In this year’s federal election campaign there has been justified criticism of journalists’ fondness for gotcha questions. But there is a broader and more costly crisis in the way that election campaigns are structured and covered by media.
For very good reason there has been much said recently about the role of the media in the election campaign. Special criticism has been directed at the propensity of too many journalists to ask so-called ‘gotcha’ questions. This trivialises discussion of the stance of the parties on policy issues.
However, there is another approach to media coverage of the election campaign that is equally facile and useless, albeit less toxic. This is the construction, through interviews with selected members of the public, of what is believed to be a policy agenda against which the political parties can be judged.
This process is premised on erroneous beliefs about how and when individual voters make decisions about who they will vote for. It provides much of the basis for a mistaken belief that promises made during the campaign play a major role in determining the election result.
Among other things, this process provides a rationale for the supposed existence of a cohort of swinging voters large enough to determine the result, and who will decide in the last days of the campaign who they will support.
The true situation is that the result of the election is determined by the cumulative perception of the majority of voters of events over three years. For the vast bulk of electors this perception is fixed before the circus of the campaign begins and intersects with their normal voting behaviour. In just a small proportion of cases the intersection of habitual voting practice and perception of a party’s performance over three years leads to a change in voting
behaviour. The net result of these changes in two directions – to and from the major parties – determines the outcome.
The stupidity of this system of election coverage and the beliefs that underpin it is illustrated by the ubiquitous use of ‘vox pops’ from ‘interesting electorates’. The commonest question posed in such high street encounters is along the lines of “What do you think are the important issues for voters in this electorate?” In effect this is asking a random individual voter to summarise the policy landscape as if they will cast their vote on the basis of a Party’s performance on each of its elements. Policy issues selected will be based on what has happened over the previous three years, shaped largely by the media into an agenda that is characterised by almost universal agreement on what is on it, even though the position of individual media entities on each element may be different.
Thus it is that the currently accepted policy agenda comprises the cost of living (for which a proxy is the cost of energy in the home), the relationship with China, trust in government processes (and how they might be improved), climate change, job availability and the security of work, the establishment’s treatment of women, and the ongoing impact of Covid 19. Also on the list are issues that no reasonable person, when stopped in the street by a reporter with a microphone, would deny: health, education, the cost of childcare and the war in Europe.
We are expected to believe that the Coalition’s and the ALP’s position on these “current priorities” will soon determine the vote of the person being interviewed on the street and that they are representative of voters in this key (marginal) electorate. The trouble is that they and everyone else has only one vote, and in most cases it is rusted on to one of the major political groupings: Liberal, Labor, Green or National.
If the interviewee is an unemployed homeowner or tenant, electricity prices will be important. But so might be management of climate change, continuity of government, the Ukraine, secure borders and the pay of aged care workers. Which to choose as the determinant of their vote?
If the vox pop is for television, the producer of the segment will select for broadcast according to the value of the talent (an interesting face; a bizarre response) and with an eye to political balance for the piece, the program and the media entity.
Not part of the currently accepted policy agenda are reform of the taxation system, improving productivity, social and economic inequality, the Uluru statement, reform of aged care, funding of the NDIS, the concentration of media ownership, the more esoteric matters relating to faith, culture and gender, and ‘national security’.
Just about the only useful question to be put to someone in the street is: “Do you intend to change your vote from the last time?”
If the answer is yes, the reasons are worth identifying. It is probably caused by accumulated feelings of frustration and alienation with their usual preference, a view of the party leaders, or by a change in the personalities in the local contest. It is almost certainly not due to one party’s decision on one of the so-called key issues.
Given these views about the use and purpose of much of the way an election campaign is covered by the media, one obvious conclusion is that it is a poor use of scarce parliamentary resources. It is useful every three years to raise the profile of safe, democratic political processes. But too much of the content of election campaigns is meaningless and too much of the apparent excitement is bogus.
Here is a quiz for anyone to try, featuring puns and homophones – and with prizes to be won.
Most of us are familiar with children’s alphabet books of the “A for Apple, B for Bed, C for Cat” kind.
Then there are adult versions, such as the sailor’s alphabet. Fairport Convention’s version includes some items familiar only to those who have experienced life under sail. They include Davits, Eyebolts, the Knighthead and Vangs.
Since I was a child I have carried with me the fragments of what might be called a humorous word-play alphabet. Where it came from is a mystery. I long assumed that it came from my father who was not a great wordsmith but was not averse to a joke at the dinner table. But my older brothers report no such memories of our father. In fact they claim to have no recollection of such an alphabet at all. Perhaps it came from some music hall act or a book I read.
Let’s call it the Word-Play alphabet. I will give you three of the elements to illustrate the nature of its contents. Then you can see how many of the full set of 26 you can get. I have created some ‘new’ elements to fill the gaps in the version that has long been lurking in my recall. In guessing the answers it will help if you remember that, whatever its unremembered source, some of the content reflects people or events that were contemporary in the 1950s (ie are now dated).
Examples from the Word-Play alphabet:
A for Gardner.
C for Highlanders.
I for Novello.
Explication of examples:
Ava Gardner was a screen actor and singer. She signed with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in 1941. Active 1941-1986. Died 1990. Spouse: Mickey Rooney.
The Seaforth Highlanders was a famous line infantry regiment of the British Army, mainly associated with large areas of the northern Highlands of Scotland.
Ivor Novello, 1893-1951, was a Welsh composer and actor who became one of the most popular British entertainers of the first half of the 20th century
_______________________________________________
Your name: ______________________________ Record your answers on this page and email it to me. Respondents with the highest score will receive free access to my blog.
The full Word Play alphabet will be published in a separate document posted to this site.
There are no ‘correct’ answers. Answers which match the list to be published plus any others that are amusing and meet the spirit of the quiz will all score a point.
Jacki and Tony in the pavilion at Kentisbeare Cricket Club (August 2011)
Jacki Howe died this week at home in Kentisbeare, South Devon. She was the bubbliest, funniest, most caring and thoughtful friend in the world.
She and Tony lived until recently in the Mill House – beautifully converted from a working mill to a delightful home which doubled as a ‘commodious’ bed-and-breakfast venue.
The mill house
Its size was one of the reasons why, when I once rang her in the middle of the night, Pella on tenterhooks and our hire car having been vandalised, I was confident there would be room for us to stay. The other reason for my confidence was that Tony and Jacki had been my very close friends since 1960-something. I was Best Man at their wedding in 1970.
Jacki set very high standards in civility, inter-personal warmth and a professional’s attention to detail. She had a taste for fine workmanship, whether expressed in interior design, household furnishing, food, collectables, or flowers and gardens. She loved her own garden which, at all times of the year, seemed to be colourful and immaculate.
A garden to die for
She was one of those hosts who would unfailingly include a bedside posy or two in the room allocated to a visitor.
When Jacki and Tony moved from the Mill House to the smaller place up the hill, their new home soon displayed all the style and taste for which they were known. Among other things, the move meant that Jacki had more time for her shop in Exmouth which gave public and commercial expression to some of her sensibilities.
With her helping hand Alison Ware in the treasure trove in Exmouth
Jacki and Tony provided the centrepiece or fulcrum for a Gregory-family-and-friends reunion in 2011, a highlight of which was an international cricket challenge held at the Kentisbeare Cricket Club.
The challenge match pitted a UK family side against one from the Southern Hemisphere (Australia and Hong Kong).
The pre-match tension is palpable –
Greg is not yet in his ground.Fiona being decisive, imperious – and observed by father and husband.Alice, Charlotte and Sophia found other things more absorbing than the cricket.
Jacki, Mike Wilkins and John Wingrove; Mike and John were willing recruits to the UK team.
Tad, Viv, Paz
James Howe and his dad
In her own immediate family Jacki knew challenges and had a share of misfortune that seemed disproportionate, given the way she always smiled on the world. She had bladder cancer and battled against the odds for the last year of her life.
Catherine – Jacki and Tony’s daughter – was home to help out at the end.
Jacki’s warmth and vitality will be sorely missed by all who knew her. May she rest in peace.
Saying goodbye to a dear friend. (Jackie took the photo.)Doing one of the things she loved so much – making other people welcome.
This piece provides lifestyle advice for Gen-Zers, people born between 1995 and 2009. It includes advice on some matters likely to have been beyond Polonius’ ken, such as internet usage and how to deal with alternative facts.
A few weeks ago we had special guests for dinner. Ella took the opportunity to encourage two of the others – her adult grandchildren – to be guided by the advice Polonius gave his son Laertes (Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3). In sum, Polonius’ advice was that Laertes should be balanced, smart, and honest; neither a borrower nor a lender; and, above all, true to himself.
The two young women – both Generation Z-ers or ‘Digital Natives’ – felt that Polonius’ advice lacks some 21st-century currency.
Accordingly, I have updated Polonius’s speech in both content and style. The scope of the new advice includes topics dealt with in Polonius’ original, with the addition of advice on matters that were beyond his ken, such as internet usage. I await the verdict of the two granddaughters as to whether this revised version has more contemporary relevance.
Going to uni? Well that will be nice.
Please let me give you a little advice.
Think before speaking; be slightly reserved –
Slave to one’s impulse is never well served.
After your work is well balanced with life,
No mind to old roles like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.
Fancy a partner (the oyster’s unfurled?) –
Select any you like from across the wide world.
Choose where to work, it really won’t matter,
Unless you’ve a foot on the property ladder!
Value your real friends and keep them quite close;
Less drinking, less sex: you’re quite risk averse:
With voice-command apps instead of a nurse?
Sleep with your mobile – use YouTube and text;
Worried when one of your Friends becomes sext.
(A picture it’s said’s worth one thousand words
But life with just Gifs would be surely absurd.)
If you wear flashy clothes – even French in design –
You won’t please good people: show them your mind.
Try not to mix any business with pleasure;
Spend as you can but in sensible measure.
If needing a loan a co-op is best
For banks are not loved – let their lending lie rest.
Key to it all – take this message away:
It’s absolute truth should always hold sway.
gg 25 Feb 2022
[1]Generation Z consists of those born between 1995 and 2009. The name is a reference to the fact that it is the second generation after Generation X, continuing the alphabetical sequence from Generation Y (Millennials). Other proposed names for the generation include iGeneration, Homeland Generation, Net Gen, Digital Natives, Neo-Digital Natives, Pluralist Generation, Internet Generation, Centennials, and Post-Millennials. The term Internet Generation is in reference to the fact that they are the first to have been born after the mass-adoption of the Internet.
[2]I am grateful to Allyne for this, attributed to Voltaire (1765): “Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde, est en droit de vous rendre injuste.” Translations include: “Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.”
Don Beer’s family said all the right things about Don in the funeral director’s small chapel in North Canberra where they farewelled him. He was patient, generous and understanding with those with whom he came into contact. He was an accomplished scholar who taught modern history to University of New England students from 1964 to 1998.
In his later days Don researched and wrote a history of the National Botanic Gardens in Canberra.
Miracle on Black Mountain – A History of the Australian National Botanic Gardens, was a very substantial ‘retirement achievement’. It should inspire (or shame!) all of us who fail to undertake successful projects after a standard ‘working life’. Don came to love the botanic Gardens as a volunteer and researcher after he and Ella had moved from Armidale to Canberra. Miracle on Black Mountain is highly regarded; it covers the period from the very first days of Canberra to the present.[1]
During the earlier years in Armidale with them, their place at 24 Curtis Street had been a second home for us. Don was witty and learned in a crafty under-stated or modest fashion. He was a wonderful companion to Ella and a terrific grandad.
The portrait of him mounted in the corner of the chapel during the ceremony saw him beaming down on us and caught him beautifully with his grey eyebrows and confident, knowing grin. (Given his wishes for a send-off that was modest in every way, it’s not certain that he would have used the word ‘ceremony’, given its suggestion of formality, ritual and symbolism. ‘Service’ would have been worse, with its religious connotations. He would have known the best word.)
The word or characteristic I would add to those selected by his family in their tributes is ‘class’. Don was a class act in terms of the way he went about his business, whether his professional teaching and writing, his performances at bridge and with a cryptic crossword, or as a carer who actively extended his gentle concern to others around him, especially those less fortunate.
Ella, Gill, Joe, Tom, Josh and his Canberra granddaughters did a fine job in their contributions to the event in the chapel. They performed with class and distinction that reflected well on Don. It was unfortunate that Tom and Jenny and their children were unable to attend in person due to the constraints caused by the pandemic. The event was streamed and I hope Tom and family felt a close part of it.
Tom mentioned his dad’s prowess on the squash court. Many of my personal memories of time with Don are from the hockey and cricket fields. In these pursuits as others Don was a class act. That’s not to say that he was always the best on the field, but he respected the essence of the game and those with and against whom he played. He may not have stopped the ball on a sixpence like Vern Turner, or accelerated past a defender like Keith Ellis. But he knew the game, fitted into the team whatever was expected of him, and knew the value of physical balance and aesthetic style.
In his sport as in other aspects of his life, Don displayed grace. Which is what he now deserves, given his passing.
[1]The bookis available from the Botanical Bookshop at the ANBG.
Bridget Archer, the federal Member for Bass, crossed the floor last week in the House of Representatives. Her purpose was to get the government to hurry up with a decent model for a federal integrity commission.
Ms Archer won the seat of Bass with the smallest margin of all Coalition MPs : 0.4 per cent. It will be interesting to see whether she is punished or rewarded by her constituents at the next election for her action.
The prognosis is good: Tasmanian Archers have a strong record in such matters. The late Sen Brian Archer crossed the floor fourteen times. (As far as Google tells, Bridget is not related to the late Senator.)
Brian Archer was a Senator for 18 years and had a good reputation for hard work and integrity. He worked for the Tasmanian Liberals on three election campaigns before he was old enough to vote.
The late Sen Brian Archer
The main issues with which he was concerned are with us today and read like a DLP: a Decent Liberal’s Portfolio (which, interestingly enough, is a portmanteau). He was concerned about the problem of affordable housing and the lack of government support for domestic manufacturing. He also had an interest in the dairy industry and was a senior member of the Coalition’s rural committee. He was critical of the practice of ‘truncated debate’ on rural bills dealing with a range of different issues, thrown together near the end of a parliamentary session.
In his first speech in the Senate (February 1976) Brian Archer said “I am a Tasmanian by birth, by inclination, and by conviction. I love Tasmania and in this place and outside it I will present Tasmania’s case and do what I can to ease its disabilities and relieve its increasing isolation”.
Archer had specialised knowledge of the Australian fishing industry, starting with the belief that Australia is not a fish-rich country. “The whole history of Australian fishing regrettably is … a history of over-fishing and recoveries.” There were too many boats chasing too few fish. This was the issue on which I came across Sen Archer as a new and junior Ministerial staffer. He was very decent – even if he was the reason for many ministerials.
The report which bears his name was a thorough investigation of the Australian fishing industry. He supported the establishment of a national statutory fisheries authority and the development of a national fisheries policy.
He also had a strong interest in plant variety rights and the dairy industry. He was a supporter of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), once proclaiming that “the reindustrialisation of Australia starts with the CSIRO”.
In 1978 he questioned whether Australia could adopt the American practice of subsidies for solar heating, as an environmental measure. He studied the future demand and supply of electricity. Later his attention turned to greenhouse gas emissions. Way before his time.
Brian Archer was credited with having strengthened political linkages between Australia and Taiwan through his continual interest and energetic advocacy.
His approach to legislation was summed up when he said: “I didn’t run to the press to try and score political points; I worked in well with [Labor] Ministers and their staff and was able to achieve a lot more for my electorate.”
However, as is daily being confirmed, no-one is perfect. When speaking on the Sex Discrimination Bill of 1983 he reflected the views of some of his local constituents stating that “Men, by nature, are more likely to be leaders, providers and protectors. We can legislate all we like, but we will not change that.”
In a conscience vote Brian Archer was one of twelve Coalition Senators who voted against the third reading of the Bill in 1984. How some things have changed.
Citizens of the Great Southern Land are bracing themselves for the re-opening of their Nation following the devastation visited upon it by the Covid-19 pandemic. The reopening takes place as substantial reconstruction continues.
Domestic architects, builders and planners have expressed disappointment that, as happened the first time round 120 years ago, development is progressing unevenly across the Nation. Eight different construction companies have been engaged, with the only thing they have in common being the requirement that staff are fully masked.
Surprisingly, the rebuilding in train is subject to no Nationwide planning controls. The result will be an entity comprised of eight villages of diverse architectural styles, with less coherence than would have been possible with some centralised leadership.
It is, admittedly, difficult to fashion a Nation in a coherent style from a number of separate villages if their starting points are quite different. This is the case in the Great Southern Land, where the extent of the devastation caused by the pandemic varies widely between villages.
Coherence is also harder to achieve when each of the elected Village Heads has ambitions for their own jurisdiction. This leads naturally to competition between the eight.
At its most extreme, this competition can result in some Heads actively working for diversity rather than for Nationwide uniformity or at least coherence. This means that many of the toughest future challenges of governance will again be focused on the relationship between the parts of the Nation rather than on the opportunities provided to a coherent whole.
Initially it was assumed that a Nationwide approach would be brought to the rebuild by National Cabinet. The authority of this secret new body appeared for some time to furnish significant Nationwide power to the Great Southern Land’s Chief Planning Officer (CPO). In July and August 2021, when it was clear that a New-normal would have to be built, some Nationwide building standards were mooted by the CPO. He issued guidelines which would have seen each village rebuilding in parallel timelines. There were to be two criteria to be met by each construction company, one a Nationwide standard, the other relating to each separate village. In what was described as a two-key process, both criteria were to be measured against the Magic Numbers 70 and 80.
However from the beginning of the rebuild there was differential take-up of the guidelines by the various construction companies. There was also uncertainty about the means by which measurement against the Magic Numbers was to be effected. As a result, for all practical purposes those guidelines became nothing more than historical artefacts of governance.
It became clear that neither the CPO nor his Deputies had sufficient competence or interest in the matter to exercise the leverage that was available to them. There will need to be significant climate change for this situation to be improved.
In the largest village the footings of the new edifice were completed some time ago, and the second storey is already taking shape. Some of the Village’s swamps remain undrained but good use has been made of the higher ground which it is assumed will be free from flooding.
Unfortunately the reconstruction of this Village is now subject to some uncertainty due to a sudden change in its senior management. Under the previous regime there had been an unsustainable pace of construction resulting in occasional design changes being made on the run. This meant planners, builders and suppliers experienced some frustration. Despite this its rebuild continued to out-pace that of other villages.
Completion of the re-build and decisions about the re-opening of this major Village will fall to the new management. Other Village Heads will have the advantage of learning from its experiences, including with respect to outdoor swimming and picnics.
Less enthusiasm for a rapid early opening has been demonstrated to its South and North.
For some time it seemed likely that the village in the South would be Victorious in the competition for the gold standard. But very recently the ground suddenly moved, which delta blow to the Village’s prospects for donuts, resulting in more devastation than had been anticipated.
The ground is shifting
Given this newly-demonstrated instability, the building standards there are more restrictive than in the largest Village. This has been unacceptable to a very small number of people who have memorably demonstrated their dissatisfaction. Fortunately the vast majority of the Villagers recognise the need for caution to protect the benefits from the resilience they have shown.
The lack of Nationwide leadership has been exhibited by the CPO’s Deputies as well as by himself. One example concerns Rapid Antigen Testing (RAT), which has been used by people in the UK for over a year, with self-administered test results being provided to a centralised online database for analysis and record-keeping. After a long time, presumably due to an abundance of caution, the Regulator of Such Things has approved the use of RATs in the Great Southern Land. Rather than having himself lead energised Nationwide work to roll out RATs, the CPO’s Health Deputy has asked each village to consider their greater use. This is yet another missed national leadership opportunity.
The CPO has enlisted the support of the Defence Force in the Covid-19 work. Generally speaking its role has been to repeat encouragement about the need for people to get vaccinated and promises of a coming abundance of vaccine supply.
Nationwide leadership and energy in the rebuild have to date been very disappointing. But there are many important tasks going forward in the post-Covid rebuild which will benefit from Nationwide leadership. They include the following.
One – further and ongoing analysis of the Magic Numbers 70 and 80. Planners and engineers need to carry out stress tests and make sure that, despite the variety of building styles, all construction results in villages that are safe and draughty.
Two – confirm that there is no national building standard, that villages are free to build to their own standards and in their own timeframe. Initiate spot-checks to ensure the designs adopted are safe for all citizens and suit the circumstances of each village. Windows must be able to be opened.
Three – manage travel bubbles from the Nation to and from other parts of the world.
Four – lead work to repatriate citizens stuck overseas.
Five – work to ensure the availability of leak-proof quarantine facilities.
Six – work to facilitate global vaccine equity.
Seven – fund scientific endeavours to produce new vaccines and develop improved ways to manage viruses and viral infections.
Eight – fund and oversee systems for providing financial support to those people and firms adversely affected by the devastation.
Simply pressuring Village Heads to open their borders is not leadership. The Village to the NorthEast is being unfairly pressurised merely because it has the misfortune to be contiguous to the largest Village. Many of those who wish to cross the border into the NorthEast should not be leaving their homes under their own Village’s regulations anyway.
Decisions about opening the rebuilt Nation must still hinge on the balance between safety for the villagers and economic activity. The CPO should move to re-assert their nationwide authority and work for a high degree of National coherence despite the existence of different architectural styles, varying amounts of devastation and speeds of rebuilding.
Leadership out of the turmoil is particularly important at a time when many interest groups are favouring economic activity simply because of the passing of time, rather than because the weights in the balance between wealth and health have changed.
Those hoping for clarification on the national COVID-19 plan from last week’s national cabinet meeting will be disappointed. The main outcome from the meeting was a statement about the importance of its discussions and documents remaining “cabinet in confidence”.
“Cabinet confidentiality ensures that members of national cabinet may exchange differing views and achieve outcomes together.” (Media statement, September 17, 2021)
Sensitivity analyses were considered in relation to two of the Doherty model’s variables, the standard or level of test, trace, isolate and quarantine (TTIQ) practices, and of public health and social measures (PHSMs).
But as far as we know, consideration was not given to the variable which almost all experts thought ought to be changed: the 54 per cent and 65 per cent full vaccination thresholds for the whole population (70 per cent and 80 per cent of “the eligible population”).
There may have been an unwillingness to accept that those original vaccination thresholds were too low. At any rate, national cabinet concluded that “with high vaccination and appropriate TTIQ and PHSMs to constrain outbreaks, overall cases and deaths are expected to be similar in order of magnitude to annual influenza”. (emphasis added)
So the question for each state and territory is what levels of TTIQ and PHSM are appropriate given the incidence of infection that exists in their jurisdiction at any given time.
The trouble is that the dependent variable in the model — the thing against which the level of TTIQ and PHSM is tested for a yes or no answer — is movement from phase A to phase B. And the meaning or significance of such a move is unclear. Phase B lists a number of actions that may be taken by a jurisdiction. There is nothing that a jurisdiction must do — just a list of possible actions.
In what will be a challenge to “the NSW approach”, the Doherty Institute’s revised advice to national cabinet was:
“At high caseloads, maintenance of optimal TTIQ is unlikely to be possible. In such instances, flexibility to strengthen PHSMs generally or locally will be needed (as envisaged in the national plan) to regain epidemic control. The required intensity and duration of measures should be informed by ongoing situational assessment of transmission and its related health impacts.”
Despite this warning, the cabinet’s confidentiality statement issued to the public assumes enough TTIQ and PHSMs to constrain outbreaks. This assumption is what allows it to conclude that cases and deaths would be similar in order of magnitude to influenza.
But back to the national plan. It would help if its meaning was clear. When Scott Morrison announced the plan on the evening of July 30, he read carefully from his prepared notes, presumably in recognition of the plan’s complexity and the need to get the words exactly right. (He was so keen to spell it out that he asked for the light to be turned on so he could see his notes.)
What he said was:
“At each stage, I want to be clear about what the vaccination targets mean for phase B and phase C. States and territories move into the next phase when 1) the national average for the vaccination program, as a percentage of eligible adults, is achieved nationally, and then 2) that state itself has achieved the vaccination threshold in their own state. So, it’s like a two key process. To get to that next phase, all of Australia has to get there together, on average. And, then beyond that each state and territory will pass into that second and third phase based when they reach those thresholds.
Later in his address: “Phase B, which is achieved by the whole country reaching 70 per cent, and then each state and territory reaching 70 per cent…”
Later still: “When we reach 80 per cent, that is, first again, nationally an average of 80 per cent, and the state or territory has reached 80 per cent, we will move into Phase C.”
So here is the problem. The references to a national average suggest an average across the eight jurisdictions. Most telling are the bolded words on the plan document itself that say: “Average vaccination rates across the nation”.
So, let’s say the percentage of the eligible population with two doses in the jurisdictions is 80 per cent in two, 75 per cent in two, 65 per cent in two and 40 per cent in two, the national average, per jurisdiction, would be 65 per cent. That would be a fail. If the laggard two got up to 60 per cent, with no changes in the other six, the average would be 70 per cent — a pass.
The other interpretation, encouraged by the term “achieved nationally” and “by the whole country reaching 70 per cent ” is that the national criterion refers to whether or not a majority of the Australian population has reached the threshold. It is a long stretch, but not completely ruled out for people who are cavalier with words and meaning, to deem “average vaccination rates across the nation” to mean a majority.
This second is the interpretation ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr had when he gave his daily update on September 12:
“New South Wales are not enacting the national plan if they do things at 70 per cent ahead of the rest of the nation reaching 70 per cent. They are entitled to make changes to their local restrictions, as they have been doing and that’s their purview entirely. But the national plan is very clear that the nation needs to reach the 70 per cent threshold and the nation needs to reach the 80 per cent threshold. Those same constraints apply to the ACT as well. Based on the current vaccination trajectory it will be New South Wales and the ACT that will get to those thresholds first. But our actions under the national plan are limited by where the rest of the country is at.
“Having said that I think it’s important to note that when the nation crosses 70 per cent and 80 per cent is very highly contingent on the vaccination programs in New South Wales and Victoria because together they are nearly 60 per cent of the national population … It’s important that people understand that and their reporting of the national plan reflects that — it’s in bold at the top of the national plan.”
Those bolded words are: Phases triggered in a jurisdiction when the average vaccination rates across the nation have reached the threshold and that rate is achieved in a jurisdiction expressed as a percentage of the eligible population (16+), based on the scientific modelling conducted for the COVID-19 Risk Analysis and Response Task Force.
It’s hard to see how individual jurisdictions can be free to make changes to their local restrictions while at the same time their actions are limited by the provisions of a national plan. They are certainly not going to be restrained by something as ambiguous and unfocused as the present Plan.
But perhaps there isn’t a real national plan at all — just a Clayton’s one used for federal window-dressing. That would explain why there has been so little comment on it, save by Laura Tingle and the Grattan Institute.
If that’s the case, the prime minister should come clean and stop using the term.
And perhaps the next time there is a national emergency, a pandemic or something equally national in its implications, the first thing to do in Australia is to implement new emergency arrangements that have been developed through the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
One of the most critical matters to have been agreed must be the means by which an uneven (or natural) distribution of the emergency does not allow the situation in the various jurisdictions to become so widely varied.
We need to be “in this all together” — but clearly as yet we are not.
Note: this piece was first published in John Menadue’s Pearls and Irritations on 26 September 2021.
I have recently posted to www.aggravations.org several pieces on the pandemic in Australia – written between 26 August and 2 September but posted all together. (There was a delay as I tried unsuccessfully to get them published elsewhere.) Here’s an overview of the most recent four.
Covid – five things National Cabinet should agree (20 Aug) entreats someone (anyone!) to give the public a detailed schedule of expected receipt by Australia of Pfizer and Moderna over the next 12 months. There may well be uncertainty due to contracts yet to be agreed, negotiations unfinished, quality issues or even suppliers reneging on agreements. But the Federal Government owes it to its public to keep us informed and allow us to share the joy and pain (think ‘accountability’).
Speaking of which, it would be a tragedy if the commitment made to the groups in priority ranking 1a is not completed.
The Commonwealth must take the lead in developing protocols for determining which employees in which sectors will have a mandated requirement for vaccination. Resources need to be made available to community organisations that are helping to ensure that particular groups who are marginalised are getting vaccinated. And, fifth of all, someone (anyone!) needs to provide public data on all aspects of management of the pandemic in Australia. To date it’s been an information-free zone. Think black box.
Vaccinating Australia: insufficient urgency, too much choice? (26 Aug) begins with the assertion that the Gift of vaccination is being Stawelled and although it isn’t a race, Australia is coming last.
No-one seems to have been in a hurry, and those whose turn it is to run are confronted with so many different lanes and handicaps that some of them have been confused. This second article in the group bemoans the lack of urgency and innovation; (the U.K.’s first drive-through vaccinations were given in December 2020). The Federal Government, responsible for aged care, gave the job of vaccination of aged care patients and staff to private enterprises. It allowed a range of other parties to be involved (PHNs, GPs, State and Commonwealth hubs, hospitals) and, confronted with so many options, staff of aged care who were left to their own devices were uncertain and unmotivated. There was no understanding of the importance of individual convenience of accessing a jab.
When things have settled down it will be useful to understand why the covid vaccination campaign doesn’t seem to have benefited from the successful models for life-time (inc. children’s) public health and workplace vaccinations.
The third piece, Vaccine: Let’s not forget the first priorities (1 Sept), focuses in more detail on the failure to get residential aged care patients covered. The unimpressive history of the Government’s ‘national vaccine rollout strategy’, from early January 2021 to (the forthcoming) mandating of vaccination for aged care staff (17 Sept) is briefly rehearsed. (There are two chances that this target will be met – one of which is Buckley’s.)
In the early days the first criterion for setting the priority of a particular group of people was the extent to which they were vulnerable to serious illness and, potentially, to death. No-one objected to this criterion but unfortunately the same people (no-one) bothered to manage the work that needed to follow.
Analysis of what went wrong has to considerthe shortage of vaccine supply (obviously), generalised incompetence and lack of urgency, the absence of public information, confusion or overlap between federal and state jurisdictions and, in particular, an ill-disciplined approach to setting priorities for vaccination and acting on them. This last is critical when there is a shortage of supply.
With the Delta variant rampant, vaccination became the key asset in efforts to limit the number of infections, not simply the means of protecting the vulnerable. New criteria for allocation included where a person lives and what contribution they are likely to make to spread of the disease.
The piece ends with consideration of how vaccine supply has to be cross-matched with demand. Such an exercise must be happening behind the scenes, but without it being known to the public (see above!) the Government can maintain its mal-practice of trumpeting success in obtaining extra vaccine supply without emphasis on the fine print ie that the bulk of it doesn’t arrive until month x or next year.
Between you and me, this particular piece was written in the middle of the night after I had bumped in to a television re-broadcast of the day’s Question Time. What upset my sleep were bits of the Prime Minister’s responses in which he claimed that the speed at which vaccinations were by then occurring had made up for the 4-month delay, so much so that the original target would be met by Christmas “or even sooner”. He credited this turnaround to the fact that the government had “been able to bring forward doses” and had “been able to achieve and realise additional supplies”. [It’s clear now that this referred, inter alia, to the swap with Boris.]
In that same Question Time the Prime Minister reported that double-dosed vaccination rates in aged care facilities were “upwards of 80%”. He seemed to regard this as a success, despite the too long history of the issue, and attributed it to the priority given to vaccinations in aged care “which has enabled us to visit all of these facilities to ensure that the double doses are done”. It is not clear what ‘upwards of 80%’ means, or how many of the other 20% have had their first.
The last piece posted in this batch is Vaccination: Accounting for the muddle.
A ledger is needed for Australia’s vaccination program:
‘An account represents a detailed record of changes that have occurred in a particular asset during the accounting period. All these separate accounts are kept in a loose leaf binder, and the entire group of accounts is called a ledger. The ledger is a record which provides all important information.’
The ledger must provide information to the public in an open format and in language people can understand.
Both sides of the ledger must be considered – vaccine supply and demand for vaccine. The Federal Government should inform the public even when things are uncertain and, especially, when plans become unavoidably changed.
The supply side of the ledger is affected by variations in the planned period between a first and second jab. It seems extraordinary that there is no readily available chart showing the best estimates from the research community around the world of the changes in efficacy for the various vaccines consequent upon changes to the time between first and second dose.
The undisciplined approach to priorities for vaccination has extended to a lack of action on them. It’s as if the system’s managers have colluded with public opinion: ‘The highest priorities are still not met – so let’s focus on new ones!’
Instead of a blitz approach to vaccine in aged care facilities, a complicated system developed led by private enterprise entities. Decision makers and commentators were able, in effect, to hide behind the phrase ‘the most vulnerable’. To this vulnerability criterion was added the seriousness of the impact on health and other essential services of sickness and the resulting absence of members of the workforce. This is still important.
With the Delta variant, where a person lives and what contribution they are likely to make to spread of the disease have become as important as the extent to which someone’s health is likely to be severely affected by the condition, should they be infected.
The magnitude of the challenge of allocating scarce vaccine is illustrated by listing those groups who have recently been suggested as being of the highest priority. They include the original highest priorities, hospital staff, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, year 12 students, people in selected hot-spots, teachers, inter-State transport workers, children, the 16-39 year olds, childcare and disability support workers, and paramedics.
Unless and until there are ample supplies of vaccine, some extremely difficult decisions will have to be made. If they are not, people will have unrealistic expectations and there is a real risk that they would then be alienated from the program.
Lecturer: Have you done the assignment?
Student: Yes – but I haven’t had time to write the short one.
Note: this is the third of three posts that have been delayed as I tried unsuccessfully to have them published elsewhere.
‘An account represents a detailed record of changes that have occurred in a particular asset during the accounting period. All these separate accounts are kept in a loose leaf binder, and the entire group of accounts is called a ledger. The ledger is a record which provides all important information.’
A ledger is needed for Australia’s vaccination program. To date it has been a muddle, but there’s plenty more to do and therefore plenty of opportunity to improve it.
The ledger must provide information to the public. This means that it must be both open and constructed and written in a language people can understand.
The asset is the vaccine, still in short supply. The business is Australia. The Board is the government. The CEO is Scott Morrison. (There is soon to be a shareholders’ meeting and the Board will be looking to the CEO to protect their reputation and their remuneration.)
Both sides of the ledger need to be considered.
Vaccine supply
Of all factors in the vaccination muddle, nothing has been more significant than the shortage of vaccine supply.
The Morrison government must show more trust in the public and take them into their confidence where vaccine supply is concerned. The public needs and deserves to see the details of expected supply of vaccine over the next 12 months and more.
What is the anticipated delivery schedule for Pfizer and Moderna? Will there possibly be others? What progress on a vaccine for under 12 year olds? Greg Hunt has said that a million doses of Moderna will arrive in Australia in late September and 10 million Moderna shots are scheduled to be delivered to Australia this year.
AstraZeneca: in economic terms, an inferior good??
Just this week 1 million doses of Pfizer have been received in a swap deal with Singapore. Are more such arrangements possible?
The Federal Government may not be certain how much will be delivered from overseas or when. But the public should kept informed. The Government should inform them even when things are uncertain and, especially, when plans become unavoidably changed – when targets can’t be met. Given such information the public will feel more involved and more supportive of whatever timeline is necessary.
The supply side of the ledger is also being affected on an almost daily basis by variations in the planned period between a first and second jab. It seems extraordinary that there is no readily available chart showing the best estimates from the research community around the world of the changes in efficacy for the various vaccines consequent upon changes to the time between first and second dose.
Individuals are making decisions every day without information about changes in efficacy and the gap between the first and second. GPs have been trusted with providing decisive advice to their patients without clear knowledge of projected changes in efficacy.
Vaccine demand
One of the most egregious problems is that there has been a very undisciplined approach to the setting of priorities for vaccination and, more importantly, of action to meet them.
In January 2021 a priority ranking per population group for vaccination was agreed. The highest priority (‘1a’) was allocated to quarantine and border workers, front-line health officials, aged and disability care workers, and aged and disability care residents (emphasis added).
This order might have been forgotten but it has never been changed. How is it possible, then, that during Question Time on Monday 30 August the Prime Minister – with no sense of contrition or regret, said:
“And what we have been able to achieve this year, prior to these most recent waves hitting New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, is that we have double-dose vaccination rates in our aged-care facilities upwards of 80 per cent. And what that has meant is that our most vulnerable in our community this year, because of the vaccines, compared to last year, and in particular the priority we placed on vaccinating those in residential aged-care facilities and ensuring that we were able to visit all of those facilities to ensure that those double-dose vaccinations were provided – that has saved hundreds (sic) and hundreds (sic sic) and hundreds of lives.”
An earlier piece on this blog has discussed the forthcoming vaccination requirements for aged care workers. Not including aged care in the home, this will apply to some 154,000 people in more than 2,700 facilities.
An analysis by the Guardian Australia, published on 25 Aug, revealed that 582 centres had vaccinated less than 50% of their workforce with a single dose, while 60 centres hade vaccinated less than 20%. (Only one in five aged care homes close to vaccinating all staff against Covid as deadline looms, Sarah Martin and Nick Evershed, Guardian, 25 Aug 2021.)
The priority order has not been discussed or changed but what has happened is that a number of other priorities have emerged and jostled with those original population groups for a place in the sun.
The process can be characterised as “The highest priorities are still not met – so let’s focus on new ones!”
With an appropriate amount of urgency, energy and innovation, it would have been possible to provide vaccinations to every patient and staff member in residential aged care in three weeks, never mind three months. What was required was an almost exclusive focus on the top priorities for a short time. Every facility could have been visited by a vaccination team, flying-squad style.
It’s the kind of logistical exercise the military are good at, as evidenced by its work after a national disaster. It would have required open, effective liaison with the facilities themselves, collaboration between State and Territory agencies, and with local government, local volunteers, the SES and local health staff. But it could have been done. It must now be done.
Instead of this blitz approach, a complicated system was devised led by private enterprise entities to deliver the vaccines. There was the occasional mention of the lack of progress, but the stronger interest shifted to other priorities, as if leaders, experts, the media and their public were bored with the old priorities and were more interested in ‘discovering’ and promoting new ones.
Decision makers and commentators have, in effect, hidden behind the phrase ‘the most vulnerable’. It has been easy to defer to this term without actually converting it into action. Now that the Delta strain has written a new script, someone has to decide on a daily basis whether to allocate the last vial of vaccine, as it were, to an elderly person, a nurse, an infant, a mobile 25-year-old, someone with a disability, an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, a year 12 student, an interstate truck driver, or a paramedic.
To this vulnerability criterion were added practical, commonsense criteria about the potential seriousness of the impact on health and other essential services of sickness and the resulting absence of members of their workforce. This is still an important consideration.
With the Delta variant, the key criteria for allocation include geographical and demographic characteristics. Where you live and what contribution you are likely to make to spread of the disease have become as important as the extent to which your health is likely to be severely affected by the condition. Some might even dare to whisper that the elderly ought to have no higher priority than young adults – the mixers and spreaders – and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Both sides of the vaccine ledger need to be openly discussed. Matching projected receipt of vaccine with agreed priorities will be very difficult. Some horrible options will have to be chosen.
But with an open book and full information provided to the public, there will be greater certainty about the path towards ‘full vaccination’ and unrealistic expectations can be avoided.
It will be vital that people in priority groups do not face the same frustrations and logistical difficulties that many have already experienced. If the supply schedule suggests that there will be inadequate doses for aged and disability care, for all hospital staff (now clearly a top priority), special rollout to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, year 12 students, selected hot-spots, et cetera, then the expectations of people in those cohorts should not be raised above what can be accomplished.
The situation is serious. The following groups have already started to fill positions in the queue for vaccine or are scheduled to do so:
all aged care staff (by 17 Sept.)
more aged care residents (“As of August 20, 86 per cent of aged care residents and 67 per cent of NDIS participants in residential accommodation have had at least one dose of vaccine.” ABC News, Tracking Australia’s COVID vaccine rollout numbers, Digital Story Innovation Team, 2 Sep 2021.)
in NSW: “New public health order requires staff to have their first vaccine dose by September 30. To continue working, staff must either be fully vaccinated by November 30 or have their second appointment booked.” (“The nation’s leaders should mandate COVID-19 vaccination for doctors, nurses and hospital cleaners, according to Australia’s peak medical body, with the federal government declaring the issue is ‘very high on the agenda’ of all state and territory chief health officers.” ABC News, Doctors back mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for health worker, Stephanie Dalzell, 31 Aug 2021.)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. (Is there a priority order? By place? Age group?)
Teachers? “last week many teachers felt betrayed after the announcement that New South Wales teachers will need to be vaccinated as part of the ‘road map’ to getting students back in school, – “ “There was little detail to the announcement apart from it being implemented from November 9.”
inter-State truck drivers?
“On August 20, NSW mandated that childcare and disability support workers who live or work in a council ‘of concern’ must have received their first vaccination dose by August 30.”
In NSW: “Authorised workers who live in an LGA of concern and need to leave it for work are only permitted to do so if their employer has implemented rapid antigen testing, or they have had their first vaccination dose by August 30.” NSW Government website,COVID-19 vaccination for workers, 1 September 2021.
paramedics?
And let’s not forget that it has been agreed that the next cohorts will be 16-39-year-olds (from early Sept) and 12-15-year-olds from 13 September.
While ever there is a shortage it will be essential to set priorities and stick to them.
Let’s get on board with Buckley. They’re all we have.
Note: this is the third of three posts that have been delayed as I tried unsuccessfully to have them published elsewhere.
