Darkness at Noon

I don’t comment much about Climate Change on this blog, nor does the ACDJ much, and we have received some private criticism for this in the past. I point these people to the “what we believe in” section of our website, and quote one of our core values:

Social and ecological justice are part of the same whole
A Just society must be one that is in harmony with its physical environment. This is not to compromise either social or environmental justice but to complement them both. Both environmental and social considerations must be taken into account when dealing with any issue if a Just and Democratic outcome is to be achieved.

Certainly I had climate change in mind when we were devising those core values.

Anyway, Global Warming (remember when it was called that) is the single most important issue there is. There is nothing bigger. The reason we don’t comment on it much is that there are plenty of others doing a good job of it so we might as well direct our efforts else where and throw our support behind those working on climate change (for example, we were a signatory to this effort by Friends of the Earth).

So when Rudd announced a target of a 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 I must confess, I just didn’t know what to do. What a sense of hopelessness. To make matters worse, the government seemed keen on emphasising that this meant a 27% per capita reduction. All that statistic says to me is that Australia is one of, if not the, biggest carbon polluters, per-capita, in the world. And that isn’t about to change with a 5% reduction in carbon emissions. Hard decisions need to be made here. The sort that can be made 2 years out from an election with an opposition in disarray. The sort you expect and hope for from a bold Labor government.

Rudd was elected with a mandate to do something about Climate Change. He signed Kyoto and we were all pretty excited. Turns out Rudd is pretty good at symbolism (which I maintain is important) but absolutely pathetic when it comes to real change.

I also can go without noting his comments on the 7:30 report on Monday. He referred to “Environmental Extremism”. For a start, a massive body of impartial scientific research is hardly “environmental extremism” but more importantly, it’s a classic John Howard dog whistle.

I can’t be more disappointed. I knew the targets weren’t going to be great, but I didn’t think they’d be that bad.

I had an email conversation with a friend of mine in the Not-For-Profit sector today about ISP level internet filtering. I’ve reproduced it here in the most part – albeit changed to protect the identity of those involved…

This internet filtering idea is a joke. It’s also conceivable that under the scheme, many big non-profit’s websites could be hit with a “false negative” (ie being incorrectly identified as a website providing offensive material).

What about more radical organisations, say one that supports the sexual rights of people with a disability, or provides advice to 12 or 13 year olds who are coming to the realisation that they are gay (if you’ll allow me to pick a couple of the more emotive ones)?

I can certainly imagine a bit of web filtering software seeing the words “gay”, “12 years old” and “sexual experiences” and filtering that material which might really help any number of young kids going through a pretty tough time.

I’m also VERY concerned about the effect it will have on eCommerce for business and non-profits. If the internet is massively slowed down (which every trial ever done has shown will be the case) then people will be less inclined to use it to do business or make donations to community groups.

Yes, agreed. But did you read Clive Hamilton’s argument for it to occur?

I’m a life long anti-porn campaigner and I agree that porn is damaging to everyone – viewers and actors alike. I wrote a few essays in my undergrad on it so have read a fair bit of literature on the topic. However, my conclusion was always that, whilst I oppose porn, I think banning it doesn’t do anything. If anything it needs to be legal to ensure that those in the industry have rights that can be protected.

I also know, that if you want to watch porn, you don’t go to a website, you use a bittorrent. Faster, free and unable to be filtered. The reality is you’ll always be able to get around this stuff. A lot of kiddy porn is distributed by setting up a hotmail account, having a whole lot of images in the “sent items” or “drafts” then just circulate the username and password to the hotmail account. They aren’t going to ban hotmail I don’t think. Fundamentally, the technology is flawed and there is no way around that.

I think it is also a really hetro-centric argument. “Alternative” sexualities are viewed as “deviant”. Who decides that? We’ve done that before remember – homophobia. I’m not saying that kiddy porn or animal sex is ok – it’s well past my moral bounds, but what about S&M? Most of it I’ve no problem with at all – in fact it is often quite an empowering experience for the participants. Moreover, I’ve major problems with some very vanilla sex. The problem isn’t porn, it’s the society that produces it and as long as we’ve still got major billboards using sex(ism) to sell, porn will continue to be normalised, internet or otherwise.

Let’s not forget that this will also be used for “anti-terrorism” stuff.

I’m a radical, therefore by definition I’m in favour of major societal upheaval. And whether you agree with me or not I hope you defend my right to harbor these ideas – and engage in diolouge about it, even about violent upheaval. We’ve gained a lot from violent upheaval. A good friend of mine (an achademic) would argue that democracy is an inherently violent process and I suspect he’s right. At what point would my views be censored, and as soon as you exercise this right to censor these views it is a slippery slope – it always is.

Do you remember this poem:

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

The classic example of Nilson Mandela who was classed as a terrorist by the Australian Government and would still be today if he was leading those freedom movements with armed militants. But imagine how much more effective he could have been if he had the internet and could post video footage of the South African Government’s racism.

Anyway, that’s a really long winded way of saying “the technology is fundamentally flawed”. Clive Hamilton’s argument is actually irrelevant – it assumes the technology works. It doesn’t, it never has and it never will. In China, it’s never hard to get around the great firewall.

The report on the Disclosure Regimes for Charities and Not-for-profit Organisations that the Centre made a submission to has been released.

You can download a copy here.

Below are the recommendations – things should get interesting…

Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that all Australian Governments agree on common terminology for referring to organisations within the Sector. Governments should also develop a common meaning for terms referring to the size of these organisations, including ‘micro’, ’small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’. This standard terminology should be adopted by all government departments.

Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Government establish a unit within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet specifically to manage issues arising for Not-For-Profit Organisations. The unit should report to a Minister for the Third Sector.

Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that there be a single independent national regulator for Not-For-Profit Organisations.

Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the Australian National Regulator for Not-For-Profit Organisations should have similar functions to regulators overseas, and particularly in the UK, including a Register for Not-For-Profit Organisations with a compulsory sign-up requirement. The committee recommends consultation with the Sector to formulate the duties of the National Regulator.
As a minimum, the Regulator should:

1. Develop and maintain a Register of all Not-For-Profit Organisations in Australia. Once registered, the Commission should issue each organisation with a unique identifying number or allow organisations with an ABN to use that number as their Not-For-Profit identifier. This could be enabled using existing ASIC website resources.
2. Develop and maintain an accessible, searchable public interface.
3. Undertake either an annual descriptive analysis of the organisations that it regulates or provide the required information annually to the ABS for collation and analysis.
4. Secure compliance with the relevant legislation.
5. Develop best practice standards for the operation of Not-For-Profit Organisations.
6. Educate / Advise Not-For-Profit Organisations on best practice standards.
7. Investigate complaints relating to the operations of the organisations.
8. Educate the public about the role of Not-For-Profit Organisations. The voluntary codes of conduct developed by ACFID and FIA respectively should be considered by the Regulator when implementing its own code of conduct.

Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government develop the legislation that will be required in order to establish a national regulator for Australia.

Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that, once a Register is established and populated, this information should be provided to the ABS, who should prepare and publish a comprehensive study to provide government with a clearer picture of the size and composition of the Third Sector.

Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that a single, mandatory, specialist legal structure be adopted for Not-For-Profit Organisations through a referral of state and territory powers. Given the degree of change such a legal structure would mean for some not-for-profit organisations, the legal structure must be developed in full consultation with these organisations.

Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that the Henry Review include an examination of taxation measures affecting Not-For-Profit Organisations with a view to simplifying these arrangements and reducing confusion and cost of compliance for these organisations.

Recommendation 9
The committee recommends that a National Fundraising Act be developed following a referral of powers from states and territories to the Commonwealth.

This Act should include the following minimum features:

• It should apply nationally.
• It should apply to all organisations.
• It should require accounts or records to be submitted following the fundraising period with the level of reporting commensurate with the size of the organisation or amount raised.
• It should include a provision for the granting of a license.
• It should clearly regulate contemporary fundraising activities such as internet fundraising.

Recommendation 10
The committee recommends that a tiered reporting system be established under the legislation for a specialist legal structure.

Recommendation 11
The committee recommends that the tiers be assigned to organisations based on total annual revenue.

Recommendation 12
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government work with the Sector to implement a standard chart of accounts for use by all departments and Not-For-Profit Organisations as a priority.

Recommendation 13
The committee recommends that a new disclosure regime contain elements of narrative and numeric reporting as well as financial, in acknowledgement that the stakeholders of the Sector want different information to that of shareholders in the Business Sector. The financial reporting should be transparent and facilitate comparison across charities.

Recommendation 14
The committee recommends that the national regulator investigate the cost vs benefit of a GuideStar-type system (a website portal that publishes information on the aims and activities of Not-For-Profit Organisations) in Australia to encompass all Not-For-Profit Organisations.

Recommendation 15
The committee recommends that a Taskforce be established for the purposes of implementing the recommendations of this report. The Taskforce should report to COAG. Its membership should include:

• a government representative from the Commonwealth;
• a COAG-elected representative to speak for states and territories;
• one or more qualified legal experts with expertise with the major pieces of legislation affecting Not-For-Profit organisations;
• a representative from an organisation which manages private charitable foundations;
• an accountant with not-for-profit expertise; and
• a number of representatives from the peak bodies of Not-For-Profit Organisations, including a representative from a peak body for social enterprises.

The Taskforce should actively seek to ensure that the measures of reform that it implements do not impose an unreasonable reporting burden on small and micro Not-For-Profit Organisations.

Graeme Philipson:

We are witnessing a continuing battle between those who believe that information should be free, and freely available, and those who wish to limit or constrain its availability.

Recently it has assumed a local flavour, as the Australian Government tries to restrict what we can access on the internet, and as film companies bring legal action against an ISP for carrying material that has not gone through their toll booths.

These are attempts by information troglodytes to return us to a time before the internet when access to information could be controlled, rationed and sold at monopolist prices.

(my emphasis)

The article also goes on to note that iiNet is the ISP that has volunteered to participate in the clean feed trial in an attempt to establish just how bad an idea it is. I use iiNet – I hope it doesn’t affect my internet usage.

Perhaps the only good thing to come out of Conroy’s plan to ban the internet is that I’m coming across a lot of great blog etc discussing the issue.

If you haven’t seen Somebody Think of the Children yet, it’s well worth having a look.

They recently pointed me to another great blog: BanThisURL, who pointed me to Angry Aussie who has this rant:

.. and if you haven’t found out about the “No Clean Feed” protest in your area, check out Stop the Clean Feed, which I believe is run by Australians Against Internet Censorship.

Friends of the Earth are doing their best to stop this 19th Century thinking abomination, that is the North-South Pipeline.

If you can join in, please do:

==== The North-South (Sugarloaf) Pipeline: Melbourne – it’s time to take a stand! ====
Please join our community action – sunday December 14, on the pipeline construction site in Toolangi forest.

This short-sighted project will pump 75 billion litres of water a year from the Goulburn River, the major Victorian tributary of the Murray, to supply Melbourne. The media to date has shown protests and rallies by rural communities whose land and livelihoods are being damaged. But the government says the pipeline is being built to benefit us in Melbourne. We must ask ourselves:

• Do we really need it?
• What are its impacts?
• What else can we do to meet our water needs?

Please join us for a peaceful Walk On to the pipeline construction site to show that Melbourne people care. We do not want scarce resources drawn from dry catchments simply because the state government lacks the courage and foresight to deal with Melbourne’s water needs responsibly and honestly.

When: Sunday, December 14
Where: Meet at 11am SHARP at the corner of the Melba Highway and the Healesville – Kinglake Rd (Melways Key Map, Page 10 P2 or Day Tours Page 910 Q11). We will convoy/car-pool the last few kilometres to the construction site. Allow about 70 minutes drive from inner Melbourne.

What: We will walk on to the pipe construction site to witness the clearing of Toolangi State Forest, and hear from locals who will explain the ecological impacts of the proposed pipeline which will cut through 12 kilometres of the forest between Glenburn and Yarra Glen.

Then join us at 1pm for a picnic by the Yea River at Glenburn (turn left at Glenburn Hotel, follow for 100m), to catch up, ask questions and hear from people involved in the Plug the Pipe. BYO food & drink.

Aim: To send a message to the state government that people in Melbourne as well as country Victoria care about the real cost of this project. We do not need this $750+ million pipeline

• Government should not be removing water from stressed catchments north of the Great Divide
• There are many other more sustainable and long term options to meet our growing water needs, without this pipeline
• Melbourne – it’s time we stood up against this destructive project!

This will mark the launch of a new alliance. We will focus on opposing construction of the southern end of the pipeline, as it crashes through Toolangi State Forest and the Yarra Valley and mobilising Melbourne people on this important issue.

Further information: Cam Walker, cam.walker@foe.org.au

Please car pool to reduce emissions. Also there is limited space to park.

IT IS NOT TOO LATE – STOP THE SUGARLOAF PIPELINE; START THE RIGHT WATER STRATEGY