Reframing the #animalcruelty debate: #ethics #economy #asylumseekers

Tweet

Australian Minister for Agriculture Joe Ludwig

speaking to Kerry Lonergan, long time rural journalist with

ABC's Landline.

To see the video, please go here. 

One of the two major stories dominating Australian politics and civil society is the live export of cattle to Indonesia.  The other topic is the proposed live export of asylum seekers under the Malaysian Solution which, in my view, attempts to legitimise human trafficking.

On Monday 30 May 2011, the ABC's Four Corners broadcast an expose of cruelty in the slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesia.  There has been uproar ever since as consumers, meat-eaters, animal lovers, and cattle producers express their horror. You will find more videos here.

Australians owe a debt of gratitude to Lyn White of Animals Australia and Bidda Jones, Chief Scientist with the RSPCA.  Their undercover work unveiled the reality of animal cruelty and breeches of halal slaughter at meatworks in Indonesia. 

Meat and Livestock Australia is the body which, supposedly, has been in charge of supervising standards of the slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesia.  MLA is supported by a 'per head' levy on producers. Producers are justified in questioning and blaming MLA for what is now happening. MLA have been involved in Indonesia for approximately two decades. Did they know about the cruelty? If not, why not? If so, have they deliberately covered up or walked away?

If MLA was properly acting for its constituency/membership, it would have sought to minimise and manage factors which pose a risk to the trade in live cattle.  It would appear that this has not been a driving factor for the MLA and its employees.  Because risk management - as well as animal suffering - clearly has not been front and centre, MLA has damaged Australian's name/brand.  

The Minister has today announced a six month suspension of all live cattle exports to Indonesia.  Joe Ludwig has dragged the chain on this.  It took him some days after the broadcast to announce a decision limiting exports and then to-day he has announced the six month suspension.  People concerned about animal cruelty won't be happy until there is a complete and absolute ban on all live cattle exports. Joe in manner, speech and substance has displayed a great deal of hesitancy.

Cattle producers will tell you how wide ranging the suspension or possible banning of live cattle exports will be.  It will impact at many levels across the Australian economy.  Its biggest impact will certainly be north of the Tropic of Capricorn - in West Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland.

I sympathise with the producers but I also have a long memory - and one can't help saying that what goes around comes around.

There used to be thriving export meatworks in Northern Australia.  I remember a picture from my social studies book when I was about twelve of frozen meat being loaded into aeroplanes at Wyndham in West Australia.  I grew up beside an export meatworks where my father was an executive. Cattle producers didn't like the costs associated with long distances to meatworks. They didn't like it if their product was in anyway hampered by industrial disputation.  Their industry organisations worked single-mindedly to destroy export works so that they would be free to establish live export markets which, they believed, would be more profitable.  

The concerted elimination of export works in Northern Australia affected communities, caused loss of skills, and value-added production in the Australian industry.  The producer associations didn't think twice about eliminating the livelihoods of those people, those communities but will seek sympathy now when their own livelihoods are threatened.

I can't help wondering if the MLA or the cattle producer organisations understand the changing values of Australians.  They might like to engage the services of a sociologist.  Increasing numbers of Australians are altering their diet: Meatless Mondays; declining meat consumption; vegetarian and vegan diets.  Once upon a time, one could have denigrated these factors and their proponents with the pejorative terms of 'cranks', 'activists' and so on.  And my suspicion is that the cattle producers and their organisations still do this.  They talk to one another and reinforce each others views.  They take these views into that rural rump of politics, the National Party.  

Meanwhile, Australians are better educated and more skilled.  Many of us are earning more money than Australians have earned before.  Many of us may have deserted the churches but hold to a strict set of personal and social ethics. Increasing numbers of Australians are taking to heart health messages advocating a lower meat intake than is usual in the Australian diet.  Increasing numbers of Australians are adopting ethical standards about the treatment of animals and human degradation of the environment.  Has no one in the beef industry considered that somewhere, sometime there would be a tipping of the balance and their product could be adversely affected?

Lyn White and Bidda Jones are intelligent and well-connected women.  I haven't met Bidda but I have met Lyn and find her competence and commitment to animal welfare exemplary.  These women cannot be dismissed easily - and nor have they been.  They have impacted a nation.  I don't think it too much to say that matters affecting industrial animals may never be the same again.

The suspension of live exports is no simple matter.  The banning of live exports is so simple matter.  Lawyers and barristers involved in cases of animal welfare say that while the suffering of domestic animals and pets can be redressed in the courts, the fate of industrial animals is quite different.  Agricultural/Primary Production industry organisations have developed industry standards.  They capture the ear of the relevant state or federal minister.  The result is that if producers are charged with cruelty toward industrial animals, producers can use as a legitimate defence that they are acting in accord with industry standards, irrespective of how low those standards might be.

As Australia begins to understand this situation and come to grips with what lies behind the Indonesian situation, we need a national understanding.  We need to take care in how we frame the debate. No more lowest common denominator industry standards. Australians need to find a way to express respect and understanding for widespread ethical standards on animal care and environmental circumstances.  Australia's own self-respect is at stake in all this.  Somehow we have not managed the care of industrial animals very well.  And this can be reflected in how we treat people as well - because we are not treating the sojourner very well at all. 

Related articles

• 'It's discrimination' (theage.com.au)
• Live cattle exports halted at WA port (news.theage.com.au)
• Cattle abuse known in 2000 (theage.com.au)
• Meat eaters turned off by cattle scandal (theage.com.au)

Human Rights Day: Brisbane Declaration: Freedom of Information: Defend Julian Assange #WikiLeaks

Tweet

Picture from here

To-day, around the world, Human Rights Day is remembered.  To-day it comes amid the controversy of WikiLeaks and the arrest of Julian Assange.  Because of this alignment, I am posting below, the Brisbane Declaration.

World Press Freedom Day 2010

Brisbane Declaration

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: THE RIGHT TO KNOW

We, the participants at the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day conference in Brisbane, Australia, 3 May 2010:
Recalling Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Noting that the Millennium Declaration highlights good governance as being central to development and the eradication of poverty, and acknowledging that press freedom and the right to know are essential to promoting democracy and ensuring respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Underscoring the principles set forth in the Declarations of Windhoek, Alma-Ata, Sana'a, Santiago and Sofia, which identify a free, pluralistic and independent media as a cornerstone of democratic societies and development;
Reaffirming the principles and recommendations of the Doha Declaration of 3 May 2009 on the Potential of Media for Dialogue, Mutual Understanding and Reconciliation, and the Maputo Declaration of 3 May 2008 on Fostering Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Empowerment of People;
Recalling the Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) phases of the World Summit of the Information Society, which reaffirmed freedom of expression and universal access to information as essential foundations of inclusive knowledge societies;
Reaffirming that the right to information is an integral part of the right to freedom of expression, and that both are fundamental underpinnings of democracy and all other rights and freedoms;
Defining the right to information as the right of everyone to access information held by public bodies at all levels, local, national and international;
Emphasizing that the right to information is critical for informed decision-making, for participation in democratic life, for monitoring of public actions, and for enhancing transparency and accountability, and represents a powerful tool to fight corruption;
Highlighting that the right to information is instrumental to the realization of people’s empowerment, and strengthened civic trust, and for promoting the equality of all groups in society, including women and indigenous peoples;
Noting that improved access to information contributes to strengthening markets, increasing investment, reducing financial vulnerability and enhancing the effectiveness of development aid;
Recognizing the potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs), when accessible to all, to facilitate full realization of the right to information for all people, including women and indigenous peoples;
Welcoming growing global recognition of the right to information, reflected in international statements, conventions and jurisprudence, as well as in the significant recent trend to adopt right to information laws at the national level;
Aware that the majority of the world’s States have still not adopted legislation giving effect to this fundamental right;
Concerned that even where right to information laws have been adopted, their implementation faces significant challenges, including political and bureaucratic resistance;
Honoring the journalists and media personnel who contribute to press freedom and the right to information through their work, often bravely risking their lives in the process;
Condemning the intimidation, attacks, arrests and murders faced by journalists and media personnel all over the world, which dramatically violate their own fundamental rights and the right of everyone to receive a diversity of information and ideas.
Call on Member States:
To enact legislation guaranteeing the right to information in accordance with the internationally-recognized principle of maximum disclosure;
Such legislation should establish limited exceptions, proactive obligations to disclose information, clear and simple procedures for making requests, an independent and effective oversight system, and adequate promotional measures;
To ensure the effective implementation of the right to information by allocating sufficient financial and human resources for the structures and systems that are required to successfully implement legislation;
To ensure that the wider legal environment is consistent with and supports the right to information, including by protecting freedom of expression and press freedom, by establishing other disclosure systems, and by bringing secrecy rules into line with the principle of maximum disclosure;
To foster public awareness about the right to information and to develop the capacity of everyone to exercise that right, placing particular emphasis on disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, including women, minority language groups, indigenous peoples and disabled persons;
To enable unfettered access to information relevant to human rights violations, including information held in current and historical archives.
To harness the power of information communication technologies (ICTs) to realize the right to information and to foster enhanced pluralism in information flows;
To bridge the digital and knowledge divide by overcoming low literacy levels and poor Internet connectivity, and by making information available in local languages and in a form that is easily understandable by diverse audiences;
To urge international organizations of which they are members to adopt enforceable and effective right to information policies, based on the principle of maximum disclosure;
To give renewed emphasis to public debate on the role of journalism and independent media in the creation of a culture of democratic pluralism, through journalism that is transparent, credible, relevant and with a degree of accountability founded on principles of self-regulation that will build public trust in journalism and independent media;
To examine, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, new forms of assistance to media, including supporting innovation in the development of media, encouraging investigative and ethical journalism, and promoting public service values in journalism, while ensuring that the provision of assistance does not compromise editorial independence and journalistic freedom;
To promote media literacy and awareness about the right to information, including through incorporating these topics into school curricula and higher education courses, and training programs for civil services;
Call on professional associations, media outlets and industry:
To raise awareness about freedom of expression and the right to information;
To promote and support investigative journalism and to raise awareness about the role played by the right to information in journalism;
To implement innovative strategies aimed at channeling relevant information to the marginalized and underrepresented, and at promoting diversity in the workplace;
To contribute to disseminating good practices and experiences showcasing the direct link between the right to information, journalism, democracy and people’s quality of life;
To provide leadership in support of the principles of transparency and accountability by adopting policies on the disclosure of information within the media industry, especially regarding ownership, revenues from official advertising, and other forms of funding;
To promote social dialogue between employers and media personnel aimed at creating partnerships in order to strengthen attachment to ethical standards and the creation of transparency, credibility and relevance in the provision of information;
To respect freedom of association and core labor standards, to work towards improving the safety and working conditions of journalists and other media personnel, and to provide adequate training opportunities;
To promote and strengthen forms of self-regulation and new forms of review of performance of media that enhance and support ethical journalism, with the aim of building public trust;
Call on UNESCO:
To sensitize Member States, public authorities, civil society and individuals about freedom of expression and the right to information, and their centrality in a democratic society;
To provide assistance and to promote synergies between relevant actors for the development and implementation of laws and policies fostering freedom of expression and the right to information, with particular attention to the needs of small island States;
To support initiatives aimed at promoting professional and ethical standards in journalism and to promote a new approach to media accountability based upon principles of self-regulation;
To promote the free flow of information and ideas through the Internet, and to condemn censorship and other violations of Internet freedom of expression;
To support efforts to increase media and information literacy and awareness about the right to information through their inclusion at different levels of educational and training systems;
To foster research, documentation and the sharing of good practices on and implementation of the right to information;
To ensure the inclusion of freedom of expression, press freedom and the right to information, and the related issues addressed throughout this Declaration, as key topics within the development agenda, and to facilitate discussion and a coordinated approach on these matters among UN agencies and other relevant stakeholders;
To adopt a UNESCO framework giving effect to the right to information in relation to its own operations, and to promote the adoption of similar policies by other agencies of the United Nations;
To communicate this Declaration to Member States and other international and regional organizations for their consideration;
To use this Declaration as a reference for UNESCO’s activities in the field of freedom of expression and the right to information.

PROTEST TO DEFEND JULIAN ASSANGE AND WIKILEAKS,

AND STOP THE SUPRESSION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
RALLY ON

WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY,

FRIDAY DECEMBER 10, 4:30pm

@ STATE LIBRARY, MELBOURNE
Here is the Facebook group.

Please join!
Please circulate as widely as possible.

Sydney or The Bush: Reframing the debate: Access, equity, a fair go: Sanderson - Federal renewal and unity in reconcilation

Picture from here

Seems that hell hath no fury like a major urban area scorned!

Now I could read all sorts of things into the musings I am about to draw your attention to,Networkers.  Perhaps, they are the Fairfax equivalent of News Limited braying for an early election? Perhaps, these are individuals who just don't like what the independents have been doing and how they have been negotiating with the Australian Labor Party?  But my money is on them being short-sighted, urban creatures who don't have a clue about the Australia that exists away from the urban fringes.  In short, I think they are overcome by their own ignorance.

First Shot -

• Clancy Yeates: Urbanites to subsidise rural broadband

Second Shot - 

• Anita Quigley:  Behind the 'nice bloke' facade is just another wily politician

Let's take a look at the First Shot, Clancy Yeates.

Tut-tut, Clancy.  Don't look too closely at who might be subsidising your urban lifestyle.  The West Australians think they are.  In fact, there have been recent comments on subsidies for Melbourne's arty, cultured lifestyle which continues though we are not manufacturing anything much anymore.  Sydney seems to think we are diverting their much needed funds.  The fact is that the really productive earners at the moment are in remote areas of Australia far from urban centres - and a lot of them are on the other side of the continent from the fringe-dwellers of the urbanised eastern and southern coasts.

And what is the problem with cross-subsidisation, Clancy?  Are you so imbued with Friedman and neo-con economics that you can't get your head around the tried and true economic concepts of equity and price-equalisation.  It was the way Telstra operated until recent times - and look where the concepts behind the changes to Telstra have landed the nation and Telstra shareholders!

Lastly, I would remind you that NBN has clearly built its business model on a system of equitable pricing.  Now business models can be built like Lego - anyway you darn well like to put the pieces together!  The two things necessary are, firstly, to be seen to give your market a good deal so they will purchase and keep purchasing your product; and, secondly, to turn a profit for those who have invested in the company.  How this is done is really a moot point.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  The pricing and the costings work - or they don't.  So, in this case, where a whole way of doing things is being built in a novel and innovative way from the ground up - so is the pricing mechanism.  

Now for the Second Shot, Anita Quigley

I don't take issue with the comments about Rob Oakeshott who, we might find, is the wily politician (or not so wily, as the case may be) that the headline asserts.

What I do take issue with are comments like these:

Imagine how western Sydney residents are feeling today - an area of the country growing rapidly in population and desperately needing infrastructure such as basic public transport to cope. Yet the bigger more pressing issue for the new federal government will be ensuring a far smaller population gets 24k gold-plated fibre optic cable for high speed broadband.

The fact those in the country will be able to have better internet services is sure to console commuters who have to drive 90 minutes each way to work while paying about $80 in tolls a week for the privilege.

I do have empathy for those living in the western suburbs not only of Sydney but of Melbourne too.  Melbourne complains about its public transport but, in my experience, it does not compare with Sydney's - and life is too short to spend any of it on Sydney's City Rail.  But Anita, let's spare a thought for the rural and regional areas of Australia.

Few areas of regional and rural Australia have a reliable public transport system.  Some don't have any public transport whatsoever.  A large regional centre like Townsville which Anna Bligh has mentioned as a "second capital city" for Queensland no longer has a functioning suburban rail system nor - when it would make good sense - an extra-urban system to places like Charters Towers, Bowen, Ingham and Cairns.  Further into the back blocks, and you will find some Aboriginal communities have no way out except by light aircraft.

As for infrastructure!  Some parts of Australia do not have reliable, clean drinking water. 


For all the talk of of getting Aboriginal people off welfare and into a functioning economy, please show me a human settlement in Australia with a strong functioning economy that does not have a bitumen road in and out of it.  


The majority of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory are serviced  by dirt roads which are impassable in The Wet.  This means there is difficulty accessing professional health, education, and business services all year round.  In The Wet, the only way in and out of many communities is by plane.  When you don't have a serviceable road at all, the discomforts and lack of service by City Rail and Metro pale into insignificance.

And take a look at health services.  No Westmead or Liverpool Hospital within striking distance.  In Victoria, which is so small that even its outback is suburban, hospitals - like the one in Echuca - have their problems and have difficulty getting funds out of the public purse.

And, I have to ask, how much knowledge is there in Western Sydney of the deprivations of those living in more sparsely populated Australia?  How much empathy is there in Western Sydney for those in remote areas who don't get the attention they deserve from their governments?  Very little of either, in my experience.  

But to all those who think that urban areas have been hardly done by just to favour a few bush politicians and get a party over the line to government, I am including below the best piece of writing I have seen in recent times on how tough people in remote areas are doing it.


On the Queen's Birthday weekend in June 2007, the annual oration of the Order of Australia Association was given by Lieutenant-Colonel John Sanderson, the former Governor West Australia.  It was titled Federal Renewal and Unity in Reconciliation: a return to government by the people.


Since getting hold of this document in June 2007, I have tried to circulate it as widely as possible to people who need to know its contents or whom I think would be interested in its contents.  I think, given the current political context, a reading of Sanderson's oration is more necessary than ever.


Lastly, let's take the opportunity to reframe the debate in this country: on politics, on economics, on population, on development.  Back in the Keating era some basic criteria were introduced into the bureaucratic implementation of public policy.  The criteria were access, equity, and a fair go.  If you have these three criteria operating, then there will be inclusion.  If inclusion is promoted, you will need to implement these three basic criteria.


I don't want to play off Sydney or The Bush.  I want everyone in Australia to be treated fairly according to their needs and their circumstances.  


Now this doesn't mean that everything can be done at once for everyone.  It doesn't mean that The Bush and The Push will get equal divvies of the Federal and State Budgets.  There are times when a substantial injection of funds and resources are needed to establish infrastructure projects.  


To overcome alienation of either The Bush or The Push, we need politicians and bureaucrats who understand modern community engagement; who can communicate and converse with Australians.  We need politicians and bureaucrats who can take Australians into their confidence, admits mistakes and difficulties, seek widespread and diverse input.  Conversely, The Bush and The Push need to act in a mature and reasonable fashion.  They need to get their collective heads around their respective issues and be able to articulate their needs and aspirations in a clear and particular fashion to governments.


We need to take seriously the need to reframe the debate across all our communities so that, as Oakeshott says, we are focussed more on agreement than division and more on constructive outcomes than self-serving politics.  When we are tempted to make partisan pronouncements, let's have a think first.   Let's state our case for our own needs and aspirations without diminishing other Australians or over-stating our own case to turn it into special pleading.  


Let's reframe the debate so that when we deal with our governments it is all about access, equity and a fair go.

Cup & saucer: Windsor & Oakeshott, decide for Labor: Labor back to Govt, Lib-Nat coalition to Opposition: Oakeshott has an offer - Speaker?

From Drop Box

Stability and Broadband were the big issues

From Drop Box

Stability, Broadband, Educational crisis

Local, regional, national outcomes.

Took on board Ted Mack's comments about who could work best with them.

Windsor and Oakeshott support Labor.

Oakeshott has received an offer.

To the Speakership?
Minister for 
Regional & Rural Development?

Learning from Alinsky : one way to begin reframing the political and policy debate

Rules for Radicals

Reveille for Radicals

Have just received my latest newsletter from The Change Agency.  It gladdened my heart to see them list among their very useful pdfs for download Saul Alinsky's ten commandments of activism.  They are set out at the end of this post.  Please get hold of the books above to learn of Saul Alinsky's methods and views.

Clearly, I am not the only one who is grateful to Alinsky as a tutor in community organising.  Alinsky is one of the greats - not only because he knew what he was doing and had runs on the board.  Alinksy was creative and had a great sense of humour.  

I commend the above books to anyone who wants to engage with communities; who wants to bring about change.  

At the moment, Australia has the opportunity to grasp change.  We have the opportunity to reframe the political debate, to have more inclusive engagement in the decision-making process.  If we are to do this, the process must begin in the community - and not a community that seeks to divide itself into National Party, Liberal Party, Labor Party and Greens.  Community engagement must not be a process of division but of looking beyond what divides to what achieves widespread community support - the type of support that brings positive outcomes.

In the end, it is the outcome that matters and good outcomes can only be achieved by way of sound and inclusive processes.  Good outcomes built on bad processes are like building a beautiful home with timber that has well-hidden termites.  I have written before on this blog about bad policies of the Howard era continued under the Rudd-Gillard government.  It is no wonder to me that Australia has found itself in a political mess. The cumulation of bad policies from both sides of politics made such a mess inevitable.

Financial markets speak of "corrections".  Australia is undergoing a period of political "correction".  Are we capable of sound, corrective choices - or are we going to deal ourselves in for more of the same?

~~~

Click to enlarge

Reframing the political debate: a whole new way of looking at the world

Picture from here and here.  Thank you Amy Mo.

Could it possibly be that the Australian way of doing politics is in a state of flux?  Is the two-party Westminster system about to be infused with a wider plurality of influence?  Michael Gordon in The Age to-day describes what might be.

Gordon quotes Tony Windsor:

''The majority of people nearly all the time would agree with 85 per cent of the issues, but we go to the 15 per cent where the argument is to create the differences so people can have two sides to look at,'' he says. ''Well, wouldn't it be great if we went to the 85 per cent that we agree on and forget about the 15 for a while and solve those problems?''

I have just spent the last two days at the Wheeler Center here in Melbourne at New News 2010, a two day conference on the future of journalism - with a significant emphasis on citizen journalism - by the Swinburne University Public Interest Journalism Foundation and the Melbourne Writers Festival.

A special guest at the conference was Jan Schaffer of J-Lab, the Institute for Interactive Journalism.

Among the points made in Schaffer's closing address to the conference yesterday afternoon, was that journalists have to find ways to re-frame the debate, the issues, in terms of agreement rather than finding the conflict at the heart of the matter and using that conflict to frame, provide the context for, discussion of a topic.  Schaffer admitted she had no advice on how this should or could be done - but that we needed to find the way to do that.

So, Networkers, if the politicians could use their best endeavours to re-frame the political debate; re-frame the way policy, political business is done; and, if those who write about politics and governance and community also find a way to re-frame the discussion, might we make progress?.

Miss Eagle is an ever-so-humble blogger and would-be citizen journalist.  I'll try to give it a conscious go.  I may not succeed.  Neither might the politicians and the old-media journos.  But right now looks like the best time to give it our best efforts.  

Let's have a good go at ferreting out what unites us, what best expresses the best of us.  No need to be mealy-mouthed.  We might even find fun and pleasure in it all, instead of angst and division.  And of course, the politicians and the journalists and bloggers like me - well, we need attentive voters and readers and networkers.  Come on board!