It isn't just lack of money which makes for a shorter life - it's often discrimination by the health care professions

Last Monday morning I caught a news item on ABC radio concerning a study commissioned by Catholic Health Australia which reportedly showed that an affluent person lives longer than a poor person. Around three years longer.

I immediately looked down at my wristwatch and began to count the seconds - as surely as night follows day it came across the airwaves.

In this instance it was a certain Jesuit priest Fr. Frank Brennan (pictured opposite); who baldly stated "If you come from a poor, dysfunctional family without education, of course your health outcomes are going to be worse than if you are from a well-off, functional family which has a good education."

Yes, that's right, the bottom line is that it is all the fault of the dysfunctional family.

Never mind that Australian society subtlety discriminates against those who are obviously in the lower socio-ecomonic strand. That the social determinates of health and well being are a lot more complex than alleged family dysfunction.

When giving such a statement to the media don't make an effort to point out that the affluent and articulate are likely to be seen by the medical and related heath care professions as being the peers of people in these groups and, therefore more time and energy is frequently expended in exploring treatment options and providing medical care even within the public health system.

Stay silent on the fact unofficial medical service rationing is occurring in this country and that it is not often occurring to those with money. In fact it has already been admitted that living in regional Australia often results in lower life expectancy for some life threatening diseases and, there is some evidence that those with higher incomes may receive more referral to specialist doctors if New Zealand research translates to Australia as I suspect it might.

Do not even consider that such unconscious systemic discrimination (based on socio-economic status, ethnicity or diagnosis) leads to poorer health outcomes in our supposedly democratic and egalitarian society.


* A quick Google search using the term "discrimination by health professionals" displayed over 83,000 results including discussion of discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, diagnosis and income levels.

Journalism and ethics - can they ever share the same bed?

I'm still trying to puzzle this out.
After interviewing a blogger apparently on the proviso that his anonymity would be preserved, a journalist later decides to out that same blogger on what seems to be a personal slow news day.
Or was old fashioned jealousy at the root of this unethical outing?
This is James Massola in justification mode:
"As I wrote on August 7 after interviewing Jericho (preserving his anonymity) about the piece that sparked debate: "Across Twitter a conversation bubbled and crackled as journalists and readers debated the merits of reportage from the campaign trail. Such a public conversation about journalism was unimaginable five years ago. If for no other reason, the incident demonstrated why Twitter, and blogs, matter."
So why did I out Grog if I thought he should keep blogging?
As a prolific blogger and tweeter, Jericho was putting information in the public domain to provoke discussion and debate. It might have been a hobby, but by engaging directly via Twitter with dozens of journalists, Jericho and his views became part of the public debate - and in an age in which the dissemination of information has been democratised, his scribblings had an influence."
Whatcha been drinking Jimmy?

A new electorate for Luke Hartsuyker?

I know my hearing isn't anything like it was in my younger days (and some say I'm selectively deaf), but I'll swear black-n-blue that Luke Hartsuyker was sworn in as the Member for Cowan in the House of Representatives this morning.

That left me wondering, who is the Member for Cowper?

State sanctioned assassination: and you thought the world was scary enough as it is..........

Ever since the 11 September 2001 terrorists attacks in the United States of America started a global hysteria and two unlawful wars, the minds of Australian legislators and the legislation they enact have been quietly converging towards a point where they march in tandem with repressive excesses found in American law.

So this latest example of how insane the US Federal Administration has become is disturbing in the lead it gives Australian politicians of all political persuasions:

But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

The legal arguments can be found at Scribd in Alaulaqi v Obama Complaint* and at FireDogLake in NASSER AL-AULAQI, on his own behalf and as next ) friend acting on behalf of ANWAR AL-AULAQI v. BARACK H. OBAMA, President of the United States; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense; and LEON E. PANETTA, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency**:

* 4. Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. The summary use of force is lawful in these narrow circumstances only because the imminence of the threat makes judicial process infeasible. A targeted killing policy under which individuals are added to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and remain on these lists for months at a time plainly goes beyond the use of lethal force as a last resort to address imminent threats, and accordingly goes beyond what the Constitution and international law permit.
5. The government's refusal to disclose the standard by which it determines to target U.S. citizens for death independently violates the Constitution: U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government. Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state.
6. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that the Constitution and international law prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings outside of armed conflict except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury; and an injunction prohibiting the targeted killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi outside this narrow context. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring the government to disclose the standards under which it determines whether U.S. citizens can be targeted for death.

** This case is a paradigmatic example of one in which no part of the case can be litigated on the merits without immediately and irreparably risking disclosure of highly sensitive and classified national security information. The purpose of this lawsuit is to adjudicate the existence and lawfulness of alleged targeting decisions and to compel the disclosure of any "secret criteria" used to make those alleged determinations. Plaintiff's complaint alleges (i) that the United States has carried out "targeted killings" outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, Compl. ¶ 13, (ii) and has specifically targeted Anwar al-Aulaqi, Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, and, in particular, (iii) that Anwar al-Aulaqi is allegedly subject to the use of lethal force "without regard to whether, at the time lethal force will be used, he presents a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life, or whether there are reasonable means short of lethal force that could be used to address any such threat." Compl. ¶ 23. At every turn, litigation of plaintiff's claims would risk or require the disclosure of highly sensitive and properly protected information to respond to allegations regarding purported secret operations and decision criteria. Even if some aspect of the underlying facts at issue had previously been officially disclosed, the Government's privilege assertions demonstrate that properly protected state secrets would remain intertwined in every step of the case, starting with an adjudication of the threshold issue of plaintiff's standing (i.e., whether or not there is an alleged "target list" which includes plaintiff's son, and whether he is being subjected to the threat of lethal force absent an imminent threat or a reasonable alternative to force), and the inherent risk of disclosures that would harm national security should be apparent from the outset.

The now retired Hon. Justice Michael Kirby's early words of caution have largely gone unheeded by successive federal and states attorneys-general in this country and, there is no guarantee that a Gillard Government would be anymore respectful of the human rights of citizen's than the Obama Government in America.

AUSTRALIAN LAW - AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, 11 October 2001:

It is impossible for Australian lawyers to collect in Canberra and to proceed in these next few days as if nothing has happened. It is impossible for us to see our Constitution as if it speaks only to Australia and Australians. It speaks of us to the world. It is impossible to pretend that the comfortable topics of the legal profession have the same priority as this moment. It is necessary for us to reflect upon the moment. But to do so keeping our priorities and viewing recent events in the context which our Constitution, our institutions, our law and our tradition of human rights demands that we take.....
In the course of a century, we, the lawyers of Australia, have made many errors. We have sometimes scorned those who, appearing for themselves, could not reach justice. We have gone along with unjust laws and procedures. We have been instruments of discrimination and it is still there in our books. We have not done enough for law reform. We have often been just too busy to repair every injustice. Yet in some critical moments, lawyers have upheld the best values of our pluralist democracy. In the future, we must keep it thus. To preserve liberty, we must preserve the rule of law. That is our justification and our challenge.

Yamba's Cow Boy Dan on ABC's Strictly Speaking

Brendan ("Breaker") Morant, aka Cow Boy Dan, who hails from Yamba (no, truth be known, he's from a little village south of Yamba) will be a contestant on ABC TV's first episode of Strictly Speaking on Wednesday night.

Brendan shot to local fame when, as an outsider, he appealed to his high school's masses with a cleverly crafted speech and was (much to the dismay of school officialdom) elected school captain for 2001.

However, as Brendan's profile on the ABC website shows, capturing that leadership position was nothing new. His first speech elected him as school captain when he was 13.

Pic blow shows Brendan (circa 2001) in one of his signature hats

(Credit to MHS's Rocky Mouth and, I think, to HO'K a former teacher at MHS)

Australian Society: Keeping up with the Joneses

A brief look at some of the data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics series Measures of Australian Progress 2010:

HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC WELLBEING AND PROGRESS

In the decade to 2007-08, the average real equivalised disposable household weekly income for people in the low income group increased by 41%.
Over the same period, the average real equivalised disposable household weekly income increased by 46% for middle income people.

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLES

Overall, in 2004-05 and 2008, average real equivalised gross weekly household income for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was around 61% of the corresponding figure for non-Indigenous people.

HOUSEHOLD WEALTH

.... in both 2003-04 and 2005-06 the 20% of households with the lowest wealth accounted for just 1% of total household net worth at an average of $27,000. In comparison, the wealth of households in the highest net worth quintile accounted for 59% of total household net worth in 2003-04 and 61% in 2005-06, at an average of $1.7 million per household (ABS 2007a)

INCOME SUPPORT RECIPIENTS

In 2007-08, over half (55%) of low income households received government pensions and allowances as their principal source of income.

The proportion of households whose main source of income was government pensions and allowances has generally declined over the decade 1997-98 to 2007-08. Over this period, lone person households, where the reference person was aged 65 years and over, were the most likely to receive government pensions and allowances as their main source of income (78% in 1997-98 and 76% in 2007-08). In 2007-08, 45% of one parent families with dependent children received government benefits as their main source of income, decreasing from 54% in 1997-98. Factors contributing to the general decline over this decade in government pensions and allowances as householders' main source of income may include: strong jobs growth, the closure or phasing out of some payments, and tightening of eligibility criteria to receive some payments (ABS 2010a).

LEVELS OF HOME OWNERSHIP

Home ownership rates have been fairly stable at around 70% for many decades. As measured in the ABS Census of Population and Housing, in 1971 the home ownership rate was 69% and in 2006 it was 70%, with small fluctuations around 70% in the intervening Censuses.

LOW INCOME RENTAL AFFORDABILITY

Rental affordability for low income households (that is the proportion of housing costs to gross income for low income renters) has remained constant over the past 10 years (28% in 1997-98 and 27% in 2007-08).

(a) Year ending 30 June. Data unavailable for years 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2007 and have been interpolated.

HOMELESSNESS

For one group in the homeless population, information obtained from government-funded specialist homelessness agencies, and compiled by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, showed that during the year 2008-09 there were 204,900 people (one in every 105 Australians) who received support at some point during that year. More females (62%) than males (38%) received support, while males were slightly more likely to have repeat periods of homelessness. The most common reason for seeking assistance was due to domestic or family violence (22% of support periods), relationship or family breakdown (10%) and other financial difficulty (8%). Due to changes in data collection methods, these estimates cannot be directly compared with previous years (AIHW 2010).

EDUCATION

Between 1997 and 2009, there has been a continuing rise in the proportion of people with a vocational or higher education qualification (from 46% to 63%), continuing a trend seen for several decades.
This increase has largely been driven by the rise in the proportion of people with a higher education qualification (ie. a bachelor degree or above) - rising from 16% in 1997 to 27% in 2009. The proportion of people with a vocational qualification also increased, although at a much slower pace, rising from 30% in 1997 to 34% in 2009, with most of this increase occurring prior to 2005.

EMPLOYMENT

Over the last decade the annual average unemployment rate for Australia has generally decreased, from 6.9% in 1999 to 5.6% in 2009.
However, between 2008 and 2009 the unemployment rate increased by 1.4 percentage points, reflecting the recent economic downturn.

Over the last three decades the proportion of employed people working part time has risen from 16% to 29%, while over the same period the underemployment rate rose from 2.7% in 1979 to a high of 7.7% in 2009. Since 2000, there have been more underemployed people in Australia than unemployed.

HOURS WORKED

The average number of hours worked per week has decreased over the last three decades, falling from 35.7 hours per week in 1979 to 32.8 hours per week hours in 2009, largely due to an increase in the proportion of people working part time. The average hours worked by full-time workers rose during the 1990s, peaking at 41.3 hours per week in 2000, but decreasing to 39.7 hours per week in 2009. The average number of hours worked per week by part-time workers increased slightly over time, from around 15 hours in the 1980s to approximately 16 hours from 2000 onwards.

The proportion of employed people who worked 50 hours or more a week increased from 14% in 1979 to 19% in 1999, before falling to 15% in 2009 during the recent economic downturn. The proportion of employed people who worked very long hours (60 hours or more a week) increased from 7% in 1979 to 9% in 1992, where it stayed until 2000 before declining to 7% in 2009.

That's the Ocker spirit!

"AUSTRALIANS drank less beer, smoked fewer cigarettes and left the car in the garage more often during the global financial crisis.
Figures contained in final Budget figures for the past financial year reveal the nation tightened its collective belt amid the fiscal gloom."

Seems we're a hardy lot when the chips are down according to the Final Budget Outcome 2009-10.

The Federal Treasurer is skiting that "international credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's said Australia has "exceptionally strong public sector finances even among the 'AAA' rated sovereigns" and Tony Teh Wrecker is not saying much on the subject at all.

Last Friday also saw Treasury release redacted versions of the Red Book for those interested in doing a bit of trawling:

In light of the public interest in the Incoming Government Brief for a returned Labor Government (the so-called Red Book) and consistent with the policy intent that material be published where there is a general interest in its contents, the Treasury has decided to publish the information released under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) in relation to the Red Book. Also published is the Treasury’s brief providing an overview of the Treasury portfolio and the related support services (referred to as the administration brief).

Treasury Incoming Government Brief - Red Book - Redacted - Part 1
3,482.31kb
Treasury Incoming Government Brief - Red Book - Redacted - Part 2
3,354.36kb
Treasury Incoming Government Brief - Red Book - Redacted - Part 3
1,461.28kb
Treasury Incoming Government Brief - Red Book - Redacted - Part 4
3,805.27kb
Treasury - Administration Brief - Red Book 572.75kb