Last weekend Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott put the goods and services tax (GST) back on the table. Last night Mr Abbott gave a speech to the Business Council of Australia (BCA), challenging big business to lead the “fight” for tax reform and to help convince the Labor party (ALP) “to join team Australia and think of our country and not the next election.” Despite Mr Abbott saying pre-election that “the GST will not change, full stop, end of story” on Monday he confirmed that changes to the GST would “all be looked at as part of the federation reform process and as part of the tax reform process”.

The current government is clearly pro big business, with Mr Abbott taking big business leaders on his first overseas trip to Indonesia last year and other trips to China, America (USA) and Canada declaring that “Australia is open for business.” Business magnate Rupert Murdoch was invited this month by Australian Treasurer, Joe Hockey to address the Group of twenty (G20) dinner, for finance ministers in Washington for the International Money Fund’s (IMF) annual meeting.The first time that someone from outside the G20 has addressed the group.

And speaking of big business influence let’s not forget the enormous influence on the government wielded by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). It’s founders being a group of business leaders that included Mr Murdoch’s father, Sir Keith Murdoch. And according to their website: The IPA was formed in 1943 to provide a firm philosophical grounding for free market policy and ideas because it believed the then Labor government wanted to exploit wartime circumstances to massively increase the role of the Commonwealth government, taking powers from state governments, and undermining the freedom of citizens. Rupert Murdoch served on the IPA Council in the years 1986 through to 2000 and he gave the key note address for the IPA’s 70th anniversary last year.

The IPA also last year came up with a seventy-five point list of ideas for the government and buoyed by positive government feedback it came back with a further twenty-five ideas. Amongst the second lot of ideas was their GST and health policies: 78. Extend the GST to cover all goods and services but return all extra revenue to taxpayers through cutting other taxes. And 79. Abolish the federal department of health and return health policy to the states. 

The BCA released their paper ‘The Future of Tax Australia’s Current Tax System’ in September this year, and this sentence is of particular interest: Vertical fiscal imbalance will be exacerbated over time as demand for health services increase while the tax base of states and territories is further eroded, for example due to the GST-exempt status of items such as health expenditure.

If we look at the health services that are GST free (without considering medical services or medical aids), they include many things such as dental, nursing, psychology, pharmacy, optometry and social work. Considering the governments attempt at a medical levy in their as yet to be passed budget, and the wish for the states to run their own states, could this be their work around? We witnessed yesterday just how hard nosed this government can be with the introduction of the fuel excise despite it not passing Parliament and side stepping the Senate.

Apart from the fact that it’s lazy, the Australian people voted for the government to run our country not big business, the BCA, the IPA, Mr Murdoch or lobby groups. And the fact that Mr Abbott is asking for help from big business in persuading the ALP to “join Team Australia” is unsettling because it doesn’t resemble democracy in the slightest. If the broadening of the GST or increasing of it is remotely on the cards it needs to be brought to the people as well as big and “small” business. The budget situation needs mature discussion within the government itself to find solutions, not finding it’s saving measures through underhanded tactics.

BRIC is the acronym for the four country alliance, Brazil, Russia, India and China economic group. BRIC had their first major summit in Russia in June 2009, calling for a more diversified International monetary system and wanting a bigger say in the global financial system. “The emerging and developing economies must have a greater voice and representation in international financial institutions.” “The summit must create the conditions for a fairer world order,” the BRIC leaders said in their final statement of the first summit. In December 2010 South Africa got invited by China and it is now commonly known as BRICS. The term BRICS came about from former Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill, in his publication Building Better Global Economic BRICs.

As of 2014, the five BRICS countries represent nearly 3 billion people or 40 percent of the world population, they have about US$4 trillion in combined foreign reserves and their global economic output is around 18 percent. In 2003 Goldman Sachs forecast that China and India would become the first and third largest economies by 2050, with Brazil and Russia taking the fifth and sixth spots.

In 2010 at the Group of twenty (G20) summit in Canada, the global financial system discussion turned to the International Money Fund’s (IMF) and reforms of the fund’s quotas and governance. The IMF was created in 1945 by 29 member countries at the end of World War ll, to rebuild the global economic system and provide money and resources in times of crisis. Countries contribute funds to the IMF through a quota system with the current quota formula being a weighted average of gross domestic product (GDP); weight at 50 percent, openness at 30 percent, economic variability at 15 percent, and International reserves at 5 percent. GDP is measured through a blend of GDP based on market exchange rates; weight at 60 percent and on PPP exchange rates of 40 percent. Quotas are denominated in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), the IMF’s unit of accounting. The largest member of the IMF is the US, with a current quota of SDR 42.1bn (about $65bn), and the smallest member is Tuvalu, with a current quota of SDR 1.8 m (about $2.78m).

In essence the developed countries are the ‘creditors’ and provide the funds and the developing countries are the ‘borrowers’. In 1989 English economist John Williamson presented his set of 10 economic policies the Washington Consensus, which was reform package modelling for developing countries in economic crisis for the likes of the IMF, World Bank, and the US Treasury Department. It includes policies such as privatisation, de-regulation, trade liberalisation and austerity measures. The IMF has been criticised for it’s policies not working in many areas, with some countries claiming a loss of sovereignty by agreeing to support their measures. The common theme in these criticisms is that the policies are too generalised, out dated and narrow to suit different countries economic situations.

In 2012 China offered $43Bn to the IMF reserves, joining other BRICS who had pledged new funds totaling $75Bn, to strengthen the global financial system during Europe’s debt crisis after the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). “These new contributions are being made in anticipation that all the reforms agreed upon in 2010 will be fully implemented in a timely manner, including a comprehensive reform of voting power and reform of quota shares,” the BRICS leaders said in a joint statement.

At the fifth BRICS summit in South Africa in 2013, an alternative to the IMF was agreed to by the BRICS leaders and it was named The New Development Bank (NDB). In July at the sixth summit they issued a lengthy 72-point Fortaleza Declaration which included agreeing to form the NDB to fund infrastructure and other development projects in BRICS and other developing nations economies. With the two most relevant paragraphs being:“12. The Bank shall have an initial authorized capital of US$ 100 billion. The initial subscribed capital shall be of US$ 50 billion, equally shared among founding members. The first chair of the Board of Governors shall be from Russia. The first chair of the Board of Directors shall be from Brazil. The first President of the Bank shall be from India. The headquarters of the Bank shall be located in Shanghai. The New Development Bank Africa Regional Center shall be established in South Africa concurrently with the headquarters.

“13. We are pleased to announce the signing of the Treaty for the establishment of the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with an initial size of US$ 100 billion. This arrangement will have a positive precautionary effect, help countries forestall short-term liquidity pressures, promote further BRICS cooperation, strengthen the global financial safety net and complement existing international arrangements.  

The US is the current largest shareholder of the fund; and their voting share is currently set at 16.8 percent, with the BRICS getting 11 percent of the votes in the IMF, despite accounting for more than 20 percent of global economic activity. Countries representing nearly 80 percent of IMF votes have approved the reforms but major decisions need 85 percent approval therefore giving the US veto power. This years G20 in Brisbane is rapidly approaching and the US still hasn’t signed off on it, with many world financial leaders including Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey unhappy about the lack of progress. British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, said that by failing to ratify the agreement it “is bad for the institution and bad for the international community.” He also said the changes will allow countries such as Brazil “to have the enhanced status and say that your economic strength earns you the right to.”

The US President Barrack Obama’s Chief Communications Strategist, Dan Pfeiffer laid the blame with the Republicans saying that “It’s simply irresponsible that the Republican leadership insisted on holding I.M.F. reforms hostage in an effort to protect their special-interest campaign contributors’ ability to pour money into the system unchecked.”

BRICS had concerns in March this year ahead of the G20 in Brisbane of the reporting of the banning of Russian President Vladimir Putin: “The Ministers noted with concern, the recent media statement on the forthcoming G20 Summit to be held in Brisbane in November 2014.  The custodianship of the G20 belongs to all Member States equally and no one Member State can unilaterally determine its nature and character,” said a joint BRICS statement after the Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop had said that Putin could be barred from attending the G20 summit.

The Ministers also noted that they thought that the role of global governments should be to focus on “finance, security, information and production”. And “The BRICS agenda is not centered around any specific country or related issue and shares a common vision which drives it to also increasingly identify common areas for cooperation to assist with finding global solutions to global challenges,” noted the joint communiqué.

The BRICS meet was convened by South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and was attended by counterparts Sergey Lavrov, Salman Khurshid, Wang Yi and Carlos Antonio Paranhos and the Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs of the Federative Republic of Brazil.

The BRICS Ministers also discussed cybersecurity and challenges to peace and security, “notably the significant infringements of privacy and related rights in the wake of the cyber threats experienced, for which there is a need to address these implications in respect of national laws as well as in terms of international law.” said the statement and that BRICS would “continue to act as positive catalysts for inclusive change in the transformation process towards a new and more equitable global order.” The five nations also agreed that the challenges that exist within the regions of the BRICS countries must be addressed by the United Nations. And that: “The escalation of hostile language, sanctions and counter-sanctions, and force does not contribute to a sustainable and peaceful solution, according to international law, including the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter.”

The US, through the IMF and it’s Washington Consensus set of policies, increasingly appear to have lost their way globally with their constant interference in other countries economies and as a consequence their leadership; whilst it’s own economy isn’t doing well and hasn’t for quite some time. The developing countries obviously deserve more of a say in global financial matters, particularly when the US is in debt to China with a massive deficit that I’m sure must keep many financial leaders including Mr Hockey awake at night.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane announced their Industry, Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda on Tuesday, saying that the policy was designed to lower business costs and encourage entrepreneurship while boosting skills and infrastructure. Mr Abbott wants to explore a trial of a Pathways in Technology Early College High School, (P-TECH) type-school, after visiting one in New York (NY) this year.

P-TECH is a collaboration between NY public schools, the City University of NY, and IBM Global Business Services (IBM). The Brooklyn school takes students typically of lower socio economic background, in the ninth grade and aims to have them graduate six years later with both a high school diploma and an associate degree in computers or engineering, and a possible job at IBM. The students all have IBM mentors and it launched it’s program in September 2011, reflecting not only IBM but other technology company’s like Apple, Microsoft and Google’s concerted push into education reform.

The then NY mayor Michael Bloomberg explained the concept when he announced the partnership with IBM in 2010. “Together, we’ll create a school that runs from grades nine to grade 14 – yes, grade 14. All students will learn the traditional core subjects, but they’ll also receive an education in computer science and complete two years of college work. When they graduate from grade 14 with an associate’s degree and a qualified record, they will be ‘first in line’ for a job with IBM and a ticket to the middle class, or even beyond.”

Mr Bloomberg was the NY Mayor from 1st January 2002 – 31st December 31st 2013 and at the beginning of his first term his net worth was estimated as $5Bn. Near the end of his term in September 2013, Forbes reported Mr Bloomberg’s wealth as $33Bn and ranked him as the 13th richest person in the world. He wanted his legacy to be public education reform and within a few months, Mr Bloomberg brokered a deal with the State to gain control of the schools and ended Community school boards. The NY City Schools Chancellor is the leader of the NY City Department of Education (DOE), the agency that handles NY City’s public schools. Joel Klein was named as Chancellor in July 2002 by Mr Bloomberg, under the new school governance legislation, giving the Mayor control of New York City’s 1.1 million-student public school system.

Mr Klein was formerly an anti-trust lawyer with a multimillion dollar practise and he was the CEO of multinational mass media Bertelsmann, Inc. During a leave of absence from law school in 1969, Mr Klein studied at NY University’s School of Education and taught math to sixth-graders at a public school in Queens until he was called upon by the U.S. Army Reserves for basic training. NY State requires chancellors or school superintendents to have at least three years of teaching experience and graduate work in school administration, including an internship or similar experience. Since 1970, the State’s Education Commissioner has been allowed to waive the requirements for “exceptionally qualified persons” who have “training and experience” that are the “substantial equivalent” of the formal requirements. On August 1, Mr Klein received a waiver from the then State Education Commissioner Richard Mills to take the post.

Bloomberg praised Mr Klein, highlighting his management experience and leadership abilities. “Joel Klein embodies the exact qualities we need in a Schools Chancellor: integrity, dynamism, the ability to bring diverse constituencies together and an unwavering commitment to results,” Bloomberg said. “Running one of the Justice Department’s most successful divisions as well as a major media company has given him the extensive and wide-ranging management experience necessary to turn our schools around. He knows how to run a large organization, from picking the best people, to balancing large budgets, and making sure everyone is accountable.”

The Race to the Top (RTTT) was a $4.35Bn Department of Education contest created to spur innovation and reforms in state and local district Kindergarten – Year twelve or K-12 education. It was announced by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on July 24, 2009. States were awarded points for satisfying certain educational policies and building data systems. State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. And the categories were  – Great Teachers and Leaders (138 total points); State Success Factors (125 total points); Standards and Assessments (70 total points); Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 total points) and Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 total points). In addition to the 485 possible points from this criteria, the prioritization of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education is worth another fifteen points for a possible total of 500.

Mr Bloomberg’s education reform included school’s scores only doing better than the last year to receive funding and because of this many successful schools were closed down for being unsuccessful in their scoring. Many unsuccessful schools as such got the bulk of funding for raising scores slightly. Chartered or Independent Schools were also encouraged in Mr Bloomberg’s reform Charters, are publicly financed but independently operated.

Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne wants public schools across Australia to follow the move of Western Australian schools, believing Independent public schools improves student outcomes. Mr Pyne also said: “All International evidence points to the fact that the more autonomous a school, the better the outcomes for students.” The Federal Government has promised to make 25 per cent of public schools ‘Independent’ by 2017. It’s offering $70 million in funding to make it happen. The Australian Broadcast Corparation (ABC) Fact Check found: There to be no measured improvement in student outcomes in WA Independent public schools. “All International evidence” does not point to the fact that the more autonomous a school, the better the outcomes for students. And that Mr Pyne’s claims are unsubstantiated.

News Corporation (News Corp) owned by Rupert Murdoch, bought Wireless Generation (Wireless Gen) at the end of 2010 for $360m, it focused on assessment and analytics for data-driven or online instruction. Just two weeks before Wireless Gen had been bought by News Corp, Mr Klein announced he would resign from DOE to work at the company, heading up its new “educational” online division and “overseeing investments in digital learning companies.” After Mr Klein resigned, News Corp officials told The New York Times that they planned to make “seed investments” into entrepreneurial education companies.

“When it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching,” said Mr Murdoch.

In May 2011 the NY State Education Department sent a letter to the State Comptroller Thomas P. Di Napoli, asking him to approve a $27 million no-bid contract with Wireless Gen, to build the state’s student and teacher data system, as required for funding under the RTTT. Controversy followed, primarily as a result of conflict of interest concerns with Mr Klein’s new position with Mr Murdoch. Then a month later News Corp was engulfed in the infamous phone hacking scandal in July 2011, with which Mr Klein also assisted with. Several advocacy groups, posted online petitions that garnered thousands of signatures, urging Mr Di Napoli to veto the Wireless Gen contract. Several NY state legislators also wrote letters to the State Comptroller in opposition to the awarding of the contract.

A replacement was needed for Mr Klein and Mr Bloomberg’s proposed appointment as his successor was Cathleen P. Black, an executive from the publishing world, and the Chairman of Hearst magazines, a multinational mass media group. Much controversy swirled because of her lack of education experience and a waiver was required once again from the State’s Education Commissioner. Much support was needed and emails that were finally released after a thirty month legal fight last year, showed a mad scramble by Ms Black, who was still the chairwoman at Hearst magazines, and people in City Hall to line up powerful women to support her for the role as chancellor. An endorsement from Oprah Winfrey (Hearst magazines takes care of O, The Oprah Magazine) was brokered, and backing was sought from public figures such as Diane von Furstenberg, Donna Karan, Evelyn Lauder and Whoopi Goldberg. Ms Black got her waiver but in April 2011 just ninety-five days later, she had to resign after Mr Bloomberg told her in a blunt meeting that her troubled appointment could not be salvaged. Ms Black struggled in most aspects of her role including the massive budget, woeful public appearances littered with bad jokes and ill thought comments and above and beyond all a lack of leadership with hundreds of thousands of staff to oversee.

Ms Black was quickly replaced by Dennis M. Walcott a seasoned and likeable Deputy Mayor with much education experience. He still required a waiver because of a lack of administration experience but his other qualifications were ample enough and he finished his role with Mr Bloomberg.

On August 3, 2011 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation via their blog ‘The Impatient Optimists’ announced it’s involvement in the Shared Learning Collaborative, describing it as an App store for teachers to share learning tools. They also announced: “The foundation took an important first step a few weeks ago and selected a vendor to build the open software that will allow states to access a shared, performance-driven marketplace of free and premium tools and content. That vendor, Wireless Generation, will create the software, but it will be owned by an independent nonprofit, so that any school, school district, curriculum developer, or tool builder can contribute to the collaborative.”

On August 25, 2011 Mr DiNapoli wrote a letter to DOE, informing them that he was rejecting their contract with Wireless Gen to develop their internal state database: “In light of the significant ongoing investigations and continuing revelations with respect to News Corporation, we are returning the contract with Wireless Generation unapproved.”

By December 2011, the Board of Regents, an Independent Governing body that oversees the States Colleges and Universities, approved DOE’s plan to share student and teacher data with a new Limited Liability Company (LLC), to be funded by the Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporation and others called the Shared Learning Collaborative. The Gates Foundation awarded $76.5 million to be spent over seven months, with $44 million of this funding going to Wireless Gen, to design and operate the system, though according to one Regent, they were not told of the involvement of Wireless Gen before their vote.

In July 2012 News Corp changed the name of it’s education arm to Amplify. Amplify is built on the foundation of Wireless Gen and focuses on a tablet-based learning platform for students and teachers. News Corp has spent at least $180 million, according to Bloomberg, on top of the $360 million it spent to acquire the technology. Amplify spokesperson Justin Hamilton, claims its tablets are not just affordable but more affordable than textbooks. The tablet costs $299 plus another annual $99 subscription fee. For a fancier AT&T 4G model, it’s $349 plus $179 per year. The tablet is a customized Android tablet with a 10-inch, Gorilla Glass screen and is powered by a lithium-polymer battery that can last up to 8.5 hours. Mr Hamilton expects tablet computers to be as common place as text books: “We want the money we’re currently spending on print to [be spent on] digital,” Hamilton says.

Roger Kay, a technology commentator and founder of Endpoint Technologies Associates, Inc, theorised in an Op-ed for Forbes that Mr Murdoch sees the education market as a Trojan horse for spreading his political ideology. Every school that purchases News Corp’s curriculum will be teaching classes, somewhat dictated by the corporation. Amplify makes it clear its curriculum will be completely based on Common Core, but as the Common Core website states: The Common Core is not a curriculum. It is a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents, and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms. It addresses privacy concerns of a national student data base of information with this: There are no data collection requirements for states adopting the standards. Standards define expectations for what students should know and be able to do by the end of each grade. Implementing the Common Core State Standards does not require data collection. The means of assessing students and the use of the data that result from those assessments are up to the discretion of each state and are separate and unique from the Common Core.

More than 45 states have adopted the Common Core State Standards for student learning. News Corp via Mr Hamilton calls the moment exciting, a chance to “let a thousand flowers bloom.” Amplify’s tablet-based curriculum is available with or without a tablet and can run on any tablet computer. Pricing is scant to be found as their website denies access to Australian Internet Service Provider’s, to access their shop. Mr Kay, is also concerned about the oversight of the curriculum. He says it wouldn’t be difficult to make small changes based on political opinion. “You want a good academic controlling education,” he says, not a Corporation.

As of February 5, 2013, the Shared Learning Collaborative was renamed inBloom Inc. A non-profit organisation that was a data warehouse platform. inBloom’s mission was to inform the student and the teacher with data and tools designed to personalise learning. The idea being to compile enough information so teachers and or software could tailor assignments to each student’s needs. inBloom had contracts to do the same for millions of public school kids across nine states, tracking their work to draw conclusions about their academic performance. The information included student’s names, addresses, grades, test scores, economic status, race, special education status and disciplinary status and was to be stored on a data cloud run by Amazon and with an operating system by Amplify. For many parents, the privacy issues with data were of concern, although there weren’t any documented cases of InBloom misusing the information, parents and privacy advocates around the country argued that digital records on kids as young as five could easily be sold to marketers or stolen by hackers. Six of InBloom’s nine client states had pulled out over privacy concerns by the time the company decided to close. “The risk far outweighs any benefits,” Karen Sprowal, a mother of a fifth grader, that testified before a NY State Senate committee last November. “Just know that there’s a lot of parents like me that’s out there that say, ‘Hell, no.’ ” The company not allowing parents to opt out was also an issue.

So far this year, laws limiting or banning the sharing of student data with marketing firms or other third parties have passed in eight states in the US, including NY, Virginia, and Kentucky; and dozens more have similar legislation pending, with Big Data starting to feel the backlash. “We’ve never seen anything like this,” says Aimee Rogstad Guidera, Executive Director of Data Quality Campaign, a nonprofit that advocates for the use of data in education.

InBloom Chief Executive Officer Iwan Streichenberger says the public just didn’t understand what the company was trying to do. “We tend to be too defensive about privacy and not proactive and positive enough about the benefits of data,” he said at an industry conference the day he announced his company’s closing. “We believe in personalised learning, or the use of data to drive instruction, I do. But I think what we’ve realized is it’s still a very unknown concept for a lot of people. So they don’t understand why they should go down this path.”

Other companies are pursuing the personalised learning market more cautiously than InBloom did. “Our approach is to softly introduce tools and resources over time,” says Mr Hamilton for News Corp and the subsidiary of  Amplify, whose new software handling both data analysis and student instruction enters American schools in their Autumn.

It’s of note that in June 2013, The Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest school district in the US, awarded Apple a $30 million contract. For $678 apiece, every student will have an iPad. And Florida is rushing to meet a new statewide standard requiring half of all classroom instruction to use digital materials, by fall 2015.

Back to P-TECH, The Principal Rashid F. Davis was picked by IBM despite earlier controversy about grade tampering at Bronx John F. Kennedy High School in 2005. He and other officials were accused of exceeding their authority by raising grades. He was cleared after a five year investigation, other colleagues weren’t so lucky. Sam Palmisano, former IBM chairman, likened it to an apprenticeship. The thought came to him while chatting with then, NY Chancellor Joel Klein during a rain delay at the US Open. As they talked about the skills gap, Mr Palmisano said: “we’re not graduating kids with the qualifications to fill those jobs.” What was needed, he realized, was a program that gave kids those skills. “Everybody talks about the issues, but nobody does anything. We thought this will work.”

The first real test of any P-TECH success won’t happen until 2017, when its first class graduates. I fail to see how emulating a model without any proof of success is good government policy. The government is offering $500,000 to pilot the scheme modelled on NY’s P-TECH, and will spend $188m over four years to create industry growth centres in five specific areas: Food and Agribusiness; Mining equipment, Technology and services; Oil, gas and energy reserves; Medical technologies and Pharmaceuticals; and Advanced manufacturing.

It’s a dangerous precedent to allow Business Corporations into Australian education. It’s hard to tell yet exactly what Mr Pyne’s curriculum overhaul involves but it’s clear he and the government favours many of Mr Bloomberg’s reforms without valid proof of success. With the government calling for more power to access Australian citizen’s metadata at any time without a warrant, one wonders if something else isn’t at play? Once liberties such as privacy are taken away you very rarely get them back. And while I’m not saying that the plan is to introduce a program such as Amplify in Australia, the case is compelling.

The incentive programs on offer are also familiar and I’m not sure that they promote competitiveness when as a State you are starved for funding and will do whatever it takes to get that. The teaching profession is still a noble one, that does need reform but not with Corporates controlling via tablets; even under the guise of business philanthropy, ideology will seep in. At the very least checks and safe guards need to be put in place that are checked by an Independent Body not affiliated with the Corporations or government.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Police already have access to the metadata of Australian citizens from certain Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Telecommunication companies (Telcos). The list of others that have and can already gain access to metadata without a warrant and for undisclosed purposes include Centrelink, Local councils, The RSPCA, The ATO, Australia Post, Energy regulators, Medicare and even the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Over 330,000 requests were made for metadata in the last financial year (2012/13).

China’s highest court, The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has just recently released a new guideline pressuring Internet Service Providers ISPs to hand over the metadata of users suspected of “rights violations”. The court has called for the ISPs to be punished if they refuse to hand over the names, IP addresses and other metadata of those believed to have committed these violations. The Chinese government controls the media and online social networks are subject to heavy censorship.

It also wants to crack down on paid Internet postings and post deletions even though the government uses the same tactics to “guide public opinion” and to crack down on dissent. “Some posters, as well as workers at network service providers, often use their computer skills to make money, and that leads to a disorderly Internet,” court spokesman Sun Jungong told the state-run China Daily newspaper. Hundreds of bloggers and journalists have been rounded up over the last year in a government-backed campaign against “Internet rumours”.

The court also deemed that well-known Internet commentators known as “Big Vs” will be held to a higher standard than ordinary online posters. “If you are a verified celebrity, your obligations when re-posting online information are greater than those of the general public,” senior SPC judge Yao Hui told Xinhua news.

Following on from my post a couple of weeks ago, Australia is now officially a part of the renewed war in Iraq and Syria. This has always been a geopolitical issue which has been a big part of the Islamic State’s (IS) success. Reports are coming through that Kobani (known as Ayn al-Arab in Arabic), just miles from the Syrian and Turkish border is about to fall into the hands of IS. Turkey has not only had unprecedented numbers of Syrian refugees spilling into Turkey but it’s also been preventing Turks, and Syrian Kurds that want to cross the border again back into Syria to fight against IS.

Syrian Kurds are the largest ethnic minority in Syria, with 10-15 % of the country’s population, followed closely by Syrian Alawites (the religion of President Mr Assad) with 12%.

Tension on the Turkish side of the border was soaring on Monday the 22nd September. With clashes between Turkish security forces and Kurds wanting to approach border gates to reach their relatives or to cross into Syria continuing throughout the day, with Turkish police using teargas and water cannons against protesters.

“Turkish soldiers at the border don’t let me cross, they say it’s not allowed,” says 29 year old Kobani local Ahmed. “All I want is to defend my land and my village. I will find a way to get there.” One of his friends says that getting across the border has become difficult, and that Turkish soldiers control many of the illegal crossing points. “Since there are landmines in many areas here, you can’t just walk anywhere,” Ahmed says. “But if I live or die, I will go back to Kobani.”

Another man from Kobani, aged 33, who wishes to remain anonymous fearing for his relatives safety thought to have been captured by IS, brought his family to Gaziantep three days ago. He’s now on his way back to the border. For the past three months he’s been fighting with the Popular Protection Units (YPG), being the armed wing of the Democratic Union party (PYD), and a Syrian Kurdish affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK). In the past he manned a checkpoint close to the Euphrates, an area now overrun by IS. “We get an AK and 60 bullets each,” he explains. “That’s all we have to defend ourselves against the massive arsenal of Islamic State.”

Many of the Syrian Kurds who have been driven out of Kobani over the past week report that Isis uses artillery and heavy weaponry thought to have been looted from Iraqi arsenals. “They have military vehicles, rockets, missiles. What do you think an AK-type gun can do against that?” the man from Kobani says.

“We are very tired,” he admits. “It’s been three years. And it is getting worse every day.” He shows a gruesome image from his Facebook page on his phone showing a Kurdish fighter being beheaded by Isis jihadis.

“His name was Sinur, he was only 40 years old. What real Muslim would commit such crimes?” He adds that IS is so terrifying that people flee their villages before the first shots are fired. “We saw what they did in Shengal. How can people not be afraid?” The refugees who have managed to escape the latest IS attacks all report atrocities committed by them against Kurds in Syria, including beheadings, stonings, and the blanket torching of homes and entire villages.

Newroza, 35, describes how IS militants beat a 15-year-old girl to death, crushing her skull with a rock. “Only because she was Kurdish,” she says, angry tears in her eyes. “I want to go and fight them. If I had a weapon, I would go and kill them.” She now sleeps in a small park in the centre of Suruç, together with her four children. “We will not let them take Kobani from us.”

In 2005 Australia deemed the PKK party to be a proscribed terrorist organisation, outlawing funding or assistance to the group and following the European Union (EU), USA, Turkey and Canada’s example. In 2010 on August 19th the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted ‘anti-terror raids’ at dawn much akin to recent raids in Sydney and Melbourne, on Kurdish groups for allegedly funding the Turkish separatist group PKK with $1 million dollars. Four years ago we were having the same discussions as today on the fear of anti-terrorism laws abuse. The Kurdish Association of Victoria reported that Australian Kurds were worried that they could unknowingly be breaking the law when sending money to Kurdish charities that could end up in the PKK’s hands. The Federation of Community Legal Centres (FCLC) argued that Australia’s anti-terrorism laws were so broad they could criminalise mere agreement with the PKK’s political goals, pointing out that several people had asked whether they would be jailed for having a copy of the PKK constitution.

They also argued that proscribing the PKK could lead to arrests being made on the basis of Turkey provided intelligence and given Turkey’s history of persecuting Kurds this risked people being arrested for peaceful advocacy of their rights. Another fear was that for some Kurds, still facing human rights abuses in Turkey, it could affect their refugee status because of perceived past PKK associations.

The PYD is a Syrian Kurdish political party that was established in 2003 by Kurdish activists. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is a group of defected Syrian armed forces soldiers that formed in 2011 during the uprising of the Syrian civil war. The group defined themselves as being against “all [Syrian] security forces attacking civilians” as their enemies, and said its goal was to “to bring down the system” or “to bring this regime down”. Salih Muslim is the co-chair of PYD in Northern Syria and has been urged by the Turkish intelligence authorities to bring his forces under the same ranks as that of the Free Syrian Army. During the meeting, the Kurdish leader was urged to “take an open stance against the Syrian regime” and join the ranks of the Free Syrian Army against Mr Assad, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

Turkish officials also signaled wanting a restructuring of the Syrian opposition and urged the PYD to take part under the roof of the Syrian opposition. Turkey once again reiterated its expectation for the PYD to distance itself from the PKK, sources said. As Mr Muslim continued his efforts to obtain arms from Western countries for the Kurdish forces of the YPG, being the military arm of the PYD, he asked Turkey not to prevent the delivery of weapons after a request from European countries and the US was denied.

It’s of interest and I’m not inferring anything but find it interesting that in 2008 the US also added the PKK to a list of major International drug dealers. In particular because of recent reports that Kobani residents had described seeing IS fighters looking “relaxed” and walking freely in the streets. But those who entered were soon killed by Kurdish fighters, more familiar with the locality. “I don’t know where they were all coming from, but once they were killed, more Isis would come,” a man named Mahmoud said as he walked from Kobani to a nearby town. He said he believed that the Isis men were using hard drugs because of their confident looking demeanour; looking exhausted, the 50-year-old lamented that he could not stay in his home town to fight.

Could there be another modern element such as drugs thrown into the mix?

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet D avutoglu has said “We are ready to do everything if there is a clear strategy and if we can be sure that our border can be protected after [the Islamic State is gone].” He added that if IS is defeated and Mr Assad stays in power, there’s no guarantee another radical group won’t emerge.

Suspicion is rife amongst Turkish and Syrian Kurds about the true motivation of Turkey’s entrance into the US-led coalition of nations fighting IS on the 2nd October 2014. This is heightened with Turkey doing successful prisoner swaps with IS while others that have been kidnapped are getting murdered live, globally. Two Britons were reportedly handed back to IS in a prisoner swap deal with the Turkish government, amongst 180 ‘jihadists’ were exchanged to secure the return of 49 Turkish diplomats captured by IS in June and were held till the 20th September this year. Turkey has claimed that the release was achieved purely through diplomacy.

Borders between Turkey and Syria serve as the main access point for foreign fighters entering Syria, and a number of British fighters are also crossing into Turkey to escape the group. Up to 100 British may be ‘stranded’ in Turkey, with many Britons seeking entry into Pakistan and Bangladesh to avoid potential prison time if they return to the UK. Other foreign fighters are attempting to cross into countries where they have familial roots, including countries such as Egypt, Algeria and Libya. According to the report, many of the foreign fighters have become “disillusioned” with the IS, finding themselves fighting other Islamist groups such as Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic Front, rather than the government forces of Mr Assad.

“We understand there’s around 100 British jihadists who are waiting in limbo in Turkey before they can make their way to countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh and Algeria, countries where their parents were born and where they have the family support they need to settle in,” a Whitehall official told the Sunday Times. “The choices for these jihadists have become very limited, they don’t want to return to Syria because they would most likely be killed for defecting and they can’t come back to Britain without the prospect of being locked up.” Some British jihadists have also expressed regret for joining ISIS and have called on the British government to adopt a “de-radicalisation program” for individuals returning to the UK. “We came to fight the regime and instead we are involved in gang warfare. It’s not what we came for, but if we go back [to Britain] we will go to jail,” one fighter told the Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) professor Peter Neumann.

I fail to see how warring with Middle Eastern countries suits any Australian agenda, besides assisting the US and the Middle East’s agendas. Where does Australia sit with the likes of, to put it broadly, not just Sunni, Shiite and Alawite differences but their offshoots and all that it encompasses exactly? Is there plans in place to deal with the aftermath of refugees fleeing Syria for Turkey let alone globally? Will de-radicalisation programs get more attention and funding? Should we let the governments of the day keep making the same mistakes and not even appear to try to learn from them? Because it appears that the latest boogie man to frighten the Australian government is a very broadly speaking, Islamic Muslims. And that should be alarming to all.