Rules to Reality: how regulation shapes, or fails to shape, our daily lives

Today’s episode is with David Manne, Executive Director and Principal Solicitor of Refugee Legal, an organisation established in 1998 to provide legal advice and representation to people seeking asylum or migration. David has been practicing immigration and refugee law for over 30 years, and has taken the Australian government to task on its immigration policies and laws, including in several high profile decisions.

Today we spoke about our immigration system and the enormous power of the executive arm of government, and why that should worry all Australians who care about the rule of law, justice and fairness. Inhumane immigration policy is largely bipartisan policy in Australia, so it is incumbent on us to force major political parties to give us a choice.

Show notes:

How you can donate: https://refugeelegal.org.au/get-involved/donate/

Today, on international women’s day, I am speaking with Dr Anjalee de Silva, a postdoctoral fellow at with the Melbourne Law School node of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society. Anjalee is an expert in administrative, anti-discrimination, and free speech and media law and theory, with a focus on harmful speech and its regulation. Her PhD examined vilifying speech directed at and about women, and the role that law could play in regulating, deterring and mitigating those harmful forms of speech.

Today’s conversation is wide-ranging, examining how gendered hate speech effects women, communities and democracy, but also revealing its functions – the silencing and subordination of women. Anjalee’s illustration of this latter point, the function that gendered hate speech serves, was articulated better than I have heard elsewhere, and it will inform work I am doing in mental health related vilification, so thanks Anjalee. But more central to today, the episode is a reminder of the work ahead of us – both legislative and cultural – to re-order society on a more equal basis.

Shownotes:

The following from Dr de Silva:

A report on gendered hate speech 

A longer form article in the Melbourne Uni Law Rev [open access]

An article on the need for a response by digital platforms

Information on MP Fiona Patten's 2019 anti-vilification Bill.

Check out The Week on Wednesday!

A podcast from Van and Ben on news and current affairs from the perspective of workers.

Today I speak with Professor Sharon Friel. Sharon is an ARC Laureate Fellow, Professor of Health Equity and Director of the Menzies Centre for Health Governance at the School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), Australian National University. Her research focuses on the political economy of health; governance and the planetary, social and commercial determinants of health inequities. Her 2019 book “Climate Change and the People’s Health” highlights the importance of addressing the global consumptogenic system.

Today we spoke about some of her recent work with colleagues called Power and People’s Health. We often talk about the social determinants of health – what structural or social factors lead to health or ill-health. We’ve been talking about it for decades. That social and health policy, as well as health governance, needs to look beyond the health system, towards social policies in housing, planning, trade, including policies that are controlled and implemented by local communities. But despite decades of research supporting this, it doesn’t happen. Power. That is something we often speak about when discussing why the social order remains in tact to the benefit and disadvantage of different communities and sectors. Reading Power and People’s Health, and talking with Sharon today, I saw for the first time a framework that can help us examine, in empirical terms, how power sustains the racism, sexism and neoliberal ideologies that continue to undermine health and the health system.

Show-notes:

Power and People's Health: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34192622/ (DM Simon/author if you can't get copy)

Menzies Centre for Health Governance: https://regnet.anu.edu.au/research/centres/menzies-centre-health-governance

Today I speak with former Senator Scott Ludlam. Scott Ludlam served as the Senator for Western Australia from 2008 until 2017, advocating on environmental justice, human rights, and also, which we won’t be able to talk about today, national security laws and the resulting surveillance we as citizens experience.

Today’s topic is big enough. State Capture. The World Bank defines State Capture as “the exercise of power by private actors – through control over resources, threat of violence, or other forms of influence – to shape policies or implementation in service of their narrow interest”. It is a term I hadn’t heard of until I read Scott’s wonderful book, Full Circle. And just last week, Scott Ludlam, as part of the Australia Democracy Network, released a report on State Capture. It’s pretty brutal, but there’s hope. It’s brutal because it shows how much of our political system has been flipped to meet the needs of private interests rather than our interests, and that elections alone won’t fix the problem. But there’s hope because the report reveals that there are immediate and practical reforms that we can push our politicians to address, now. There has been a theme emerging across interviews with George Williams, Andrew Wilkie and now Scott Ludlam – it is that our democracy is on a slippery slope, but there’s points that we can exit this slide. We just need to be clear and deliberate about it.

Show notes:

Learn more about State Capture: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/state-capture-and-democracy-in-australia-and-the-importance-of/13757632

Endorse the framework for a fairer democracy: https://www.ourdemocracy.com.au/the-framework/

I am recording this from the sovereign lands of the Wurundjeri people. First Nations people have been custodians of this land for tens of thousands of years. Colonisation is a process that law and regulation have been deeply complicit in, taking land, sea, children and lives. I want to acknowledge that despite that, 60 000 years of wisdom continues, and so too does non-Aboriginal Australia’s obligations to take a daily personal responsibility to do support reconciliation. Part of that responsibility is to advocate for the rights of First Nations families, parents and children.

Today I speak with Liana Buchanan, the Commissioner from the Commission for Children and Young People – CCYP for short. Liana has a rich history working in human rights across community legal centres, human rights agencies and in reviewing and giving oversight to correctional settings. The CCYP has a really broad mandate that we’ll talk to, but as the name suggests, it is to give voice to the rights and interests of children and young people. Today we spoke about what the CCYP does, how they approach oversight of services such as  child-protection, and what this role means within the context of ongoing colonisation faced by First Nations people. We discuss the importance of lived experience to regulatory oversight work, something that I think should be built into many regulators.

Shownotes:

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Child-Friendly Version): https://www.ccyp.wa.gov.au/media/1216/poster-united-nations-january-2008.pdf

CCYP's regulatory approach to the Child Safe Standards and Reportable Conduct Scheme: https://ccyp.vic.gov.au/about-us/our-regulatory-approach/#:~:text=The%20Commission's%20approach%20to%20regulation%20and%20working%20with%20organisations.&text=Our%20Regulatory%20Approach%20provides%20organisations,can%20expect%20from%20the%20Commission. 

Current and past CCYP inquiries: https://ccyp.vic.gov.au/inquiries/systemic-inquiries/

Today I’m talking with Professor George Williams AO. George is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, of Planning and Assurance, Anthony Mason Professor and Scientia Professor at UNSW. He has written and edited 37 books, including on the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Federalism, Terrorism, Human Rights, National Security and Social Justice. Suffice to say I am talking to another leading expert on regulation.

Today George and I discussed the role of corruption, truth and regulation in Australian politics. In December 2018, Scott Morrison promised that if elected, he would establish a federal Independent Commission Against Corruption. A draft exposure Bill was introduced in 2020, but has been roundly criticised by experts, academics, and the legal community, stating that it is woefully inadequate, and that it would conceal, rather than reveal and address, corruption. In that time, we have seen the normalisation of scandals regarding the potential misuse of public money, including through independent report from the Australian Auditor General. It is not an exaggeration to say that we sit at the top of a slippery slope, and if we don’t get off now by creating good accountability measures on government to prevent corruption, it’s not clear where we will end up.

An important conversation.                                                 

Timestamps:

Why regulation matters to George (3:00)

Why we need to move beyond the “all politicians lie” approach (4:30)

The limitations of the Commonwealth Government’s proposed ICAC (10:00)

Why the NSW ICAC model is receiving unwarranted criticism (14:00)

Explaining what Australia looks like if we continue down a path without anti-corruption protections (16:00)

What George would like you to do today (19:00)

Today I’m speaking with the Honourable Andrew Wilkie, Independent Member for Clark. Andrew’s concerns with regulation and governance are some of the most publicised in modern Australian history. On 11 March 2003, Andrew resigned from his role as an intelligence official at the Office of National Assessments over concerns about the impending Iraq War. He was the only intelligence official in Australia, the US or the UK to publicly resign before the invasion. Upwards of 1 million Iraqi nationals died as a result of that war.

From that point Andrew has done many things, including being in Federal Parliament since 2010. He has been an outspoken advocate on many issues left out of public debates by the main political parties. I wanted to speak to Andrew because of his work on two key issues that intersect with regulation: gambling, and political donations. Today we spoke about both, and Andrew tells us how he has connected to the issues, how the current system is failing, what the Parliament can do to fix it, and what you can do to make sure the Parliament does fix it.

Timestamps

Why regulation matters to Andrew and his community (2:15)

Andrew's work in gambling reform (6:15)

The harms arising from gambling (13:00)

The links between gambling policy and political donations (20:00)

How reforming political donations would change our lives and system (28:00)

What our Commonwealth Parliament can do to fix gambling laws (31:00)

One thing that Andrew wants you to do (34:00)

Show notes:

Hon Andrew Wilkie's key integrity policies: https://andrewwilkie.org/integrity/

An ABC article on political donations, referencing Wilkie: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-23/how-gambling-industrys-biggest-political-donors-influence-votes/100592068

Today I speak with Karen Toohey, the ACT Discrimination, Health Services and Disability & Community Services Commissioner since 2016. After a career in marketing and IT in the private sector, Karen joined the Australian Human Rights Commission in 1995 and has since  worked in senior executive  roles in state and commonwealth human rights agencies including time in Victoria as the CEO of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and Assistant Commissioner at the Office of the Australian Information Commission.

Karen has managed statutory complaint handling & conciliation functions in state and territory agencies for over 20 years. Karen has  qualifications in law, marketing and computing science and is a well known advocate on issues of human rights and discrimination law.  

In the episode today, we had a wide-ranging discussion on how she approaches her role. Complaints handling and regulation in the human rights space is hard, least not because Karen has so many different areas and industries that she handles complaints from. But that breadth allowed for a fascinating conversation about what I think of as “street-level justice” provided by these complaints bodies. I think of them as street level justice, because they’re far more accessible than going through laborious and costly court processes. A quick note my audio was a bit choppy, that’s because it was 36 degrees in Melbourne and I just had to keep the fan on. Sorry, not sorry. Please enjoy the episode.

Timestamps:

Why regulation matters to Karen (2:15)

Karen explains her broad role (6:00)

How to strike the balance between being responsive to industry, and being captured by industry (21:30)

How to remain impartial, but still enforce the law in challenging times (31:00)

How to deal with power imbalances between marginalised people who make complaints and those they complain about (41:00)

The unique challenges regulating health services from a human rights perspective (47:00)

The personal qualities required to lead human rights regulators (56:00)

One thing Karen wants regulators to go away and do (1:06:00)

Today I speak with Steven Caruana. Steven is Coordinator of the Australia OPCAT Network, a coalition of over 200 non-government organisations, academics, statutory officer holders and interested individuals concerned with the effective implementation of oversight to Australian places of detention. He is also a Specialist Advisor to the Australian Human Rights Commission and is involved in monitoring designated mental health units as an Official Visitor. Beyond this, Steven’s previous experience is enormous, having worked at the Disability Royal Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Much of Steven’s work today stems from a Churchill Fellowship granted in 2017, in which he reported on how other countries monitor places of detention, and what we can learn in Australia.

Today we discussed OPCAT. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. So yeah, OPCAT for short hay. It’s an international agreement outlining how our Australian governments need to monitor places of detention. It’s really important, and today is a historic day. Today, we were meant to have implemented OPCAT fully, but it’s a patchwork across Australia, and in states like NSW and Victoria, we’ve barely started. This matters. Abuse in disability settings, Aboriginal deaths and abuse in custody, the many human rights violations I’ve seen in mental health services – they all continue because our governments aren’t monitoring places of detention. Be sure to listen in on this episode and remind Parliamentarians why this matters.

Shownotes:

An article from the Australian Human Rights Commission on our failure to implement OPCAT: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-20/djokovic-australia-immigration-detention-hotel-scrutiny-opcat/100767220?utm_source=abc_news_web&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_web 

Article from Steven and Professor Penelope Weller: https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/acumen/opcat

Article from Steven on OPCAT in prisons: https://www.croakey.org/looking-in-on-the-inside-why-opcat-is-needed-for-australian-prisons-detention-centres/

How Tasmania leads the rest of Australia: https://www.abc.net.au/radio/northtas/programs/drive/opcat-implementation-tasmania/13720332

Today I am interviewing Dr Lisa Parker, an Honorary Lecturer in the School of Pharmacy, at the University of Sydney. Her research focus is on public health ethics and policy, particularly the influence of values, evidence and industry on health care policy and practice including digital health technologies. Dr Parker also has her feet close to the ground, currently working as a medical clinician in oncology.

We discussed the concerning role that pharmaceutical companies can play in influencing decisions within hospital settings as well as within consumer or patient groups. Dr Parker’s words are considered and thoughtful, leaving me in no doubt about the need to tighten regulation in this space.

Timestamps:

Why does regulation matter to you and your community (1:45)

How pharmaceutical companies can influence health consumer groups (5:00)

How pharmaceutical companies can influence drug and therapeutic committees within health services or at a state level (18:30)

The minimal guidance for drug and therapeutic committees on integrity and decision-making, and the lack of transparency and oversight (27:00)

One thing you can go away and do today (41:00)

Show notes:

Two research papers from Lisa Parker and colleagues:

Parker, L., Bennett, A., Mintzes, B., Grundy, Q., Fabbri, A., Karanges, E. A., & Bero, L. (2021). “There are ways… drug companies will get into DTC decisions”: How Australian drug and therapeutics committees address pharmaceutical industry influence. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 87(5), 2341-2353.

Parker, L., Grundy, Q., Fabbri, A., Mintzes, B., & Bero, L. (2021). ‘Lines in the sand’: an Australian qualitative study of patient group practices to promote independence from pharmaceutical industry funders. BMJ open, 11(2), e045140.

Resources:

Principles to guide consumer health groups: https://chf.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/ah20206.pdf 

A guide for health consumer groups on funding and transparency:https://www.hcnsw.org.au/trust-and-transparency/