View previous stories
	New report says that the wider the gap between rich and poor, the more the environment suffers by Marlene Cimons Think Progress, Roosevelt Institute USA   May 2017   A new report says that the wider the gap between rich and poor, the more the environment suffers, writes Marlene Cimons.   We often talk about how climate change exacerbates social and economic inequality, but rarely do we consider the opposite: that inequality itself can be a driver of climate change.   “What’s missing from the conversation is what our inequality crisis is doing to our planet,” said Susan Holmberg, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and author of a new report that shows how unequal societies inflict more environmental damage than more economically even societies.   “One key topic that is still overlooked is how environmental degradation and climate change are themselves the toxic byproducts of our inequality problem,” Holmberg said.   Her analysis calls for a greater understanding of the link between climate change and inequality. Many people who live in low-income communities, for example, cannot afford to retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient, meaning they use more power than necessary, generating more pollution.   “We just weren’t comfortable talking about the way inequality functions in our society, which has changed since the global financial crisis,” Holmberg said. The 2008 crash showed that severe inequality creates a more fragile economic system and that the global elite hold enormous political power.   “People assume that raising incomes will increase personal consumption and, as a result, also increase carbon emissions, which would do little to alleviate climate change,” Holmberg said. “But there are so many more mechanisms at play, including how power disparities hobble communities from protecting, for example, their air or their water.”   President Trump is currently trying to roll back federal climate protections. At the same time, his administration is pushing for social policies that would favor the wealthy. His plans for tax reform and healthcare would exacerbate existing inequities.   “Watching Trump derail so much progress is discouraging to say the least, but there is so much momentum out there for creating just climate solutions,” Holmberg said. “This is a time for people to get creative about how we can leverage the challenge of climate change to solve our inequality issues.”   To protect the environment, “we need good jobs, we need a solid tax base, we need a good healthcare system, and we need criminal justice,” she said.   “Since the Reagan administration, the left has been hobbled by a supposed environment versus jobs/economy dichotomy,” Holmberg added. She cited economist James Boyce her dissertation advisor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherstt as the first to propose that lopsided income distribution can imperil the environment. Boyce theorized that the rich have the power to pollute the environments of poorer people.   “I first heard him talk about this relationship 15 years ago, and it was one of those epiphany moments,” Holmberg said. “We tend to think about conservation from the perspective of our ''footprint'' that is, how much damage are we individually doing to the Earth? Boyce changed the question to: ‘How are we treating each other, and what are the environmental effects from these dynamics?’”   Gregory Mikkelson, associate professor at McGill University’s school of environment, has studied the impacts of inequality on biodiversity loss. He and his colleagues found that, in the United States and in other countries, the number of species threatened increases with income inequality. He wrote: “Our results suggest that economic reforms would go hand in hand with, if not serving as a prerequisite for, effective conservation.”   Holmberg, an economist, believes inequality is a byproduct of Wall Street’s preoccupation with short term growth. She said that “public companies that only prioritize next-quarter share prices and pump up those share prices through stock buybacks are an enormous driver of inequality.”   She added that “corporate short-termism, by its very definition, is bad for the environment because the same shareholder incentives that skew companies away from investing in workers, capital, and innovation discourage them from investing in, for example, green retrofitting of existing buildings, sustainable production practices, and even compliance with environmental regulations.”   Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manager for the climate and energy program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who was not involved in the study, said that the report reiterates what many environmental justice advocates have been saying for years, that financial regulation, progressive tax policy and social insurance programs should be regarded as integral to climate change policy.   “They will not directly pull carbon out of the atmosphere, which we need to do so urgently, but these kinds of progressive economic policies may be a necessary foundation for a sustainable society,” said Holmberg, who believes inequality belongs at the center of our national conversation about climate change.   “I think people who care about the environment and economic injustice need to learn about it, and incorporate it into their analysis.”   “That was absolutely the intention of this report,” she said, “to get the word out and get people thinking and talking about the fact that inequality drives environmental harm.” http://bit.ly/2rhYf7j   * Boiling Points: The Inextricable link between Inequality and Climate Change: http://rooseveltinstitute.org/boiling-points/
	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.
	View more stories