Inclusive Government And Economy Out Of The Pandemic

Our lives were transform by the COVID-19 pandemic earlier in the year. Our political leaders joined forces and stated that we were all in it together. We saw glimpses of a new kind of politics for a time.

As things became more difficult, the National Cabinet became less cohesive. Blame game and politics-as-usual took over, distracting from the real work of finding solutions to difficult problems.

The country is facing uncertain economic prospects. The University of Sydney’s Policy Lab brought together community, climate, unions, and business groups to develop strategies for creating a new way of making policies and building a new economy. This product is the Real Deal report that we released this week. The Real Deal is not a policy document that promises to solve all the problems created by the pandemic.

We attempted to move beyond the failed ideologies and battlegrounds of the past century. We are not calling for free markets and big welfare states or simple solutions such as budget surpluses and endless stimulus packages. Instead, we call for a new relationship between markets, government, civil society. We are advocating for more collaboration and mass participation in public life.

How Do We Accomplish Pandemic This?

Collaboration is possible when multiple groups have the power and ability to reach agreements. This was evident during the second wave in the Victoria pandemic. Members of the United Workers Union at a Coles distribution warehouse were able quickly to push for their workplace to be more COVID-safe using the Occupational and Safety Act. Management made a number of changes.

These workers managed to reduce the spread of the virus in comparison to places like Cedar Meats warehouse. They also secured better deals for their families and helped keep food on the shelves at supermarkets.

When unusual partners work together, innovative solutions are possible. For example, in Queensland, a diverse group of unions, religious organizations, and community organizations called the Queensland Community Alliance worked with researchers to develop a strategy for tackling loneliness.

The solution was not about spending lots of money. It was about transforming the way people use the state’s health system. A new role in the health department, call link worker, was create to help people navigate the mazes of services that are available to them. This could save time and money.

Includes The Participation Pandemic

A policy that includes the participation of all citizens is better. Local unions, environmental groups and community members have formed an unusual alliance in the Hunter Valley, Australia’s largest region for coal mining. They are trying to find solutions to the region’s declining economy due to the closing of mines because of climate change.

The new group met with residents and asked their opinions. They proposed new industries and jobs that would create economic security.

Participatory policy-making such as this works better when the government considers people co-producers and not just observers and barriers to change. It is most effective when it is base on the live experiences and needs of those who will be affect.

This weakness was evident during the pandemic, when policymakers fail to consider how different groups would be affected by their policies, such as people with mental illness, residents of Melbourne’s public housing towers, or temporary migrants.

Effective policy-making places affected people at center of these discussions. This is similar to the way that the disability sector has advocated for a nothing but us without us approach.

Five Benchmarks To Help Us Choose The Right Solutions

These ideas were put into practice when we created the Real Deal Report. We started our research with real-life experiences of civil society leaders listening to their stories, and then responding to the problems they were facing.

This research was presented to an international panel of economists and academics. Then, we began the slow process of creating a new framework. We looked for case studies, real solutions that were tested in the field by our colleagues like those outlined above.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rivals Claim Throne In Papua New Guinea

Papua New Guinea’s political impasse continues even though Michael Somare was reinstated today as prime minister by Governor-General. Peter O’Neill, the rival, is still in Government House claiming that he is the country’s rightful leader.

Since August, Mr O’Neill was the prime minister. This was after MPs voted for Sir Michael to be replaced. Sir Michael had been unwell for several months in Singapore following heart surgery. On Monday, the Supreme Court of PNG ruled that Sir Michael’s removal was invalid as the position was not vacant.

He should therefore be reinstated. Yesterday, Parliament re-elected Mr O’Neill. He had on Monday pushed through a Police Cordon at Government House with his support MPs. Australian diplomats were threatened and jostled by police. Sir Michael, who held the post of prime minister in Australia for 16 years, was reportedly the one who set up the Ela Beach Hotel in Port Moresby to form an alternative parliament.

Below Are The Reactions Papua Of Experts

Many are at stake in the Papua New Guinea crises resulting from the Supreme Court’s December 12th 2011 decision stating that the August 2nd, 2011 Parliament’s removal of Michael Somare (PM) was invalid.

PNG’s government control allows for wealth and power. However, it also means that the resources necessary to support the outcome of the 2012 national elections are in PNG’s hands. Supporters of Somare may not be able to win the presidency because of his serious health issues. The stakes for the PNG population are greater, with the potential to endanger the constitution.

Most media reports emphasize the Supreme Court’s decision that Somare was not constitutionally remove from office. This view appears to have won the Governor-General (G–G), who, on the morning 14th December, recognized Somare as PM and swore in his Cabinet.

These developments ignore arguments for O’Neil’s rights to be PM. Monday 12 December saw Parliament pass retrospective amendments to PNG’s Prime Minister Act and National Executive Council Act. These acts were intend to correct the flaws in O’Neil’s August appointment as PM. The Constitution of PNG states that Parliament is the supreme body and is subject to the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the amending law had changed the status quo.

Reserve Powers Under Papua

The G-G shouldn’t have been call upon to solve the problem, as it has no reserve powers under the PNG Constitution. It must instead act only on advice and in accordance to the advice of another authority. The Parliament is the authority that appoints a PM. If Parliament has passed legislation to correct the Court’s defect, it is probable that the G-G should have followed the decision of Parliament.

There are grounds to challenge Monday’s constitutional validity. However, such issues should be decide by the Supreme Court and not the G-G. In an ideal world, Somare would have asked the Supreme Court for a declaration of invalidity to end the situation.

Both sides are at risk because they believe they have a constitutionally valid power. O’Neil has a strong majority in Parliament, while Somare has Supreme Court support. Both sides will find it difficult to retreat.

Supreme Court Is A Respected

PNG’s Supreme Court is a respected institution that has been able to resolve constitutional Papua crises. All sides have accepted its rulings. The Court’s current situation is worrying in that it has become so involved in the controversy that it may be unable to help resolve the changing situation. This would have grave implications for the long-term.

The most dangerous aspect of the situation, however, is the politicisation, division and support for both sides by significant factions within the Police. The risks of violence increasing dramatically, and dangerous precedents set.

The PNG constitution and political systems are more resilient than outsiders think. People of goodwill, whether from the church, NGOs, or within political factions, tend to be more encouraging than those who are not. The task of moderating influence will prove difficult given the stakes for these two main groups. Outcomes remain unpredictable.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australian Civil Society Time To Be Polite

The C20 Summit Society will be one of many events that prepare for the G20 Leaders Summit in Australia later in the year. It will start in Melbourne on Thursday. The C20, or Civil Society 20, aims to provide. A platform for dialogue between political leaders from G20 countries and representatives civil society organisations.

In June 2010, Toronto hosted the first meeting of civil society organizations before a G20 summit. This meeting held in Toronto to get a better understanding of the G20 agenda, and to build strategic connections before the G20 meetings in South Korea and France.

C20 deliberations now form an integral part the G20 agenda. This was a process that was establish in 2013 during the Russian G20 presidency. The 2014 C20 summit, chaired by Reverend Tim Costello and featuring more than 60 leaders representing all aspects of Australian civil society, focuses on the themes of inclusive growth and employment; climate and sustainability; and governance.

C20’s organising committee reach to its crowdsourcing platform C20 conversations to get civil society’s input on the G20. The C20 clearly focuses on the state and future prospects of the global economy. It is important to ask where Australia’s civil society is in Australia’s first year of being G20 president.

Will civil society rise up if the government believes in taking a step back? Will civil society leaders compete for a smaller funding pie? Or will they try to play nice with the government in order to get a seat at the table?

Faced with a tight budget and growing anxiety over the yet unreleased findings from the Welfare Review conducted by former Mission Australia CEO Patrick McClure as-yet unreleased, civil society organisations may need to come together and be less civil.

What Is Civil Society?

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called civil society the new superpower in 1998. This was an ambitious claim. It has been a fact that civil society has become a buzzword in recent years some would say a weasel term and has co-opted by politicians from both the left-leaning and right.

The Cameron government in Britain has taken the title, jettisoning the Third Sector, in favor of civil Society. This term loaded with ideologies and tied to Big Society. The Abbott government in Australia has abandon the term not for profit sector, which seen as belonging Labor, and instead adopt civil society, perhaps to sugarcoat the end of the age o entitlement message.

Kevin Andrews, the shadow minister for human services, referred to Edmund Burke’s little platoons in a speech he gave in 2012. To foster competence and character, build trust and empower children to become good citizens and good people

This view is consistent with the belief that government should be minimal and non-intrusive, while civil should stand alone and independently.

Minister For Social Services

Andrews, the minister for social services, reiterated these views at this month’s Australian Council of Social Service conference (ACOSS). Andrews stressed the role of civil in developing civic virtue, community responsibility, and the importance to maintaining its independence form state control, and added that.

Too much intervention can make it difficult for citizens to do what they want. Andrews clearly states that virtuous citizens are self-reliant and economically productive, as well as well-behaved.

Civil society is more virtuous if its advocacy is focused elsewhere than the developed world. In the eyes of the government. Politicians tend to see civil society’s actions as less noble when they focus on the regimes where they are located. Then civil society is seen as more of an irritant.

Cassandra Goldie, CEO of ACOSS, recently expressed concern that the Abbott government was sending out a strong message. That civil society should not be silent, in reference to Scott Morrison’s statements. That public money should not be used for advocacy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment