| From the Eidos Network |
|
 |
 |
|
#qld floods and @QPS Media: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods
Social media, including Facebook and Twitter, played an important role in crisis communication at the height of the 2011 South East Queensland floods crisis (10-16 January). This report examines the role of the short-messaging system Twitter in disseminating and sharing crisis information and updates from state and local authorities as well as everyday citizens. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Engaged Universities: The University for New Times Abstract _________________________________________________________________________________________ Education for International Understanding and its contribution to higher education Address for World Universities Forum, Hong Kong, 13-16 January, 2011 Abstract Beginning with a brief history and account of the philosophy underlying education for international understanding, this paper examines why education for international understanding (EIU) is central to the mission of both UNESCO and higher education institutions. It argues that EIU has much to contribute to the revitalisation of higher education, and that higher education has much to contribute to the development of EIU. An analysis of examples of good practice in higher education precedes a set of suggestions as to the strategies that might be employed to mainstream EIU in higher education. _________________________________________________________________________________________ International Symposium on Lifelong Learning for Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development: Developing a Research Agenda for the Asia-Pacific Paper Submitted to the Hong Kong Institute of Education Abstract In the light of the global challenges facing us, lifelong learning has emerged as one of the keys to improving the quality of life in the 21st century. It is no longer sufficient to have a sound initial education: one must continue to acquire new knowledge and skills to benefit from the new opportunities that advances in science and technology bring, and to cope with the difficulties of life in world of change. The evidence confirms that investing in learning pays off for both individuals and nations, in terms of income, employment, productivity, health and other benefits. Moreover, providing opportunities to learn throughout life turns out to be a crucial factor in the struggle to eradicate poverty and to educate for sustainable development. But adopting the principle of lifelong learning does demand a new vision, one that shifts the emphasis from education to learning; one that moves to a more seamless and user-friendly system; one that recognizes the diversity of ways in which knowledge and skills can be acquired in the information age outside of the formal system. In particular, if progress is to be made in reducing poverty and ensuring development is sustainable, governments and the international community will need to meet their commitments and take the steps needed to make lifelong learning for all a reality. _________________________________________________________________________________________
From Steve Harris Executive Director of the Centre for Leadership and Public Interest Swinburne University of Technology 2 August 2010 Sydney Morning Herald
Vital need for good leadership that will shape our future THE election is a nation's fundamental test of leader-ship. Not just a test of those who seek to be our prime minister, a local MP or Senator, but also a test of the media and ourselves as a community. What leadership do we need and want? What behaviours and standards do we expect? How do we want to be informed, engaged and involved in the democratic process? What aspirations do we have for our nation? People in political, media and community leadership shape the all-important agenda and tone of the campaign, and whether the next government is the result of campaign Type A or campaign Type B. Campaign A will be dominated by negativity, heat, black-white differences, trivia, personality, shrillness, opinion, divisiveness, demonising, fear. Campaign B will be dominated by positivity, light, universality, meaning, respectfulness, fact, inspiration, unity, hope. This election, like life itself, is about complexity, ignorance and choice. Complexity of issue and the machinery of government; ignorance of knowledge and understanding; choice in what to salute or decry. In short, we could collectively choose to have a campaign which increases or reduces cynicism, distrust, apathy and disengagement from much of the political and media process. A campaign around public or political interest? Dialogue or dial-a-quote? Hubris or humbug? Insights or insults? Honesty or spin? Without leadership in the public interest then no issue - be it climate change, health, immigration, population, education, or urban planning can be satisfactorily and sustainable resolved. Using its own leadership in the public interest is part of the solution to the sustainable future of traditional media. As the world has become more connected, complex and faster, the capacity for individual governments to stay relevant, competent, and accountable is challenged, as is the capacity for individuals to keep up and feel they have a voice. Elections are an intersection of those forces, with a capacity to ease or exacerbate the challenge. If many feel their lives are out of control, that those in power lack integrity and accountability, that almost evervissue seems to be more debate than action, then they are all signs of a failure of leadership. The world has changed, but fundamental Human need has not. One senses a yearning in Australia for revitalised leadership which does a better job of leading or navigating the path through complexity, ignorance, need and opportunity. And a yearning for it to carry with integrity, honesty, accountability, morality, respect - and without hubris. This applies in government, business, media, education, religion, sport, police and emergency services, all areas which have seen serious lapses in leadership, integrity or accountability. Leaders seen as having character' deficiencies risk further community distrust and disengagement, making resolving issues more problematic, and risk a downward cycle of reduced ambition and outcomes. The national disappointment with the tone of the election is evidence of this cycle. The "game on" between the two major parties is the game of winning an election, not of meaningfully and persuasively seeking to lead or navigate the country to a better place. Political interest trumps public interest, and the community feels the direction and resolution of matters such as population policy, refugees, healthcare, education, aged care, mental health, housing affordability, infrastructure, and fairness for the disadvantaged - are further away. Those in or seeking positions of political power ought to help shape the quality of public understanding of issues, needs and opportunities. Those in other positions of community power and influence ought to help shape and refine what is in the public interest. The media, sitting in a privileged position at the interface between government and the governed, needs to and can do more than bemoan the candidates' lackof depth and meaning. In the democratic chain, the weakest link weakens all. Under performance in the election process by candidates, media, sector leaders or the community itself guarantees a poor outcome. As individuals, we could quickly and broadly agree on the sort of democratic engagement, standards, accountability and leadership we would like. We could generally agree on the values and character we'd like in our leaders and nation. So if the public is disillusioned with what theysee, our political and media leaders need to reflect on whether this campaign is evidence of the problem, or the beginning of the solution. Each decision or judgment made can either be another withdrawal from the trust account, or be a small deposit. The term "leadership" is tossed about like confetti. But much is in the eye of the beholder: one's leadership gold is another's leadership rubbish. There is too little understanding of what leadership is made of, too much focus on leadership as a punch-for-punch title fight, too much blurring of the distinction between "leadership" and "management", and too little understanding of the complexity of some issues. Great leadership is about making great decisions one at a time. Great leaders make decisions which go beyond the immediate rewards of power or profit, to a greater public interest. Good leadership, with intelligence, integrity and insight, is needed to give voice to a destiny based on shared values and aspirations, needs and priorities. That is what the electorate wants. _________________________________________________________________________________________
From Scott Prasser Our risk-averse society NOW that we have entered the federal election, where voters are expected to "shop" for policies offered for "sale" by political parties, it is important to consider how, in this climate, problems are often exaggerated, fears played upon and solutions in the form of increased government intervention in our society offered too easily in response. The trouble is that this is not just a reflection of the election-bidding bazaar. Australian public policy has become increasingly characterised by governments exaggerating problems contrary to evidence and responding to the latest perceived policy problem overzealously with blanket and intrusive regulations on what often turns out to be a minor issue or one that posed low risk to citizens. Fear of litigation adds to the mix. Australia has become not just an over-regulated society, but a risk- averse one. Government rules increasingly seek to cover every exigency and thus limit individual judgment, responsibility and discretionary decision-making. While public policy should respond to emerging issues, the continual over-dramatisation of everything from apocalyptic climate change and tsunami threats to the latest flu outbreak, boat people, crime and now population increases is making Australian citizens unnecessarily fearful. Such over-reactions waste public resources on problems that pose minimal risks to society. It causes policy fatigue among citizens and government agencies, which treat with growing indifference the latest issue wrapped up in the hyperbole of "crisis", even when it may be genuine. It seems our political leaders are too eager to show activity rather than judgment. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd's comment that "swine flu" was a "serious problem" that was being treated seriously" reflects this inability to give issues appropriate priority based on evidence rather than political exigencies. Our senior public servants, now with limited tenure, are also eager to justify their positions and their agency's role and find it convenient to initiate a range of measures they once would have been more cautious to implement. With the swine flu, one state chief medical office advised people last year to stock up on food so as not to go out shopping! Another government agency suggested people "avoid crowds" too bad if you are a commuter. Medical authorities urged people with flu symptoms to see their doctors, though it was, after all, winter. Closing down university campuses was another option examined. Similarly alarmist rhetoric and over-reactions by Australian governments took place in 2007 after an earthquake triggered a tsunami in the Solomon Islands. Although thousands of kilometres away from Australia, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's warnings even though it admitted it was "erring on the side of caution" caused authorities all down the eastern seaboard from Cooktown to Sydney to enact disaster plans and close beaches, schools, government offices, shops, hospitals and even the ferries in Sydney Harbour. This was all unnecessary, costly, wasteful and stupid. The sea level only rose by 10cm. The tsunami had no effect on Australia. Such risk-aversion activity and government intrusion infects our lives at work, home and play more and more. Local clubs and schools are now required to have parental consent for children playing sport in case they are photographed. Home- made cakes for local fetes must now be labelled with their ingredients lest they harm someone and result in subsequent legal action. Such home-made food will soon be banned. It is risk aversion that causes doctors to order too many tests for patients, adding to medical costs. It is risk aversion that pushes so many parents to drive their children to school, adding to traffic congestion. It is risk aversion that explains why fewer children are allowed to play outside unsupervised, perhaps contributing to childhood obesity. It is risk aversion that drives developers to want building covenants that control the style of housing design, which drives up costs and destroys any architectural innovation. It is risk aversion that leads to our buildings being pasted with warning signs, directions and downright threats if we do not step carefully, close doors, wash hands and use tissues. It is risk aversion and our litigious society that cause the repetition, ad nauseam, on plane flights about luggage removal, seat belts and not smoking. Is it risk aversion that explains why, at Canberra Airport, you cannot buy chewing gum, unlike at most other airports? What's the risk: being stuck to carpets? And look at all the nonsense about the danger of mobile phones at petrol stations. Everyone is covering their backs. In our increasingly risk-averse society, individuals will soon be unable to exercise even a modicum of discretionary judgment, to learn from making their own mistakes or to be innovative in doing things better. Rather, every contingency and behaviour must be covered by codes, warnings and policies, and uniformity rules the day. Where will it end? Or is this just the beginning of more government control? But regulation cannot cover every exigency, to brook no failure or to prevent its citizens from taking risks. Certainly, serious policy issues and risks should be identified and strategies developed, but only in the context of probabilities, costs and society's needs. Governments must forge better community understanding of the realities of government capacities. And individuals must be allowed to make their own choices and to take responsibility accordingly. Too risky? _______________________________________________________________________________________ From Father Frank Brennan A charter of rights is divisive? The vast majority think not THE Rudd government has baulked at the recommendation for an Australian human rights act that would allow judges to assess Commonwealth laws, policies and practices for human rights compliance. Attorney-General Robert McClelland told the National Press Club that a legislative charter of rights was not included in the government's human rights framework "as the government believes that the enhancement of human rights should be done in a way that, as far as possible, unites rather than divides our community". There has been a recurring suggestion that the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, which I chaired, was a group of like-minded people with a preconceived view on a legislative charter of rights, attentive only to the voices of an elite. Ironically, this suggestion has come from members of an elite with a preconceived view hostile to any such charter, invoking the good of the people regardless of the views expressed by the people. The discussion paper for the consultation was in fact written by the Attorney-General's Department before the committee was selected. The three questions put to the public did not specifically in mention a charter. Most respondents to the committee morphed the discussion into a question about a human rights act. Thirty-five thousand people made submissions. More than 6000 sat down for a two-hour discussion with us in more than 60 community roundtable discussions across the country. Of the 35,000 people who sent submissions of any sort, 87 per cent of the 33,356 who expressed a view about a human rights act were in support. The overwhelming majority of those who attended a community roundtable supported such an act, and the independent research from a random telephone survey of 1200 people turned up 57 per cent in support, 14 per cent opposed and 30 per cent undecided. The committee put great store in the independently commissioned social research - which included focus groups and devolved consultations with some of Australia's most vulnerable people - presuming that those who made submissions and participated in community roundtables, despite their record numbers, would not be fully representative of the community, which also includes people not motivated, interested or educated about the issues raised in the discussion paper. The support for parliamentary scrutiny and human rights education was greater than the support for a charter, but there is no getting away from the public's interest in and sympathy for a human rights act. The committee saw itself as performming a public trust, reporting to government on what we heard. We thought it appropriate to make recommendations about what would be workable in light of the public concerns and requests, honouring the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and federalism. We knew our task was politically charged once so many citizens wanted to focus on the question of whether Australia should have a human rights act. The Coalition parties were opposed. The Labor Party was divided. Given the cabinet decision. The Attorney-General has done well in crafting a suite of measures otherwise responsive to the views expressed by the public. Some well-informed people who made submissions doubt the long-term utility of a parliamentary committee of human rights, statements of compatibility for proposed legislation, and stipulations that public servants take into account Australia's human rights obligations - without the stick of judicial oversight a human rights act would provide. Time will tell. Victoria's Charter of Rights is to be reviewed next year. If the Victorian charter proves more robust and consistent, and if there are proven shortfalls in the new Commonwealth measures, a Commonwealth act will be back for consideration in 2014 when the framework is reviewed. Meanwhile, politicians on both sides of the chamber will continue to espouse the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act for interventions on indigenous communities and the protracted detention of asylum seekers. Meanwhile, claims are put on hold and inhumane detention occurs in inadequate facilities, such as at Curtin, and we have rushed into law national security provisions that leave many uneasy about the civil liberties ramifications. Injecting human rights discourse into public discussion and law-making about contested issues often helps ensure Australia remains a great place for most of us to live. Critics of a human rights act should not get upset in future when judges fill some of the gaps despite the absence of a human rights act. As the Attorney- General told the press club: “It is the government's view that the well-established principles of statutory interpretation - together with the proposed statements of compatibility and any committee report -will provide the courts with the appropriate tools to undertake their role in the context of the Parliament's enhanced focus on human rights considerations." If these appropriate tools prove inadequate - as they have in countries such as Britain - our politicians will need to be more attentive to a public that wants to get the balance right between Parliament and the courts for the good of all.
|
