RT On Air

Saturday, 9 July 2011

Murdoch’s Watergate



Carl Bernstein

His anything-goes approach has spread through journalism like a contagion. Now it threatens to undermine the influence he so covets.

The hacking scandal currently shaking Rupert Murdoch’s empire will surprise only those who have willfully blinded themselves to that empire’s pernicious influence on journalism in the English-speaking world. Too many of us have winked in amusement at the salaciousness without considering the larger corruption of journalism and politics promulgated by Murdoch Culture on both sides of the Atlantic.

The facts of the case are astonishing in their scope. Thousands of private phone messages hacked, presumably by people affiliated with the Murdoch-owned News of the World newspaper, with the violated parties ranging from Prince William and actor Hugh Grant to murder victims and families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The arrest of Andy Coulson, former press chief to Prime Minister David Cameron, for his role in the scandal during his tenure as the paper’s editor. The arrest (for the second time) of Clive Goodman, the paper’s former royals editor. The shocking July 7 announcement that the paper would cease publication three days later, putting hundreds of employees out of work. Murdoch’s bid to acquire full control of cable-news company BSkyB placed in jeopardy. Allegations of bribery, wiretapping, and other forms of lawbreaking—not to mention the charge that emails were deleted by the millions in order to thwart Scotland Yard’s investigation.

All of this surrounding a man and a media empire with no serious rivals for political influence in Britain—especially, but not exclusively, among the conservative Tories who currently run the country. Almost every prime minister since the Harold Wilson era of the 1960s and ’70s has paid obeisance to Murdoch and his unmatched power. When Murdoch threw his annual London summer party for the United Kingdom’s political, journalistic, and social elite at the Orangery in Kensington Gardens on June 16, Prime Minister Cameron and his wife, Sam, were there, as were Labour leader Ed Miliband and assorted other cabinet ministers.

Murdoch associates, present and former—and his biographers—have said that one of his greatest long-term ambitions has been to replicate that political and cultural power in the United States. For a long time his vehicle was the New York Post—not profitable, but useful for increasing his eminence and working a wholesale change not only in American journalism but in the broader culture as well. Page Six, emblematic in its carelessness about accuracy or truth or context—but oh-so-readable—became the model for the gossipization of an American press previously resistant to even considering publishing its like. (Murdoch had already accomplished a similar debasement of the airwaves in the 1990s with the—tame by today’s far-lower standards—tabloid television show Hard Copy.)

Then came the unfair and imbalanced politicized “news” of the Fox News Channel—showing (again) Murdoch’s genius at building an empire on the basis of an ever-descending lowest journalistic denominator. It, too, rests on a foundation that has little or nothing to do with the best traditions and values of real reporting and responsible journalism: the best obtainable version of the truth. In place of this journalistic ideal, the enduring Murdoch ethic substitutes gossip, sensationalism, and manufactured controversy.

And finally, in 2007 The Wall Street Journal’s squabbling family owners succumbed to his acumen, willpower, and money, fulfilling Murdoch’s dream of owning an American newspaper to match the influence and prestige of his U.K. holding, The Times of London—one that really mattered, at the topmost tier of journalism.

Between the Post, Fox News, and the Journal, it’s hard to think of any other individual who has had a greater impact on American political and media culture in the past half century.

But now the empire is shaking, and there’s no telling when it will stop. My conversations with British journalists and politicians—all of them insistent on speaking anonymously to protect themselves from retribution by the still-enormously powerful mogul—make evident that the shuttering of News of the World, and the official inquiries announced by the British government, are the beginning, not the end, of the seismic event.

News International, the British arm of Murdoch’s media empire, “has always worked on the principle of omertà: ‘Do not say anything to anybody outside the family, and we will look after you,’ ” notes a former Murdoch editor who knows the system well. “Now they are hanging people out to dry. The moment you do that, the omertà is gone, and people are going to talk. It looks like a circular firing squad.”

News of the World was always Murdoch’s “baby,” one of the largest dailies in the English-speaking world, with 2.6 million readers. As anyone in the business will tell you, the standards and culture of a journalistic institution are set from the top down, by its owner, publisher, and top editors. Reporters and editors do not routinely break the law, bribe policemen, wiretap, and generally conduct themselves like thugs unless it is a matter of recognized and understood policy. Private detectives and phone hackers do not become the primary sources of a newspaper’s information without the tacit knowledge and approval of the people at the top, all the more so in the case of newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, according to those who know him best.

As one of his former top executives—once a close aide—told me, “This scandal and all its implications could not have happened anywhere else. Only in Murdoch’s orbit. The hacking at News of the World was done on an industrial scale. More than anyone, Murdoch invented and established this culture in the newsroom, where you do whatever it takes to get the story, take no prisoners, destroy the competition, and the end will justify the means.”

“In the end, what you sow is what you reap,” said this same executive. “Now Murdoch is a victim of the culture that he created. It is a logical conclusion, and it is his people at the top who encouraged lawbreaking and hacking phones and condoned it.”

Could Murdoch eventually be criminally charged? He has always surrounded himself with trusted subordinates and family members, so perhaps it is unlikely. Though Murdoch has strenuously denied any knowledge at all of the hacking and bribery, it’s hard to believe that his top deputies at the paper didn’t think they had a green light from him to use such untraditional reportorial methods. Investigators are already assembling voluminous records that demonstrate the systemic lawbreaking at News of the World, and Scotland Yard seems to believe what was happening in the newsroom was endemic at the highest levels at the paper and evident within the corporate structure. Checks have been found showing tens of thousands of dollars of payments at a time.

For this reporter, it is impossible not to consider these facts through the prism of Watergate. When Bob Woodward and I came up against difficult ethical questions, such as whether to approach grand jurors for information (which we did, and perhaps shouldn’t have), we sought executive editor Ben Bradlee’s counsel, and he in turn called in the company lawyers, who gave the go-ahead and outlined the legal issues in full. Publisher Katharine Graham was informed. Likewise, Bradlee was aware when I obtained private telephone and credit-card records of one of the Watergate figures.

All institutions have lapses, even great ones, especially by individual rogue employees—famously in recent years at The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the three original TV networks. But can anyone who knows and understands the journalistic process imagine the kind of tactics regularly employed by the Murdoch press, especially at News of the World, being condoned at the Post or the Times?

And then there’s the other inevitable Watergate comparison. The circumstances of the alleged lawbreaking within News Corp. suggests more than a passing resemblance to Richard Nixon presiding over a criminal conspiracy in which he insulated himself from specific knowledge of numerous individual criminal acts while being himself responsible for and authorizing general policies that routinely resulted in lawbreaking and unconstitutional conduct. Not to mention his role in the cover-up. It will remain for British authorities and, presumably, disgusted and/or legally squeezed News Corp. executives and editors to reveal exactly where the rot came from at News of the World, and whether Rupert Murdoch enabled, approved, or opposed the obvious corruption that infected his underlings.

None of this is to deny Murdoch’s competitive genius, his superior understanding of the modern media marketplace, or his dead-on reading of popular culture. He has made occasionally dull newspapers fun to read and TV news broadcasts fun to watch, and few of us would deny there are days when we love it. He’s been at his best when he’s come in from the outside: starting Sky News, which shook up a complacent British broadcasting establishment; contradicting conventional American media wisdom that a fourth TV network (Fox) could never get off the ground; reducing the power of Britain’s printing trade unions that were exercising a stranglehold on the U.K. press.

But Murdoch and his global media empire have a lot to answer for. He has not merely encouraged the metastasis of cutthroat tabloid journalism on both sides of the Atlantic. But perhaps just as troubling, authorities in Britain may respond to popular outrage at the scandal by imposing the kind of regulations that cannot help but undermine a truly free press.

The events of recent days are a watershed for Britain, for the United States, and for Rupert Murdoch. Tabloid journalism—and our tabloid culture—may never be the same.

 Subscribe in a reader

For 40 years Murdoch has waged war on the people of this country.. it can't go on



George Galloway

For me the seminal moment was the sight of a sepulchral Rupert Murdoch - Berlusconi without the laughs - on the front of the Financial Times.

He was being hounded by a ratpack of journos to whom, face twisted in pain, he could only offer "No Comment".

For all the world he looked like an ageing, fading mafia don who'd hoped relocating to Miami beach would take him out of harm's way.

And now knew different.

I declare an interest. Twenty five years ago today, I would have been about to head to Wapping to join the sacked print workers and journalists on the Saturday night picket of Murdoch's fortress.

In Parliament, I railed against him. I unmasked one of his most notorious deceivers, the so-called "Fake Sheikh" Mazher Mahmood.

I sued Murdoch's men for hacking my telephone and have refused to settle out of court.

I warned New Labour leaders 15 years ago that their Faustian pact with the devil could only end one way - in betrayal and rancour.

But they still got in to bed with him. I recall a huge row with the now apostate Alastair Campbell over his clear preference of the Sun over the Mirror in placing juicy government stories.

"Some reward for being a Labour paper," I said. "Murdoch is where it's at," Campbell replied.

And now? Well, we all know where we are - or do we? Murdoch and the rich and powerful, whose interests he promotes, are desperate to cap this volcano of public outrage.

For all the righteous indignation and talk of inquiries, powerful interests way beyond Murdoch don't want us to examine the fundamental questions.

Here is the flagship paper of an overweening media empire which helped hurl this country into war after war - then hacked the phones of relatives grieving at the loss of the very soldiers it had done so much to put in harm's way.

And then, with a straight face, "campaigned" for the armed forces' covenant.

Here is a rag which took genuine public grief at horrific crimes against children, manipulated it into dangerous and cynical campaigns to sell more papers, and all the while spied on the parents of the very murdered child in whose name it said it was acting.

Who hacked into the telephone of a missing girl - a murdered girl - listened to her family's griefstricken messages to her and then deleted them to make way for more - causing her family to believe she must still be alive.

Here is a sewer which gushes forth filthy smears that disabled people and single parents are scroungers who refuse to take responsibility, while its gilded executives - the son placed in the top job by daddy - sack others to save their own skins.

No-one should be surprised.

Because this is an outfit that vilifies migrants and Muslims, while remaining in the grip of a foreign billionaire who scarcely pays tax here.

This is the inconvenient truth which is lapping at the door of David Cameron and his snooty friends who dug the Dirty Digger.

The News of the World was a pillar of the establishment. It and Murdoch have fuelled the furnace in which bigotry, nastiness and narrow-mindedness were boiled up and poured like an acid on to everything good in this society.

Worse for Cameron, he - as Blair before him - is bound by 1000 golden threads to Murdoch. He went horse riding regularly with Rebekah Brooks, and shared last Christmas dinner with her.

Ed Miliband and Labour have astutely focused on Brooks and Andy Coulson. Everyone knows Cameron is next in the crosshairs.

He it was who hired the disgraced former editor of the News of the World to be his press supremo. Now Coulson is interviewed under caution, arrested and his testimony at Tommy Sheridan's perjury trial being reexamined for... possible perjury. The police themselves have a case to answer. The original investigation was perfunctory in the extreme.

We had been told brazenly by Brooks at a parliamentary committee that her paper often paid police for information. Think about that.

It was eight years ago. It was largely passed over - by press, Parliament and police.

It was an admission of a serious crime - suborning public officials, police officers no less.

Now we know that the sums involved were rather large. Then a senior police officer, Andy Hayman, who was involved in the first fiasco investigation, got a job with Murdoch.

And for those who chose to see, the corruption was plain. I spoke about it in Parliament and in the courts.

They dismissed it as whining of the left, yesterday's men- the dinosaurs who were felled at Wapping. Now the situation has changed, changed utterly.

Miliband, at last on the front foot and finding his voice, hit a vital seam when he said this week that it was people power that had done for Murdoch's rancid title.

That's true, though it required the courage of the likes of Tom Watson MP to have kept this issue on a slow-burn until it caught fire. And that is what should be unleashed now.

The Murdoch game-plan is clear - use the crisis to push through a long-standing move to rationalise his print operation (a seven days a week Sun) while battening down the hatches and getting his mitts on BSkyB.

Cameron's aim is to kick this into the long grass. This MUST be rejected.

It can't be left to that. This ought to be a tipping-point. The people who can make it so are the people, not the Parliament.

It is plain it was the prospect of an advert-free News of the World being burnt publicly across the country tomorrow that forced Murdoch to pull the title.

In the age of Twitter and Facebook, calls for consumer or public action could spread in hours. Now the public campaign needs to be sustained.

Brooks represents the sordid link with the Murdoch empire, 10 Downing Street, the police and MPs who were for so long too cowed to do anything about it.

That entire corrupted set of relationships must be dragged into the light of day.

At the centre is Murdoch, a mogul who has made no secret of his desire to bend politics and politicians to serve his interests.

Like Silvio Berlusconi - but operating across continents like the serial patriot he is.

For 40 years Murdoch has played a central role in the war against everything the Labour movement achieved here, against unions, against working people and their interests, and for a capitalism red in tooth and claw.

His papers savaged the Labour Party until the Blairite coterie took over and began extirpating all that was labour.

Even as Ed Miliband rose to land some punches on David Cameron, half the Labour front bench were still ruminating on the banquet they had enjoyed at one of Murdoch's parties a couple of weeks earlier.

This is a moment when the basic line of division in the society stands exposed. Something very big is happening. It comes after the MPs' expenses scandal and then the outrage at the bankers' bonuses and recklessness.

A third establishment pillar is now cracking under public pressure and large numbers of people are beginning to glimpse the truth behind the facade.

I chose my opening words carefully when I talked about the mafia don and his capos.

For that's what this is all about, when all is said and done.

A mafia at the top of our society - suborning, running protection rackets, making offers you can't refuse and occasionally rubbing out those who fall out of line.

I was one of those they tried to rub out. But I'm still standing up to them. So should all decent people. Don't buy the Murdoch press. Don't sell it. Don't advertise in it. Treat it with the contempt it oh so richly deserves.

 Subscribe in a reader

Wednesday, 6 July 2011

When Will U.S. And NATO Decide It's Venezuela's Turn? @mathaba



The USA and NATO are presently attacking Libya, trying to assassinate Gaddhafi and bring Libya back to colonization by western nations.

VHeadline

By Oscar Heck

Wow! Thanks to my good friend and writer (and translator), Franco Munini, another piece of the puzzle has fallen into place. He sent me the link to a very interesting article about why Libya and Gaddhafi are suddenly being attacked by the USA and its allies. The similarities between what is happening in Libya (or rather the reasons why it is happening in Libya) and what is happening in Latin America these days is eerie.

Basically, the USA, France, England, Italy and their NATO allies have to stop Gaddhafi from further spreading his ideas throughout the entire African continent. His ideas would weaken the US dollar and other non-gold-based currencies to the point that they could become worthless on the African continent.

Gaddhafi has been leading several efforts with the goal of creating an independent and autonomous Africa, non-reliant on western financial, lending and banking systems and institutions, and non-reliant on western-controlled telecommunication and military technology, amongst other things.

For example, he had led the movement that created an African joint organization that owns its own satellite … to avoid paying exorbitant rental fees to European countries, as was previously being done.

Coincidentally, in 2008, Venezuela launched its own satellite, using Chinese technology.

Gaddhafi was also leading two major moves to form the African Union and the African Investment Bank and the African Monetary Fund, which would replace financing for the African Union countries that have traditionally been financed by western institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund).

Coincidentally, Venezuela (Chavez) along with concerted efforts on the part of Argentina (Cristina Fernandez), Cuba (Fidel and Raul Castro), Ecuador (Rafael Correa) and Bolivia (Evo Moralez), have been leading the process in putting together UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations and the formation of a common investment bank, Banco Del Sur, that would also replace the IMF and other western US-dollar-based lending institutions.

Gaddhafi has been proposing going a step further, by creating a common currency for the African Union.

UNASUR is proposing a common currency, the Sucre, to replace the US dollar for trade between UNASUR countries.

Gaddhafi has been proposing the unification of the military for the African Union.

A new, joint military school was recently inaugurated in Bolivia for UNASUR.

But the best is still to come. In July of this year, the announcement of the creation of CELAC will be announced (Community for Latin American and Caribbean States – which excludes Canada and the USA). The CELAC aims at replacing the OAS, which has been just as subservient and bootlicking to the USA and Canada as the UN is subservient and prostrate to the USA and its allies.

Venezuela has been considering changing the currency used for oil sales … and so has Gaddhafi.

For years, Libya was embargoed by the USA … and so is Venezuela in the military and oil sectors.

Venezuela is geographically in a strategic location, at the central top of South America, an excellent access point to the vast Amazonian resources, including its vast water supply. Libya is also central to Africa, and has access to some of the largest underground water resources in the world. And oil, of course.

Libya has been the main country leading the move toward African unity and independence from former colonizing countries … and Venezuela is the leader in the move toward South American unity and independence from former controlling countries such as the USA and Canada and its allies.

The USA and NATO are presently attacking Libya, trying to assassinate Gaddhafi and bring Libya back to colonization by western nations.

 Subscribe in a reader

Monday, 4 July 2011

@THEMONTHLY - Gough Whitlam at 95 Years

Whitlam in 1973. © George Lippmann/Fairfax Photos 
Gough Whitlam is 95 this month. No other Australian politician has ascended into the realms of mythology quite like Gough has. For those of us over 50, the echoes of the great dramas of 1972–75 still reverberate strongly. In a land where prosperity and complacency often deliver mundane politics, the Whitlam government was an extraordinary symphony of soaring violins, crashing cymbals and thundering tubas. Like many others of my generation, in political terms I am a child of Whitlam who matured under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. The imprint of the Whitlam vision and spirit has lingered.



Lindsay Tanner



Many books have been written about the political drama of the Whitlam years, particularly the government’s ultimate dismissal by Governor-General Sir John Kerr on 11 November 1975. Yet the actual content of the government’s initiatives also warrants serious analysis. There has been a great deal of subsequent commentary about specific issues, but few serious studies of the government itself have been produced. Whitlam’s own book, The Whitlam Government 1972–1975 (1985), is an exhaustive if slightly partisan account, but more needs to be written.

The government’s record has been clouded by the intense demonisation that followed in the wake of its dismissal. Conscious of the enormity of the constitutional atrocity they had engineered, conservatives went to extraordinary lengths to sully the Whitlam government’s legacy, as if to justify their misuse of the Senate and the dismissal with a plea of self-defence. It has worked up to a point: many now regard the Whitlam government as a byword for incompetence and economic mismanagement. Thankfully, though, not all have been taken in by this rewriting of history.

Since World War II, the western world has experienced several profound structural shifts: the historic compromise between socialism and capitalism in the postwar period that led to the creation of social security systems, the social revolution of the ’60s and the economic revolution of the ’80s. In Australia all of these structural changes were ushered in by Labor governments. The Chifley government laid the foundations for the modern social democratic state. The Whitlam government managed the social transformation driven by the emerging baby boom generation, and implemented some changes that had eluded Chifley, such as Medibank. The Hawke and Keating governments drove the internationalisation and liberalisation of the Australian economy, and introduced some social reforms that eluded Whitlam, such as native title and child support.

Many enduring social structures in Australia are products of the Whitlam era: the Trade Practices Act 1974, no-fault divorce and the Family Law Act 1975, the Australia Council, the Federal Court, the Order of Australia, federal legal aid, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, needs-based schools funding, Medicare and the Law Reform Commission. The abolition of conscription, student financial assistance, FM radio, the Heritage Commission, non-discriminatory immigration rules, community health clinics, paid maternity leave for public servants, lowering the minimum voting age to 18 years, fair electoral boundaries and Senate representation for the Territories are also all part of the Whitlam legacy. Most of these initiatives were resisted bitterly but later accepted by the Liberal Party; some were initiated by Whitlam and implemented by Fraser, such as the creation of the Federal Court; others, such as Medibank, were dismantled by the conservatives and reintroduced by subsequent Labor governments.

It is amazing to reflect on the extent to which the contours of our contemporary society were shaped by the Whitlam government. The landmark social justice campaigns of the ’60s for Indigenous people, equal rights for women, universal health insurance, fair schools funding, access to justice, support for artistic endeavour, fair electoral laws, elimination of racial discrimination and genuine independence from British institutions all came to some form of fruition during Whitlam’s time in office. Some of these struggles continued, of course, and much has happened since 1975. Subsequent governments built on the achievements of the Whitlam era. There has been some backtracking and rethinking. Yet the ideas framework put in place in the early ’70s has proved remarkably durable.

Whitlam and his government changed the way we think about ourselves. The curse of sleepy mediocrity and colonial dependency, so mercilessly flayed in 1964 by Donald Horne in The Lucky Country, was cast aside. Outdated social attitudes were brutally confronted. The tribal conservatism of the ’50s that had been slowly eroded by prolonged prosperity was unable to withstand this concerted assault. The Australia in which Indigenous people were seen as subhuman, women were second-class citizens, censorship of artistic work was commonplace, nature was solely for exploitation, electoral laws were rigged and community leaders were rewarded with knighthoods was relegated to the history books.

Whitlam has described his government’s transformation of education as its “most enduring single achievement”. As one of the first group of students who benefited from the abolition of university fees and the creation of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, I am tempted to agree. Australia’s education system, long geared to a world of physical labour and limited learning, had not kept pace with changes in the production process and society.

Whitlam’s economic legacy is more mixed but nothing like the shambles that is claimed by conservatives. Coming to office at the tail end of a prolonged boom, his government was caught largely unawares by the first oil shock, and the global stagflation that flowed from the American decision to fund the Vietnam War by borrowing. It made serious mistakes, such as allowing wage inflation to take off in 1974. It initiated some important economic reforms, such as the 25% tariff cut, the creation of the Industries Assistance Commission, creating Australia Post and Telecom to replace the old Postmaster-General’s Department, taking over some state railways, and investing in urban and regional development. The Expenditure Review Committee, which occupied so much of my attention as a minister, was established by the Whitlam government. Whitlam’s budget management was, contrary to Liberal Party mythology, relatively unadventurous, producing one surplus and two deficits, the latter of which was unfairly demonised by the conservatives. The official historical table for Commonwealth debt published by Treasury shows that the Australian government had zero net debt throughout the time Whitlam was in office.

The government did undertake some misconceived initiatives, such as a 10% tax surcharge on unearned income and the national development initiatives championed by the Minister for Minerals and Energy Rex Connor: its amateurish attempts to borrow huge sums for national development ultimately came to nothing and did enormous political damage. A referendum to give the Commonwealth power to regulate prices and incomes failed in December 1973, but this provided no alibi for the surge in inflation the following year.

The real crime of the Whitlam government in the eyes of the conservatives was its redistributive expansion of the public sector. Whitlam used income-tax bracket creep driven by high inflation to finance a major increase in the size and scope of the public sector. The better-off paid higher taxes and struggled to maintain the value of their savings; the less well-off got substantial improvements in government services and had little in savings to worry about. The true economic significance of the Whitlam government was its expansion of the role of the state, which subsequent governments slowed but did not reverse. Malcolm Fraser promised to introduce tax indexation at the 1975 election but the partial indexation he introduced in office didn’t last long. He did restructure the income tax scales to favour higher income earners, though the scale of this reform was relatively modest.

The conservatives were successful in blocking some of Whitlam’s fundamental initiatives, such as the national superannuation and national compensation bills, which were among the 21 major bills blocked in the Senate and later portrayed as destroying freedom in Australia. The occupational superannuation system introduced by the Hawke government in the ’80s was a compromise on the original Whitlam plan. Reform of Australia’s ramshackle, inequitable system of injury and disability compensation is still yet to happen.

The Whitlam government’s repositioning of Australia internationally, particularly its recognition of mainland China, is widely acknowledged. Its mistakes, such as recognition of Soviet hegemony over the Baltic states and support for an Indonesian takeover of East Timor, are also very well known. It is often overlooked, though, just how amazingly turbulent this period of world history was.

In the 1972–75 period, the world saw communist victories in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the collapse of military dictatorships in Spain, Portugal and Greece, the Watergate scandal and the resignation of United States President Richard Nixon, a brutal right-wing coup in Chile, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Yom Kippur War and the ensuing Arab oil embargo, and two inconclusive elections in Britain in one year. It was a period with left-wing forces on the march all around the world but also with a harsh right-wing reaction already brewing. With the addition of domestic political turbulence caused by the conservatives twice blocking supply in the Senate and forcing elections within 18 months, it is remarkable how much the Whitlam government actually got done.

The Whitlam government was often amateurish, and generally naive about the strength of the social and political forces arrayed against it, and occasionally misguided on crucial issues. Yet the true test of its significance lies in the resilience of so many of the fundamental changes it made.

In my first speech in parliament in 1993, I paid tribute to Gough Whitlam as the person who had first inspired me, a kid from East Gippsland, to embrace politics and the Labor Party. My hero worship of the mid ’70s is much more nuanced now, but I still cleave to the progressive ideals that drove the Whitlam phenomenon, if not to all the details. In 1985 I attended a book signing by Gough at Myer in Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. After it was over, as Whitlam was getting into his car, he was surrounded by several hundred people chanting, “We want Gough.” It was a bizarre spectacle at the centre of the CBD on a normal working day a decade after Whitlam lost power. But it tells you an enormous amount about the enduring spirit ignited by Whitlam in those intoxicating days of the early ’70s, and the inability of unrelenting conservative vilification to destroy the enduring legacy of a profoundly important political leader. For all its flaws, the Whitlam government truly shaped modern Australia.



 Subscribe in a reader

@THEMONTHLY - Second Life: Mark Scott Embarks on Another Five-Year Term


Margaret Simons


There is an island in Second Life called ABC. If you go there and wander the shores, you may find a deckchair on which sits the avatar of Mark Scott, managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Shortly after his appointment to the top job in mid 2006, it seemed as though the 3-D virtual world Second Life was the new thing – a place where Australians might spend large amounts of their time. No field is changing faster than media, and Scott believes that where the audience goes the ABC should follow. So Scott created an avatar and went to try it out. History does not record, and he does not say, what modifications he made to his avatar. Did he make himself younger, more handsome, less grey and managerial? Did he strengthen his chin, the better to take knocks?

At the time people described Scott as “vanilla” – a man of no discernible passions. Previously at Fairfax, he was seen as a creation of the unlamented former CEO Fred Hilmer. He was said to be someone who chose the middle course and did not make waves. Nobody says those kinds of things about him now. This month marks the fifth anniversary of Scott’s time as head of our most important cultural institution; he has signed on for another five years. Under his leadership, the ABC has moved from being a defensive, embattled organisation to one frequently accused of unfairly threatening its commercial competitors.

Scott has seen a change of government, and an almost complete turnover of the board – from it being heavily stacked with Howard government–appointed cultural warriors to the present situation, in which it is dominated by people appointed under an arm’s length process. On his watch, the ABC has established two new digital television channels – the children’s channel ABC3 and, most recently, the 24-hour current events service ABC News 24. Another channel, ABC2, which was established shortly before Scott’s time, has come into its own. Mark Scott has become one of the most influential people in Australian media, arguably the most influential.

Whatever enhancements he made to himself in Second Life they did not last. He recalls: “I went there two or three times. I found a lovely deckchair overlooking the ocean, sat down and logged off and I have never been back.” Second Life was not the big new thing, and today the Mark Scott avatar is an empty shell. He has since moved on to Twitter, where ‘@abcmarkscott’ puts out a mixture of ABC promotions, personal reflections and jokes. He recently posted a link to a pair of Giggle and Hoot pyjamas advertised by the ABC Shop, and suggested he would wear them to the St Vincent de Paul CEO Sleepout fundraiser, in which bosses try a night of faux homelessness.

Once, in 2009, he tweeted at 5.42 am: “What triggers the frisson of excitement in the pre-dawn light? Senate Estimates day! To Canberra!” Later that day, before fronting the committee, he tweeted the single word “Showtime” with a link to the live online broadcast. And it was showtime. The senators sniggered their way through a series of questions about ABC children’s programs.



Senator Birmingham: I have visions of you, Mr Scott, there in Ultimo during the filming of Play School.

Mark Scott: You are all welcome. Let us know when you are in town.

Senator Birmingham: I do not know whether you are on the chair, or the bear or what you may be.

Senator Conroy: We have finally discovered your avatar – B1!

Mark Scott: Let us move on.



Senate Estimates has become a double act, with the minister for communications, Stephen Conroy, acting like Snowy to Scott’s Tintin – a snappy and loyal terrier.

Scott has proved himself an adept politician. Getting funding is the most crucial measure of success for the leader of a public broadcaster, and in this he has succeeded. In the year of those pre-Estimates tweets, the ABC gained an increase in triennial funding, largely to raise the production of Australian drama from woefully low levels.

Scott’s strategy has been to align what the ABC wants with wider government policy objectives. Scott will never, as previous managing directors have done, take on government. Rather, he cultivates his critics, lunching journalists, moving smoothly through the Canberra corridors. Under both Howard and Rudd/Gillard, he has been accused of being too close to government. “It is only a problem,” Scott says, “if the ABC ends up doing things that we don’t want to do. And that doesn’t happen. But making it clear how our objectives match with national priorities – I see no problem with that.”

The case for funding ABC3 and ABC News 24, for example, was couched in terms of the need for Australia to move from analog to digital broadcasting. For governments, it is hard to imagine any more nightmarish a scenario than swinging voters turning on their televisions to find they have blank screens. This problem has haunted the terms of communications ministers of both political colours. Scott has cast himself as their best friend. ABC2, ABC3 and ABC News 24, he has told them, will help drive people to make the switch to digital television technology in time. Scott describes the switch from analog to digital as the biggest change to public policy affecting everyday life since Australia switched from pounds, shillings and pence to decimal currency in the 1960s. It is a significant comparison, and telling when it comes to what motivates Scott. The change to decimalisation was overseen by Mark Scott’s grandfather, Sir Walter Scott, who in 1938 founded Australia’s first management consultancy and was one of the founders of the Australian Institute of Management. Walter Scott was an adviser to ten different government commissions and boards of review, serving governments of all stripes. He was appointed as head of the Decimal Currency Board, and Mark Scott’s earliest memories include being coaxed out of bed to see his grandfather on television, sitting with huge coins behind him, heading up a vital public education campaign. This is the family legacy and the family mythology: public service and management not in the grey and narrow sense but as instruments of change.

As a young man, Mark Scott worked for the then NSW Liberal Education Minister Terry Metherell. He considered running for parliament, as a Liberal, before being taken on as a journalist by the Sydney Morning Herald. There, after a relatively brief time as a frontline reporter and newsdesk executive, he rose under Fred Hilmer to become editor-in-chief of the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Sun Herald.

He had both fans and critics at Fairfax. In Melbourne there are those who still curse him for being behind the appointment of the unpopular Andrew Jaspan as editor of the Age. While there were also people who praised his abilities at Fairfax, nobody predicted his impact and success as managing director of the ABC. There, he has become one of the thought leaders of the media industry. Or that is what his fans say. His critics talk of arrogance, and of a tendency to overreach that could yet see the ABC crash at the very time when we most need a national broadcaster.

Not all of the ABC’s resurgence is thanks to Mark Scott. Even if he had been a do-nothing manager, the public broadcaster would be looking stronger because the times suit public broadcasting, while challenging commercial media. For example, the ABC is now the biggest single employer of journalists in Australia, not because it has been on a hiring spree but because other news organisations have been getting rid of reporters.

At a time when commercial media business models are strained or broken, the ABC is no longer only a broadcaster. Only a non-commercial media organisation can embrace the fact that audiences now rarely mass in one place at one time. The trend started under Scott’s predecessor, Russell Balding, who backed ABC’s online expansion despite a lack of government funding. But Scott has urged the ABC on further and further, spreading its content over an increasing number of channels and platforms. Scott’s strength has been in understanding and embracing the nature of media change. That and his talent as a communicator. He has taken the ABC onto the front foot.

ABC content is made freely available for use on other websites. There is a widget you can download that will put an ABC newsfeed on any web page. In the first five months of this year, 3.8 million visitors to ABC Online arrived via Facebook – a five-fold increase on the same period last year. Nearly 1 million arrived via Twitter, which more than doubled the figures of the previous year. And many people absorb ABC content on Facebook and Twitter without ever actually getting to the ABC-owned platforms at all.

Scott says: “If they don’t come to the ABC-owned platforms it doesn’t matter. If you are at Channel Nine your audiences have different commercial value depending on where they are but, to a public broadcaster, we just want our content out there. If someone watches Four Corners [on ABC TV] at 8.30 on Monday night, or on YouTube, Facebook, wherever – I don’t care at all really. Anytime, any place, anywhere. Get our content out there, and total audience experience grows, and that is a good thing.”

An early indication of the direction in which Scott would lead the ABC was his adoption of language drawn from Professor Jay Rosen of New York University. Rosen founded the public journalism movement in the ’80s and ’90s, under which media organisations reconceived their roles as enablers of democracy. Newspapers organised public forums at which community problems were aired, and solutions proposed.

In a speech last year, Scott described the ABC’s determination to be “great partners with our audience and hosts of a national conversation”. He envisaged the ABC as “a town hall, a commons, a place for connecting not just with content but connecting with each other … A town hall that excludes no one. A town hall which is not … locked behind the pay TV wall. No citizen in a nation should have to buy a ticket to participate in democratic life.”

With this kind of talk, Scott has made himself the chief antagonist of every commercial media outlet that sees a future in charging for content – and that’s most of them, including News Limited and Fairfax, both of which have plans to charge for accessing content online.

Scott’s name provokes almost Pavlovian response in News Limited executives. How dare he criticise paywalls when the ABC is already paid for, they argue; not voluntarily by audiences who use it, but compulsorily through taxes.

All of this is a local version of international debates. James Murdoch has attacked the BBC for making it harder for commercial media, and Scott has adopted the defence that was first posed by BBC boss Mark Thompson: just because there are commercial art galleries does not mean you don’t have a national museum; just because there are commercial fun parks does not mean you don’t have a government park. National broadcasters represent a space that is neither commercial nor private but a “third space” that is public, and free to enter.

Meanwhile, the ABC grows ever more porous – less of an institution and more of a presence. Under the ABC Open project, launched in February 2010, ABC producers who are based in regional areas help community members to tell their own stories using digital media. Recent content has included a collection of stories by refugees in the Goulburn Valley. The multimedia stories were exhibited as part of the Shepparton Festival, published and played on ABC Online and ABC Radio, and repackaged as a series on ABC News 24.

The audience has been invited into the news process. During the recent floods in Queensland, the ABC used a web-based mapping tool, Ushahidi, to allow users to submit information. The reports appeared online, via SMS and Twitter, and were combined with official information and reports filed by ABC journalists. The result was one of the most comprehensive and reliable sources of information during the course of the disaster. There were more than 210,000 visits to the site.

Only a year before, Victorians died in the Black Saturday bushfires partly because official sources of information were scarce and out of date. Melbourne ABC Radio presenters were left in a quandary about what to broadcast – the reports from listeners that flames were coming over the hill or the official information locating the fire far away. If, God forbid, there is a next time, an ABC-hosted Ushahidi site could conceivably save lives.

But with all this emphasis on forward motion, is the ABC moving beyond its charter?

Scott has been attacked by media bosses as various as Fairfax’s former CEO Brian McCarthy, News Limited’s John Hartigan and Crikey’s Eric Beecher for what they see as an abandonment of the ABC’s core charter responsibilities and an entry to areas already well served by commercial media. Why a 24-hour television news channel when there is Sky News? Why an online opinion site like The Drum, when there is so much opinion and commentary online? Why all this spreading of thin resources?

Before Scott’s tenure, the ABC, feeling attacked on all sides, had turned inwards and, in some areas of the organisation, turned on its own. These days, the complaints of bullying have not entirely gone away, but they are less frequent and there are fewer allegations that the problem stems from institutional culture. Scott acknowledges that, when he arrived, “It had been a pretty rugged place to work. I think it was partly a culture of scarcity … My attitude is that we get a fair whack of public money, and we do a lot with it. We can’t afford to operate with the attitude that we are always too short of resources.”

But within the heart of the ABC, at the desks of hard-pressed reporters, producers and content makers, there are plenty of people who says things are just being pressed too far.

A moment of truth is approaching: the next triennial funding announcement in the budget next year. Will the ABC get the endorsement of a harried government or does the present resurgence precede the fall?

Scott keeps a tidy desk. He describes his management style as collegiate. He has about 14 people reporting directly to him, which, he says, is regarded by the management textbooks as on the upper edge of the manageable. There are frequent meetings. Scott involves himself closely in training, and he doesn’t hesitate to be a presence in the newsroom and offices below his top-floor pad. He has emphasised his role as editor-in-chief of the organisation.

One of his favourite places to be on a Monday night is in the green room for the ABC program Q&A, one of the undoubted hits of his reign. Q&A is the product of lessons learnt from the much duller earlier program Difference of Opinion. The decision was made to make it live, edgy and more interactive. Scott is not above proposing talent. He once suggested to the production team that they needed a leading businessperson on the show. The result was Gail Kelly of Westpac, whose appearance broke news when she had the uncomfortable experience of fielding questions from her own staff about gender pay inequality.

According to News Limited, the problem with the ABC remains left-wing bias, and this allegation is frequently repeated despite a lack of evidence in audience figures, complaints to the broadcaster or broad audience perception. But the real weakness of the ABC, and of its leader, may be found in the same place as the reasons for its success. “The man has an ego,” says one internal critic of Scott’s. “He can’t quite accept that there are limits, that there is only so much this organisation can do without breaking.”

The ABC has become not so much a set of media sites and channels walled around by a clear institutional presence as a generator of content delivered almost everywhere. It is not so much a solid as a gas – all pervasive. But gas spreads thin. “If you want to twist the knife,” says one senior ABC reporter, “it’s ABC News 24. That is the point of weakness. That is the point of overreach, and people have been trying to tell him and he just won’t see it.”

ABC News 24 is very much Scott’s baby. The ABC sought funding to establish it in the last triennial round but was unsuccessful. Scott decided to set it up in any case. He claimed it would cost no extra money but could be funded from savings made elsewhere – including from the automation of studios. At first, in an uncharacteristic outbreak of secretiveness, Scott refused to say how much it was costing. He has since claimed that savings amounted to around $20 million, and that most (but not all) was spent on ABC News 24.

Other media figures ridicule Scott’s claim, saying a television news channel simply can’t be made for that amount, even given that much of the content is already part of ABC’s fixed costs, including the foreign correspondents and reporters.

Even those who defend it do not claim that ABC News 24 has been an unalloyed success. In the early weeks – it was launched on 22 July 2010 – the station was slow to switch to live press conferences and other events. When Japan was hit by its disastrous earthquake and tsunami this year, ABC News 24 had its worst moment. The Saturday morning after the quake, as the Fukushima nuclear plant began to melt down and it became clear that this was not just a big story but one of the big stories of the decade, the ABC was screening repeats of current events shows.

Tim Blair, the News Limited commentator, was later to describe it as the “most abysmal performance by the Australian public broadcaster in its 82-year history”. As the world was “screaming for news from Japan”, ABC News 24 screened old footage, including on Belgium’s national identity problems.

So what did Scott think that morning at home? He was watching not only the big screen but the little one – keeping track of his Twitter feed, where the messages were taking on an increasingly furious tone.

Scott hit the phone. “I wasn’t pulling my hair out but I was, well, let’s say I was aware of the problem. I am not temperamentally the kind of person who thumps the table or throws the furniture around. I am more temperamentally the kind of person who asks what went wrong, and how do we fix it, and how do we make sure that doesn’t happen again.”

But on this occasion, he couldn’t fix it, or not quickly enough. He asked if the news coverage could please be ramped up. And they tried. But this huge story followed several other big news stories that quarter – the floods in Queensland, the Christchurch earthquake. Scott says: “They were short-staffed and the resources they might have wanted to call in were not available … we learned about resources we need to have on standby. I’m sorry we didn’t do better on that morning.” But he is not apologetic about the coverage overall, saying only, “We had a couple of disappointing hours.”

Audience figures for ABC News 24 show that it reaches – that is, at least five minutes are watched by – 2.1 million people per week, or nearly 14% of the total population of Australia’s five largest capital cities, compared to 6.4% for Sky News, available on pay TV. Scott’s view is the ABC had no choice but to launch a 24-hour news service – that in the modern media world, a news service that is not continuous is hardly a news service at all. “If we hadn’t launched ABC 24, then it would have damaged our whole news brand,” he says.

Yet critics say that the damage is happening anyway, because resources have simply been spread too thin. A few months ago, ABC foreign correspondents received an email instructing that, until the end of the financial year, they were not to travel away from their base cities, unless it was vital they do so. In what has admittedly been a news year unlike most others, the money has run out. But Scott flatly denies that ABC News 24 is robbing resources from elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the ABC is waiting to hear the result of its tender to continue to provide Australia’s international television service, the Australia Network. It faces a challenge from Sky News. If the ABC loses the contract, jobs in the overseas bureaus will have to be cut.

Even in periods of less intensive breaking news, reporters are doing more with less. On radio bulletins and television news broadcasts, there is more ‘he says, she says’ coverage, in which little is done other than reporting entirely predictable remarks by the usual suspects. Morning news bulletins on local radio are rich in reads from police media releases on run-of-the-mill crimes. There are still groundbreaking reports, such as the recent Four Corners program on live cattle export to Indonesia, but even that relied on footage provided by activists. The initiative came from outside the ABC.

Eyes will be turning to the only possible answer to these dilemmas – the 2012 announcement of funding. How will Scott fare? The question preoccupying everyone is whether, in what is expected to be a tough budget, ABC’s current spread of activities can be funded and supported, let alone pushed into new territories. Has Mark Scott overreached the brief of the public broadcaster? Has he left the old-fashioned understanding of the charter too far behind? Does the government share his view of the ABC as the nation’s town square?

Meanwhile, this year is a crucial one for all media due to the Labor government–commissioned Convergence Review, which will reassess all aspects of media regulation. Both the public broadcasters – ABC and SBS – hope to benefit from the likely relaxation of local drama content quotas for commercial broadcasters. In the past, ABC’s local drama output had fallen to truly embarrassing levels. Thanks to the last increase in funding this has been addressed to some extent, with successful dramas such as Rake, Laid and Paper Giants screening on ABC TV.

ABC, Scott says, has always operated as a “market intervention” by government. It should continue to address areas of market failure as more will emerge. Local drama production is likely to be one area; quality news and current events might be another.

Having steered ABC through the last five years, Scott has now started a structured exercise to think through where the public broadcaster might be in a decade. But he says it is hard to know exactly where the organisation is going: “New things will emerge that you hadn’t quite seen but, if you are moving with some momentum, you are subtle enough and flexible enough to change … [to] adjust and take advantage of opportunities.” He shrugs. “You can’t be too precise. You just have to know the future is that way.”





 Subscribe in a reader

@THEMONTHLY - The Sun King, Shi Zhengrong



Eric Knight


In November 2000 four officials from the Chinese province of Jiangsu travelled to Sydney to meet a 37-year-old Australian researcher, Shi Zhengrong. As the party shared a meal at Shi’s home in Beacon Hill, the head of the delegation turned to Shi and made him an offer. Return to China, he said, and he would be helped to enter business for himself. The delegate said he would arrange cheap land, dexterous labour and a US$6 million equity investment from the Wuxi municipal government. In exchange Shi would start a solar company, the Wuxi Suntech Power Corporation, in partnership with the local state-owned enterprise.

Shi took six months to make his decision. He had arrived in Australia the year before the Tiananmen Square protests had engulfed his homeland. Since then he had worked hard to achieve a settled life. He had started a family, become an Australian citizen, and taken out mortgages on three properties in outer-western Sydney. But Shi decided he would take the risk. In the winter of 2001, Shi, his wife and their seven-year-old son boarded a one-way flight from Kingsford Smith Airport to the city of Wuxi in Jiangsu. Within five years Shi had become one of the richest men in China. In 2005 the Suntech Power Holdings Company became the first privately owned company based in China to list on the New York Stock Exchange (the Wuxi government’s stake had been bought out some time before). Since then its revenues have doubled. Suntech’s current market valuation sits close to US$6 billion, making it the second-largest solar manufacturing company in the world.

Shi Zhengrong was born in 1963 on the wrong side of Mao’s Great Leap Forward. His parents had been farmers in a small farming community on Yangzhong Island on the Yangtze River. They were hard workers but a combination of bad administration and natural disasters had left them near famine. Born the younger of twin boys, and the fourth child in a poor family, Shi was given up for adoption. A neighbouring family who mourned the death of their stillborn child, born the same morning as Shi, became his adoptive parents. From modest beginnings, Shi made the most of what he had. He progressed through school with top grades and, in the 1980s, won a government scholarship to study undergraduate optical science in Manchuria. When asked what lessons he learnt from his childhood, Shi is brief: hard work, determination and focus.

There is another way to explain his success. It relies on what I call the network theory of success. This theory does not diminish individual brilliance but focuses on the tight network of supporters and collaborators gathered around an individual. In science, for example, we like to think of Nobel prize–winners as prodigies locked in laboratories alone until the day they concoct their winning formulae. In practice, most of the scientific elite build on the work of others – their predecessors and colleagues. The same can be said of economics. Our most outstanding entrepreneurs and business pioneers are rarely solo fliers. In The Competitive Advantage of Nations (1990), Harvard economist Michael Porter argued that what mattered most to an economy’s long-term success was having highly concentrated networks of innovative people, rather than lots of individual geniuses. Radical breakthroughs in technology and business innovation are rare occurrences, but they are more likely to happen when like-minded people cluster together.

The fact that one of the world’s most successful clean energy billionaires comes out of Australia may need some explaining. Australia’s excellence in developing solar technology predated Shi Zhengrong by several decades. Our cluster of talent in the field of solar energy cannot be explained by our abundance of sunlight alone; the sun is only half the story. The early deployment of solar energy in Australia owes much to the tyranny of distance. In the ’70s Telecom Australia became interested in installing microwave repeater stations to service remote communities. It turned out solar power was the only way to power these devices.

Telecom Australia did not invent solar power. In the early ’40s, Bell Laboratories in the United States developed silicon cells with efficiencies of around 2%, efficiency being the degree to which sunlight can successfully be turned into electricity. The technology had been swept up in the space race of the ’60s to power satellites and spaceships. Australia did not feature in these developments but its unique geography meant it was an attractive testing ground for early terrestrial deployment. When an energy crisis in the Middle East caused oil prices to balloon in the ’70s, Australia was well-positioned to take advantage of the growing interest in solar. At the intersection of these macro trends – Australia’s terrestrial deployment and a demand for more research – arrived a young Australian researcher, Martin Green.

Professor Green established his academic career in electrical engineering at the University of New South Wales and quickly realised that solar-cell efficiency was the area that offered him the greatest opportunities. His early years were spent replicating the best work coming out of the US. In 1974 he initiated the Solar Photovoltaics Group at UNSW, which was soon working on the development of silicon solar cells. By the late ’70s the US Department of Energy (DOE) was unsuccessfully trying to finance American research groups to outdo Green’s work. Each time an American group reproduced Green’s experiments, news arrived that Green had skated ahead. The department eventually gave up and, in 1983, began to fund Green’s work directly. This meant his was the only research group outside the US to be financed by the DOE.

When it comes to Australian research it is common to bemoan a lack of funding. This has not been the case for Green and his solar colleagues at the UNSW. DOE’s money dried up in the ’80s due to the political difficulty of funding foreign institutions but Green’s laboratory was generously replenished in 1990 by an Australian federal government Special Research Centre grant. This new program was eventually replaced by the Australian Research Council’s Centres of Excellence program, which, in 2003, helped finance the ARC Photovoltaic Centre of Excellence. If there is a lesson to be learnt from Australia’s solar cluster it is this: what matters as much as, or perhaps more than, the amount of money invested in Australian scientific research is how the money is distributed. Australia will never be able to compete with the US and China for volume of scientific investment. But the network theory of success suggests it doesn’t need to. What matters is who receives what investment there is.

Economists jump around violently when policies are introduced that allow bureaucrats to ‘pick winners’. What ‘winners’ means here is rarely clarified. With science funding, the federal government has been most successful when it has tied funding to a person with a dynamic network of collaborators, rather than when it has attempted to sponsor a particular technology or industry. Funding Professor Green and the UNSW solar cluster, for example, has been more successful than funding the Australian photovoltaic industry as a whole. The emergence of Australia’s solar cluster in the ’80s and ’90s owed little to public investment in that particular technology, and much to the freedom Green had to build his network.

Mapping Green’s collaborations reveals another characteristic that is important in a highly successful network: the concentration of people. Green’s network is highly incestuous and this is a good thing. One of the first PhD students to work under Green was Bruce Godfrey in the late ’70s. When Godfrey finished his studies, he promptly went to work for an American company, Tideland Signal. The company was a world leader in solar-powered marine navigation systems and agreed to locate its manufacturing facilities in Sydney so it could employ Godfrey’s skills. The company became a breeding ground for young solar pioneers. Most significant among them was a young Stuart Wenham. Wenham joined the company – on Professor Green’s recommendation – after taking undergraduate courses under Green at UNSW. Wenham helped Godfrey to set up Australia’s first solar-cell production line for the company. “It really was a lot of fun and after two years, the production line was up and running well. On independent measurement, our cells were the most efficient made on any production line in the world,” Wenham recalls. He then left in 1983 to do his PhD in Green’s lab.

Professor Stuart Wenham describes Green as the most outstanding theoretician and researcher in photovoltaic energy he has ever met and, by all accounts, the mid ’80s was a fruitful period for both Green and Wenham. The pair developed a technology, known as the ‘buried contact solar cell’, which uses a simple method to embed metal contacts in a solar cell to maximise the cell’s exposure to sunlight. The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering listed the device as one of the top 100 Australian innovations of the twentieth century. The specific achievement was the conversion of 20% of sunlight into electricity in 1985 (that is, 20% efficiency), although the cell’s first world record had come two years earlier using a slightly altered technology.

Despite the academic accolades, the buried contact solar cell was not a huge commercial success compared to what came later. What it did manage to do was something more important: it constructed a giant billboard for Green’s lab. From 1985, the Green–Wenham team had its pick of the best Australian and international students eager to save the world through science. Few labs were able to compete with them in terms of prestige and quality of work. The full commercial impact of this rapidly expanding network was not apparent at the time but its import can be seen now. Of the world’s top dozen solar companies, roughly half of the chief executive officers or chief technical officers either worked in Green’s lab or trained in a neighbouring research group in Australia. They each have their own story but one stands out from the rest. It is the story of the young man from Yangzhong Island.

*

Shi’s first encounter with Green was inauspicious. In 1989 Shi was employed at the physics department at UNSW. On a notice board in the electrical engineering department, Shi spotted an advertisement for a research fellowship working under Professor Martin Green. When Shi walked down to the professor’s office to ask about the job he was told the position was filled. Shi pushed further, asking if there was part-time work available. Green acquiesced and the two spoke briefly before Shi was sent on his way. Shi is still not sure why Green changed his mind but the next day he received a letter offering him a full-time job in the lab. He turned it down, asking for a PhD position instead. The central administration of the university approved the request six weeks later and Shi began what would become the fastest completed engineering PhD in the university’s history.

Academic credentials alone were insufficient for Shi to make it in business. His real apprenticeship came next when he was hired into Australian industry. In 1995 Green and Wenham decided to commercialise technologies they had been developing with Shi alongside the buried contact solar cell. The process of raising private investment had been difficult but they had secured the backing of Pacific Power – the state-owned electricity utility in NSW – along with the university’s support. This was a highly unusual co-operative arrangement. Private investment in start-up companies typically comes from venture capitalists but Australia’s relative dearth of high-risk capital was a problem. Alternative arrangements were necessary. Pacific Power agreed to invest about A$47 million in the company, named Pacific Solar. The money was put towards a little factory in the southern Sydney suburb of Botany; researchers here were tasked with taking a solar cell the size of an iPod and scaling it up to the size of a flat screen TV. Shi was made the deputy director of the company’s research and development activities under the directorship of Green and Wenham.

The drive to innovate in a start-up company does not come from a single source. Good quality science is not enough, nor is it just about raising lots of money. What is important is the interaction between the two. Entrepreneurs in start-up companies talk about their ‘burn-time’. Burn-time is the number of days a company has before it runs out of money. This pressure is what drives an entrepreneur to be innovative, because, when the money runs out, the company must either find new investors or liquidate.

About three years into working with Pacific Solar, Shi began forming the view that the burn-time was almost up. Although the company could go on finessing the technology, there were better ways to invest money. Far more important than continuing the finite research work, Shi believed, was to use large-scale manufacturing to rapidly reduce the cost of old solar technologies. Once these processes were in play, the new technology developed by Pacific Solar could be added to improve the business. Shi came to this view knowing that patents for solar cells developed during the space race by Spectrolab in the US had expired. If these technologies were linked to the horsepower of Chinese manufacturing then they could create radical market-led innovation in the energy sector.

When Shi took the idea to Wenham and Green they were doubtful. Several Chinese entrepreneurs had tried to do a similar thing before and failed. Also, they felt Shi’s skills were best deployed at Pacific Solar. On the day Shi decided to leave the company, he walked into Green’s office at UNSW and handed him a Suntech business card with his name and the words ‘managing director’ on it – the student had stepped out from under his master. Green was disappointed to see Shi go but he and Wenham made him a promise. They would give Shi their full support whatever happened.

Shi’s business model at Suntech revealed a surprising thing about the new industrial revolution in the clean energy or ‘clean tech’ sector. After a certain point, clean tech was actually a remarkably low-tech affair. Whereas solar manufacturers in California and Germany had devised ways to automate their solar-panel production lines, Shi’s success was paradoxically based on de-automation. By the early 2000s, Suntech’s operations involved hundreds of workers trained to layer glass plates with silicon by hand. These workers, to be sure, were treated properly. They were given on-site accommodation, food and a decent education. But the important point was to invert the traditional view that China was a dumping ground for low-skill, low-tech manufacturing. While it was true that the cheapest paper plates and toothpicks on the planet still came out of Chinese factories, so too did the world’s cheapest solar panels. In 2001, when Shi submitted a business plan to the Wuxi government, he had proposed to take the cost of solar panels from $5 per watt of output to $3 per watt. Within two years, he was producing panels at $2.80 per watt with the help of a 300-strong workforce.

Low-cost manufacturing was one thing. But Shi’s real skill lay in using China’s manufacturing base to leverage Australian intellectual property on a global scale. Between 2001 and 2008, Shi flew between Wuxi and UNSW at least twice per year. Formally, these visits were to oversee the joint development of Suntech’s Pluto technology. Patented at UNSW, the technology produced a highly simplified version of earlier high-efficiency solar cells, thereby sending millions of dollars in revenue to the university. Informally, Shi’s visits cultivated important personal ties with Australia’s top engineering graduates. By 2006, at least two UNSW PhD students were being seconded to Suntech annually. This allowed the company to move seamlessly between the fiercely competitive world of low-cost production and the special cluster of talent inside Australia’s brains economy.

The success of the model of injecting Australian intellectual property into Chinese manufacturing was in stark contrast to the trajectory of Pacific Solar. Shortly after Shi’s departure, Pacific Power refused to refinance the business. The company found new investment from Eni, the Italian energy utility, but attempts to manufacture solar panels in Australia were thwarted because high labour costs made it uneconomical. By 2005, as Suntech launched on the New York Stock Exchange, Pacific Solar was again looking for new investment. Q-Cells, a leading German solar company, agreed to buy the technology and manufacture the thin-cell modules in Thalheim, a semi-industrial city in former East Germany. The plan may have worked but the severity of the global financial crisis coincided with China’s burgeoning prowess in solar manufacturing, and made the company a soft target. In 2010 Shi bought CSG Solar (part of the Q-Cells consortium) – a company he had been watching for more than a decade. This inserted an Australian technology into the heart of Shi’s company and bumped several Australians into prominent positions within Suntech.

*

Too often it is said that Australia cannot compete with the world’s economic superpowers. The reasons given are numerous. We are a nation of 22 million people; we possess a fading infrastructure; we command a distant geography. These things are all true but they cast the Australian economy in the wrong light. They focus on Australia the country, not Australia the people. We tend to measure our economy by the wrong unit of analysis. It is easy to rate the Australian economy in terms of what lies beneath the ground but if we measured it by the connection between its people instead, we would soon discover an intellectual and commercial cluster of rare depth and breadth.

Perhaps this makes us unique among the world’s modern economies. Whereas some economies are tied to their location – the European Union, the expansive domestic economies of North America and East Asia – Australia is almost defined against its location. Gone are the days of our youngest and brightest shipping themselves to England and commenting from afar on the state of the Australian postal service. In the modern Skype era, Australia – the people – has become a global economic cluster. Our intellectual property is already competing on the international stage. It is being helped on its way by a network of Australians hungrier, better educated, more mobile and more ambitious than ever before. Warren Hogarth, an Australian and a venture capitalist at one of Silicon Valley’s leading firms, tells me that each month the valley hives with cocktail parties brimming with Australian ideas. The economic value of these ideas is not lost to Australia by virtue of being shared abroad. Rather, the potential of these ideas is realised once they are taken out of Australia and sold into the global marketplace. In a sense, our diaspora leverages the economic significance of Australian ideas. One Australia-based venture capitalist I spoke to made this point while on the verge of backing two of our latest clean-tech entrepreneurs, claiming the ‘expat Australian’ has become a distinct asset class.

This point is missed by those who see the Australian economy as being defined by its borders. In 2006 the then Opposition leader Kim Beazley stood before an audience to announce his concern about the way Shi earned his living. “China’s richest man,” he said “grows rich off Australian [intellectual property].” Green was quick to write to Beazley, assuring him that Shi’s management of the intellectual property was exceptional. Shi invests his money, time and reputation in building the Australian brand abroad. He has also fostered a close ongoing relationship with UNSW, which includes Suntech sponsoring research and scholarships. “He’s the best thing that ever happened to us,” says Richard Corkish, head of the School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering at UNSW. But Beazley’s point was bigger than a legal quibble; it spoke to the kind of economy Australia wanted to have. Beazley implied that Australia would have been better off if it had kept its solar manufacturing jobs at home rather than sending them to China. It is a sentiment shared by the other big Kim in Australian politics, Labor’s Minister for Innovation Kim Carr.

The real question should have been this: Which part of the clean-tech economy does Australia want to own? Do we really want to compete for the manufacturing jobs of Suntech’s Wuxi factories? Or do we want to command the revenue stream flowing from the brains of our well-networked engineers and scientists? Shi is a template for how Australia can use its networks to succeed at home and on the world stage. He returns with his family every Christmas to spend the summer at his home in Sydney. It is about time we claimed Shi Zhengrong’s story as our own.





 Subscribe in a reader

@THEMONTHLY - Healthabitat: Home Improvement, Indigenous Housing



Victoria Laurie


On a single sheet of paper, architect Paul Pholeros draws a diagram for the group of Indigenous people huddled around him. He’s come to Santa Teresa, a dust-blown desert community south-east of Alice Springs, where 600 residents have struggled for years to bathe, sleep and eat in houses that are falling apart.

On the left of the page, Pholeros draws a broken-down house and underneath, a checklist of things that need fixing – broken window, leaking roof, unsafe electrical switches. On the right, he draws a fixed-up house; underneath, there’s a tick next to each problem fixed and a cost recorded against each item. That’s how it should be, he tells the board members of Santa Teresa’s health centre. Simple accountability: a ‘before’ and ‘after’ picture.

It didn’t happen when, early last year, bands of plumbers, carpenters and trades assistants arrived to upgrade nearly every house in the community – around 65 – at a total cost of $5.2 million. It was the most money ever spent in the community, sourced from the biggest pot of funds ever promised by the federal government to fix the disgraceful state of houses across remote Australia. An astonishing $5.5 billion will be spent over ten years under the 2009 National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing (NPA), signed by all states and territories.

The funds – more than double the $2.4 billion spent on the Home Insulation Program – are aimed at “increasing the supply of new houses and improving the condition of existing houses in remote Indigenous communities”. Each state has rebadged its share of funds: Santa Teresa residents were told their good fortune was due to the Strategic Indigenous Housing Investment Program (SIHIP), run by the Northern Territory government.

Acronyms didn’t interest Fiona Turner, chairperson of Santa Teresa’s health centre, but outcomes did. By Christmas, the work was finished but houses had already begun to fail: leaks appeared inside a solid block wall; a laundry floor had no drain; tiles had been ripped out of a bathroom and not replaced, leaving bare concrete. And the list of unaccomplished work was long: electrical faults, unlagged hot-water piping, roof corrosion and dangling smoke detectors.

Turner sent a letter to the Territory’s housing department and then to federal Minister for Housing and Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin. “We have been unable to access any meaningful details on the pre-SIHIP survey or the actual work budgeted and completed on each house,” she wrote. “There are still many concerns regarding quality of hardware installed, level of works completion, inadequate floor surfaces, lack of secure food storage etc. The list is extensive.”

With no satisfactory answers, the community called in Pholeros to inspect some houses. A big, burly man with a gentle manner, Pholeros is a familiar face in dozens of Indigenous communities around Australia; he’s also known to every departmental head and every state and federal minister with responsibility for Indigenous housing. Earlier this year, Pholeros flew to Perth to accept an Australian Institute of Architects award on behalf of Healthabitat, the non-profit outfit he runs with two colleagues. It was the latest of many awards they’ve won for pioneering work in fixing remote houses to raise community health.

Pholeros was appalled by what confronted him at Santa Teresa, yet he’d seen it many times before in other communities: so much money spent, so many houses performing poorly. “We find in our survey work that 55% of houses have power points that are dangerous,” he says quietly. “More than half of houses don’t have an active or effective safety switch; if we go to washing kids, we find 50% of hot water systems work, and 35% of showers. Fifty-nine per cent of toilets actually work.”

Pholeros tosses off the figures with weary ease; Healthabitat teams have physically surveyed over 7300 homes in 184 communities – almost one-third of the nation’s Indigenous houses. And not just surveyed them. Healthabitat adopts the “no survey without service” mantra of eye doctor Professor Fred Hollows. “We won’t go into a community, tell them what’s wrong with their houses and walk away,” says Pholeros. “From day one, we start fixing them. And we do it for an average of $7500, one-tenth of the $75,000 per house that the national program is spending.”

Qualified tradesmen do the electrical and plumbing repairs. And working alongside them are local Indigenous residents, hired to interpret and negotiate access to houses, draw up repair checklists and replace items such as taps and light globes. Out of 1000 Healthabitat employees contracted over the last ten years, 750 have been Indigenous.

Healthabitat’s experience – what works in creating healthy houses – has been compiled into a National Indigenous Housing Guide, which Macklin has stipulated should be adhered to in the national housing rollout. Yet, when Pholeros tested two of Santa Teresa’s done-up houses, they failed seven out of ten criteria. He’d found similar results a year earlier when – again for no fee and at the request of an unhappy community – he’d tested two Groote Eylandt houses that had allegedly been upgraded. He took those findings to Canberra when he met with Macklin to discuss Indigenous housing problems. “She asked whether we’d looked at all of the houses, maybe the others were much better. I said, ‘Minister, we shouldn’t have to prove the problem; you should have to prove that the houses have been done properly.’ But the ‘before’ and ‘after’ data doesn’t exist.”

Not long after Pholeros’ visit to Santa Teresa, a media release emerged jointly from Macklin, federal Indigenous Health Minister Warren Snowden and Territory Housing Minister Chris Burns. It boasted that targets had been exceeded in the Territory, with more houses built and renovated (two dozen in each case) than the 2010 targets had specified. “The governments are rolling out new houses, rebuilds and refurbishments ... as quickly as possible so that families can live in safe and healthy homes,” the ministerial triumvirate declared. “Getting housing right is critical to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.”

Some weeks later, Pholeros wrote to Macklin to tender his resignation from the National Policy Commission on Indigenous Housing. “I am asked regularly by Indigenous people, housing professionals and the press what the Commission is doing,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly embarrassing to have to say ‘nothing’.”

In the midst of the nation’s costliest investment in Indigenous housing, Pholeros felt the voices of experts were not being heeded. Oddly, overseas interest in Healthabitat’s work was peaking. When we met for an interview in Perth, he admitted to being bone-tired. He’d not long been back from Nepal, where the lives of many poor families in the village of Bhattedande have been transformed by Healthabitat intervention. Simple, robust toilets were installed where there had been none, and biogas from toilets and animal waste was being piped away to fuel each family’s stoves. Again, paid local workers had done much of the work.

Weeks earlier, Pholeros had stood in the toughest part of Brooklyn, New York. He’d been summoned by Common Ground, a homelessness support group, to trial Healthabitat’s ‘survey–fix’ methods among tenants of public housing. “Talk to the housing bureaucrat behind the desk and you’d swear you were back in Australia,” says Pholeros. “They said, ‘Everything’s fine in the houses, it’s the people who are the problem.’ Then we inspected some of the apartments, and surprise, surprise, all the faults we found were pipes leaking and wires corroding, not people ripping them out of the wall.”

Healthabitat’s two-decade engagement with remote Australia originated in 1985 in the Pitjantjatjara lands of South Australia, when Pholeros met Paul Torzillo and Stephan Rainow. Torzillo was the doctor for Nganampa Health Council, and Rainow was the council’s environmental health officer – a bush-wise anthropologist “who knew everyone and spoke Pitjantjatjara”. Pholeros recalls the meeting: “I was a green, middle-class city boy who’d ended up in Central Australia doing some additions to a health clinic. I knew nothing. The head of the health service, Yami Lester, put the three of us in one room – we’d never met – and Yami said to us, ‘You’ve got six months to tell me how to stop people getting sick. There’s no budget, no travel money, no nothing. In the room next door, there’s 18 Aboriginal mob from the Pit lands who’ll be your bosses, your co-workers. Work that out – see you later.’”

After several weeks, Torzillo came up with nine items on one sheet of paper. Says Pholeros, “he brought it to my office and I can remember being extremely pissed off and saying, ‘Mate, this is a joke – you come up with “washing people”? You’ve got to be kidding.’ He said, ‘OK, come into my office.’ From the desktop to the floor was a stack of paper, divided by nine tags. He said, ‘if you want to know why we’ve got to start with washing kids, read from the top.’ There were 400 pages on why, from international, national and his own research: washing would reduce things such as scabies, glue ear, respiratory illnesses.”

“Washing people” became the first of nine “healthy living practices” the trio agreed upon, activities that a house needed to support. Next was “washing clothes and bedding”: the laundry needed to work. Then “removing waste water safely”: drainage needed to work. Then “improving nutrition”: the kitchen needed to provide a safe storage and cooking environment.

Pholeros still needed convincing. “I said to Yami Lester, ‘This isn’t a job for me, an architect, it’s for the parents or the grandmother to take the kids into the shower and wash them.’ He looked at me very patiently and said, ‘You’re probably right, brother, but maybe you should just go and check that the shower’s OK.” Pholeros soon realised that poor design, no repairs and over-crowding caused houses to fail; contrary to widespread belief, only about 9% of problems were due to people inflicting damage.

Pholeros, Torzillo and Rainow formed an unlikely collective, only formalised into the non-profit company years later. Each man still makes a living from a hectic day job – Pholeros as a Sydney-based architect, Torzillo as a thoracic physician in Sydney and Rainow as a community health expert in remote South Australia.

In 1998 – four years after the trio published a book, Housing?? for Health: Towards a better living environment for Aboriginal Australia, explaining their theories and findings – Pholeros and Torzillo went to see then federal Community Services Minister Jocelyn Newman. “What would you do if you were me?” Newman asked the men provocatively. “Let us fix 1000 houses around Australia,” came their reply.

“She felt they were honest and practical and that, if she could get them in front of state ministers, they’d see that too,” recalls bureaucrat Jeff Whalan, who was overseeing federal–state Indigenous housing agreements in Newman’s department at the time. “We’d formed a view that anything they suggested would make a difference, so we’d find a way to fund them.”

“We attended a state housing ministers’ meeting and put the data we had on the table [about Indigenous housing],” recalls Pholeros, “and they said, ‘Of course it’s shithouse, we want ten times the money we get now.’ And Newman said, ‘Well, what have you done with the last lot?’ They couldn’t answer the question, so she said ‘Well, why would we give you more money?’”

Newman gave Healthabitat the nod – and the funding – to survey and fix houses in each state, but Whalan knew there’d be a hostile reception. “The problem is that if they’re going to go out and do a survey of Indigenous housing, they’ll get awful results … And that will seriously embarrass the ministers, the department. So there’s a natural inclination to kill these initiatives.”

“We had the money in the bank and not one state would touch the money for a year and a half,” recalls Pholeros. Eventually, when Healthabitat tackled 200 houses in each of five states, the conditions they found were as predicted – shocking.

The link between housing and health became staggeringly clear to Healthabitat during a Housing for Health program it operated in 71 communities across New South Wales. Last year, the NSW Health Department published an independent assessment of the ten-year program. It found there had been a 40% drop in ‘hospital separations’ (a measurement of the number of people admitted to hospital) for infectious disease among people whose houses had undergone repairs – faulty plumbing, drainage and electrical systems repaired, or bathrooms and kitchens rebuilt. “We’ve demonstrated that maintenance programs – funded, scheduled and targeted – are the only way to ensure we don’t end up where we started,” says Torzillo.

“And that’s what government hates,” adds Pholeros, “it’s too simple, and therefore it’s too hard to worm around it.” When published online, the impressive findings prompted the New York housing agency to invite Healthabitat to Brooklyn; “in New South Wales, there was no release by the health minister, nothing. It disappeared off the radar.”


In ‘Beyond Humbug’, two of Australia’s senior Indigenous affairs bureaucrats Michael Dillon and Neil Westbury condemned the shambles in Indigenous housing. “Overcrowding has reached Third World levels, the cost of building new houses is skyrocketing, (and) asset life spans are short.” In 2006, they noted, one-third of remote dwellings needed replacing or major repairs across 838 small remote communities and 274 larger ones. “Just as houses need effective architecture and design, so too do Indigenous housing policies.” ‘Living in the Sunburnt Country’, a major Indigenous housing review commissioned by the Commonwealth in 2007, was far more blunt. “The current framework for the delivery of housing ... has not worked and cannot work.”

Cumulative failures have littered the path leading up to the current National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing; surely $5.5 billion – for 4200 new houses and 4800 upgrades – can fix the problem at last?

Andy Irvine says proven methods, not money, achieve success. As one of Healthabitat’s project managers in NSW, he’s proud that the 40% drop in environment-related illness was achieved at a cost of $11,000 per house. A social bonus was that three-quarters of the workers were local Indigenous people. “It’s a tight model – there’s no big head office, it’s a local team and trades on the ground doing work,” says Irvine.

The picture is vastly different on Groote Eylandt, where Irvine is now manager of an Indigenous building company. Under the NPA–SIHIP housing agreement, the island has been allocated $60 million for new houses and upgrades. Big sums have been squandered; in August 2009 a federal government report found $45 million had been spent by SIHIP without a single house having been completed. And in March last year, the federal and Territory housing ministers sacked Earth Connect Alliance, the building group entrusted with Groote Eylandt’s building program, after massive cost overruns and shoddy workmanship. The same company had ‘upgraded’ the two failed houses that Pholeros brought to Macklin’s attention.

Irvine’s local Indigenous company will not build any of the new houses, relying instead on upgrade jobs from the consortium that took over the SIHIP work, Territory Alliance. “Put it this way,” says Irvine carefully, when asked for his opinion of NPA–SIHIP spending, “if that sort of money was spent over ten years, developing all the local construction and support businesses in these communities, there would be hundreds of people in real jobs and training, and a chance to almost completely replace the older housing stock.”

Nobody pretends that building in the outback is easy. Architect Greg Norman has built health clinics at Pipalyatjara, Fregon and Amata, the most isolated places in Australia. “It was hard and it was a long way and, yes, the trucks did fall apart on the road just getting there.”

But Norman has witnessed bigger problems. “On Cape York, I watched a $20 million sewage system being dropped in. The connections from houses to sewer lines were not to code, pipes were installed crookedly and they were backfilling the trenches with beer cans and rubbish.” The project’s manager was nowhere in sight; when Norman sent his photographs of the shoddy work to the company, he was roundly abused. “There’s a ten-year warranty,” the head plumber blithely told him; when the pipes clogged up, he said, he could always be told to come back and fix it. Says Norman: “It’s a perfect system for not being accountable.”

With the NPA, “I’ve got an overwhelming anxiety that what happened before (in housing) will happen again, only on a bigger scale,” says Norman. “The minister has got to insist on supervision and that the plans that were approved are actually built.”


If the big federal money is concentrated anywhere, it’s in Alice Springs. The sound of sawing and hammering is an almost constant serenade across the 18 town camps, where 3000 or more people have lived in 200 squalid houses.

Another 85 new houses are being built, along with new roads, sewers and power grids. At Morris Soak town camp, Deirdre Lechleitner’s two small children will grow up in a far better environment than she did – with lawns, new cyclone fencing and the pretty pink walls of her neighbour Marlene Hayes’s house.

The Tangentyere Council, which runs the camps, must now manage its upgraded housing stock. “We’ve signed up to a 40 year lease (over the town camps),” says Walter Shaw, council CEO, “with the carrot of $100 million dollars being spent to upgrade our houses to a decent living standard. My issue now is they’ve spent the money and cut corners, and that’s a grave concern.”

That housing conditions have improved is indisputable – but for how long? Lechleitner’s house got a cursory make-over – a paint job, new kitchen bench and the removal of a pot-belly stove that was her only heating. Three months later, one tap is seeping and the new light in the laundry won’t switch off. Across the road is a row of brand new houses, where occupier Chris Miller shows how the poured concrete walls are blistering off their blue paint already.

At Kunoth town camp, upgrades are promised if the money lasts. Eva Kunoth and Maxine Carlton walk past a derelict house and a car full of visitors, including a month-old sleeping baby. Their sparse kitchens have few cupboards, no drawers and a smoke smudge over the stove where an extraction fan should be. Carlton sits on a camp housing committee. “We need two toilets and showers because of all the visitors, a designated fireplace area outside and shelves, not hanging space that we mob don’t use,” she says, pointing inside an empty cupboard.

Territory Alliance is consulting closely with camp residents and the Tangentyere Council, says Geoff Barker, Alliance’s design architect who previously worked for a decade on Healthabitat projects.

“Engagement is fundamental, and so is not rushing things,” he says, adding that Territory Alliance is committed to Healthabitat-type principles, “albeit despite intense time and cost pressures.” Barker remains optimistic about the $5.5 billion housing spend: “It’s the first time I’ve felt enthusiastic that we can make a difference.”


This month, Healthabitat’s programs will close down around Australia – funds have dried up. Since 1999, teams have surveyed and fixed over 7,000 houses, from Broome to Bega, and employed 900 Indigenous people. And all for under $50 million.

“They haven’t offered us any contract extensions,” says a disappointed Pholeros, who wonders if their voice is being silenced. “It’s given me a crystal clear insight into the heart of the beast,” he muses. “When governments have large amounts of money [to spend] – such as on insulation schemes – and they get in a corner, they will do pretty much anything to get themselves out of that corner.”

As if to draw a line under its involvement, the federal government spent $285,000 on an audit of Healthabitat’s program; it implied that its work was no longer needed, since “key elements of the National Partnership Agreement have adopted the use of [Healthabitat’s nine] Healthy Living Practices”.

“It’s saying, ‘We don’t need this program anymore because all the things we’ve learned from it we’ve rolled into the big money projects, so everything’s going to be great in the castle,’” says Pholeros, shrugging. “I wish it were true but it’s bullshit.” And Australia’s biggest Indigenous housing scheme can still not come up with an assessment of how each house performs, or even its cost.

He still wonders why Australia cannot meet a housing challenge far smaller than that of South Africa, where the government has built over 2.8 million houses to put roofs over people’s heads since 1994.

“We should be able to fix 20,000-plus houses – we’ve proved it’s possible, we’ve got the technology, the ability of local people to do the work. It’s all achievable, and there’s no reason we couldn’t do it within a few years. If there was the will.”

June 2011 | The Monthly Essays | Africa | Alice Springs | Hospital | Indigenous disadvantage


 Subscribe in a reader