The Travels of the
Techno-Freedom-Fighter

I just got back from having my usual late-night beer with my father. He was a little bit upset about his recent visit to the public health dentist (whom he refers to as Dr Mengele). It took him almost four weeks to be seen, and in the meantime he has had a shocking toothache which has not made him the most pleasant person to be around. Basically the aforementioned dentist, was only able to to an emergency repair job on his tooth. My old man like many post war immigrants to Australia didn't really have the best dental care what he was growing up. This means that he has absolutely shocking set of teeth at the moment. Because he is on a pension, he really doesn't have the money to go and get the whole job done privately. The funny thing is that everytime I go to one of these political forums you see this question come up all the time from people. Why did you have to cut the dental health budget?

Poor oral health causes pain and difficulty eating, which can mean dependence on medication, nutritional deficiencies and associated health conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. Visible tooth loss can affect self esteem, restrict social and employment opportunities. There are 650,000 people on waiting lists for public dental care with an average waiting time of 27 months. A study of public dental health patients from 1995/6 to 2001/2 showed a decline in oral health with increases in the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth, particularly for 25 - 44 year olds.

Whilst each state and territory provides public dental services, per capita spending varies markedly from state to state, services are confined to concession card holders prepared to endure long waiting times and school students. Each state requires some form of patient co-payment, the introduction of which has led to a decrease in use. Oral dental health is the least subsidised area of state health care at $369m/year. Many adults receive only 'emergency' dental care, teeth are extracted at 122% higher rates than in private dentistry and little is invested in improving adult oral health.

'Strengthening Medicare' provides dental treatment for people with chronic illness but this is limited by GP and dentist willingness to participate, a three-visit cap, a restricted list of treatment items and a upper limit fee of $275. Information on use of these items suggests that there has been a low level of referral by GPs.

It is absolutely clear that we need to establish a national public dental health program that is free for concession card holders and special needs groups, and which includes a full dental check-up and basic dental treatment every two years. This program should be funded at per capita levels that will meet the goals of the national oral health plan and delivered in a timely manner, as determined by national benchmarks - with costs to be shared equally between the Commonwealth and the States. As well as dental health assessment and follow-up by dental hygienists in residential aged care and a long range dental health workforce planning and more university places for dentists and dental hygienists.

Under new laws due to go before the Senate this week, Security agencies will be able to clandestinely track Australian Citizens via their mobile phone and internet use for up to 90 days without first obtaining a warrant. These powers could be applied in a range of even relatively minor criminal investigations, not just terrorism cases.

These powers would allow authorities to glean huge amounts of information. Every mobile phone could potentially become a tracking device for security agencies. And the real problem is that without judicial oversight we can never know what the government is really permitting.

These powers would allow federal and state police forces as well as ASIO to demand that phone companies and internet service provider's stream information to them just a few moments after calls are made or websites visited. These new powers, which are being justified as a counter-terrorism measure, have unfortunately already been passed by the Coalition, with support from Labor, through the House of Representatives.

Where are the checks and balances where is the oversight, who ensures that there is a justification for the tapping, who ensures the protection of civil liberties, is this going to turn into another Haneef debacle? Security agencies would be told what website addresses and chat rooms the user has visited and what files have been downloaded. The laws would also enable authorities to track internet conversations.

It is deeply concerning to me that as well as not requiring a warrant signed by a judicial officer these powers could be used by these agencies in any criminal investigation into any suspected offence that carries a jail term of three years or more. There is a great lack of accountability and transparency in the process.

The article ‘British pull-out triggers Iraq row’ in the Canberra Times 4/9/07, and ‘Dutch withdrawal to leave our troops exposed and job undone’ in todays Canberra times have struck me deeply. A good friend will be deployed to Iraq this week. With the majority of the Australian contingent in Iraq under 30, as I am, the short-sighted, petty squabbling by aged men like Rudd and Nelson upsets me.

Australia obviously has a long term commitment to the people of Iraq following our involvement there over the past 5 years. However, I’m deeply concerned that there seems to be no long tern strategy for the future of Iraq. Let’s move beyond talking about when we will eventually withdraw our forces. What will the cost be over the next 5 years, and the next 20 years? Our generation of Australians and Iraqis will still be dealing with the mess started by people that will be out of office, Prime Minister Howard.

Australia’s strategic planning is badly stretched. The current ‘operational tempo’ of our defence force is at an all time high and the majority of our forces are deployed overseas. Recruitment is down to a historic low and personnel retention is slipping. As we saw in the Canberra Times article ‘A too ambitious defence strategy ‘ on 7/7/07, it is unlikely that the Australian Defence Force will be able to maintain the levels of personnel needed. I want to know how the ALP and the Coalition expect to secure Australia sustainably in the future.

I would maintain the pressure for a timetable for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq to be developed and implemented as a matter of urgency. I believe that the best way to assist Iraq is with economic and ongoing infrastructure assistance to be provided to the Iraqis as soon as possible. This is best done through non military means such as multilateral aid to appropriate organisations in Iraq. Basically the situation in Iraq must be brought back fully within the framework of international law and the broader international community through the United Nations.

I agree that recruiting and retention issues need to be addressed with better pay and conditions, something that I am on the record for while I was on the DRSC. I think that the troops that we have deployed as part of Overwatch Battle Group (West) and are helping provide security to the Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces should be withdrawn after the next rotation. I believe that the alliance with the USA is an important one but there are better ways to support the USA. I really do think that we have our work cut out for us here in the Asia Pacific and that regional security concerns should be higher on the agenda.

I have just got back from a dinner that I had with a old friend who I was posted with in Costa Rica. Her partner is a lawyer by trade and is also quite supportive of the current Howard government approached to asylum seekers and mandatory detention. I am not so it was quite an interesting evening trying to make sure that I didn't offend anyone and still have a rational debate about the issue.

Now I do agree that there is a necessity to detain people once they have entered Australia unlawfully. However if you do need to detain asylum seekers, for whatever reason, that this should be kept to an absolute minimum. I do not believe that there is any valid reason to be prolonged detention of asylum seekers.

The first one that is often used is the idea that mandatory detention is necessary to stop people absconding/or escaping. Often the majority of asylum seekers, who apply after arriving with another visa, are allowed to live in the community without health or security checks. They are not considered at risk of absconding even though the proportion of those found to be refugees in need of protection is much lower than those who arrive without a visa i.e. boat arrivals. Since the majority of asylum seekers do not have to be detained, I find that it is illogical to argue that those who have arrived without a visa (and are more likely to be found to be refugees) need to be detained for prolonged periods.

One of the other main reasons that people who are supportive of mandatory detention is that it is necessary Ensure people are available for interviews during processing. People requesting visas have a vested interest in ensuring they are available for interviews. It is ridiculous to say that detention for four years is necessary for the purpose of conducting three 1 hour interviews.

The one that I find the most upsetting is the fact that people believe that mandatory detention is there to send a clear message to people smugglers - Under the Australian constitution, only the courts are allowed to administer punitive detention, so if a purpose of detention is really to "send a clear message to the people smugglers" it constitutes unlawful imprisonment, as it is a clear breach of the constitution. There is also no evidence that the introduction of mandatory detention led to any reduction in the activity of people smugglers. This also doesn't take into the fact that really what we need to be doing is attacking the people smugglers and not the poor desperate people who are caught up in this horrible industry. It's very much the same with a drug policy that attacks the users are not the traffickers.

Picking up the idea of a more municipal approach to government in the ACT I was thinking last night about how would you actually split up the roles and responsibilities for the committee system. so here is a bit of an idea.

Health, welfare and social services

Education (primary, secondary, and Territory)

Planning, transport, infrastructure and accountability

Environment, sustainability and water

Law and order, Justice and attorneys general

Tourism, the arts, and small business

I think the ideal situation would be that you would have three are MLAs on each of the committee's and that the Chief Minister would not sit on any of the committee's, and that each MLA would only sit on one committee. That would mean that we would need to increase the amount of MLAs in the assembly to nineteen. Maybe stick an extra seat in both the Brindabella and Ginninderra electorates. Also you would try and make sure that depending on numbers of each party, in the legislative assembly you would get a representative from as many parties as possible in the committee's.

We would try and make sure the ACT had a smaller footprint when it came down to the amount of agencies that it currently has such as investigating if we require such things as the Supreme Court, human rights Commissioner, management of Namadgi National Park. The point that I am trying to make here is that it is far better for us to concentrate on essential services and do them very well instead of trying to spread ourselves thin. I've been a big critic of the " giving everyone half a slice of bread so we all staff together" approach that the Socialists always try and push forward in their attempts to socially engineer the Territory. Also I will have to say the slash and burn approach to government services that the conservatives tend to use is also not the approach. We need to get back to balance and making sure that what we do, we do well.