View previous stories
	How the UK Government is dismantling the State and what it means for Australia by James Whelan Centre for Policy Development   “Bush declared war on terror, Blair declared war on crime and it’s like Cameron has declared war on the public sector.”   It’s just over two years since David Cameron was elected as British Prime Minister. Since his election, Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ policies that have ‘redefined the role of the state’.   By commissioning ‘any willing provider’, the UK Government has contracted corporations to play a dominant role in delivering a wide range of services that were previously managed by public servants or community groups.   Other ‘Big Society’ changes have diminished the capacity of the public and community sectors. The impacts of the Big Society programs in the UK have included:   An £81 billion cut in public spending over four years including an average 19 per cent budget cut to government agencies,60 per cent cut to the budget for new public housing and £7 billion cut to the welfare budget.   The UK’s public service is expected to shrink by up to 710,000 public servants over six years.   Corporations and the largest charities have dominated the commissioning process: 35 of 40 Work Programme (employment agency) contracts were awarded to corporations.   Cameron’s budgets have dealt a £5 billion funding cut to the UK’s community sector and funding cuts of £110 million to 2,000 UK charities.   The number of people employed in the UK’s community sector fell by 70,000.   Local government budgets were cut by more than a quarter in 2010-11 resulting in staff cuts of 10-20 per cent and widespread cuts to programs.   During 2010-11, public sector employment fell by 4.3 per cent. Private sector employment increased by 1.5 per cent.   In Australia, ‘Big Society’ ideas are generating interest and support amongst conservative think tanks and politicians.   Our report presents an analysis of the UK’s ‘Big Society’ policies and programs and examines their potential impact if adopted and implemented in Australia.   We hope the report contributes to a more informed debate about the merits of ‘small government’ ideologies and policies that often receive less than critical media and political commentary.   See: http://cpd.org.au/2012/05/big-society-how-the-uk-government-is-dismantling-the-state-and-what-it-means-for-australia/
	Re-opening of offshore detention camps in Australia may lead to rights violations by UN News & agencies   A senior United Nations official has warned that the re-opening of offshore detention centres for migrants and asylum-seekers arriving in Australia by sea may result in violations of human rights, and called on its Government to rethink the country’s asylum and migration policy.   The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, welcomes efforts by the Australian Government to institute more comprehensive cooperation on migration, a spokesperson, Xabier Celaya, noted, but is concerned that offshore detention centres would give way to indefinite detention putting human rights at risk.   “The High Commissioner reiterates her call for a rethink of Australia’s asylum and migration policy, urging political leaders to take a principled and courageous stand on migration and to break an ingrained political habit of demonising migrants and asylum-seekers,” Mr. Celaya, of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), added in a media briefing in Geneva.   “Because of the drastic impact of immigration detention, including on the physical and mental health of those detained, the United Nations human rights mechanisms have emphasized that it should always be applied as a measure of last resort, only permissible for the shortest period of time and only when no less restrictive measure is available,” Mr. Celaya said, noting that there is no empirical evidence indicating that detention centres deter irregular immigration or discourage people from seeking asylum.   “The desperation that causes people to embark on these perilous journeys in the first place will almost certainly remain, especially in the absence of effective and rights-based regional cooperation on migration and asylum,” he said.   OHCHR has had long-standing concerns about Australia’s use of a mandatory detention regime for migrants and asylum-seekers. According to international human rights law, time limits must be placed on immigration detention and any detention should only take place as a result of an individual determination.   In May last year, while on a visit to the country, Ms. Pillay said the mandatory detention policy has for many years cast a shadow over Australia’s human rights record. “Thousands of men, women and – most disturbingly of all – children have been held in Australian detention centres for prolonged periods, even though they have committed no crime,” she stated during her visit.   In a press briefing in Geneva, a spokesperson of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Adrian Edwards, said the proposed amendments raise complex legal, protection, policy and operational issues.   “UNHCR’s preference remains an arrangement which would allow asylum-seekers arriving by boat into Australian territory to be processed in Australia. This would be consistent with general practice,” Mr. Edwards said.   “We do not want to see a return to lengthy delays in remote island centres for asylum seekers and refugees before durable solutions are found,” he added.   The UN refugee agency has told the Australian Government it will not play any part in processing asylum seekers sent to Nauru or Manus Island detention centres.   UNHCR regional representative Richard Towle told reporters his agency will monitor the policy from afar but will not help the Australian Government with its plan.   "We would have an arms-length monitoring and supervisory role under the refugee convention," he said.   "Australia may choose to transfer physically people to other jurisdictions, but we believe that under international law very clearly Australia is not absolved of its legal responsibilities to protect people through all aspects of the processing and solutions."   Mr Towle says concerns remain surrounding the indefinite detention and mental health of asylum seekers. "It"s difficult to maintain an adequate level of health and care for people who may already be suffering from trauma as a result of their persecution and leaving their countries of origin and the voyages towards Australia," he said.   "So we are dealing with very vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, unaccompanied minors.   "And to try and manage all of their needs in a protection appropriate way in remote places, particularly in the Pacific, has proven to be challenging in the past and we have no doubt that it will be very challenging again in the future."   While critical of the offshore processing plan, Mr Towle, who met the Government earlier this week, has welcomed the announcement of enhanced funding for regional capacity projects with a special emphasis on the UNHCR.   "Such money allocated wisely in the right way and the right place can make a difference to the quality of people"s lives in South East Asia," he said. "Our assumption is that if people feel better and safer where they are then they don"t need to put their hands in the lives of these unscrupulous people smuggling voyages towards Australia.   "Our objective as an organisation is not in itself to stop boats, our objective primarily is to ensure that people who need protection get it.   "If they can"t get it in Australia, for whatever reason, through a throttling of the process and the throttling of the policy options here then we"ve got to make very sure that they can get better and more effective protection in other places."   http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au   http://www.ajustaustralia.com/index.php
	View more stories