely that
the technological advances of the late 20th
and 21st centuries will be recognised as
pivotal in the history of humanity, the point
at which the exponential growth of digital
technology really began.
IMAGE: © FutUndBeidl - Flickr
AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 19
 Ethics in the information age

IT ethics Ethical technologists therefore develop comes the potential for abuse. This has
the technology that helps people to prompted some commentators to call
The French philosopher Emile Durkheim express their innate creative potential. And for a curtailment of technology through
said that when values are sufficient, laws are it is important to also consider the interests legislative controls. This Luddite view is
unnecessary; when values are insufficient, of not just humans living here and now, an over-reaction. As an abiding principle,
laws are unenforceable. The principle is but also the interests of future generations, while something might have the potential
applicable to technology. In the absence of other living for abuse, this
of binding international law, it is imperative creatures, and the alone should
that technologists have a moral compass preservation of not prohibit its
with which to navigate the course of tech- the environment. use when it has
nology development in ways that serve the Technology The Internet the potential for
greater good and avoid harm. alone is neither benefit.
With 90% of the world’s data being good nor bad, as
and technology in Privacy and
created in the last two years, and the rate Natasha Lomas general becomes intellectual
of increase rising exponentially, security observes.2 A property (IP) are
and privacy protection are becoming
unethical when
hammer, for two aspects of
imperative.1 example can it dehumanises a larger issue;
be used con- or diminishes who owns
Good technology is life structively or information,
affirming destructively people. who has access
according to the and under what
In the broadest sense, technology is intentions of the conditions? The
ethical when it is life affirming, when it user. It can build Internet is a very
helps people grow towards their full poten- a house or crush efficient copying
tial, when it allows them to accomplish a skull. The Internet and technology in and distribution system for digitized
what they might otherwise not be able to. general becomes unethical when it dehu- information. While much of this informa-
As Kevin Kelly, founder of Wired maga- manises or diminishes people. There are tion distribution is not problematic, we will
zine observes, there are children being many examples, but on an everyday level, always have unscrupulous people who find
born today for whom their technology of this could be as mundane as a web-form ways to reach into private places and make
self-expression has not yet been invented. that forgets everything you have entered copies without the owner’s permission,
What would Mozart or Beethoven have if something is not quite right. The system then distribute that information. All without
done without the musical instruments rejects the form and obliges you to re-enter the knowledge or consent of the owner.
of their time, or Da Vinci and Van Gogh the information. Privacy and intellectual property are the
without the pigments and paints they pre-eminent ethical issues of the Internet
used to create their masterpieces? Or even What are the risks of age, but there are three more broad issues
Stephen Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock and technology? worthy of mention: pornography, informa-
other great auteur filmmakers. What would tion accessibility and accuracy. These will
they have done without the technology of With the greater transparency and be mentioned more briefly after the main
film production? global reach of modern technology discussion.

20 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016

 Ethics in the information age

Privacy
The problem with privacy is knowing
where to draw the line. What information
about us can be legitimately revealed to
the world and with what safeguards?
Information privacy is a subset of the
broader concept of privacy. With the
advent of advanced Information and
Communication Technologies, data can be
collected, aggregated and analysed more
quickly and in a larger volume than at any
earlier time. More alarming, data can be
collected without you being aware of it.3
In the physical world, the line can be
clearly drawn between public space—with
little or no expectation of privacy—and
the private space of your home. When you
close the door and draw the curtains, you
can reasonably have 100% expectation
of privacy. This is not so easy in the digital
world where the margins are blurred.
Yet privacy is not an inherent human
right. It is in fact a fairly recent idea that
has become well-established as a social
norm. In mediaeval times there was little
or no privacy, with people living com-
munally, even high status individuals. It
is not so long ago that we lived much as
our primate relatives still live; communally
in extended family groups, all in together.
Our modern pre-occupation with privacy
would be foreign to them. Perhaps the
need for privacy came when people started
living with strangers in towns and cities.
Privacy is therefore a more fluid concept, a
recent historical invention that may again
be transformed.4
According to Emily Nussbaum “Younger
Yet privacy is not an inherent human right. It is in fact a fairly
recent idea that has become well-established as a social norm.
people…are the only ones for whom it
seems to have sunk in that the idea of
a truly private life is already an illusion.”5
Unlike older generations, who grew up
sealing their diary with an actual padlock,
the younger generation understand that
there is a surveillance camera on every
lamp-post and that our life is lived in the
public gaze, whether we like it or not, so
there is little point holding things close to
your chest.
The technology of today makes the
gathering and transmission of data about
people very easy indeed. Moreover,
information is a tradeable commodity.
Governments and organisations of all kinds
now use data mining in their operations.
All manner of information about you,
gleaned from your day-to-day activities,
already exist on a multitude of databases.
You need only use a credit or debit card,
the web, public roads, emails and social
networking for you to leave a digital
trail. This information is usually collected
without your knowledge or consent.6 Most
of this data currently exists in silos and is
not integrated with each other. However,
that situation is changing, as governments
and organisations come to see the benefits
and economies of scale of integrating
databases.
It is not uncommon for people to find
themselves in trouble when information
from multiple sources is integrated to
reveal patterns of activity they would prefer
would remain hidden. Is this good or bad?
In some cases, the public interest is best
served, in others the individual’s right to
privacy will prevail. Where to draw the line
has to be determined case-by-case.
Australian Police now have mobile scan-
ners that read the registration plates of the
surrounding vehicles, highlighting those
with expired registration, owners with out-
standing arrest warrants, unpaid fines and
other violations. In this instance, it has been
decided that the public interest outweighs
an individual’s presumption of anonymity

IMAGE: © Alan Levine - Flickr

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 21

 Ethics in the information age
How soon before similar face recognition
technology is applied to people walking
around in public places? It’s likely that this is
already happening, but we have not been told.
as they go about their lives. How soon
before similar face recognition technology
is applied to people walking around in
public places? It’s likely that this is already
happening, but we have not been told.
Recruiters and HR firms routinely use
Facebook and other social media to evalu-
ate candidates. People put large amounts
of information on Facebook, some of it
quite personal. A recruiter might decide
that a candidate that looks good on paper
is not suitable after all based on what they
are seeing on Facebook. Is this an inva-
sion of privacy? Arguably not, since the
person has knowingly put the information
in a public place. However it does raise
the question; is it ethical for a recruiter to
base their decision on matters that anti-
discrimination laws would not allow to be
asked in an interview, such as age, cultural
background, or sexual orientation. The
answer is probably no.7 On the other side,
employers would argue that they have the
right to make a fully informed choice about
who they will trust.
Intellectual property
Intellectual property law covers four
main areas: patents, copyrights, trademarks
and trade secrets. Of these, copyright
is at greatest risk of infringement in the
Internet age, though risks still exist with the
other areas. The internet has rightly been
described as one big copying machine,
allowing the almost instant duplication and
transmission of any digitised product.
For example, I use a textbook – The
Ethical Technologist -- in my third year
22 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016
university ethics course. A student acquired
the eBook and illegally distributed it to all
350 students on the course. He did this
simply and easily by sending everyone a
digital copy as an email attachment. The
irony of being an ethics course not being
lost on anyone, this would have taken him
just a minute or two to accomplish.
Hundreds of millions of people around
the world routinely use torrenting services
to download and distribute movies, TV
shows, music, software and books—any-
thing that can be digitised—without the
permission of the copyright owners. It is
an issue of great significance to the enter-
tainment industry who claim losses in the
hundreds of billions. Yet the Internet is
by nature a decentralised network that is
impossible to regulate in the way copyright
owners would like.
While downloading is a violation of IP
rights, the question remains: is it morally
wrong? Throughout history, many things
have been illegal that are now legal, such
as same sex relationships and divorce,
matters that the people concerned did not
consider to be morally wrong. Simply citing
the illegality of downloading does not nec-
essarily determine whether it is moral. In
the case of theft, criminal sanctions seem
warranted. If I steal your purse, for example,
my gain is clearly your loss. In the case of
piracy, however, the relationship between
gain and loss is more complex.8 You have
not deprived the owner of the item; you
have made an unauthorised copy. The use
of the highly emotive term ‘piracy’ further
clouds the issue.
Various legal remedies are being applied,
 Ethics in the information age

for example the recent ‘Dallas Buyers

Club’ prosecutions, but these are largely
ineffective, being described as a game
of ‘whack-a-mole’ where no sooner is
one avenue closed but another pops up.
Circumventing the law is as easy as sub-
scribing to a ‘Virtual Private Network’ or VPN
service for a few dollars a month.
On the other side of the canyon are people for a few dollars a month. Netflix and other
The channels of distribution become a
who want something of value but don’t subscription-based streaming services are
hot issue too. The first widely used system
want to pay for it. going the same way with movies and TV.
for distribution Napster was successfully
As with any polarised issue, in time
shut down in 2002 by the recording indus-
tries because its central processors were
common ground will be established. That is Pornography, Accessibility,
likely to happen when prices are perceived
located in a physical location. Its successor
by consumers to
Accuracy
BitTorrent has
be reasonable and Cultural practices around the world
evaded closure
people can legally differ. Something that is considered
because it
obtain content as acceptable in one place may be offensive
has no central On one side we have easily as they can in another; but the internet is the great
location. Like
publishers who would like do so illegally. That leveller, making all material available
the Scarlett
will be conditional to everyone - everywhere - that have a
Pimpernel, to continue making the on not restricting connection. For example, in the West, the
the recording
industry seeks profits that were possible in legal downloads by sight of women in bikinis on magazine
territory; so called covers is unremarkable. In some Middle
him here and the pre-digital age. On the geo-blocking.
there. But Eastern countries, the same images would
in fact he is other side of the canyon The common be considered pornographic.
ground turns out to Pornography is therefore a spectrum
nowhere and are people who want
be ‘cloud comput- of erotica beginning with non-violent
everywhere,
dispersed
something of value but ing’ where content acts between consenting adults. Further
don’t want to pay for it. is delivered, either along the continuum there is fetish erotica
across millions
for free or by sub- between consenting and non-consenting
of individual
scription to anyone adults. At the extreme end is the most
PCs around the
who can pay depraved of all involving sexual violence
world.
what the market towards children. The world has an appar-
For decades
considers reasonable. Kindle and iTunes ently insatiable appetite for pornography,
there has been a gulf as wide as the Grand
are putting millions of eBooks into the
Canyon between the two sides of this with some estimates suggesting that it
cloud and within easy reach of the masses.
issue. On one side we have publishers who comprises up to 80% of the total content of
Spotify and iTunes are putting the latest
would like to continue making the profits the internet. That’s a lot of X-rated videos.
music on people’s players in the same way
that were possible in the pre-digital age. Sexting—the practice of circulating

image: © Mike Herbst - Wiki Commons

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 23

 Ethics in the information age

Is there a set of general

rules for ethical technology
use that everyone can use?
We argue there is.

explicit images of themselves to others—is
an extension of the concept of pornogra-
phy. Any minor who takes an erotic image
of themselves and sends it to another
can be charged with child pornography
offences. It raises questions about how to
balance technology, sexuality and privacy
in our personal lives.9
Accessibility: How do we determine
who has access to what information?
Under what circumstances shall access
be granted and with what safeguards?
Access to information is contingent on
having (a) the literacy skills to read and
understand the information, (b) access to
the equipment (computers, networks etc)
that delivers the information, and (c) being
able to afford the price being charged for
that access. Equity of access as a principle
means that, as far as possible, everyone
everywhere should have access to informa-
tion that can benefit him or her.
Accuracy: Building on the Privacy point,
how can we ensure the authenticity of
information given to others? Specifically,
who is accountable for accuracy, and what
legal remedies are available to injured
parties?
family-sized groups. We did not evolve to
live in collectives numbering in the mil-
lions, so we are not instinctively suited to
city life.
Mumford blames the alienating influ-
ence of living in mega-cities for many
of the social problems occurring in the
modern world. Technology is embedded
in the sprawl and has been a major facili-
tator of the sprawl. He emphasises that
human living spaces must retain a strong
organic relationship with the people who
inhabit them.
The Answer: a simple
three-part formula
Is there a set of general rules for ethical
technology use that everyone can use? We
argue there is. These principles are based
on the work of philosopher Immanuel Kant
whose ideas continue to exert a strong
influence on the study of ethics today.
They are simple enough and general
enough to work in the virtual world as they
have done for years in the physical world.
At the very least, they are a starting point
for discussion.
At the risk of oversimplifying Kant’s ideas,
we are suggesting that his categorical
imperatives (unconditional requirements
that are always true) be adapted as guiding
principles for ethical technology use:
• Before I do something with this technol-
ogy, I ask myself, would it be alright if
everyone did it?
• Is this going to harm or dehumanise
anyone, even people I don’t know and
will never meet?
• Do I have the informed consent of those
who will be affected?
If the answer to any of these questions
is “no”, then it is arguably unethical to do it.
These rules are based on rational principles
and hold true in both the virtual world and
physical world, applying the same stand-
ards to both.
Opinions about our technological future
are polarised into utopian and dystopian
views. Whether you love or loathe the
prospects, one thing is for sure – if we do
not adopt a code of ethical technology use,
we face an uncertain future. AQ

The dehumanising effects of AUTHOR:

technology Dr David Tuffley is a Lecturer in Applied Ethics and SocioTechnical Studies
at Griffith University’s School of ICT. A regular contributor to mainstream
The American philosopher Lewis
media on the social impact of technology, David is a recognized expert in
Mumford wrote about the dehumanising his field. David comes to the world of technology from the Humanities,
effects of technology. In his National Book having studied Psychology, Anthropology, Classical Rhetoric and English
Award-winning work The City in History, he literature at the University of Queensland.
critiques the modern trend of urban sprawl
as a de-humanising influence on people.
As a species we evolved in extended

AUTHOR:
Dr Amy Antonio is a Research Fellow with the Australian Digital Futures
Institute at the University of Southern Queensland. Amy's research inter-
ests include information literacy, applied ethics, digital curation and liter-
acy, social media in higher education, student engagement and retention.
Amy completed her PhD in Renaissance literature at Deakin University.

image: © Poster Boy-Flickr

24 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016

 A Rough Climate
for Migration:
Ethics, Climate Change and
Forced Migration

I
A short time ago a journalist with a major Australian news n preparation for our conversation
organisation called me. She wanted an opinion on how Australia I read the journal article. It was a
complex piece which outlined the
should deal with the impending influx of ‘climate refugees’. I drew various survival strategies people,
a long breath. She had sent me a few questions in an email with families and communities employ in
an attachment to a new journal article that, she claimed, provided the face of environmental upheaval. There
evidence of future mass migration as a result of climate change. was a small percentage, it noted, that drew
on already existing family connections
in other parts of the home country, and
ARTICLE BY: Dr Elaine Kelly migrated to join them if all other options

image: © Julien Harneis-Wiki Commons

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 25


There is no legal basis for the term ‘climate refugee’.
Migration is infrequently the first option people will
turn to. Displacement internal to the particular
country is a far more likely scenario.
appeared dismal. Unsurprisingly this hardly
amounted to a future flood of ‘climate
refugees’ heading toward Australia.
I talked to the journalist. I repeated infor-
mation I have memorised over the past
five years during the course of my research
project on the topic. There is no legal basis
for the term ‘climate refugee’.1 Migration
is infrequently the first option people will
turn to. Displacement internal to the par-
ticular country is a far more likely scenario.2
The issues concerning climate change that
we will have to deal with include migra-
tion, sure, but largely these concerns will
26 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016
A rough climate for migration
be focused on providing rights for the
displaced and dispossessed internally.
How can we protect people when they are
displaced as a result of flooding, drought,
storm surges and so on?
Migration registers as an issue, I insisted,
but it should be planned migration in the
first instance and, after that, equitable
burden sharing in response to emergency
contexts. Finally, we should really avoid the
frightening language of ‘floods’ or ‘waves’ of
people on the move. We need to get a bit
more creative with how we organise immi-
gration for victims of climate destruction.
And just as importantly, I urged the journal-
ist, we need to be a bit more imaginative in
the stories we tell about the issue and the
language we use to tell them.
I heard the moment when the journal-
ist’s heart sank and imagined the glazed
look in her eyes.
I had bombed out. This was not a story.
Her tone told me that she had already
decided to can this news; start afresh with
something more compelling. I tried to hook
her in one final time. But there is still a story
here, I said, it is the story of our responsibil-
ity. How can we prepare and respond in
socially and ecologically appropriate ways
to emerging issues of migration?
What should the ethical principles be
that guide our thinking here?
The State of Ethics
The ethics of climate migration is a
complex and contentious topic in the
context of world politics, based as it is on
the primacy of the sovereign nation-state. It
is impossible, therefore, to consider the role
of ethics without first appreciating the cen-
trality of practices of sovereignty. Indeed,
the framing of migration issues through a
Statist lens has meant that historically the
movement of peoples has been viewed as
an economic and legal issue, rather than an
ethical consideration.
However, ethics has long been part of
the conversation when it comes to the
treatment of foreigners arriving in one’s
city or lands. Indeed, all the way back in
1795 Immanuel Kant proposed ‘rights to
hospitality’ in his infamous text, Perpetual
Peace.3 Kant didn’t go so far as to announce
an unconditional right to enter another
State, but he did insist that in the event
image: NASA's Earth Observatory
 A rough climate for migration

image: © Dr. James P. McVey, NOAA

The framing of migration issues through a Statist lens has meant

that historically the movement of peoples has been viewed as an
economic and legal issue, rather than an ethical consideration.

of someone arriving uninvited, the State and ‘duties’, is transposed into domestic Sovereignty has sought to understand
should not treat them as an enemy but a contexts. how its responsibilities extend beyond its
stranger. In other words, hold back on the In relation to migration these moral borders and citizens. Measures such as the
hostility and extend an open hand while concepts pivot around the inherent dignity right to seek asylum, particularly after World
you decide if the stranger can stay. This was of the individual; in cases where coercion War II with the establishment of the United
the bare minimum; the foundational duty is present, rights are required in order to Nations and the passage of the Convention
of hospitality. protect against exploitation and other Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)
Strictly speaking, today there are no orders of violence. Given that “natural or and its amendments in 1967, point to the
rights to hospital- environmental capacity of the State to look outward; to
ity and indeed, disasters”5 are regard the rights of non-citizens as impor-
duties of hospital- recognised as a tant. More recently, the Guiding Principles
ity are subject coercive force, on Internal Displacement (2001) have set
to the whim of a host of rights out the primary rights of the displaced
domestic politics. aimed at the individual and the responsibilities of the
To speak of hospi- protection of the State and/or international community in
tality as an ethical individual come responding to conditions of displacement.
norm seems both into play.
old fashioned and State sov- The Ethics of Rights
unrealistic. ereignty was While Jane McAdam and Ben Saul have
In the contem- initially set up argued for the applicability of the Guiding
porary setting of to protect its Principles on Internal Displacement in a
global migration, own interests. Bangladeshi context of climate-related
the importance of This means that migration7, there is no international
ethics arises when there is tension agreement on what sorts of rights and
we introduce the between the role responsibilities should exist in the case of
infinitely ambigu- of the State in involuntary movement driven by climate
ous, yet politically securing itself, change. Indeed, intense debate exists in
significant, quali- and the rights the academic community as to the appli-
fier ‘forced’. The of individuals; cability and efficacy of rights-regimes for
leading non- a point that climate displacement, with issues of in/
government body, explains the voluntariness and causality, political, legal
the International inefficacy of and ethical sticking points.
Organisation rights across the On the one hand, Frank Biermann and
of Migration world. However, Ingrid Boas have pushed for the language
(IOM) defines as Kofi Annan of the refugee to extend to climate victims,
forced migration points out, over arguing that the term has “strong moral
as requiring “an element of coercion… the course of the 20th century, sover- connotations of societal protection”.8
whether arising from natural or man-made eignty came to be equated with themes Emphasising the involuntary nature of
causes”.4 It is in and through international of responsibility-toward rather than climate-driven migration (embodied by
frameworks and norms that recognition of rights-over.6 the term ‘refugee’), the authors suggest
ethical principles, via categories of ‘rights’ The dominant model of Westphalian that “adopting voluntariness as a defining

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 27

 A rough climate for migration

The relationship climate change has with

pre-existing social and economic conditions,
makes causality layered.

criterion would be either analytically not
useful or morally dubious”.9
Ethically we must recognise the forced
nature of climate migration by developing
categories of need within global govern-
ance frameworks. As for causality, sea level
rise, increased severity and occurrence
of weather events as well as prolonged
drought, are all uncontroversial impacts
of climate change in the scientific lit-
erature which will, undoubtedly, lead to
migrations.10
On the other hand, Jane McAdam
has challenged the current usefulness
of universal doctrines related to climate
displacement. While she contends that
nation-states will have to “acknowledge the
need for cross-border movement in certain
circumstances and […] regularise the status
of those who move, either through humani-
tarian or migration schemes”11, this will only
come after context-tailored approaches to
the issue. The relationship climate change
has with pre-existing social and economic
conditions, makes causality layered.12
Susan Martin draws our attention to this
complexity:
Depending on the specific situation, the
environmental migrant may resemble labor
migrants, seeking better livelihood oppor-
tunities in a new location, or they may
resemble refugees and internally displaced
persons who have fled situations beyond
their individual control.13
While categorisation and causation will
remain politically and legally contentious,
what remains of paramount moral consid-
eration across all forms of migration is the
dignity of the individual.
In theory, ethical principles are irreduc-
ible to their inscription in legal frameworks.
In practice, however, it is only through insti-
tutions that such principles can influence
policy and practice. It is precisely for this
reason that the gap in international norms
governing climate-induced migration is so
problematic.
Yet even if we secured international
rights regarding climate migration, such
instruments are only one part of the ethical
story, with responsibilities a crucial element
in the practical realisation of moral norms.
How we conceptualise responsibility is not,
however, a simple issue.
The Ethics of Responsibility
‘Climate ethics’ has been articulated
in a number of ways, drawing on dif-
ferent theoretical traditions. Equity is a
core component of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) 1992, embodied in the language
of “common but differentiated responsibil-
ity”.14 This principle acknowledges the task
common to all States (protection of the
environment) as well as the variable levels
of responsibility for redressing current and
future impacts. For instance, in line with

IMAGE: © michael_swan-Flickr

28 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016

 A rough climate for migration

image: © Jussi Ollila-Flickr

the principle of equity, the ‘polluter-pays

principle’ dictates that it is the historical
emissions of the industrialised West that
has led to the current situation.15 As such,
mitigation strategies are weighted accord-
ing to historical responsibility.
A similar argument has been put forward
regarding adaptation funding: that, indeed, harms in order to act – to compensate or ‘Totality and Infinity’. In it he essentially
western nations that have reaped the pre-emptively protect the victim or future argued for a primary responsibility toward
benefits of historic carbon emissions must victims. the other person. When we look at the face
now pay for the implications of this for dis- But given that the question of who of another, he said, we are confronted with
advantaged nations. However, the West has is responsible for climate-driven migra- an absolute and non-deferrable responsi-
been reluctant to commit ongoing funding tion is unlikely to be unambiguous or bility to extend welcome or hospitality.19 In
to adaptation funds. Why? Chukwumerije uncontroversial (let alone whether the light of the fraught and often violent poli-
Okereke explains that developed countries climate was the tics of the border
“insist that the ground for compensa- primary driver in that endure
tory justice is extremely weak given the the decision to throughout the
difficulty, perhaps the improbability, of migrate), we may world, this vision
establishing clear lines between cause need instead of ethics appears
and effect”16 to consider a They contend that idealistic and
At present, this principle of respon- more radical immigrants should be impractical.
sibility for historical injustices and their ethics. Even in However, we
uneven impact now and into the future the event that it allocated in advance can find traces
(compensatory and distributive justice), is cannot, beyond of catastrophe of this thinking
at the forefront of ethical theory related to the shadow of a in religious and
doubt, be proven
to countries with secular calls for
climate change. In fact, Sujatha Byravan
and Sudhir Chella Rajan have transposed that we are caus- high historical a more compas-
this logic onto debates concerning migra- ally responsible greenhouse gas sionate response
tion. They contend that immigrants should for something, to those seeking
be allocated in advance of catastrophe to should we be
emissions. asylum by boat.
countries with high historical greenhouse compelled to Indeed, what
gas emissions.18 Within such a framework, act in accord- remains in these
countries such as the United States would ance with articulations is
be required to expand its immigration external moral the invocation of
intake from State’s facing climate impacts. imperatives? a responsibility to offer hospitality; to open
However, causation remains a signifi- The Jewish philosopher Emmanuel one’s heart and home to the destitute and
cant sticking point. Moreover, the ethical Levinas thinks so. Following the Holocaust, poor. Can this be an ethical injunction in
reasoning at play here is dependent upon during which he lost much of his family, the face of those left homeless as a conse-
the acceptance of responsibility for past Levinas wrote an ethical manifesto called quence of climate change?

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 29

 A rough climate for migration

IMAGE: Dhaka, Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, Bangladesh: Ethics in Context In Bangladesh, constant and precarious

constant and precarious
climatic conditions
have contributed to the
forces of unplanned and
massive urbanisation
in the last few decades,
resulting in the city of
Dhaka becoming the
tenth most populous
in the world.
One way to tease out the issue of
ethics is to consider how it might operate
contextually.
Historically, Bangladesh has dealt with
a diverse range of climatic events. In
addition to flooding, it has weathered
intense cyclones and prolonged drought.
According to UN Habitat, between 1970
and 1998, the country experienced no
less than 170 major disasters.20 In other
words, Bangladesh is no stranger to difficult
environmental conditions. As a result, tradi-
tional adaptation techniques as well as the
development of large-scale disaster man-
agement programs have been employed
in response to environmental issues. With
the increased frequency and severity of
weather events these modes of adaptive
capacity and local resilience are wearing
thin, while forms of damage such as river
erosion and sea level rise are impacting
coastal regions in irreversible ways.
climatic conditions have contributed to the
forces of unplanned and massive urbani-
sation in the last few decades, resulting
in the city of Dhaka becoming the tenth
most populous in the world, subsequently
attaining the status of a ‘megacity’ with
around 15 million occupants. The gov-
ernment expects this figure to reach 40
million by 2050.21 Since Independence in
1947, two thirds of all urban growth can
be traced back to migration.22 Anecdotally,
these migrants largely come from ‘envi-
ronmentally vulnerable regions’ though
empirically-speaking methodological
obstacles make this difficult to confirm.23
Despite the gap in international law
regulating these issues, it is clear that future
climate events will result in mass displace-
ment internal to Bangladesh as well as the
continued growth of urban slum commu-
nities in cities such as Dhaka.
From the position of outsider, what is

image: © © David Tanner

30 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016


the ethical response to this situation? If
those displaced do not find themselves
across international borders, is there a role
for migration as an ethical response to
climate crises? Is it more ethical to foster
approaches which enhance the capacity of
the host State (Bangladesh) to respond to
its issues with mass internal displacement,
or should the international community
share the burden by developing organised
climate migration schemes? With the latter
option, is there a risk in letting the host
State ‘get away’ with its problematic inter-
nal politics and power structures?
The institution charged, after all, with
providing the social, economic and political
support structures is primarily the nation-
state. This body may devolve or delegate
power to local and regional government
and non-government organisations, or
increasingly private organisations. It is fun-
damental that rights logic filters through
these layers of bureaucracy and/or charity.
As noted above, McAdam and Saul have
proposed the Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement in a Bangladeshi context
of climate-related internal migration.
Bangladesh, however, is not yet a signatory
to such a framework. Moreover, systemic
power imbalances and corruption plague
the State. In particular, there is little in the
way of organised social security for victims
of endemic poverty, let alone emerging
problems associated with climate change.
Land corruption means that the poor and
vulnerable frequently find themselves land-
less and thus homeless.
When the requirements of protection
are unable to be met by the host State, it is
Managed migration is a pragmatic and ethical response to
mass displacement issues which will not cease to exist and in fact
will only continue to proliferate in an increasingly turbulent world.
A rough climate for migration
When the requirements of protection are
unable to be met by the host State, it is the ethical
obligation of the international community to
consider wider solutions.
the ethical obligation of the international
community to consider wider solutions.
This is particularly the case when it is the
historical and contemporary impacts of
wealthy countries that have exacerbated
pre-existing vulnerabilities. But what could
these wider solutions look like?
Pro-poor migration emerged in interviews
I conducted in Dhaka in July 2013 as a
response to the manner in which climate
change impacts most adversely on the
poor within Bangladesh, but the poor are
often unable to access policy solutions.
The poor are often left out of international
institutional arrangements concerning
migration. Due to this, the poor often find
themselves migrating without rights and
without protection at more local or national
levels. Migration and mobility generally for
the poor is difficult and dangerous, leaving
women and children vulnerable to violence.
The costs of migration, relocation and reset-
tlement are extensive
and the possibility of
movement outside
of local regions near
impossible.
If organised well
and in accordance
with applicable rights
regimes, managed
migration (short or
long term, humani-
tarian or economic)
offers safe passage for peoples across
international borders as well as assistance
with resettlement. There is ample evidence
which highlights the economic benefits
of international migration in relation to
JAN–MAR 2016
remittances sent back to family members
still residing in the home country. Further,
there is the possibility that the skills-devel-
opment gained through labour migration
opportunities may be of use in the local
community should the recipient return to
Bangladesh after a short migration abroad.
Finally, managed migration is a pragmatic
and ethical response to mass displacement
issues which will not cease to exist and in
fact will only continue to proliferate in an
increasingly turbulent world.
Climate change presents us with
enormous and urgent ethical challenges.
Migration will prove to be one of the
most contentious and difficult of these to
resolve. What I have started here is a discus-
sion of ethics that takes into account the
enduring role of the nation-state in manag-
ing the movement of peoples. Wealthy
countries must, out of a historical debt, be
active in this discussion. We must also take
AUTHOR:
Dr Elaine Kelly completed a postdoctoral
fellowship at the University of Technology,
Sydney in 2015. Her project examined the
ethical impacts of climate-driven migration
and displacement.
heed of the lesson of Kant back in 1795; the
fact that the Earth was once the common
property of all means that we must respect
the stranger when they knock at the door
seeking refuge. AQ
AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 31
 On the Cutting
Edge:
Ethics and Surgical Innovation
ARTICLE BY: Prof Wendy Rogers

Surgery is such a central part of contemporary health care that we

take much of it for granted. Joint replacements, once innovative,
are now commonplace, while laparoscopic, or ‘keyhole’ surgery
has become the norm for many surgical procedures. Developments
like these are the result of innovation. Successful innovation
can be highly beneficial to patients. Prior to the use of stents for
coronary artery disease, many patients underwent invasive open
heart surgery; while organ transplants have transformed the lives
of countless recipients. Yet surgical innovation has a dark side.
Sometimes trying something new can have catastrophic effects.

I
n 2006 surgeons at the John Radcliffe
Hospital in Oxford used a device
called a morcellator in a routine elec-
tive operation on a five-year-old girl,
who died during the procedure. The
device had not previously been used in
children, and nor had it been used for the
operation in question. At the inquest, the
Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals Trust acknowl-
edged that use of the morcellator should
have been identified as a novel surgical
technique, and that they should have had
an effective protocol to protect patients
and practitioners during the introduction
of new techniques.1
This example illustrates the tension at
the heart of surgery. On one hand, we want
safe and effective surgical interventions.
On the other hand, we want pioneering
surgeons who think creatively and develop
new techniques and devices to improve
current practice or treat previously untreat-
able conditions. There is a challenge in
reaching the right balance between these
two alternatives. We don’t want to stifle
innovation, but nor do we want an overly
experimental ethos where anything goes.
What is ethical best practice in the field of
innovative surgery?
Part of the challenge lies in understand-
ing just what innovative surgery is and
where it lies on the spectrum between
research and routine practice. At one end
of the spectrum, a new procedure may

32 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016

 On the cutting edge
be the result of a sustained program of
research, such as occurred in the Swedish
uterus transplant program.2 The women
in this study were enrolled as part of a
research trial and clearly understood that
they were taking part in a very novel
procedure. When innovations are identified
as research, they fall within the remit of
human research ethics review, leading to
various protections for patients and sup-
ports for practitioners.
In contrast, routine practice may conceal
more or less innovation. All surgical pro-
cedures involve the potential for variation.
Patients differ in their anatomy, while sur-
geons differ in their preferences regarding
the tools they favour, the particular devices
they implant, and the techniques they use,
such as the approach or type of incision
closure – down to their favourite brand of
stapler gun.
These minor variations in routine prac-
tice blur into innovation, for example when
an existing tool is used in a novel way. The
laparoscope was initially used exclusively
for gynaecological surgery, but now is used
by surgeons for a wide range of procedures
in most parts of the body. However, when
general surgeons first used the laparoscope
to remove gall bladders, the procedure,
although innovative, led to much higher
rates of post-operative complications than
the standard open procedure.3 Over time,
the techniques improved and surgeons
became skilled with the new instrument,
so that now laparoscopic cholecystectomy
is the standard treatment for gall bladder
disease, rather than a risky innovation.
Surgeons have long recognised the
need to identify when innovations occur, in
order to trigger appropriate supports.4 But
many attempts to define surgical innova-
tion appeal to terms such as “significant
difference” or “major variation”. These are
ambiguous terms that can be variously
interpreted by surgeons who wish to draw
more or less attention to their innovating.
JAN–MAR 2016
Our research group, INCISIVE
(Interdisciplinary Collaboration
Investigating Surgical Innovation, Values
and Ethics) took an entirely different
approach to defining innovation. First we
interviewed surgeons to find out how
they used the term5, and then we used a
philosophical tactic from Wittgenstein to
develop a definition of innovative surgery
that overcomes some of the practical
challenges.6
Newness and degree of change are key
features of innovation. But a procedure can
be new in one or more of several different
ways. It may be altogether new, such as
the first ever knee replacement operation.
It may be new to an anatomical location,
such as using a surgical robot for thyroid
surgery as well as prostate surgery; or it
may be new to a patient group, such as
when surgical mesh designed for repairing
hernias in men is used in women patients
for repair of pelvic organ prolapse.
Our definition of innovative surgery is
based upon these three types of newness,
which may apply to devices (e.g. joint
prostheses), tools (e.g. laparoscope), or
operative technique (e.g. new anatomical
approach for spinal surgery). This is quite
a complex definition, reflecting the com-
plexity of innovative surgery. By itself it is
not very practical or ‘user-friendly’. To get
around this, we have developed an accom-
panying checklist with a series of simple
yes/no questions so that the definition can
be used in practice.
As well as these different kinds of
newness, surgeons often describe the first
time that they perform an operation, or the
first time that an operation is performed
at their institution, as innovations. Not
everyone agrees that this is ‘true’ innova-
tion. However, the first performance of a
procedure by a surgeon or in an institution
does raise similar safety and efficacy issues
as more radical innovation.
AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 33
 On the cutting edge

It can be difficult to predict how an

innovation will perform in practice.

Philosophy or Practicality
This focus on definitions may seem to be
philosophical nit-picking, but developing
a practical and accurate way of identifying
surgical innovations is an important part
of supporting ethical practice. Surgical
innovations are likely to be more risky
than routine care, just because we lack
knowledge about their safety and efficacy.
Therefore patients who are offered innova-
tive procedures should be provided with
as much information as possible, including
the information that, due to its novelty,
there may be unpredictable or adverse
outcomes.
Usually the
degree of risk
will relate to
the extent of
innovation: use
of a new design
stitch cutter
is unlikely to
be hazardous
to patients,
whereas trying a
newly invented
technique may
expose patients
to increased risk.
In addition, it
can be difficult to predict how an innova-
tion will perform in practice.
The metal-on-metal De Puy ASR hip
replacement system left tens of thousands
of people with cobalt-chromium toxicity
and the need for a joint revision, despite
not being classified by regulators as a
major innovation;7 while a tissue mesh that
is safe and effective in men led to severe
complications when used for a different
purpose in women.8
Developing a robust approach to
informed consent is an important part of
ethical innovation. Patients are entitled to
know how many times, if any, the proce-
dure has been performed, and whether or
not the surgeon is skilled in the relevant
techniques. This may be uncomfortable
information to disclose on the part of
surgeons, but for any new procedure, there
is a period of time (the ‘learning curve’)
during which the
surgeon is not yet at
their peak skill level.
Surgeons who
are innovators may
have an optimistic
view of their innova-
tion, unconsciously
influencing the way
that they discuss
this with the patient.
Surgeons may also
have overt conflicts
of interest caused by
having a financial or
reputational stake in
the development of
the new tool or technique. Likewise, institu-
tions may have an interest in being the first
to offer a novel procedure, as a means of
attracting patients or enhancing their repu-
tation. These potential or actual conflicts of
interest put pressure on informed consent
and can be difficult to address.
A final ethical concern that arises from
innovative surgery relates to justice and the
wise use of resources. In general, healthcare
resources should be spent on safe and
effective procedures and not wasted on
dangerous or ineffective ones.
With new drugs, regulators require evi-
dence from clinical trials before the drug is
approved for general use. But as innovative
surgery is hard to define and identify, and
blurs into practice, frequently there is no
research evidence about safety and efficacy
before the procedure diffuses into practice.
Innovations are often taken up enthusi-
astically by the surgical community, so may
be widespread in practice before there is
enough research evidence to justify their
uptake or mandate their withdrawal. This
rapid evidence-free diffusion not only
exposes patients to potential harm, but can
also increase healthcare costs. Innovative
procedures are almost always more expen-
sive than the care they replace, and may
lead to complications or the need for
additional care.
Innovation is the driving force of
progress in surgery, however it can be
dangerous and expensive. Patients may be
better protected from potential harms if
there are better ways of identifying which
procedures are innovative. This needs to
be in partnership with practical supports
for innovating surgeons, accompanied by
open communication about the potential
risks and benefits. AQ

AUTHOR:
Wendy Rogers is Professor of Clinical Ethics at Macquarie University.
She works in practical medical ethics, with projects in defining
disease, the ethics of surgery, and research ethics. She chairs the
NSW Ministry of Health Clinical Ethics Advisory Panel and was a
member of the 2012-2015 Australian Health Ethics Committee.

34 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016

 Australian Party
Think Tanks:
IMAGE: Insert

Symptoms of Party Malaise and

Party Resilience

Australian political parties are distinctive compared to ARTICLE BY: Dr Narelle Miragliotta
their Anglo-American counterparts in having official party
think tanks funded by the state. There are four such entities
Political Think Tanks
aligned to the main parliamentary parties at the current
We can distinguish between two periods
time: the Chifley Research Centre, related to Labor; the Green of political think tank activity in Australia.
Institute associated with the Australian Greens, the Menzies The first period occurred in the decades
Research Centre attached to the Liberal Party; and the Page between the 1940s and the 1980s. During
this time, particular think tanks emerged
Research Centre, which is affiliated to the National Party. that were closely associated with the labor
and non-labor party groupings but which
This essay explores the phenomenon of party think tanks in
remained formally and operationally sepa-
Australia and it suggests that their existence is a symptom of rate from their kindred party.
party malaise but also party resilience. The best-known example of a political

image: © JJ Harrison-Wiki Commons

JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 35

 Australian party think tanks

image: © Alex Proimos-Wiki Commons

One of the objectives of the fledging IPA was to have

policy input into the then main non-Labor party, the
United Australia Party (UAP), later the Liberal party.

think tank with strong ties to the non-
Labor side of politics was the Institute of
Public Affairs (IPA). The IPA was created as
a response to a number of concerns held
by business groups, prominent among
them was the election of the Curtin ALP
government in 1941. Institutes formed
initially in Victoria before fanning out
across NSW (later subsumed by the Sydney
Institute in the 1980s), South Australia and
Queensland. One of the objectives of the
fledging IPA was to have policy input into
the then main non-Labor party, the United
Australia Party (UAP), later the Liberal party.1
The IPA did not formally affiliate with
either the UAP or the Liberal party but it
did provide significant organisational and
financial assistance to the UAP throughout
the 1940s and 1950s.2 In Victoria, members
of the IPA played a critical role in shaping
the formative policies of the Liberal party,
and one of the IPA’s leading members,
William Anderson, would go on to serve
as the inaugural president of the Victorian
branch and federal president of the Liberal
party between 1951-1956.3 Even today,
strong connections exist between many
of the IPA’s board members (former Liberal
politicians, political staffers and party
donors) and the Liberal party.
On the Labor side of politics, there have
been two political think tanks with par-
ticularly conspicuous ties to the ALP - the
Fabian society and the Evatt Foundation.
The Fabians have a long history in Australia,
although the modern society was substan-
tially established in 1984. Unlike their British
counterparts, the early Fabian societies
failed to become a force within the affairs
of the ALP.4 The combination of the ALP’s
early and consistent parliamentary success
and its origins in the trade union move-
ment resulted in the Party emphasising ‘…
practical achievement above theory and
doctrine’.5
However, the relationship between the
ALP and the Fabians was invigorated fol-
lowing the re-establishment of the society
in Victoria in the late 1940s. Since then,
the Australian Fabians have been cred-
ited with inspiring Gough Whitlam’s 1972
reform agenda, and also with influenc-
ing generations of post-World-War-II ALP
parliamentarians and leaders.6 The idea-
tional and person-to-person links between
the Party and the Fabians flourished. The
Fabians are active at ALP conferences,
Labor MPs serve on its National Board, as
well as deliver regular lectures and write
essays for the society.
In the 1970s, the Evatt Foundation was
established as a memorial to Dr Herbert
Evatt with the aim of advancing the ideals
of the labour movement. According to one
of its founders, Peter Botsman, it was cata-
lysed by the preponderance of right wing
think tanks and their perceived success
in building support for political policy
agendas and ideas.

36 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016


The ALP confirms the board of the
Chifley Centre, while the federal executive of the
Liberal party sanctions the Menzies’ board.
Botsman also credited the think tank’s
emergence to concerns that Labor politi-
cians ‘were intellectually lazy’ and that the
left needed to ‘develop our own bubbling
cauldron of ideas’.7 And for a time, in the
period between 1983 and 2001, the Evatt
Foundation received public funding as a
consequence of its links to the federal Labor
Party.8 Today, strong ties between the party
and the think tank endure. Of the current 15
members on the Evatt Foundation’s execu-
tive, there are two serving and two former
Labor MPs, as well as five current and former
political staffers on its Board.
Party Think Tanks
The 1990s witnessed the phenomenon
of the ‘official’ party think tank in Australia.
These think tanks were qualitatively differ-
ent from earlier political think tanks in three
critical respects. First, they were the crea-
tures of their respective party organisations,
Australian party think tanks
and the national party organisation more
particularly. The Liberal’s Menzies Centre
was the first of such entities, established
in 1994. In 2000, the ALP created the
Chifley Centre as its official think tank.
The National’s launched the Page Centre
in 2002, and the Australian Democrat’s
created the now defunct Chipp Foundation representatives from central party office.
in 2003.9 In 2008, the Greens formally In the case of the Chifley and Menzies’
launched the Green Institute as its official centres, the party’s national executive
party think tank. is influential in determining the Board’s
Secondly, the party think tanks have an composition. The federal parliamentary
explicit connection to their related party.
leader of the ALP confirms the board
The think tanks are independent from
of the Chifley Centre, while the federal
the national party organisation in that
executive of the Liberal party sanctions
they are governed by a Board of Directors
the Menzies’ board. The parties’ reach often
that are responsible for setting the think
tanks’ agenda and managing its affairs. extends to the appointment of the think
However, the think tanks are, at best, semi- tanks’ executive directors. Executive direc-
autonomous from their kindred parties. tors are typically individuals well known
The Boards are typically dominated by an to the party, whether as party members
assortment of party members, current and or former political or party staffers. And
former serving MPs, as well as one or more in formal legal terms, the think tanks are
IMAGE: Insert
JAN–MAR 2016 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 37
associated entities pursuant to 314AEA of
the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
Thirdly, the party think tanks are the
recipients of a public subvention to
support their activities. State funding was
provided for this purpose following the
election of the Howard Coalition govern-
ment in 1998. The grant, ostensibly agreed
to between the two major party leaders
over a telephone conversation10, was made
available initially to only the Liberals and
the ALP before it was eventually extended
to parliamentary parties with at least five
members elected to either house of parlia-
ment in 2002.
The subsidy is funded under the grant-
in-aid scheme and administered by the
Department of Finance under the aus-
pices of the Public Sector Governance
program. The program’s objectives are to
support ‘an efficient and high-performing
public sector through providing lead-
ership to Commonwealth entities in
ongoing improvements to public sector
governance, including through systems,
frameworks, policy, advice and service
delivery’.11 The grant amount is determined
by the Minister and funds are distributed
according to the size of the party’s parlia-
mentary contingent. In the 2014/15, the
Chifley and the Menzies each received
$239,764 through the scheme, while the
Greens Institute and the Page Centre were
awarded $90,018. The think tanks are also
recipients of tax exemption status on
donations.
In spite of the benefits of tax exemption
status, the party think tanks are heavily
dependent on public money to fund their
38 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016
operations. By way of example, and based the party think tanks are only marginally
on their respective 2013/2014 annual involved in the generation of policy and
reports, the proportion of their operational applied research. In part it is because the
budgets derived from the grant-in-aid think tanks operate with a skeleton staff.
varies from 50 percent in the case of the The Menzies and Chifley centres each
Menzies, 68 per cent for the Chifley, 79 per employ a full time executive director and
cent for the Green Institute, to 86 per cent a part time professional support officer,
for the Page Centre. While some of the while the Page Centre and the Green
think tanks’ difficulties in attracting private Institute rely on a part time executive
donations might be attributed to Australia’s director. A second reason relates to the
weak philanthropic culture12, another factor practicalities and sensitivities that surround
is that they are cautious about fundraising the formulation of party policy. The party
activities that might crowd out their related in government typically has little need for
parties access to donations for election and policy and research support because they
campaign purposes. have access to the resources of the public
service. The party in opposition is often
The ‘What’ of Party Think Tanks very wedded to the idea that party policy
formulation is a matter for either the parlia-
The party think tanks do not necessarily mentary fraction or membership wing of
do much ‘thinking’, if our understanding of the party or both.
what constitutes Notwithstanding the
a think tank is limited role played by
an organisation the think tanks in policy
that is engaged The party think development, they are
predominately in engaged in an array of
applied research
tanks do not
activities that provide
and policy analy- necessarily do both direct and indi-
sis. The party think rect forms of electoral,
tanks define their much ‘thinking’ policy and political
core functions support to their kindred
in these terms, party. Although the
but only a small think tanks produce
fraction of their every day activities are similar types of outputs, there is subtle
orientated towards these tasks in practice. variation in their functional priorities
This confirms t’ Hart and Vromen’s suspi- that emerge from the interplay of party
cions that party think tanks have little direct organisational culture, financial resources,
involvement in developing policy for their parliamentary status, and the particular
related party.13 preferences of the executive director.
A number of factors account for why For example, the Menzies Centre devotes
IMAGE: © Peter Campbell-Wiki Commons

significant resources to organising work-
shops, seminars and other public events
that broker connections between the
parliamentary party and relevant policy
communities and expertise. The Chifley
Centre facilitates the party’s links with
likeminded organisations, while also con-
tributing to the political socialisation and
education of young progressive activists.
One of the key responsibilities of the Page
Centre is the preservation of the National
party’s political legacy. The Page Centre
funds the costs of the Page Research
Centre Library, which houses a collection
of party records, diaries and news articles.
Among some if its most high profile activi-
ties, the Green Institute holds regular public
seminars, as well as hosts the party’s Green
schools, designed to ‘support individuals to
gain the skills, confidence, techniques, and
experience to…becom[e] ‘green leaders’
across multi-disciplinary fields’.
The ‘Why’ of Party Think Tanks
Why do parties necessarily need party
think tanks to perform functions that one
might reasonably expect to be the financial
and administrative responsibility of the
party proper?
In part, the appearance of party think
tanks reflects the fact that Australian parties
are no longer the vehicles of mass integra-
tion that they were once constituted to
serve. As parties have become profession-
alised, bureaucratised and centralised, they
have prioritised electioneering and cam-
paigning over social and political outreach.
This has been particularly apparent by
AUTHOR:
Dr Narelle Miragliotta is a senior lecturer in the Department of Politics and International
Relations at Monash University. She has research interests on political parties, parlia-
ments and electoral systems. http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/narelle-miragliotta/
Australian party think tanks
the failure of the
established parties
to stem the exodus
of the grass roots
membership, with
its consequent
implications for the
parties’ capacity
to perform those
democratic linkage functions that the mass
membership considers central. The think
tanks help to overcome capacity deficits
for their kindred party though their various
activities.
The semi-autonomous character of
the think tanks makes them extremely
useful as vehicles of political and electoral
linkage, particularly when compared to
other groups that parties occasionally work
through. Affiliated organisations have their
own political and policy objectives that can
and do diverge from those of the party’s
interests or needs. The party’s ability to
control and discipline affiliated organisa-
tions is limited to the act of disaffiliation, an
action that may have undesirable conse-
quences for the party over the medium to
longer term. Party members and auxiliary
bodies tend to be more ideologically moti-
vated than party elites and this can hamper
and frustrate the party’s capacity to func-
tion as efficient office seeking vehicles.14 In
contrast, party think tanks exist to satisfy
the party’s electoral, policy and political
needs, and its financial dependence on its
related party renders it compliant.
So how might we interpret the phe-
nomenon of the state funded party think
tank? One assessment might be that state
JAN–MAR 2016
funded party
think tanks are
simply another
manifestation
of the growing
inter-penetration
of parties with
the state.15 The
enthusiasm
exhibited by Australian parties to use state
resources to fund their activities further
reveals the extent to which they are
embedded within the state. This, in turn,
might be understood through the prism
of party malaise. The parties have sought
to overcome the challenges they confront
by reaching for solutions that impose little
cost on the organisation, rather than insti-
gate deep and pervasive structural reform
of the party.
A more generous view on what has
motivated the appearance of state funded
party think tanks is that they reflect the
parties’ desire to remain anchored within
civil society. According to this perspective,
party think tanks are a pragmatic response
by the parties to a highly fluid and dynamic
political, electoral, technological and social
context. The altered terrain in which parties
must now compete requires them to
invoke different organisational strategies
that are purpose built for contemporary
political realities.
Both of these perspectives contain
some truth. Party think tanks might be best
understood as expressions of the desire
by Australian parties to remain connected
within civil society, albeit at the state’s
expense. AQ
IMAGE: © Australian Electoral Comission
AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY 39
References
Being Human: The Ethics, Law, and Scientific
Progress of Genome Editing
1 http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Genome-
Editing-Briefing-Paper-Newson-Wrigley.pdf
2 Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, et al. (2012). "A programmable dual-
RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity."
Science 337(6096): 816–821.
3 For an overview of CRISPR-Cas9 system, see: http://www.whatis-
biotechnology.org/science/crispr (accessed November 2015)
4 For an animation of how CRISPR-Cas9 works, see: https://youtu.
be/2pp17E4E-O8 (accessed November 2015).
5 Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, et al. (2015) "CRISPR/Cas9-mediated
gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes." Protein & Cell 6(5):
363-372.
6 Reardon S. (2015) “NIH reiterates ban on editing human
embryo DNA.” Nature [online]. Available at: http://www.nature.
com/news/nih-reiterates-ban-on-editing-human-embryo-
dna-1.17452 (accessed Nov 2015).
7 Caplan AL, Parent B, Shen M, et al. (2015) “No time to waste - the
ethical challenges created by CRISPR.” EMBO Reports 16(11):
1421-1426.
8 Pinker S. (2015, August 1) “The moral imperative for bioethics.”
The Boston Globe. Available at: https://www.bostonglobe.com/
opinion/2015/07/31/the-moral-imperative-for-bioethics/
JmEkoyzlTAu9oQV76JrK9N/story.html (accessed November
2015).
9 Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J. (2012) “Responsible research
and innovation: From science in society to science for society,
with society.” Science and Public Policy, 39: 751-760.
10 Lanphier E, Urnov F, Haecker SE, et al (2015) “Don’t edit the human
germ line.” Nature 519: 410 - 411.
11 The International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO updated
their Report on the Human Genome recommending a
"moratorium on genome editing of the human germline"
(October 2, 2015). Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0023/002332/233258E.pdf (accessed November 2015).
12 Baltimore D, Berg P, Botchan M, et al. “A prudent path forward for
genomic engineering and germline gene modification.” Science
348(6230): 36-38.
Indefinite Disinformation: The Political
Capital of Fear
1 On 18 April 1946, quoted in Nuremberg Diary by Gustave Gilbert
(Farrar, Straus & Co 1947).
Ethics in the Information Age
1 Gorodyansky, D. (2015). Privacy and security in the Internet
age. WIRED. http://www.wired.com/insights/2015/01/
privacy-and-security-in-the-internet-age/.
2 Lomas, N. (2015). What happens to privacy when the Internet is
in everything? Tech Crunch. http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/25/
what-happens-to-privacy-when-the-internet-is-in-everything/.
3 Belanger, F., & Crossler, R. (2011). Privacy in the digital age:
a review of information privacy in information systems. MIS
Quarterly 35(4), 1017-1042.
4 Shaw, J. (2009). The erosion of privacy in the Internet era.
Harvard Magazine. http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/09/
privacy-erosion-in-internet-era.
5 Nussbaum, E. (2007). Say everything: Kids, the Internet, and the
End of Privacy: The Greatest Generation Gap since Rock and Roll.
New York.
6 Lomas, N. (2015)
7 Sutherland, K. (2013). Social Media puts HR ethics under the
spotlight. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/
social-media-puts-hr-ethics-under-the-spotlight-14208.
8 Barry, C. (2015). Is downloading really stealing? The ethics
of digital piracy. The Conversation. https://theconversation.
com/is-downloading-really-stealing-the-ethics-of-digital-
piracy-39930.
9 Salter, M. (2013). Cyber-safety or cyber-maturity? Teaching ethics
in a virtual world. The Conversation. https://theconversation.
com/cyber-safety-or-cyber-maturity-teaching-ethics-in-a-
virtual-world-16081.
10 Mumford, L. (1968). The City in History: Its Origins, Its
Transformations, and Its Prospects. Harvest Books.
11 Kant, I. (2015) Kant's Moral Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
40 AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY JAN–MAR 2016
Further reading:
Kelly, K. (2007). Predicting the next 5,000 days of the web.
Presentation at the Technology Entertainment and Design
Conference. Monterey California. http://www.ted.com/index.
php/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.
html
Maslow, A. (1964). Religion, values and peak experiences. New York:
Viking.
Mason, R. (1986). Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age.
Management Information Systems Quarterly 10 (1).
A Rough Climate for Migration: Ethics, Climate
Change and Forced Migration
1 McAdam, J. (2011). Swimming against the tide: Why a climate
change displacement treaty is not the answer. International
Journal of International Law, 22 (1), 2-27.
2 Ferris, E. (2012). Protection and Planned Relocations in the
Context of Climate Change, Legal and Protection Policy Research
Series. UNHCR, Division of International Protection, see also;
McAdam, J, & Saul, B. (2010). Displacement with dignity:
International law and policy responses to climate change migra-
tion and security in Bangladesh. German Yearbook of International
law, 53, 233-289
3 Kant, I., Kleingeld, P., Waldron J., Colclasure D., Doyle MW., Wood,
AW. (2006). Toward perpetual peace and other writings on politics,
peace and history (p. 67-110). USA: Yale University Press.
4 International Organisation of Migration, ‘Key Migration Terms’:
https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms
5 Ibid, note iv.
6 Annan, K. (1999). “Two Concepts of Responsibility.” The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/node/324795
7 McAdam and Saul, above note ii.
8 Biermann, F, and Boas, I. (2010). Preparing for a warmer world:
Towards a global governance system to protect climate refugees.
Global Environmental Politics, 10(1), 60-88. P.67
9 Biermann and Boas, above note viii, p.65.
10 Biermann and Boas, above note viii, p.64.
11 McAdam, above note i, p.5.
12 McAdam, above note i, p13.
13 Martin, S. (2010). Climate change, migration and governance.
Global Governance, 16, 397-414, p. 400.
14 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
15 Okereke, C. (2010). Climate Justice and the International Regime.
WIRES Climate Change. Volume 1, May/June, p. 465.
16 Okereke, above note xv, p. 465.
17 Gardiner, S., Caney, S., Jamieson, D., Shue, H. (2010). Climate Ethics:
Essential Readings. Oxford University Press, p. 34
18 Byravan, S., and Rajan, S.C. (2006). Providing New Homes for
Climate Change Exiles, Climate Policy, Volume 6, 247-252, p. 247
19 Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Duquesne University Press.
20 United Nations Habitat. (2012). Bangladesh: Eroding Rivers,
Eroding Livelihoods in Bangladesh, On Solid Ground: Addressing
Land Tenure Issues Following Natural Disasters. Retrieved from:
http://www.oicrf.org/document.asp?ID=9663, p.2
21 MoEF. (2009). Bangladesh climate change strategy and action
plan. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of the
People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh, xxvii +
76pp.
22 Afsar, R. (2003). Internal migration and the development nexus:
The case of Bangladesh. Migration Development and Pro-Poor
Policy Choices in Asia. Retrieved from: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/
Outputs/MigrationGlobPov/WP-CP2.pdf. p.1.
23 Walsham, M. (2010). Assessing the Evidence: Environment, Climate
Change and Migration in Bangladesh, International Organisation for
Migration. Retrieved from: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/
free/environment_climate_change_bangladesh.pdf, p. xiii.
On the Cutting Edge: Ethics and Surgical
Innovation
1 Oxford Radcliff Hospitals NHS Trust. (2009). Memorandum (PS
102) tabled for the UK House of Commons, Health Committee
Report into Patient Safety. http://www.publications.parliament.
uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhealth/151/151we49.htm
2 Brännström, M., Johannesson, L., Dahm-Kähler, P., Enskog, A.,
Mölne, J., Kvarnström, N., Diaz-Garcia, C. et al. (2014). 'First Clinical
Uterus Transplantation Trial: A Six-Month Report', Fertility and
Sterility, 101, 5, 1228-36.
3 Strasberg, S. and Ludbrook, P. (2003). ‘Who oversees innovative
practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of
new techniques?’ Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 196,
938–48.
4 Biffl, W., Spain, D., Reitsma, M., et al. (2008). ’Responsible
development and application of surgical innovations: A position
statement of the society of university surgeons’, Journal of the
American College of Surgeons, 206, 1204-9.
5 Rogers, W., Lotz, M., Hutchison, K., Pourmoslemi, A. and Eyers, A.
(2014). ‘Identifying Surgical Innovation: A Qualitative Study of
Surgeons’ Views’, Annals of Surgery, 259, 273-278.
6 Hutchison, K., Rogers, W., Eyers, A. and Lotz M. (2015). ‘Getting
clearer about surgical innovation: a new definition and a new tool
to support responsible practice’, Annals of Surgery e-print available
25 Feb 2015 (doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001174).
7 Cohen, D. (2012). ‘How safe are metal-on-metal hip implants?’
BMJ, 344, e1410. (doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e1410).
Barber, M. (2015). ‘Mesh use in surgery for pelvic organ prolapse’,
BMJ, 350, h2910 (doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2910).
Australian Party Think Tanks: Symptoms of Party
Malaise and Party Resilience
1 Hancock, I. 2000. National and Permanent?: The Federal
Organisation of the Liberal Party of Australia, 1944-1965. Carlton:
Melbourne University.
2 Ibid, 16-17
3 Henderson, G. 1994. Menzies' Child. Sydney: Harper Collins.
4 Mathews, R. 1993. Australia’s First Fabians: Middle-class Radicals,
Labour Activists and the Early Labour Movement. Melbourne:
Cambridge University Press.
5 Hawke, R. 1984. Fabian Society Centenary Dinner. Address was
given in Melbourne 18 May 1984. http://www.fabians.org.au/
fabian_society_centenary_dinner
6 Mathews, R. 1993.
7 Jay, C. 1996. Ideas come at a price. Australian Financial Review,
5 July.
8 A particular set of circumstances led to the Evatt Foundation
being the recipient of a public grant. In 1978, the Fraser Coalition
government awarded $AUS 2 million grant to establish a
commemorative foundation in honour of former Liberal Prime
Minister, Robert Menzies. Over $AUS 4 million of public monies
was transferred into the Trust. When the Evatt Foundation was
created a year later (along with the Lionel Murphy Foundation),
the Fraser Government failed to provide the ALP with a matching
grant. With the change in government in 1983, the Hawke ALP
government cut off the Menzies Foundation and awarding the
Evatt Foundation a $250,000 grant over eight years. The Evatt
Foundation received over $AUS 3 million in commonwealth
funding over 12 years (Ramsey, A. 1998. ‘Nobody dares throw
stones’, Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April)
9 In 2008, the Rudd ALP Government announced that it would re-
allocate the grant previously budgeted for the Chipp Foundation
to the Green Institute when it became apparent that the terms of
the Australian Democrat’s remaining senators were coming to an
end and the party’s electoral prospects were bleak.
10 According to Liberal Senator Eric Abetz in the Hansard record,
John Howard rang the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley,
and said, `Is it appropriate that $100,000 go to the Liberal Party
and $100,000 to the Australian Labor Party?'…... We split it
and made it fair: fifty-fifty’ (Commonwealth of Australia 1998,
Parliamentary debates: Senate: official Hansard, 1 April, p. 1759)
11 Department of Finance. 2015. Portfolio Budget statement 2015-16,
Budget related paper No. 18: url: http://www.finance.gov.au/
publications/portfolio-budget-statements/15-16/
12 Marsh, I. & Stone, D. 2004. ‘Australian Think Tanks’ in A. Denham &
D. Stone (eds.) Think tank traditions: policy research and the politics
of ideas. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
13 't Hart, P., Vromen, A. 2008. A new era for think tanks in public
policy? International trends, Australian realities. Australian Journal
of Public Administration, 67(2): 135-148.
14 Scarrow, S. E. (1994). The ‘paradox of enrollment’: Assessing the
costs and benefits of party memberships. European Journal of
Political Research, 25(1): 41-60.
15 Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organiza-
tion and party democracy the emergence of the cartel party.
Party Politics, 1(1): 5-28.
 Indefinite Disinformation: The
Political Capital of Fear
The arrival of the Tampa in Australian waters in 2001 marked a dramatic turning point
in Australia’s response to boat people. Judgment in the Tampa litigation was handed
down at 2.15pm on 11 September 2001. Nine hours later the attack on America
happened, and John Howard had a potent new political weapon.
Suddenly there were no terrorists: only Muslim terrorists. And no boat people: only
Muslim boat people. Suddenly, boat people were “illegals”. Suddenly, fear and loathing
were part of Australia’s political dynamics.
And, as a country, we began to betray the values we so prided ourselves upon.
Julian Burnside

Being Human: The Ethics, Law, and

Scientific Progress of Genome Editing
Genome editing can be viewed as a disruptive technology – fundamentally changing
how scientists alter genomes. With the development of the CRISPR-Cas9 technique
there is now a real possibility that we can precisely, accurately and easily change
almost any part of any genome, including plants, animals, and human beings.
Yet with such a game-changing procedure now available, we risk leaving the
important question of ethics behind in our rush to embrace change.
Ainsley Newson and Anthony Wrigley

A Rough Climate for Migration: Ethics,

Climate Change and Forced Migration
A changing climate will inevitably lead to population movement, which in turn will lead
to ‘climate refugees’. To avoid compounding the human crisis of climate migration, we
need to develop an ethical international framework – a foundational duty of hospitality.
Where should a country’s obligation to its neighbours begin? Does a country’s
obligation to a person only begin when that person crosses a border? Or should
wealthy countries be morally responsibility for assist these people before they are
driven off their land by climate change to become refugees?
Elaine Kelly

Ethics in the Information Age

IMAGE CREDITS: Please see article placements

90% of the world’s data was created in the last two years and many of us could not
imagine life without the benefits of the internet. Yet as the world becomes increasingly
plugged in and switched on, are we failing to apply a moral compass to the
technology we use and develop?
When governments are the ones doing the spying, are ethical codes even applicable?
Can we have ethical technology?
David Tuffley and Amy Antonio

View publication stats