A United States lapdog - or a lone wolf?

The foreign policy train rolls on, and Australia has finally gained a seat on the United Nations Security Council. According to the combined authority of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, this is a most wonderful thing, unmatched in modern Australia and reflects the unbounded faith the world has in our country. However, not all Australians share this view. According to the authority of an anonymous tweeter quoted on the ABC, it is a cleft stick that sees Australia now needing to choose regularly between unquestioning support for the United States, and aspiring to a position of influence with China.

It's nice to see that Chinese officialdom keeps a close eye on tweets as, shortly after the tweet mentioned above was published, the Chinese embassy released a statement expressing the expectation that Australia would be fair-handed in its role in the Security Council. This is diplomatic speak for ''we are watching you'' and hints that China does not really put much store in Prime Minister Julia Gillard's response that the cleft stick proposition was ''infantile'' when she was asked about it.

So what is Australia going to do in the world of grown-ups? The desire to gain a seat at the Security Council was one of former prime minister Kevin Rudd's personal aspirations, and widely understood within the gossip of the Australian Public Service to be a stepping stone to his personal elevation to the secretary-generalship of the entire UN.

Rudd's untimely unseating as prime minister (in ''an act of steer bastardry'' according to veteran Labor senator John Faulkner, and repeatedly raised by Rudd's followers such as Lindsay Tanner and Maxine McKew whenever the polls look good for Gillard) would not have helped his cause, especially if the alleged basis of his removal was taken seriously (''dictatorial'', ''erratic'', etc). Nor would his own comments to a third party (the US, no less) about taking up arms against China some little while ago and released through Wikileaks. (We can assume China noted those remarks and kept them on an official, unleaked file - probably marked ''not for promotion''!) Nor would the reports of his alleged loss of temper over trivial matters - but that is being trivial.

Advertisement Is there still a chance for Rudd, and does the Gillard government intend to finally rid itself of the Rudd spectre by having him overseas and well out of harm's (i.e. its own) way by sending him to the UN? It's unlikely - notwithstanding the elevation, under Gillard, of former ACT chief minister Jon Stanhope as administrator of Christmas Island, conveniently before the recent territory election. The world may think it's done enough for us by granting us a seat on the Security Council and be disinclined to give us the secretary-general post as well.

Alternatively, Australia could become even more of a public acolyte for all things US. In reality, most countries that supported Australia's inclusion on the council would have known that, in all likelihood, Australia would remain lock step with the US, and so its membership was a way of extending US influence. For Australia, acting this way would certainly be seen as a way of strengthening US ties beyond the seemingly now exhausted route of military support for all of America's military interventions, or the positioning of defence bases on Australian soil to the chagrin of China. This may have been the expectation of the US itself when it supported our membership.

But is it wise? Not so, according to two former prime ministers: Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating. Fraser only recently went on record saying that a small power such as Australia could never depend on building up brownie points with superpowers, as they, by their nature, pursue their own interests without let or heed to so-called loyalties to lesser states. Similarly, Keating has been outspoken on the dangers of continuing to be seen as an American puppet and how this is inimical to Australia's interests in Asia (or, since the publication of the white paper last month, should we say the Asian century). It would also be a shame if Australia became branded much like Albania was in the 1980s as the apologetic mouthpiece for and sycophantic dependant of a great power. (Ironically, Albania was seen as being all that to China!) Instead of being mistaken for Austria, we would run the risk of being mistaken for Albania!

Given this, we can only hope the Gillard government and its Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, have something far more intelligent and more in our long-term interests in mind. Membership of the Security Council could be turned to Australia's best interest, as it is an opportunity and potential catalyst for this nation to become more independent in its foreign policy. The need to be seen by the world as more fair-handed gives Australia the great opportunity to do exactly that; in accepting great office, greater responsibilities must be accepted. We can legitimately claim we have been forced to review our ''positioning'' as a citizen of the world entrusted with its security. Can our recent good standing in international forums such as the Group of 20, or our follow-through on carbon trading following world summits on global warming, be seen as hints of a new, more assertive Australia?

China has said it expects this of us, and the US should realise that a less-submissive stance on our behalf marks a growing maturity in our bilateral relations, without the unilateral declaration of independence that New Zealand made.

But while the US should realise this, whether it does depends on how our government handles the matter. It will need all the finesse and strategy of a country that has succeeded in elevating itself into such an invidious position in the first place. The Gillard government could perhaps have its cake and eat it too by sending Rudd overseas after all to become our new ambassador to the US, with the sole task of successfully achieving that change in our bilateral relationship with the Americans. After all, he speaks its language, he has the background and his supporters would tell us that he has the skills. Good luck, Australia.

Bill Burmester is a professorial fellow with the ANZSOG Institute for Governance at the University of Canberra and a former senior public servant.

Poker Machine Reform.

Policy-on-the-Run Clinic

An occasional column to assist the APS develop policies to tackle wicked problems while on the run

Poker Machine Reform.

This is an excellent topic for On-the-run, as most APS officers will be unable to locate the section of the Constitution that says that poker machine policy is the responsibility of the Commonwealth, or may have been confused as to their involvement given that State Governments are the ones who actually license these wicked problematic machines. So having been caught on the hop, they can now solve the problem on the run.

But first some history: 2012 marks the bicentenary of the “Luddite” uprisings in the English midlands when the working population physically attacked the wicked machines that were causing their misfortune and the sudden decline in their living standards. Families were becoming impoverished and destitute as the cotton and wool mills adopted revolutionary technology that offering ten-fold (or more) increases in productivity. It was simply unfortunate timing that concurrently English trade in finished cloth (that for 50 odd years had been enriching the country) now suddenly declined (or unravelled) as a result of the war with France under Napoleon, and the great boost to productivity could not translate into great increases in exports, and continued employment in the cloth-making industries. Maintenance of jobs in one sector of the economy was under risk, and England came close to social, not industrial, revolution.

So the first solution to our current concerns could be to mount raids on premises that house poker machines, hold the managers hostage while the machines are systematically smashed (if that’s not an oxymoron) and then retreat in an orderly manner much as the Luddites did 200 years ago. But as we now know, it was not a successful strategy then and poor Ned Ludd has been consigned to history, pretty much like English manufacturing itself.

So let’s work more on the source of the current concerns. Of itself, there is nothing morally or socially wrong with a number of private citizens forming a group (let’s call it a club) within which the means is provided for the members to tax themselves (let’s call it a throughput tax) and distribute the gains as they see fit. If the members realise that in fact most of the tax is being collected from just a few of their members, and this was seen as some form of moral quandary (exploiting one’s friends for one’s own benefit might cover that), then they could simply ask these offenders to their morality to leave the club.

But we live in a democracy in the 21st century, so people have rights. Those excluded individuals could reasonably claim they are being victimised and discriminated against and the Government should protect their ability to ruin themselves. After all, one of the key functions of a modern state is to ensure stupidity, weakness or self harm not be a barrier to security in life. Individuals now have expectations to be protected from the predations of themselves as well as others.

And here is the problem – governments are now involved. The State governments know a good thing, and so they decided to add their own throughput tax on the throughput tax the clubs levy on their members, and in so doing made gambling on poker machines a right. And, don’t be surprised, the problem now concerning our society is construed in terms of rights, individual freedoms, and how the state can legitimately and best curtail those rights and freedoms in those cases where there is manifest harm to the individual and family. This should not be a problem, as in many cases the law does exactly that – it curtails actions that are a threat to the person or others in society. The difficulty lies with the possible turning-off of the flow of funds into State government coffers, and the threat to the employment base in recreation industries (shades of 1812).

Mandatory pre-commitment is seen as the solution. This involves an individual having to decide how much of their earnings and wealth they are willing to give the State Government and fellow club members (or casino licensees) before they hand it over. A better case of voluntary taxation could not be found! Clearly, to its supporters, this solution of having someone deciding up front by how much they will impoverish themself and enrich others removes any moral obligation not to allow that in the first place. And as it is also seen as a satisfactory solution by the State Government and club members (or casino licensees) it clearly has little prospect of reducing the flow of funds so derived.

But we do not have mandatory pre commitment at the race courses of the country, or in the lottery offices in the suburbs. Is this because it’s impossible to wreak havoc on wellbeing in these places, or is it because poker machines have something special about them? Of course they do, and they are wonderful at extracting money by their carefully calculated payout rate, size of payouts and the interval between “wins”. They are a trap, and that’s why they cause problems to individuals, and outrage to others. Just like the machines of early 1800’s in Britain, they are better at their job of enriching their owners.

Well if the machines are “better” than the alternatives, and smashing them is unlikely to succeed, how about changing the operations of the machines so they have a less detrimental impact on individuals – that at least might square with some moral compass of our time in more than a tokenistic way. Just like the resolution of all disputes around implementing technological improvements, from 1800s onwards, it comes down to determining a fair sharing of the benefits. At present, pokies take 13% of players’ investment which, from the players’ side, looks a tad unfair. But if pokies paid back closer to 100%, there would be little possible social impact to those addicted to their playing - it would simply be too time consuming to lose great slabs of money if the machine nearly always gave it back to you. This approach would maintain the employment base in clubs, but would not provide a cross subsidy to other activities in the club (or the State) in which the addicted pokie player would have little time to participate in in any case. Those who enjoyed the other facilities or benefits of the club (or State) would have to pay the full going price – shock horror! And in arguing that not letting players take home nearly all that they arrived with puts those proponents of clearly exploitative behaviour on the back foot. So over the next 12 years, in 1% increments, let us require States and clubs to stop subsidising their preferred indulgences with funds from those who cannot forgo the pokies. Let us adjust our sharing of benefits and woes in a more sophisticated manner than was evident in 1812 England.

Bill Burmester
Professorial Fellow
ANZSOG Institute for Governance
University of Canberra

The implications of the Arab Spring for Israeli-Palestinian relationship

ANZSIG welcomes His Excellency Mr Izzat Salah Abdulhadi, The Head of the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia, Ambassador to New Zealand, East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. His Excellency will present a public lecture on The implications of the Arab Spring for Israeli-Palestinian relationship at ANZSIG on 8th August at the University of Canberra. Click here for more information.