View previous stories
	A business culture has replaced a public interest culture of Governance in Australia by Kim Gleeson Director. Universal Rights Network Australia   (Draft notes on Australian Human Rights Defenders and Civil Society delivered to Michael Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders visit to Australia-Extract).   Child poverty on the rise in Australia. (ACOSS)   The Australian Council of Social Service, (ACOSS) has released the 2016 Poverty in Australia report, which shows that 731,300 children or 17.4% of all children in Australia are living in poverty, an increase of 2 percentage points over the past 10 years (from 2004-2014). Over 3 million Australians are living in Poverty: http://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Poverty-in-Australia-2016.pdf   I make my judgements based on what I perceive to be international best practice human rights standards, and measure the Australian setting against what I perceive to be the leading countries, with some regard for the Scandinavian social welfare model, and earlier standards in Australia where social equity and public funding models sought to advance the interests and well being of all members of Australian society.   I view the Palma model of assessing wealth distribution as relevant. In the Australian setting I focus on the bottom 40% as measured by socioeconomic status, and accord particular regard to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of Australian society.   Adequate Public funding is foundational to the realisation of a broad range of human rights concerns. Without adequate funding to address needs, human rights cannot be fulfilled. Social equity is a human rights concern. Socioeconomic rights are human rights demanding progressive fulfilment.   The progressive realisation of human rights also refers to the realisation/utilisation of the maximum available resources by Government. Australia fortunately has been and remains a wealthy developed country. The distribution of the wealth of the country is a fiercely contested arena.   It is my view, that for well over 25 years the distribution of wealth of Australia has been directed to and captured by the top 10% as measured by socioeconomic status - even more so by the top 5%. This process is ongoing and accelerating.   There are a range of mechanisms at play that lead to the loss of tens of billions of dollars of potential Government revenues each year, that advantage elite economic interest groups. Superannuation tax concessions for high income earners have been reported to cost the Commonwealth budget up to $30 billion annually. The fees paid to Superannuation investment mangers have amounted to some $15 billion a year. Negatively geared investment properties have allowed wealthy individuals to minimize their taxes and have left many young homebuyers unable to buy a house. Personal wealth trust accounts, and other investment advice machinations reduce tax revenues by billions. Corporate tax minimisation, profit shifting costs the budget another $10-20 billion a year.   The Super Market duopoly has led to market concentration, crushed the dairy industry and small businesses, and led to uncompetitive pricing structures for consumer goods. The mining industry greatly profited from the commodity boom, and fought fiercely and successfully against a tax on super-profits at the height of the boom, where in one year the mining company BHP Billiton made a profit of $28 billion in its Australian operations. (80% of the sector is foreign owned).   The Banking Industry, the Big Four Banks and the Finance Industry more generally have been very adept at realising extraordinary profitability without commensurate contributions to social equity, and whose business practices have been subject to recent high level criticism. The Gambling Industry wields considerable political power, and has cowered Governments from actions to address problem gambling and the grooming of the young, the industry is the largest in the world per capita.   These business sectors and other private sector interests consistently lobby major political parties to enhance their profitability. They act in the interests of their shareholders, as their predominate stakeholders. They are actively engaged through a variety of means in seeking to reduce essential public funding for health, education, welfare, and advocating for the privatization of public services deemed profitable.   Whilst a number contribute to corporate social responsibility programs and philanthropic endeavours, monies that is much needed and welcome by the not for profit and community sectors, the levels of funding support are small relative to wealth, and must also be viewed in concert with their ongoing efforts to structurally reduce public spending on many important public support programs.   Australian billionaires who have most effectively captured national wealth are lauded as national heroes. The Australian public has been subtly convinced that they are stakeholders in the Australian Stock Exchange and major business through the investments made by their superannuation funds. The argument being greater company profitability is good for them. However, this does not extend to companies acting ethically, paying their taxes, not lobbying Government to reduce public spending on important services, real CSR sponsorship (0.7% might be considered a benchmark), or seeking to reduce workers wages and conditions. Business groups in Australia for example have opposed every rise in the minimum wage rate in every arbitration.   Australia is a free market based economy, whose political and economic elites subscribe to a neoliberal economic doctrine. All power relations are predicated on the economic capture of wealth and resources. The concepts of corporate and regulatory capture of governance are a reality, operational across all levels of governance to varying degrees.   Unless this reality is acknowledged any analysis of Australia's human rights environment is superficial and incomplete. Relations with civil society and human rights entities are largely determined by this reality.   Economic and financial entities domestic and multinational operate to maximize their profitability. These entities exert significant influence across Australian and State Governments, public sectors and society. Australian, State and Territory Governments, public entities and agencies are shaped, defined and can be seen to act to advance elite economic interests.   A number of community advocacy agencies have experienced funding cuts during the terms in office of the Liberal Coalition Governments. The Australian Overseas Development Assistance program has been reduced by $11.5 billion over the next 4-5 years, reducing our contributions to historic lows. The current development assistance program has a focus on the development and contributions to Australian business interests.   One in 3 Australian women and girls will experience violence. Domestic violence is a most serious concern across Australian society. This has been a reality for decades. Public funding is necessary to meet the needs for funding education programs, providing shelters, homes, support, assistance and the like. After decades of neglect, through the tireless efforts of advocates greater funding in just the last 18 months is being availed, though still manifestly insufficient.   For decades tens of thousands of children were sexually abused in institutional settings, many by religious institutions. For decades. It is only in very recent years, that attention is focused on their circumstance and a modicum of more appropriate financial recompense accorded to their suffering.   For decades, Aboriginal Children were removed from their parents. Only in recent years has a modicum of funding been realised to assist their circumstances. Still to this day, Aboriginal People are fighting in the legal system for their 'Stolen Wages', for a lifetime of work that went unpaid.   It is my experience that there exists quite a gulf between the rhetoric of best practice standards by public entities and the reality on the ground in practice. This reality is quite pervading across public sector agencies. The language of respect for human rights, accountability, equity, integrity, public ethics, codes of conduct are enunciated, but real world politic/ realities on the ground are different.   There is little protection availed by Commonwealth and State based Equal Opportunity Commissions for accountability advocates, public interest whistleblowers, community sector advocates, human rights advocates within the existing freedom of expression mechanisms. Victimisation is not protected, as this is often politically and ideologically based.   To seek accountability from Government agencies, to advocate for broad public interest rights, results in ostracism from public sector roles, contracts - dramatically reducing personal income opportunities, the end of career progression. Public service whistle-blowing in the public interest is a rare event, as the consequences are immediate and the financial consequences dramatic. Compliance to the political masters and their economic orthodoxies is now a given, and a necessity for career progression. It permeates the culture of the public service. Accountability agencies independence is compromised by these circumstances.   In my view, there exists a subtle culture of cronyism across Public Sector agencies. It takes a variety of forms. There a culture of compliance to market orthodoxies that are deemed to precede public interest concerns. High level management are corporate managers, business administrators guided by market orthodoxies. They have been schooled for the last 2 decades by the Executive Governments to comply.   The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and State based Equal Opportunity Commissions do not have regulatory mandate to consider socio-economic rights. The main non political actor in this regard is the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), representing the not for profit and community sector.   However, many of the agencies represented by ACOSS are dependent of Government and Corporate funding support and are most often constrained in their public advocacy for fear of funding consequences. As those who are deemed critical of Government or business interests can lose their Government funding or have it dramatically reduced.   Over the last 10-15 years this has resulted in most not for profit and community sector agencies constraining their public advocacy. There are some notable and praiseworthy exceptions but they are very much in the minority.   In my view, Australian and State based Government accountability agencies have failed to perform their nominal independent roles. They have been politicized by the Executive Government, populated by compliant career public officials and cultured to subscribe to market orthodoxies. Public sector funding levels remain under strain, and the economic mantra of 'financial sustainability' is cited by Executive Government and public sector officials as a constraint on effective funding to address multiple public interest needs. Yet, if the inequitable distribution of wealth was addressed such public funding needs could be much more effectively addressed. However, the entire edifice of power relations in Australia over the last 2 decades precludes this realisation.   For Accountability agencies, low level administrative offenders are targeted whilst the economically powerful are largely exempt from scrutiny, as the ideological assumptions of the needs of the marketplace override all other considerations.   The Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) in the State of New South Wales offered a brief example of a more effective mechanism.   I strongly support Philip Alston and other's view that socio-economic rights are human rights. I believe in the progressive realisation of all human rights, including socio-economic rights. I believe in human rights/social accounting budget analysis. I believe politics involves the relations of power, the distribution of wealth in society and the allocation of public funding and resources. Which in my view has direct impacts on the realisations of all human rights.   It is my experience that Australian society is composed of many coterie groups. Groups that are somewhat 'closed shops'. Whilst I respect and acknowledge the commitment of all actors committed to advance greater respect for human rights, I do not accept the relegation of socioeconomic rights as of minor consequence.   For example, 1 in 3 Australian women and girls will experience violence in their lives. Domestic violence is endemic and of alarming proportions across Australian society and has been for decades. Without adequate public funding to address the widespread needs, incremental change which is the preferred institutional response will be grossly insufficient.   This simple example underlines my central premise, that public funding is foundational to address the realisation of fundamental rights and public interest needs. This a reality across all arenas of Government at the Commonwealth and State levels.   This reality is fundamental to address indigenous disadvantage, for example to close the gap in life expectancies. To fund public schooling needs, which was behind the Gonski education reforms. That defines health funding needs, Australia's overseas aid budget, the provision of social housing, the national disability insurance scheme, the adequacy of the Aged pension, the Newstart unemployment allowance, the provision of legal aid, mental health funding and so many other arena's.   I regard the allocation of public funding and the legislative and regulatory environment that define business in Australia as a 'politically' contested environment. The public discourse is not rights based, as socioeconomic rights are not defined as human rights - rather subject to progressive incremental realisation as funding permits. However, if national wealth is effectively captured by elite economic interests and the public sector is guided by this economic rationale, the progressive realisation of socioeconomic rights is a long term prospect, with corresponding inadequacies in realising fundamental needs.   It will be argued that Australia is a wealthy democracy, with a strong safety net, welfare programs compared to other OECD countries. That our accountability institutions and public sectors are progressive and exemplary compared to many other countries, with a few minor challenges that are or will be addressed as funding permits. That Australia possesses a vibrant and free civil society and that human rights defenders operate with freedom and largely without constraints, with a few necessary exceptions. That Australian businesses largely subscribe to corporate social responsibility best practices and Australia's humanitarian and philanthropic sector is admirable and strong. That we posses a vibrant and free press.   In my view this would be an incomplete and inadequate understanding of the past and current reality in Australia.   Australia is an economically prosperous developed country, with now a largely successful multicultural populace. Elements of racism continue to exist across society impacting indigenous Australians, and non-European minority groups. Government and non-Government agencies continue to work to promote pluralism and greater multicultural understandings. Sections of the conservative media, some conservative politicians and minority groups have recently focused on Muslim populations as world events have heightened fears and misunderstandings.   Many challenges remain for Indigenous Australians with regard to high youth suicide rates, over-representation in Correctional Facilities, poverty, homelessness, domestic violence and the ongoing and essential need for greater self determination and control of resources to address many ongoing socioeconomic disadvantages. The Justice Re-Invest initiative in New South Wales is an encouraging development. The Close the Gap Campaign remains important, and adequate funding remains essential. Recent funding cutbacks across the Indigenous portfolio is troubling and counterproductive to addressing Close the Gap needs.   The current discussions with regard to recognition in Australia's constitution of the first peoples and the need for a Treaty are unresolved and remain to be addressed. I fear this may become a highly politically polarised debate and remain unresolved. I consider it a great pity that the Australian Government withdrew funding from the elected representative group, the Congress of First Peoples.   I no longer view the Australian Public Service, its Departments and officers as acting independently in the public interest. It is my view that they operate at the behest and direction of the Executive Government and its ideological economic predisposition, a fact which I find alarming and contrary to the notion of the separation of powers, the requirements of the public service code of conduct to remain politically impartial and counter to the requirements of public ethics and integrity standards of Governance best practices. A similar reality to varying degrees exists across all State and Territory jurisdictions and agencies.   This reality I consider has a number of detrimental impacts in progressively realising the human rights and the public interests of all Australians. As it impacts public funding across all agencies of Government. I have endeavoured to raise these concerns on a number of occasions with the Ethical Advisory Unit of the Australian Public Service Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, Departmental Officers at Commonwealth and State levels, including the ACCC, ASIC, HREOC, Auditor General's Offices, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Attorney General's Department and others.   I consider as alarming in its impact on purportedly independent public sector accountability institutions, but also the impacts on all public sector agencies at Commonwealth and State and Territory levels. This disposition of Government also impacts all other public and semi-government bodies of all nature.   In Australia's capital Canberra, there are over 5,000 corporate lobbyists seeking to influence Government to their preferred dispositions, there numbers include former Government Ministers from both major parties, former MPs, former senior members of the Australian and State Public Services.   Former members of Commonwealth and State Parliaments from both major political parties take up well paid seats on company boards on leaving office, are awarded share options worth most considerable sums, are appointed to very well paid Government and semi-Government bodies, agencies, commissions.   They join many highly paid members of the business community on public boards to purportedly make decisions in the public interests of all Australians. And yet so often these decisions are framed and delivered in the interests of business, as defined by their profitability requirements.   Australians are not citizens they are potential consumers, customers, with business - be they domestic or multinational - intent on profitability. Government's role is thus to facilitate this profitability. Ever keen for new business opportunities - as is the nature of business, opportunities to enhance income streams is an irresistible force impacting Australian Democracy, and the delivery of publicly funded services.   Government legislation, the regulatory environment, indeed the ownership of Government service delivery, public assets are all in constant play to the pressures of market forces. In this reality the function of Government is to crease the wheels of business, to afford opportunities, to act vigilantly to remove constraints. Public officials who most adhere to these 'standards' gain career advancement.   Public officials are business managers, striving for efficiency gains, ever seeking to streamline and reduce costs. The public interest is ever mediated against business profitability. A business culture has replaced a public interest culture of governance.   Australia's foreign relations and even overseas development program is now shaped by this market ethos.   Business leaders are deemed wealth creators, employers whose needs must be fulfilled. The Australian Government is required to deliver low unemployment, 5-6% is optimal and strive to ensure that the value of Australian properties continue to rise as the contract with its citizens.   The public discourse is shaped by these realities. The commercial mass media is profit based dependent on business advertising. The public broadcasters (under threat to their budgets) comply in advancing the predominate economic narrative. This has resulted in subjective reporting, bias by omission, and timid independent analysis. If any stray too far from the pre-described economic script they are immediately criticised, individuals demoted, sidelined or quietly removed. On social issues they generally have greater freedom. This economic predisposition is also evident in all major cultural institutions programs and products. Concentration of media ownership is also a major concern, with the predominate player being News Ltd, owned by Mr. Rupert Murdoch who has wielded considerable political influence in Australia for a number of years.   The requirement to adhere to the predominate economic narrative has wide ranging impacts. In my view, the Non-Government submission to Australia's Universal Periodic Review did not acknowledge the socio-economic concerns, public funding needs sufficiently. I contacted the Human Rights Law Centre, to express my concerns and even though ACOSS was contributor, in my view the review was deficient in this regard. Whilst I acknowledge the importance of the concerns raised, in my view not nearly enough attention was accorded to the inadequacies of public funding to realise fundamental rights and the public interests of vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians.
	World Press Freedom Day - Critical Minds for Critical Times by UNESCO, agencies United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Jakarta, Indonesia   Critical Minds for Critical Times: Media’s role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies.   Every year, 3 May is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.   This year UNESCO World Press Freedom Day activities were held in Jakarta, Indonesia, from 1-4 May 2017, involving participants from around the world.   ‘Fake News’ is not Journalism, highlights Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO.   Would you trust your news from any source? How are we able to ensure that ‘fake’(d) news does not overtake the flow of information?   Journalism plays a vital role for society, bringing verifiable news and informed comment to the public. Every day, the news provides a basis for dialogue and debate, and to make informed decisions on the issues that affect us.   It helps us build our identity and, as global citizens, better understand the world around us; it contributes to meaningful changes towards a better future.   Today, however, news producers face many challenges. In depth and fact checked news is being overshadowed by shared media content that is all too often far from this standard.   On social media in particular, collecting clicks and being first reign supreme over properly verified news and comment. All this further compounds long existing problems of unjustifiable curbs on press freedom in many parts of the world.   In these circumstances, where does the responsibility lie for ensuring that fact-based debate is not stifled? Whose duty is it to strengthen the media’s potential to foster a better future for all?   And how do we protect the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and freedom of information, which are the preconditions for independent and free journalism?   The answer is that we must look to ourselves as agents of change – whether we are Government actors, civil society members, business people, academics or members of the media. Each of us has a role to play, because each has a stake in press freedom, which facilitates our ability to seek, receive and impart information.   What happens to journalists and to journalism is a symbol of how society respects the fundamental freedoms of expression and access to information. Society suffers whenever a journalist falls victim, whether to threats, harassment or murder. It affects us all when press freedom is curbed by censorship or political interference, or is contaminated by manipulation and made-up content.   When the free flow of information is hampered, the void is more easily filled by disinformation, undermining the ability of communities to make informed choices.   With this in mind, the global theme of this year’s World Press Freedom Day is Critical Minds for Critical Times: Media’s role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies.   This refers to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, an ambitious 15-year commitment of all UN Member States and stakeholders toward worldwide prosperity, peace and development. Journalism is central to achieving the agenda’s 16th goal, which aims for justice for all, peace, and inclusive institutions.   Free and independent journalism reinforces democracy, justice and the rule of law. It also serves as a prerequisite for combating gross economic inequalities, reversing climate change, and promoting women’s rights.   But without audiences demanding well-researched and conflict-sensitive narratives, critical reporting will be increasingly side-lined.   Every citizen has a direct stake in the quality of the information environment. ‘Fake’(d) news can only take root in the absence of critical thinking and the assumption that if it looks like news then in must be. Media and Information Literacy efforts have a central role in building the necessary defences in the minds of individuals to face these phenomena.   On World Press Freedom Day, let us all be reminded that fact-based journalism is the light that illuminates the pathway to a future where informed communities can work together, mindful of their responsibilities to each other and to the world we live in.   Themes for 2017:   At a time described by some as critical for journalism, World Press Freedom Day 2017 will focus on why it is vital to strengthen free and quality journalism to enable the media to effectively contribute to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (link is external).   Specifically, the interrelationships between freedom of expression, justice for all and the rule of law, peace, and inclusiveness will be explored.   Justice for all as a prerequisite for freedom of expression and sustainable development   The rule of law forms an integral part of a democratic and inclusive society. It protects fundamental freedoms and applies universally to each individual and entity. Weak institutions, a weak judiciary, and lack of access to justice greatly impede sustainable development.   Without a well-functioning legal and regulatory environment, the public loses confidence in the democratic process and no longer invests in its sustainable future.   Only when media are free, independent and pluralistic can they ensure that the rule of law is applied and respected in full.   Conversely, only a legal framework that safeguards freedom of expression and freedom of information allows for such a media sector to emerge. Free media and an independent, effective judiciary play a mutually reinforcing role as pillars of democracy.   Journalists are not only major users of the cherished right to freedom of expression but also symbols of the extent to which a society tolerates and/or promotes freedom of expression.   The current state of safety of journalists worldwide is discouraging: over the course of the last decade 827 journalists and media workers have been killed. Even more alarming is the fact that in less than one out of ten cases the perpetrators have been caught.   Championed by UNESCO since 2012, the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity serves as the platform on which these complex issues are tackled.   Judicial systems worldwide need to be strengthened with a key focus on protecting freedom of expression and the safety of journalists. The call of the 2030 Development Agenda for universal justice is relevant to all elements of the three “P” approach in ensuring a safe media environment: Prevention of violence against media; Protection of journalists in danger; and Prosecution of perpetrators of crimes committed against media professionals.   Promoting the media''s potential as a catalyzer of peace and mutual understanding   The media often play a central role in conflict and crisis situations. Independent, objective, neutral media can help defuse tension, promote dialogue, and contain conflicts. Conversely, biased and untrue reporting can exacerbate violence.   When misused for propaganda purposes, the media can contribute to inciting hatred and spreading rumours. Moreover, in situations of armed conflict and disaster, the risks faced by journalists are significantly multiplied.   An additional threat to peace and security, human rights, and justice is the spread of violent extremism catalyzed by terrorist and extremist groups. These groups have used social media as a tool for the global and real-time communication of intolerant messages.   The digital era has enhanced opportunities for access to information, the creation and sharing of knowledge, facilitating exchange as well as intercultural dialogue. However, the rise of online hate speech shows that digital technologies also carry with them a number of challenges.   One of these is striking the right balance between freedom of expression online and respect for equality and human dignity. Countering hate speech and violent extremism online calls for a holistic approach that addresses the root causes of tension and division within societies.   The media can provide a platform for a multitude of voices and perspectives that can help strengthen tolerance, dialogue and critical thinking. They can also offer counter narratives to challenge the ideas promoted in violent extremism narratives.   Finally, countering extremist narratives comes hand in hand with empowering media users with the skills needed to navigate the Internet, and interpret, reject and react to hateful and inciting messages.   Freedom of expression and freedom of information foster more inclusive societies   Enabled by digital technologies, public participation in the media has allowed for a democratization of narrative and intercultural dialogue.   However, the increased supply and demand of information has laid bare the role of internet intermediaries, the compromise of the confidentiality of sources, the risks in terms of digital safety faced by journalists, the rise of online hate speech, and the digital divide.   The large discrepancy of access to information both between and within countries, as well as between men and women, demonstrates that the Information Age duly supplied the tools but not the envisioned fully connected world.   In order for freedom of expression to be universally applied and for sustainable development to thrive, information must become available to all without restrictions. Digital illiteracy is another obstacle in this regard.   By enabling the empowerment of citizens, freedom of information is a cornerstone of participatory democracy. It also plays an essential role in promoting accountable and effective institutions which support the rule of law.   Media are important actors in promoting social inclusion. Their potential to promote dialogue, reflect the diversity of opinions and perspectives in society, and challenge stereotypes and misrepresentations, is to be encouraged. Supporting pluralism and gender equality in the media is central to this process.   UNESCO’s concept of Internet Universality proposes four principles for an inclusive Internet that can contribute to the development of Knowledge Societies as foundations for sustainable development: Human Rights, Openness, Accessibility and Multi-stakeholder participation.   Only an inclusive society, facilitated by independent and pluralistic media and a safe media environment where the free flow of information is fostered, provides the necessary conditions to achieve a better future for all. http://en.unesco.org/wpfd   # Jakarta Declaration: http://bit.ly/2pWWvNv   * World Press Freedom Day statement by David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, who was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to monitor freedom of the media and the safety of journalists globally: http://bit.ly/2pBCADJ   http://www.ipsnews.net/topics/world-press-freedom-day-2017/ http://www.cpj.org/ http://rsf.org/en/ http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/ http://scalingupnutrition.org/news/reflecting-on-the-important-role-of-the-media-as-a-driver-of-change/
	View more stories