29 Dec 2016

Adelaide Scholarships International (ASI) Australia for Masters & Doctoral Studies 2017/2018

Application Deadlines:
  • Round 1: 31st of August 2016 (Passed)
  • Round 231st January 2017
  • Round 330th April 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the university.
About Scholarship: The University of Adelaide offers a scholarships scheme for international students undertaking postgraduate research study for Master’s and Doctoral degrees. The purpose of the financial award programme is to attract high quality overseas postgraduate students to areas of research strength in the University of Adelaide to support its research effort.
Type: Masters & Doctoral
Selection Criteria : The selection and ranking of applicants within the University of Adelaide is undertaken by the Graduate Scholarships Committee, using the criteria of academic merit and research potential.
Eligibility
  • In order to be eligible applicants are required to have successfully completed at least the equivalent of an Australian First Class Honours degree (this is a four year degree with a major research project in the final year). All qualifying programs of study must be successfully completed.
  • Scholarships will be awarded on academic merit and research potential. Extra-curricular achievements are not considered.
  • International applicants must not hold a research qualification regarded by the University of Adelaide to be equivalent to an Australian Research Doctorate degree or, if undertaking a Research Masters degree, not hold a research qualification regarded by the University of Adelaide to be equivalent to or higher than an Australian Research Masters degree.
  • International applicants who have not provided evidence of their meeting the minimum English language proficiency requirements for direct entry by the scholarship closing date, or who have completed a Pre-Enrolment English Program to meet the entry requirements for the intended program of study, are not eligible.
  • Candidates are required to enrol in the University of Adelaide as ‘international students’ and must maintain ‘international student’ status for the duration of their enrolment in the University.
  • International applicants are not eligible if they have already commenced the degree for which they are seeking an award, unless they can establish that they were unable to apply in the previous round.
  • Scholarships holders must commence study at the University of Adelaide in the semester the scholarship is offered.
  • Applicants who applied and were eligible for consideration in an international scholarship round, and were unsuccessful, will automatically be reconsidered in the following international scholarship round, assuming they hold a valid offer of candidature for that intake. An applicant who has been considered in 2 rounds cannot be reconsidered in any future scholarship rounds.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value of Scholarship:
  • Course tuition fees for two years for a Masters degree by Research and three years for a Doctoral research degree (an extension is possible for doctoral programs only),
  • An annual living allowance ($26,288 in 2016) for two years for a Masters degree by Research and three years for a Doctoral research degree (an extension is possible for doctoral programs only), and
  • For Postgraduate Research (Subclass 574) visa holders the award provides compulsory standard Overseas Student Health Cover (OSHC) Worldcare policy for the student and their spouse and dependents (if any) for the standard duration of the student visa.  It does not cover the additional 6 month extended student visa period post thesis submission. If the award holder does not hold a subclass 574 visa then he/she is responsible for the cost of health insurance.
Duration of Scholarship: 2 years for Masters; 3 years for Doctoral
Eligible Countries: All countries except Australia and New Zealand
To be taken at (country): University of Adelaide, Australia
How to Apply
To apply, you have to submit a formal application for Admission and a Scholarship via an online application system. There is no application fee.
Visit scholarship webpage for details
Sponsors: University of Adelaide, Australia
Important Notes: The offer of a scholarship is contingent upon a student not being offered another award by the Commonwealth of Australia, the University of Adelaide, or an overseas sponsor. The University reserves the right to withdraw an offer of a scholarship at any time prior to enrolment if it is advised that an awardee has been offered a scholarship equal to or in excess of the financial value of the award offered by the University.

Grand Challenges Africa Grants 2017 to Fund Innovative and Bold Ideas

Application Deadline: 17th February 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
About the Award: The African Academy of Sciences – Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AAS-AESA) is launching two new Grand Challenges:
1) Providing new impetus and solutions and strategies to help Africa meet the SDG 3 target for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH). These cover key areas of:
  • New technologies to enable rapid identification of exposures that lead to poor outcomes in pregnancy, birth and in the first month of life — these could be exposures to communicable and non-communicable diseases.
  • Precision medicine approaches and techniques to identify microbes and other exposures in Africa that may increase susceptibility to non-communicable diseases (cancer, cardiovascular diseases, etc.) in mothers and children under 5 years of age.
2) Creative approaches to engage the public, and inspire policy and decision makers to increase investment in African Research & Development.
These new grand challenge innovation grants will be issued and administered under the banner of Grand Challenges Africa (GC Africa), a program implemented in partnership with theNew Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD Agency) and theBill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Round 1 is a joint initiative of the GC Africa partners and Institut Pasteur of Paris (IP).
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: 
  • The call will be open to African investigators working in African based, domestic organizations, including non-profit organizations, international organizations, government agencies, research and academic institutions.
  • The call is also open to non-African investigators with an appointment/affiliation with any of the nine Institute Pasteur institutes in Africa, who are resident in Africa, with at least 18 months left on their tenure of service/affiliation by the time of receiving the award.
Value of Programme: 
Phase I Funding: Funded up to $100,000 USD per two-year project. These awards are meant to provide an opportunity to test particularly bold, proof of concept ideas, including applying approaches from outside the fields indicated for this call. New approaches could be piloted as additions to ongoing projects.
Phase II funding: Winners of Phase I grants will have an opportunity to apply for follow-on, phase II funding in future but please note that support for phase II funding is NOT part of this call. We expect that successful projects funded at Phase I by GC Africa, and by our partners BMGF and Grand Challenges Canada (GCC), and which demonstrate promising results, will have the opportunity to apply for Phase II funding either to GC Africa or directly to the other partners.
GC Africa will also provide a platform for partnering with other funders through the Grand Challenges Innovation Network (GCAiN).
How to Apply: Applications MUST be submitted through the African Academy of Sciences Ishango Online Application Portal. Grants will go to investigators in African countries, but we encourage partnerships with investigators in other countries, especially where the opportunity exists to build new or strengthen existing collaborations.
Before embarking on your application, make sure you have read and understood the Rules and Guidelines governing the application process. Please also read the detailed Request for Proposals.
Award Provider:  African Academy of Sciences – Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AAS-AESA)
Important Notes: Please note that this call is NOT OPEN to – for profit making organizations.

Sweden: University of Gothenburg Full Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 2nd February, 2017 at midnight CET (annual).
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International. You can apply for all four scholarships, however it is only citizens in a country on the OECD/DAC list that can apply for the fourth scholarship option.
To be taken at (country): Sweden
About the Award: The Admissions Office at the University of Gothenburg administers four types of scholarships:
• The University of Gothenburg Study Scholarship, which is funded by the Swedish Council for Higher Education, and covers the complete tuition fee for a study programme at the University of Gothenburg.
• A scholarship funded by Adlerbert Foundations, which contributes to accommodation expenses for all the applicants who have been granted the University of Gothenburg Study Scholarship.
• A scholarship funded by Adlerbert Foundations, which covers the complete tuition fee for a study programme at the University of Gothenburg and contributes to accommodation expenses.
• A scholarship funded by Adlerbert Foundations, which is specifically intended for applicants who are citizens of an annual prioritized country from the OECD/DAC list, that and covers the complete tuition fee for a study programme at the University of Gothenburg and contributes to living and accommodation expenses.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  1. To be eligible for the scholarship selection process, you must meet the entry requirements and be admitted in the first selection to a two-year Master’s Programme at the University of Gothenburg which you have applied for, in the first admission round with application deadline 16 January 2017.
  2. Scholarships are offered to applicants demonstrating a high level of academic performance. The selection process consists of an assessment made by academic and administrative staff at the University of Gothenburg. Priority is given to those who apply to the University of Gothenburg as their first choice.
  3. You can apply for all four scholarships, however it is only citizens in a country on the OECD/DAC list that can apply for the fourth scholarship option.
Selection: The selection process takes place in early spring, i.e. during the same period of time that the applications for programme studies are processed. Scholarship notifications are sent out via e-mail around the same time as the Second Notification of Selection Results is published.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded
How to Apply: The scholarship application will be open between 17 January 2017 (9 a.m. GMT 1) and 2 February 2017 (9 a.m. GMT 1).  Access to the scholarship application form will be enabled as soon as the scholarship application period opens.
Please note that you must first apply via universityadmissions.se for one or several two-year Master’s Programmes, with application deadline 16 January 2017, before applying for the scholarships. Once you have applied for studies you will receive an application number which is required in the scholarship application. Deadline for scholarship applications is 2 February 2017.
Award Provider: University of Gothenburg

The Pentagon’s $125 Billion Cover-Up

MIRIAM PEMBERTON

Let’s say you ask somebody a question. They give you an answer you don’t like, so you pretend you didn’t hear it. Probably all of us would cop to something like this at some time in our imperfect pasts.
For most of us though, that pretending hasn’t included trying to hide $125 billion.
The Pentagon has a little image problem: Google “Pentagon waste” and you get more than 500,000 hits, including stories about $600 toilet seats and $7,600 coffee makers. The finances of the largest agency in the federal government are so screwed up, it’s the only one that still can’t pass an audit.
So a couple of years ago the Pentagon paid some consultants to find ways to cut down on this waste. If some good ideas came out of this, Pentagon officials figured, they could show how concerned with efficiency they were and apply the savings to their wish lists of pet military projects.
It didn’t turn out quite that way.
In three months the Pentagon brass had on their desks a report outlining $125 billion in proposed cuts — nearly a quarter of the total budget — mostly to the workforce that manages things like accounting, human resources, and property management for this enormous operation. This workforce has ballooned in the last decade, even as the ranks of soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women have shrunk.
The report didn’t even get to the real waste in the Pentagon budget, like the $1 trillion it’s planning to spend to replace our entire nuclear arsenal, or the $1.4 trillion it’s shelling out on the F-35, a plane that after 19 years in development still can’t reliably beat the models we already have.
But it still made the Pentagon leadership nervous. They’re in the midst of pleading poverty. They go around talking about a “gutted” military, even as that military sits on more money than the Reagan administration ever gave it.
OMG, they thought: What if this blueprint for cutting waste resulted in actual cuts to their budget?
What if, instead of being plowed back into other military projects, that $125 billion were freed up for roads or schools or green energy, or applied to the deficit?
They couldn’t let that happen. So they pretended not to hear this news and buried the report.
It blew up on them when a recent Washington Post story exposed this act of suppression. Now it’s generating exactly the sort of media attention they were trying to avoid.
Members of Congress have vowed to get to the bottom of this cover-up of billions in wasted taxpayer money. “If this is true, the Pentagon played Congress and the American public for fools,” Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill said.
In a way, this $125 billion is funding a big federal jobs program — more than a million people doing jobs that a fraction of them could handle just fine. But this is the kind of make-work program conservatives have been complaining about for years.
Why not use the savings outlined in the report — and billions more, by saying no to budget-busting weapon systems we don’t need — and put people to work doing things our country actually needs? Like educating our children, making the transition to clean energy, and building the transit systems we need to boost the economy and avoid the worst effects of climate change.
The country is in a no-more-business-as-usual mood right now. Let’s make sure that applies to the Pentagon.

The Long, Slow Death of Religion

James Haught

By now, it’s clear that religion is fading in America, as it has done in most advanced Western democracies.
Dozens of surveys find identical evidence: Fewer American adults, especially those under 30, attend church — or even belong to a church.  They tell interviewers their religion is “none.” They ignore faith.
Since 1990, the “nones” have exploded rapidly as a sociological phenomenon — from 10 percent of U.S. adults, to 15 percent, to 20 percent. Now they’ve climbed to 25 percent, according to a 2016 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute.
That makes them the nation’s largest faith category, outstripping Catholics (21 percent) and white evangelicals (16 percent).  They seem on a trajectory to become an outright majority.   America is following the secular path of Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and other modern places.  The Secular Age is snowballing.
Various explanations for the social transformation are postulated:  That the Internet exposes young people to a wide array of ideas and practices that undercut old-time beliefs.  That family breakdown severs traditional participation in congregations.  That the young have grown cynical about authority of all types.  That fundamentalist hostility to gays and abortion has soured tolerant-minded Americans.  That clergy child-molesting scandals have scuttled church claims to moral superiority. That faith-based suicide bombings and other religious murders horrify normal folks.
All those factors undoubtedly play a role.  But I want to offer a simpler explanation:  In the scientific 21st century, it’s less plausible to believe in invisible gods, devils, heavens, hells, angels, demons — plus virgin births, resurrections, miracles, messiahs, prophecies, faith-healings, visions, incarnations, divine visitations and other supernatural claims.  Magical thinking is suspect, ludicrous.  It’s not for intelligent, educated people.
Significantly, the PRRI study found that the foremost reason young people gave for leaving religion is this clincher: They stopped believing miraculous church dogmas.
For decades, tall-steeple mainline Protestant denominations with university-educated ministers tried to downplay supernaturalism — to preach just the compassion of Jesus and the social gospel.  It was a noble effort, but disastrous.  The mainline collapsed so badly it is dubbed “flatline Protestantism.”  It has faded to small fringe of American life.
Now Catholicism and evangelicalism are in the same death spiral.  One-tenth of U.S. adults today are ex-Catholics.  The Southern Baptist Convention lost 200,000 members in 2014 and 200,000 more in 2015.
I’m a longtime newspaperman in Appalachia’s Bible Belt.  I’ve watched the retreat of religion for six decades.  Back in the 1950s, church-based laws were powerful:
It was a crime for stores to open on the Sabbath.  All public school classes began with mandatory prayer. It was a crime to buy a cocktail, or look at nude photos in magazines, or buy a lottery ticket.  It was a crime for an unwed couple to share a bedroom.  If a single girl became pregnant, both she and her family were disgraced.  Birth control was unmentionable. Evolution was unmentionable.
It was a felony to terminate a pregnancy.  It was a felony to be gay.  One homosexual in our town killed himself after police filed charges.  Even writing about sex was illegal.  In 1956, our Republican mayor sent police to raid bookstores selling “Peyton Place.”
Gradually, all those faith-based taboos vanished from society. Religion lost its power — even before the upsurge of “nones.”
Perhaps honesty is a factor in the disappearance of religion.  Maybe young people discern that it’s dishonest to claim to know supernatural things that are unknowable.
When I was a cub reporter, my city editor was an H.L. Mencken clone who laughed at Bible-thumping hillbilly preachers.  One day, as a young truth-seeker, I asked him:  You’re correct that their explanations are fairy tales — but what answer can an honest person give about the deep questions:  Why are we here?  Why is the universe here?  Why do we die?  Is there any purpose to life?
He eyed me and replied:  “You can say:  I don’t know.”  That rang a bell in my head that still echoes.  It’s honest to admit that you cannot explain the unexplainable.
The church explanation — that Planet Earth is a testing place to screen humans for a future heaven or hell — is a silly conjecture with no evidence of any sort, except ancient scriptures.  No wonder that today’s Americans, raised in a scientific-minded era, cannot swallow it.
Occam’s Razor says the simplest explanation is most accurate.  Why is religion dying?  Because thinking people finally see that it’s untrue, false, dishonest.
White evangelicals tipped the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump, giving an astounding 81 percent of their votes to the crass vulgarian who contradicts church values.  But white evangelicals, like most religious groups, face a shrinking future. Their power will dwindle.
It took humanity several millennia to reach the Secular Age.  Now it’s blossoming spectacularly.

IMF lowers Sri Lanka’s growth forecast

Saman Gunadasa

Released on December 9, the International Monetary Fund’s latest review of the Sri Lankan economy raised concerns about the situation facing the island-nation and reduced its previous growth forecast for 2016, from 5 percent to 4.5 percent, and from 5.5 percent to 4.8 percent for 2017.
Addressing the Sri Lankan media via video link from Washington, Jaewoo Lee, head of the IMF mission team for Sri Lanka, said, “The external environment is not as favourable as we used to think, that is the main reason for the downward revision … The Central Bank should be ready to tighten policy if global vulnerabilities grow. We emphasise this readiness.”
Jaewoo’s “unfavourable external environment” comment is a reference in particular to the US Federal Reserve’s recent 0.25 percent rate increase and anticipated rate hikes as the incoming Trump administration’s boosts infrastructure investments in the US.
The IMF report warned that one of the key risks facing the Sri Lankan government was the “weaker than expected capital inflows or a reversal of capital flows.” Moody’s investor service has also reported that Sri Lanka is in the highest category of “overall, vulnerability to the direct and indirect effects of sustained capital outflows.”
On December 18 the Business Times revealed that foreign investment in Sri Lanka was $336 million for January–August 2016, down by 37.1 percent from $534 million in the same period last year. It warned that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in 2016 could be below the $681 million invested in 2015.
FDI in Sri Lanka, the publication noted, was “minuscule when compared to similar, emerging and former war-ravaged economies like Vietnam ($15 billion in 2015) and Myanmar ($9.4 billion 2015/16).”
The IMF report noted a sharp fall in Sri Lanka’s foreign currency reserves, down from $5.07 billion to $4.23 billion between October and November. Gold reserves also dropped by 8 percent to $848 million. Sri Lankan export earnings are also falling fast. In the first eight months of 2016, they fell by 4.1 percent to $6.865 billion from the same period 2015.
The IMF estimates that Sri Lanka currently has $2 billion tied down in currency swaps and wants the remaining foreign currency reserves to be held in cash.
The IMF pointed out that capital outflows were pushing down the value of the Sri Lankan rupee, which has depreciated 3.1 percent during the current year, and warned that this would adversely impact on overall economic activity in Sri Lanka.
These are not mere statistics but find their reflection in the devastation of the social conditions of Sri Lankan workers and the poor whose wages and income remain static while the cost of basic items are climbing to intolerable levels.
The IMF also warned that depreciation of the rupee produces slow growth, which, in turn, will negatively impact on the IMF’s current estimates of Sri Lanka’s external debt. The agency expects the external debt to be reduced by 6 percent to 49 percent of GDP by 2021.
The IMF also noted that the Sri Lankan government would face difficulties fulfilling its commitment to repay a series of commercial loans by 2019.
“Sri Lanka’s public debt and gross funding needs were high compared with its peers, with the ratio of gross financing needs to GDP being the fifth largest among emerging economies,” the report said. It emphasised Sri Lanka’s public debt reached 80.4 percent of GDP at the end of 2015 with 47 percent denominated in foreign currencies.
In early December, Sri Lankan Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake said that the World Bank had agreed to provide $1.34 billion to the government, with $440 million in development assistance at 2 percent interest and the rest defined as “normal assistance” on a higher interest rate.
Karunanayake also said exchange control laws would be liberalised to allow anyone to bring money into the country as long as it was earned through “legitimate” means. He did not elaborate what he meant by “legitimate.”
In line with IMF demands, the government is slashing public spending. Karunanayake has announced that the finance ministry is establishing a special unit to review the overheads of all government ministries. On top of the already reduced budgetary allocations, each ministry will have to submit an expenses report to the Cabinet every three months.
The health and education budgets have already been slashed in the 2017 budget, along with cuts to fertilizer subsidies for farmers, clothing subsidies for school children and food subsidies to the poorest sections of Sri Lankan society.
The IMF report hailed the government’s increase in the value-added tax—from 11 percent to 15 percent—and hikes in other taxes. “Fiscal performance has been encouraging,” it declared. “The reinstatement of the amendments to the value-added tax will help boost revenues … The new Inland Revenue Act scheduled for early next year should result in a more efficient, transparent, and broad-based tax system.”
The IMF insisted, however, that “complementary structural reforms in tax administration, public financial management, and the governance and oversight of state-owned enterprises are critical for durable fiscal consolidation.” It also referred to “lower than expected growth and larger than expected losses at State-owned Enterprises [SOEs]” and stressed the need for the privatisation of several SOEs and “proactive management” of SOE debt.
The IMF noted the government was already preparing Statements of Corporate Intents for Sri Lanka’s six largest SOEs. While these were not named it is a clear sign of the government’s readiness to step up the IMF’s privatisation demands.
Commenting on the moves to privatise the national airline, the agency said: “A resolution strategy for Sri Lankan Airlines is to be adopted by December 2016 (with delay), including finding a strategic partner and a comprehensive cost-cutting.”
The Sri Lankan government has already signed a framework agreement with China’s Merchant Port Holdings Company Limited to sell the Hambantota port, offering 80 percent of the port’s share value to the Chinese company for $1.1 billion.
Colombo’s determination to impose the IMF’s demands and crush all resistance to its socially-regressive policies, was made clear early this month when it mobilised the police, the armed navy soldiers and blacklegs backed by court orders and a virulent media campaign to break up strike action by Hambantota port workers. The casual workers were fighting for job permanency when the new company takes control of the facility.
The ruthless character of the government attack on the Hambantota port workers is in response to the growing hostility of other sections of the working class, rural poor and student youth towards its regressive measures.

Australia: Video reveals agonising death of Aboriginal woman in custody

Zac Hambides

On August 4, 2014, at Port Hedland in northwestern Australia, Julieka Dhu, a 22-year-old Aboriginal woman, died of a preventable illness while in police custody for unpaid fines of $3,622.34. Dhu had been imprisoned on August 2 for four days to “cut out” her fines, after calling police to report she was a victim of domestic violence.
Her fines had accumulated over years, primarily due to previous clashes with the police, including a skirmish with a policewoman (“assaulting a police officer”) when she was just 18.
Under pressure from Dhu’s family and supporters, the Western Australia (WA) state coroner, Ros Fogliani, released on December 16 some video footage of Dhu’s last moments in the South Hedland police station.
The video, which has been widely shared, shows Dhu’s collapse in her cell due to illness. An officer enters and pulls at her arm. When she does not get up, he lets go and allows her to drop, her head lolling off the bed. The officer then pulls her arm again and pushes her onto the bed. Finally, he then pulls her up by her arms and drags her from the bed.
Outside her cell, another officer grabs Dhu’s feet and she is carried to a police van. Her body is completely limp, and she appears barely conscious throughout.
Fogliani had refused to release the footage on the basis that it had “the real potential to re-traumatise and distress the family,” despite the family repeatedly demanding it be released to the public. The lawyer for Dhu’s father, Kevin Banks-Smith, said the family thought exposing the last hours of her life was “the most powerful and effective way they can honour [her] memory.”
The coronial inquiry found that Dhu died of staphylococcal septicaemia and pneumonia, an infection that spread widely throughout her body but was easily preventable with antibiotics. She was also suffering from a fractured rib and osteomyelitis, a bone infection.
In the police cell, Dhu had complained of chest pain and was twice taken to Hedland Health Campus, a small regional hospital. But she was discharged back into police custody without necessary tests or a chest x-ray, on the basis she had “behavioural issues.” She died on a third visit.
According to the evidence, police officers asserted that Dhu was faking her injuries and told medical staff she only started complaining when she found out she would have to spend four days in custody.
Fogliani described the police behaviour as “unprofessional and inhumane” but did not recommend any charges against the officers. WA Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan said 11 officers had “breached procedures but there’s been no criminality identified.” He said four officers had been “sanctioned” internally but did not say what measures, if any, would be taken against them.
WA Premier Colin Barnett essentially blamed Dhu for her own death, saying: “While that should never have happened, and I don’t excuse it, there were difficult situations the police were facing then. A lot of aggression and the like.”
Such official responses, effectively ensuring legal immunity for the police, are typical. There is a growing number of deaths, of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, in police custody or prison. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which was launched by the Hawke Labor government to head off a groundswell of opposition to the deaths of 99 Aboriginal prisoners between 1980 and 1989.
As intended by the Labor government, the royal commission was a whitewash—it did not lead to the conviction of a single officer. Instead the commission issued recommendations primarily aimed at integrating a layer of Aboriginal leaders into the state and police force as advisors. These measures, such as the establishment of Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committees, have only led to an increase in deaths in custody.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 10 Aboriginal people died in custody in 1991, when the royal commission report was released, then quickly peaked to 22 deaths in 1995 and only dropped to 9 in 1992 and 2007 before rising to 13 in 2008, the last year ABS figures are available.
Although racism undoubtedly plays a role in the cruel treatment of indigenous people by the police, there is a high rate of deaths for all prisoners, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike. There were 57 non-indigenous people killed in police custody in 1991, spiking to a record 90 deaths in 1997 and remaining high, with 73 killed in 2008. In fact, the ABS states there is no difference in the rates of death for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal prisoners, but that a disproportionately high number of Aboriginal people are detained by police.
These statistics, barely ever reported in the media, point to the underlying class issues. Indigenous people are more likely to be imprisoned, and die, because they are among the poorest and most vulnerable members of the working class.
Dhu’s plight illustrates this reality. She was far from alone in being jailed for being unable to pay fines.
Since tougher conditions for fine-defaulters were introduced in 2009, the number of people in WA jails for fine-defaulting has increased sixfold. Last year, one in three women sent to jail was there for unpaid fines. For all Aboriginal prisoners, the figure was one in six.
The number of fines issued in WA courts increased by 30.8 percent from 349,511 in 2010-11 to 457,295 in 2014-15. The total fines issued annually rose 45 percent, from $76.8 million to $111.3 million.
According to an April 2016 report by the WA Inspector of Custodial Services, 7,026 people were jailed for the non-payment of fines between 2006-07 and 2014-15, averaging 11 people in jail on any one day. Non-Aboriginal young men made up just over 20 percent of the total, with non-Aboriginal men as a whole making up 48 percent.
These statistics provide only a limited indication of the social distress, including rising joblessness, inequality and cuts to essential social services, that is driving the increasing rates of imprisonment for non-payment of fines.
The repressive “law and order” response of successive governments, such as imprisonment for fine-defaulting, harsher bail laws and mandatory prison terms for minor offences, is boosting the powers of the police, and the entire state apparatus, to deal with rising political and social unrest as economic conditions deteriorate.

Australia: Political instability deepens as Liberal Party faces potential split

Linda Tenenbaum

On December 22, the Australian, Rupert Murdoch’s national flagship, reported: “Fears are mounting within the Liberal Party that maverick South Australian senator Cory Bernardi is set to split from the Coalition to spearhead the new Australian Conservatives party, with an announcement expected in the new year.
“The conservative firebrand and his ‘very close friend’ Gina Rinehart met key members of US president-elect Donald Trump’s campaign team, including former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, in Washington last month, fuelling fears the senator might have the support of Australia’s richest woman to bankroll the party and dilute the Liberals’ support base.”
Bernardi, who was thrown off the Liberal Party’s frontbench for linking gay marriage with polygamy and bestiality, first mooted a far-right breakaway party in the immediate aftermath of the July 2 federal election, which saw the Liberal-National Coalition government scrape into office with a mere one-seat majority.
The election brought to the surface the extent of seething political discontent among wide layers of the population towards ever-widening social inequality, unemployment, the casualisation of former full-time jobs, and the unrelenting, three-decades-long assault on social rights, especially public education, health and pensions. The establishment parties, Liberal, National, Labor and Greens, together won just 75 percent of the vote, their lowest combined result since the Second World War. In the absence of any alternative program or perspective from Labor, the Greens or the trade unions, a series of right-wing populist parties and individuals was able to capitalise on this mass disaffection, winning a total of 11 “cross-bench” Senate seats. Not one of them offered any solution to the social crisis. Instead, they sought to channel the growing popular hostility and outrage in a nationalist, xenophobic and chauvinist direction.
Bernardi responded to the election result by calling it a “disaster,” and accusing Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of driving away the party’s “base.” “You’re seeing a whole bunch of conservative votes splinter off into other parties,” he said. “I want to make sure that people who have a conservative disposition are adequately represented in the public square.” Bernardi insisted that the task was now to unite “Australian Conservatives … regardless of their party affiliation,” and that Pauline Hanson, leader of the anti-immigrant One Nation party, which won four Senate seats, should not be “dismissed.”
Yesterday, Murdoch columnist Miranda Devine revealed that, in an interview on 2GB radio, Hanson had told her that she was willing to “join forces” with Bernardi, and would even allow him to “take over [One Nation] rather than forming another party, which would only split the conservative vote.” Devine characterised Hanson’s offer as a “stunning proposal that would send shockwaves through the Coalition” and concluded that Bernardi would be “unlikely to rebuff Hanson’s offer to solidify conservative support for them both…”
Having won four federal Senate seats, Hanson’s One Nation is preparing to stand scores of candidates in the next state elections in Queensland and Western Australia. Recent polls indicate that she has up to 30 percent support in major working class suburbs of Queensland, and a Galaxy poll recorded 16 per cent support across that state.
Bernardi and Hanson share a common platform, which has strong similarities with that of US President-elect Trump, the UKIP party in Britain, the AfD in Germany and Marine Le Pen in France: economic nationalism, anti-immigrant chauvinism, militarism and war. Their new-found prominence (in the case of Hanson, after being sidelined for nearly 18 years), is due to factors similar to those that have elevated their counterparts in Europe and the US. It is symptomatic of the depth of the economic, political and social malaise throughout the country.
They target the most economically devastated areas, where recent studies have revealed some 6.6 million people now live in conditions of actual recession, centred in Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. They utilise demagogic rhetoric to vilify all Muslims as responsible for “Islamic terrorism” and call for their deportation, and blame welfare recipients for the social crisis inflicted by successive governments, both Liberal-National and Labor, over the past three decades. They attack China and Chinese land buyers for attempting to take over the country.
While Hanson wins adherents by railing against the banks, demanding higher taxes on foreign companies and advocating protectionism, Bernardi makes a more direct appeal to his Christian fundamentalist constituency. He is an avid climate change denier and a campaigner for the claw-back of democratic rights, such as same-sex marriage and abortion. A message on his Australian Conservatives web site, posted on December 19, said the group was planning a “massive” 2017. “Our new state-of-the-art website is almost ready to go, and we will be launching it early next year, along with a number of important campaigns.” It claimed to have “60,000 supporters.”
Bernardi has apparently hinted that his new party will be called “Australian Majority.”
Politicians and the media blame the rise of figures such as Hanson and Bernardi on the working class and its alleged shift to the right. In reality, this is far from the truth. What is in fact underway, in Australia and internationally, is a pronounced radicalisation among growing layers of workers and young people, expressed in escalating opposition to social inequality, state repression and war. Those workers who voted for Trump in the US, did so not because they were “racists,” or “sexists,” but because the Democrat Obama, with the full support of Clinton, had presided over eight years of war, mass unemployment and austerity, and the rise of social inequality to historically unprecedented levels. Many decided that they could not live through four more years of the same.
Bernardi is particularly sensitive to this radicalisation, having visited the US in the midst of the presidential election campaign. On his return, he warned that a left-wing movement could emerge in Australia, similar to that which had coalesced behind Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party candidate in the US primaries.
On November 3, just days before the US election, Bernardi told the Guardian that he believed “anyone other than Hillary Clinton would clean up in this contest.” He went on to say that if Sanders had been the Democratic candidate he would have won, because he had promised change and a “policy mix that appealed to many people.”
Sanders won more than 13 million votes in the primaries, only slightly fewer than Clinton, by declaring himself a “democratic socialist” and calling for a “political revolution” against the billionaires. He claimed to strongly oppose Clinton, criticising her ties to Wall Street and her highly-paid speeches to bankers and corporate chiefs. It was precisely Sanders’ self-proclaimed commitment to socialism that attracted such strong support.
Having ridden on this rising sentiment for progressive social change, especially among young people, Sanders then demonstrated his real politics—his support for the “billionaire elite”—by nominating Clinton on the floor of the Democratic National Convention. Immediately after that, he publicly offered to support her campaign. As a result, many of his outraged supporters refused to vote for Clinton, while some expressed their disgust by voting for Trump.
Bernardi indicated his main fear when he spoke to the Sydney Morning Herald on December 11, explaining that a US pollster had shown him “research that found 50 per cent of young Americans believe socialism or communism is a preferable system to capitalism.”
Concerned, above all, to prevent such a development in Australia, Bernardi is hoping to use bigotry and prejudice to sow political confusion, provoke divisions in the working class and blame “foreigners” for the deteriorating conditions generated by Australian capitalism. Above all, as his comments on Sanders indicate, he is striving to prevent the emergence of a genuine socialist movement in the working class and among young people that fights for a revolutionary internationalist solution to the capitalist crisis.  
Despite Bernardi’s intentions, there is considerable nervousness within the ruling establishment about a split in the Liberal Party, one of the two mainstays of bourgeois rule in Australia. In the past nine years, there have been five changes of government and four inner-party coups within the Liberal and Labor parties, creating an already toxic climate within Canberra’s corridors of power, and immense anxiety in corporate and financial boardrooms.
An Australian editorial on December 23 warned that “revived speculation about another conservative splinter” to be headed by Bernardi was a “reminder about the dangers of such political fracturing.” It urged Turnbull to adjust the “positioning” of his government, that is, to shift it far further to the right.
For now, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whom Turnbull ousted in September 2014, is appealing to Bernardi, a member of Abbott’s conservative faction in the Liberal Party, to remain in the party. But the instability and turmoil that has been wracking Canberra for the past several years will only deepen in 2017.

UK: “Localism” flagship Bristol City Council on verge of bankruptcy

Mark Blackwood

The passing of the Localism Act in 2011 was hailed by the then-Conservative/Liberal Democrat government as the start of a new era of “people power.”
Former Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles declared the new legislation would herald “a ground-breaking shift in power to councils and communities overturning decades of central government control.” Bristol, the largest city in the southwest of England, with a population of 433,000, became a flagship of the coalition’s plans. It was to become the first city outside London to be governed by a directly elected mayor and a “rainbow” cabinet in which the Green Party played a key role. Now the city is on the verge of bankruptcy.
In 2011, the World Socialist Web Site warned that talk of giving local communities greater “choice and ownership” over “local facilities and services” was a cynical exercise designed to enable corporate and financial concerns to tailor locally administered public expenditure and assets to their interests. In the process, central government funding would be axed and local public services restructured and privatised.
Localism was part of a broader move in Scotland, Wales and the English regions, directed towards a layer of the upper middle class, who saw devolution as a means of obtaining for themselves a greater share of the wealth secured through driving up the rate of exploitation of the working class and imposing tax cuts and other measures to attract corporate investment.
The Tories borrowed the concept of localism from the 1997-2010 Blair Labour government.
The creation of a directly elected mayor was a key aspect of the Localism Act. Presiding over all executive functions, the mayor would control decisions relating to staffing, the tendering of council services and awarding of contracts, housing policy and planning permission.
Speaking of the plans for a directly elected mayor in Bristol in 2012, former Labour Council leader Helen Holland said, “I think this is going to bring some stability to the city.”
Stephen Williams, the former Bristol West Liberal Democrat MP, insisted, “It is going to mean that Bristol is going to be much more powerful.”
The Green Party, which has had some influence in the city, was opposed nationally to the creation of directly elected mayors, declaring they undermined local democracy.
In May 2012, Bristol and nine other cities—Manchester, Coventry, Nottingham, Bradford, Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle, Wakefield and Leeds—held referendums to introduce directly elected mayors. The hostility to the plans was such that in all the cities except Bristol they were thrown out. And in Bristol, the measure was just in favour (53 percent) on a turnout of only 20 percent. In one city ward, it was 6 percent.
Local millionaire architect George Ferguson was awarded the post. In the 1970s, Ferguson was the first Liberal to be elected to the City Council, a Labour stronghold for decades. Aware that he would never be elected as a representative of the despised Liberal Democrats, Ferguson resigned his membership shortly before the election and stood as an Independent.
Despite the unprecedented low turnout, a spokesman for the campaign in support of the mayor told the BBC, “It was one of the most significant days in Bristol politics in living memory.”
Today, Bristol City Council is suffering a 78 percent cut to its annual budget over 10 years from £201 million in 2010-2011 to £45 million in 2019-2020. Throughout this time, Labour and the Greens have been incapable of articulating any serious challenge to Westminster’s austerity demands, choosing attacks on services and wages as the only option.
The Green Party’s manifesto for 2012 declared, “We do not agree with the logic of cutting public spending at a time of recession,” and pledged to “fight for Bristol resources.”
Newly elected Ferguson offered the Green Party councillor for the Ashley area of the city, Gus Hoyt, the position of cabinet member for neighbourhoods, environment and council housing in his six-member “rainbow cabinet.” Although the Green Party was publicly opposed to directly elected mayors, Hoyt accepted—a decision unanimously endorsed by the local Green Party. Hoyt now declared the “rainbow cabinet” was a “positive and innovative new direction,” and an alternative to the “ancient ideas of confrontational politics” at Westminster and sent “an important message to other cities around the country and Europe.”
Shortly after his appointment, Hoyt and the Green councillor for Southville, Tess Green, declared that there was “no alternative but to accept the financial situation which has been imposed upon us.” They voted to support £35 million in cuts to jobs and services in the 2013 budget, and raise council tax by nearly 2 percent.
Hoyt and Ferguson sought to force the council to drop its no-eviction policy for council tenants affected by the bedroom tax. Ferguson presided over unprecedented cuts to vital services from 2012-2015. The Green Party was key to their imposition.
In the Bristol mayoral election in May 2016, Ferguson was thrown out and Labour’s Marvin Rees took his place, declaring on his investiture, “We will prioritise the public services that help the most vulnerable in our city to lead lives of dignity and respect. Together, we will be ambitious in driving our city forward in its task of becoming a leading European city.”
Rees was strongly backed by party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who visited the city four times during his election campaign and once after his victory. He appointed six Labour councillors to his cabinet along with one Conservative, one Lib Dem and one Green—Fi Hance as cabinet member for city health and wellbeing.
Like his predecessor, Rees has wasted no time in implementing cuts and slashing jobs. With the council projected to face a budget deficit of £60 million for the year 2019/2020, it was announced in August that up to 1,000 jobs are to go this financial year.
In early December, a freeze on “non-essential spending” was issued by Rees, halting “all maintenance of buildings, roads and parks unless there is a risk to people’s health or safety. The council will also stop recruiting any permanent or temporary roles unless they provide legally-required services, and will not agree any new or extended contracts for goods or services without approval from the Chief Executive and statutory financial and legal officers.”
Speaking to the Bristol Post, Rees declared, “Drastic cuts are just around the corner and hundreds of council staff will lose their jobs by the end of the financial year—but Council Tax bills will be going up from April.”
At a projected rise of 3.5 percent, the average working class household will be expected to pay an additional £50 per year in Council Tax from April of next year.
Contrary to the rhetoric of “people power,” and empowering local communities, localism has enabled a more effective imposition of the Tories’ economic and political agenda. As demonstrated in Bristol, brutal austerity and the destruction of public services have proceeded using the services of the Labour Party and Green Party.

Polish government strips powers from parliament and constitutional court

Clara Weiss

Encouraged by the electoral victory of Donald Trump in the US, the Polish ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) has stepped up its offensive against the country’s liberal opposition and its efforts to establish an authoritarian regime.
During the night of 17 December police broke up a blockade of the parliament (Sejm) organised by the opposition. Previously, the liberal opposition had organized protests throughout Poland, mobilising tens of thousands to oppose a new law restricting the access of the media to parliament.
One day earlier, on Friday, 16 December, deputies of the opposition Civic’s Platform (PO) and Nowoczesna (Modern) had occupied the plenary hall of the Sejm to protest against the law. The government responded by switching the vote on the 2017 budget to another room, and, according to media reports, excluded both members of the opposition and the media. Thereby the PiS effectively prevented the opposition deputies from voting on the budget, one of the most important rights of the Sejm.
Opposition Sejm deputies still continue to occupy the plenary chamber. The occupation is due to continue until the next scheduled meeting on January 11. The Sejm has now been surrounded with a metal fence and is guarded by policemen. Demonstrations outside the building are forbidden and PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński has accused the opposition of an attempted “coup”.
Three days after the Sejm blockade, the PiS, with the support of President Andrzej Duda, stripped the powers of the country’s constitutional court in a cloak and dagger operation. On the nights of 19 and 20 of December, it rapidly passed three changes of law, which in effect places the court under government control. The president of the constitutional court is now to be appointed directly by the state president, and Duda immediately appointed PiS supporter Julia Przyslebska as new court president. The term of office of Andrzej Rezpliński, who was close to the opposition, had expired on 19 December.
At the end of last year, the constitutional court had declared several laws passed by the PiS to be unconstitutional. The government, however, refused to print the judgments, which did not become legally binding under Polish law. Now, the constitutional court is virtually eliminated as an institution independent of the government. The PiS can now pass the constitutional changes announced by the party in 2015 in its electoral program.
The EU has openly placed itself on the side of the liberal opposition in the domestic political debate. After a meeting on 21 December, the EU Commission asked Poland to amend the most recent legislative amendments to the constitutional court within two months. It did so within the framework of the so-called “rule of law” mechanism, which the EU Commission applied against Poland for the first time in its history at the beginning of the year. PiS has already announced that it will not accept the most recent proposals. If it does not meet the new deadline, the EU can theoretically withdraw Poland’s voting and veto rights.
The former president of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, has described this move as a “nuclear option”. In the history of the EU, sanctions have never been imposed against a member country. However, such an option appears unlikely because Hungary is likely to use its veto. A decision for sanctions could also quickly lead to Poland quitting the EU, leading in turn to the collapse of the Union.
With its authoritarian offensive, the PiS is reacting to the election of Donald Trump in the US. It regards the election of the right-wing billionaire who draws on far right forces as confirmation of its own domestic policy. At the same time, the election result has exacerbated the dispute over the country’s foreign policy orientation. Polish ruling circles fear that the US government under Trump will distance itself from NATO and seek rapprochement with Russia.
The PiS is responding to growing uncertainty in international relations with authoritarian measures and accelerated military rearmament. The liberal opposition has no real alternative to offer, apart from appeals to privileged sections of the urban middle class and the European Union, which is responsible for enforcing austerity throughout Europe at the expense of the working class.
The PiS’s authoritarian measures are highly unpopular, although the government has tried to neutralize working class opposition with some social concessions such as the introduction of a child allowance of 500 Zloty per month (around €125) and a reduction in the retirement age. In polls, 68 percent of the population rejected the law restricting media access to parliament. A majority of Poles also oppose the PiS offensive against the constitutional court. Around 47 percent say the country is heading in the wrong direction, with this figure expected to grow.
Ultimately, however, the liberal opposition is far more afraid of mobilizing the working class than of the authoritarian measures and methods of the PiS. Like the PiS, it emerged from sections of the Stalinist bureaucracy and the Solidarity trade union movement, which supported capitalist restoration in 1989. The restoration led to a massive impoverishment of the working class, broad layers of the middle class and the rural population. The limited bourgeois democratic rights established in the constitution in 1997 to legitimize capitalist restoration and create a stable framework for bourgeois rule have been almost completely dismantled by the PiS within a year.
On the issue of warfare against Russia, the liberal opposition basically agrees with the government. There are, however, sharp differences as to which imperialist powers Poland should align.
The PiS government is oriented towards a close alliance with the US and UK and the establishment of an alliance of Eastern European states against Russia—the so-called Intermarium. It opposes the attempts of Berlin to convert the EU into a military union, and fears German pre-eminence in Europe. Its authoritarian tendencies, drawing from the example of the Pilsudski regime that ruled between the world wars, are aimed at preparing for war and the violent repression of the working class.
The liberal opposition, on the other hand, argues that an alliance of Eastern European states against Russia is unfeasible and would bring Poland into conflict with Berlin, which rejects an Intermarium solution. The liberal opposition regards an exclusive orientation to the US and the UK as a threat to Poland’s national interests. It therefore wants to establish a close alliance with both the US and the EU and in particular Germany, Poland’s most important economic partner.
The election of Donald Trump as the next US president has intensified these differences. The now feared rapprochement between Russia and the US would be a disaster for both camps. The liberal wing of the bourgeoisie, represented by the key figure of EU Council President Donald Tusk, considers it all the more important to work closely with Germany and France and strengthen the EU.
Representatives of the government, on the other hand, have declared their desire to work more closely with the US. The PiS has, in the main, sought to ignore and downplay the threats made by Trump to desert NATO and intensify relations with Russia. The Polish bourgeoisie has maintained an orientation towards the US and NATO since 1989. Following the accession of Poland and other Eastern European countries into the Atlantic military alliance, the US has repeatedly tried to play off these countries (“new Europe”) against Berlin and Paris (“old Europe”) in order to counter the growing influence of Germany in the EU. Under the former PO government led by Donald Tusk, who is now a close ally of Chancellor Merkel, Poland developed close political and economic relations with Germany and, to a lesser extent, France.
The threatened break-up of the EU, the growing conflicts between the leading imperialist powers of Europe and the US and the possible change in the course of US foreign policy under Trump now pose a practically insoluble dilemma for the Polish bourgeoisie. As was the case in the 1930s, it is desperately trying to steer between the imperialist powers which are increasingly on the path toward world war.